Self and friend's differing views of social anxiety disorder's effects on friendships

Abstract

Social anxiety disorder is known to be associated with self-report of global friendship quality. However, information about specific friendships, as well as information beyond self-report, is lacking. Such information is crucial, because known biases in information processing related to social anxiety disorder render global self-ratings particularly difficult to interpret. We examined these issues focusing on diagnosed participants (n = 77) compared with community control participants (n = 63). We examined self-report regarding global (i.e., overall) friendship quality and a specific friendship's quality; in addition, we examined friend-report of that friendship's quality. Results suggested that social anxiety disorder has a negative impact on self-perception of friendship quality for a specific friendship, but that this effect is less evident as reported by the friends. Specifically, social anxiety disorder was associated with a tendency to report worse friendship quality in comparison to friend-report, particularly in participants who were younger or had less long-lasting friendships. However, friend-report did show clear differences based on diagnostic group, with friends reporting participants with social anxiety disorder to be less dominant in the friendship and less well-adjusted. Overall, the findings are consistent with results of other studies indicating that social anxiety disorder has a strong association with self-ratings of impairment, but that these ratings appear out of proportion with the report of observers (in this case, friends).

Figure 1

Factor structure and prediction model. GSAD = generalized social anxiety disorder group; NOSAD = no social anxiety disorder group; PP = primary participant; FR = friend. Parameters given for group are the partially standardized estimates, equivalent to Cohen’s d. Positive estimates for group are in the direction of hypothesis (higher social anxiety leads to impairment). Factor loadings and other prediction paths are fully standardized parameters. Error terms and the correlation between latent factors (r = .21, p = .190) are not shown for simplicity. Fit for the model as shown (including predictors) was excellent (CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04). †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.