DEPRESSION

AND

ANXIETY 27 : 11171127 (2010)

Review
CULTURAL ASPECTS IN SOCIAL ANXIETY AND SOCIAL
ANXIETY DISORDER
Stefan G. Hofmann, Ph.D.,1 Anu Asnaani, M.A.,1 and Devon E. Hinton, M.D. Ph.D.2

To examine cultural aspects in social anxiety and social anxiety disorder (SAD), we
reviewed the literature on the prevalence rates, expressions, and treatments of
social anxiety/SAD as they relate to culture, race, and ethnicity. We further
reviewed factors that contribute to the differences in social anxiety/SAD between
different cultures, including individualism/collectivism, perception of social norms,
self-construal, gender roles, and gender role identification. Our review suggests
that the prevalence and expression of social anxiety/SAD depends on the particular
culture. Asian cultures typically show the lowest rates, whereas Russian and US
samples show the highest rates, of SAD. Taijin kyofusho is discussed as a possible
culture-specific expression of social anxiety, although the empirical evidence
concerning the validity of this syndrome has been mixed. It is concluded that the
individuals social concerns need to be examined in the context of the persons
cultural, racial, and ethnic background in order to adequately assess the degree and
expression of social anxiety and SAD. This has direct relevance for the upcoming
r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
DSM-V. Depression and Anxiety 27:11171127, 2010.
Key words: social anxiety; social phobia; culture; nosology

The defining feature of social anxiety disorder (SAD)

is the fear of negative evaluation by others. Therefore,

SAD is directly linked to social standards and role
expectations, which are culture dependent. Recognizing
the intricate interplay between culture and social anxiety,
some research has focused on psychopathologic manifestations of SAD across cultures,[1] whereas in other
studies the focus has been on comparing disorder-typical
symptoms across cultures.[2] It should be noted that
most of the studies on cultural differences in SAD have
examined Eastern (especially Japanese, Korean, and
Chinese) and Western (US American and European)
samples.
The following is a review of the evidence pertaining
to the validity of the DSM-IV-TR criteria for SAD as it
relates to culture, race, and ethnicity. We use the term
race when we refer to broad differentiations based on
physiognomy (e.g., White), ethnicity when we refer
to common descent and affiliation with a historically
continuous community (e.g., Latino), and culture
when we refer to social groups with specific or
homogenous attributes. We particularly concentrate
on culture as a source for the nosological revisions to
explore whether certain cognitive/behavioral elements
(e.g., interpretations of illness; patterned reactions to
stressors) affect the development or expression of
psychiatric syndromes.

r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The search methods for this review entailed a

thorough computer search using the Pubmed and
PsychInfo databases for articles published since the
publication of the DSM-IV in 1994. Specifically, key
words relevant to SAD (i.e., social phobia or social
anxiety disorder) were combined with the terms
culture, ethnic, and race. This approach yielded
602 articles which were evaluated for relevance to the
present topic. Finally, bibliographies of key articles

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

The authors disclose the following financial relationships within the past
3 years: Contract grant sponsor: NIMH; Contract grant numbers:
1R01MH078308; R01MH079032.
Correspondence

to: Stefan G. Hofmann, Department of

Psychology, Boston University, 648 Beacon Street, 6th Fl.
Boston, MA 02215. E-mail: shofmann@bu.edu
Stefan G. Hofmann is a paid consultant by Schering-Plough. Anu
Asnaani and Devon E. Hinton have declared no conflict of interest.
Received for publication 23 June 2010; Revised 20 September
2010; Accepted 24 September 2010
DOI 10.1002/da.20759
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

1118

Hofmann et al.

were inspected, as well as references from 19651994

(as appropriate), to augment the final reference list.
In this review, we first discuss cultural differences in
rates of SAD, in the form that SAD takes (emphasizing
the well-researched case of TKS), and in treatment
response. The final section examines key factors that
generate SAD and affect its presentation, and discusses
how these key mechanisms may be influenced by culture.
We end with a discussion of the implications of the review.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN
PREVALENCE RATES
Data from the National Comorbidity Survey and the
National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R)
show that the 12-month prevalence rate of SAD among
US adults is 7.17.9%.[3,4] Similar rates have been
found in other cultural groups: 6.4% in Chile[5] and
9.1% in Brazil.[6] In contrast, the 12-month prevalence
rate of SAD from East Asian surveys, although less
studied, has been reported to be much lower, in the
range of 0.4% in Taiwan,[7] 0.20.6% in Korea,[8,9]
0.2% in China,[10] and 0.8% in Japan.[11] The
prevalence rates in several other populations have been
found to be similarly low, such as in epidemiological
surveys of Mexico (1.7%[12]), Nigeria (0.3%[13]), South
Africa (1.9%[14]), and Europe (0.8%[15]). In contrast,
the 12-month prevalence rate of SAD in the rural
population of Udmurtia, a Constituent Republic of the
Russian Federation, was estimated to be 44.2% when
using ICD-10 criteria and to be 49.4% when using
those of the DSM-III-R.[16] In that study, the disorder
was more prevalent in women (50.7%) than in men
(35.6%), and more prevalent in ethnic Udmurts
(50.3%) than in Russians (32.6%). Finally, a study with
Omani college students estimated that, depending on
the assessment instrument, between 37 and 54% of
individuals might meet criteria for SAD.[17] Table 1
TABLE 1. Epidemiological studies assessing for DSM-IV
12-month prevalence rates of SAD
Study

Year

Vorcaro et al.[6]
Vicente et al.[5]
Shen et al.[10]
Alonso et al.[15]
Lee et al.[8]
Cho et al.[9]
Kawakami et al.[11]
Medina-Mora
et al.[12]
Gujreje et al.[13]
Williams et al.[14]
Hwu et al.[7]
Kessler et al.[3]
Ruscio et al.[4]
Grant et al.[18]

2004
2006
2006
2004
1980
2007
2005
2005
2006
2008
1989
1994
2006
2006

Depression and Anxiety

Country/
Region

12-month
prevalence (%)

Brazil
Chile
China
Europe
Korea
Korea
Japan
Mexico

1,037
2,978
5,201
21,425
5,100
6,275
1,663
5,826

9.1
6.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.8
1.7

Nigeria
South Africa
Taiwan
USA
USA
USA

4,984
4,351
11,004
8,098
9,282
43,093

0.3
1.9
0.4
7.9
7.1
2.8

provides a summary of the prevalence rates of the

DSM-IV diagnosis of SAD across different countries.
The 20012002 National Epidemiologic Survey on
Alcohol and Related Conditions (N 5 43,093) showed
that being Native American, being young, and having
low income increased the risk for developing this
disorder, whereas being male, being of Asian, Hispanic,
or black race/ethnicity, or living in urban or more
populated regions reduced this risk.[18] Similarly, a
comparison between Hispanics, non-Hispanic Blacks,
and non-Hispanic Whites from the NCS-R showed
that both minority groups had lower risk for SAD as
well as for depression and generalized anxiety disorder
as compared to the non-Hispanic White group.[19]
However, the lower rate among minorities was more
pronounced at lower levels of education. Furthermore,
the lower rate among Hispanics, relative to nonHispanic Whites, was found only among the younger
cohort (age r43 years). This pattern of race-ethnic
differences in rate for psychiatric disorders suggests the
presence of protective factors that originate in childhood and have generalized effects on internalizing
disorders (i.e., anxiety disorders and depression).
A study that compared 62 adult outpatients with
SAD who presented at a university clinic for anxiety
and depressive disorders in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with
those who reported in clinical samples from North
America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania (as identified
through a systematic review in the published literature), showed that the majority of sociodemographic
features and symptoms of this disorder were relatively
independent of geographic and cultural differences.[20]
Patients with SAD were generally characterized by a
high percentage of males in clinical samples, early
onset of the disorder, high education levels, and high
comorbidity rates.
Our review of the epidemiological literature suggests
a wide range of the lifetime prevalence rates of SAD,
with Asian samples having some of the lowest rates and
Russian samples having some of the highest rates.
Similarly, Asian race/ethnicity is associated with some
of the lowest prevalence rates among US samples.
Being Hispanic or Black was also associated with a
lower risk for SAD. It remains uncertain to what extent
these differences in prevalence rates reflect genuine
differences in psychopathology, or whether they are
due to insufficient consideration of cultural aspects of
the DSM criteria, the assessment instruments, or the
influence of features associated with race and culture,
such as the level of education. Moreover, there is
evidence to suggest that the diagnostic threshold used
by mental health professionals differs across cultures.
For example, one study investigated differences in the
diagnosis of SAD by 31 Japanese psychiatrists in Tokyo
and 22 American psychiatrists in Hawaii.[21] A brief
segment of videotaped interviews and written case
histories of four Japanese patients from Tokyo and two
Japanese-American patients from Hawaii, who were
diagnosed with SAD, were presented to the clinicians

Review: Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety

for their diagnosis. Japanese clinicians tended to

diagnose SAD congruently for the Japanese cases but
not for the Japanese-American cases. American clinicians tended to diagnose various categories, including
generalized anxiety disorders and avoidant personality
disorder in addition to SAD, regardless of the ethnic
background of the patients. Thus, the diagnostic
pattern for SAD varied considerably between psychiatrists of these two countries, possibly because of the
patients cardinal symptom manifestation, style of
problem presentation, the clinicians professional
orientation, familiarity with this disorder and the diagnostic system, and, most importantly, the clinicians
own cultural beliefs about the meaning of anxiety
symptoms.

CULTURAL-SPECIFIC
PRESENTATIONS OF SAD
Taijin kyofusho (TKS) has frequently been discussed
as a culture-specific expression of SAD that is believed
to be particularly prevalent in Japanese and Korean
cultures. Similar to individuals suffering from SAD,
individuals with TKS are concerned about being
observed and consequently avoid a variety of social
situations. It has been assumed that the major
difference from typical SAD in Western cultures is
that a person with TKS is concerned about doing
something or presenting an appearance that will offend
or embarrass the other person. In contrast, SAD is
defined as the fear of embarrassing oneself. Therefore,
investigators have referred to this as the offensive subtype
of TKS, because it is characterized by two features
considered atypical of SAD: the belief that one displays
physical defects and/or socially inappropriate behaviors
and the fear of offending others, termed as an
allocentric focus of social fears.[22]
Examples of TKS may include individuals who fear
that they would offend others by emitting offensive
odors, blushing, staring inappropriately, and presenting
an improper facial expression or physical deformity.[23]
Most patients with TKS only experience a single
circumscribed fear, although the specific focus may
change over time. More males than females (at the ratio
of 3:2) present with this problem.[23] TKS cases seem
to vary on a continuum of severity from highly
prevalent but transient adolescent social concerns to
delusional disorders.[24]
In the Japanese diagnostic system, TKS is classified
into four subtypes, depending on the content of the
patients fear in respect to displeasing or embarrassing
others. These subtypes are: sekimen-kyofu (the fear of
blushing), shubo-kyofu (the fear of a deformed body),
jikoshisen-kyofu (the fear of eye-to-eye contact), and
jikoshu-kyofu (the fear of ones own foul body odor).
Of these four subtypes, sekimen-kyofu and jikoshisenkyofu seem to be most closely associated with the
current DSM definition of SAD, whereas shubo-kyofu

1119

seems to be most closely associated with body

dysmorphic disorder.[25]
A study by Kleinknecht et al. examined differences in
SAD (as defined by DSM-IV) and TKS, and their
relation to independence and interdependence in 181
US students and 161 students enrolled in Japanese
universities.[2] Factor analyses yielded three factors,
each corresponding to the respective scales defining
TKS and DSM-defined SAD. A case analysis indicated
that there was an approximate 50% co-occurrence
between high scorers on the TKS and SAD scales.
Multiple regression analyses resulted in a different set
of predictors of TKS and self-reported social anxiety
for the US and Japanese respondents. Stepwise
regression analyses were conducted using independent
and interdependent self-construals, embarrassability,
social interaction anxiety, and SAD as predictors for
TKS. For the US sample, only SAD and social
interaction anxiety predicted TKS, whereas for the
Japanese sample, social interaction anxiety, SAD, and
independent self-construal contributed positively to
the prediction of TKS. Similarly, different variables
predicted SAD. For the US sample, TKS, social
interaction anxiety, and embarrassability predicted
SAD, whereas for the Japanese sample, only TKS and
social interaction anxiety were significant predictors for
SAD. These results suggest that cultural variables can
mediate the expression of social anxiety. However, both
forms of social anxiety can be found in each sample.
Sakurai et al. examined the symptom structure and
clinical subtypes of patients with DSM-IV SAD among
the Japanese clinical population.[26] The authors
performed confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of the joint Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and
Social Phobia Scale[27] from 149 psychiatric patients
diagnosed with SAD. Based on the derived symptom
factors, the authors also performed a cluster analysis to
identify patient subgroups. The factor analysis revealed
three factors which were identified as scrutiny fears,
conversation fears, and relationship fears. The first two
seemed to be common to Western clinical populations,
whereas the third seemed unique to the Japanese.
The authors noted that that the relationship fears factor
does not seem to measure the construct in a
straightforward manner and that some items merged
into interaction anxiety for the US sample and did
not constitute a distinct symptom factor. The authors
argued that, therefore, the items defining the relationship fears factor may have a unique meaning for
Japanese people, who typically pay close attention to
others thoughts and feelings even without direct
interaction in a group-oriented society.
A recent investigation examined the offensive subtype of TKS[22] by assessing the allocentric focus of
fear in US (n 5 181) and Korean (n 5 64) patients with
DSM-IV SAD, using a TKS Questionnaire. The results
showed that 75% of patients with SAD in the United
States and Korea endorsed at least one of the five
offensive TKS symptoms surveyed. In both samples, the
Depression and Anxiety

1120

Hofmann et al.

severity of features of offensive TKS was significantly

associated with severity of social anxiety symptoms,
depressive symptoms, and disability. These results
showed that features of the offensive subtype of TKS
are not uncommon among US patients with SAD,
suggesting they may not be as culturally specific as
previously believed.
Another recent study examined the cultural specificity
of an offensive subtype of TKS as compared to SAD in
94 participants with SAD and 39 normal controls
who did not meet criteria for any mental disorder.[28]
All participants lived in Australia and were born in
Western countries. The results showed that levels of
offensive worry were significantly elevated in individuals
with SAD, and this decreased after treatment of their
SAD. Correlational analyses suggested that TKS and
SAD were clearly strongly related. However, diagnostic
examination revealed that the prevalence of reported
offensive symptoms (8 out of 94; 8.5%) was extremely
low among participants with SAD in Australia, and none
of them met the full criteria for TKS.
A study by Nakamura[29] examined the relationship
between TKS and SAD by conducting DSM-III-R
structured clinical interviews with 88 outpatients who
visited a hospital in Japan, where they were requesting
Morita Therapy (a traditional form of Japanese psychotherapy that combines mindfulness mediation practices, physical activity, and acceptance techniques to
treat emotional problems). The patients were also
independently diagnosed by three psychiatrists to
confirm the TKS diagnosis. In total, 65.8% of the 38
cases of TKS were given the diagnosis of SAD. In a
second study by the same author,[29] 20 Japanese
individuals with SAD were compared with 21 cases
of SAD in Canada whose diagnoses were based on
DSM-III-R. The results showed that many symptoms
that had been considered as key characteristics of the
Japanese TKS, such as the concern that ones own
glance may make others uncomfortable, were also
observed among the Canadian SAD sample. Furthermore, the symptoms in both groups tended to be
exacerbated when individuals were exposed to a large
group of people rather than a small group, people of the
opposite sex rather than of the same sex, peers of the
same age rather than the senior or the junior, and
acquaintances rather than strangers or intimate persons.
One group of researchers investigated 111 Japanese
university students who reported feeling tense or
nervous in social or interpersonal interactions and
analyzed their responses to items on a scale for
TKS.[30] Cluster analysis of the factor scores revealed
a group (N 5 25) with symptomatic profiles that fit
offensive-type TKS. Despite this groups high TKS
scores, their scores on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety
Scale were relatively low. The authors interpreted these
results as suggesting that the symptoms of some TKS
sufferers do not fall within the SAD spectrum.
Another less studied but possibly culture-specific
expression of SAD is aymat zibur. Literally translated,
Depression and Anxiety

it is the fear of the community, a term used by

ultra-Orthodox Jews to describe fears of performance,
although in its original meaning the term expresses the
respect that the leader of prayers is expected to have for
his awesome role. Greenberg et al. described three cases
of SAD in this community.[31] The patients concerns
included performing by either speaking on religious
matters publicly, a role associated with status and
authority, or leading prayers and ceremonies, a role of
sanctity and duty. The authors reported an absence of
women sufferers, which may be understood as a
consequence of the value placed on modesty in women
and there being no expectation of women to participate
in study and public prayer. The authors further reported
the absence of complaints of interactional SAD, which
may be a consequence of the general discouragement of
social intercourse not related to religious study. The
cases described were motivated by personal shame,
similar to SAD of the performance variety found in
other cultures, rather than fear and respect.[31] It should
be noted that a TKS-like presentation has been found in
other cultures. In a case series of six patients (aged 1643
years) with the offensive type of TKS,[32] the authors
compared features of TKS with those of SAD and
compared treatment outcomes for four patients with
TKS treatment experience in Japan and Korea with
Western treatments for SAD. The authors reported that
the features of the offensive type of TKS showed much
overlap with symptoms of SAD.
Based on this review, it seems that culture may
influence SAD in very important ways. Though there is
evidence to suggest that different expressions of TKS
also appear in non-Asian cultures,[2] the rate of this
disorder and the meanings of the symptoms in those
cultural contexts will greatly differ. It is possible that
TKS symptoms are more likely to be expressed by
individuals who construe themselves as low on independence but high on interdependence, whereas SAD
symptoms are more likely to be expressed by individuals
who construe themselves as low on interdependence but
high on independence.[33] Clearly, cultures will vary
along these dimensions (see below for further discussion). In addition, in the Japanese context, given that
TKS-like symptoms are a known response to social
situations, this will shape the experiencing and reaction
to social situations in important ways.

CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
IN TREATMENT RESPONSE
It has been shown that Black and White children
similarly improved from pre- to posttreatment after
cognitive behavioral therapy with no significant differences
based on race.[34] Similarly, cognitive behavioral therapy
that was developed for Western patients was similarly
effective for Japanese and Western patients[35] and
Hispanic/Latino youths.[36] However, these preliminary
studies are based on only small numbers of participants

Review: Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety

and it is possible that there are cultural differences in

treatment-seeking behaviors.[37,38] For example, a study by
Hsu and Alden[37] examined culture-related influences on
willingness to seek treatment for social anxiety in first- and
second-generation students of Chinese heritage (Ns 5 65
and 47, respectively) and their European-heritage counterparts (N 5 60). Participants completed measures that
assessed their willingness to seek treatment for various
levels of social anxiety. Results showed that participants
were similar on willingness to seek treatment at low- and
high-severity levels of social anxiety. However, at moderate
levels, first-generation Chinese participants were significantly less willing to seek treatment compared to their
European-heritage counterparts. The reluctance of firstgeneration Chinese participants to seek treatment was
associated with greater Chinese-heritage acculturation and
was not related to perceiving symptoms of social anxiety as
less impairing. The findings support the general contention that Asians in North America tend to delay treatment
for mental health problems.[39]
A study by Roy-Byrne[40] examined the effects of
paroxetine among ethnic minority patients with mood
and anxiety disorders, including major depression, panic
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, SAD, obsessive
compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or
premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The authors pooled
data from 14,875 adults who had participated in 104
double-blind, placebo-controlled paroxetine clinical
trials from March 1984 to March 2002. An intentto-treat analysis with last observation carried forward
used the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale to
measure a dichotomous outcome, classified as either
response (CGI score of 1 or 2) or more complete
response (CGI score of 1) (full response). Minority
group differences were examined using logistic regression. Furthermore, a survival analysis examined group
differences in speed of onset of response. The results
showed that Hispanic and Asian subjects had a slightly
lower response rate overall, whereas Asians had the
highest rates and Hispanics had the lowest rates of full
response. The relative consistency in outcome for
Hispanics as compared to Asians seemed to be due to a
higher placebo response rate in the Hispanic cohort.
Speed of response and adverse effects were similar across
groups. Finally, TKS seems to respond well to serotonin
reuptake inhibitors;[4143] (for a review, see[44]) and
selective serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors.[45] In general, these data do not provide any
convincing evidence that race/ethnicity predicts response
or nonresponse to any psychological or pharmacological treatments.

CULTURAL FACTORS THAT MAY

INFLUENCE SAD: FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
A key approach to cross-cultural examination of
disorders across cultures is an examination of the factors

1121

that generate the disorder, and then a consideration of

why those mechanisms would be influenced by culture.
Researchers have illustrated that certain factors vary by
culture and hence lead to a different trajectory of SAD:
individualism/collectivism, social norms, self-construal,
gender role, and gender role identification. This
literature will be summarized in the following sections,
which also suggest important future research directions.
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
A concept that has been given a considerable degree
of attention in cross-cultural research is the notion of
individualism/collectivism.[4648] Collectivism describes
the relationship between members of social organizations that emphasize the interdependence of its
members. In collectivistic cultures, harmony within
the group is the highest priority and individual gain is
considered to be less important than improvement of
the broader social group. Thus, it is possible that, in
collectivistic countries, more overt social norms exist to
maintain social harmony. In contrast, in individualistic
societies, individual achievements and success receive
the greatest reward and social admiration.
Lucas et al. demonstrated that social contacts serve
different purposes in individualistic versus collectivistic
cultures.[47] In individualistic cultures, individual feelings and thoughts more directly determine behavior.
In collectivistic cultures, harmony within the group is
the highest priority, and norms and role expectations
have a considerable impact on behavior. Thus, in
collectivistic cultures more rules and guidelines for
social behavior possibly exist that make social slips
more obvious than in individualistic cultures.
In Asia, South America, the Pacific Islands, and
Southern European countries, strict social rules are
supposed to be provided about what behavior is
appropriate in certain social situations [e.g.,[4951]].
If an individual deviates from these social rules, they
are threatened by sanctions, such as exclusion from the
group. Therefore, it is important for individuals in such
countries that their social behavior is evaluated as
appropriate and positive.[52] Furthermore, norms are
strong predictors of life satisfaction in collectivistic but
not individualistic countries.[52] Thus, it is possible that
it is the match between the cultural orientation of a
person and the cultural norms that contribute to SAD
and other emotional disorders, especially if the person
shows extreme collectivist orientation (allocentric) or
extreme individualist values (idiocentric). This hypothesis was examined by Caldwell-Harris and Aycicegi,[53]
who administered individualismcollectivism scenarios
and a battery of clinical and personality scales to
college students in Boston and Istanbul. For students
residing in a highly individualistic society (Boston),
collectivism scores were positively correlated with social
anxiety, as well as depression, obsessivecompulsive
disorder, and dependent personality. Individualism
scores were negatively correlated with these same
Depression and Anxiety

1122

Hofmann et al.

scales. A different pattern was obtained for students

residing in a collectivist culture (Istanbul), where
individualism was positively correlated with scales for
paranoid, schizoid, narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorders. Collectivism was associated with low report of symptoms on these scales.
These results suggest that conflicts between personal
values and values of society are associated with SAD
and other clinical symptoms. This notion is consistent
with the results of a study investigating the associations
between the frequency of, and motivations for, social
withdrawal during adolescence and emotional distress
in young adulthood. The findings showed that shy and
unsociable individuals in Korea showed better social
and emotional adjustment than their counterparts in
Australia.[28]
A study by Heinrichs et al.[54] investigated individuals personal and perceived cultural norms and their
relation to social anxiety and fear of blushing. Nine
hundred and nine participants from eight countries
completed vignettes describing social situations and
evaluated the social acceptability of the behavior of the
main actor, both from their own personal perspective
as well as from a cultural viewpoint. Personal and
cultural norms showed somewhat different patterns
in comparison between types of countries (individualistic/collectivistic). According to reported cultural
norms, collectivistic countries were more accepting
toward socially reticent and withdrawn behaviors than
was the case in individualistic countries. In contrast,
there was no difference between individualistic and
collectivistic countries on individuals personal perspectives regarding socially withdrawn behavior.
Collectivistic countries also reported greater levels of
social anxiety and more fear of blushing than individualistic countries. Significant positive relations
occurred between the extent to which attentionavoiding behaviors are accepted in a culture and the
level of social anxiety or fear of blushing symptoms.
In a later study,[55] the authors conducted a replication and extension by including Latin American
countries in the collectivistic group. The sample
included 478 participants from individualistic countries
and 388 individuals from collectivistic countries
(including East Asian and Latin American). The results
from the earlier study by Heinrichs et al. were
replicated for the individualistic and Asian countries,
but not for Latin American countries, which displayed
the lowest social anxiety levels.
In sum, although the individualismcollectivism
distinction does not fully capture the relevant norms,
there is some evidence in the literature to suggest that
social anxiety is related to different cultural norms
across countries. Specifically, it is possible that the
cultural differences in reported levels of social anxiety
are related to social norms and standards toward
publicly displaying signs for social anxiety. However,
the results should be interpreted cautiously because
they are entirely based on nonclinical student samples.
Depression and Anxiety

SOCIAL NORMS, EMBARRASSMENT, AND

OTHER RELATED CONSTRUCTS
SAD may be defined as an excessive fear of violating
social norms, and a concept that is closely related to
violating social norms is embarrassment.[56] Singelis
and Sharkey[57] have suggested that it is easier to
embarrass individuals from Southeast Asia because
more rules for social behaviors exist there. Asian
individuals should, therefore, be more concerned and
worried about their social behaviour because social
deviations are easier to detect. Other authors have also
suggested that embarrassment is more common in
collectivistic cultures because it is induced by external
sanctions, whereas guilt and self-blame are more
common in individualistic cultures because they are
induced by internal sanctions.[58,59] Thus, there is some
evidence and considerable conjecture regarding different social norms between collectivistic societies,
including Southeast Asian and South American societies, and individualistic societies as found in most
Western countries.
A related construct that distinguishes cultural groups
in SAD might be separation anxiety (SA).[60] The
authors examined the developmental progression and
pattern of self-reported symptoms of SAD (SP) and SA
in a community sample (n 5 2,384) and a clinical
sample (n 5 217) of children and adolescents (aged
819 years), using a cross-sectional method. Participants were cross-classified by age, gender, and race.
Using mean scores on the SP and SA subscales of the
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, four
categories of children were established: High SP/High
SA, High SP/Low SA, Low SP/High SA, and Low SP/
Low SA. White children reported more symptoms of
High SP/Low SA, whereas the opposite pattern was
found among African-American children.
In sum, it is not yet clear whether cultural factors
may work to reshape levels of social anxiety or SAD.
There is little clear evidence relating to levels of
symptoms of social anxiety or embarrassment across
cultures, but at least some evidence has suggested
possibly higher levels of social anxiety and a higher
social significance of embarrassment in collectivistic
relative to individualistic cultures.
SELF-CONSTRUALS
Self-construals are overarching schemata that define
how people relate to others and the social context.
On the basis of cross-cultural research, Markus and
Kitayama[61] suggested that individuals from the
United States and other individualistic societies tend
to construct and promote independent self-construals,
which are characterized by ones tendency to view
oneself as autonomous and separate from the social
context. Individuals possessing an independent selfconcept are motivated to uphold and validate their own
unique, internal attributes and goals, and their selfesteem is derived from an ability to distinguish

Review: Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety

themselves from other people in their environment.

In contrast, members of Asian and other Eastern
cultures are more likely to value and possess interdependent self-construals, which are based upon viewing
oneself as being intricately connected and integrated
with others in the social group. Interdependent people
view the self as an extension of the social group to
which they belong. To this end, they strive to maintain
harmony in various interpersonal relationships by
being attentive to, adjusting their behavior to, and
corresponding appropriately with the thoughts,
feelings, and behavior of important others. Consistent
with this notion is a study by Hong and Woody that
examined Korean (n 5 251) and Euro-Canadian
(n 5 250) community samples.[62] Results indicated
that independent self-construal and identity consistency, views of the self that are typically associated with
Western cultures, fully mediate the ethnic difference on
self-reported social anxiety. Moreover, two indicators
of East Asian views of the self in social contexts
(interdependent self-construal and self-criticism) were
partial mediators.
Although the concept of independent and interdependent self-construals was originally developed in
the context of explaining cross-cultural differences in
motivation and social behavior,[61] and has been cited
predominantly in cross-cultural research, it has since
been extended to examine differences between people
even within individualistic cultures, such as the United
States. Along these lines, Cross and Madson argued
that although both men and women value social
connectedness, the American man is likely to be
socialized to construct an independent self-construal
and develop a social self that is marked by the
motivation to promote core personal attributes over
group goals.[63,64] They theorized that American men
possess self-representations that they construe separately from representations of important others.
Conversely, the American woman is likely to be
socialized to construct an interdependent selfconstrual, such that representations of close interpersonal others are incorporated into her definition of
self, and self-representations are construed as being
intricately connected with particular relationships or
contexts. These gender differences in self-construals
are believed to emerge in early childhood, out of the
developmental learning process that occurs when boys
and girls are taught what it means to be members of
their respective gender groups.
Thus, according to this theory, differences in selfconstruals exert a pervasive influence upon the way
men and women organize their experiences and assess
their understanding of themselves vis-a`-vis the world
around them, and such differences may account for
many of the empirically demonstrated gender differences in affect, social behavior, and cognitive processing. Though intriguing, this theory has, thus far,
received little direct empirical validation. One pertinent question that is raised by the authors,[63,64] as well

1123

as their critics [e.g.,[65]], is how American women are

able to reconcile the mixed messages they receive from
a culture that broadly emphasizes independence and
autonomy but expects females specifically to be
interdependent and connected with others.
Research has demonstrated that interdependence is
positively and independence is negatively correlated with
embarrassability[57] and fear of negative evaluations,[58]
both of which are important elements of the symptomatic expression of social anxiety and SAD.[56] Singelis
and Sharkey[57] proposed that being interdependent may
engender an acute awareness of the social context and
sensitivity to evaluation by others, whereas being
independent may gird people in the face of these
evaluations (p 638). Similarly, Okazaki[66] suggested
that highly interdependent people might be more highly
attuned to social cues and the experiences of social
anxiety than individuals who score low on this dimension. This hypothesis was confirmed in a cross-cultural
study that examined the relationship between selfconstruals and social anxiety symptoms among American
and Japanese university students.[33]
In sum, these studies suggest that self-construal is
an important variable to consider when examining the
degree of social anxiety, particularly for examining
individuals in East Asian cultures.
GENDER ROLE AND GENDER ROLE
IDENTIFICATION
Gender role and gender role identification (masculinity versus femininity) are constructs that are closely
related to self-construal. Historically, the constructs of
masculinity and femininity were thought to lie on
opposite ends of a unitary dimension, with femininity
being associated with shyness and social subordination,
and masculinity with social dominance and aggression.
Almost three decades ago, however, Bem, in her classic
study on psychological androgyny,[67] challenged this
traditional belief by reasoning that a single individual
can be both masculine and feminine, both assertive
and yielding, both instrumental and expressive
(p 155). To test this hypothesis, Bem devised a new
sex-role inventory, which treated masculinity and
femininity as two independent dimensions. The Bem
Sex-Role Inventory enabled researchers to characterize
individuals as masculine, feminine, androgynous (a concept
which reflected an individuals endorsement of both
masculine and feminine personality characteristics), or
undifferentiated, an endorsement of neither gender role.
Bem speculated that, and her subsequent research
confirmed [e.g.,[68]], androgynous individuals are more
adaptable and flexible in their behavior and perform
well across a wide range of tasks. On the other hand,
sex-typed individuals are motivated to restrict their
behavior in accordance with cultural definitions of
gender appropriateness and perform poorly on tasks
that require them to act in ways that are incongruent
with their self-defined sex type.[69]
Depression and Anxiety

1124

Hofmann et al.

Although closely linked to social behaviors, very

little research exists on gender role and gender
role identification in social anxiety and SAD. A study
by Moscovitch et al.[70] asked 97 American-born,
Caucasian participants to complete self-report questionnaires to study the impact of gender, gender role
orientation, and independent and interdependent selfconstruals upon social anxiety. The results showed that
biological gender membership did not predict social
anxiety severity. However, identification with a traditionally masculine gender role orientation decreased
the risk for social anxiety, and self-construals predicted
levels of social anxiety differentially in men and
women. In men, interdependence and independence
predicted levels of social anxiety positively and
negatively, respectively, whereas these patterns of
association were reversed in women.
In clinical samples, researchers have investigated
differences between men and women in the experience
and expression of social anxiety and SAD. Whereas
women are slightly more likely than men to have
SAD,[3] men with SAD are more likely to seek
treatment.[56] Men and women with SAD report similar
fears of social situations, but women endorse more
intense fear.[71] Because gender is a complex social
construct, gender role may, in part, explain these sex
differences, but this has not been examined empirically
in clinical samples [e.g.,[71,72]].
SHAME
Although shame is likely to play an important role
in any culture, a particular emphasis has been placed
in the literature on the relationship between shame
and the Asian culture.[73] A study examining the crosscultural differences of the effects of shame and
personality on social anxiety supported this notion.[74]
This study administered the Experience Scale of
Shame, the Eysenck Personality QuestionnaireRevised Short Scale, and a social anxiety measure to a
Chinese sample (n 5 211, 66 males and 145 females,
average age 20.12) and an American sample (n 5 211,
66 males and 145 females, average age 20.22) of college
students. The structural equation modeling (SEM)
was performed separately for the Chinese and
American samples. The SEM results revealed a
shame-mediating model in the Chinese sample only.
This model did not apply for the American sample.
This study supports the hypothesis that shame has a
more important effect on social anxiety in the Chinese
culture compared to its effect on Americans. It has
been noted that shame may have different meanings in
various cultural contexts.[75] In Japan, shame-prone and
self-effacing behavior seems to be given positive
functional value and is actively promoted by society,
whereas the American culture might tend to prohibit
shame-prone behaviors and the show of ones vulnerability while encouraging the visible demonstration of
ones power and capacity.
Depression and Anxiety

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Epidemiological studies show a wide range of
lifetime prevalence rates of SAD with Asian samples
having some of the lowest rates, and Russian and US
samples having some of the highest rates. There seems
to be culture-specific expressions of SAD, most notably
TKS, a syndrome found in Japan and Korea. This
disorder identifies people who are concerned about
offending or embarrassing the other person rather than
embarrassing oneself. Though TKS symptoms can be
found in other cultural contexts, the symptoms cluster
in particular cultural contexts and even have a
particular syndrome name. Despite these differences
in the cultural expression and prevalence rates, there is
little evidence to support differential treatment
response of SAD in individuals from different cultures.
Key mechanisms were examined that produce SAD,
and it was shown that these factors are influenced by
culture; this suggests important areas for future
research. Some of these factors include individualism/
collectivism, perception of social norms, self-construal,
and gender role and gender role identification.
Based on this review, we can conclude that social
fears are very much dependent on a particular culture.
The same social behavior may be perceived as normal
in one culture and unreasonable and excessive in
another; cultural syndromes may lead to the expectation of certain types of embarrassment in particular
situations; and the meaning of SAD symptoms and
their experiencing will be influenced by multiple
factorsfield dependence, gender role and gender role
identification, local ideas of shame and what is shaming
(on how cultural syndromes influence DSM disorders,
see[76,77]). People with SAD fear violating the perceived
social norms of the social reference group they identify
themselves with. The social reference group not only
includes the cultural/racial/ethnic group, but also
gender identification, social status, and sexual orientation. In certain cultural groups, certain social situations
and certain symptoms, actions, and failures may be
the cause of particular shame; these shame syndromes
associated with particular situations may take the form
of a syndrome that has a particular name, such as the
case of TKS.
What are the implications for the DSM-V definition
of SAD? Our review indicates that SAD varies by
key sociocultural factors, including collectivism/individualism, perception of social norms, self-construal,
gender roles, and gender roles identification. This
suggests that SAD should be defined in relation to the
particular reference group because the same social
behavior can be perceived very differently in different
sociocultural subgroups. Therefore, the persons sociocultural background needs to be carefully taken into
consideration when evaluating social behaviors and
attitudes. These issues should be included in the
DSM-V text and should be part of the definitional
criteria, so that clinicians are encouraged to evaluate

Review: Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety

the symptoms in relation to the patients sociocultural

background (for further discussion of changes to the
SA criteria in the DSM, see[78]).
This study is limited by the nature of the relatively
modest quantity and quality of existing studies, which
include a high percentage of American samples.
Furthermore, we focused our discussion primarily on
the cultural difference in the rates of SAD and
selectively reviewed the existing literature on the
cultural expression of social anxiety. We suggest that
future studies more closely examine cultural differences
in the degree and expression of social anxiety symptoms. An important research area is how persons in
various cultures treat these SAD symptoms, as well as
syndromes such as TKS (e.g., the treatment of TKS by
Morita therapy), fear of body odor, fear of blushing,
etc., in Asian and other cultures. This may give insight
into the mechanisms generating the disorder (including
the genetic contribution) and how culturally appropriate treatment can be conducted.
Acknowledgments. This article was based on a
literature review commissioned by the DSM-V Anxiety,
Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and
Dissociative Disorders Work Group. The opinions and
conclusions expressed in this review are the opinions
and conclusions by the authors of this article and do
not reflect the opinions or conclusions by the DSM-V
Work Group. We thank Dr. Roberto Lewis-Fernandez
for his helpful comments. Dr. Hofmann is a paid
consultant by Schering-Plough and supported by
NIMH grant 1R01MH078308. Dr. Hinton is supported by NIMH grant R01MH079032.

REFERENCES
1. Draguns JG, Tanaka-Matsumi J. Assessment of psychopathology
across and within cultures: issues and findings. Behav Res Ther
2003;41:755776.
2. Kleinknecht RA, Dinnel DL, Kleiknecht EE, et al. Cultural
factors in social anxiety: a comparison of social phobia symptoms
and Taijin kyofusho. J Anxiety Disord 1997;11:157177.
3. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, et al. Lifetime and
12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the
United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51:819.
4. Ruscio AM, Brown TA, Chiu WT, et al. Social fears and social
phobia in the USA: results from the National Comorbidity
Survey Replication. Pschol Med 2008;38:1528.
5. Vicente B, Kohn R, Rioseco P, et al. Lifetime and 12-month
prevalence of DSM-III-R disorders in the Chile psychiatric
prevalence study. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:13621370.
6. Vorcaro CM, Rocha FL, Uchoa E, Lima-Costa MF. The burden
of social phobia in a Brazilian community and its relationship
with socioeconomic circumstances, health status and use of
health services: the Bambui study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2004;50:
216226.
7. Hwu HG, Yeh EK, Chang LY. Prevalence of psychiatric
disorders in Taiwan defined by the Chinese Diagnostic Schedule.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989;79:136147.

1125

8. Lee CK, Kwak YS, Yamamoto J, et al. Psychiatric epidemiology

in Korea: Part II: urban and rural differences. J Nerv Ment Dis
1990;178:247252.
9. Cho MJ, Kim JK, Jeon HJ, et al. Lifetime and 12-month
prevalence of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among Korean
adults. J Nerv Men Dis 2007;195:203210.
10. Shen YC, Zhang MY, Huang YQ, et al. Twelve-month
prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental
disorders in metropolitan China. Psychol Med 2006;36:257267.
11. Kawakami N, Takeshima T, Ono Y, et al. Twelve-month
prevalence, severity, and treatment of common mental disorders
in communities in Japan: preliminary findings from the World
Mental Health Japan Survey 20022003. Psychiatry Clin
Neurosci 2005;59:441452.
12. Medina-Mora ME, Borges G, Lara C, et al. Prevalence, service
use, and demographic correlates of 12-month DSM-IV psychiatric disorders in Mexico: results from the Mexican National
Comorbidity Survey. Psychol Med 2005;35:17731783.
13. Gureje O, Lasebikan VO, Kola L, Makanjuola VA. Lifetime and
12-month prevalence of mental disorders in the Nigerian Survey of
Mental Health and Well-Being. Br J Psychiatry 2006;188:465471.
14. Williams DR, Herman A, Stein DJ, et al. Twelve-month mental
disorders in South Africa: prevalence, service use and demographic correlates in the population-based South African Stress
and Health Study. Psychol Med 2008;38:211220.
15. Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Bernert S, et al. Prevalence of mental
disorders in Europe: results from the European Study of the
Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta
Psychiatr Scand 2004;109:2127.
16. Pakriev S, Vasar V, Aluoja A, Shlik J. Prevalence of social phobia
in the rural population of Udmurtia. Nord J Psychiatry 2000;54:
109112.
17. Al-Hinai SS, Al-Saidy O, Dorvlo ASS. Culture and prevalence of
social phobia in a college population in Oman. In: Landow M,
editor. College Students: Mental Health and Coping Strategies.
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2006:115132.
18. Grant BF, Hasin DS, Blanco C, et al. The epidemiology of social
anxiety disorder in the United States: results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin
Psychiatry 2005;66:13511361.
19. Breslau J, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Kendler KS, et al. Specifying
race-ethnic differences in risk for psychiatric disorder in a USA
national sample. Psychol Med 2006;36:5768.
20. de Menezes GB, Fontenelle LF, Versiani M. Trans-cultural
aspects of social anxiety disorder and related conditions: a
Brazilian case series and a review of international clinical studies.
J Bras Psiquiatr 2006;55:196200.
21. Tseng W, Asai M, Kitanishi K, et al. Diagnostic patterns of social
phobia: comparison in Tokyo and Hawaii. J Nerv Ment Dis 1992;
180:380385.
22. Choy Y, Schneier FR, Heimberg RG, et al. Features of the
offensive subtype of Taijin-Kyofu-Sho in US and Korean patients
with DSM-IV social anxiety disorder. Depress Anxiety 2008;25:
230240.
23. Takahashi T. Social phobia syndrome in Japan. Compr Psychiatry
1989;30:4552.
24. Kirmayer L. The place of culture in psychiatric nosology: Taijin
kyofusho and DSM-III-R. J Nerv Ment Dis 1991;179:1928.
25. Suzuki K, Takei N, Kawai M, et al. Is Taijin Kyofusho a culturebound syndrome? Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1358.
26. Sakurai A, Nagata T, Harai H, et al. Is relationship fear unique
to Japan? Symptom factors and patient clusters of social anxiety
disorder among the Japanese clinical population. J Affect Disord
2005;87:131137.
Depression and Anxiety

1126

Hofmann et al.

27. Mattick RP, Clarke JC. Development and validation of measures

of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav
Res Ther 1998;36:455470.
28. Kim J, Rapee RM, Ja Oh K, Moon HS. Retrospective report
of social withdrawal during adolescence and current maladjustment in young adulthood: cross-cultural comparisons between
Australian and South Korean students. J Adolesc 2008;31:
543563.
29. Nakamura K. Taijin-Kyofu-Sho (phobia of interpersonal
situation) and social phobia. In: Calvin M, editor. New Developments in Anxiety Disorders Research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Biomedical Books; 2006:199215.
30. Tarumi S, Ichimiya A, Yamada S, et al. Taijin Kyofusho in
university students: patterns of fear and predispositions to the
offensive variant. Transcult Psychiatry 2004;41:533546.
31. Greenberg D, Stravynski A, Bilu Y. Social phobia in ultraOrthodox Jewish males: culture-bound syndrome or virtue?
Ment Health Relig Cult 2004;7:289305.
32. Clarvit SR, Schneier FR, Liebowitz MR. The offensive subtype
of Taijin-Kyofu-Sho in New York city: the phenomenology
and treatment of a social anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1996;
57:523527.
33. Dinnel DL, Kleinknecht RA, Tanaka-Matsumi J. A cross-cultural
comparison of social phobia symptoms. J Psychopathol Behav
Assess 2002;24:7584.
34. Ferrell CB, Beidel DC, Turner SM. Assessment and treatment
of socially phobic children: a cross cultural comparison. J Clin
Child Adolesc Psychol 2004;33:260268.
35. Chen J. Group cognitive behavior therapy for Japanese patients
with social anxiety disorder: preliminary outcomes and their
predictors. BMC Psychiatry 2007;7:69.
36. Pina AA, Silverman WK, Fuentes RM, et al. Exposure-based
cognitive-behavioral treatment for phobic and anxiety disorders:
treatment effects and maintenance for Hispanic/Latino relative
to European-American youths. J Am Acad Child Adolesc
Psychiatry 2003;42:11791187.
37. Hsu L, Alden LE. Cultural influences on willingness to
seek treatment for social anxiety in Chinese and Europeanheritage students. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol 2008;14:
215223.
38. Kung WW, Lu PC. How symptom manifestations affect help
seeking for mental health problems among Chinese Americans.
J Nerv Ment Dis 2008;196:4654.
39. LeMeyer O, Zane N, Cho YI, Takeuchi DT. Use of speciality
mental health services by Asians with psychiatric disorders.
J Consult Clin Psychol 2009;77:10001005.
40. Roy-Byrne PP, Perera P, Pitts CD, Christi JA. Paroxetine
response and tolerability among ethnic minority patients with
mood or anxiety disorders: a pooled analysis. J Clin Psychiatry
2005;66:12281233.
41. Matsunaga H, Kiriike N, Matsui T, et al. Taijin kyofusho: a form
of social anxiety disorder that responds to serotonin reuptake
inhibitors? Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2001;4:231237.
42. Kobayashi N, Kurauchi S, Sawamura T, et al. Case study: the
effect of paroxetine on Taijinkyofusho: a report of three cases.
Psychiatry 2003;66:262267.
43. Nagata T. An open trial of paroxetine for the offensive subtype
of Taijin Kyofusho and social anxiety disorder. Depress Anxiety
2006;23:168174.
44. Stein D. Social anxiety disorder in the West and in the East.
Ann Clin Psychiatry 2009;21:109117.
45. Nagata T. Open trial of milnacipran for Taijin-Kyofusho in
Japanese patients with social anxiety disorder. Int J Psychiatry
Clin Pract 2003;7:107112.
Depression and Anxiety

46. Hofstede G. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept.

Acad Manage Rev 1984;9:389398.
47. Lucas RE, Diener E, Grob A. Cross-cultural evidence for the
fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;79:
452468.
48. Singelis TM. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1994;20:580591.
49. Argyle M. Rules for social relationships in four cultures. Aust J
Psychol 1986;38:309318.
50. Toregrosa JR. Social psychology: Social or sociological? In:
Eagly AH, Baron RM, Hamilton VL, editors. The Social
Psychology of Group Identity and Social Conflict: Theory,
Application, and Practice. Washington, DC: APA; 2004:2140.
51. Triandis HC, Hui CH, Albert RD, et al. Individual models of
social behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;46:13891404.
52. Suh E, Diener E, Oishi S, Triandis HC. The shifting basis of life
satisfaction judgement across cultures: emotions versus norms.
J Pers Soc Psychol 1998;74:482493.
53. Caldwell-Harris CL, Aycicegi A. When personality and culture
clash: the psychological distress of allocentrics in an individualist
culture and idiocentrics in a collectivist culture. Transcult
Psychiatry 2006;43:331361.
54. Heinrichs N, Rapee RM, Alden LA, et al. Cultural differences
in perceived social norms and social anxiety. Behav Res Ther
2006;44:11871197.
55. Schreier SS, Heinrichs N, Alden L, et al. Social anxiety and social
norms in individualistic and collectivistic countries. Depress
Anxiety, in press.
56. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Text Revision. Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association Press; 2000.
57. Singelis TM, Sharkey W. Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. J Cross Cult Psychol 1995;26:622644.
58. Scherer KR, Wallbott HG, Summerfield AR. Experiencing
Emotion: A Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1986.
59. Wallbott HG, Scherer KR. Cultural determinants in experiencing
shame and guilt. In: Tangney JP, Fischer KW, editors. SelfConscious Emotions. The Psychology of Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride. New York: Guilford Press; 1995:465487.
60. Compton SN, Nelson AH, March JS. Social phobia and
separation anxiety symptoms in community and clinical samples
of children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
2000;39:10401046.
61. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 1991;98:224253.
62. Hong JJ, Woody SR. Cultural mediators of self-reported social
anxiety. Behav Res Ther 2007;45:17791789.
63. Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: self-construals and
gender. Psychol Bull 1997;122:537.
64. Cross SE, Madson L. Elaboration of models of the self: reply to
Baumeister and Sommer (1997) and Martin and Ruble (1997).
Psychol Bull 1997;122:5155.
65. Martin CL, Ruble DN. A developmental perspective of selfconstruals and sex differences: comment on Cross and Madson.
Psychol Bull 1997;122:4550.
66. Okazaki S. Sources of ethnic differences between Asian
American and White American college students on measures
of depression and social anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 1997;106:
5260.
67. Bem SL. The measurement of psychological androgyny.
J Consult Clin Psychol 1974;42:155162.
68. Bem SL, Lenney E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex
behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 1976;33:4854.

Review: Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety

69. Bem SL. Androgyny and gender schema theory: a conceptual and
empirical integration. In: Theo Sonderegger, editor. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 32. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press; 1984:180226.
70. Moscovitch DA, Hofmann SG, Litz BT. The impact of
self-construals on social anxiety: a gender-specific interaction.
Pers Individ Dif 2005;38:659672.
71. Turk CL, Heimberg RG, Orsillo SM, et al. An investigation
of gender differences in social phobia. J Anxiety Disord 1998;12:
209223.
72. Weinstock LS. Gender differences in the presentation and
management of social phobia. J Clin Psychiatry 1999;60:919.
73. Xu Y. Shame, neurosis and culture in Chinese. Chinese J Clin
Psychol 1982;2:125127.

1127

74. Zhong J, Wang A, Qian M, et al. Shame, personality, and social

anxiety symptoms in Chinese and American nonclinical samples:
a cross-cultural study. Depress Anxiety 2008;25:449460.
75. Okano K. Shame and social phobia: a transcultural viewpoint.
Bull Menninger Clin 1994;58:323338.
76. Hinton DE, Lewis-Fernandez R. Idioms of distress among
trauma survivors: subtypes and clinical utility. Cult Med Psychiatry
2010;34:209218.
77. Hinton DE, Lewis-Fernandez R. The cross-cultural validity of
posttraumatic stress disorder: implications for DSM-5. Depress
Anxiety, in press 2010.
78. Bogels SM, Alden L, Beidel DC, et al. Social anxiety disorder:
questions and answers for the DSM-V. Depress Anxiety 2010;27:
168169.

Depression and Anxiety

Copyright of Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.