The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS)

1. Abstract

The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS) is one of the most widely utilized and psychometrically validated self-report instruments designed to assess shyness as an enduring, dimensional personality trait in adolescents and adults. Originally derived from the 9-item shyness subscale of the Buss-Plomin EAS Temperament Survey by Arnold H. Buss and Jonathan M. Cheek (1981), the scale was expanded and revised by Jonathan M. Cheek (1983) into a 13-item and an extended 20-item instrument to capture the multidimensional manifestations of social reticence, discomfort, and behavioral inhibition. Grounded in the conceptual demarcation of shyness from low sociability (the intrinsic preference for solitude versus the anxious desire for social contact accompanied by social inhibition), the RCBS measures affective, cognitive, and behavioral indicators of shyness. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree) to 5 (Very characteristic or true, strongly agree). Psychometric evaluations across diverse university, clinical, and cross-cultural samples demonstrate superior internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .86 to .94) and strong 45-day test-retest temporal stability (r = .88 to .91). Structural equation modeling and factor analytic investigations confirm robust unidimensionality representing an overarching shyness construct, alongside well-documented sub-facets of subjective social anxiety and behavioral awkwardness. Criterion-related and construct validity are supported by substantial correlations with peer and family observer ratings (r = .68 to .69), objective physiological reactivity (e.g., elevated heart rate during novel social interactions), and validated clinical measures of social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation, while maintaining distinct discriminant validity against measures of social affiliation and depression. This article delivers an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and clinical review of the RCBS, detailing its operationalization, structural topology, normative profiles, administration parameters, and complete scale items.

2. Keywords

Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, RCBS, shyness, social anxiety, sociability, behavioral inhibition, public self-consciousness, social reticence, psychometrics, trait anxiety, social competence, temperament

3. Authors

The conceptual origin and empirical refinement of the RCBS are primarily attributable to two prominent figures in trait psychology, personality assessment, and temperament research:

• Jonathan M. Cheek, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Wellesley College, Massachusetts, USA. Dr. Cheek has devoted decades of empirical scholarship to the study of self-identity, private and public self-consciousness, the differentiation of shyness from introversion, and the multidimensional assessment of personality traits. His laboratory at Wellesley College oversaw the continuous refinement of the 9-item, 13-item, and 20-item variants of the shyness scales.
• Arnold H. Buss, Ph.D. (1924–2021) — Late Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Buss was a pioneer in personality psychology, human aggression, and developmental temperament theory. Co-author of the Buss-Plomin EAS (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability) Temperament Model, Buss laid the empirical groundwork for distinguishing social avoidance stemming from autonomic fear (shyness) versus low affiliation motivation (sociability).

Direct academic correspondence and requests concerning scale history and archival data have historically been directed to the Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale is to provide a theoretically precise, reliable, and easily administered psychometric measure of trait shyness. Shyness is operationalized as the tendency to experience discomfort, affective tension, cognitive apprehension, and behavioral inhibition in the presence of novel social situations, unfamiliar individuals, or real or imagined social-evaluative threat. The scale was purposefully designed to resolve critical empirical and diagnostic confounds that had historically blurred the boundary between an individual’s desire for social interaction and their incapacity to execute social behaviors comfortably.

In clinical, counseling, and psychiatric domains, the RCBS serves as an essential screening and diagnostic adjuvant. While shyness represents a normative personality dimension distributed continuously throughout the general population, its severe manifestations overlap substantially with the clinical criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) / Social Phobia as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR). Mental health clinicians utilize the RCBS to establish baseline assessments of social discomfort, track the progress of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) protocols, evaluate social skills training efficacy, and distinguish generalized interpersonal distress from focal phobic avoidance. Its brevity and strong psychometric profile make it particularly well suited for intake batteries in university counseling centers, where developmental transitions frequently exacerbate social reticence and relational anxiety.

In basic personality and social psychological research, the RCBS is utilized to investigate interpersonal functioning, dyadic communication patterns, nonverbal behaviors (such as eye contact latency and conversational turn-taking), and social-cognitive information processing. Furthermore, organizational and educational researchers employ the scale to examine how shyness moderates academic adjustment, leadership emergence, public speaking apprehension, classroom participation, and remote versus face-to-face workplace collaboration.

The theoretical rationale driving the development of the RCBS stems directly from the necessity of isolating shyness from introversion. Whereas a common cultural misconception assumes that shy individuals fundamentally dislike social engagement, empirical work by Cheek and Buss demonstrated that shyness and sociability are structurally orthogonal or weakly correlated dimensions. By providing an unconfounded assessment tool focusing strictly on subjective tension, behavioral awkwardness, and social inhibition, the RCBS enables researchers to examine the unique physiological, affective, and cognitive mechanisms that govern social reticence.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale is trait shyness, an intricate, multicomponent syndrome characterized by anxious reactivity, heightened self-focus, and impaired behavioral execution in interpersonal encounters. The RCBS captures the convergent expression of three interrelated experiential domains: affective, cognitive, and behavioral.

Affective Dimension

The affective core of shyness involves autonomic and physiological arousal triggered by the anticipation or presence of social interaction. Shy individuals experience acute autonomic nervous system activation, including cardiovascular acceleration (tachycardia), peripheral vasoconstriction, cutaneous flushing, muscular tension, gastrointestinal distress, and general somatic uneasiness. On the RCBS, this somatic and emotional distress is represented by items tapping felt tension, nervousness, and lack of relaxation in unfamiliar gatherings (e.g., Item 1: “I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well”; Item 8: “I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority”). This affective reactivity reflects an automatic threat response to social-evaluative cues, analogous to the fear mechanisms observed in classical conditioned avoidance paradigms.

Cognitive Dimension

The cognitive facet of the shyness construct centers on public self-consciousness, acute self-directed attention, negative self-evaluative appraisal, and pervasive doubts regarding one’s own social competence. Shy individuals exhibit hypervigilant monitoring of their own conversational delivery, facial expressions, and somatic states, while operating under the distorted assumption that interaction partners are scrutinizing their performance hypercritically. Cognitive rumination before, during, and after social engagements frequently leads to cognitive overload, impairing working memory capacity and conversational fluidity. Within the RCBS and its extended variants, this dimension is operationalized through statements assessing subjective awkwardness, conversational blanking, and self-doubt (e.g., Item 2: “I am socially somewhat awkward”; Item 5: “When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about”; Item 9: “I have no doubts about my social competence” [reversed]; Item 14: “During conversations with new acquaintances, I worry about saying something dumb”).

Behavioral Dimension

The behavioral component of shyness manifests as motoric and expressive inhibition, conversational reticence, gaze aversion, speech dysfluency, and social withdrawal or avoidance. When placed in novel or unstructured social contexts, shy individuals tend to speak less frequently, exhibit prolonged response latencies, offer brief or unelaborated utterances, and actively struggle to initiate or sustain dialogue. This behavioral awkwardness is not necessarily indicative of a structural deficit in social knowledge; rather, it represents a situational performance breakdown induced by excessive anxiety and autonomic disruption. The RCBS evaluates these manifestations via indicators measuring eye contact avoidance, conversational initiation deficits, and general social inhibition (e.g., Item 7: “It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting new people”; Item 10: “I have trouble looking someone right in the eye”; Item 11: “I feel inhibited in social situations”; Item 12: “I do not find it hard to talk to strangers” [reversed]).

The Shyness versus Sociability Matrix

Crucial to the conceptual clarity of the RCBS construct is the theoretical model formulated by Cheek and Buss (1981), which plots individuals across two distinct, intersecting axes: Shyness (high vs. low) and Sociability (high vs. low). This conceptual matrix yields four distinct personality configurations:

• Shy / Low Sociable (Detached-Inhibited): Individuals who experience high social discomfort and also have a low intrinsic desire to affiliate with others. They easily retreat into solitary lifestyles with minimal internal conflict regarding their social isolation.
• Shy / High Sociable (Anxious-Ambivalent): Individuals who harbor an intense need for affiliation, intimacy, and social acceptance, yet suffer from paralyzing social anxiety, inhibition, and self-doubt. This group experiences the highest levels of subjective distress, loneliness, and psychological conflict, caught between the competing drives of social approach and avoidance.
• Unshy / Low Sociable (Introverted-Content): Classical introverts who lack social anxiety, communicate effectively when necessary, but simply possess low social appetite, preferring solitary hobbies and quiet environments without experiencing interpersonal distress.
• Unshy / High Sociable (Extraverted): Classical extraverts who possess robust social confidence, high conversational fluidity, low social anxiety, and an energetic preference for frequent social interactions and group activities.

By strictly measuring the shyness axis without confounding it with low social desire, the RCBS provides pure variance estimates that isolate the anxiety-inhibition nexus from the motivational desire for companionship.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale is situated at the intersection of three major psychological traditions: the EAS Temperament Model of Buss and Plomin, the Dual-System Social Reticence Model of Asendorpf, and the Cognitive-Attentional Models of Social Anxiety articulated by Carver, Scheier, Clark, and Wells.

The EAS Temperament Framework

Buss and Plomin (1975, 1984) proposed that adult personality is rooted in early childhood temperament, conceptualized as genetically influenced, physiologically mediated behavioral dispositions that emerge within the first years of life. Their model originally posited four temperaments: Emotionality (the tendency to become easily and intensely distressed or fearful), Activity (tempo and vigor of physical energy expenditure), Sociability (the preference to be with others rather than alone), and Impulsivity (later subsumed or modified). In the original 1975 EAS survey, shyness was conceptualized as a sub-facet of sociability. However, empirical factor analyses conducted by Cheek and Buss (1981) demonstrated that items assessing shyness (fear, tension, awkwardness) segregated cleanly from items tapping sociability (preference for affiliation, liking being with people). Buss thereafter conceptualized shyness as an early-appearing, physiologically grounded emotional response to social novelty and social-evaluative threat, functionally linked to the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) identified by Jeffrey Gray.

Asendorpf’s Approach-Avoidance Conflict Model

Developmental psychologist Jens Asendorpf expanded upon the Cheek and Buss paradigm by conceptualizing social reticence within an approach-avoidance conflict framework. In Asendorpf’s model, social behavior is determined by the dynamic interplay of two independent motivational systems: the Social Approach System (driven by reward sensitivity, affiliative needs, and companionship goals) and the Social Avoidance System (driven by punishment sensitivity, fear of negative evaluation, and autonomic reactivity). Unshy extraverts exhibit high approach and low avoidance; unsociable introverts exhibit low approach and low avoidance; but shy individuals, particularly the shy-sociable subtype, exhibit a state of high approach and high avoidance conflict. When exposed to novel social environments, the simultaneous activation of the desire to connect and the terror of rejection results in acute behavioral freezing, somatic hyperarousal, and expressive mutism. The RCBS items directly reflect the conscious manifestation of this psychological gridlock.

Cognitive-Attentional and Self-Awareness Frameworks

The cognitive grounding of the RCBS draws heavily from Charles Carver and Michael Scheier’s Cybernetic Control Theory of Self-Regulation and Arnold Buss’s theory of self-consciousness. According to Buss (1980), self-consciousness is bifurcated into private self-consciousness (attunement to internal thoughts, visceral states, and bodily sensations) and public self-consciousness (the chronic awareness of oneself as a social object visible to others). Cheek and Melchior (1990) demonstrated that shyness represents an acute intensification of public self-consciousness under conditions of perceived social-evaluative scrutiny.

In the contemporary cognitive models formulated by Clark and Wells (1995) and Rapee and Heimberg (1997), individuals encountering social situations construct an internalized mental representation of how they appear to external observers. Shy individuals project an excessively negative, flawed social image, which captures attentional resources and shifts focus away from the external conversational flow and inward onto interoceptive sensations (e.g., trembling, tachycardia) and negative self-talk (“I am going to look foolish”). The RCBS operationalizes this cognitive distortion through its focus on conversational inhibition, acute awkwardness, and the subjective struggle to act naturally in novel interpersonal environments.

7. Validity

The construct validity of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale has been empirically substantiated through decades of psychometric investigations examining convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and experimental validity across varied demographic groups.

Convergent Validity

The RCBS exhibits extensive convergent validity when correlated against other validated self-report instruments measuring social distress, evaluation anxiety, and interpersonal difficulty. Empirical studies demonstrate consistently high, statistically significant positive correlations between the RCBS and:

• The Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS; Leary, 1983), with correlation coefficients typically exceeding r = .70 to .78, indicating shared variance in subjective social anxiety.
• The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983), yielding coefficients ranging between r = .55 and .65, confirming that fear of unfavorable judgment is an intrinsic cognitive component of RCBS scores.
• The Social Reticence Scale (Jones & Russell, 1982), demonstrating correlations of r = .72 to .81 with RCBS shyness scores.
• The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 1987) self-report version, correlating strongly at r = .65 to .75 across community and student samples.

Discriminant Validity

A critical psychometric hallmark of the RCBS is its demonstrated ability to discriminate shyness from distinct yet superficially related constructs, most notably sociability, generalized depression, and general neuroticism:

• Sociability: Across multiple large-scale psychometric studies (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Cheek, 1983; Bruch et al., 1989), the correlation between the RCBS and the Buss-Plomin Sociability Subscale ranges from r = −.20 to −.30. This modest negative association proves that shyness and low sociability share less than 10% common variance, verifying that the scale does not conflate social fear with a lack of interest in interpersonal relationships.
• Extraversion vs. Neuroticism: When mapped onto the Five-Factor Model of personality (Big Five / NEO-PI-R), the RCBS correlates moderately negatively with Extraversion (r = −.45 to −.55), but this correlation is primarily localized to the warmth, assertiveness, and positive emotions facets, rather than the excitement-seeking facet. Concurrently, it correlates moderately positively with Neuroticism (r = .40 to .50), primarily driven by the anxiety and vulnerability facets, demonstrating that the RCBS occupies a unique structural space at the intersection of high neuroticism and low social assertiveness without being redundant with either broad supertrait.
• Depressive Symptoms: Correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) typically range from r = .25 to .38, indicating that while chronic social distress may mildly elevate depressive affect, the RCBS measures social-evaluative inhibition rather than generalized anhedonia or cognitive triad depression.

Criterion-Related and Observer Validity

The RCBS exhibits exceptional criterion-related validity when evaluated against multi-informant reports and real-world behavioral observations:

• Aggregated Informant Ratings: In seminal studies conducted by Cheek (1983) and Melchior and Cheek (1990), self-reported RCBS scores were correlated with aggregated shyness ratings provided independently by close friends and family members. The resulting correlation coefficients were remarkably high (r = .68 for the 13-item version; r = .69 for the 20-item version), confirming that self-reported scores on the RCBS accurately reflect observable behavioral realities noticed by long-term acquaintances.
• Original Scale Convergence: The 13-item revised scale correlates at r = .96 with the original 9-item Cheek & Buss (1981) scale, confirming near-complete construct continuity while offering improved psychometric breadth and variance capture.

Laboratory and Experimental Validity

Laboratory paradigms provide robust behavioral and physiological validation for the RCBS. When subjected to unstructured dyadic interactions with opposite-sex confederates, individuals scoring high on the RCBS demonstrate objectively measured behavioral differences relative to low-scoring counterparts, including significantly longer latencies to initial vocalization, shorter overall speaking durations, substantially fewer and shorter periods of mutual eye contact, higher frequencies of self-manipulative nervous gestures (e.g., hair twirling, face touching), and heightened autonomic activation as evidenced by sustained elevations in heart rate and galvanic skin response (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Melchior & Cheek, 1990).

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale confirms that it possesses exceptional internal consistency, strong split-half reliability, and high temporal stability across longitudinal retest intervals.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency estimates for the RCBS consistently surpass standard psychometric thresholds across varied adult, undergraduate, and adolescent populations:

• 13-Item Version: In the baseline normative validation sample of college students (Cheek, 1983), the scale yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .90. Sub-sample analyses indicated nearly identical reliability across genders, with men exhibiting α = .90 and women exhibiting α = .89. Independent cross-validation studies (e.g., Leary, 1991; Crozier, 2005) have consistently reported Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .86 to .91 across diverse educational and cultural settings.
• 20-Item Version: In the 20-item extended cohort (Cheek & Melchior, 1985; Melchior & Cheek, 1990) consisting of 326 college students, the internal consistency coefficient reached α = .94, with a sample mean of 51.8 and a standard deviation of 13.6.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for the 13-item version demonstrate robust homogeneity, with individual item correlations consistently falling between r = .48 and .76, confirming that each statement contributes significantly to the latent trait without redundant item content.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because shyness is operationalized as an enduring temperamental trait rather than a fluctuating emotional state, temporal stability is a vital psychometric benchmark:

• 45-Day Retest Interval: Cheek (1983) documented a 45-day test-retest correlation of r = .88 for the 13-item RCBS in an undergraduate cohort. Melchior and Cheek (1990) observed a 45-day test-retest stability coefficient of r = .91 for the 20-item variant among college women.
• Long-Term Longitudinal Stability: Longitudinal follow-up assessments over periods spanning 6 months to 2 years in university populations have documented stability coefficients ranging from r = .72 to .79, indicating substantial longitudinal persistence consistent with genetic and temperamental models of personality.

Measurement Precision and Standard Error

Given the standard deviation of approximately 9.6 to 10.2 observed across typical college cohorts on the 13-item version and an alpha of .90, the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) is approximately 3.0 to 3.2 raw score points. This tight error margin allows researchers and clinicians to establish reliable 95% confidence intervals around individual observed scores, facilitating clinical tracking and outcome measurement.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive factor analytic investigations utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have examined the internal structural topology of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale. These studies have debated whether the instrument represents a fundamentally unidimensional construct or a hierarchical, multidimensional structure reflecting cognitive, affective, and behavioral sub-components.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In original principal components and maximum likelihood exploratory factor analyses conducted by Cheek and Buss (1981, 1983), the unrotated first factor accounted for a dominant proportion of the total item variance (typically between 42% and 52%), with an initial eigenvalue well exceeding 5.0. Scree plot inspections universally revealed a steep drop-off between the first and second factors, with subsequent eigenvalues hovering near or below 1.0. This strong single-factor dominance provided the mathematical justification for summing all items into a single composite shyness score.

However, when oblique rotations (such as Promax or Direct Oblimin) are applied to extract secondary variance, the items reliably split into two or three intercorrelated sub-dimensions:

• Factor 1: Subjective Social Discomfort / Anxious Distress (Affective-Cognitive): Captures internal somatic tension, fear, and cognitive apprehension. Core loading items include Item 1 (“I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well”, loading ≈ .74), Item 4 (“I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions”, loading ≈ .71), and Item 8 (“I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority”, loading ≈ .65).
• Factor 2: Behavioral Awkwardness / Social Reticence: Taps overt expressive difficulties, gaze aversion, and conversational initiation deficits. Core loading items include Item 2 (“I am socially somewhat awkward”, loading ≈ .78), Item 7 (“It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting new people”, loading ≈ .70), Item 10 (“I have trouble looking someone right in the eye”, loading ≈ .62), and Item 11 (“I feel inhibited in social situations”, loading ≈ .75).
• Factor 3: Conversational Fluidity / Social Competence (Reversed Items): Items that assess ease of interaction and absence of inhibition (Item 3, Item 6, Item 9, Item 12). While these items occasionally form an artifactual “reverse-wording” method factor, they substantially reflect perceived self-efficacy in casual dialogue.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses in diverse samples have contrasted three competing structural models:

1. Strict Unidimensional Model: All 13 items load directly onto a single latent shyness factor. Across multiple studies (e.g., Bruch et al., 1989; Hopko et al., 2005), this model demonstrates acceptable to good fit indices when minor residual covariances among similarly phrased reverse-scored items are freed: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .91 – .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90 – .93, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .058 – .068, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .042 – .051.
2. Two-Factor Correlated Model: Separating items into “Subjective Anxiety/Discomfort” and “Behavioral Inhibition/Awkwardness”. This model yields marginal improvements in statistical fit (CFI = .94 – .96, RMSEA = .048 – .055), but the extremely high latent inter-factor correlation (typically r > .80) suggests that the two dimensions reflect closely linked expressions of the same overarching construct.
3. Bifactor Model: A robust general shyness factor onto which all items load strongly, accompanied by specific orthogonal group factors (such as behavioral avoidance and reverse-worded method variance). The bifactor model consistently yields the highest statistical fit metrics (CFI > .97, RMSEA < .045), with the general factor accounting for over 80% of the common variance (Explained Common Variance; ECV > .80). This provides rigorous mathematical justification for reporting and interpreting the total composite score in psychological research and clinical practice.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale is a structured, standardized, objective self-report questionnaire. The operational specifications of the instrument are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS)
• Alternative Variants: 13-Item Revised Version (Cheek, 1983); 20-Item Extended Version (Cheek & Melchior, 1985); Original 9-Item Version (Cheek & Buss, 1981)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or online survey platforms; suitable for individual or mass group administration
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 14 and older) and adults across the life span; appropriate for collegiate, community, and clinical cohorts
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for the 13-item version; 5 to 8 minutes for the 20-item version
• Standard Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale with anchor ratings:
  • 1 = Very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree
  • 2 = Uncharacteristic
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Characteristic
  • 5 = Very characteristic or true, strongly agree
• Scoring and Directionality Protocol:
  • Four items are positively worded (reflecting confidence, ease, or lack of inhibition) and must be reverse-coded prior to computing the total composite score: Item 3, Item 6, Item 9, and Item 12.
  • Reverse scoring transformation: 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1. (Mathematically: Reversed Score = 6 − Raw Score).
  • Total score calculation: Sum the ratings across all 13 items following reverse transformation.
  • Theoretical score range for the 13-item RCBS: 13 to 65. Higher scores indicate greater levels of trait shyness, social distress, and behavioral inhibition.
  • Note on 14-item administration: When Item 14 (“During conversations with new acquaintances, I worry about saying something dumb”) is included as part of the expanded 14-item format, scores range from 14 to 70 without altering the reverse scoring protocol of Items 3, 6, 9, and 12.
• Normative Reference Values (College Students):
  • Men: Mean = 33.3 (SD ≈ 10.1)
  • Women: Mean = 32.4 (SD ≈ 9.8)
  • Combined Sample Mean: ≈ 32.8 (SD ≈ 10.0)
  • Quartile Interpretive Categorizations:
    • Scores 13 – 25: Low Shyness / Unshy (Socially confident, low social anxiety, high ease in novel situations)
    • Scores 26 – 38: Average / Moderate Shyness (Normative situational hesitation in formal or high-stakes interactions)
    • Scores 39 – 48: Elevated Shyness (Marked interpersonal inhibition, frequent social awkwardness and somatic tension)
    • Scores 49 – 65: Severe / Extreme Shyness (Substantial social impairment, pervasive avoidance, high probability of comorbid Social Anxiety Disorder)

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original precursor shyness scale was published in 1981 by Jonathan M. Cheek and Arnold H. Buss in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The expanded and refined 13-item instrument, the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS), was developed and standardized by Dr. Jonathan M. Cheek in 1983 at Wellesley College, with the expanded 20-item tripartite version presented in 1985 (Cheek & Melchior, 1985).

Copyright and Permission Status: The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale is copyrighted (© 1983, Jonathan M. Cheek). Dr. Cheek established an open-access policy for non-commercial educational and scientific research: the scale may be used freely without explicit written permission or licensing fees in non-profit academic research, university teaching, and clinical training settings, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is cited in all resulting theses, presentations, and publications.

For commercial assessments, proprietary clinical software implementations, revenue-generating applications, or formal publication within commercial diagnostic batteries, users must contact the copyright holder (Dr. Jonathan M. Cheek, Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA) to secure written authorization and contractual licensing terms.

12. References

• Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33(4-5), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1159/000277057
• Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability reexamined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 904–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.904
• Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. W. H. Freeman.
• Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. John Wiley & Sons.
• Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2
• Cheek, J. M. (1983). The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
• Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1990). Shyness as a personality trait. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment: Perspectives from social psychology (pp. 315–337). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571183.015
• Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330
• Cheek, J. M., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1999). Varieties of shyness in adolescence and adulthood. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp. 224–250). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195119473.003.0011
• Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1985, August). Measuring the three components of shyness. In M. H. Davis & S. L. Franzoi (Co-chairs), Emotion, personality, and personal well-being II. Symposium conducted at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
• Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 47–82). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0525-3_3
• Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). Guilford Press.
• Crozier, W. R. (2005). Measuring shyness: Analysis of the Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.002
• Hopko, D. R., Stowell, J., Jones, W. H., Armento, M. E., & Cheek, J. M. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale with green and non-green collegiate samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8402_08
• Jones, W. H., & Russell, D. (1982). The Social Reticence Scale: An objective measure of shyness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(6), 629–631. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4606_14
• Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093007
• Leary, M. R. (1991). Social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 182–184). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50010-8
• Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173. https://doi.org/10.1159/000414022
• Melchior, L. A., & Cheek, J. M. (1990). Shyness and anxious self-preoccupation during a social interaction. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 117–130.
• Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3

13. Items of the Scale