Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS)

Abstract

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) is a premier self-report psychometric instrument designed to evaluate social interaction anxiety—specifically the distress, apprehension, and behavioral inhibition experienced when initiating, engaging in, and sustaining interpersonal discourse with peers, authority figures, and strangers. Developed concurrently with its companion instrument, the Social Phobia Scale (SPS), by Australian clinical psychologists Richard P. Mattick and J. Christopher Clarke (first circulated in 1989 and formally published in 1998), the SIAS was formulated to disentangle pervasive interactional fears from specific performance or scrutiny anxiety. The instrument comprises 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all characteristic or true of me”) to 4 (“Extremely characteristic or true of me”), yielding a total composite score between 0 and 80. Three items (Items 5, 9, and 11) are positively worded and reverse-scored to mitigate acquiescence bias. Across more than three decades of extensive psychometric investigation involving clinical cohorts diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), subclinical groups, and non-clinical community samples, the SIAS has demonstrated exceptional internal consistency (typically ranging from α = .88 to α = .94), robust test-retest reliability across diverse test intervals ($r = .86$ to $.92$), and solid convergent and discriminant validity against parallel constructs of depression, generalized anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have continually affirmed either a dominant unidimensional construct or a bifactor structure wherein a substantive interaction anxiety factor explains the vast majority of common variance, with an ancillary method factor capturing variance attributable to the reverse-worded items. The SIAS remains an indispensable gold standard in clinical trials, psychopathology research, cognitive-behavioral assessment, and epidemiological screening worldwide.

Keywords

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, SIAS, Social Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Assessment of Social Phobia, Scrutiny Fear, Interpersonal Anxiety

Authors

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale was developed by Richard P. Mattick and J. Christopher Clarke. At the time of the scale’s foundational research and initial validation manuscripts, both authors were affiliated with the School of Psychology at the University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Richard P. Mattick subsequently served as Professor of Clinical Psychology and Executive Director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at UNSW Sydney, publishing extensively on anxiety disorders, substance dependence, and psychotherapeutic efficacy. J. Christopher Clarke made foundational contributions to Australian behavior therapy, behavioral medicine, and the empirical conceptualization of human phobic conditioning.

Purpose

The primary clinical and theoretical impetus for the development of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) was the realization in the late 1980s that extant psychometric instruments measuring social anxiety failed to cleanly distinguish between two clinically and topographically distinct symptom dimensions: performance scrutiny fears versus dynamic social interaction fears. Prior scales, such as Watson and Friend’s (1969) Social Avoidance and Distress (SAD) scale and Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) scale, provided valuable indices of distress and cognitive evaluation concerns, but blended disparate situational domains or emphasized cognitive constructs to the exclusion of behavioral and somatic anxiety evoked during live interpersonal exchanges.

Mattick and Clarke recognized that individuals diagnosed with social phobia under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (spanning DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-5) frequently exhibit divergent clinical presentations. Some individuals suffer primarily from discrete performance anxiety, which manifests when eating, drinking, writing, or speaking while being actively observed or scrutinized by others. Conversely, other patients present with generalized social phobia characterized by crippling anxiety in reciprocal social encounters—such as maintaining small talk, attending parties, meeting authority figures, expressing personal opinions, initiating romantic conversations, or resolving interpersonal disagreements. The SIAS was designed to capture this latter dimension: the pervasive fear of interacting with others in one-on-one or group settings where verbal exchange, nonverbal communication, and dynamic mutual feedback occur.

In clinical practice, the SIAS serves three interrelated purposes: diagnostic screening, case conceptualization, and treatment outcome monitoring. Clinicians utilize the scale during intake assessments to gauge the severity of interpersonal impairment, establish baseline behavioral inhibition, and screen for Social Anxiety Disorder across community mental health, university counseling, and outpatient psychiatry contexts. Because the scale possesses elevated sensitivity to therapeutic change, it is ubiquitous in randomized controlled trials of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), exposure therapy, social skills training, and pharmacological agents (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; SSRIs). In research settings, the SIAS enables exact stratification of clinical versus subclinical participants, supports the testing of sophisticated cognitive models of psychopathology, and facilitates cross-cultural comparisons of social reticence and relational functioning.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the SIAS is social interaction anxiety. Social interaction anxiety represents a persistent, debilitating emotional state characterized by intense subjective distress, cognitive preoccupation with personal inadequacy, autonomic arousal, and behavioral inhibition or avoidance during situations that involve reciprocal interpersonal engagement. Unlike passive scrutiny situations where an individual is observed while performing a task, interaction situations demand continuous, unpredictable processing of incoming social cues, fluid conversational turn-taking, verbal articulation, and nonverbal signaling.

The construct encompasses several distinct yet highly interrelated behavioral, cognitive, and affective facets:

• Dyadic and Group Conversational Engagement: Items such as Item 4 (“I find it difficult to mix comfortably with the people I work with”), Item 7 (“When mixing socially, I am uncomfortable”), Item 10 (“I have difficulty talking with other people”), and Item 19 (“I am tense mixing in a group”) evaluate the profound distress experienced when attempting to integrate into informal social clusters, workplaces, or group gatherings.
• Interactions with Unfamiliar Persons or Distant Acquaintances: Encountering strangers or individuals outside one’s intimate inner circle poses acute threats for socially anxious individuals. Item 6 (“I tense up if I meet an acquaintance in the street”), Item 16 (“I am nervous mixing with people I don’t know well”), and Item 20 (“I am unsure whether to greet someone I know only slightly”) capture the anticipation of awkwardness, paralysis of initiative, and social hesitance triggered by spontaneous or unplanned public interactions.
• Hierarchical and Evaluative Interactions: Asymmetry in power or social status amplifies evaluation apprehension. Item 1 (“I get nervous if I have to speak with someone in authority (teacher, boss, etc.)”) and Item 13 (“I find it difficult to disagree with another’s point of view”) specifically tap the acute dread of asserting one’s position, communicating with superiors, or navigating potential interpersonal conflict.
• Intimate and Self-Disclosure Dynamics: Revealing internal states creates perceived vulnerability to rejection or humiliation. Item 3 (“I become tense if I have to talk about myself or my feelings”), Item 8 (“I feel tense if I am alone with just one other person”), and Item 14 (“I have difficulty talking to attractive persons of the opposite sex”) measure the heightened vulnerability evoked by dyadic intimacy, romantic interest, and self-disclosure.
• Cognitive Preoccupations and Performance Anxieties: Cognitive components are prominently reflected in Item 12 (“I worry about expressing myself in case I appear awkward”), Item 15 (“I find myself worrying that I won’t know what to say in social situations”), Item 17 (“I feel I’ll say something embarrassing when talking”), and Item 18 (“When mixing in a group, I find myself worrying I will be ignored”). These items target catastrophic anticipatory thoughts regarding conversational failure, social exclusion, and visible awkwardness.
• Nonverbal and Somatic Communication Behaviors: Item 2 (“I have difficulty making eye contact with others”) reflects a central bodily marker of social anxiety: the disruption of normal mutual gaze, which socially anxious individuals often perceive as an intensely threatening vehicle for interpersonal scrutiny.

In total, the construct reflects a systemic failure to perceive the interpersonal realm as safe, leading individuals to interpret ambiguity as catastrophic social rejection, which drives vicious cycles of behavioral withdrawal, protective safety behaviors, and chronic loneliness.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the SIAS is rooted in the cognitive-behavioral paradigms of social anxiety articulated by Clark and Wells (1995) and Rapee and Heimberg (1997). These models posit that individuals with social phobia harbor deep-seated, dysfunctional core beliefs regarding themselves (e.g., “I am inherently inept, boring, and socially flawed”) and others (e.g., “Others are critical, highly demanding, and looking for reasons to reject me”).

When an individual entering a social interaction is confronted by the requirement to converse, several interconnected mechanisms trigger acute interaction anxiety:

• Appraisal of Threat and Shift in Attentional Focus: According to the Clark and Wells cognitive model, the onset of an interaction triggers perceived social danger. The individual rapidly shifts attention inward toward a detailed, interoceptive monitoring of the self. This self-focused attention manifests as a vivid mental representation of how they appear to others (“the observer perspective”). On the SIAS, items such as “I worry about expressing myself in case I appear awkward” reflect this hyper-vigilant cognitive surveillance.
• Allocation of Attentional Resources and Processing of External Cues: Simultaneously, as described by Rapee and Heimberg (1997), individuals allocate cognitive resources both to their internal negative self-image and to external monitoring for signs of disinterest, disapproval, or boredom from their conversational partner. This divided attention drains executive processing capacity, impairing verbal fluency, causing hesitation in conversational turn-taking, and validating the respondent’s belief that “I won’t know what to say in social situations” (Item 15).
• Safety Behaviors and Nonverbal Inhibitions: To stave off the imagined threat of severe interpersonal disapproval, the individual engages in covert and overt safety behaviors. These include avoiding eye contact (Item 2), keeping speech to a minimal threshold, suppressing emotional expression (Item 3), and agreeing passively with interlocutors to avert friction (Item 13). Paradoxically, these safety behaviors disrupt the natural cadence of reciprocal communication, causing partners to react with confusion or distance, thereby confirming the individual’s catastrophic fears.
• Evolutionary and Dominance Hierarchy Perspectives: Evolutionary theorists (e.g., Gilbert, 2001; Trower & Gilbert, 1989) frame social interaction anxiety through the lens of involuntary submissive strategies within human dominance hierarchies. Interactions with perceived higher-status figures (Item 1: authority figures; Item 14: attractive prospective romantic partners) activate an evolutionary “defense system” designed to inhibit confident approach behavior and signal non-threat to dominant conspecifics. When applied maladaptively across egalitarian social interactions, this submissive script manifests as subjective tenseness, conversational paralysis, and clinical distress.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the SIAS have been comprehensively evaluated across clinical, college, and broad community populations spanning numerous cultural contexts.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their seminal validation investigation, Mattick and Clarke (1998) examined the convergent validity of the SIAS in clinical samples of patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for social phobia, agoraphobia, and panic disorder, alongside college students and community volunteers. The SIAS correlated substantially and positively with established indices of social anxiety, including the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; correlations ranging from $r = .55$ to $.71$) and Watson and Friend’s Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD; correlations from $r = .65$ to $.76$). In contrast, its companion instrument, the SPS (which assesses scrutiny anxiety during public performance, eating, or writing), correlated with the SIAS at approximately $r = .65$ to $.72$, demonstrating that while both tools capture overlapping variance within the overarching spectrum of social phobia, they retain distinct construct variance corresponding to performance versus interactive domains.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied psychiatric cohorts have corroborated these relationships. Brown, Turovsky, Heimberg, et al. (1997) assessed the SIAS across diverse anxiety disorder populations, confirming that the scale correlates strongly with the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) Social Phobia Subscale ($r = .78$) and moderately with generalized indices of state-trait anxiety measured by the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T; $r = .58$) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; $r = .43$ to $.54$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is exceptionally robust. In comparative trials, patients diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder consistently attain dramatically higher mean scores on the SIAS ($M \approx 34.6$ to $49.0$, depending on whether the sample has generalized or specific SAD) compared to healthy control participants ($M \approx 14.0$ to $19.0$) and clinical cohorts diagnosed with Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), or Major Depressive Disorder ($M \approx 20.0$ to $28.0$). Brown et al. (1997) demonstrated that the SIAS selectively indexes social interaction fears rather than diffuse neuroticism or non-social somatic arousal. Peters (2000) evaluated the discriminant utility of the SIAS, SPS, and SPAI, demonstrating through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves that the SIAS effectively distinguishes between individuals with generalized social phobia and other anxiety disorders with high sensitivity and specificity.

Predictive and Treatment Validity

The SIAS exhibits profound sensitivity to cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment effects. Multiple clinical outcome studies (Mattick & Peters, 1988; Mattick, Peters, & Clarke, 1989; Heimberg et al., 1998) have recorded large pre-to-post treatment effect sizes (Cohen’s $d > 1.0$) on the SIAS following structured CBT involving exposure and cognitive restructuring. Additionally, reductions in SIAS scores during therapy reliably predict long-term decreases in functional impairment and improvements in interpersonal relationship satisfaction and occupational functioning at 6- and 12-month follow-up evaluations.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the SIAS has been replicated across thousands of clinical and non-clinical participants worldwide.

Internal Consistency

In their original validation report, Mattick and Clarke (1998) reported high internal consistency for the 20-item instrument, documenting a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .94$ in a cohort of 243 patients diagnosed with DSM-defined social phobia, $\alpha = .93$ in a sample of agoraphobic patients ($N = 65$), and $\alpha = .88$ among undergraduate students ($N = 225$). Subsequent comprehensive studies have reported near-identical figures:

• Brown et al. (1997) observed an alpha coefficient of $\alpha = .93$ within a mixed clinical anxiety sample and $\alpha = .94$ in a primary social phobia sample.
• Osman et al. (1998) documented an alpha of $\alpha = .90$ among university undergraduates.
• Heimberg et al. (1992) found an alpha of $\alpha = .92$ across multicenter clinical trial evaluations.
• Studies evaluating translated adaptations—including German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, and Turkish versions—consistently report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning from $.86$ to $.95$, proving the structural integrity of the item pool regardless of cultural or linguistic variations.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability of the SIAS is high over diverse retest intervals, confirming that it measures a relatively stable clinical trait rather than transient state-dependent fluctuations. Mattick and Clarke (1998) reported a test-retest correlation coefficient of $r = .92$ across a 1-month interval in a sample of non-treatment-seeking participants, and $r = .92$ over a 3-week interval in a clinical waiting-list control sample. Osman et al. (1998) confirmed stability over a 4-week window in college students ($r = .86$). In clinical intervention trials, untreated wait-list control participants demonstrate stable scores across intervals ranging from 8 to 12 weeks ($r = .79$ to $.89$), verifying that natural remission without intervention is minimal and that instrument drift is negligible.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the SIAS has been the subject of extensive psychometric investigation, sparking a lively and instructive debate in clinical psychological assessment.

The Original Unidimensional Model

Mattick and Clarke (1998) conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on their clinical and student calibration samples. Utilizing principal axis factoring followed by orthogonal and oblique rotations, they determined that the scale was essentially unidimensional. A single massive interaction anxiety factor accounted for the primary share of total variance, with all 20 items loading substantially (typically above $.40$) onto this dominant construct. Consequently, the authors recommended summing all 20 items into a single composite index of social interaction anxiety.

Method Effects of Reverse-Scored Items

Subsequent confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) investigations, notably by Osman, Gutierrez, Barrios, Kopper, and Chiros (1998), questioned this single-factor solution. Osman et al. identified a 3-factor or 2-factor structure, wherein the three reverse-scored items (Item 5: “I find it easy to make friends my own age”; Item 9: “I am at ease meeting people at parties, etc.”; and Item 11: “I find it easy to think of things to talk about”) consistently clustered together to form an isolated secondary factor, often labeled “Social Facilitation” or “Social Ease.”

This finding prompted rigorous methodological scrutiny by psychometric experts, most notably Rodebaugh, Woods, and Heimberg (2007) and Rodebaugh et al. (2004). Employing structural equation modeling (SEM) and item response theory (IRT), these authors demonstrated that the secondary factor formed by Items 5, 9, and 11 is not a distinct clinical construct; rather, it represents a well-documented methodological artifact resulting from reverse-worded item phrasing (method effect). When CFAs are specified as a bifactor model—featuring one general substantive factor (Social Interaction Anxiety) and one orthogonal method factor capturing the shared method variance of the reverse-scored items—the model yields fit indices ($CFI > .95$, $TLI > .95$, $RMSEA < .06$). Furthermore, IRT analyses revealed that Items 5, 9, and 11 possess lower discrimination parameters and poorer measurement precision across lower and moderate levels of trait anxiety compared to the direct, straightforwardly phrased items.

Short-Form Derivatives: The SIAS-6

Due to the method artifact introduced by the reverse-scored items and the clinical demand for brief screening instruments in high-volume settings, Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, et al. (2012) and Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, et al. (2012) applied advanced IRT and CFA techniques to extract refined short forms. Peters et al. (2012) established the SIAS-6, a 6-item version that eliminates the reverse-scored items entirely and selects the most psychometrically discriminative straightforward items (Items 1, 2, 8, 12, 16, and 19). Studies by Le Blanc et al. (2014) confirmed that the SIAS-6 correlates at $r > .90$ with the full 20-item scale, replicates its diagnostic accuracy, and presents a pure unidimensional factor structure without method noise.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Construct: Social Interaction Anxiety (fear of, and distress during, verbal and nonverbal reciprocal interpersonal interaction).
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older; applicable across clinical outpatient, inpatient, university, and community settings.
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; available in paper-and-pencil, computer-administered, and digital web-based formats.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 20 items.
• Item Phrasing and Polarity:
  • 17 items are directly worded (indicating social anxiety/distress).
  • 3 items are reverse-worded (Items 5, 9, and 11; indicating social comfort/ease).
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert-Type Scale):
  • 0 = Not at all characteristic or true of me
  • 1 = Slightly characteristic or true of me
  • 2 = Moderately characteristic or true of me
  • 3 = Very characteristic or true of me
  • 4 = Extremely characteristic or true of me
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Step 1 (Reverse Scoring): Recode Items 5, 9, and 11 by inverting the score ($0 \rightarrow 4$, $1 \rightarrow 3$, $2 \rightarrow 2$, $3 \rightarrow 1$, $4 \rightarrow 0$).
  • Step 2 (Item Summation): Sum the scores across all 20 items (incorporating the recoded values for Items 5, 9, and 11).
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 80 points.
• Clinical Interpretation and Benchmark Cutoff Thresholds:
  • Scores < 34: Within normal to subclinical ranges. Scores from 0 to 20 are common in non-anxious community cohorts ($M \approx 18.0, SD \approx 10.0$). Scores between 21 and 33 represent mild to moderate social concern that may warrant clinical observation but does not reliably cross the threshold for syndromal social phobia.
  • Scores ≥ 34: Established clinical cutoff score (Peters, 2000; Brown et al., 1997). Scores in this range suggest a strong likelihood of meeting diagnostic criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia), exhibiting high diagnostic sensitivity ($82%$) and specificity ($78%$).
  • Scores ≥ 43: Strongly indicative of Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder, characterized by pervasive impairment across almost all areas of life, extensive safety behaviors, and high psychiatric comorbidity (e.g., major depressive disorder, secondary substance abuse).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale was developed by Richard P. Mattick and J. Christopher Clarke. The scale items were initially circulated in an unpublished research manuscript in 1989 and were published along with their definitive peer-reviewed validation data in the journal Behaviour Research and Therapy in 1998 (Mattick & Clarke, 1998).

In alignment with the scientific intent of its authors, the SIAS was placed into the public domain for research and clinical practice. It may be administered, scored, and reproduced without royalty fees or formal permission for non-commercial scientific research, clinical diagnostic screening, and personal assessment, provided that proper bibliographic credit is cited in publications and academic presentations. Commercial licensing, distribution in fee-for-service enterprise software platforms, or third-party digital health applications typically requires consultation of copyright terms held by the original publisher (Elsevier Ltd. / Behaviour Research and Therapy) or direct contact with the primary author.

References

• Brown, E. J., Turovsky, J., Heimberg, R. G., Juster, H. R., Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.1.21
• 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). The Guilford Press.
• Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., Gier-Lonsway, S. L., & Kim, H.-S. (2012). Short forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.648295
• Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: The role of attraction, social competition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24(4), 723–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70260-4
• Heimberg, R. G., Mueller, G. P., Holt, C. S., Hope, D. A., & Liebowitz, M. R. (1992). Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior Therapy, 23(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80308-9
• Le Blanc, A. L., Bruce, L. C., Heimberg, R. G., Hope, D. A., Blanco, C., Schneier, F. R., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2014). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two short forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Assessment, 21(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114521279
• Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1989). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Unpublished manuscript, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
• Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6
• Mattick, R. P., & Peters, L. (1988). Treatment of severe social phobia: Effects of guided exposure with and without cognitive restructuring. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.2.251
• Mattick, R. P., Peters, L., & Clarke, J. C. (1989). Exposure and cognitive restructuring for social phobia: A controlled study. Behavior Therapy, 20(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(89)80117-3
• Osman, A., Gutierrez, P. M., Barrios, F. X., Kopper, B. A., & Chiros, C. E. (1998). The Social Phobia Scale and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale: Evaluation of psychometric properties. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023000806461
• Peters, L. (2000). Discriminant validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(9), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00131-X
• Peters, L., Sunderland, M., Andrews, G., Rapee, R. M., & Mattick, R. P. (2012). Development of a short form of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025245
• 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
• Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.001
• Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Chambless, D. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: The factor structure and item properties of the Social Phobia Scale and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.169
• Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027806

Items of the Scale