Syness,Self-confidence and Social Interaction

7/21/2019 Syness,Self-confidence and Social Interaction

1/16

Shyness, Self-Confidence, and Social InteractionAuthor(s): Philip Manning and George RaySource: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 178-192Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786777

Accessed: 02/12/2009 14:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786777?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2786777?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

Social Psychology Quarterly

1993, Vol. 56, No. 3, 178-192

Shyness, Self-Confidence,

and

Social Interaction*

PHILIPMANNING

GEORGE

RAY

Cleveland

State University

Thispaper describes

the behavior of

shy

and

self-confident

ndividuals.

Althoughthere

is

a

literature

concerning

the causes and

consequences of shyness

and

self-confidence, nobody

has systematically investigated

what such

people actually do.

This

paper reportsfindings

obtained in a

laboratory

about

conversational

strategies

used

by shy

and

self-confident

men

and

women. Participants

were

chosen

from introductory

ourses at a midwestern

university

and were asked

to

complete

the Personal

Report of

Communication

Apprehension PRCA)

questionnaire. Those with

either

high

or

low scores

then

were asked

to

participate in a

laboratory experiment

n which

dyads got

to know each

other.

These

interactionswere

audio- and

videotaped. Throughconversation-analytic echniques,

verbal

patterns of both

shy and self-confidentbehavior

were

identified.

In this paperwe discuss

the

management

of

conversational encounters by

both

shy

and

self-confident people. Although

there exists

a

large literature about the causes and conse-

quences of shyness and self-confidence, very

little is known about how such people conduct

mundane encounters (for

a

recent overview,

see

Crozier 1990).

Thus we

focus

here on the

conversationalprocedures used by people to

display either shyness or self-confidence.

These proceduresmake shyness observable-

and-reportable. as Garfinkel puts

it

(1984,

p. 1). As

a

starting point for

this

study we

examine the typical procedures used by

unacquaintedpeople

to

get

to

know each

other. We

will

suggest

that

shy

and self-

confident

speakers modify

these basic

proce-

dures, albeit

in

different ways.

Maynard

and Zimmerman

(1984) con-

ducted

an

importantexperiment designed to

specify the procedures used by acquainted

and unacquainted dyads to initiate topical

talk. These authorsbelieve that unacquainted

dyads

must resolve three issues

in

order to

introduce

a

new topic. The first issue is

relevance, which suggests that

a

preferred

*

Address

all

correspondence

to

Philip Manning,

Department of Sociology, Cleveland

State

University,

Cleveland,

OH 44115. An earlier version of this

paper

was presented at the annual meeting of the Speech

CommunicationAssociation, held in Chicago in Novem-

ber 1992. We are grateful to Robert Hopper,

Bill

Morgan,

Sarah

Matthews,

and

Wendy

Leeds-Hurwitz or

their critical

readings

of

various drafts

of this

paper.

We

also

wish

to

thank

he

three

anonymous

reviewers

at

SPQ

for their

insightful

comments.

Beverly

Shankman

helped

considerably

with

data

collection.

Financialassistancefor

this

study

was

provided by

the

Department

of

Sociology

at

Cleveland State University.

topic must be withheld until it

can be

fitted

naturally nto

a

conversation.

The new

topic

must answer the question

Why that now?

(Maynard and Zimmerman

1984, p.

301;

Schegloff and Sacks

1973). Second,

topics

introduced by

unacquainted dyads must

be

sensitive to the

unsaid,

taken-for-granted

backgroundknowledgeof the

speakerand the

hearer (also see Beach

1983; Hopper 1981).

Maynard and Zimmerman (1984, p. 302)

suggest

that

this background

knowledge

must

be handledcarefully so as to

avoid sensitive

areas. Hence these

territoriesof the self

(Goffman

1971) require

ritual

care. The third

issue to be resolved

by unacquainted

dyads

is

the

display

of

an

appropriate

elationship

in

their talk.

Both speaker and hearer wish

to

appear

riendly

but

not

overfriendly;although

they do not want to

appeardistant,neitherdo

they want

to

be

too self-exposed

or too

inquisitive(AltmanandTaylor 1973;also see

Knappand

Vangelisti 1992). Giddens

(1990)

suggests

that

friendship

is the

process

of

gradually

revealing informationabout

oneself

to

another person.

This

process

of

gradual

self-exposure

involves

a

very

complicated

procedure

that must be

enacted

during

the

demands of

unscripted,

sequential,

conversa-

tional

interaction.

The

participants

n

Maynard and Zimmer-

man's

experiment were

44

students recruited

from a freshman

sociology

class.

Although

they

were

not

a

random

sample,

the

conver-

sational

procedures

they employed

are

likely

to

be

typical

of

the

procedures

generally

used

to introduce

topics

in

social

interaction.

Maynard

and Zimmerman

discovered that

in

an

experimental

setting, unacquainted

dyads

178


3/16

SHYNESS AND SELF-CONFIDENCE 179

usually generated topical talk either by

drawing

on their immediate environment

( setting talk ) or by

the

use

of

pretopical

sequences. These pretopical sequences used

question-answer pairs

in which the

speaker

asked the hearer either to categorize himself

or herself

in

some way, or

to

specify preferred

activities (1984, p. 305). Maynard and

Zimmermanargued

that

pretopical

sequences

often were extended

in

unacquainteddyads

because both parties were searching for a

topic that would not lead to the loss

of face by

either

participant.

In the

experimentreported

n this

paper, we

attempt o extend Maynardand

Zimmerman's

argument by showing

that at least two

psychological traits shyness and self-

confidence-can be

understood

as manipula-

tions of the

basic

interactional procedures

used to initiate topical talk.

DEFINITIONALROBLEMS

Personalcharacteristics

uch as shyness are

hardto define, both for the lay person

and

for

the social

psychologist.

In

everyday

life

people can easily identify the meaning of a

social exchange,

even

though

they

cannot

explain

this

meaning

in

words. As

in

many

other

aspects

of social

life, people

are skilled

practitioners

without

being capable

teachers

of

social interaction.Giddens (1984)

refers to

this situation as

a

distinction between prac-

tical and discursive consciousness:

the

former refers to

the

ability

to

perform

the

mundane

skills of

everyday

interaction, such

as

greetings

and

polite exchanges;

the

latter

refers to the ability to describe these skills

verbally. Typically we

cannot

give

a

discur-

sive amount even of such

apparently

simple

actions

as ending telephone

calls

(see

Sche-

gloff andSacks 1973). In

this

paper

we intend

to translatepracticalknowledge

about

shyness

and self-confidence

into discursive knowl-

edge.

Shyness

and self-confidence

have been

difficult to define

in

the

literature.

Philip

Zimbardo,

for

example,

acknowledged

that

his pioneering

Stanford

survey

of

shyness

allowed each

person

to

adopt

his

or her

definition

(1977, p. 13).

Another

prominent

researcher, JonathanCheek,

defines

shyness

as

a

temporary

emotional

reaction

triggered

by encountering

new

people

and situations

(1989, p. xv). Writing

with

Stephen

Briggs

in

a

recent volume devoted

to

shyness

and

embarrassment,

Cheek

refined this

definition,

stating

that

shyness

is the

tendency

to

feel

tense, worried,

or

awkward

during social

interactions, especially

with unfamiliarpeo-

ple (Cheek and Briggs

1990, p. 321). The

authors also suggested that shyness is the

opposite of social self-confidence

(1990,

p.

322). Although these

definitions are impor-

tant

preliminaryclassifications, they do

not

capturethe

day-to-day interactional

practices

of shy and self-confident

individuals.

Further definitional problems result from

the use

of vocabulariesthat are

distinctive to

academic

disciplines. Social

psychologists,

psychiatrists,

and

communication specialists

have

analyzed

the

problem

of

anxiety about

social interaction. Social psychologists usu-

ally

employ

the

everyday term shyness.

Psychiatrists, however, prefer the

expression

social phobia,

a

term that

suggests an

underlyingmedical problem.

The Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual

(DSM III-R) lists

various symptoms of

this disorder. The

critical

element of

the

psychiatricdefinition is

persistent ear of one

or

more

situations (the

social

phobic situations)

in

which

the

person

is exposed to possible scrutiny by others and

fears

that

he or she

may

do

somethingor

act

in a

way

that will be

humiliating

or

embarrassing AmericanPsychiatric

Associ-

ation

1987, p. 243).

At

present, several

efforts are

being

made to treat social

phobia

pharmacologically. By

contrast,

scholars in

cgmmunication

studies

prefer

the

term

com-

munication

apprehension,

which

they

define

as

an

individual's level of fear or

anxiety

associated with real or

anticipated

communi-

cation with another person or persons

(McCroskey 1982, p. 137). Although

these

scholars'

interestoften is linked to

the

anxiety

felt

by

people

before

public appearances

and

speeches,

it also includes

communication

in

small

groups

and

dyadic

encounters.

In this

paper

we

avoid the

use

of

social

phobia,

which

suggests

a

medicalization of

the

problem.

We

prefer

either the

everyday

expression

shyness

or

communication

appre-

hension,

the

term

favored

by

communication

specialists.

We use these two terms inter-

changeably

to

refer to the

tendency

to feel

tense or awkward

during

social

interaction,

especially

with

strangers.

In

this

paper

we

are

interested

in the

conversational

procedures

that

accompany

or

possibly

constitute

this

condition. Self-confidence often has been

analyzed

in

term of

communication

predispo-


4/16

180

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

sitions

such as talkativeness

and extroversion

(Ray

1986).

We define

self-confidence

as

calmness

and assertiveness during

social

interaction;

once again,

we are interested

in

specifying

the conversational strategies

that

self-confidentpersonspractice.

RESEARCH

ESIGN

The

quasi-experiment

reported

here

used

dyads

with

varying

degrees

of communication

apprehension.

Participants

were

chosen by

using the Personal

Report of

Communication

Apprehension

(PRCA).

This

measure has

been

shown

to be reliable

and valid for

identifying

decidedly apprehensive

and non-

apprehensive individuals (McCroskey 1982;

Richmond

and

McCroskey 1983).

Theoreti-

cally,

scores on the PRCA

can

range

from

24

to

120. Data from

10,000 participants

ielded

a mean score

of 65.6

with a standard

deviation

of

14.1

(McCroskey

1982, p.

168).

In

order

to ensure samples

of decidedly shy

and self-confident

participants,

we decided

to

recruit

ndividuals

with scores either below

45

(self-confident

persons)

or above

85

(shy

persons). The mean scores for the self-

confident

and the

shy participants

were 31

and 95

respectively.

Over

a six-month

period

we administered

the

PRCA to more

than

500 undergraduate

students

at a midwestern

university.

Having

identified

a cohort

of

shy

and self-confident

persons,

we then recruited

participants

or

a

laboratory

experiment.

This experiment

is

a modified

replication

of the

study reported

by

Maynard

and Zimmerman(1984).

As

in

their project, we wanted to record spontane-

ous interaction between unacquainted

per-

sons. We

videotaped

and transcribed

nterac-

tions between

20

dyads:

10

apprehensive

and

10 self-confident.

Because we considered

gender

to be a

potentially

confounding

variable,

we matched only same-sex

dyads.

Fifteen

female and five

male

dyads

took

part

in this

study.

All

participants

were

between

18 and

24

years

old.

The facilities for recording

the interactions

consisted

of

a

small-group

discussion room

with a one-way mirror. The

room contained

two chairs at

right

angles

to each other,

with a

small table between. On

the table was

a

clearly

visible

microphone.

The control room

on the other

side of the mirror contained

a

videotape recording

camera (VHS)

to which

was connected

the audio input

from the

microphone. The ensuing recordings were of

high audio and video quality.

Participantsagreed to report at appointed

times; each went to a separatewaiting room.

The participants then were led to the

small-group room, and the basic procedure

was explained to them. They were told to take

about 10 minutes to get to know one

another. Participants understood that their

anonymity would be protectedand that they

could withdraw from the experimentat any

time. We offered to erase the tapes of any

participantswho were uncomfortablewith the

experiment nobody was). Participants igned

an informed consent form and, in returnfor

their involvement, received extra credit in an

introductory ourse.

In the

Maynard and

Zimmerman

experi-

ment, participants were led to believe that

they

were

waiting

to discuss a

topic,

the title

of which was enclosed

in an

envelope

on the

table

in

front of them. Participantswere told

that a few minutes were needed to set

up

equipment

before the

experiment

and that

they

should

get

to know one another until

everything

was

ready.

After

10 or 12

minutes

the researchers revealed that the envelope

had been a ploy and that the experiment was

now complete.

In some of the

pilot

tests we followed this

format,

but after

examining

the

transcripts

we

discovered

that misinformationwas unneces-

sary

for this

experiment

and

did

not alter

the

natureof the interactions.Thereafterwe gave

all

participants

a

straightforward xplanation

of the basic

procedure

and

goals

of the

study.

This

step

involved

telling participants

to

spend a few minutes getting to know each

other. We transcribed ach

dyadic

interaction

using

the

conversation-analytic ranscription

outlined

in

Jefferson

(1984, pp. ix-xvi) (see

appendix).

RESEARCH

INDINGS

Shyness

and self-confidence

obviously

are

not absolute states to which

people

are

assigned

in

a fixed and

permanentway.

For

example,

some

people

are

shy

on some

occasions and not on

others;

others are

shy

most

of the time. From our

perspective,

shyness

describes

conversationaland interac-

tional

strategies

that individuals

employ

(hence

the idea that

people

do

shyness).

As stated

earlier, Maynard

and

Zimmerman

believe

that

unacquainteddyads

use

setting


5/16

SHYNESS

AND

SELF-CONFIDENCE

181

talk before moving into extended topical

talk

by the use of pretopical

sequences (1984, p.

314). They inferred from this point

that

by

doing pre-topical sequences,

these

parties

demonstratedan orientation to achieving a

more intimate sharedness by ritually and

mutually mapping

each other's information

preserve, therebyprovidingfor the possibility

of common territories of

self usable for

generating topical

talk

(1984, p. 314).

Our

findings reveal that shyness can

be

under-

stood

as a

manipulation

of

the

procedures

outlined by Maynardand Zimmerman.

Our

sample of self-confident participants argely

displayed the procedures

indicated

by

those

authors.

Analysis of the transcripts evealedthatthe

shy participants'

talk had

certain

general

characteristics.The opening sequences were

dominated

by setting

talk-that

is,

talk

about

the immediate

environment.

Setting

talk

typically

was extensive.

Pretopical sequences

(usually consisting

of

question-and-answer

pairs)

also were

used,

but

only rarely

did

they

initiate

a

topic. Pretopical sequences

often

were replaced by new pretopical sequences,

which typically also were rejected. After

several

rejections, participants

often returned

to setting

talk. The

linking

of the

turns

of

talk

was

very

loose

among

the

shy participants

because

they usually

chose

not

to select the

next speaker at each transition relevance

place (TRP). Easy turn transition requires

conversationalmaintenance throughback-

channel feedback and other

prompts.

Mainte-

nance

of

this

kind,

however

was not

generally

evident

in

our

transcripts. Shy participants

could have initiated topical talk by drawing

on their situated dentities

as

students,

but

this

approach was conspicuous only by

its

ab-

sence.

The conversational nteraction

of

the self-

confident

participants

was

strikingly

differ-

ent. Instead of

relying

on extensive

setting

talk

during opening sequences, they

used

a

tripartitesequence

of

1)

name

exchange, 2)

setting

comment contained

in a

turn

at

talk,

and

3)

a

pretopical sequence.

Self-confident

participants developed almost all of the

pretopicalsequences

into

topics.

This

finding

suggests

that

topics

are

unfavored ;

as a

result, many

more

topics

are available for

discussion. These

participants'

turns

at

talk

generally

were

connected

tightly;

often turns

were latched (one speaker began

as soon as

the

previous speakerstopped talking),

and we

observed

noticeably more overlap.

Self-

confident

participants often drew on

their

situated

identities as students,

normally by

using pretopical sequences

about the choice

of

courses and

majors.

Shy participantsgenerally used extensive

setting talk,

employed

pretopical sequences

that

did not initiate topical

talk, and left the

floor

open

at TRPs

by not

specifying the next

speaker.

We

noted

exceptions,

however;

these involved the talk

surrounding

particu-

lar topic. We observed

that the procedure

outlined above was

suspended

whenever

a

certain topic became

available to

a

particular

speaker.

This

finding leads us to

suggest that

shy participants

have

favored

topics which

they introduce whenever possible and then

pursue

enthusiasticallyindeed, overenthusi-

astically.

Opening Sequences

One

strategy

used

by

both

shy and

self-confident

participants

was

to

use

setting

talk.

Participants

talked either

about the

physical

details of the room or

about their

reactionsto this environment.Because all of

the conversations

reported

n

this

paper were

recorded

n

a

social

psychology

laboratory,

t

is not

surprising

that

all

of the

participants

made

at

least

passing reference to the

artificiality

of their immediate

setting.

This

finding supports

one of the

findings

of

Maynard

and

Zimmerman,

who

quote

the

following exchange:

(1)

Sharon: Hi there

Judy:

This s

no

good

Sharon: Thereare

two-waymirrors,

ne-way

mirrors,

whatever

they're

called

(Maynard

nd

Zimmerman

984, p.

304).

In this

example

Sharon's

statement

Hi

there

may

be directed

not

at

Judy

but

at the

researchers

who

she

assumes are

standing

on

the other side of

the

one-way

mirror.We

say

this because

it is

unlikely

that

Judy's

comment, This is no good, is a reply to a

standard

greeting. Thus,

Sharon's Hi there

reminds us that these interactions

are

not

strictly dyadic

because at least

during

some

periods,

the

participants

acknowledge

the

presence

of

people

who can

overhear the

conversation. This

extract therefore

gives

provisional

evidence

that the

researchersare


6/16

182 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

not completely absent from the conversational

and social interaction.Goffman (1981) makes

a similar point when he suggests that social

interaction ncludes both ratified and nonrati-

fled

participants.

He states that we should

consider the presence of nonratifiedpartici-

pants (in this case, the researchers) to be

typical:

Now considerthat much talk takes place

in

the

visual and aural range of persons who are not

ratified participantsand whose access to the

encounter, however minimal, is itself perceived

by the official participants.

These adventitious

participants

are

bystanders.

Their

presence

should be consideredthe rule, not the exception

(Goffman 1981, p. 132).

We discovered

a

tremendous

variation in

the use

of

setting

talk

by shy

and

by

self-confident

participants;

he former use

it

extensively

and

the

latter make

only passing

reference

to the

setting.

On

average,

the

shy

participants

devoted 13 turnsto

setting

talk

at

the

beginning

of the

interaction.

In

addition,

eight

of the

10

shy dyads

returned o

setting

talk

at least once later in the conversation.

Among the self-confident participants we

observed only an average of five turns of

setting talk,

all of which were brief.

Only

one

of the

10

self-confident

dyads

returned to

setting

talk later in the conversation.

The

following

extract between two

shy

participants isplays an opening sequence that

is dominated

by setting

talk:

(2) (SP6, modified)

01 A: ((nervous laughter))

A

microphone

02 B:

We're being tape recorded

03 A: I

know probably

04 B:

Huh

05

A:

Okay

06

B: I

guess they're going to observe how

nervous

we

are

07 ((laughs))

08

A: I

know

This

extract exemplifies the reliance

on

setting

talk

by shy speakers.We

notice

that

the

participants who

do not

know

each

other)

do not

exchange

either names

or

greetings,

but insteadrely on short comments about the

immediate

setting. Participants

craft their

turns as minimal unit

types.

These

speakers

continued

with

setting

talk for another five

turns

until

the

following exchange

was made:

(3) (SP6, modified)

16 A:

We should just

sit

here and

not

say

anything

17 B:

((laughs))No

we'll

be labeled

shy.

Y'know (.)

18

I dunno

19

((laughs))

20

A:

We'll start

throwing

around the

chairs

(.)

we

can

21 pretend

22

fighting

23

(7)

24 A:

Hum:: .)

Jeez(.)

Elevenoh four.

This

extract shows both

shy

participants

doing extensive

setting

talk.

Speaker

A

is

even

willing

to

speculate

on

wild

behavior

such

as

throwing

chairs

around. After

this

utterance,

B

failed to

respond,

and a

seven-second

silence

occurred.

The

setting

talk ended only when Speaker A wistfully

noted

the

time,

Eleven

oh four

(line 24).

A

similar

opening

sequence

occurred

be-

tween these two

shy

participants:

(4)

(SP4,

modified)

01

A:

Well there's a

microphone

.)

in

ront

of the

02 A:

[glass

window]

03 B: [I didn't

think

I'd] get

called

I

was

like

oh

I'll

04

fill it

((the

questionnaire))

ut

05

(2)

06 B: I

guess

08

(8)

09

A: I

wonderwhat

would

happenf

we

changed

ur

10

seating

11

positions

so our back

was to the

window

12

(2)

As in

(2),

the

participants

do not

introduce

themselves, but instead comment on the

setting.

The turns

are

coupled

only

loosely

and

supply

the

minimum

needed to

secure

sequential

relevance. B's

open-ended

com-

ment about

filling

out

a

questionnaire

pro-

duced a

two-second silence in

line 5.

After

she

added

I

guess,

another

silence oc-

curred,

this

one

lasting eight

seconds. As

in

(2), one

of

the

speakersended a

silence

by

speculating

on

the kinds of

self-presentation

they

could

practice

( I

wonder what

would

happen f we changedourseatingpositionsso

our back

was

to the

window ).

Shy participants

ypically

relied on

setting

talk at

the

beginning

of

conversations and

subsequently

returned o it

whenever

topical

talk failed. For

example,

after

a

conversation

between two

shy

participants

turned to

the

question

of financial aid

for

students,

uncer-


7/16

SHYNESS

AND SELF-CONFIDENCE

183

tainty

about students' rights

was

used as

an

opportunity

o return

o setting

talk:

(5) (SP6,modified)

92

B: Theonly

thing hey

cando is

justget

a student

93 loanout

94

A: Yeah

t's so

stupid

95 B:

Yeah

96 (6)

97

A: Theyshould

make

he

parents ay

98 (3)

99

B: Yeah

100

(1)

101 A:

When hey

gonnacome

back n?

102 (8)

103

A: It's nice table

huh

In this extract, the turns at talk are

separated

by long

silences,

and assertions

are

followed

by

simple agreement

tokens.

The

failure

of this topic

is solved by

a return

o

setting

talk. The

eight-second

silence

in line

102

occurs

because Speaker

B

has not

answered

a direct

question:

When

are

they

gonna

come

back

in?

Perhaps

she did not

reply

because

she heard

it as a rhetorical

question

and hence

one not

requiring

an

answer. In any case, the conversation is

jeopardized

by

the

length

of the

silence,

and

is sustained

only by

a return

o

setting

talk.

Maynard

and Zimmerman

note that

setting

talk is

a false

topic

in the sense

that

typically

it

is

exhausted

and

so can

be

used

only

as a

stepping-stone

o other

topics (1984,

p.

306).

As we

will

discuss

in

detail

later in

the

paper,

we

believe

that the shy participants

used

setting

talk

as

a

safe

topic,

compara-

ble to discussions

about

the weather.

By

contrast, as we will see, self-confident

participants

iewed

setting

talk

as a

dead end

to be avoided.

We consider

setting

talk to be a

conversationalequivalent

of what Goffman

(1971)

calls free supplies.

These

are

goods

or information,

such as

a match

for a

cigarette

or

directions

to the

subway,

that

anybody

can

ask for and

expect

to receive.

Both

free

supplies

and

setting

talk

have a neutral and

inconsequential aspect

that

makes them

ap-

propriate

for situations

in which individuals

wish

to disclose

as little as possible

about

themselves.

In addition, setting

talk

prevents

the

speaker

romappearing

unduly inquisitive

about

the

other

person's

information

pre-

serve

(Goffman

1971, p. 39).

In all

but

one

case,

the

self-confident

participants

xchanged

names. It is

interesting

that this

small ritual

was

used

by

almost

all of

the self-confident participantsbut only once

by the shy participants. Among the self-

confident, the general strategy then was to

make a fleeting reference to the setting and

then

to

introduce

the

first pretopical se-

quence. It is instructive that all initial


were

accepted by the

second speaker, and

each

developed into a

topic.

A

typical example

is

the following

exchange:

(7) (SCP4)

01

A:

I'm Julian

02 B: I'm

James

03 A:

Nice to

meet

you James

04

B:

Nice

to

meet you (1) ((looks at

mirror)) en bucks

05 says

06 it's on

right

now

[((laughs))]

07 A: [((laughs))It's] a

possibility

08

a

very

distinct

very distinct (.) what

what're yuh

09 taking up here?

10

B:

uh

musical theory

In

(7), the setting

talk

consists only of the

brief comment

ten bucks

says

it's on

right

now,

which

B

appended

to

his

type-

connected second pair part in line 4. Notice

that

although

A

replies

to B's

setting talk,

he

refuses

to dwell on the

matter. Instead

he

chooses to ask a

categorization question-

that

is,

a

question

which invites

recipients

to

classify

themselves

with

respect

to

such

membership

devices

as

academic

major

or

year

in school

(Maynard

and Zimmerman

1984, p. 305; Sacks 1972, p. 32).

In

(7) the

categorizationquestion

occurs

in

lines

8

and

9, when A asks what're yuh taking

[studying] up here? Whereas the shy partic-

ipantstalkedextensively about

the

setting,

in

(7)

the

participantsdispensed

with

setting

talk

very quickly

and

never returned

to

it.

Also

consider the

following example:

(8) (SCP8,modified)

01 A: Can

they hear

us=

02 B:

=

I dunno

((laughs))

03 A:

Oh::kay

04 B: Okay (3)

05 A: What'syour name again?

06 B: Lisa

07 A: That's

my

nickname.

In

(8),

both

participants

make

a

brief

reference

to the

setting,

and

then

after

a

gap

begin exchanging

basic information

about

themselves-their

names,

choice

of

major,

and so on.

Although

both

participants

knew


8/16

184

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

that

their conversation

was being recorded,

A

asks B

whether

a

recording

is

being

made,

and

B claims not to know (see

lines 1-2).

This reply

further minimizes

setting talk.

Consider

the following

three

examples

of a

simple name exchange:

(9) (SCP3)

01 A: ((extends

hand))

02 B: Awright

03 A: Bob=

04

B: =Mike

(10) (SCP7)

01 A: My name's Jeff

02 B:

I'm Joe

(.)

How

ya

doin?=

03

A:

=

all right good

(11) (SCP2)

01 A: I'm Susan (.) what's your

name?

02 B: Olena

Notice

in

these

three

cases

that the

name

exchanges

are

unremarkable

nd that the

turns

closely

follow

each

other, including

the first

two cases

in

which latching

occurs

(no

hesitation between turns).

One effect of this

exchange

is to

put participants

on

at least

a

putative

first-name

basis,

which

increases the

degreeof acquaintance nd familiarity. The

absence

of

a

name

exchange

among

shy

participants

s

a

way

of

achieving

an amount

of interactionaldistance

and

unfamiliarity.

Perhaps

an

interactional slot

or

window

of

opportunity

or

name

exchanges

is

present

at

the

beginning

of a

conversation;

if

this

is

missed,

it

is difficult

to

return

o it later.

PretopicalSequences

The term pretopical sequence refers to a

preliminary

sequence

that introduces

or

in-

vites an extended segment

of topical talk

(Maynard

and

Zimmerman

1984, p. 306).

Its

function

is to establish that

a

potentialtopic

is

acceptable,

interesting,

and unthreatening

o

the other

person. Maynard

and Zimmerman

suggest

that

a

pretopical

sequence

has

two

components:

1)

a

categorization

or

category-

activity

question

and

2)

an answer to

this

question.

If a

pretopical

sequence

is

to

develop

into

a

topical

sequence,

the

respon-

dent must both answer the

question

and

display

a

willingness

to

develop

that answer

over

a

series

of

subsequent

turns.

If

the

respondent

only

answers the

question,

espe-

cially

if that answer is

brief,

then

typically

the

first

speaker

discontinues

that pretopical

sequence

and

begins

another.

Thus, brief

replies

sometimes are

a

means of

rejectinga

potential

topic,

although they also

may be

regarded as

continuers

(Maynard and

Zimmerman 1984, p.

308). When brief

replies

are accompanied

by return

questions,

the pretopical bid is being rejected. By

contrast,

a

lengthy reply

to a

question

is

heard

as an

acceptance of the

pretopical

sequence.

For example:

(12)

01

Al: What's

ourmajor?

02

A2: Um, well my

major's hysicsbut

I

03

haven't

really

taken

a

physicsclass

yet

04

so

I

have a good

chance to change it

05 Al: I've

heard that's a good

major

(Maynard nd Zimmerman984,

p. 306).

Here the

reply

is

clearly more than

simply

an answer

to the

question

What's

your

major? It is also an

acceptance

of

the

topic

of

choosing

a

degree

at the

university. The

merger

of

answers with

acceptances of

pretopical

sequences

is

part

of

doing

self-

confidence.

By contrast,

shyness

is

displayed,

made

observable-and-reportable, hrougha

separation of answers and acceptances to

pretopicalsequences. Our data

revealed that

shy

participants

had

a

strong preference

for

rejectingpretopical

sequences.

The

following

extract

is

typical

of this

separation

between

answer and

topic rejection:

(13) (SPI)

46

A: How

long wereyou

in

the

army?

47

B:

Three

years

48

A:

Were

you ((spoken

quietly)) .) you

didn'tgo to

49 Saudidid

you?

50

B: No::o

.)

butI did

go

to

Panama

51 A:

Did you?How was

it?

52 B:

Yeah hat

was

pretty

ool.

In

(13),

B answers all

of A's

questions

very

preciselyuntil asked

about

Saudi. Her

first

reply,

Three

years

(line

47), displays

the

procedure

for

answering

a

question

while

simultaneously

ejecting

the

topic.

Notice that

Speaker

A

accepts

B's

right

to

reject

the

potential

topic,

but

introduces

a

new

pretopi-

cal

sequence by

a

stepwise

transition

(Jeffer-

son

1984).

When

B is

asked about

Saudi,

she

initiallyrejects

this

potentialtopic by

answer-

ing

the

question

with a

simple

No::o.

The

elongation, however,

indicated

hesitation

about

rejecting

this

topic,

and after a

micropause

she offered the related informa-


9/16

SHYNESS

AND

SELF-CONFIDENCE

185

tion

thatshe had

been to Panama

while in

the

army.

Her reference

to Panamawas

likely

to

refer

not simply

to Panama

but to

Panama

during the

American

invasion

of the

country.

Speaker

A

interpreted

B's

comment,

No::o

(.) butI did go to Panama, as an acceptance

of a pretopical

equence.

In line

52,

however,

B appears to reject

this

topic by giving

a

brief,

abstract,

and

formulaic

summary

of the

experience.

When we turn

to the self-confident

partici-

pants,

we

see that

pretopical

bids normally

are

successful

and

that acceptances

are

immediate.Indeed,

one of the reasons

for

the

interactional

uccess

of self-confident

partici-

pants

was their general

willingness

to discuss

a wide variety of topics. The discussion of

topics

requires

considerable

collaborative

work.

This is achieved

interactionally

by the

first speaker's

making

invitations that

the

second speakercan

accept

readily.

The rapid

transition

rom

pretopical

to topical sequence

is a component

of self-confidence. For

example:

(14) (SCP1O)

173 A: that's

that's

exactly

what I

did

um I

decidedI jus

174

really

like English

better (.) but

(.)

what ya

175

wanna do?

=

176

B:

=well

actuallyhuh

it's

a

hardthing

to say

I

mean

177

I

like

channel twenty

[five]

178 A:

[oh good]

179 B:

oh

like

I

have an independent

study

there

I

mean

I

The

topic

of

future

career goals

continues

for some time, butthe criticalpointis that this

topic

was introduced through

a

pretopical

sequence

and was

pursued

smoothly by

both

speakers.

Notice

that

A's

question

what

ya

wanna do?

is answered immediately

by a

latched reply, indicating

no resistance

to the

topic.

Further,

both

speakers'

turns subse-

quently

overlap,

revealing

active pursuit

of

the

topic.

Pretopical

sequences

were

accepted

by

self-confident participantseven when their

content

appeared

to

be

potentially

damaging

to

one

of

the

participants.

In the

following

extract,

for

example,

one of the

speakers

asks

questions

about

the other's

girlfriend,

consid-

ering

this

topic

to be

freely

available:

(15) (SCP7,

modified))

39

A:

So

your girlfriend=

40

B:

=yeah the girl

I'm

dating=

41 A:

=

okay

her-her

roommate

is

a com-

munications

major=

42

B:

=

yeah she's

a

master's student

43 (1)

44 A:

o::h really

45 B: = yeah

46

A:

okay [she's a]

47 B: [what do

you]

do with

tha::t=

48 A:

=

I have

not a clue

This extractcontains many

featuresthat are

typical

of

the

self-confident

participants'

alk.

The standardpretopical sequence

is evident.

In

line 48, Speaker

A affiliates to B's

rhetorical

query

about

the relevance of

getting

a master's

degree

in

communication.

Further,

in line 40, in reply to the comment So your

girlfriend,

Speaker

B does not

wait to

hear

the

question

he is

about

to be

asked;

instead

B

acknowledges his willingness

to

discuss her,

albeit

by downgrading

her status

from

girl-

friend to the girl

I'm

dating.

When it

transpires

hat

Speaker

A

is

actually

nterested

in the roommate

of

B's

girlfriend,

B

latches

his

reply (line 42), showing

his

willingness

to

discuss

her

as

well. At the end

of

this

extract,

both

speakers

are

willing

to

comment that

they do not see a vocationfor communication

students;

this

finding

is

interesting

because

the

comment

could

be

viewed

as

potentially

face-threatening.

The

Managementof

Transition

Relevance Places

The term transition relevance

place (TRP)

derives

from

the seminal

paper by Sacks,

Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974). It refers to

the

structurally

efined

place during

a conver-

sation at which a

chang-

in

speaker

can

occur.

Hopper

describes the TRP

as the

moment

at

which

speakership

s

up for grabs

(1992, p. 7). Although there are rules

concerning

the

allocation

of

turns,

turns at

talk must be linked

together duringthe flow

of

a

conversation;

hence this

aspect

of

turntaking

is

achieved

contingently. The

success

of

TRPs is

critical to

the sequential

organization of talk. Sacks et al. (1974)

suggest

the

existence of three

principal turn

allocation

options : 1) the speakerselects the

next

speaker, 2)

the next

speakerself-selects,

and

3)

the

current

speaker continues (1984,

pp. 703-706).

We observed that

shy partici-

pants strongly preferred the third of these

options;

that

is, they typically left the floor


10/16

186

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

open

and

then continued

speaking

after

a

silence.

This process is

illustrated

as

follows

by one pair

of

shy

participants:

(16) (SP6)

43

B: Yeah

really

44 (1)

45

B:

Hmm::

46 (2)

47 B:

That's

a

good

question

too.

You

know .) everybody

48

has different

iews

on

it

49

(1)

In this extract,

B is producing

urns

that

do

not

have

an identifiable

end,

so he

cannot

signal

to his

partner

that

it is now

the

partner's

turn to

speak. Speaker

B exercises

the option of current speaker continuing

across

a

series

of

completed

unit

types,

none

of

which

result

in

transfer

of

speakership.

A

similardifficulty

occurs

in the following:

(17)

(SP6)

126

A: yeah

I have

Rina

Cathary .)

She's

really

nice

127 though

128

B: yeah

(.) yeah

It is certainly

possible

to

hear

the micro-

pauseafter YeahI have RinaCathary as an

invitation

to the

other

person

to

speak.

The

additional

comment,

She's

really

nice

though,

also

ends

with the

current

speaker

continuing

at

a

TRP;though

this

TRP

invites

a

reply,

it

does

not

require

t,

and thus

creates

the

risk of

an

awkwardsilence.

In the next example,

the second speaker

successfully

negotiates

the

initial

TRP,

but

then

fails to connect

her

next comment

back

to the first speaker:

(18) SP5)

30

B:

We

could

discuss

yourpin=

31

A:

=

((laughs

nervously))

watch

what

yousay

I made

t

32 ((laughs

ervously))

33

(2)

34

B: Art?

35

A: Uh I'msorry

The

initial TRP

linking

the

turns

at lines 31

and

32 is

managed

through

nervouslaughter.

The laughter s latched to the comment We

could

discuss

your

pin.

Up

to

this

point,

each

TRP is

accompanied

by

nervous laugh-

ter.

The second

bout of nervous

laughter,

however,

could

not sustain

an

easy

transition,

and

a

two-second silence

occurred.

In line

34,

Speaker

B then tried to

encourage

Speaker

A

to talk

by uttering

Art? as

a

question,

but

in

a vague and abstract

way.

This was

to no

avail;

a

temporary,

but

nevertheless embar-

rassing, silence followed.

We suggest that when

both speakers

are

shy, both

tend to

avoid

exercising any

of the

speaker-selectionoptions at TRPs. The result

is comparatively

long

and

often

awkward

silences

between

turns.

In contrast to the

interactionbetween shy

speakers,

we

observed

that self-confident

speakers

do one of

three

things: 1) they

negotiate

turns by selecting

the next

speaker,

2) they

self-select, or 3) they respond

quickly

at

silences.

Consider

this

example:

(19) (SCP4,

modified)

29 A: that'sall right.So what're outakin

30

this

quarter?

31

B: Uhjeez two classes

uh

this

oneand

my saxophone

32 class which

s

a

littleahead

well

not

this

33

interpersonalommunications

33

A:

right

dunnof

you're

n the

same

[class]

34

B:

[yeah]

35 B: yeah

probably

n a

different lock

This exchangecontainsone directquestion

about

what classes

the

other person

is

currentlytaking,

and

a

second utterance

( I

dunno

if . .

. )

which is heard as

a

question.

In

both cases,

the

speaker

selects

the next

speaker

for the next

turn. In

the

next

example,

we

see

both

patterns

exhibited:

(20) (SCP3)

177 A:

I

knowwhenya knowwhen

I

was

178

(.)

eighteen

.)

I'm

twenty-six

now

(.)

when

179 I waseighteen tooka yearoff

180

B: um hmm

181

A:

partied

my

brains

ut

ya

know

182

B: Um hmm

183

A:

then

started

ack

up (.)

I

I

(.)

didn't

really

184 find

it

difficult

backthen but

now

I

wouldya

know

185

(.)

ya

know

I

lived on

my

own

I

worked ull

time

I

186 went tuh

school

full time and

my

grades uffered

187 because

f

it

In this

sequence, Speaker

A

makes several

brief

pauses

that

could have been taken

as

a

TRP,

but the

potential

for another turn

was

realized by the speakerexercising the

cur-

rent continues option. This example

also

shows

Speaker

B

uttering back

channel


11/16

SHYNESS

AND SELF-CONFIDENCE

187

responses, which

serve

as turn-yielding

de-

vices.

The strategy

used

by shy participants

produces both more silences and longer

silences than does

the

strategy used

by

self-confident speakers. We also find evi-

dence that shy speakers generally

are reluc-

tant

to

exercise

the various

speaker-selection

options identified by

Sacks et

al.

(1974);

as

a

result, shy

talk

produces

an

organizedpattern

of

silences.

Maynard 1980) suggested

that the

problem

of speakertransitionmay

be solved

by

the

introduction of

a

new pretopical sequence.

Shy participants

in

this study

were

more

likely than self-confident participantsboth to

have these problemsand to solve them in this

way.

The Favored Topic

While

analyzing

the

data,

we noticed

a

consistent pattern: shy participants

used

setting talk extensively,

then shifted to

pretopical sequences that rarely,

if

ever,

developed

into

topics.

At

breakdown

points,

such as silences following an unsuccessful

TRP,

a

return o setting

talk was

common.

As

we collected more data, however, we noticed

that a small

subset

of

shy participants

did not

fit this

pattern. Although

extensive

prelimi-

nary setting

talk

was evident

in

the

tran-

scripts,

in

two cases

we noticed

that

certain


were successful

precur-

sors

to

topical talk. Using

a

simplified

version

of

analytic induction,

we

began

to wonder

whether our initial hypotheses were being

disconfirmed or whether these exceptional

cases hadanotherexplanation.As

a

result,we

attempted o reformulateour initial hypothe-

ses

in

order

to

accommodate hese

discrepant

eAamples.

In one

of

these

cases,

the

two

shy

participants egan

in

typical fashion, by using

disconnected

setting

talk:

(21) (SP2)

01

((door loses))

02

(2.5)

03 A: ptthisis weird=

04 =

I

know

t(hh)

s::

(hehhah)

The

two

participants

do not introduce

themselves.

Their conversation

begins

with

a

noticeable

silence and

then with

setting

talk.

This

continued for

a considerable

period.

Eventually the

first

pretopical sequence

was

introduced:

(22) (SP2)

41

A:

What program are you in (.)

where

you majoring n '

Because both participants were shy, we

expected

that

the invitation o discuss possible

majors would be declined by a short response

and that another pretopical sequence would

replace it. To our surprise, however, this

pretopical sequence developed into an exten-

sive discussion:

(23) (SP2, modified)

41 A: What

program

are

you

in

(.) where

you majoring

n=

42 B: =uh nursing

43 A: Really

=

44 B: =Ye

[ah]

45 A: [are]

46 A: you

in the

nursing program=

47 B:

=

well I'm

just gettin' I'm just

getting

into it I'm

48

still

(.)

I'm doin' the

prerequisite

classes before

49

I

can y'know [actually get into n

-]

50 A: [what

what

else]

51 do you need to do?

The

frequent overlaps

and latched turns

were quite unlike the typical conversations

among shy participants.Silences at TRPs did

not occur

because both

speakers

were

enthu-

siastic about

contributing

o the conversation.

The talk, one may argue, is

indicative

of

the

conversational

style

of

very

self-confident

men

and

women. Indeed, both participants

displayed

an

exaggerated

commitment to

the

topic,

over and above

the

expected require-

ments for casual talk

between strangers.

It is

as if

too

much

personal identity

can be

detected

in

the

sequential organization

of

these favored

topics.

The

curious feature of

this

particular

transcript

was that

the

participants

could

continue

in

this manner

only

when

talking

about

a

certain

topic-in

this

case, nursing.

When

other


were intro-

duced,

both

participants

reverted to

a

proce-

dural

pattern ypical of

a

shy person. At

one

point,

for

example,

a

participant

evealed that

previously

she had

attended another college

(Tri C). This stepwise transition (Jefferson

1984)

in

topics uncoupled the speakers'

previously tightly linked turns

at

talk:

(24) (SP2, modified)

79 B:

Oh

you

went to Tri

C-

80 A: Uhuh

((spoken very faintly))

81

(1.5)


12/16

188 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYQUARTERLY

The introductionof Tri C as a

potential topic

disruptedthe

conversationalflow. Both par-

ticipantssuddenly

were at

a

loss for words, as

indicated by the silence

following A's com-

ment, Uhuh. The situation

then was reme-

died by a return to the previous topic,

nursing:

(25) (SP2)

82

B:

So

n

do

you

have to

go through

all

of

the::

(.)

83

classes

((prerequisites

for nursing))

over

again

84

A: Not

[the (.)

four

years]

85

B: [or some of the

things]

trans-

ferred

86

A:

they

have a

very

different

program

In this extract

we see that

once the

topic

is

understood

to be related

to

nursing,

both

participants

evertto

swift turn

transitionsand

overlap.

This finding suggests

that

shy

participantshave

a

favored

topic,

which

they are willing to discuss

wheneverpossible.

Therefore,to

reach this topic, they

will

accept

the invitation to

speak

offered

in

a

pretopical

sequence, despite

their

rejections

of

other

pretopical sequences inviting

them to discuss

other topics. At the very least, the existence

of

favored

topics

shows that

the

shy partici-

pants

have only

a narrow

range

of conversa-

tionally acceptable

interests.

The Use of Situated

Identities

We

noticed that self-confident

participants

tended

to

generate

topical

talk

by drawing

on

their situated dentities.

Alexander and

Wiley

(1981, p. 24) suggest that identities are

situated by

the relationship

between the actor

and

the environment.

In

this

study,

the

situated identity

was

clearly

that

of

student.

We

observed

that

self-confident participants

activated this identity very early

in

the

conversation. By contrast,

shy participants

drew on

their identity

as

students

either

very

late or

(in

two

cases)

not

at all.

To

obtain

an

accurate

measure

of

this

process, we

needed

a

conversational index

thatwould indicatethe use of the participants'

situated dentity

as

student.

We chose to look

at

the moment at

which the

question

So what

are you studying? occurred

in

the

interac-

tion. This

question

makes

sense

only

in

talk

between

two

studentsbecause

it

draws on and

assumes

extensive

knowledge

about univer-

sity

life.

Among the shy participants, the question

usually was asked after extensive setting talk

already had taken place. In the case of two

dyads, the question So what are you

studying?

was not

asked,

so

no provision

was made for the relevance of those persons'

student identities. This question appears to

indicate

an

interactional failure by the shy

participants, but, this interpretationmay be

too limited. It is possible that the shy

participants were willing to consider their

situational identities not merely as students

but also as experimental ubjects.

This is a

very radical view of situational identity;

it

may indicate that the shy participantswere

relatively unwilling to relate on the basis of

the more general category of fellow stu-

dents.

We found only one exception to this

general

observation about the

shy partici-

pants. On this occasion, the participants

referred to their major very early

in the

conversation:

(26) (SP3)

10 B: so

yer

n

UH

(.)

communicationsne

eleven

11 A: Ye::eah :eah

12 (2)

13 B: Hhmm

.)

What's

yer major?

This was

very

much the

exception,

how-

ever. The other

shy participantsmanaged

to

avoid this question

until much later

in

the

conversation.

By contrast,

the

self-confident

participants

moved

quickly

to

questions

about

classes, regarding

hem

as an

obvious

pretop-

ical

sequence:

(27) (SCP5)

13

A: Do

you go

to CSU?

14 B:

Yeah

(28) (SCP6)

16 A:

Okay(.)

so

you

are

in

communica-

tionsone eleven?

(29) (SCP3)

17 B: You

go

tuh schoolhere?

(30) (SCP4)

01 A: I'm

Julian

02 B: I'mJames

03 A: Nice to

meet

you

James

04 B: Nice

to

meet

you (1) ((looks

at

mirror))

en bucks

05

says

t's

on

right

now

[((laughs))]

06

A:

[((laughs))It's]

07

possibility

a

very

distinct

very

dis-

tinct

(.)

what

08 what're

uh takingup

here?


13/16

SHYNESS

AND SELF-CONFIDENCE

189

These examples

show

that for

self-

confident participants,

a situated

identity

is a

resource that is used

to

generate pretopical

and then topical

talk. We

suggest

that there

is

nothing special about the situated identity

of

student, and that it is reasonableto assume

that self-confidentparticipants

would drawon

whatever situated identity was relevant

for

each particular

onversationalexchange with

an

unacquaintedperson.

DISCUSSION

The findingsoutlined

in

this paper indicate

the basic

verbal

procedures

for

both

shyness

and self-confidence. Shyness

is

achieved

throughthe extensive display of setting talk,

the recycling

of

rejected

pretopicalsequences,

the unwillingness to speak at TRPs, and

the

preference

for

and exaggerated commitment

to a favored

topic.

Self-confidence

is

achieved

through

the

minimization of

setting

talk,

the

exchange

of

names,

the

willingness

to

accept pretopical

sequences,

the

willing-

ness

to speak at

TRPs, and

a

display

of

neutralityregarding opic

selection.

Are these the

symptoms

of

shyness and

of

self-confidence? (It

is easier to think

in

terms of

symptoms

for

the formerthan for

the

latter.) One

can

argue

that these

symptoms

are

described

more

accurately

as

procedures

than as

signs

of

an

underlying psychological

trait. Interactants do shyness and

self-

confidence (as

observable features of their

selves and interaction) through identifiable

conversationalprocedures.It

is

possible

that

the

symptoms

of

shyness and

the state

these symptoms indicate are one and the

same. The existence of favored topics among

shy participantsis strong evidence for this

claim. These

apparently

anomalous pieces

of

data

in

fact are

very revealing

because

they

show

that

the

hypothesis that shy people

are

inherently shy is probably empirically mis-

taken; nstead, shy people

probablyare shy

only

at certain times

and under certain

circumstances. Therefore it is reasonable to

assume that there is an

interactionalmecha-

nism for doing shyness, which can be either

activated

or

deactivated

hrough

collab-

orative efforts to

maintaintopical talk.

This

approach

has a

range of potential

clinical

applications

because it

suggests

that

the

verbal

components

of

shyness and

self-

confidence may

be

teachable through a

conversation-analyticvocabulary. The

find-

ings outlined

here could become

a

useful

addition to the role-playingsimulationsused

presentlyto help shy people (see Cheek 1989;

Hartmanand Cleland 1990;

Zimbardo

1977).

In addition to the verbal components of

shyness and self-confidence, the motivation

for

this

behavior

is

an

issue.

Although

this

topic

is

beyond

the

scope

of this

paper,

we

would like to offer a speculation.

All

social

interaction nvolves a display of

trust in

the

routinization and predictability

of

everyday

life

(Giddens 1984; Manning 1992). Despite

the apparent cynicism

of

human behavior,

interaction in the

social world

is

made

possible by individuals' tactfulness towards

the failures

of

others

(Goffman 1959, espe-

cially p. 225). This argument s supportedby

Shepperdand

Arkin's claim

that

the

socially

anxious individual's

presentation

of self is

not

characteristically

directed towards

eliciting

social

approval.

Instead

the

pre-eminentgoal

of

the

anxious

individualordinarily

s

to

avoid

disapproval

rather

than

to seek

approval

(1990, p. 287).

It

may

be

reasonable to

assume

that

in

order to practice

the

proce-

dures which

display self-confidence,

one

must have a large degree of trust

in

the

predictability

of

everyday

life.

By contrast,

the

procedures

for

doing shyness may

be

appropriate

or

people

who lack trust

in

the

supportive aspect

of social interaction. The

initiation

of

topical talk

entails

some

risk

because

discrediting

or

embarrassing

nforma-

tion about

a

participantmay

be

uncovered.

Shy participants

eemed

to

perceive

this

risk

to

be

great,

whereas

self-confident

partici-

pants perceived

the

risks of

topical

talk

to be

small.

Goffman's

analysis

of embarrassment

up-

ports

this

argument:

embarrassment

occurs

whenever

a projected

self

cannot

be sus-

tained. The fact

that

we are

not

constantly

embarrassed

s

testimony

to

the

strength

of

the ritual

order and to the

prevalence

of

tact.

We

routinely exaggerate

our own

importance

in

ways

that could make loss

of

face a

common

problem.

It

is

possible

that

shy

people anticipate

embarrassment and that

their anticipationhas consequences for the

sequential organization

of their

talk.

When

viewed

in

this

way, the preference

for

setting

talk and the

rejection

of


can

be

understoodas

a

reaction

to

the fear of

losing face,

of

becoming embarrassedby

a

self-revelation

in

a

still-undeveloped topical

exchange.


14/16

190

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

QUARTERLY

Brown and

Levinson (1987)

use

Goffman's

argument

as the basis

for a

theory

of

politeness.

They

suggest

that

politeness

is

largely

an attemptto avoid

face-threatening

acts (FTAs).

In social interaction, partici-

pantsact politely and do nothingthat could be

interpreted

s an

FTA. This

view

is

supported

by

Maynard

and Zimmerman,

who noted that

autobiographical

talk among unacquainted

dyads

is

always

solicited

with

propriety

and

that pretopical

sequences

are handled

with

sensitivity.

Many

of the procedures

used

by

the shy participants

could

be

interpreted

as

strategies

designed

to avoid possible

disap-

proval.

Everyday talk is oriented towards agree-

ment, politeness,

and the protection

of face.

Exchanges

are

constrained

by

a

preference

system

that encouragesparticipants

o express

agreement

immediately

and

to defer

and

soften

disagreement

(Pomerantz

1984).

Self-

confident dyads

showed

an immediate

rust n

the

preference

system

of

everyday

talk,

assuming

that embarrassment

was unlikely

to

occur.

This

trust

was

missing

from

the

behavior of the shy participants. Self-

confident

participants

were

happy

to allow

autobiographical

information

to

leak

out

slowly,

without fear

of

losing

face. For

example:

(31)

(SCP4)

126 B: Yeah (1) yeah

(1) I

was

just

at

Severance

Hall the

127 other

day it

I

was there

with

my

friend she'd just

128 come back from school in Washing-

ton

D.C.

she

goes

129

to the

American

Universityin

Wash-

ingtonD.C. yes

130 and

uh

we

were walkin

around she

wanted

to

go

to

131 the art

museum we went

there and

they

had some

kind

132 of 75th anniversary

or something

In

this

example,

Speaker B

takes

an

extended turn of talk in which he begins a

narrative concerning an experience

with

a

friend.

This development

suggests that

the

selection

of

differentprocedures

or

managing

face-to-face interactionmay

be motivatedby

assumptions

about

the

degree

of trust and tact

that can

be

credited

safely

to the interaction

order

(Goffman

1983).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that identifiable

verbal 'procedures exist, which produce or

perhapsconstituteboth shy and self-confident

behavior. In this paper we offer a skeletal

account of these procedures,as observed

in

a

social psychology laboratory.We show that

conversationsby shy participantswere domi-

nated initially by setting talk. There were

many pretopical sequences, most

of

which

did not develop into topics.

Turn

transitions

usually were difficult, primarilybecause at

each transitionrelevance place the floor was

left

open; as

a

result, it

was uncertainwhich

speaker

should

speak

next.

Overlaps

were

rare, as were latched turns. Yet althoughthis

account of

shy

conversational

nteractionwas

true in

general,

it was not

always

true.

This

procedurewas not used whenever one

or

both

speakers found themselves discussing what

we call a

favoredtopic.

When

such

a

topic

was broached by

a

pretopical sequence,

overlaps

and latched turns were evident and

setting

talk

disappeared.

If the conversation

drifted from

the

favored

topic,

either

by

a

stepwise transition or by a topic shifter, the

shy participants ypically

reverted to

setting

talk.

This

finding

leads

us to

the conclusion

that the

shy participants strongly preferred

their

favored

topic.

Among

self-confident

participants,

a

very

different set

of

procedures

was

evident.

Setting

talk was

minimized;

the

speakers

began

with a

name

exchange

and

then

quickly

introduced he first pretopical sequence. This

was acceptedalmost invariably,regardlessof

the proposed topic. This finding leads us to

suggest

that

topics among

self-confident

participantsare generally unfavored. Top-

ics often were chosen by activatinga situated

identity-in

this

study,

that

of

student.

Self-confident

participants

also

performed

routine conversational maintenance

work

through

back channel

feedback,

verbal

prompts,

and so oIn.

These results

support

the

general

eth-

nomethodological finding

that

social interac-

tion can be understood as a series of

interactional

procedures. Perhaps, then,

cre-

ativity

in

social interaction

is

not

explicitly

about

spontaneous

or

idiosyncraticbehavior,

but instead

is

a matter

of

modifying

and

manipulating

these well-known

and exten-

sively

used

procedures

for

achieving

various

presentations

of

self.


15/16

SHYNESS AND

SELF-CONFIDENCE

191

APPENDIX

Adapted Transcribing

Conventions from

Jefferson 1984)

1.

[ A

left-hand bracket

marks the initial

point

of

overlap.

A

right-handbracket

indicates the point where the overlap

ends.

2. (2)

Numbers in bracketsindicate elapsed

time, in seconds.

3.

okay::y

Colons indicate the

elongation

of

a

word.

4.

YES

Capital letters

indicate

stress, usually

through ncreased volume.

5.

((coughs))

Double parentheses

contain informa-

tion

that is hard to transcribe.They are

also used to clarify an indexical

expression.

6.

( )

Single parentheses

ndicate that

part

of

the transcripts missing.

7. I-I The

dash

indicates

the cutoff of a prior

word.

8.

No

way

Words are italicized to indicate em-

phasis.

REFERENCES

Alexander,

C.N.

and M.G. Wiley. 1981.

Situated

Activity and Identity

Formation. Pp.

269-89 in

Social Psychology:

Sociological Perspectives,

edited

by M. Rosenberg

and R.H. Turner. New

York: Basic

Books.

Altman,I. andD. Taylor. 1973. Social Penetration:The

Development of Interpersonal

Relationships. New

York: Holt,

Rinehartand Winston.

American Psychiatric

Association. 1987. Diagnostic

and

Statistical

Manual

of

Mental

Disorders (DSM III-R).

Washington,

DC: American Psychiatric

Association.

Beach,

W. 1983. Background

Understandingsand the

Situated Accompl

Documents

Syness,Self-confidence and Social Interaction