Review Article

Meditating Influence of Social Interaction Anxiety on the Relationship Between Diversity Appreciation and Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Graeme Coetzer^1* and Ronald Jackson²

¹Associate Professor of Organizational Management and Development College of Business, Southern University (Baton Rouge), USA

²Professor of Human Resources College of Business, Southern University, USA

Submission: August 21, 2023; Published: August 29, 2023

*Corresponding author: Graeme Coetzer, 1Associate Professor of Organizational Management and Development College of Business, Southern University (Baton Rouge), USA

How to cite this article: Graeme C, Ronald J. Meditating Influence of Social Interaction Anxiety on the Relationship Between Diversity Appreciation and Self-Efficacy for Teamwork.r Psychol Behav Sci Int J. 2023; 21(1): 556052. DOI: 10.19080/PBSIJ.2023.21.556052.

Abstract

This research study examines the mediating influence of social interaction anxiety (SIA) on the relationship between diversity appreciation (DA) and self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different (SETD). Two hundred and seventy-six undergraduate business management students completed self-assessment measures of DA and SETD, and identified a close associate who completed an observer version of the social interaction anxiety scale (M-GUDS-S). Product moment correlations were used to examine the hypothesized relationships between SETD and both DA and SIA, and both the Hayes process and the Sobel test was used to test the hypothesis that SIA mediates the relationship between DA and SETD. SETD was significantly correlated with both DA (r = 0.32, p < 0.01) and SIA (r = -0.45, p < 0.01). DA was significantly correlated with SIA (r = -0.35, p < 0.01). Both the Hayes process and Sobel test (Z = 4.66, p < 0.001) confirmed that SIA partially mediated the relationship between DA and SETD. Educators and practitioners need to be aware of the influence of DA and SIA on SETD. Team development interventions that integrate activities oriented toward both diversity appreciation and reduction in social interaction anxiety should improve team member confidence in their ability to work in teams with team-mates who they perceive as significantly different from themselves.

Keywords: Social Interaction Anxiety; Diversity; Diversity Appreciation; Attitude toward Diversity; Teamwork; Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Introduction

Many organizations are making strategic commitments to diversity and inclusion [1]. These commitments have moral, legal, reputational, and utilitarian dimensions [2,3]. The utilitarian perspective is based on the general performance formula that diversity plus inclusion equals improved performance [4-8]. Workplace diversity refers to both actual and perceived differences among people at work [9,10], whereas inclusion refers to the extent of participation, contribution and influence within important organizational processes, and feeling valued due to treatment that satisfies needs for both belongingness and uniqueness [11-13]; Roberson, 2006; [14,15]. Research on the general performance formula has produced mixed results suggesting that the diversity-inclusion-performance network of relationships (DPIM) is not sufficiently specified [10, 16-18].

The dominant theoretical model supporting the DIPN is the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM) [19]. The CEM explains the mixed research results by means of two independent but interacting processes. Diversity constrains dysfunctional majority influences and supports information elaboration which improves decision-making (process 1) [10, 20-22]. Diversity may also encourage social categorization, in-out group perceptions, and dysfunctional team dynamics arising from interpersonal resistance, rejection, and exclusion (process 2) [6, 19, 22, 23, 24]. Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) suggests that group participation is motivated by needs for engagement with supportive groups that can provide and reinforce preferred identities without loss of desired individuation [25-28]. Participation therefore involves decisions about the potential of group members and groups to satisfy needs for support, identity, and individuation, which helps determine the attractiveness of the group. Preference for groups that appear to possess greater likelihood of being supportive and reinforcing preferred identities makes similarity both an attractive feature and influential within the dynamics of group attachment, identification, commitment, functioning and performance [29-31].

Perspectives about performance variation within the DIPM include both the big picture (net process benefit) and missing variables viewpoints. The big picture (net process benefit) perspective suggests that although heterogeneity is often associated with process losses arising from complex communication, less cohesion, and more conflict; the productivity benefits arising from a varied range of contacts, more diverse input, and creative friction, often outweighs the losses (need to see the full picture) [32]. The missing variables approach suggests that the mixed research results arise mostly from a set of key mediating and moderating variables that have not yet been fully revealed and managed. Reliably capturing the benefits of diversity will depend on identifying, clarifying and managing the influential mediators and moderators within the DIPM [19, 22, 33-36]. Identifying key moderating influences within process 1 of the DIPM (diversity-information elaboration process) should help address concerns that the diversity-information elaboration relationship is overly simplistic. Research confirms that workgroup diversity is often associated with tension and conflict that can disrupt communication and information sharing [37]. Moderating influences like cooperative conflict management and the opportunity to reflect on and discuss team functioning appear to assist in establishing a more reliable diversity-information elaboration process [38,39].

Sources of moderation within process 2 of the DIPM (experience of differences) include both salience of differences and attitudes toward diversity [6,40]. The salience perspective suggests that the extent to which differences are noticed, focused on, and influential within the perceptual process varies among individuals and groups, which may reveal different diversityinclusion- performance relationships at different levels of salience [41,42]. Individuals and groups that are less attentive to differences that typically get entangled within social resistance processes may be less likely to introduce social impediments into the diversity-inclusion-performance system [6,43]. Diversity appreciation refers to the influence of attitudes toward diversity on experiences, orientations, and responses to differences [40]. Research on positive attitudes toward diversity suggests that diversity appreciation supports improved functioning of the DIPM within both core processes [40,44]. Diversity appreciation may assist the diversity-information elaboration process via improved engagement and knowledge sharing [45], and may also constrain or prevent socially disruptive experiences of differences and promote more collaborative and productive relationships. Attitudes towards diversity, and in particular appreciation of diversity, is an important variable whose determinants and influences require further research [40]. This research study examines the mediating influence of social interaction anxiety on the relationship between diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork.

Variables

Dependent Variable – Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Social cognitive theory [46] suggests that cognitive processing of social information influences human performance. Beliefs about one’s ability to mobilize sufficient effort, cognitive resources, and the behavioral strategies necessary for successful task completion, are important determinants of performance and satisfaction [47]. Self-efficacy is generally defined as the perceived capacity to perform tasks [48], and is developed through mastery experiences, exposure to performance modeling, social persuasion, and judgements about performance readiness [49,50]. Positive or negative efficacy information is generated by evaluating task requirements, related personal experiences, and relevant personal and situational resources and constraints [51]. Numerous studies have confirmed self-efficacy as a valid predictor of satisfaction, effort, persistence, and performance across a wide range of tasks [51-54]. Meta-analysis of the efficacy-performance relationship suggests that efficacy is one of the better general predictors of performance [55,56].

Development and measurement of the self-efficacy construct has included global, domain, and task specific dimensions suggesting that efficacy assessments occur at different levels of specificity [57-59]. The inclusion of domain and task specific efficacy has given risen to numerous task and contextually oriented forms of efficacy, like efficacy for teaching [60], career decision making (Zhou et al., 2021), smoking cessation [61] and teamwork [62-65].

The expanding use of teams within the workplace and higher education has increased the importance of researching the key determinants of team performance, including various forms of team related efficacies [66,67]. Research on student and organizational teams has mostly used the aggregation of team member general self-efficacy or efficacy beliefs about team performance as a measure of team efficacy (potency) [68]. Research suggests that team efficacy (potency) is an important determinant of student and organizational team performance [69,70], and a mediator of the team inputs-performance relationship [71]. Research has also identified a relationship between self-efficacy for teamwork and both team member effectiveness and team performance [72,73]. Multiple research studies conducted by Coetzer [74-77] identified relationships between self-efficacy for teamwork and a variety of individual level variables like task attentiveness, critical thinking, cooperative conflict management, and role stress. This suggests that self-efficacy for teamwork is an important part of the efficacies that influence team member and team performance.

Team related efficacies continue to be contextualized as new forms of teamwork emerge like technology mediated team work (Konak & Kulturel-Konak, 2019). Application of the DIPM to teams has also produced mixed results resulting in an ongoing search for key mediators and moderators that more reliably specify the model at the team level (Lim & Lim, 2006; Meyer, 2017; Van Knippenberg, Van Ginkel & Homan, [78]. The increasingly emphasis on teamwork with diverse team members combined with the key mediating role of efficacy supports further contextualization of self-efficacy for teamwork with an emphasis on teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself. Searches of the popular databases of published research studies produced no recent research on constructs or associated measures of self-efficacy for teamwork with team mates who are perceived as significantly different. This research study examines the influence of both diversity appreciation and social interaction anxiety on self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different.

Independent Variable – Diversity Appreciation

Attitude toward diversity is generally defined as beliefs about the value of diversity [79]. Research has confirmed that people possess differing attitudes and preferences regarding the dissimilarity of others that influences their social behavior [80-82]. Research by Miville et al. [83] described a positive attitude toward diversity as “an attitude toward all other persons that is inclusive yet differentiating in that similarities and differences are both recognized and accepted; the shared experience of being human results in a sense of connectedness with people and is associated with a plurality or diversity of interactions with others (p. 252).” Attitudes are comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral intention components [84]. The cognitive component of attitude toward diversity refers to the recognition, acceptance and valuing of differences. Behavioral intention is associated with seeking diverse interactions, whereas the affective component refers to the sense of connection with diverse others arising from the shared experience of being human. Research supports these components of diversity appreciation which have been labeled as relativistic appreciation, diversity of contact, and sense of connection with others who are different (comfort with differences) [85,86]. Research on pro-diversity attitudes have identified a positive effect on social integration [87,88], information elaboration [88], creativity (Nakui,Paulus, & Van Der Zee, 2011), prevention of nonproductive in-out group perceptions [88] and team performance [88] Nakui, Paulus & van der Zee; 2011). Searches of the popular research publication databases produced no recent studies that examined the influence of attitudes about diversity on self-efficacy for teamwork with diverse team-mates and social interaction anxiety.

Mediating Variable – Social Interaction Anxiety Scale

Social interaction anxiety refers to distress that is experienced when initiating, responding to, and maintaining social engagement with people who are familiar, strangers or potential mates ([89]. The experience includes concerns about being inarticulate, boring, sounding stupid, not knowing what to say, being confused about what to do, and being ignored [90]. Social interaction anxiety is different from more general experiences of anxiety due to the specificity and structure of the situations in which the anxiety occurs [91]. Responses in interpersonal contexts are continuously contingent upon and enacted in response to the evolving actions of others, whereas behavior in non-contingent situations is predominantly influenced by personal intentions [90].

The theoretical framework of social interaction anxiety is based on the nature and interaction of three major brain systems - behavioral approach system (BAS), fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) [92]. The BAS manages reward seeking behavior (Pickering & Gray, 1999), whereas the FFFS manages self-protection [93], and the BIS manages conflicts that arise between the BAS and the FFFS [94]. The BIS uses cognitive and physiological systems that manage arousal, attention, risk assessment and strategy development [95]. The FFFS is associated with the emotion of fear whereas the BIS is associated with the emotion of anxiety [96]. Each system possesses varying levels of sensitivity including both excessively low and high levels that contribute to dysfunction. High sensitivity within the BIS system is associated with hypersensitivity toward punishment cues and increases the risk of internalization disorders [96], whereas high sensitivity within the BAS system is associated with hypersensitivity toward reward cues and increases the risk of externalization disorders [93]. Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) suggests that social anxiety arises from a combination of high sensitivity within the BIS and low sensitivity within the BAS [97]. High sensitivity within the BIS system means that individuals will exhibit more severe anxiety and resistant reactions in response to social stimuli that is perceived as potentially punitive, and low sensitivity within the BAS system means that there is limited motivation to be assertive and confront such challenges [98]. The combination may help produce intense and unchecked social anxiety that is disruptive of social functioning (Kimbrel, Mitchell & Nelson-Gray, 2010).

Unlike constructs and measures of general trait and state anxiety, little research has been conducted on developing constructs and measures that distinguish between trait and state social interaction anxiety. Measures of both state and trait forms help to identify whether current performance conditions are influencing BIS sensitivities toward punishment cues and BAS insensitivity toward reward cues (are current conditions encouraging a state that is not present in patterns over an extended period, suggesting significant current situational influences). Critique of the current context and nature of diversity advocacy and promotion includes reference to potentially punitive approaches [99,100,101,102]. These may introduce, reinforce and heighten the sensitivity of punishment cues and reduce the sensitivity of reward cues. This suggests that the examination of both trait and state social interaction anxiety is potentially useful within performance contexts where participant and stakeholder diversity is prevalent and salient.

Current measures of social interaction anxiety like the social interaction anxiety scale (SIAS) [90] predominantly focus on SIA as a disorder. Disorder oriented variables have traditionally been associated with early onset, long duration and relatively stable aspects of personality that are measured in a categorical manner (non-disordered vs. disordered). Research has confirmed that symptoms and impairment associated with disorder variables typically fall along a progressive dimensional continuum (gradations of severity) as opposed to simple bifurcation [103- 105], and that disorders may have trait (long term) and state (episodic, temporary, short term etc.) components [106]. The measurement of social interaction anxiety in this study emphasizes social interaction anxiety as a state by focusing predominantly on current behavior.

Organizational behavior research on the influence of social anxiety has identified associations with a variety of variables including receptivity toward training [107], interaction in virtual teams ([108], willingness to seek help from others at work [109], workplace bullying [110], and managerial performance [111]. Research has confirmed a negative associated between social anxiety and various forms of self-efficacy like general selfefficacy (Khosroshahi & Hashemi, 2012) coping efficacy [[112], self-presentational efficacy [113] and cognitive reappraisal selfefficacy [114]. Research conducted by Lukasik & Witek [115] identified a negative association between anxiety (state/trait) and self-efficacy for teamwork among adolescents. Searches of the popular research publication databases produced no recent studies that examined the influence of social interaction anxiety on self-efficacy for teamwork with diverse team-mates.

Hypotheses

The general proposition guiding this research is that SETD is positively related to DA and negatively related to SIA, DA is negatively related to SIA, and SIA mediates the relationship between DA and SETD. Expanding engagement and interdependence among increasingly diverse participants and stakeholders, particularly within higher education and the workplace, has elevated the centrality and importance of personal experiences and responses to diversity. People who have more positive attitudes and expectations about engaging others in their academic and work life who they experience as significantly different from themselves, are more likely to have productive experiences, especially within an increasingly diverse performance environments. They are also more likely to experience themselves as more ready to work in teams with team-mates they experience as significantly different. This should produce greater personal confidence in successfully working with team-mates they experience as significantly different from themselves.

H1: Appreciation of diversity is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself

Social anxiety constrains various forms of self-efficacy, including efficacy for teamwork among adolescents (Khosroshahi & Hashemi, 2012; [112,115]. Social interaction anxiety constrains willingness to receive assistance from others, increases social aggression, and reduces social performance ([108, 110, 111]. Concerns about being inarticulate, sounding stupid, not knowing what to say, and being confused about what to do; are likely to prevent or constrain experiences of performance readiness and successful engagement within most team situations, including teamwork with team-mates who are experienced as significantly different from oneself.

H2: Social interaction anxiety is negatively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself

A positive attitude toward diversity should reduce the extent to which social interaction cues excessively activate the BIS and associated feelings of anxiety. Diversity appreciation should also stimulate the BAS due to the expectation of rewarding engagements with others who are perceived as different. This combined effect should prevent or constrain the emergence of disruptive interpersonal apprehension, caution, and resistance. Reduced concerns about saying the wrong thing, sounding stupid, not knowing what to say, being confused about what to do, and the need to maintain a resistant posture, combined with the expectation of positive engagement outcomes with a wide variety of people, should constrain social interaction anxiety.

H3: Diversity appreciation will be negatively associated with social interaction anxiety

The input-process-output model of team functioning suggests that inputs in part transformed into outputs via various team states and processes [7, 64, 116]. Research suggests that team member attributes can have both a direct impact on performance and an indirect impact via their influence on key team states and processes [117]. Variables like social interaction anxiety that constrain successful interaction, performance and confidence, should mediate relationships between team member attributes that influence both social interaction and confidence.

H4: Social interaction anxiety will mediate the relationship between diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself

Subjects and Methods

Sample

The subjects were two hundred and seventy-six undergraduate business students attending a public university in the United States. The average age of the subjects was 20.25 (low = 18, high = 35), and 53 % identified as male and 47% as female. Each subject completed a self-assessment of diversity appreciation and self-efficacy for teamwork under conditions of anonymity. Procedures recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff [118] for addressing common method bias were used by administering the surveys at different times and generating psychological separation by associating them with different components and activities within the course. Each subject was also asked to identify someone who knew them well and would be willing to complete an honest assessment of their current social behavior and demeanor when interacting with others. The identified observers completed an online version of the social interaction anxiety scale under conditions of anonymity. This scale was considered appropriate for observer use given that all the questions referenced specific observable behaviors.

Measures

Appreciation of Diversity

The short form of the Universality-Diversity Scale (M-GUDS-S) developed by Feurtes et al. (2000) and further validated by Kottke [86] was used to measure appreciation of diversity. The M-GUDS-S has been validated across multiple cultures [119]. The original and long form of the scale was developed and validated by Miville et al. [83], and measures the dimensions of diversity of contact, relativistic appreciation, and sense of connection (comfort with differences). Diversity of contact assesses interest in engaging and learning about people who are different, whereas relativistic appreciation assesses attitudes toward differences and similarities. Sense of connection and comfort with differences assesses discomfort in relating to people who are different. The Universality-Diversity Scale has been associated with individual level variables like identity formation, empathy, dogmatism; and team-oriented variables like aptitude for teamwork and interest in teamwork [120]. The M-GUDS-S contains 15 items with 5 items measuring diversity of contact (e.g. “I would like to join an organization that emphasizes getting to know people from different countries”), 5 items measuring relativistic appreciation (e.g. “Knowing how a person differs from me greatly enhances our friendship”), and 5 items measuring sense of connection and comfort with differences (e.g. “I am only at ease with people of my own race”). Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). The total score for appreciation of diversity was derived by adding up the scores on each of the questions.

Self-Efficacy for Teamwork

Self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself was measured by slightly amending a scale developed by Coetzer and Richmond [74] for measuring self-efficacy for teamwork. This scale has been used in multiple studies to examine the influence of individual level cognitive, emotional, and behavioral variables on self-efficacy for teamwork [74, 76, 77] . Scale items were developed to measure individual team member confidence in their ability to support a team to set team goals, create a division of labor, manage team tasks, integrate team member contributions, promote communication and constructive relationships, resolve problems and conflicts, provide leadership and motivation, and achieve the team’s overall goal through direct contributions to the team’s task. In order to focus the respondents on teamwork involving team-mates who are perceived as different, the instructions for completing the questionnaire asked the respondents to focus on teams that included team-mates who on average were significantly different from the respondent. The measure contains 16 items and example items are “I have the ability to coordinate the tasks and activities of team members,” “I have the ability to energize and keep a team focused on completing key tasks,” “I have the ability to build effective relationships with and between team members,” and “I have the ability to contribute useful ideas and help a team complete key tasks.” Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). A total self-efficacy for teamwork score was derived by adding up the scores on each of the questions.

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale

An observer version of the short form of the social interaction anxiety scale (SIAS-6) was used to measure social interaction anxiety. The short form of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) was developed and validated by Peters et al. [121] (M-GUDS-S) and further validated across multiple cultures [122]. The original and long version of the SIAS was developed and validated by Mattick and Clark [90], and further validated by Carleton et al.[123]. The social interaction anxiety scale has been extensively used in both research and practice to identify and manage the influence of SIA within important performance networks, including workplace performance [111]. An observer version of the social interaction scale was used to remove the potential influence of common method bias given that the other measures in the study used a self-report format. An observer version was considered feasible given that all the items reference specific observable behavior. The observer version of the M-GUDS-S contains 6 items and example items are “(person being observed) has difficulty making eye contact with others,” “(person being observed) finds it difficult mixing comfortably with others,” “(person being observed) has difficulty talking with other people,” and “(person being observed) has difficulty disagreeing with another’s point of view.” Items were measured on a sevenpoint Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). Each subject was asked to identify someone who knew them well and would be willing to complete an honest assessment of their current social behavior and demeanor when interacting with others. The identified observers completed an online version of the instrument under conditions of anonymity. A total score for social interaction anxiety was generated by adding up the scores on the questions.

Result

Descriptives

Means, standard deviations and correlations among the research variables are reported in table 1. All variable distributions are approximately normal and demonstrate reasonable variability across their respective scales. Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.85 suggesting good internal reliabilities. No univariate or bivariate outliers were considered problematic and product moment correlations revealed significant associations between the variables. The distribution of regression residuals produced by the mediation regression was approximately normal with no problematic outliers. The standardized regression coefficients for the control variables of age and gender were β = -0.02 (p = 0.59) and β = 0.06 (p = 0.19) respectively, suggesting that neither had significant influence within the meditation model.

Empirical Tests of Hypotheses

The significant threshold for all the empirical tests was set to α = 0.05 (2-tailed). The correlation between DA and SETD is statistically significant (r = 0.32, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that DA is positively associated with SETD. The correlation between SIA and SETD is statistically significant (r = -0.45, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that SIA is negatively associated with SETD. The correlation between DA and SIA is statistically significant (r = -0.35, p < 0.01) providing support for the hypothesis that DA is negatively associated with SIA. The Sobel test for mediation is statistically significant (Z = 4.66, p = 0.00) and the Hayes bias corrected bootstrap confidence interval (BootLLCI = 0.2749 and BootUCLI = 0.607; α = 0.95) does not contain zero suggesting the presence of mediation. The mediation results suggest that a statistically significant portion of the relationship between DA and SETD is the result of social interaction anxiety (direct influence = 0.17 and indirect influence = 0.15) (Figure 1). A significant partial correlation between DA and SETSD (r = 0.17, p < 0.01) remains after including the mediator (SIA) in the regression. This suggests that SIA does not fully explain the association between DA and SETD, and that other unmeasured factors are helping to transmit the effect.

Discussion

The results suggest that SETD is positively associated with DA and negatively associated with SIA, DA is negatively associated with SIA, and SIA partially mediates the relationship between DA and SETD. The directionality of this relationship cannot be confirmed from this research study and both opposite and bi-directional effects are possible. Although the measure of social interaction anxiety in this study examined current disposition (state), there was no way to determine whether current disposition was an extension of long-term patterns (trait) or something different. Treating social interaction anxiety as a trait might support placing SIA prior to DA (trait supports formation of the attitude). In order to fully examine the influence of both trait and state influences of social interaction anxiety within diverse social conditions, measures that both focus on social interaction with others who are perceived as significantly different, and distinguish between state and trait dimensions, may be useful. This may also better support research on current environmental influences that encourage changes in behavioral patterns and increase social interaction anxiety related to diverse social situations. Identifying environmental conditions that are increasing the sensitivity of punishment cues, encouraging more intense activation of the BIS, lowering reward sensitivities, and deactivating the BAS, may help improve the DIPM. This also reinforces the importance of salience and sensitivity variables [124-132].

Implications for Organizations and Academic Institutions

Research has confirmed that both diversity appreciation and a variety of teamwork related efficacies are positively associated with team performance [40, 72, 73]. This research study confirms that diversity appreciation is positively associated with selfefficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are experienced as significantly different from oneself, and that social interaction anxiety partially mediates the relationship. The results support use of an intervention framework and foci in which diversity appreciation (attitude) promotion is primary and social interaction anxiety is important but secondary in order to address socially disruptive experiences and behavior that is resistant to changes in attitude. A critical mass intervention perspective suggests that maximum effectiveness will be achieved through education, training, coaching and other development activities that focus on and integrate both diversity appreciation promotion and interaction-anxiety reduction .

Limitations and Suggestions Future Research

Broader generalization of the results of this research requires the use of samples that extend beyond higher education. Measures of social interaction anxiety that focus on interaction with others who are perceived as significantly different, and distinguish between trait and state interaction anxiety, will improve specification of models, help identify situational influences, and produce better alignment of intervention frameworks and foci. Further specification of the self-efficacy measure that focuses on specific team-mate differences like ethnicity, gender, disability and professional background may help to produce more featureoriented insight.

To conclude, this study confirms that diversity appreciation is positively associated with self-efficacy for teamwork with team-mates who are perceived as significantly different from oneself, and that social interaction anxiety partially mediates the relationship. The results suggest the need for education, training, coaching and other developmental activities that promote diversity appreciation and address social interaction anxiety in an integrated manner.

References

1. Kaur N, Arora P (2020) Acknowledging gender diversity and inclusion as key to organizational growth: a review and trends. Journal of critical reviews 7(6): 125-131.
2. Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CE, Daus CS (2002) Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of management 28(3): 307-338.
3. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly 44(4): 741-763.
4. Bilimoria D, Joy S, Liang X (2008) Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, the University of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management 47(3): 423-441.
5. Gonzalez JA, DeNisi AS (2009) Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of organizational behavior 30(1): 21-40.
6. Homan AC, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Knippenberg DV, Ilgen DR, et al. (2008) Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of management journal 51(6): 1204-1222.
7. Miller F, Katz J (2002) Inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of diversity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Cameron.
8. Roberson QM (2006) Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and organization management 31(2): 212-236.
9. Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of management review 32(4): 1199-1228.
10. Kochan T, Bezrukova K, Ely R, Jackson S, Joshi A, et al. (2003) The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management 42(1): 3-21.
11. Holvino E, Ferdman BM, Merrill-Sands D (2004) Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In: MS Stockdale, FJ Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity, Blackwell Publishing, USA, pp. 245-276.
12. Mor Barak ME, Cherin DA, Berkman S (1998) Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. The Journal of applied behavioral science 34(1): 82-104.
13. Hope-Pelled L, Ledford JrGE, Albers Mohrman S (1999) Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of management studies 36(7): 1013-1031.
14. Shore LM, Randel AE, Chung BG, Dean MA, Holcombe Ehrhart K, et al. (2011) Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of management 37(4): 1262-1289.
15. Wasserman IC, Gallegos PV, Ferdman BM (2008) Dancing with resistance. Diversity resistance in organizations, pp.175-200.
16. Choi S, Rainey HG (2010) Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public administration review 70(1): 109-121.
17. Ely RJ, Thomas DA (2020) Getting serious about diversity. Harvard business review 98(6): 114-122.
18. Guillaume YR, Dawson JF, Woods SA, Sacramento CA, West MA, et al. (2013) Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don't know. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology 86(2): 123-141.
19. Van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CK, Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology 89(6): 1008.
20. Jackson SE (1996) The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. Handbook of work group psychology, pp.53-75.
21. Nemeth C, Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration 4: 63-84.
22. Williams KY, O'Reilly III CA (1998) Demography and research in organizational behavior 20: 77-140.
23. Mitchell RJ, Parker V, Giles M (2011) When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human relations 64(10): 1321-1343.
24. Woehr DJ, Arciniega LM, Poling TL (2013) Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of business and psychology 28(1): 107-121.
25. Brewer MB (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin 17(5): 475-482.
26. Correll J, Park B (2005) A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 9(4): 341-359.
27. Pickett CL, Bonner BL, Coleman JM (2002) Motivated self-stereotyping: heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. J Pers Soc Psychol 82(4): 543.
28. Pickett CL, Silver MD, Brewer MB (2002) The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and social psychology bulletin 28(4): 546-558.
29. Van Leeuwen E, Van Knippenberg D, Ellemers N (2003) Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and social psychology bulletin 29(6): 679-690.
30. Haslam SA, Powell C, Turner J (2000) Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied psychology 49(3): 319-339.
31. Van Knippenberg D (2000) Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied psychology 49(3): 357-371.
32. DiTomaso N, Post C, Parks-Yancy R (2007) Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual review of sociology 33: 473-501.
33. Hofhuis J, Van der Zee KI, Otten S (2015) Measuring employee perception on the effects of cultural diversity at work: Development of the benefits and threats of diversity scale. Quality & quantity 49: 177-201.
34. Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological science in the public interest 6(2): 31-55.
35. Van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual review of psychology 58: 515-541.
36. Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of management 27(2): 141-162.
37. Kooij-de Bode HJ, Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP (2008) Ethnic diversity and distributed information in group decision making: The importance of information elaboration. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice 12(4): 307-320.
38. Jehn KA, Bezrukova K, Thatcher S (2007) Conflict, diversity, and fault lines in workgroups. In: CKW De Dreu, MJ Gelfand (Eds.),  The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations, Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 195-226.
39. Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of management journal 36(3): 590-602.
40. Nakui T, Paulus PB, Van der Zee KI (2011) The role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity in Workgroups 1. Journal of applied social psychology 41(10): 2327-2351.
41. Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E (2004) Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of management review 29(2): 180-202.
42. Tsui AS, Gutek BA (1999) Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions.
43. Reynolds KJ, Turner JC, Haslam SA (2003) Social identity and self-categorization theories’ contribution to understanding identification, salience and diversity in teams and organizations. In Identity issues in groups. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
44. Van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA, Platow MJ (2007) Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice 11(3): 207.
45. Hofhuis J, Van Der Rijt PG, Vlug M (2016) Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus 5(1): 1-14.
46. Bandura A (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology 4(3): 359-373.
47. Bandura A (1997) The anatomy of stages of change. Am J Health Promot 12(1): 8-10.
48. Wood R, Bandura A (1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management review 14(3): 361-384.
49. Bandura A (1982) The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 13(3): 195-199.
50. Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of management review 12(3): 472-485.
51. Gist ME, Mitchell TR (1992) Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of management review 17(2): 183-211.
52. Lennings CJ (1994) An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale. Personality and individual differences 16(5): 745-750.
53. Liao H, Chuang A (2007) Transforming service employees and climate: a multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of applied psychology 92(4): 1006-1019.
54. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F (1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 124(2): 240.
55. Judge TA, Bono JE (2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology 86(1): 80-92.
56. Sitzmann T, Yeo G (2013) A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel psychology 66(3): 531-568.
57. Henson RK, Bennett DT, Sienty SF, Chambers SM (2000) The Relationship between Means-End Task Analysis and Context-Specific and Global Self-Efficacy in Emergency Certification Teachers: Exploring a New Model of Teacher Efficacy.
58. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R (2005) The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol 139(5): 439-457.
59. Zhou S, Wu S, Yu X, Chen W, Zheng W, et al. (2021) Employment stress as a moderator of the relationship between proactive personality and career decision-making self-efficacy. Social behavior and personality: an international journal 49(10): 1-13.
60. Chan S, Maneewan S, Koul R (2021) Cooperative learning in teacher education: its effects on EFL pre-service teachers’ content knowledge and teaching self-efficacy. Journal of education for teaching 47(5): 654-667.
61. Al Thani M, Leventakou V, Sofroniou A, Butt HI, Hakim IA, et al. (2022) Factors associated with baseline smoking self-efficacy among male Qatari residents enrolled in a quit smoking study. PloS one 17(1): e0263306.
62. Chowdhury S, Endres M, Lanis TW (2002) Preparing students for success in team work environments: The importance of building confidence. Journal of managerial issues 14(3): 346-359.
63. Phillips DT (2001) The founding fathers on leadership: Classic teamwork in changing times. Hachette UK.
64. Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management 23(3): 239-290.
65. Hyatt DE, Ruddy TM (1997) An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel psychology 50(3): 553-585.
66. Ailes CB, Bosworth CC (2004) The perception and reality of student and workplace teams. Journalism and mass communication educator 59(1): 42-59.
67. Bacon DR (2005) The effect of group projects on content related learning. Journal of management education 29(2): 248-267.
68. Fan M, Cai W, Jiang L (2021) Can Team Resilience Boost Team Creativity Among Undergraduate Students? A Sequential Mediation Model of Team Creative Efficacy and Team Trust. Front psychol 12: 2033.
69. Gully SM, Payne SC, Koles K, Whiteman JAK (2002) The impact of error training and individual differences on training outcomes: an attribute-treatment interaction perspective. J Appl Psychol 87(1): 143-155.
70. Lent RW, Schmidt J, Schmidt L (2006) Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of vocational behavior 68(1): 73-84.
71. Scott-Young C, Samson D (2008) Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of operations management 26(6): 749-766.
72. De Jong RD, Bouhuys SA, Barnhoorn JC (1999) Personality, self-efficacy and functioning in management teams: A contribution to validation. International journal of selection and assessment 7(1): 46-49.
73. Sonnentag S, Volmer J (2009) Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes: The role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group and organization management 34(1): 37-66.
74. Coetzer GH, Richmond L (2007) An empirical analysis of the relationship between Adult Attention Deficit and Efficacy for Working in Teams. International journal of team performance management 13(2): 5-10.
75. Coetzer GH, Trimble R (2009) An empirical examination of the relationships between adult attention deficit, reliance on team mates and team member performance. Team performance management: An international journal.
76. Coetzer GH, Trimble R (2010) An empirical examination of the relationship between Adult Attention Deficit, Co-operative Conflict Management and Efficacy for Working in Teams. American journal of business 25(1): 23-34.
77. Coetzer G (2016) Emotional Intelligence versus Cognitive Intelligence: Which is the better predictor of Efficacy for Working in Teams. Journal of behavioral and applied management 16(2): 116-133.
78. Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP, Homan AC (2013) Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121(2): 183-193.
79. Van Knippenberg D, Haslam SA (2003) Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In: SA Haslam, D van Knippenberg, MJPlatow, N Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice, Psychology Press, pp. 61–77.
80. Strauss JP, Connerley ML (2003) Demographics, personality, contact, and universal-diverse orientation: An exploratory examination. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management 42(2): 159-174.
81. Sheehan A, Martin R (2004) On being different: Understanding diversity influences on employee wellbeing and team functioning. In Australian Journal of psychology 56: 151-151.
82. Thompson RL, Brossart DF, Carlozzi AF, Miville ML (2002) Five-factor model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor trainees. J Psychol 136(5): 561-572.
83. Miville ML, Gelso CJ, Pannu R, Lin W, Touradji P, et al. (1999) Appreciating similarities and differences: The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Journal of counseling psychology 46(3): 291–307.
84. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1973) Attribution of responsibility: A theoretical note. Journal of experimental social psychology 9(2): 148-153.
85. Fuertes JN, Miville ML, Mohr JJ, Sedlacek WE, Gretchen D, et al. (2000) Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development 33: 157-169.
86. Kottke JL (2011) Additional evidence for the short form of the Universality-Diversity Scale. Personality and individual differences 50(4): 464–469.
87. Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D, Hägele S, Guillaume YR, Brodbeck FC, et al. (2008) Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human relations 61(10): 1463-1492.
88. Homan AC, Van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CK (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. J Appl Psychol 92(5): 1189.
89. Brown EJ, Turovsky J, Heimberg RG, Juster HR, Brown TA, et al. (1997) Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological assessment 9(1): 21.
90. Mattick RP, Clarke JC (1998) Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav Res Ther 36(4): 455- 470.
91. Leary MR (1983) Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. J Pers Assess 47(1): 66-75.
92. Pickering AD, Gray JA (1999) The neuroscience of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 2: 277-299.
93. Corr PJ (2004) Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28(3): 317-332.
94. Kimbrel NA (2008) A model of the development and maintenance of generalized social phobia. Clin Psychol Rev 28(4): 592–612.
95. Kashdan TB, Roberts JE (2006) Affective outcomes in superficial and intimate interactions: Roles of social anxiety and curiosity. Journal of research in personality 40(2): 140-167.
96. Kimbrel NA, Mitchell JT, Nelson-Gray RO (2010) An examination of the relationship between behavioral approach system (BAS) sensitivity and social interaction anxiety. J Anxiety Disord 24(3): 372-378.
97. Corr PJ (2002) JA Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory: Tests of the joint subsystems hypothesis of anxiety and impulsivity. Personality and individual differences 33(4): 511-532.
98. Kimbrel NA, Cobb AR, Mitchell JT, Hundt NE, Nelson-Gray RO, et al. (2008) Sensitivity to punishment and low maternal care account for the link between bulimic and social anxiety symptomology. Eat Behav 9(2): 210–217.
99. Dass P, Parker B (2017) Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From resistance to learning. Routledge, p.13.
100. Kidder DL, Lankau MJ, Chrobot-Mason D, Mollica KA, Friedman RA, et al. (2004) Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management 15(1): 77–102.
101. Romani L, Holck L, Risberg A (2019) Benevolent discrimination: Explaining how human resources professionals can be blind to the harm of diversity initiatives. Organization 26(3): 371-390.
102. Velasco M, Sansone C (2019) Resistance to diversity and inclusion change initiatives: Strategies for transformational leaders. Organization Development Journal 37(3): 9-20.
103. Brown TE (1996) “Brown attention deficit disorder scales for adolescents and adults”, The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Assessment Corporation, UK.
104. Levy F, Hay DA, McStephen M, Wood C, Waldman I, et al. (1997) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a category or a continuum? Genetic analysis of a large-scale twin study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36(6): 737-744.
105. Sherman DK, Iacono WG, McGue MK (1997) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder dimensions: a twin study of inattention and impulsivity-hyperactivity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 36(6): 745-753.
106. Reich J (2007) State and trait in personality disorders. Annals of clinical psychiatry 19(1): 37-44.
107. Naber AM, Jennifer NM, Olabisi AA, Winfred AJ (2015) "Team members’ interaction anxiety and team-training effectiveness: A catastrophic relationship?." Human factors 57(1): 163-176.
108. Fuller RM, Vician CM, Brown SA (2016) Longitudinal effects of computer-mediated communication anxiety on interaction in virtual teams. IEEE transactions on professional communication 59(3): 166-185.
109. Wang C, Zhang Y (2021) New employees’ interpersonal sensitivity and help-seeking behavior: Fear of negative evaluation and social anxiety as mediators. Social behavior and personality: An international journal 49(10): 1-10.
110. Moreno-Jiménez B, Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Moreno Y, Garrosa E, et al. (2007) The moderating role of assertiveness and social anxiety in workplace bullying: Two empirical studies. Psychology in Spain 11(1): 85-94.
111. Young BS (1996) Social anxiousness constructs as predictors of managerial performance. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 57(6-B): 4074.
112. Dyar C, Dworkin ER, Pirog S, Kaysen D (2021) Social interaction anxiety and perceived coping efficacy: Mechanisms of the association between minority stress and drinking consequences among sexual minority women. Addict Behav 114: 106718.
113. Leary MR, Atherton SC (1986) Self-efficacy, social anxiety, and inhibition in interpersonal encounters. Journal of social and clinical psychology 4(3): 256-267.
114. Goldin PR, Ziv M, Jazaieri H, Werner K, Kraemer H, et al. (2012) Cognitive reappraisal self-efficacy mediates the effects of individual cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 80(6): 1034-1040.
115. Lukasik IM, Witek A (2017) Experiencing Anxiety about Self-Efficacy during Teamwork. Przeglad Badan Edukacyjnych (Educational studies review) 24 (1/2017): 7-20.
116. Kuipers BS (2005) Team development and team performance: Responsibilities, responsiveness and results. Ridderkerk: Labyrinth Publications.
117. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review 26(3): 356-376.
118. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5): 879-903.
119. Kegel K, DeBlaere C (2014) Universal-diverse orientation in Asian international students: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale, Short Form. Cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology 20(3): 469-474.
120. Miville ML, Carlozzi AF, Gushue GV, Schara SL, Ueda M, et al. (2006) Mental health counselor qualities for a diverse clientele: Linking empathy, universal-diverse orientation, and emotional intelligence. Journal of mental health counseling 28(2): 151-165.
121. Peters L, Sunderland M, Andrews G, Rapee RM, Mattick RP, et al. (2012) Development of a short form Social Interaction Anxiety (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) using nonparametric item response theory: The SIAS-6 and the SPS-6. Psychol Assess 24(1): 66-76.
122. Zhong J, Liu J, Xu G, Zheng H, Bowker J, et al. (2021) Measurement invariance of two different short forms of Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) in Chinese and US samples. European journal of psychological assessment 39(1): 14-20.
123. Carleton RN, Collimore KC, Asmundson GJG, McCabe RE, Rowa K, et al. (2009) Refining and validating the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Depression and anxiety 26(2): E71-81.
124. Bahadori KJ, Hashemi Nosrat Abad TT (2012) The relationship between social anxiety, optimism and self-efficacy with psychological well-being in students. Studies in medical sciences 23(2): 115-122.
125. Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist 37(2): 122-147.
126. Brown T (2005) Attention Deficit Disorder: The Unfocused Mind in Children and Adults, Yale University Press, UK.
127. Carleton RN, Abrams MP, Asmundson GJ, Antony MM, McCabe RE, et al. (2009) Pain-related anxiety and anxiety sensitivity across anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of anxiety disorders 23(6): 791-798.
128. Eby LT, Dobbins GH (1997) Collective orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis. Journal of organizational behavior 18(3): 275-295.
129. Hackman JR (1983) A normative model of work team effectiveness. Office of Naval Research, USA.
130. McNaughton N, Gray JA (2000) Anxiolytic action on the behavioural inhibition system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety. J Affect Disord 61(3): 161-176.
131. Miville ML, Romans JSC, Johnson D, Lone R (2004) Universal-diverse orientation: Linking social attitudes with wellness. Journal of college student psychotherapy 19(2): 61–79.
132. Unruh LE, McCord DM (2010) Personality traits and beliefs about diversity in pre-service teachers. Individual differences research 8(1): 1-7.