Situation selection and modification in social inhibition: a person-centered approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Graphical display of percentages of mean item scores by profile. Note: This figure visualizes the four profiles (I = Approach dominant, overall moderate modification; II = Approach dominant, interactive; III = High avoidance & approach, avoidant modification; IV = High avoidance & approach, active & self-control modification) and the scores on situation selection preferences and modification behaviors as percentages of the maximum scale/item score.

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 504).

	Mean (SD)	% (N)
Age (years ± SD)	21.5 (8.2)	–
Women	–	81.9 (417)
Social inhibition (mean ± SD)	15.1 (9.6)	–
Behavioral inhibition (mean ± SD)	4.5 (3.8)	–
Interpersonal sensitivity (mean ± SD)	5.8 (4.0)	–
Social withdrawal (mean ± SD)	4.8 (3.5)	–

Table 2. Model fit evaluation information.

					Fit statistics
Model	LL	BLRT		BIC (LL)	ΔBIC	AIC3	Npar	Classification error
1-cluster	−14646.63	–	–	29742.00	–	29509.27	72	0
2-cluster	−14311.95	669.36	P<.001	29209.76	−532.24	28905.90	94	0.07
3-cluster	−14212.37	199.17	P<.001	29147.70	−62.06	28772.76	116	0.11
4-cluster	−14125.42	173.90	P<.001	29110.92	−36.78	28664.84	138	0.10
5-cluster	−14061.56	127.72	P<.001	29120.31	9.39	28603.12	160	0.15
6-cluster	−14012.96	101.55	P<.001	29160.23	39.92	28571.93	182	0.17
7-cluster	−13963.09	90.85	P<.001	29197.60	37.37	28538.18	204	0.17
8-cluster	−13913.45	77.54	P<.001	29235.43	37.83	28504.89	226	0.13

Note: The chosen model is presented in bold. Fit was evaluated, by calculating the bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (due to the large sample size, small deviations in fit cause significant changes in BLRT). Therefore, our main model fit was done by evaluating the change in BIC. LL = log likelihood; BLRT = bootstrapped likelihood ratio test. Npar = number of estimated parameters.

Figure 2. Mean social inhibition and facet scores by profile.

Table 3. Odds (95% CI) for social inhibition (facets) to be associated with the situation selection and modification profiles.

	Profile I Approach dominant, overall moderate modification	Profile II Approach dominant, interactive	Profile III High avoidance & approach, avoidant modification	Profile IV High avoidance & approach, active and self-control modification
Class size	51%	25%	17%	7%
Model 1. Total score	Odds				Wald	p-value
Social inhibition	.97 (.95–1.00)a	.87 (.84-.90)b*	1.11 (1.08–1.14)c*	1.07 (1.02–1.12)a*	94.48	< .001*
Model 2. Facet analyses	Odds				Wald	p-value
Behavioral inhibition	1.02 (.95–1.09)a	.73 (.64–.83)b*	1.41 (1.27–1.56)c*	.96 (.83–1.10)a	51.86	< .001*
Interpersonal sensitivity	.94 (.88–1.00)a	.92 (.84–1.00)a	.96 (.88–1.05)a	1.21 (1.08–1.36)b*	11.15	.011*
Social withdrawal	.99 (.93–1.05)a	.96 (.87–1.05)a	1.00 (.91–1.10)a	1.06 (.95–1.19)a	1.33	.720

Note: *p < .05. Letters in subscript indicate significant differences between pairs of profiles resulting from post hoc analysis, with profiles with different letters showing significantly different associations with social inhibition (facets).