(PS9-B35) Emotion Regulation and Social Inhibition Explain the Relationship Between Social Anxiety Symptom Severity and Social Connectedness

Background
The current study seeks to explore a gap in the social anxiety (SA) literature by examining its relationship with social connectedness, including potential underlying factors influencing the relationship. Social connectedness is modeled from psychosocial features of SA including social interaction anxiety, emotion regulation, and social inhibition. Social functioning has been identified previously as a protective factor against mortality and self-harm (Kleiman & Liu, 2013), and given that social anxiety disorder (SAD) has been linked to poorer outcomes, including quality of life, it is important to investigate its specific impact on social connectedness (Ruscio et al., 2008; Stein & Kean, 2000). The relationship between SA and social connectedness has been previously explored where social connectedness functions as a mediator between SA and constructs such as self-esteem (Fatima et al., 2017), test anxiety (Kavanagh et al., 2017), and psychological distress broadly (Lee et al., 2001). Social inhibition (Spence & Rapee 2016; Clauss & Blackford, 2012) and emotion regulation (Helbig‐Lang et al., 2015, Cisler et al., 2010) have been implicated as having roles in development and maintenance of SA and SAD.

Methods
The current study utilized cross-sectional methods through administration of an ongoing Qualtrics survey consisting of various questionnaires targeting relevant constructs. Participants included in preliminary analyses are from a convenience sample of 227 “healthy” adults aged 18 and older registered on ResearchMatch as “Volunteers” (µ_age = 25.68 years) across the United States. After providing consent, participants completed a series of questionnaires and provided demographic information.

Results
A multiple, hierarchical regression analysis was used to predict participants’ social connectedness from SA severity, emotion regulation, and social inhibition, while controlling for age and sex. The model explained a statistically significant amount of variance in social connectedness, F(5, 219) = 83.12, p < .001. R² = .66. Emotion regulation, ß = .460, t(219) = 8.00, p < .001, and social inhibition, ß = .375, t(219) = 4.26, p < .001, were significant predictors of social connectedness in the final model. The first step of the regression analysis revealed the regression of SA on social connectedness was significant, ignoring the emotion regulation and social inhibition predictors, ß = .694, t(221) = 12.93, p < .001. However, SA was no longer a significant predictor of social connectedness in the final model after including emotion regulation and social inhibition in the model, ß = .081, t(219) = .91, p = .37.

Discussion
Results of the current research suggest there is a relationship between emotion regulation and social inhibition on social connectedness after controlling for age and sex, and that emotion regulation and social inhibition may explain the relationship between social anxiety severity and social connectedness. Treatment and research implications of these findings will be discussed.