Abstract / Summary
Fear of negative evaluation (FNE) is widely regarded as a central cognitive component of social anxiety (SA). However, the strength and stability of the association between FNE and SA, as well as potential moderating factors, remain unclear. This study aimed to systematically synthesize existing evidence on the relationship between FNE and SA and to examine potential moderators.
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024619488). A systematic search of major databases was conducted for studies published between January 2010 and April 2025. Eligible studies examined the association between FNE and SA. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled effect sizes, with heterogeneity assessed using Q and I² statistics. Moderator analyses were conducted to explore sources of variability.
A total of 143 studies comprising 146 independent samples (N = 80,285) were included. The pooled correlation between FNE and SA was r = 0.53 (95% CI: 0.50-0.55; I² = 88.62%), indicating a moderate positive association. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. Moderator analyses suggested that social anxiety measurement tools and cultural background were associated with variability in effect sizes, with stronger correlations observed in Western samples (r = 0.59) compared to Eastern samples (r = 0.52). In contrast, gender, age, publication year, and FNE measurement tools were not significant moderators. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, and no evidence of substantial publication bias was detected.
This meta-analysis provides robust evidence for a moderate positive association between FNE and SA, suggesting that FNE is an important cognitive component of social anxiety. The strength of this association varies across cultural contexts and measurement approaches, highlighting the importance of contextual and methodological factors in shaping observed effects. However, the substantial heterogeneity and predominance of cross-sectional designs limit causal interpretation. Future longitudinal and cross-cultural studies are needed to clarify the developmental and contextual dynamics of this relationship.