Social anxiety (SA) is an outcome of fear of evaluation by others in situations demanding social interaction, like discussing in groups, facing interviews, interacting with strangers, speaking in public, dating, etc. When this fear becomes severe and debilitating, it is referred to as social anxiety disorder (SAD), a clinical condition [1]. Both correlational and experimental studies have aptly demonstrated the role of cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors in the onset and maintenance of SA and SAD. According to the cognitive-behavioral model, the fear of evaluation originates from a strong desire on the part of individuals to make favorable impressions on others, who, in their estimation, are likely to expect high social performance standards and evaluate them against those standards. Expectations of high-performance standards by others in social situations restrict people from focusing unduly on the threat-provoking aspects of social interactions [2] and shifting attention away from positive social information [3]. Such positive social information is often threatening [4] because it raises performance standards in subsequent social interactions and makes them conspicuous in social situations [5, 6], which is often intimidating. Consequently, individuals with high SA tend to develop negative emotional and cognitive memories and imageries of social interactions [7], which become internalized and undermine their self-image. As a result, they are less likely to associate self with positive social attributes [8, 9].

During social interactions, the attention of individuals with high SA becomes excessively self-focused, with an acute awareness of bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, and memories [10]. Emotional control gets out of hand, leading to difficulty regulating emotional experiences and expressions [11, 12]. The poor self-appraisal coupled with negative emotional experience engender feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, resulting in embarrassment and humiliation while dealing with social interactions. In such situations, individuals with high SA either avoid social events or indulge in excessive self-monitoring and rehearsal to impress others [13, 14]. Using self-protective behaviors elevates anxiety levels, negative outcomes of social events, and poorer performance ratings by self and others [15, 16]. These negative self-experiences are more likely to result in less positive post-event processing [17-20]. In this way, SA is perpetuated by forming negative self-impressions and retrieving negative memories following a social event or anticipating an upcoming social event [21]. This vicious cycle denies individuals the opportunity to reality check and develop adequate social competencies [22, 24].

The role of negative self-evaluation and emotional affect in the onset and maintenance of SA is amply demonstrated in clinical and non-clinical populations. The negative self-evaluations arising from negative experiences encountered in social situations [25] and consequent faulty beliefs about one's competency in dealing with social interactions [22] undermine an individual's ability to cope with social situations. Previous studies have shown that due to strict social rules of behavior and a lack of adequate social competencies, young adults in India go through embarrassment, guilt, self-blame, significant gender inequality and insensitivity, unfair social treatment, and deprivation [23, 24]. Avenues for professional guidance and training in developing social competencies are also very limited, given that they are non-clinical, and young adults dislike the social stigma attached to seeking professional help. Hence, understanding the dynamics of SA in this group is necessary for helping this group overcome this undesirable psychological predisposition.

Self-compassion is characterized by kindness towards one's pains and misfortunes, a feeling of connectivity with common humanity as failures and mistakes are common to all humans, and being mindful of one's pains and misfortunes by being aware and accepting [26]. Mata analytic studies have shown significant negative relationships between self-compassion, a personal predisposition characterized by open-minded, realistic, and compassionate self-evaluations, and several psychopathological conditions [27]. High self-compassion is associated with a reduced likelihood of ruminations about past feelings or being overwhelmed by feelings of inadequacy [26], engaging less in debilitating self-focused attention, thereby enabling attentional focus on the external environment [28, 29] and showing reduced reliance on cognitive and behavioral avoidance strategies to facilitating realistic appraisal of social situations [15, 30].

The overt manifestation of SA is the avoidance of social situations. Covert feelings of fear of social situations propel this behavioral avoidance. Fear in social situations leads to actively avoiding them as an irrational defense. Hence, to address SA, the social fear must be dealt with. Once social fear is mitigated, attempts to approach social situations strengthen, giving rise to opportunities for learning appropriate social skills. Based on this premise, this study has been conceived to understand the antecedent conditions that impact SA (fear and avoidance). Onset and maintenance of SA are found to be closely associated with self-compassion [25, 31-37]. These factors may not directly impact SA but create awareness, understanding, and acceptance of one's feelings, thoughts, sensations, and outer reality with all its ramifications. This mindful attitude towards self and surroundings may act as a preparatory set and could unleash coping mechanisms to deal with and attenuate the fear of social situations. Reduced social fear may help the realistic appraisal of social situations, which may guard against the temptation to get overwhelmed and flee the social situations but facilitate approach behavior, providing ample opportunities for learning social skills.

2.1. The Conceptual Model

Fig. (1) depicts that self-compassion (SC) and positive emotional affect (PA) will facilitate, and negative emotional affect (NA) will hinder one's awareness and acceptance of self and social situations (MD). This awareness and acceptance of self and the environment will mitigate or aggravate the fear of social situations (SFR). The reduced or increased social fear, in turn, will reduce or increase social avoidance (SAV), leading to either participation in or avoidance of social events, thus increasing or diminishing the opportunities for learning social skills. Mindfulness and social fear will mediate both individually and jointly the relationship impact of self-compassion and the positive and negative emotional effects of social avoidance.

The most dominant cognitive factor is attention bias and reduced attention control. People with SA find it difficult to process positive social information [3] and cannot shift their attention away from threat-provoking social information [2]. They interpret positive social interactions as threatening [4], often fail to accept others' positive reactions to social events [31], and endorse more negative interpretations of positive events [32]. This happens mainly due to the fear that higher standards of social performance would be expected of them by others. Inwardly, they are less likely to have implicit associations between self and positive social attributes [8, 9] and tend to develop negative emotional and cognitive visual memories of recent social interactions. The Positive imagery is relatively impoverished and degraded episodic details [7]. Their attention is self-focused, with an acute awareness of bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, and memories, which further increase their anxiety levels [10].

Fig. (1). Conceptual model.

Emotional regulation in individuals with SA appears to be imperfect. They tend to pay scanty attention to their emotional experiences and their descriptions of the experiences more ambiguously [12]. They suppress emotions and exhibit greater ambivalence in emotional expression due to the fear that it may lead to social rejection [11]. Their response to positive information and experiencing positive emotions are particularly impaired [5]. They exhibit a fear of positive evaluation to avoid being conspicuous and circumvent raising standards by which they will be evaluated in the future [6]. Fear of positive emotions compels them to dampen positive affect in savoring and expressing and maintain low levels of positive affect [33, 12]. They report higher levels of anger but suppress anger expression and direct it inward [34].

Dysfunctional behavior patterns are displayed to prevent feared social outcomes. These self-protective strategies do not help alleviate anxiety but only maintain it [14]. They can be classified into avoidance (low self-disclosure, avoidance of eye contact, attempts to conceal anxiety) and impression management (excessive self-monitoring and rehearsal) subtypes [13]. The use of safety behaviors only resulted in higher levels of anxiety, negative predictions about the outcome of social events, and poorer ratings of performance by self and others [15]. At the same time, reduced use of safety behaviors reduced negative predictions about social outcomes and increased positive ratings of participant's social behavior by others [16]. SA is perpetuated by forming negative self-impressions and retrieving negative memories following a social event or in anticipation of an upcoming social event (Brozovich & Heimberg, 2008) [21]. Self-focused attention and negative beliefs and assumptions were found to mediate the SA and post-event processing. A negative self-image is more likely to result in less positive post-event processing [17-20]. The cognitive-behavior model points out attentional bias away from positive aspects of self, others, and the situation coupled with dysfunctional emotional regulation leading to negative affect leads to fear of social events. This fear is aggravated by adapting dysfunctional self-protective behavior and maintained by negative post-event evaluation.

Structural path coefficients are displayed in Table 5 and Fig. (3). All model fit indices suggest a good fit. The Goodness of Fit (GFI) is 0.979, the Comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.987, and the Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.031. All direct and indirect path coefficients were estimated to arrive at mediation effects. The unstandardized and standardized path coefficients are presented in Table 5. Fig. (3) gives the estimated model. The exogenous constructs SC (0.426; p=0.000) and PA (0.563; p=0.000) positively impact MD, the endogenous mediating construct, and the exogenous construct NA (-0.365; p=0.000) negatively impact MD. The MD (-0.177; p=0.000) negatively impacts the mediating construct SFR; SFR positively impacts the endogenous construct SAV. All the hypotheses are accepted, and the overall model fits the conceptual logic propounded by the study.

4.1. Mediation Effects

The basic model being a mediation model, the magnitude and nature of the mediation by MD and SFR individually and jointly must be estimated to gain a clearer understanding. All paths, both direct and indirect, must be estimated. Table 5 shows the relevant path coefficients. The mediation effects were estimated by comparing the direct path coefficients of exogenous constructs to endogenous constructs before and after introducing mediator constructs. The indirect effect (mediation effect) and the change in the direct path coefficients before and after introducing mediators were examined to assess the magnitude and the nature of mediation. Table 6 presents the path coefficients before and after mediation and the mediation effects of both MD and SFR individually and jointly.

Table 6. Mediation effects.

Path Nos	Paths							Before Mediation		Mediation		After Mediation		Nature of Mediation
								B	p	B	p	B	p
1	-	-	SC	→	MD	→	SFR	-0.128	0.001	-0.075	0.000	-0.053	0.226	Full mediation
2	-	-	SC	→	MD	→	SAV	-0.021	0.570	0.017	0.394	-0.038	0.385	No mediation
3	-	-	SC	→	SFR	→	SAV	-0.06	0.214	-0.022	0.221	-0.038	0.385	No mediation
4	SC	→	MD	→	SFR	→	SAV	-0.070	0.124	-0.031	0.000	-0.038	0.385	Weak mediation
5	-	-	PA	→	MD	→	SFR	-0.107	0.001	-0.099	0.000	-0.008	0.853	Full mediation
6	-	-	PA	→	MD	→	SAV	0.015	0.663	-0.022	0.400	-0.007	0.821	No mediation
7	-	-	PA	→	SFR	→	SAV	-0.01	0.738	-0.003	0.855	-0.007	0.821	No mediation
8	PA	→	MD	→	SFR	→	SAV	-0.048	0.254	-0.042	0.000	-0.007	0.821	Weak mediation
9	-	-	NA	→	MD	→	SFR	0.192	0.000	0.064	0.000	0.127	0.001	Partial mediation
10	-	-	NA	→	MD	→	SAV	0.000	0.992	-0.014	0.404	0.014	0.635	No mediation
11	-	-	NA	→	SFR	→	SAV	0.068	0.033	0.053	0.000	0.014	0.635	Full mediation
12	NA	→	MD	→	SFR	→	SAV	0.041	0.190	0.027	0.000	0.014	0.635	Weak mediation

Fig. (3). Estimated model.

Fig. (4a) depicts the mediating relationship of SC on SFR and SAV. MD mediates the impact of SC on SFR. Before introducing MD, the effect of SC on SFR is significant (-0.128; p=0.000), and after introducing MD, this effect reduces to insignificance (-0.053; p=0.226). The mediating construct MD explains a substantial portion of this effect (-0.075; p=0.000). Self-compassion reduces social fear by increasing mindfulness.

MD does not mediate the impact of SC on SAV. The direct paths before (-0.021; p=0.570) and after (-0.038; p=0.385) mediation do not change, and the mediation effect (0.017; p=0.394) is also insignificant. Interestingly, the joint mediation of MD and SFR on the impact of SC on SAV is significant (-0.031; p=0.000) but not sufficient to effect a significant change in the path coefficients before (-0.070; p=0.124) and after (-0.038; p=0.385) joint mediation.

Fig. (4a). Mediation Effects of Mindfulness and Social Fear (Self Compassion → Social Avoidance).

Fig. (4b). Mediation Effects of Mindfulness and Social Fear (Positive Affect → Social Avoidance).

Fig. (4c). Mediation Effects of Mindfulness and Social Fear (Negative affect → Social Avoidance).

Fig. (4b) depicts the mediating effects of PA on SFR and SAV. The mediating effects are very similar to that of SC on SFR and SAV. MD mediates the effect of PA on SFR (-0.099; p=0.000). The change in path coefficients of PA on SFR before (-0.107; p=0.001) and after (-0.008; p=0.853) mediation indicates full mediation. The mediation effect of MD on the impact of PA on SAV is not significant (0.022; p=0.400), which is also reflected in the absence of substantial change in path coefficients before (0.015; p=0.663) and after (-0.007; p=0.821) mediation. The joint mediation of MD and SFR is significant (-0.042; p=0.000) but not sufficient to produce substantial change in path coefficients before (-0.048; p=0.254) and after (-0.007; p=0.821).

Fig. (4c) displays the mediating effects of NA on SFR and SAV. MD partially mediates the impact of NA on SFR. The mediating effect (0.064; p=0.000) is significant, but the path coefficients from before (0.192; p=0.000) to after (0.127; p=0.001) are reduced but not substantial. Though NA on its own can increase social fear, with MD as a mediator, this debilitating effect is attenuated to a substantial degree.

NA does not impact SAV either directly (0.000; p =.992) or through MD (0.014; p=0.635), which is reinforced by the insignificant mediating effect (-0.014; p=0.404). Both MD and SFR have jointly attenuated the impact of NA on SAV (0.027; p=0.000), but this is not substantial enough to effect any meaningful change in the path coefficients before (0.041; p=0.190) and after (0.014; p=0.635) joint mediation.

As presumed in this study, the components of social anxiety-social fear and social avoidance- emerge as two distinct constructs. Hence, summing these components as a single measure of social anxiety could confound its interplay with other constructs. Good convergent and discriminant validity of these two components warrant their treatment as two separate constructs influencing each other. Fear of social situations would lead to avoidance of social situations. This defensive avoidance of social situations would preclude the opportunities to learn social skills. This would operate as a vicious cycle and deprive the individuals of developing social competencies. Female college students, the target population of this study, could easily get into this vicious cycle and develop social incompetency and, therefore, become victims of unfair social treatment. A better understanding of antecedent factors controlling the fear of social situations is essential to deal with this unfortunate social malice.

The results of the study supported the model that self-compassion and emotional well-being influence mindfulness, and mindfulness attenuates social fear, and reduced social anxiety reduces the tendency towards social avoidance. The path coefficients depicting these relationships are all in the predicted magnitude and direction. The notable aspect of the model is the mediating influence of mindfulness. Being compassionate to oneself with a positive emotionality does not directly influence social fear or avoidance. They perhaps predispose individuals to accept and acknowledge themselves and help to create a clearer perspective of their probable reactions to the social situation and its ramifications. Looking at the social situation with a clearer perspective would help them ward off the fear emanating out of uncertainty of the situation and the lack of alternatives in dealing with it. Reduced fear would encourage the individual to approach the social situation with much preparedness and openness. Though it was not a part of the presumed model, mediating effects of mindfulness and social fear on social anxiety were estimated.

Social fear appears to be a crucial variable responsible for social avoidance. To reduce social avoidance and thus enhance social participation, reducing fear of social situations is necessary. Two counterbalancing forces appear to have a strong impact on social fear. Mindfulness, which is the awareness and acceptance of the feelings, thoughts, and sensations attached to self and its possible reciprocity with social surroundings, seeks to mitigate the fear and negative emotional effects to enhance the fear. Mindfulness could be nurtured through training to increase self-compassion and positive emotionality and decrease negative emotionality. Decreasing negative emotionality appears to have a more substantial impact on social fear through increasing mindfulness, thereby reducing fear and directly mitigating fear. These inferences are very relevant to the population of the study: urban, middle-class young women of college-going age growing up in relatively traditional cultural settings. However, the universality of these inferences is to be tested across various geographical locations and cultural contexts.

1. The proposed mediating model holds for the data. The dispositional variables, namely, self-compassion and positive emotional affect, augment and negative emotional affect, attenuate mindfulness. Mindfulness weakens social fear, and social fear reduces the tendency to avoid social situations.

2. Mindfulness effectively mediates the impact of self-compassion's positive effects and negative effects on social fear. The extent of covariance accounted for by mindfulness is substantial. While mindfulness fully mediates with respect to self-compassion and positive affect, it partially mediates the negative effect.

3. Mindfulness does not mediate the impact of self-compassion's positive and negative effects on social avoidance.

4. Mindfulness and social fear jointly mediate the impact of self-compassion, positive affect, and negative affect on social avoidance. The mediation effect is rather weak as it does not substantially change the impact before and after introducing mediators.

Our study has certain limitations. First, although we have used robust statistical analyses, the nature of the data is cross-sectional in nature. This would limit causal inference of the results of the study. We have used urban and educated college students as participants. The generalization of the findings to other demographic groups needs careful consideration. The measures translated in this study can be validated in future cross-cultural studies.