- •Eu jep catch project
- •If you are not sure about the meaning of the expressions, look them up in a dictionary.
- •Types of conferences and differences between them
- •Introduction
- •In class
- •High-level scientific conferences. Videoconferences
- •Videoconferencing Etiquette
- •Conference planning
- •Programming of a scientific conference (call for papers, contingency plan, conference pack, conference officers, during the conference, after the conference)
- •Impromptu talks and addressing a nonscientific audience
- •Impromptu Talks
- •Unit: intercultural awareness
- •Intercultural competence is a guarantee of successful communication
- •Tips for dealing with people who belong to different cultures
- •Unit: conference etiquette
- •Rules of etiquette and their importance
- •Rules of etiquette and their importance (continuation)
- •Unit: scientific report preparation and presentation. Academic argument
- •Conventions in scientific report writing
- •Introduction
- •Evaluation of a scientific report
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •References
- •Language of a scientific report
- •Steps of research and the examples of structural patterns used
- •Scientific report presentation
- •Making a speech
- •Making short speeches with impact
- •Academic argument
- •Introduction
- •Appendix the effect of nickel, chromium, and primary alpha phase on the creep behavior of ti 6242si
- •Introduction
- •Experimental procedure
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •Establishing Arguments
- •1. Developing Strong Thesis Statements
- •Appendix
- •1.1. Different types of conferences
- •1.3. Time and venue
- •1.4. Programming, call for papers.
- •1.5. Conference planning
- •1. Comment on the following statements. In your opinion are they:
- •2. Mind useful language
- •3. Request and offers.
Abstract
To investigate the association between shyness and Internet usage, 88 undergraduate students completed the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, the Online Cognition Scale, a computer/Internet familiarity scale, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (short version) and the Abbreviated Duke Social Support Index. Significant correlations were found between shyness, Internet use, and personality traits. A stepwise regression analysis indicated that shyness was predicted by introversion, neuroticism, and problematic Internet usage as assessed by the Online Cognition Scale.
Introduction
IM
(2004) NOTED that three out of four Americans now have Internet
access from home. The Internet is used by young and old alike, and
people access the World Wide Web in a variety of ways and for a
variety of reasons. Research into this field has attempted to
delineate between healthy and problematic use of this medium. Several
studies have shown that Internet use is associated with feelings of
loneliness and depression.1
Problematic
Internet use has been associated with increases in impulsivity and
increases in social comfort while online.1
Social
discomfort is a factor associated with shyness, and several studies
have looked specifically into the extent to which the shy,
introverted person uses the Internet as a form of socializing. Not
surprisingly, when looking at relationships formed by shy
individuals, Ward and Tracey found that shy people reported more
trouble with face-to-face relationships than with online
relationships.2
Chak
and Leung found that shyness was associated with Internet
ad-diction.3
Specifically,
the computer addict tends to be a shy, full-time student who spends
longer times online per session and is online more times during the
week than less shy individuals. Hamburger and Ben-Artzi found that
introverted and neurotic females tend to show increased use of the
Internet for social purposes, using e-mail, chat rooms, and
discussion services via the Internet more than do non-neurotic and
nonintroverted males and females.4
The
present research was to investigate further the relationship between
the trait of shyness and Internet usage.
METHOD
Thirty-four male and 54 female undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology class at a state college completed questionnaires for this study (Mage 19.2 yr, SD 1.8). Fifty of the students were freshmen, 29 sophomores, and 9 upper classmen.
TABLE 1. CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
|
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
(9) |
(10) |
(11) |
(12) |
(13) |
(14) |
(15) |
|
(1) Age |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Sex 0.07 |
-0.07 |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Total shyness |
-0.02 |
-0.13 |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) Global OCS |
-0.10 |
-0.13 |
0.41* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) Social comfort |
-0.05 |
-0.11 |
0.44* |
0.79* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6) Loneliness/Depression |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.28* |
0.77* |
0.43* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7) Distraction |
-0.11 |
-0.12 |
0.22* |
0.79* |
0.47* |
0.54* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8) Diminished impulse control |
-0.16 |
-0.17 |
0.30* |
0.81* |
0.45* |
0.61* |
_0.53* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9) Computer familiarity |
-0.09 |
-0.16 |
0.09 |
0.54* |
0.43* |
0.30* |
_0.50* |
0.46* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10) Extraversion |
-0.01 |
0.21* |
-0.63* |
-0.32* |
_0.37* |
_0.21 |
_0.23* |
_0.16* |
_0.09 |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11) Neuroticism |
-0.09 |
-0.08 |
0.38* |
0.13 |
0.20 |
0.06 |
_0.03 |
0.14 |
_0.07 |
_0.35* |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
(12) Psychoticism |
-0.08 |
-0.34* |
-0.01 |
0.14 |
0.11 |
_0.01 |
_0.21* |
0.09* |
_0.15 |
_0.02 |
_0.05* |
— |
|
|
|
|
(13) Global social support |
-0.07 |
0.14 |
-0.17 |
-0.19 |
_0.29* |
_0.06 |
_0.09 |
_0.09 |
_0.01 |
_0.28* |
_0.21* |
_0.27* |
— |
|
|
|
(14) Social interaction |
-0.11 |
0.03 |
-0.11 |
-0.12 |
_0.19 |
_0.07* |
_0.05* |
_0.05* |
_0.04 |
_0.22* |
_0.15 |
_0.20 |
0.96* |
— |
|
|
(15) Social satisfaction |
-0.08 |
0.37* |
-0.25* |
-0.31* |
_0.43* |
_0.04 |
_0.22* |
_0.17 |
_0.15 |
_0.30* |
_0.28* |
_0.34* |
0.59* |
0.35* |
— |
*p 0.05 or better.
The questionnaire used in this study included the following:
A demographic page asking for age, sex, and the respondent’s preference for face-to-face or online conversing.
The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale,5 which has 14 items answered on a 5-point Likert scale; the mean score was 34.9 (SD 9.2).
The Online Cognition Scale (OCS),1 which has 36 items answered on a 7-point Likert scale. This is a global measure of problematic Internet use. There are four subscales on the OCS: social comfort (M 36.6, SD 11.7), loneliness/depression (M 17.9, SD 6.4), diminished impulse control (M 23.9, SD 9.2), and distraction (M 25.6, SD 8.8).
The Yang and Lester Computer Usage Scale,6 which asks which of 20 computer/Internet activities respondents had engaged in (such as created a Web site, installed extra memory, and bought something on eBay). The mean score was 11.7 (SD 3.7).
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised, short version,7 which has 12-item subscales to measure extraversion–introversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism; each item is answered yes or no. Mean scores were extraversion 8.7 (SD 3.1), neuroticism 5.9 (SD 3.4), and psychoticism 2.4 (SD 2.0).
The Abbreviated Duke Social Support Index,8 an 11-item self-report questionnaire comprising two subscales: social satisfaction (7 items) and social interaction (4 items), answered on a 4point Likert-type scale. Mean scores were social satisfaction 29.2 (SD 5.4) and social interaction 22.0 (SD 16.0).
