SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 8
Download to read offline
Comparing Extraversion and Shyness
   Online Versus Face-to-Face
       Eulho Jung, John S. Kim, & Mark Snyder
              University of Minnesota
• Although social interaction on the Internet has become increasingly
  similar to real-world social interaction, the Internet is still a
  fundamentally different social environment compared to real life.
• This study examines how personality characteristics might
  differentially influence interactions in these two unique settings.


                  Why Extraversion and Shyness?
• Extraverts are better able to express themselves in face-to-face
  settings, while introverts are better able to express themselves on
  the Internet (Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel, & Fox, 2002).
• Shy people report more social competence online (Stritzke,
  Nguyen, & Durkin, 2004).
• This study will ultimately extend these findings by collecting
  measures on how these individuals are actually judged by others,
  both on Facebook and in real life.
• If extraverted people are more competent in face-to-face settings
  and shy people are more competent on the Internet, then judgments
  of these people based on face-to-face interactions and Facebook
  profiles should reflect this difference.

                             Hypothesis
• Shy people should be disliked by interaction partners after a face-
  to-face interaction, but liked by external raters making judgments
  based on their Facebook profiles.
• We might see the reverse pattern for extraverts.
• 84 college students completed Big Five and shyness scales, plus the
  extent to which people are getting to know them for “who they
  really are” on Facebook and in real life.

• Then, they engaged in a face-to-face interaction with another
  participant, after which they judged that person on likability.
• They also provided their Facebook profiles, from which their
  likability was later judged by external raters.

                              Measures
• Big Five scale (35 items; Goldberg, 1992)
• Shyness Scale (13 items; Cheek & Buss, 1981)
Main findings
•   After the face-to-face interaction, partners disliked shy people (r = -.27, p < .02) and
    assumed they were disliked by their peers (r = -.34, p < .01).
•   After the face-to-face interaction, extraversion did not influence likability (r = .18, p >
    .10), but partners assumed that extraverted people were liked by their peers (r = .37, p <
    .01)
•   Interestingly, external raters also disliked shy people based on their Facebook profiles (r
    = -.23, p < .05) and assumed that they were disliked by their peers (r = -.36, p < .01).
•   Extraversion did not influence likability based on Facebook profiles (r = .13, p > .27) but
    external raters assumed that extraverted people were liked by their peers (r = .28, p < .02)

                                           Also…
•   Extraverts feel like other people are getting to know them for who they are in face-to-face
    interaction (r = .30, p < .01), while shy people feel the opposite (r = -.25, p < .02)
•   This pattern disappeared on Facebook (r = .00, p > .98 for extraversion, r = -.09, p > .42
    for shyness).
•   Interestingly, shy people have more public settings on Facebook (r = .25, p < .03), while
    this was not seen for extraverts (r = -.13, p > .26).
• Extraverts feel more comfortable in face-to-face social settings,
  while shy people feel less comfortable. However, this difference
  disappears when it comes to Facebook. Moreover, shy people are
  more likely to open up their Facebook profiles to the public,
  reflecting their increased comfort on the Internet.

• Contrary to our hypotheses, this increased comfort is not reflected
  in actual judgments of likability!
    – On Facebook or face-to-face, people disliked shy people and assumed that
      they were disliked by their peers.
    – On Facebook or face-to-face, people assumed that extraverted people were
      liked by their peers.
• This study has obvious methodological limitations, mainly in that
  different people provided likability ratings for face-to-face and
  Facebook. Ideally, the same person would have done both ratings.
• Shy people may still benefit from Facebook. However, this benefit
  may be more self-oriented.
• Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). “On the
        Internet no one knows I’m an introvert”: Extroversion,
        neuroticism, and Internet interaction. CyberPsychology &
        Behavior, 5, 125-128.
• Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal
        of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.
• Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
        factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
• Stritzke, W., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and
        computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational
        theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1-22.

More Related Content

Similar to MPA Presentation

BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposalBrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
Brittany Franz
 
Consumer Behavior Final Project
Consumer Behavior Final ProjectConsumer Behavior Final Project
Consumer Behavior Final Project
Donna Moulton
 
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCEARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
Erin Bosman
 
NEPA attractiveness poster
NEPA attractiveness posterNEPA attractiveness poster
NEPA attractiveness poster
Brent Buckley
 
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docxRunning head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
jeanettehully
 
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
MalikPinckney86
 
Facial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
Facial Attractiveness and Perception PosterFacial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
Facial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
Elisha Yacono
 
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docxGuided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
aidaclewer
 
3.social network sites
3.social network sites3.social network sites
3.social network sites
jilung hsieh
 
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship SatisfactionCan You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
Ámbar Núñez
 
Gender on Facebook
Gender on FacebookGender on Facebook
Gender on Facebook
gueste611af
 
WPUPC Presentation
WPUPC PresentationWPUPC Presentation
WPUPC Presentation
Amber Kinney
 

Similar to MPA Presentation (20)

BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposalBrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
BrittanyFranz_ThesisProposal
 
Consumer Behavior Final Project
Consumer Behavior Final ProjectConsumer Behavior Final Project
Consumer Behavior Final Project
 
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCEARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
 
Internet Usage, Personality, Narcissism, and Motivations for Facebook Usage
Internet Usage, Personality, Narcissism, and Motivations for Facebook UsageInternet Usage, Personality, Narcissism, and Motivations for Facebook Usage
Internet Usage, Personality, Narcissism, and Motivations for Facebook Usage
 
NEPA attractiveness poster
NEPA attractiveness posterNEPA attractiveness poster
NEPA attractiveness poster
 
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docxRunning head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6.docx
 
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
Running head FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1FACEBOOK CONSENSUS6
 
COMM 308 Project
COMM 308 Project COMM 308 Project
COMM 308 Project
 
Facial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
Facial Attractiveness and Perception PosterFacial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
Facial Attractiveness and Perception Poster
 
Facebook Profiles and Usage as Indicators of Personality
Facebook Profiles and Usage as Indicators of PersonalityFacebook Profiles and Usage as Indicators of Personality
Facebook Profiles and Usage as Indicators of Personality
 
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docxGuided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
Guided Response Read the arguments presented by your classmates.docx
 
3.social network sites
3.social network sites3.social network sites
3.social network sites
 
Social psychology
Social psychologySocial psychology
Social psychology
 
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship SatisfactionCan You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction
 
Gender on Facebook
Gender on FacebookGender on Facebook
Gender on Facebook
 
RP2 PSY390
RP2 PSY390RP2 PSY390
RP2 PSY390
 
Facebook and psychology: What we know so far
Facebook and psychology: What we know so farFacebook and psychology: What we know so far
Facebook and psychology: What we know so far
 
Facebook and psychology
Facebook and psychologyFacebook and psychology
Facebook and psychology
 
WPUPC Presentation
WPUPC PresentationWPUPC Presentation
WPUPC Presentation
 
WPUPC Presentation
WPUPC PresentationWPUPC Presentation
WPUPC Presentation
 

MPA Presentation

  • 1. Comparing Extraversion and Shyness Online Versus Face-to-Face Eulho Jung, John S. Kim, & Mark Snyder University of Minnesota
  • 2. • Although social interaction on the Internet has become increasingly similar to real-world social interaction, the Internet is still a fundamentally different social environment compared to real life. • This study examines how personality characteristics might differentially influence interactions in these two unique settings. Why Extraversion and Shyness? • Extraverts are better able to express themselves in face-to-face settings, while introverts are better able to express themselves on the Internet (Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel, & Fox, 2002). • Shy people report more social competence online (Stritzke, Nguyen, & Durkin, 2004).
  • 3. • This study will ultimately extend these findings by collecting measures on how these individuals are actually judged by others, both on Facebook and in real life. • If extraverted people are more competent in face-to-face settings and shy people are more competent on the Internet, then judgments of these people based on face-to-face interactions and Facebook profiles should reflect this difference. Hypothesis • Shy people should be disliked by interaction partners after a face- to-face interaction, but liked by external raters making judgments based on their Facebook profiles. • We might see the reverse pattern for extraverts.
  • 4. • 84 college students completed Big Five and shyness scales, plus the extent to which people are getting to know them for “who they really are” on Facebook and in real life. • Then, they engaged in a face-to-face interaction with another participant, after which they judged that person on likability. • They also provided their Facebook profiles, from which their likability was later judged by external raters. Measures • Big Five scale (35 items; Goldberg, 1992) • Shyness Scale (13 items; Cheek & Buss, 1981)
  • 5. Main findings • After the face-to-face interaction, partners disliked shy people (r = -.27, p < .02) and assumed they were disliked by their peers (r = -.34, p < .01). • After the face-to-face interaction, extraversion did not influence likability (r = .18, p > .10), but partners assumed that extraverted people were liked by their peers (r = .37, p < .01) • Interestingly, external raters also disliked shy people based on their Facebook profiles (r = -.23, p < .05) and assumed that they were disliked by their peers (r = -.36, p < .01). • Extraversion did not influence likability based on Facebook profiles (r = .13, p > .27) but external raters assumed that extraverted people were liked by their peers (r = .28, p < .02) Also… • Extraverts feel like other people are getting to know them for who they are in face-to-face interaction (r = .30, p < .01), while shy people feel the opposite (r = -.25, p < .02) • This pattern disappeared on Facebook (r = .00, p > .98 for extraversion, r = -.09, p > .42 for shyness). • Interestingly, shy people have more public settings on Facebook (r = .25, p < .03), while this was not seen for extraverts (r = -.13, p > .26).
  • 6. • Extraverts feel more comfortable in face-to-face social settings, while shy people feel less comfortable. However, this difference disappears when it comes to Facebook. Moreover, shy people are more likely to open up their Facebook profiles to the public, reflecting their increased comfort on the Internet. • Contrary to our hypotheses, this increased comfort is not reflected in actual judgments of likability! – On Facebook or face-to-face, people disliked shy people and assumed that they were disliked by their peers. – On Facebook or face-to-face, people assumed that extraverted people were liked by their peers.
  • 7. • This study has obvious methodological limitations, mainly in that different people provided likability ratings for face-to-face and Facebook. Ideally, the same person would have done both ratings. • Shy people may still benefit from Facebook. However, this benefit may be more self-oriented.
  • 8. • Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). “On the Internet no one knows I’m an introvert”: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 125-128. • Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339. • Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. • Stritzke, W., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1-22.