face to face or mediated communication? … to face or mediated communication? personality makes a...

1

Face to Face or Mediated Communication? Personality Makes a Difference

David Karemaker University of Amsterdam [email protected]

ABSTRACT Neuroticism and extraversion are considered to have consistent behavioral reaction patterns. Personality traits have been measured in a survey (N=214) which subsequently examined the preference for mediated communication versus face to face communication in eight social scenarios and general preference statements. The results were as predicted, where stable extraverts were more likely to prefer face to face contact over mediated communication compared to neurotic introverts. A mediating influence of the situation, where arousal was predicted to reinforce the effect has not been shown. Results are relevant for studying the acceptance and use of communication technologies.

1. INTRODUCTION With the expanding use of e-mail, instant messaging and sms, mediated human communication is emerging rapidly in interpersonal communication. The impact of the features of the technology, and the factors that influence the adoption of new communication technologies have been the focus of much research in the last decade. Most research has focused on business uses of communication technology. In contrast, the present research will focus exclusively on social interactions within ongoing personal relationships, where communication partners are friends, relatives, or acquaintances.

Interpersonal mediated communication has been described as “any person-to-person interaction where a medium has been interposed to transcend the limitations of time and space” (Cathcart, 1986). An important theoretical focus in the research of social, mediated communication has been on communication problems. These problems are viewed as a result of the diminished capacity of perceiving and conveying emotional and personal information (social cues) in a mediated environment (Rutter, 1979). Others stress the positive aspects that accompany a lack of social cues, which

could lead to positive impression formation (Walther, 1996).

A lot of variables can be considered while explaining the use of communication technology in a social setting. Among them are considerations of time and space, group culture and norms, socio-economic variables, technophobia, intelligence and personality. The present research explores personality as an important measure of individual difference in the analysis of computer mediated communication (CMC). Including commonly agreed upon personality characteristics in future research seems likely to improve evaluation of communication technology use, and advance theory development.

In the following theoretical background, research and analysis of results, personality will be explored as a concept, variable and predictor. The argument is made that neuroticism and introversion may predict a preference for mediated communication over face to face (F2F) interactions.

2. THEORECTICAL BACKGROUND First, a short introduction in personality research and an exploration of its recent advances will be presented. Next, some insight in the factors of arousal, anxiety and situational context are given. These factors are deemed important in the expression of personality. Last, an overview of relevant theory and findings in computer mediated communication literature is presented.

PERSONALITY Personality research has many perspectives that should be viewed in their specific contexts. A psychoanalytic context, where understanding is needed for personal insight and therapy, requires an individual approach. Assessment requires an approach where comparisons are used to provide insight in the individual differences. Within this approach especially the trait perspective has progressed considerably in the last decade. This is due to the acceptance and application of the five factor model of traits.

The trait approach to personality The trait approach to personality assumes that much about an individual’s consistent reaction patterns can be described from knowing his or her core personality traits (Friedman, 2003). The approach attempts to capture such notions reliably and validly, through systematic, scientific means.

Copyright of David Karemaker, Bachelor of Science Research thesis, June 2005

Supervisor Dr. V. Evers

University of Amsterdam, Human Computer Studies Laboratory (HCS), , The Netherlands

2

Carl Jung (1921-1967) first used the terms introversion and extraversion in his theory of personality. The Meyers-Briggs Type indicator is an instrument which attempts to measure introversion an extraversion as Jung defined them. In his theory, introversion and extraversion were two separate tendencies, whereas more recent trait theories all assume them to be opposites of one scale.

R. B. Cattell, starting in the late 1930s, developed a statistical, quantitative approach to personality. He further refined the lexical approach started by Allport in the same era (Allport, 1996) in which the personality adjectives in the English language were grouped, rated and factor analyzed to produce his sixteen basic personality traits. Starting in the 1960s, but accelerating in the past decade, persuading evidence has been put forward that personality can be captured by five traits (McCrae, 1987). Extraversion (with the opposite being introversion), neuroticism (emotional instability), conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience. The five factor model is used in the NEO-PI R and its shortened version, NEO-FFI tests. The five traits in the NEO-PI-R test are each composed of six facets. The facets of extraversion are; Warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions. For neuroticism they are anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability. The anxiety facet of neuroticism has also been linked to neuroticism in a clinical context, where social anxiety and neuroticism are often comorbid (Watson, 1999). The facets are statistically contributing primarily to their intended, main trait, but correlations between traits are not unusual (Hoekstra, 1996). This means the five factors are not completely independent of each other. Especially strong relations exist between neuroticism and conscientiousness and extraversion and openness (Parker, 1993).

The construction of factors on the basis of a lexical, statistical approach and subsequent naming of those factors is not without questions. As has been commented (Eysenck, 1998) “Factor analysis is a good servant, but a bad master!” . Hans Jürgen Eysenck developed a biological approach with a nervous-system based theory which comprised of three dimensions; Extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. He developed the EPQ(-R) and EPI (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Inventory).

Draycott and Kline (Draycott, 1995) compared the NEO-PI and the EPQ-R. They concluded that “ the NEO-PI does indeed account for variance over and above that accounted by the EPQ-R but that this residual variance fails to form appropriately sized factors representative of the Big Five. Of the variance shared between the two instruments a high proportion of it is attributable to the robust dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism”.

Biological perspectives; level of arousal and approach versus inhibition The biological approach uses biological measures such as used in physiology, neurology and genetics to explain the personal tendencies and limits and their influence on personality. Eysenck was an early trait psychologist, but also a pioneer in trying to connect psychological dispositions to their biological foundations, focusing on the characteristics of extraverts versus introverts. In Eysenck’s theory (Eysenck, 1967, 1985), extraverts differ from introverts because of the differences in their physiological levels of arousal (LOA) in the brain. He proposed that these differences are influenced by the ascending reticular activation system (ARAS) of the brain, the system believed to regulate overall arousal in the cortex. In Eysenck’s theory, introverts need only small amounts of stimulation to overstimulate them physiologically, which leads them to become distressed and withdrawn in their behavior. In extraverts, according to the theory, the ARAS is not easily stimulated, which leads them to seek activities that will increase the level of stimulation, for example, by socializing more actively and seeking activities such as parties and adventures, more than introverts (Mischel, 2004).

Overall, a good deal of research indicates that while introverts and extroverts do not differ in their level of brain activity at resting levels, they do differ as stated by the theory in their physiological reactivity to stimulation. Many types of studies suggest this conclusion (for an overview: Gale, 1986). In earlier work, Donald O. Hebb (Hebb, 1955) defined the Optimal level of Arousal (OLA) as being different for different tasks. Too much or too little arousal will affect performance of the task. There are many problems in trying to test a nervous-system based theory. First, it is difficult to define and measure nervous ‘arousal’ . Second, many problems arise from the fact that the human body is a system that attempts to maintain equilibrium; responses rise and fall, varying in baseline, intensity and duration (Friedman, 2003).

Some of the expectations of Eysenck’s theory have been empirically tested by varying the level of background noise while participants perform a difficult task. For example it was found that extroverts preferred and actively sought study conditions with a greater level of background noise and more socializing opportunities (Campbell, 1982). Further, it was reported that extroverts were more likely to listen to the radio whilst studying than introverts who found radio excerpts more distracting (Furnham, 1997).

Behavioral approach or inhibition Many theorists believe there is a set of brain structures that cause animals to move towards things they desire. Gray tried to improve on Eysenck’s theory by extrapolating his finding of research on animals to human personality (for an overview: Gray, 1994). He proposes that personality is based on the interaction of two basic systems in the brain:

3

• The Behavioral Approach System (BAS) causes one to be sensitive to potential rewards and motivated to seek those rewards. Desire or motivation to approach a person could be an example. The possible rewards of social interaction are the motivating factors.

• The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) causes one to be sensitive to punishment and motivated to avoid those punishments. It causes individuals to withdraw from certain undesirable stimuli. Fear of rejection by someone could be an example.

According to some researchers, the BIS is the more influential, active system in introverts, and the BAS is more active in extraverts. There is still a lot of disagreement among theorists as to the exact mechanisms of the BIS and the BAS and their links to personality (Depue, 1999). The conception fits the observation though, that impulsive people are mostly shaped by rewards, whereas anxious, obsessive people are mostly concerned with avoiding unknown situations and punishment (Friedman, 2003).

In a similar theory, the concept of ‘achievement pride’ (Atkinson, 1965; McClelland, 1976) has been linked to the BIS and BAS approach in a Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998) in which all goal-directed behavior is governed by two motivational systems, the prevention system and the promotion system.

As the theories developed in the biological perspective specifically point to processes in the brain, in recent years a few fMRI studies have tried to validate them by actually looking at brain reactivity to stimuli and their correlation with extraversion and neuroticism. A study by Canli et al (Canli, 2001) was successful in providing this direct evidence, but as the sample consisted of only fourteen participants, all women, further research will have to be conducted to confirm these findings.

In summary, there is a strong theoretical foundation and compelling evidence to assume the existence of relatively stable personality predispositions that influence affective reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality is also shown to be linked to an optimum level of arousal. An overview of the importance of situational factors in the behavioral expression of these predispositions will follow.

SITUATION AND THE INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE The trait approach to personality has the advantage of being an easy, comparable method of assessing a personality by simplifying it to a small number of basic dimensions. A limit of the traditional approach to traits is a tendency to underestimate variability across environments. The ‘situation’ was often treated as a source of measurement noise to be removed in personality assessment (Mischel, 2004). Recently, the need to include situations in the analysis of personality is recognized even by advocates of the big five approach (Mischel, 2004 p. 378). In this view traits may be expressed as consistencies in behavior that take two complementary forms. “Type I consistency is seen

in overall average differences between people in their levels of different behavioral dispositions. Type II consistency is seen in differences in people’s stable if…then… situation-behavior patterns” (Mischel, 2004p. 378). This approach is sometimes referred to as the if-then approach, or the ‘Person X Situation = Behavior’ equation (Krahé, 1990).

The need to include situations in the analysis of personality has long been the domain of the interactionist perspective to personality. Interactionists (with Henry Murray and Walter Mischel as main theorists) “explicitly attempt to consider the social situations in which people find themselves or create for themselves” (Krahé, 1990). In time, individuals who are particularly high or low on personality factors such as the Big Five are likely to influence the environments they typically encounter and experience. Caspi & Bem argue that individuals, to some extent, create their own person-situation interactions by varying how they interpret situations, by eliciting reactions from others and by seeking out certain situations (Caspi, 1990). An interactionist quantitative research approach has been presented by Diener, Larsen & Emmons (Diener, 1984) to study this phenomenon. ‘At the center of their work is the hypothesis that an individual’s personality influences his or her choice of situations as well as co-determines the extent to which positive affect is experienced as a consequence of the ‘goodness of fit’ between personal dispositions and situational characteristics’ (Krahé, 1990 p. 55). They examined the relationship between, on the one hand, personality measures (extraversion, sociability, impulsivity), and on the other hand, the frequency with which the individual engaged in various recreational activities as well as the positive or negative affect experienced in those activities. The overall pattern of their findings supports the situational choice model, suggesting that individuals tend to prefer those activities that are congruent with their personal dispositions.

Generalizing social situations. Krahé (1990) describes the problems facing the researcher trying to generate social situations to experimentally measure their impact on behavior. Many studies have generated possible categories of social situations. One of the strategies has been to have participants report on their social interactions, sometimes across a number of weeks. The participant or the researcher subsequently categorizes the events. This has resulted in a lot of different categorizations, without a common theoretical framework. Baumeister & Tice (Baumeister, 1985) have categorized independent variables in experimental studies in a taxonomy defined by four components;

1. Stimulus environment, comprising the enduring physical and social structure of the situation.

2. Cognitive and affective dynamics of the situation, including situational demand intensity and subject’s goal.

4

3. Relationship background, referring to the relations between the persons involved in the situation.

4. Matrix of possibilities, denoting those aspects of the situation that relate to the subject’s choice of behavioral response.

The taxonomy is useful in determining the quality and usefulness of a specific categorization for the context and purpose of the present research. A model proposed by Endler (1980) could be used to inform the generation of social episodes. It is a model of five dimensions of anxiety that have emerged from a factor analyses of different samples of anxiety provoking situations in a series of studies.

1. Interpersonal anxiety, referring to situations that involve interactions with other people that are perceived as anxiety provoking.

2. Physical danger, activated by situations in which the person faces the probability of physical injury.

3. Ambiguous, referring to threats posed by situations in which the person does not know what is going to happen to him or her.

4. Daily routines, referring to anxiety provoking circumstances encountered in everyday and routine situations.

5. Social evaluation, activated in situations which involve threats to the person’s self-esteem as a result of being evaluated by other people.

Furthermore, a study (Sherer, 1986) of emotion-eliciting situations involved the content analysis of open-ended questionnaires distributed to 779 college students in eight European countries. It found strong, cross-cultural, consistencies in beliefs about emotion-eliciting situations:

• Joy/happiness followed from developing relationships with friends, reunions with friends, and success experiences.

• Sadness/grief followed from problems with friends and the death of loved ones

• Fear/fright followed from traffic situations, physical aggression by others, facing the unknown, and achievement-related situations

• Anger/rage followed from failures of others to conform to social norms and from ‘ inappropriate rewards for self’ .

In conclusion, advocates of the trait perspective and theorists working within the interactionist approach both argue the specific context of the social situation is important in understanding the relation between personality traits and expressed behavior. Comparably, in the biological perspective, Michel (2004) stated that: ‘ the distinctive dispositional pattern of people high in BIS activity takes the

form: If threats punishment are encountered then inhibition, high anxiety, distress, negative emotions. The opposite if…then pattern seems to characterize those high in BAS. For them, if rewards, incentives, then approach, eagerness, positive emotions. While the two types also link to broad dispositions like extraversion-introversion, their behavioral expressions are especially evident when the relevant ifs are present. Similarly, Eysenck in a recent addition to his theory of personality, identifies behavior as a function of both stable arousal dispositions and activating situational conditions (Brocke, 1992). Empirical research in the field is problematic though, as the interpretation of a situation as ‘arousal-inducing’ is done on the individual level. Some taxonomies, such as Endler’s, pointing to common factors of social anxiety situations are useful in the design of these situations.

PERSONALITY AND THE USE OF MEDIATED COMMUNICATION “On the internet, many of the situational factors that foster feelings of social anxiety (e.g. talking to someone face to face, having to respond on the spot with verbal exchanges) are absent (McKenna, 2000). McKenna also notes “Relatively short explanations are the norm in spoken conversations and people often interrupt one another in midsentence. In e-mail or a newsgroup post however an individual can say as much or as little about a subject as he or she pleases, without fear of interruption before being able to fully make his or her point” . The differences in timing and pacing of mediated communication such as email, instant messaging and sms provide an individual with a great deal more control over his or her side of the conversation. Indeed, recent research has found that social anxiety is a strong predictor of who will be likely to form internet relationships (McKenna, 2000). Those who scored highly on the interaction anxiousness scale (IAS) (Leary, 1983) were found to be significantly more likely than their more socially comfortable counterparts to form relationships with others via the internet. In a conceptual framework of the research of social interaction on the internet (McKenna, 1999), it is proposed the motivational factors are either self-related (with stigmatized or constrained idenity as determinants) or social related (with social anxiety, loneliness, hectic lifestyle and safety issues as determinants). In a study using surveys and ethnographic interviews, Schiano et.al (2002) found that teens used Instant Messaging (IM) to ‘hang out’ and chat about ‘anything and nothing’ . IM also “helped overcome shyness in broaching difficult topics with friends and facilitated online flirting”.

Rogers (1951) put forward the concept of the ‘real self’ . To achieve personal satisfaction, a person has to be able to express his/her real self in social interaction, and receive social recognition for it. According to Amichai-Hamburger et al. (2002), individuals who are rated high on introversion and neuroticism put their “real me” in the Internet, while extroverted ones put it in traditional face-to-face social

5

interactions. Similarly, in a large study of 982 respondents and their use of mobile phones, Reid & Reid (2004) found that there was a clear distinction between those who preferred texting ‘ texters’ and those who preferred talking on their mobile phone, ‘ talkers’. Texters were found to be more lonely and socially anxious and more likely to disclose their ‘real self’ through text (sms) than via face to face or voice call exchanges. Social anxiousness was measured using the IAS scale (Leary, 1983). “The Structural Equation Modeling results showed that people who were better able to express their real-self through texting than either face-to- face or through voice calls were more likely to find that texting had impacted on their existing relationships and helped them to develop new relationships.”

The literature thus seems to suggest a preference for mediated communication especially in introverted, neurotic, socially anxious individuals. This effect would be stronger in situations of high arousal. Switching sides, and looking at the receiving end, subjects were asked to judge someone’s personality on the basis of an email exchange (Gill, 2002). While extraversion was rated easily and correctly, neuroticism was difficult to read in the email messages. Participants were less able and willing to rate someone on this trait. This indicates the strategy of using mediated communication could prove effective in hiding expressions of this personality characteristic.

THEORIES OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) The way social impressions are created in face to face (F2F) interactions has long been an object of research in the social sciences. Currently, the existing theories have been reexamined as to their validity in the context of mediated communication. The early findings focused on a diminished capacity of perceiving and conveying emotional and personal information in a mediated environment. The theories that evolved (social presence theory, reduced social context cues, among others) have been described by Culnan and Markus (1987) as representing a ‘Cues Filtered Out’ (CFO) perspective. The unifying theme central to this approach has been described by Hancock & Dunham (2001) ‘The reduction of nonverbal social and relational cues in CMC produces a depersonalized form of communication and decreased awareness of others, inhibiting interpersonal relations’.

Two opponents to this CFO perspective are the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) of Lea & Spears (1991), and the social information processing theory (Walther, 1996). The SIDE model does acknowledge the reduction of cues in mediated interaction, but focuses on the social and cognitive processes that occur when minimal information is available. Overattribution and an increased salience of group identity and available social cues such as role and status in are proposed. In contrast to the CFO perspective, in the SIDE model the reduced social information is assumed to produce more intense

impressions, depending on the social context. The Social information-processing theory states that CMC will not reduce or eliminate social cues but only slows down the rate at which impression-relevant cues are exchanged during social interaction. Initial impressions may be incomplete, compared to face-to-face, but over time they will match the breath and intensity of impressions formed in face-to-face interactions.

A recent framework, the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) unifies and extends the SIDE model and the information processing theory. In this model, people will take advantage of the limitations of CMC to engage in ‘selective self-presentation’ . Because (in some cases) CMC provides only textual information, people can, as Hancock & Dunham (2001) summarize ” intentionally select positive and desirable cues (…) to present to their partners while masking or minimizing physical and behavioral cues not normally under the participants’ control. (…) In addition the hyperpersonal model notes that this lack of cues may allow the user to reallocate cognitive resources normally applied to active involvement in face-to-face interaction, such as providing timely back-channel responses, to language selection, message construction, and impression management.”

To examine impression management in CMC, O’Sullivan (2000) developed an impression management model to complement Walther’s hyperpersonal model. According to O’Sullivan people choose to strategically use a medium of communication. “The constrictions of mediated channels are often seen as advantageous for interactions that could threaten positive impressions”. He applied his model to a study of 133 individuals who were involved in romantic relationships. He indeed found preferences for mediated communication were higher in negatively valenced situations compared to positively valenced situations. This was especially so when the locus of the negatively valenced situation was the self. This was a situation where participants were instructed to: “Think for a minute about a topic, issue or incident that would undermine how your partner thinks about you” .

Recent CMC theories, like the hyperpersonal model and the impression management model, stress the benefits of a mediated communication for some situations, on account of a reduction of nonverbal and relational cues. The more traditional CFO perspective use this same reduction of cues to emphasize the inhibiting, depersonalizing effect of mediated communication. In the former perspective people would sometimes prefer mediated communication over F2F interaction, in the latter a F2F interaction would always be preferred.

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT The aim of the study described in this paper was to investigate the relation between a preference for mediated, social communication and the personality characteristics of extraversion and neuroticism. These two relatively stable

6

personality traits influence affective reactions to emotional stimuli. The situational choice model suggests that individuals tend to prefer those activities which are congruent with their personal dispositions. Activating, arousal-inducing situational conditions are considered important in the expression of extraversion and neuroticism. Research to the actual use of mediated communication suggests a preference especially in introverted, neurotic or socially anxious individuals for mediated communication. The hyperpersonal model states that mediated communication is sometimes preferred, due to a need for impression management by some individuals in some situations.

In the following hypotheses, the situation is expected to moderate the expression of personality characteristics in the choice of a medium. A situation that would induce a state of high arousal is expected to strengthen the differences.

H1: Personality influences preference for face to face communication or a specific mediated communication

H2: This preference for mediated communication is stronger in situations of high arousal

H3: Participants who score high on the trait of extraversion and/or low on the trait of neurotiscism have a preference for face to face communication.

Figure 1. Model of the main and moderating effect

It is found social anxiety and neuroticism are often comorbid (Watson, 1999), and anxiety is actually a facet of the trait neuroticism. The Interaction Anxiousness Scale (Leary, 1983) has been used in a number of studies on internet use. It is assumed that the measure of neuroticism is closely related to that of the IAS. To test this assumption an additional exploratory analysis will be done to confirm if participants scoring high on the trait neuroticism will also score high on the IAS.

A 2x2 design of groups was chosen to test hypotheses one, two and three. Participants will be grouped according to their personality characteristics into 4 groups (table 1.) where the preference for mediated versus F2F

communication will be examined in high arousal (H) and low arousal (L) situations.

(N-) Stable (N+) Neurotic

(E-)

Introvert

H: small pref. cmc

L: small pref. cmc

H: pref. cmc

L: small pref. cmc

(E+)

Extravert

H: pref. F2F

L: small pref. F2F

H: small pref. F2F

L: small pref. F2F

Table 1. The 2x2 grouping and expectations

4. METHOD A paper survey of 134 questions, which took approximately 20 minutes to complete, was distributed among students and staff of the Information science department of the University of Amsterdam. Following the first 14 that were returned some revisions were made. In particular, participants had questions with respect to the meaning of the SAM valence and arousal control scales (which will be treated later). The adjective pairs of the semantic differential scales of Mehrabian and Russell were added to clarify them (Bradley, 1994). The survey was subsequently put online using the open source survey system phpSurveyor (Cleeland, 2005). An email was sent out to colleagues, family and friends to encourage anybody to fill out the survey. A note was made that only people with at least 3 months of email use could participate. The largest identifiable group that received the email were 563 students of media studies in a first year course on the history of audiovisual culture. Most questions in the online survey were ‘mandatory’ , which eliminated any ‘missing data’ problems. A paper version of the revised survey was also distributed among a different set of university students of the science department.

Personality Variables Participants completed the neuroticism and extraversion scales of the authorized Dutch translation of the NEO-FFI (Hoekstra, 1996). Only the 12 questions of the N scale, and 12 questions of the E scale were used as these traits were important for the study described in this paper. A compulsory completion of all the sixty questions of the NEO FFI would bring the total number of questions in the survey to 170, which was considered undesirable. Furthermore, a Dutch translation was made, by the author, of eleven of the fifteen questions of the IAS scale (Leary, 1983). Questions 7, 8, 13 and 14 were omitted because they did not fit the context of the present study. Q7 was concerning a conversation with a stranger, Q8 was on the subject of a job interview, Q13 was explicitly about calling someone on the telephone and Q 14 had too much overlap with Q4, both concerned talking to an authority figure. All the personality questions were mixed.

PERSONALITY • N+ N-

• E+ E-

• IAS

BEHAVIOUR F2F - CMC

Situation • high arousal

• low arousal

7

Social situation scenarios Following the personality test, eight scenarios were described. Each scenario was followed by two control questions to assess the effect on valence and arousal of the specific scenario, using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) arousal and SAM valence scale (Bradley, 1994). These are used to rate these affective dimensions on a five point scale. These visual scales were complemented by a translation of the semantic bipolar pairs of Mehrabian and Russell concerning pleasure (or valence) and arousal (Bradley, 1994). In addition, an assessment of the complexity of the social situation was asked for, ranging from very complex to not complex. An introduction was given to explain the SAM scales and terms such as ICQ/MSN and F2F.

Four of the eight scenarios were developed to induce a state of high arousal, and four a state of medium or low arousal. The high arousal scenarios were constructed using the model of Endler (1980) and the study of Sherer et.al. (1986). A complicating factor constructing the scenarios was the fact they should be one-on-one situations, and should not have an ‘obvious’ means of communication. For example contacting someone whose dog you are caring for would assume the person was away on a holiday. In that case a telephone or email conversation would be more obvious than a F2F encounter. Two senior staff members of the information science department, one with a background in psychology, were helpful in providing feedback on the developed scenarios. The locus of the situations in three high arousal situations was on ‘ the other’ except, moderately so, for scenario one. This locus was deemed appropriate, as the effect of personality was being studied, not the difference between situations of for example ‘confess’ versus ‘accuse’ which O’Sullivan (2000) focused on. Another complicating factor was that the choices should not be influenced by practical considerations. An instruction was given to ‘Picture yourself in a social situation with a good friend, family member or acquaintance.’ Furthermore: ‘You want to react to the situation by making contact’ and ‘Practical considerations should not influence the choices you make’ . The complete questionnaire is in the appendix.

High arousal scenarios • (S1) All of a sudden you notice you forgot the birthday of

a loved one.

• (S2) Somebody claims you owe him/here money, but you are almost sure this is not the case

• (S5) You find out a friend stole something from you.

• (S8) Your best friend tells you that he/she is in love with you. The feeling is not mutual.

Low arousal scenarios • (S3) You have to decide on the destination of a holiday

with a good friend.

• (S4) You wonder how a good friend is doing

• (S6) You go see a movie every week with a good friend and you have to decide on a movie, day and time.

• (S7) You passed for an exam. You want to tell this to a good friend.

Following each scenario the SAM valence scale would give participants a moment to appraise the situation (pleased/annoyed, happy/unhappy). Through the SAM arousal scale participant could indicate the level of expected arousal in the situation (excited/calm, stimulated/relaxed etc.).

Participants were then asked to ‘show how you would contact the person’ . Note the question is phrased so that actual behavior in the specific situation is asked for. Following the question, for each medium, and the F2F condition a five point likert scale ranging from ‘very likely’ to ‘very unlikely’ had to be answered. (letter/postcard, email, MSN/ICQ, SMS, Telephone, F2F). This question was the operationalisation of a ‘preference’ for the medium. Because the answers were visually grouped in a ‘grid’ of six likert scales, any differences in rating the different media and the F2F condition were very clear to the participants. This visual comparison, combined with the grouping of the F2F condition on the same level as the mediated communication justified a conception of ‘preference’ .

General preference statements After completing the eight scenarios, six statements were asked to be rated on a five point likert scale ranging from ‘agree completely’ to ‘disagree completely’ . Three were supposed to measure a liking of face to face contact in social settings (Q1,3,5), and three a preference for CMC (Q2,4,6) in some social situations. They were inspired by the research of McKenna and Amichai-Hamburger. The statements were added to measure more directly the F2F versus CMC preference of participants.

Q1 If you want to have a really good conversation, you have to be able to see each other.

Q3 If the subject is emotional, I always choose to drop by.

Q5 You can only get to know somebody well if you see each other often.

Q2 Sometimes I say things through SMS that are difficult to express through other means.

Q4 Sometimes I can explain things better through email than in a conversation.

Q6 I can say things to somebody on the internet that I normally would not say.

As the explicitness of the statements would provide too much insight into the purpose of the study to participants, the questions were put after the scenarios.

8

Background variables Age, gender, education, computer experience and reported computer use were obtained in the final part of the survey. Experience using specific communication media such as email, sms and instant messaging is reasonable to affect the likelihood the specific media would be used. When two groups are compared it was viewed important to take into account this experience. The data was gathered through a self-rating of experience in using the different media on a five point likert scale, as well as questions asking for the actual behavior in the past week, in number of personal email messages, telephone conversations etc.

An indication of the social network of friends, family and acquaintances was also gathered, but not used in the present paper.

5. RESULTS

Sample characteristics After eleven days, 203 participants had correctly completed the online survey, and 15 paper surveys were returned, of which 11 were completed correctly. In total a number of 214 responses were used in the analysis. The great advantages of administering the survey online were the fairly effortless gathering and exporting of the data to SPSS, the large number of participants from different backgrounds that could participate and the non-existence of missing data as all necessary questions were mandatory. This means participants were instructed to complete any questions that were not answered before continuing with the survey. The main disadvantage is the lack of insight into the non-response of the sample, creating an unknown percentage of self-selection. Also a paper version of questionnaires reveals (though corrections by the participants) what questions were difficult to answer. A digital survey does not contain these ‘metadata’.

The sample of 214 participants had a mean age of 28,11 years (SD=11,4), 106 of the participants were male, 108 female. Five percent completed a primary education, 17% secondary education and 77% either was following or had completed a university education. Ninety percent had over six years of computer experience and almost eighty percent spent more than ten hours per week behind the computer.

Most participants (37%) sent between zero and four sms messages in the past week, the average number of sms messages was five. Self-reported experience using sms was rated high by 64% of the sample. Most participants sent between zero and four personal email messages in the past week (32%). The average was nine emails. Experience using email was rated high for 88 percent. Most participants had between 10 and 14 personal telephone conversations in the past week, which was also the average. Experience using the telephone was rated high by 92 percent of the participants. Half of the sample reported a lot of experience using ICQ/MSN, and 20% rated their experience very low.

The mean scores and standard deviation on the Neuroticism and Extraversion scales (table 2) corresponded with the standard means and deviations for the research context in the NEO-FFI manual (Hoekstra, 1996). As the translated version of the IAS was not used before, no standard scores were available.

Scale Standard mean

Standard SD

Sample mean

Sample SD

Neuroticism 31.1 8.2 30.5 7.6

Extraversion 40.1 6.6 41.5 6.4

IAS - - 27.4 7.5

Table 2. Means and SD of personality scales

Reliability and validity A reliability analysis of the personality scales revealed a Cronbach’s Alpha of .84 for the neuroticism scale, .82 for the extraversion scale and .89 for the IAS.

The SAM arousal control questions were used to check whether the scenarios were loading on two factors, low arousal or high arousal. A high arousal situation should also be ‘complex’ . A factor analysis (table 3) was performed on the eight questions measuring the social complexity of the situation. A rotation using Varimax in three iterations revealed the scenarios were indeed loading on two separate factors. All the variables had loadings on only one factor, each of a size .3 or greater.

Factor

Complexity control 1 complex 2 not complex

S5 – high arousal .741

S2– high arousal .509



S7– low arousal .629




Table 3. Results of ‘complexity’ control question

A factor analysis of the SAM arousal scale ratings revealed that scenario eight was loading heavily on a third factor. This may be because the scenario of your best friend falling in love with you without it being mutual is very unusual, hard to imagine or otherwise alien. After exclusion of this scenario there remained two factors. All but scenario seven loaded on one of the intended factors (table 4.). Scenario seven was intended as a low arousal (not socially complex and calm) situation. The nature of the scenario proved itself ambiguous. Passing for an exam itself is an arousing situation but telling somebody may or may not be considered arousing. It was loading on both the relaxed and

9

excited factor. Because of this the scenario was also excluded from further analysis.

Factor

SAM arousal scale for scenario 1 2

S6 – low arousal .880



S7 – low arousal .400 .726




Table 4. Results of SAM arousal control question.

The resulting scenarios that were deemed valid and useful are S1, S2, S5 (high arousal) and S3, S4, S6 (low arousal).

Classifying groups and controlling for experience To be able to group participants according to their score on the trait neuroticism (N scale) and trait extraversion (E scale), the total scores were transformed to the stanine scale (standard nine) according to the norm scales provided in the NEO-FFI test manual. To achieve an adequate population for each of the four groups, a decision was made to group score stanine 1,2,3,4 versus 6,7,8,9 as extremes. As the stanine score is normally distributed, a number of participants (the average scoring group falling in stanine 5, usually 20% of a sample) were excluded. This resulted in a sufficient number of participants per group. The minimum number of participants was set at between 10 and 15 for the applied statistical methods to be permissible.

Neuroticism Total

N- Av. N+

Introvert (E-)

(N-E-) 17

16 (N+E-) 35

68

Average 16 3 20 39

Extravert (E+)

(N-E+) 59

23 (N+E+) 25

107

Total 92 42 80 214

Table 5. Initial population of the groups.

After this classification the groups were compared on the background variables. A description of each group will follow.

Group N-E+ (stable extraver ts). The 59 cases, of which 52% are male, 48% female, have a mean age of 33 (SD 13 years).

Group N+E- (neurotic introver ts). The 35 cases have a mean age of 24 years (SD 7 years) 40% is male, 60% female.

Group N-E- (stable introver ts). Of 17 cases 15 are male and 2 female. This is a large deviation from the sample mean. The mean age is 28 years, with a SD of 13 years.

Group E+N+ (neurotic extraver ts). Of the 25 cases 7 are male and 18 female. This is a large deviation from the sample mean. The mean age for this group is 24 years (SD= 6 years).

To assess if the groups differed significantly on the background variables, including communication media use and experience, a Kurskall-Wallis H test was performed. This non-parametric test is regarded as an equivalent of the parametric ANOVA. This use of a non-parametric test was deemed necessary because of the ordinal nature of the responses to the background questions. The use of non-parametric statistics will be explained later. The test showed a significant difference between the four groups in age, number of SMS messages in the past week, and experience using SMS. Because the experience and use of other media such as MSN/ICQ, telephone and email was not significantly different, this was not regarded a problem.

The two groups most important in confirming the hypotheses, stable extraverts (N-E+) and neurotic introverts (N+E-) were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. This is the non-parametric equivalent of a T-test. Again a significant difference in age emerged. There was a spike of stable, extraverted participants with the age of 43, and an overrepresentation of this group in the age segment of 43 and older. Maybe because of this age difference the groups differed significantly from each other in the number of personal emails per week and experience using MSN/ICQ.

The use and experience of communication media is an obvious factor in reporting the likelihood of using such media to seek contact in the scenario questions. The groups to be compared should not differ significantly in the use of and experience with these communication media, as a comparison would not produce fair results. Consequently the decision was made to exclude anybody aged 43 and up from further analysis. After exclusion of these participants the large differences between the groups indeed disappeared, the only remaining difference was the number of personal telephone conversations in the past week. The resulting groups are listed in table 6.

Neuroticism Total

(N-) stable Av.

(N+) Neurotic

Introvert (E-)

(N-E-) 14

12 (N+E-) 35

61

Average 11 2 18 31

Extravert (E+)

(N-E+) 41

21 (N+E+) 25

87

Total 66 35 78 179

Table 6. Groups after cor rection for age and exper ience.

10

Non-parametric test methods Because the comparison of the groups will be done on a series of questions of ordinal values (five point likert scales of ‘very likely’ to ‘very unlikely’ ), non-parametric test methods will be used. At present there is still discussion on the interval or ordinal nature of likert response scales, which determines whether parametric transformations are admissible (Briand, 1996; Fenton, 1994). For the purpose of this study, non-parametric statistics have been used for the principal analysis. Some confirmatory analysis has been done using parametric methods. The Mann-Whitney U test is a rank order test which can be useful if the assumptions of a T test are not met (Gravetter, 1996). The required n per group is small. After ten subjects the sampling distribution approaches that of a normal distribution. The The Kurskall-Wallis H test is a one-way analysis of variance by ranks (Siegel, 1988). It is used to decide whether k independent samples are from different populations. If the number of cases in each sample exceeds five, the chi square distribution is used. Both tests do not require homogeneity of variance or normal distributions. Because different observations can not be assigned the same rank, a correction for ties is performed when necessary.

Initial comparison of groups The first comparison of groups on preferences for face to face, email, telephone and other media was done by rank ordering the groups and using a Kurskall-Wallis H test to show if the difference in mean rank was indeed significant. The ranking order for each of the scenarios was compared, and significant results are shown in table 7.

E+N- E-N+ E-N- E+N+

S5: email use (.04)

unlikely likely unlikely likely

S7: msn/icq (.01)

unlikely likely average unlikely

S3/4: sms (.02/.01)

unlikely average unlikely likely

S1: telephone (.02)

likely unlikely average average

S3: telephone (.02)

likely unlikely unlikely likely

S4: telephone (.03)

likely unlikely unlikely average

S1/2/7: F2F (.05/.007/ .002)

likely unlikely likely average

S3: F2F (.01)

likely unlikely likely unlikely

S4/5: F2F (.005/.005)

likely unlikely average average

Table 7. Explor ing the significant differences in answers to the questions.

Unlikely is an label indicating the rank order was high compared to the other groups; A score closer to ‘ very unlikely’ . The results are arranged per medium, affording a simple comparison. Interesting to note is the valuation of telephone on the same level of face to face, where there seems to be a split in preference between the first two groups, indicated by the wavy line.

The real answers to the research questions could not have been made comparing the unprocessed questions though. A scale looking at the difference between the ‘ likelihood’ of face-to-face contact versus mediated contact for each participant in each separate scenario was called for.

Construction of a Communication Preference (CP) score (F2F versus CMC) and high versus low arousal score. Because the hypothesis is assuming a preference for F2F versus mediated communication, a single scale was constructed which combined the ‘ likelihood’ answers to the mediated communication and the F2F condition. The difference between the most likely medium (either email, msn or sms) and the F2F score was calculated. It is important to note the preference for telephone and letter/postcard are not used in the construction of the CP score, though some alternative explorations on these preferences will follow. Five was added to the score to keep the scale above zero. The calculation was as follows:

(Score F2F) – minimum(Score mediated) + 5 = Composite score of F2F versus mediated communication. (Communication Preference score, CP)

The answers were scored as follows:

Show how you would contact the person

Very likely Very unlikely

Email 1 2 3 4 5

msn/icq 1 2 3 4 5

sms 1 2 3 4 5

(..)

F2F 1 2 3 4 5

This calculation of differences resulted in a rating on a nine-point F2F versus CMC scale for every scenario for every participant. Where 5 presented a ‘neutral’ position (e.g. email or msn or sms was scored as 2, and F2F was also scored 2) and 1 presented a high preference for F2F in the given situation. (e.g. Email and msn were scored 5, and F2F was scored 1). Subsequently, nine presented a high preference for CMC (e.g. Email or msn scored 1 where F2F scored 5).

Next, a combined score for every subject of the CP score for the three selected ‘high arousal scenarios (S1, S2, S5)’ and the three ‘ low arousal scenarios (S3, S4, S6)’ was

11

calculated by adding the 3 related CP scores for every subject.

Alternative explorations An examination and comparison of the groups on the CP scores in all the separate scenarios was also performed, and yielded roughly the same results as the combined score. Groups N-E+ and N+E- were (significantly) different by rank order in each scenario. Groups E+N- and E-N- were close in mean ranks. The interpretation and comparison of six different scenarios in the four groups would be a diversion from the problem statement, discussion of each separate scenario is therefore not pursued here.

To explore the influence of the telephone and letter/postcard choices, the calculation of an alternative CP (aCP) score was calculated while including these scores. The results in the subsequent analysis were slightly less extreme, but not very different. To keep the discussion unburdened by disputes on the ‘mediated’ nature of the telephone, and letter/postcard options, these additional results will not be elaborated on here.

Comparing the groups on CP score of high and low arousal The added CP scores were rank ordered and a Kurskall-Wallis H test was used to compare the ranks of the four different groups. The results indicate a significant difference between the CP scores. This difference is in the direction as expected, where stable extraverts have the lowest CP score (preference for F2F), and introvert neurotics have the highest CP score (preference for CMC).

Group N Mean Rank

Extravert and stable 41 50.91

Introvert and neurotic 37 70.43

Introvert and stable 14 51.39

Extravert and neurotic 25 59.60

Low arousal

Total 117




Extravert en neurotic 25 61.18

High arousal

Total 117

Table 8. Mean rank of scores

Low arousal High arousal

Chi-Square 7.306 6.300

Df 3 3

Asymp. Sig. (1- tailed) .032 .049

Table 9. Result of Kruskal wallis test

Following this, the CP of the two groups most important in confirming the hypotheses, stable extraverts (N-E+) and neurotic introverts (N+E-) were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. The results are presented in table 10.

Low arousal High arousal

Mann-Whitney U 521.000 541.000

Wilcoxon W 1382.000 1402.000

Z -2.387 -2.180

Asymp. Sig. (1-tailed) .0085 .0145

Table 10. Compar ison of N+E- versus N-E+ groups using Mann-Whitney U test

A graphical, somewhat simplified presentation of these results is given in figures 2 and 3. The score was banded by dividing the CP in three evenly populated, 33% chunks.

Following these results another Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare an additional group pair. As this is an expedition which elevates the chance of a type I error with each additional test, results should be interpreted with caution.

(N-E-) sig. (.04, .02) (N+E-)

sig. (.008, .01)

(N-E+) (N+E+)

Figure 4. Overview of significant differences

The difference between the four groups was further confirmed through parametric (ANOVA and T) test. As there is discussion as to whether a likert scale represents an ordinal or interval measure in the social sciences this test should be viewed as an additional confirmation of the aforementioned results.

The between-groups one-tailed significance for the ANOVA was .051 (F=2.116) for the high arousal situations, and .049 (F=2.142) for the low arousal situations. Homogeneity of variance was confirmed using Levene’s test, which was not significant. (.89 and .32).

A T-test to compare the N-E+ and N+E- groups was significant at the alpha level of .0125 (one-tailed, t=-2.294) for the low arousal situations and .0175 (one-tailed, t=-2.145) for the high arousal situations. Equal variances were assumed as Levene’s test was not significant.

12

Pref F2F average Pref CMC 0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Fig 2. Low arousal situations

Figure 3. High arousal situations

Comparing the groups on the general preference statements The six statements that followed the scenarios had to be rated on a five point likert scale. Analysis was carried out to confirm they were loading on the (two) intended factors. Three were supposed to measure a preference of face to face contact in social settings (Q1,3,5), and three a preference for CMC (Q2,4,6) in some social situations.

Factor Question number

1 2

1 …have to be able to see eachother… .757

5 …to know somebody see them often… .639

3 …emotional, choose to drop by… .574

6 …say difficult things through sms… .771

2 …can better explain myself in email… .690

4 …say things on the internet that… .411

Table 11. Factor analysis of additional statements using var imax rotation

Because the questions are loading on two factors as intended, two total scores per participant were calculated by adding Q1,3,5 into ‘ factor 1’ and Q6,2,4 into ‘ factor 2’ . Subsequently the scores were rank ordered (table 12) and a Kurskall Wallis test was performed. The four groups differed significantly on ‘ factor 2’ as is shown in table 13. This indicates the extravert stable group agrees significantly less with statements 6, 2 and 4 compared to the extravert neurotic and introvert neurotic groups.

Groeps N Mean Rank





Sum of 1,3,5

Total 117





Sum of 2,4,6

Total 117

Table 12. Rank order of additional questions

Pref F2F average Pref CMC 0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Stable extraverts (N-E+)

Neurotic introverts (N+E-)

13

Sum of 1,3,5 Sum of 2,4,6

Chi-Square 2.955 9.455

df 3 3

Asymp. Sig. (1-tailed) .199 .0012

Table 13. Kruskall Wallis test of Mean Ranks

The agreement with statement 1, 5 and 3 is not very different when comparing the groups. Neurotic participants do agree as much as the stable participants F2F contact is important to really get to know someone, but they also use mediated communication to say difficult things and explain themselves better.

Correlation of Neuroticism and Leary’s IAS To asses the additional exploratory analysis, which assumed Interaction anxiousness to be positively correlated with Neuroticism, two non-parametric correlation tests were used. Table 13 shows a positive correlation of rs=.438 and T=.358 between scores on the Neuroticism scale (N) and Interaction anxiousness scale ( � < 0.01). A graphical representation of this relation is shown in figure 5, where the mean IAS score and score on the N scale are compared. As the IAS was used in previous research on preferences of communication through the internet, an exploratory analysis was done to check whether the grouping of participants on the IAS instead of the N and E scales would produce results very different from the ones already observed. Three groups were made, with the same method of grouping used in dividing the N and E groups. The mean 20% of cases were excluded from the analysis, leaving a ‘ interaction anxious group’ of N=59, and a ‘ low interaction anxious group’ of N=73. The groups were rank ordered. and a Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the groups on the high arousal, low arousal and sum of questions 2,4,6 and 1,3,5. The results are shown in table 12. The direction in the difference of ranks were as expected, thus a one-tailed alpha significance was used.

Q1,3,5 Q2,4,6 Low arousal

High arousal

Mann-Whitney U

1974.500 1447.00 1735.00 1749.50

Wilcoxon W

3744.500 4148.00 4436.00 4450.50

Z -.827 -3.259 -1.923 -1.853

Asymp. Sig.

(1-tailed) .409 .0005 .027 .032

Table 12. Significant differences based on IAS score

Neuroticism score

Mea

n IA

S sc

ore

Figure 5. Positive relation beteen IAS and N scores

N IAS

N Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .358

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

Numer of sub. 179 179

IAS Correlation Coefficient

.358 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

Kendall's tau_b

Number of sub. 179 179

N Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .483

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

Number of sub 179 179 IAS Correlation

Coefficient .483 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

Spearman's rho

N 179 179

Table 13. Cor relation between N and IAS measure

6. DISCUSSION The aim of the study described in this paper was to investigate the relation between a preference for mediated, social communication and the personality characteristics of extraversion and neuroticism. Important to note is that the personality ‘ labels’ of neurotic, stable, extravert and introvert are only opposites on continuous scales of common personality variables and should not be situated in the domain of psychiatric illness. Only 20%, the ‘average’ participants were excluded from the groups.

14

A significant difference was found in the self-reported communication behavior of the different groups, separated by their personality (Hypothesis 1). Neurotic introverts preferred mediated communication more, compared to stable extraverts. This means the difference was in the predicted direction (H3). No support was found for the expectation (H2) that the effect would be stronger in situations of high arousal. On the basis of the present results it seems logical to assume the difference in preference between the groups is independent of situational factors of arousal or complexity. A closer examination of the results shows the difference between groups was actually slightly less significant in situations of high arousal. The impact of the high arousal condition was measured and confirmed so it seems the situations themselves were effective. The moderating effect of the situation appears more complex. A general and persistent influence of neuroticism and introversion, producing a permanent state of arousal might explain the absence of a clear moderating effect of the selected different social situations. In this view any social interaction would produce an aroused state. Thus the initiation of an interaction alone would be enough to explain the preference for mediated communication. This is in line with the traditional trait approach where the expression of personality is largely independent of situational context. Still, another explanation of the absence of a moderator could be the conditions of the specific situations. Indeed many social factors influence the communication behavior. Instructing participants not to be influenced by ‘practical considerations’, and correcting the groups for differences in experience with communication media might have been futile attempts to rule out some of these factors. In all social scenarios, the prospective conversation was with a friend, relative or acquaintance. Maybe the extreme nature of the topics in the high-arousal situations in combination with social norms could intentionally or unintentionally trigger many, irrespective of personality characteristics, to choose a more ‘ethical’ or ‘accepted’ means of communication. This would also explain the slightly less significant difference between the groups in the high arousal situations. This last explanation leaves room for additional research where the situational context might be changed to one where the partners in the conversation could be anonymous strangers, or the situations themselves could be reevaluated.

The present study used neuroticism and extraversion as personality traits. The facets of anxiety, self-consciousness and vulnerability are part of the trait neuroticism. As some researchers in cyber-sociology are using the Interaction Anxiousness scale (Leary, 1983) in studying internet-use (McKenna, 1999, 2000; Amichai-Hamburger, 2002), it seemed the two measures would have considerable overlap. Indeed the present study found a positive correlation between scores on the neuroticism scale and the IAS. This seems to justify the combination of research results that was done in the literature section of the present paper. By separating the participants on their IAS score alone, the

differences between the two groups on CP scores and the general preference statements were also significant, though less so than on the basis of personality traits. It would seem the effects causing the different use of communication media are indeed linked mainly to the trait neuroticism, of which anxiety, self-consciousness and vulnerability are the facets that shown most overlap with the IAS. Extraversion can not be excluded though, as some facets of this trait (e.g. assertiveness, excitement seeking) also could account for differences. Note that the IAS was translated by the author, and four questions were omitted, possibly compromising the results. When using the IAS, pay attention to the fact it also contained questions that presumed heterosexuality, which was commented on regularly by participants.

The clear (p =.001) separation between the personality-based groups on the use of and preference for mediated communication in the general preference statements (Q2,4 and 6), indicate a use and preference for mediated communication that is higher for neurotic participants (both extraverted and introverted). This is added support for the results from the scenario questions. It indicates neurotic individuals agree more with choosing mediated communication to better express or explain themselves. The valued importance of F2F communication is not very different between the groups though. This indicates a useful, but indeed complementary valuation of mediated communication for interpersonal communication.

It seems personality is an important factor in the use of mediated communication. Neurotic introverts generally have a higher preference for mediated communication. They also feel they can express themselves better through CMC. Because many researchers are concentrating on factors that influence CMC adoption and use, this is an important finding. The use of a standardized personality test to measure the stable individual predispositions could be helpful in explaining some of the until now unexplained variance in models of self-presentation, impression management and technology acceptance.

An immediate practical application of the present findings could be the careful selection of focus groups by developers of communication devices and services. The appreciation and adoption of mediated communication is partly dependent on the personality characteristics of the intended audience. A careful selection of the test audience that will inform the development and marketing of the device or service, is called for.

Some caution should be observed when generalizing these results. The use of an online survey, where participants are asked to report on their likely behavior in hypothetical situations is a research method not without its pitfalls. Methodological verification, using control questions and statistical methods confirmed the intended effect of the scenarios, measures of personality and general preference statements. The mean and SD of the neuroticism and extraversion scale were comparable to that of the general

15

population according to the test manual (Hoekstra, 1996). The survey was publicly available online, and the non-response rate is unknown. A sample of convenience was used, but through the background variables, differences in groups could be corrected. This correction resulted in the exclusion of participants over the age of 42. The youngest participant was 18 years of age and the level of education and experience in communication technology was generally high. Although research indicates participants are more honest in filling out computerized questionnaires (for an overview: Gunter, 2002), self-reported behavior is possibly different from observed behavior. A more careful research design, where the population is controlled and participants are selected at random will have to confirm the present results.

7. CONCLUSION The influence of personality on the preference for mediated communication in social, interpersonal communication has been shown to be significant. Stable extraverts were more likely to prefer face to face contact, compared to neurotic introverts who preferred email, instant messaging or sms. These results were both found in social scenario questions and general preference statements. The difference in preference was expected to be stronger in situations of high arousal and social complexity, but this expectation has not been demonstrated. Instead, a general preference seems to exist, independent of situational factors of arousal or social complexity. It seems the level of extraversion and neuroticism in the individual user can, in part, predict the use of communication technology.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank all the study participants for their time and effort. Special thanks go out to Vanessa Evers for providing aim in the exploratory stage and her help in developing the study and thesis. Jacobijn Sandberg assisted in the development of the scenarios and Noor Christoph and Wouter Jansweijer have made helpful comments during the statistical analysis. Jean-Marie de Boer made the online survey possible through his kind technical assistance.

9. REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1996). "Traits revisited." American Psychologist 21(1): 1-10. 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(2): 125-128. Atkinson, J. W. (1965). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, N.J., Van Nostrand. Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D.M. (1985). "Toward a theory of situational structure." Environment and behavior 17: 147-192.

Bradley, M. M., Lang, P.J. (1994). "Measuring Emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential." Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 25(1): 49-59. Briand, L., El Emam, K., Morasca, S. (1996). "On the Application of Measurement Theory in Software Engineering." Empirical Software Engineering 1: 61-88. Brocke, B., Battmann, W. (1992). "The arousal-activation theory extraversion and neuroticism: A systematic analysis and principal conclusions." Advances in behaviour research and therapy : an international review journal 14: 211-246. Campbell, J. B., Hawley, C. W. (1982). "Study habits and Eysenck's theory of extraversion-introversion." Journal of Research in Personality 16: 139-146. Canli, T., Zhao, Z., Desmond, J. E., Kang, E., Gross, J., Gabrieli, J.D.E. (2001). "An fMRI study of Personality Influences on Brain Reactivity to Emotional Stimuli." Behavioural Neuroscience 115(1): 33-42. Caspi, A., Bem, D.J. (1990). Personality continuity and change across the life cource. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. L. A. Pervin. New York, Guilford Press: 549-575. Cathcart, R., Gumpert, G. (1986). Inter/media : interpersonal communication in a media world, Oxford University Press. Cleeland, J. phpSurveyor 2005 http://phpsurveyor.sourceforge.net/index.php date accessed: 24-06-05 Culnan, M. J., Markus, M.L. (1987). Information technologies. Handbook of organizational communication : an interdisciplinary perspective. F. M. Jablin, Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H., Proter, L.W. Newbury Park, CA, Sage: 420-443. Depue, R. A., Collins, P. F. (1999). "Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion." Behavioral and brain sciences 22: 491-569. Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., Emmons, R.A. (1984). "Person X situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 580-592. Draycott, S. G., Kline, P. (1995). "The Big Three or the Big Five? the EPQ-R vs the NEO-PI: a research note, replication and elaboration." Personality and Individual Differences 18: 801-804. Endler, N. s. (1980). Person-Situation interaction and anxiety. Handbook of stress and anxiety. I. L. Kutash, Schlesinger, L.B. San Francisco, Josey-Bass: 249-266. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality, Springfield, Ill, Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence : a new look Transaction Publishers. Eysenck, H. J., Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences : a natural science approach, New York: Plenum.

16

Fenton, N. (1994). "Software Measurement: A Necessary Scientific Basis." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(3): 199-206. Friedman, H. S., Schustack, M. (2003). Personality : classic theories and modern research, Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon. Furnham, A., Bradley, A. (1997). "Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extroverts." Applied Cognitive Psychology 11: 445-455. Gale, A. (1986). The Biological Bases of Personality and Behaviour: pschophysiology, performance and application, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Gill, A. J., Oberlander, J (2002). Perception of e-mail personality at zero-acquaintance: Extraversion takes care of itself; Neuroticism is a worry. 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Gravetter, F. J., Wallnau, L.B. (1996). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Minneapolis, West Publishing Company. Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. P. Ekman, Davidson, R.J. . New York, Oxford University Press: 243–247. Gunter, B., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Williams, P. (2002). "Online versus offline research: implications for evaluating digital media." Aslib proceedings 54(4): 229-239. Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P.J. (2001). "Impression formation in computer mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadt and intensity of impressions." Communication research 28(3): 325-347. Hebb, D. O. (1955). "Drives and the C.N.S." Psychological Review 62(2): 43-54. Higgins, E. T. (1998). "Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30: 1-46. Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, H. A. ,de Fruyt, F (1996). NEO persoonlijkheids vragenlijsten : NEO-PI-R : NEO-FFI, Swets Test Services (STS). Krahé, B. (1990). Situation cognition and coherence in personality : an individual-centred approach, Cambridge University Press Paris. Lea, M., Spears, R. (1991). "Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. Special issue: Computersupported cooperative work and groupware." International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34: 283-301. Leary, M. R. (1983). "Social Anxiousness: The construct and its measurement." Journal of Personality Assessment 47: 66-75. McClelland, D. C. (1976). The achieving society. New York, Halsted Press.

McCrae, R. R., Costa P.T. Jr. (1987). "Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1): 81-90. McKenna, K. Y. A., Bargh, J.A. (2000). "Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology." Personality and Social psychology Review 4(1): 57-75. McKenna, K. Y. A., Bargh, John A. (1999). "Causes and Consequences of Social Interaction on the Internet: A Conceptual Framework." Media Psychology 1(3): 249. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Smith, R.E. (2004). Introduction to personality : toward an integration, Hoboken, NJ : J. Wiley & Sons. O'Sullivan, P. B. (2000). "What You Don't Know Won't Hurt Me: Impression Management Functions of Communication Channels in Relationships." Human Communications research 26(3): 403-431. Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). "Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory." Personality and Individual Differences 15(4): 463-466. Reid, D. J. R., F.J.M. (2004). "Insights into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging." Retrieved 27-06-05, from http://www.160characters.org/documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston, Mass., Houghton Mifflin Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, G. M. (1979). "The role of visual communication in social interaction." Current Anthropology 20(1): 124-125. Schiano, D. J., Chen, C.P., Ginsberg, J., Gretarsdottir, U., Huddleston, M., Isaacs, E. (2002). Teen Use of Messaging Media CHI 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, ACM Press. Sherer, K. R., Walbott, H.G., Summerfield, A.B. (1986). Experiencing emotion: A Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J.Jr. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-Hill Book Company. Walther, J. B. (1996). "Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction." Communication research 19(1): 3-43. Watson, D. (1999). "Dimensions underlying the anxiety disorders: a hierarchical perspective." Current Opinion in Psychiatry 12(2): 181-186.

17

Appendix: Paper Survey

Informatiewetenschappen

Vragenlijst BA afstudeeronderzoek David Karemaker, [email protected] HCS lab, informatiekunde, onderwijsinstituut informatiewetenschappen.

Doel

Met deze vragenlijst proberen we uit te vinden waardoor de voorkeur voor een bepaald communicatiekanaal ofwel medium wordt bepaald.

Instructie

Beantwoord alle vragen. Het hele onderzoek duurt ongeveer 20 minuten. Zorg ervoor dat je in een rustige omgeving bent. Dit onderzoek beperkt zich tot mensen die minstens drie maanden ervaring hebben met het gebruik van e-mail.

Privacy

Alle antwoorden zullen strikt vertrouwelijk worden behandeld. De statistische verwerking van de vragen zal anoniem zijn en de volledige vragenlijst zal alleen ingezien kunnen worden door de onderzoekers. Na afronding van het onderzoek worden alle vragenlijsten vernietigd.

Dit onderzoek bestaat uit drie onderdelen;

1. Een persoonlij kheidstest

2. Een aantal scenario’s waarop vragen volgen

3. Algemene gegevens

18

Deel 1: Persoonlijkheidstest

Instructie

Geef bij elke vraag aan welke uitspraak jouw mening het beste weergeeft.

Helemaal oneens oneens neutraal eens helemaal eens

Ik ben geen tobber

0 0 0 0 0

Op feestjes voel ik me vaak angstig en oncomfortabel

0 0 0 0 0

Wanneer ik onder grote spanning sta, heb ik soms het gevoel dat ik er aan onderdoor ga

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me zelden eenzaam of triest

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak gespannen en zenuwachtig

0 0 0 0 0

Ik vind het echt leuk om met mensen te praten

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me zelden angstig of zorgelijk

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak nerveus als ik praat met een aantrekkelijk persoon van het andere geslacht

0 0 0 0 0

Wanneer dingen mis gaan raak ik maar al te vaak ontmoedigd en heb ik zin om het op te geven

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me meestal ongemakkelijk in een groep mensen die ik niet ken

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ben geen vrolijke optimist

0 0 0 0 0

Over het algemeen ben ik een verlegen persoon

0 0 0 0 0

19


Ik houd ervan veel mensen om me heen te hebben

0 0 0 0 0

Ik lach gemakkelijk

0 0 0 0 0

Ik zie mezelf niet echt als een vrolijk en opgewekt persoon

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak de mindere van anderen

0 0 0 0 0

Ik word nerveus wanneer ik moet praten met een leraar of baas

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ben een heel actief persoon

0 0 0 0 0

Ik wou dat ik meer zelfvertrouwen had in sociale situaties

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ben een vrolijk en levendig iemand

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak hulpeloos en wil dan graag dat iemand anders mijn problemen oplost

0 0 0 0 0

Ik heb een jachtig leven

0 0 0 0 0

Ik geef er meestal de voorkeur aan om dingen alleen te doen

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ga liever mijn eigen gang, dan dat ik leiding geef aan anderen

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak nerveus, zelfs in ongedwongen bijeenkomsten

0 0 0 0 0

Soms voel ik mij volkomen waardeloos

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me meestal op mijn gemak als ik praat met iemand van het andere geslacht

0 0 0 0 0

20


Ik ben zelden verdrietig of depressief

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ben waarschijnlijk minder verlegen in sociale situaties dan de meeste mensen

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me vaak alsof ik barst van energie

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me zelden angstig of gespannen in sociale situaties

0 0 0 0 0

Soms schaam ik me zo dat ik wel door de grond wil zakken

0 0 0 0 0

Ik word vaak kwaad om de manier waarop mensen me behandelen

0 0 0 0 0

Ik ben graag daar waar wat te beleven valt

0 0 0 0 0

Ik voel me meestal op mijn gemak met andere mensen, zelfs als ze erg van mij verschillen.

0 0 0 0 0

21

Deel 2: Scenario’s

Instructie

In de volgende situaties moet je jezelf voorstellen in een sociale situatie met een goede vriend(in), familielid of kennis.

-Je wilt reageren op de situatie door contact te zoeken, en

-Praktische bezwaren spelen geen rol in de gemaakte keuzen.

De waarden van de ‘gevoelsschalen’ zijn als volgt:

Gelukkig

Blij

Tevreden

Optimistisch

Ongelukkig

Geïrriteerd

Ontevreden

Vertwijfeld

Opgewonden

Klaarwakker

Gestimuleerd

Verhit

Kalm

Slaperig

Relaxed

Sloom

Bij MSN/ICQ wordt gedoeld op Instant- of Direct Messaging.

In levende lijve betekent dat je het liefst de persoon zou opzoeken, face-to-face.

22

1. Plotseling zie je dat je een verjaardag van een dierbaar persoon bent vergeten.

Geef aan hoe je je voelt in deze situatie (vul beide schalen in):

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Geef aan hoe jij contact zou zoeken

zeer waarschijnlijk zeer onwaarschijnlijk

Per brief/postkaart 0 0 0 0 0

per email 0 0 0 0 0

per MSN/ICQ 0 0 0 0 0

per sms 0 0 0 0 0

per telefoon 0 0 0 0 0

in levende lijve 0 0 0 0 0

Ervaar je dit als een ingewikkelde sociale situatie?

Erg ingewikkeld Niet ingewikkeld

0 0 0 0 0

23

2. Iemand zegt dat hij /zij nog geld van je krijgt, maar je weet bijna zeker dat dat niet zo is.


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

24

3. Je merkt dat een vriend(in) iets van je heeft gestolen.


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

25

4. Je beste vriend(in) verklaart dat zij /hij verliefd op je is, het is echter niet

wederzijds.


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

26

5. Je moet met een goede vriend(in) over leggen over jullie vakantiebestemming


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

27

6. Je gaat elke week naar de fi lm met een goede vriend(in) en je wil een film uitzoeken, een dag en een tijdstip afspreken.


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

28

7. Je bent geslaagd voor een examen. Dit wil je ver tellen aan een vriend(in)


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

29

8. Je vraagt je af hoe het gaat met een goede vriend(in)


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0




per email 0 0 0 0 0


per sms 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0

30


1. Als je echt goed met iemand wil praten moet je elkaar kunnen zien

0 0 0 0 0

2. Soms zeg ik dingen per sms die ik moeilijk op een andere manier kan uitdrukken

0 0 0 0 0

3. Als het onderwerp emotioneel is kies ik er altijd voor langs te gaan

0 0 0 0 0

4. Soms kan ik beter iets uitleggen in een email dan in een gesprek

0 0 0 0 0

5. Je kan iemand alleen echt goed leren kennen als je elkaar vaak ziet

0 0 0 0 0

6. Ik kan dingen tegen iemand zeggen op het internet die ik normaal niet zou zeggen.

0 0 0 0 0

Deel 3: Algemene gegevens

Ik wil graag op de hoogte gehouden worden van de resultaten van het onderzoek

0 ja 0 nee

Naam (niet verplicht)

Email (niet verplicht)

Telefoonnummer (niet verplicht)

Hieronder graag alles invullen

Geslacht 0 man 0 vrouw

Leeftijd

Burgerlijke staat 0 gehuwd 0 ongehuwd

Kinderen onder de 5 jaar? 0 ja 0 nee

31

Hoogst genoten opleiding? (hoeft niet afgemaakt te zijn)

Geen opleiding, Lagere school, Middelbare school, LBO, MBO, HBO, Universiteit.

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal jaar ervaring in het gebruik van de computer?

minder dan 1 jaar, tussen 1 en 3 jaar, tussen 3 en 6 jaar, tussen 6 en 9, meer dan 9 jaar

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal uur achter de computer per week?

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal persoonlijke sms verstuurd in de afgelopen zeven dagen?

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal persoonlijke telefoontjes gevoerd in de afgelopen zeven dagen?

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal persoonlijke e-mails verstuurd in de afgelopen zeven dagen?

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Ervaring in gebruik van sms, email, Instant Messaging en telefoon?

veel ervaring weinig ervaring

Email 0 0 0 0 0

ICQ/MSN 0 0 0 0 0

sms 0 0 0 0 0

telefoon 0 0 0 0 0

Aantal familieleden met wie je intensief contact hebt?

0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 15 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Aantal goede vrienden?

0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 15 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

32

Aantal kennissen? (bekenden)

0-7 8-15 16-23 24-31 32 of meer

0 0 0 0 0

Heb je nog opmerkingen of suggesties om deze vragenlijst te verbeteren?

Bedankt voor je medewerking!

face to face or mediated communication? … to face or mediated communication? personality makes a...

Documents