Running head: INTERNET DEPENDENCE AND SHYNESS

Internet Dependence in the Collegiate Population: The Role of Shyness[*]

C. Nathalie Yuen and Michael J. Lavin

St. Bonaventure University

Michael J. Lavin, Department of Psychology, St. Bonaventure University 716-375-2488, mlavin@sbu.edu Fax 716-375-7618

_________________________________

Abstract

Low sensation seeking and loneliness have been associated with collegiate Internet dependence. In an attempt to further explicate the factors associated with collegiate Internet dependence, interpersonal shyness (both online and in face-to-face (FTF) interactions) was explored. An online questionnaire was used to assess Internet dependency and shyness. The results demonstrated the predicted interaction such that shyness level for nondependents did not differ online or in FTF interactions. However, dependents’ shyness was greater in FTF interactions relative to online interpersonal exchanges. The results were discussed in terms of how various Internet resources (e.g., e-mail, chat rooms, and instant messages) can be used to ameliorate shyness and how such negatively reinforced behavior could foster dependence.

Internet Dependence in the Collegiate Population: The Role of Shyness

No college experience is complete without a foray into cyberspace¹. College students seem to be spending more and more time online than ever before. Dorm rooms are equipped with coveted T3 lines. Students are provided with E-mail accounts and homepages. They instant message (IM) and download music. They buy online, they sell online. There is online access in to library holdings, bank accounts, and what the line looks like in the cafeteria. With Ethernet ports and outlets among the grass and trees of the quad, they can even connect outside. The vocabulary of the collegiate now includes login, afk, rofl, lol, imho, btw, brb, html, download, mp3, rip, IP address, server, bit rate, .com, FTP, webcam, away message, and a variety of :)s.

However, recent research suggests trouble in academic cyberspace. Kandell addressed the vulnerability of college students to Internet dependence. Using the Internet (e.g. E-mail, surfing, multiple user dungeons (MUDS), and homepage creation) appears to support both the mindsets of engagement and control. The susceptibility of college students to fall victim to Internet addiction is related to identity and intimacy development, the availability of the Internet, and the increased use for course work. Students dependent on the Internet seem to have primary psychological problems that the addiction stems from. Internet addicts experience side effects such as disturbing feelings (e.g. depression) when not on the Internet, spending unlimited time and money while participating in activities online, a growing tolerance to any effects that may be doing harm to he/she while online, and a strong sense of denial about having any sort of problem. Anecdotal and empirical findings lend support to Kandell’s vulnerability model of collegiate Internet dependence.

A study conducted at Alfred University² concluded that Internet dependency was a major factor on its dropouts. It was found that prolonged Internet users were twice as likely to miss class than occasional users. Based on exit interviews, 32 of the 75 freshmen that had departed from the university had been using the Internet at least six hours per night; the most popular hours were between 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. In an effort to reduce the negative impact of excessive Internet use, schools may limit the amount of time its students can stay online ¹ or create support groups³. Colleges are becoming increasingly concerned with pathological Internet use, healthy and unhealthy online use, and effects and predictors of prolonged use.

Pathological Internet use by students was examined by Morahan-Martin and Schumacher ⁴. Participants answered “yes” or “no” to a 13 item questionnaire; those who answered yes to four or more of the Internet use statements (e.g., “I have missed classes or work because of on-line activities”) were considered pathological users. At the conclusion of the study, it was found that 8.1% of the students were catalogued as pathological users. Compared to the average user’s 3.45 hours online per week, pathological Internet users spent 8.48 hours online. In addition, Internet use was prolonged for 13% of the participants investigated by Scherer ⁵.

Kubey, Lavin, and Barrows⁶ evaluated Internet dependency and its effects. A 43-item survey was distributed to 542 university students. Nine percent of the participants not only classified themselves as being psychologically dependent on the Internet, but also identified themselves as having trouble with schoolwork, missing class time, and having a sense of guilt and lack of control over their Internet use. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to determine dependency. Internet dependents seem to be more likely to cripple their academic careers due to excessive use. The results support the greater use of the Internet by dependents⁴ and the increased probability that dependents would miss class². While these studies demonstrate that symptoms remain relatively constant between Internet dependents, they should not overshadow the common personality characteristics that these individuals display.

More recent studies have attempted to ascertain the personality characteristics of Internet dependence. Morahan-Martin⁷ suggests that there is a relationship between Internet dependence and loneliness. Whether dependence causes loneliness or loneliness causes dependence is yet to be determined. Users become more interested and invest more time in online rather than real-life situations. Alternatively, the Internet may provide security for individuals who lack confidence in their social skills. Lavin, Marvin, McLarney, Nola, and Scott⁸ examined the relationship between Internet dependency and the level of sensation seeking (i.e., feelings of physical thrill and excitement) in individuals. Although the results suggested that Internet dependents spend more time online, use e-mail, chat rooms, MUDs, and cyber-sex sites more often than nondependents, the dependents scored lower on sensation seeking than nondependent users. Physical thrills do not motivate low sensation seeking Internet dependents.

Research has yet to investigate the relationship between Internet dependence and the lack of interpersonal skills. Shyness, manifested as the avoidance of social situations, self-doubt, and social fear, exemplifies a deficiency in social competence⁹. With the advent of new technologies that limit our face-to-face (FTF) contacts, the relationship between these technologies (e.g., the Internet) and shyness must be considered. The following study was designed to assess the relationship between Internet dependence and shyness. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that dependents and nondependents interact with the Internet differently; nondependents will show no difference in shyness whether FTF or online, and dependents will be more shy in FTF situations than online.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and eighty three students at a small private university in western New York participated in the study. The participants were all over the age of 18. The participants included 204 females and 79 males. A monetary award was used as an incentive to participate.

Materials

An online questionnaire was used to evaluate the relationship between Internet dependency and shyness. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 29 questions. The first two questions asked for the participant’s school identification number and gender. The identification number was used to manage multiple submissions. For multiple submissions with the same scores, all but one set of scores was eliminated. For multiple submissions with different scores, all submissions were eliminated. Four questions were devoted to hours using the Internet (i.e., total number of hours and hours spent E-mailing, Internet relay chat or IRC, and instant messaging or IM). Participants choose from “0” to “29” hours with options for each hour interval, or “30 or more hours.” The remaining questions addressed Internet dependency and shyness. These questions were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” Internet dependency was determined using a set of seven questions adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV)¹⁰ criteria for substance dependence. A participant was classified as dependent if they answered, “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to three out of the seven questions. Seven questions evaluated shyness in FTF situations and seven questions evaluate shyness in online situations. Seven out of the 14 shyness questions were reversed. FTF shyness was calculated as a sum of the scores of all the FTF shyness questions; similarly, online shyness was a composite of the online shyness questions. Two questions were included as filler questions.

Design

A 2 x 2 factorial design was used with Internet dependency as a between variable and shyness as a within variable.

Procedure

The school’s e-mail student notice board was used to inform potential participants of the study. There were two announcements made about the study over a three-week period. The students who wished to participate clicked on a link provided in the announcement that took them to the online form. The submission of the form was considered an agreement of consent as well as an affirmation that the participant was at least 18 years old. The entire procedure took about five minutes to complete. A monetary incentive was offered to all participants to complete the questionnaire; one student ID number was randomly picked once the data collection was completed. Based on the dependency criteria, the participants were divided into two groups, nondependents (n = 240) and dependents (n = 43). The researchers determined Internet dependency and calculated the shyness scores.

Results

A summary of the number of hours of Internet use is provided in Table 1. Overall, Internet dependents spent more time online than non-dependents. Dependents spent significantly more total time online, t (281) = 2.55, p = .01, and significantly more time using instant messaging, t (281) = 3.53, p = .00; no significant differences were found for IRC and e-mail. No significant gender differences were found.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between Internet dependency and shyness (Table 2). The predicted interaction was obtained, F (1, 281) = 7.95, MSE = 11.30, p = .005. No significant differences were found for dependence or shyness. Table 3 shows the mean shyness scores by situation and dependency. For nondependent users, there were no significant differences between their levels of shyness FTF or online. However, dependent users were significantly less shy online than FTF. The interaction is illustrated in Figure 1.

Discussion

Personality characteristics that have been associated with Internet dependence include: loneliness⁷ and low sensation seeking⁸. The present study provides support for an additional correlate, shyness. In regards to shyness and dependence, it seems that situation plays an important role. No change in shyness levels between FTF and online situations occurred for nondependents. However, Internet dependent college students, who displayed high levels of shyness in FTF situations, were less shy online. While Carducci and Zimbardo feared for an increase in shyness with the continued growth of technology, the Internet decreases shyness for some.

The Internet provides a safe haven where feelings of social discomfort are alleviated. Online use eliminates the negative and undesirable feelings that accompany FTF communication. Internet dependents may feel more confident when interacting online rather than in FTF situations. The collegiate population may rely on this element of technology as a primary means of communication due to the reduction of dysphoric feelings. Consequently, the attenuation of shyness fosters online dependency.

As students enter the collegiate population, not only is it necessary to address binge drinking and date rape during orientation, but the dangers of the Internet should also be noted. Low sensation seeking, lonely, or shy students are prime candidates for Internet dependence. These students need to be especially alerted to the problems associated with excessive Internet use.

References

1. Kandell JJ. Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students. CyberPsychology and Behavior 1998; 1:46-59.

2. On Line. (1996, April 26). Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A21.

3. Leibowitz E. (2001). New addiction hits campuses: the Internet [On-line]. Available: http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol61/80/5a.html

4. Morahan-Martin J, Schumacher P. Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior 2000; 16:13-29.

5. Scherer K. College life on-line: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of College Student Development 1997; 38:655-65.

6. Kubey R, Lavin M., Barrows J. Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication 2001; 51:366-82.

7. Morahan-Martin J. The relationship between loneliness and Internet use and abuse. CyberPsychology and Behavior 1999; 2:431-39.

8. Lavin M, Marvin K, McLarney A, Nola V, Scott, L. Sensation seeking and collegiate vulnerability to Internet dependence. CyberPsychology & Behavior 1999; 2:425-30.

9. Carducci BJ, Zimbardo PG. Are you shy. Psychology Today 1995; 28:34-46.

10. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Table 1

Internet Use by Internet Dependence

	Non-Dependent (n = 240)		Dependent (n = 43)		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD	t
E-mail	3.46	3.47	4.07	4.54	1.01	.31
Internet Relay Chat (IRC)	0.53	2.85	0.91	2.77	0.80	.41
Instant Messaging (IM)	5.10	7.55	10.63	9.80	3.53	.00**
Total	11.57	7.89	14.98	8.89	2.56	.01**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2

Analysis of Variance for Shyness

Source	df	F
Between Subjects
Internet Dependency (D)	1	0.92

Within Subjects
Shyness (S)	1	1.73
S x D	1	7.95**
error	281

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3

Mean Shyness Scores by Internet Dependence

	Non-Dependent (n=240)	Dependent (n=43)
Shyness Situation
Face-to-Face	17.82	19.42
Online	18.42	17.79

Figure Caption

Figure 1. Mean shyness scores as a function of situation and Internet dependence.

Michael J. Lavin, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology