Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects

of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics
and communication outcomes
Jin K. Hammick a, Moon J. Lee b,⇑
a
Flagler College, Department of Communication P.O. Box 1027, St. Augustine, FL 32085, United States
b
College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, 3050 Weimer Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the effect of 3D virtual worlds on an individual’s communication experience in com-
Available online 16 March 2013 parison with Face-to-Face communications (FtFCs). Using 2  2 posttest only group design where sub-
jects were asked to discuss over a given topic. This study investigated whether individuals’ different
Keywords: personality characteristics (i.e. shyness) influence communication experiences (i.e. communication
Virtual worlds apprehension). The data suggest that shy individuals felt less of communication apprehension during
Second Life the discussion conducted online than FtFC. On the other hand, FtFC turned out to be more effective in
Shyness
influencing individuals’ intention to change behavior compared to virtual worlds. The results suggest that
Communication apprehension
Communication competence
lack of visual/auditory cues in virtual reality is the major factor that influenced the outcome.
Virtual reality Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One of the most prominent benefits of the diversification of
communication media is the ability to fulfill a variety of interper-
sonal preferences (Stritzke, Nguyen, & Durkin, 2004). Prior research
suggests that many Internet users choose their media based on
their interpersonal motives and strategies as well as any expecta-
tions about the probable outcome of communication or interaction
(Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003; Bardi & Brady, 2010; Join-
son, 2004). In other words, individuals now can choose the media
that makes them feel comfortable in their communication or com-
plement their lack of communication skills. Therefore, researchers
have paid much attention to the relationship between media use/
preference and communication personality traits such as shyness
and communication apprehension (CA), or self-perceived commu-
nication competence (SPCC) (Birnie & Horvath, 2002; Campbell &
Neer, 2001; Hertel, Schroer, Batinic, & Naumann, 2008; McCroskey,
1984; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982; Saunders & Chester, 2008;
Scealy, Phillips, & Stevenson, 2002).
Previous studies found that individuals having communication
difficulties due to their personality characteristics (i.e. shyness)
tend to prefer computer mediated communication (CMC) over
Face-to-Face communication (FtFC) (Caplan, 2003; Hertel et al.,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Public Relations, PO
Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400, United States. Tel.: +1 352 273 1699;
fax: +352 273 1227.
E-mail addresses: jhammick@flagler.edu (J.K. Hammick), mlee@jou.ufl.edu (M.J.
Lee).
2008; Joinson, 2004; Saunders & Chester, 2008; Stritzke et al.,
2004). It was also found that people disclose themselves more on-
line and are also willing to disclose less socially desirable informa-
tion in online communication settings compared to equivalent Ftf
contexts (Joinson, 2004). These tendencies have been discussed in
terms of the heightened anonymity, and the reduced non-verbal
and/or demographic cues that online communication has com-
pared to FtFC (Caplan & Turner, 2007; Wizelberg, 1997; Wright,
2002).
In an effort to further explain these phenomena from media
perspectives, researchers have paid increasing attention to virtual
reality as well as its multiple factors affecting individuals’ commu-
nication experiences that are quite different from the real world
(Steuer, 1995; Stritzke et al., 2004; Suh & Lee, 2005). However, lit-
tle research has been conducted on how virtual reality affects indi-
viduals and their communication experiences. Furthermore, the
relationship between individual personality characteristics (i.e.
shyness) and their communication experience through virtual real-
ity, in comparison to FtFC, has very little empirical investigation.
Until now, the fact that most of the research on media and person-
ality traits remained in the realm of text-based media calls for sys-
tematic investigations on how 3D virtual worlds could enhance or
hinder individual communication experiences.
In this study, we examined how individuals’ communication
experiences are influenced by a 3D virtual world (i.e. Second Life)
in comparison with FtFC and whether individuals’ different per-
sonality characteristics (i.e. shyness) influence communication
experiences (i.e. communication apprehension). To identify the ef-
fects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.046
 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
characteristics and communication outcomes, we invited individu-
als to discuss a given topic (i.e. college students’ drinking issues) in
two different settings; Second Life sessions vs. FtF focus groups. In
addition, two major dimensions of virtual reality, perceived feeling
of presence and interactivity, were also measured.
1.1. Virtual reality reflected in Second Life
Due to its technological origin as well as its influence in com-
munication, virtual reality has been defined in many ways (Bailen-
son et al., 2008; Steuer, 1995). From technical perspectives,
definitions include ‘‘a class of computer-controlled, multi-sensory
communication technologies’’ (Biocca, 1992) or ‘‘an immersive,
interactive medium that relies on computer-mediated manipula-
tions of the visual, aural, and tactile senses to provide learners with
the simulated experience in a computer generated world’’ (Dennen
& Branch, 1995). On the other hand, from a user experience stand-
point, some argued that virtual reality is more of a psychological
concept rather than a technological variable (Biocca, 1992; Steuer,
1995). For example, Steuer (1995) defined virtual reality as ‘‘a real
or simulated environment in which a perceiver experiences tele-
presence.’’ Similarly, Biocca (1992) also defined virtual reality as
‘‘an environment created by a computer or other media, an envi-
ronment in which the user feels present.’’
Due to the nature of virtual reality that combines technological
and psychological factors, virtual reality has been studied with var-
ious dimensions such as feeling of presence, interactivity, virtual
identity, anonymity, synchronicity, and three dimensionality
(Biocca, 1992; Blascovich, 2002; Kiousis, 2002; Lessiter, Freeman,
Keogh, & Davidoff, 2001; Li, Daugherty, & Biocca, 2002; McMillan
& Hwang, 2002; Steuer, 1995). Among these dimensions, two ma-
jor dimensions have been studied extensively in explaining virtual
reality; feeling of presence and interactivity (Blascovich, 2002;
Kiousis, 2002; Steuer, 1995).
One of the central elements constituting virtual reality is the
feeling of presence (Bailenson et al., 2008; Steuer, 1995). Although
various definitions of feeling of presence exist, the main viewpoint
is that the feeling of presence is a psychological construct (Blasco-
vich, 2002) dealing with the perceptual process of technology-gen-
erated stimuli (Steuer, 1995). Lombard and Ditton (1997) also
define that ‘‘perceptual illusion of non-mediation’’ that occurs
‘‘when a person fails to perceive or acknowledge the medium were
there.
Comparing virtual and physical environments, scholars show
somewhat different perspectives in regards to presence. Blascovich
(2002) argues that there is not a significant difference in the level
of presence between virtual and physical environments because
presence is not total in either environment. Although the more
immersive the digital environment may yield a better experience
in presence, it is not uncommon for individuals to tune out others
even in their physical presence. However, Joinson (2004) argues
that social presence in virtual worlds is still perceived lower than
Face-to-Face environments (FtFs), and therefore a virtual environ-
ment can be a comfortable atmosphere for communication for
some people. With the reduced non-verbal and demographic cues,
virtual worlds provide sheltering effects to interactants by reduc-
ing their social anxiety (Caplan & Turner, 2007; High & Caplan,
2009; Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Therefore, this lower perception
of social presence in virtual reality may provide users a sense that
the impact of a failure on their self-assessment and communica-
tion would be lessened through the lens of mediation, helping indi-
viduals from feeling more comfortable in engaging with others,
particularly among strangers (Joinson, 2004).
Interactivity is another construct that is closely associated with
the feeling of presence (Kiousis, 2002; Steuer, 1995) because it re-
fers to the users’ ability to perform and engage in a communication
303
process (Rafaeli & Ariel, 2007), and also increase their awareness of
telepresence (Kiousis, 2002). The definition of interactivity by
Steuer (1995) also supports this argument: ‘‘Interactivity is defined
as the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form
and content of a mediated environment in real time’’ (p.14). Some
argue that interactivity is both a media and psychological factor
that should be considered in three principle domains: communica-
tion technologies, communication contexts, and people’s percep-
tion (Kiousis, 2002).
In this study, we used Second Life, the best known virtual world
which has grown from 2 million residents in 2006 to more than 14
million residents in 2009 (Barnes, 2007; De Lucia, Francese, Passe-
ro, & Tortora, 2009). Many potentials of online virtual world have
been recognized in the business sectors as well as academic fields.
In particular, educators and researchers started to consider this on-
line virtual environment as an effective medium for learning (Bai-
lenson et al., 2008). For example, Harvard University, New York
Law School, and National Oceanography and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) and NASA have richly developed locations in Sec-
ond Life (Franceschi, Lee, Zanakis, & Hinds, 2009). Educators have
been trying to figure out how to motivate students to participate
in class, which made Second Life a hot research topic in the educa-
tion, psychology and communications field.
Studies show that synchronous communication and social
interaction supported by 3D virtual environments make a positive
impact on motivation and engagement of participants (De Lucia
et al., 2009). Also, enhanced communication experience plays a
strong role in motivating participants for communication (Zorn,
Broadfoot, Roper, & Weaver, 2006). Despite the important influ-
ence of online virtual environments on communication efficacy,
it has not been thoroughly explicated or studied in the field of
communication, specifically as to how communicative experiences
could be enhanced by the use of an online virtual environments
compared to FtF interactions in general.
1.2. Features and characteristics of Second Life
Second Life has been categorized in several ways due to its var-
ious characteristics. From technological perspectives, it is com-
monly classified as a Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE) or
Massively Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) as
a result of 3D graphical environment to allow a large number of
simultaneous users to interact synchronously (Salt, Atkins, &
Blackall, 2008). However, in terms of the usage, it is also consid-
ered as a type of social media such as Facebook and MySpace be-
cause Second Life users have the opportunity to meet new
people and create new relationships. One of the prominent differ-
ences that sets Second Life apart from other social media – which
are mostly text-based – is that users are able to shape their own
virtual world (Brookey & Cannon, 2009), a pseudo-reality that
might be different from or similar to the real world. Second Life’s
environment resembles the real world in terms of the representa-
tion of space and body appearance, but the virtual world also pro-
vides users with the experience of a fantasy world such as flying
and being transported to a different place.
What made it possible for users to create this virtual world is
the richness of the 3D graphical features and the ability for individ-
uals to customize the appearance and behavior of their avatars to
interact with the world (Dunn & Guadagno, 2012; Franceschi
et al., 2009; Salt et al., 2008). Second Life also provides its users
extensive capabilities to create avatars including a broad range of
shapes, sizes, colors, and even a gender selection, which allows
users to control both of their verbal and non-verbal messages (Bai-
lenson et al., 2008). This added dimension of graphical representa-
tion allows people to embody their online identity to represent
themselves in a more ideal way (Dunn & Guadagno, 2012).
304 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
Although the technology of virtual worlds has yet to be developed
to capture facial expressions, it does offer elements of human com-
munications such as full body appearance, gestures, locomotion
(Franceschi et al., 2009). This avatar based environment enables
social interactions without physical proximity in real life.
Second Life offers both synchronous and asynchronous commu-
nication. Using synchronous communication tools such as text or
voice chat, users can debate, discuss, and even participate in edu-
cator-delivered presentations or lectures. On the other hand, other
users can choose asynchronous options such as sending messages
and documents to people who are not online, or working alone
through a set of activities or games (Salt et al., 2008). Either way,
users in Second Life are given greater control over the time and
pace of interactions compared to FtFC.
Attitudes to Second Life regarding its potential and effective-
ness are still ambivalent, ranging from strong support to skepti-
cism. Technical difficulties are thought to be the most primary
issue to constrain its utility (Salt et al., 2008). However, the unique-
ness of Second Life still attracts much attention from both aca-
demic and business areas with a multitude of subjects to explore.
1.3. Shyness and Internet usage
Previous studies suggest that personalities are an important fac-
tor influencing individuals’ Internet usage pattern and media
choice (Amichai-Hamburger, 2002; Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-
Artzi, 2003; Hills & Argyle, 2003). Researchers have sought to an-
swer why certain media environments are preferred over others,
and studies have shown that CMC can be an ideal setting for indi-
viduals with difficulty engaging in social communication in the
real world (High & Caplan, 2009; Orr et al., 2009; Ryan & Xenos,
2011).
One of the personality characteristics that are suspected to
influence communication experiences and outcomes is shyness.
Shyness has been defined in many ways not only by psychologists
but also by communication researchers, which shows that despite
its wide use, it is also a difficult term to define. From more of a psy-
chological standpoint, shyness is characterized with feelings of dis-
comfort and an inhibition or avoidance of normal social behavior
when in the presence of others (Briggs, 1988; Buss, 1980; Hender-
son & Zimbardo, 1998; Henderson, Zimbardo, & Carducci, 2001;
Leary, 1983). McCroskey and Richmond (1982), on the other hand,
defines shyness as ‘‘the tendency to be timid, reserved, and most
specifically, talk less’’ (p. 460). As suggested in the self-perceived
shyness measurement focusing on the amount of talk, McCroskey
(1984) argued that shyness represents a behavioral tendency, not
a cognitive or affective orientation (McCroskey, 1984).
Shyness is identified with several core characteristics: quiet-
ness, lack of confidence, inhibited social behavior, self-conscious-
ness and apprehension about being negatively evaluated in social
situations (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982; Zimbardo, 1977). These
characteristics cause feelings of awkwardness, reticence, tension,
discomfort, aversion of gaze (Briggs, 1988; Cheek & Buss, 1981;
Orr et al., 2009). Research suggests that there are certain types of
situations that increase the level of shyness: interactions with
authority figures; one to one encounters with members of the
opposite sex; conversations with strangers; being the focus of
attention in small groups; and explicitly evaluative situations such
as job interviews (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982). In these social
situations, an individual is more conspicuous or others can be
intrusive. For this reason, one might feel that the actions or pres-
ence of themselves are potentially under scrutiny (Crozier, 1990).
Although the concept of shyness is often used interchangeably
with introversion and neuroticism (Ebeling-Witte, Frank, & Lester,
2007), scholars argue that shyness as a construct should be differ-
entiated from the two traits (Briggs, 1988; Eysenck, 1956). Eysenck
and Eysenck (1975) define introversion, contrast to extroversion,
as a tendency to be quiet, content with his or her own company,
and prefer smaller gatherings than larger social events. On the
other hand, neuroticism is a person’s tendency to experience psy-
chological distress and to be overly sensitive to many stimuli (Ey-
senck & Eysenck, 1975; Ross et al., 2009). The definitions of
introversion and neuroticism indicate that shyness is highly corre-
lated to the two traits, but not equivalent to either one. Elaborating
on this relationship, Eysenck (1956) distinguished introverted so-
cial shyness and neurotic social shyness: ‘‘we might say that the
introvert does not care for people, would rather be alone, but if
need be can effectively take part in social situations, whereas the
neurotic is anxious and afraid when confronted with social situa-
tions, seeks to avoid them in order to escape from this negative
feeling, but frequently wishes that he could be more sociable’’
(p.121).
Although virtual worlds have not drawn much attention specif-
ically from shyness researchers, a lot of research on the personality
traits and CMC tend to support CMC as a more ideal communica-
tion environment for shy people (Dunn & Guadagno, 2012; Hertel
et al., 2008; Saunders & Chester, 2008; Stritzke et al., 2004).
Researchers have reported that shy people feel confident using
the Internet and that the Internet provides a mechanism for
expanding their social network (Birnie & Horvath, 2002; Saunders
& Chester, 2008; Scealy et al., 2002; Ward & Tracey, 2004). The
clues can be found in studies on individuals with personality traits
that are highly relevant to shyness. For example, Amichai-Ham-
burger, Wainapel, and Fox (2002) revealed in their experiment that
introverted and neurotic individuals expressed their real self-bet-
ter in online environments while extroverted and non-neurotic
people found traditional social interaction better in expressing
their self.
Not surprisingly, several studies showed that shy people prefer
to use the Internet (e.g. social media, instant messaging, chat
rooms, email, etc.) over face-to-face interactions as a form of
socializing (Bardi & Brady, 2010; Pierce, 2009) and to combat lone-
liness (Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003; Sheldon, 2008). The
preference of shy individuals to CMC for social relationships often
leads to Internet addiction (Chak & Leung, 2004; Ebeling-Witte
et al., 2007; Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2000; Joinson, 2004). In a sur-
vey, Hamburger and Ben-Artzi (2000) revealed that introverted
and neurotic females tend to show increased use of the Internet
for social purposes via the Internet more than do non-neurotic
and nonintroverted males and females.
One of the possible reasons that can explain this phenomena is
that, compared to FtF, CMC offers people more control over an
interaction and their non-verbal cues and therefore provides a bet-
ter opportunity to engage in a more careful self-presentation (Her-
tel et al., 2008; Joinson, 2004). Specifically, Walther (1996) noted
that the reduced number of non-verbal and demographic cues in
CMC provide people with increased message-editing capabilities,
allowing them to be more selective and strategic in their self-pre-
sentation. As supporting evidence, the study by Stritzke et al.
(2004) revealed that shy and non-shy individuals categorized by
the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBSS) scores offline
were also significantly different when measured with rejection
sensitivity, initiating relationships, and self-disclosure. However,
the shy and non-shy individuals were not significantly different
from each other when compared to the three measures in the on-
line context (Stritzke et al., 2004).
According to self-presentation theory, the use of avatars and the
reduced visual and auditory cues in virtual worlds decreases a shy
individuals’ experience of detecting negative or inhibitory feed-
back cues from others (Stritzke et al., 2004). Self-presentation the-
ory is based on the assumption that in social situations, individuals
attempt to control images of self- or identity-relevant information
 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
(Schlenker, 1980). They anticipate a discrepancy between the way
they expect to present themselves (perceived self-presentation)
and the way they would wish to present themselves (desired
self-presentation) (Edelmann, 1987; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). As
supporting evidence, Dunn and Guadagno (2012) revealed that
introverts and neurotic females tend to select attractive avatars
with more discrepancies from themselves than extraverts and indi-
viduals low in neuroticism. This result indicates that the character-
istics of virtual worlds may have a higher impact on individuals
with difficulties in FtFC. In FtF interaction, such discrepancies be-
tween perceived and desired impressions can be inferred from
negative or inhibitory verbal and non-verbal cues (Stritzke et al.,
2004). These cues include decreased eye contact, inattentive body
language, facial expression, tone of voice (Stritzke et al., 2004),
which do not exist in virtual environments.
1.4. Communication apprehension
One of the negative communication outcomes that results from
an unsuccessful communication experiences is communication
apprehension (CA). CA has been conceptualized by McCroskey
(1977) as ‘‘the fear or anxiety associated with either real or antic-
ipated communication with another person or persons’’ (p.78).
Buss (1980) noted that CA can be caused by novelty or formality
of the situation, subordinate status, unfamiliarity and dissimilarity
with the communication situation, and feelings of conspicuousness
and excessive attention. Studies have shown that individuals with
a high level of CA tend to experience negative personal and social
adjustment, feel more anxiety and loneliness, and have fewer inti-
mate and honest relationships (Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gabel, 2001;
Buhr & Pryor, 1988; Stacks & Stone, 1983).
CA has been confused with shyness, even with the two consid-
ered as ‘‘conceptual twins’’ (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982). The
two constructs certainly share similar attributes in a manner that
they predict the tendency of less talking (McCroskey & Richmond,
1982). Like shyness, CA was also reported to be related to introver-
sion and neuroticism (McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001).
However, McCroskey and Richmond (1982) argue that shyness
and CA should be differentiated when considering the causes of
the behavior. In terms of CA, the behavior is predicted by a single
cause which is fear or anxiety. On the other hand, the cause of
the behavior indicating shyness can be the product of multiple fac-
tors: social anxiety, low social skills or low social self-esteem
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1982).
McCroskey and Beatty (1986) also provide another way of dis-
tinguishing between CA and shyness: ‘‘shyness is the predisposi-
tion to withdraw from or avoid communication with other
people. Hence, CA is a subjective, affective experience whereas
shyness is a behavioral tendency that may result from multiple
causes’’ (p.279). McCroskey and Richmond (1982) suggest that
they form ‘‘a genus–specie relationship’’, implying that CA can be
included in the behavioral tendency of shyness. In association with
shyness, CA is defined as ‘‘the tendency to behave in a shy manner
(talk less) because of fear or anxiety’’ (McCroskey & Richmond,
1982, p.461).
Scholars suggest that CA influences interpersonal communica-
tion motivation and behavior (Flaherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998;
Kondo, 1994; Rubin, 1993), which may illuminate on the possible
correlation between CA and online communication. A recent study
by Ho and McLeod (2008) showed that respondents were more
willing to express opinions about the issue of legalizing same-sex
marriage in the online chat room setting than FtF setting. In these
results, the questionnaire filled out by the subjects showed that CA
was significantly related to willingness to express one’s own opin-
ion. Similarly, Neo and Skoric (2009) have found that people with
CA preferred instant messaging for social interactions although
305
they acknowledged its possible negative outcomes such as over
dependence on the Internet and compulsive Internet use.
One of the possible assumptions for this result is that the effects
of CA are less revealing in CMC than FtFC because CMC is lower in
media richness and has fewer social cues compared to FtF environ-
ments (Campbell & Neer, 2001; Christensen, 2012). That is, individ-
uals with CA may perceive CMC as a less threatening form of
communication environment, resulting in having less anxiety
about interacting with others (Campbell & Neer, 2001). In other
words, online communication has some empowering benefits
and pressure reducing nature to encourage communication appre-
hensives to engage in communication because online communica-
tion has no observable facial reactions or intimidating elements
that FtFC may have (Christensen, 2012; Meyer, 2006). In a qualita-
tive study on the potential of online communication for students
with CA, the participants responded that they felt more comfort-
able in sharing in online settings (Christensen, 2012). This is con-
sistent with the earlier notion on shyness that the absence of
visual/auditory cues in virtual reality may help shy individuals
more comfortable in communication. Considering that CA is one
of the possible causes for shyness, it is likely that shy individuals
feel less of CA in online communication. On the contrary, it is also
possible to assume that non-shy individuals may not be influenced
by virtual reality in regard to CA.
Based on these expectations, the following hypothesis is
derived:
H1. There will be an interaction effect between the types of reality
(virtual vs. FtF) and shyness in terms of their feeling of CA. In other
words, shy individuals will feel less of CA in a virtual world than
FtF settings while no difference will be found among non-shy
individuals.
1.5. Communication self-competence
Since the concept and measurement of communication compe-
tence (CC) was a major concern in communication research during
the late 1970s and 1980s, the concept of CC has been widely used
and measured in research literature (Blood et al., 2001; Hwang,
2011; McCroskey, 2009; Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). CC is defined
as ‘‘the ability of an individual to demonstrate knowledge of the
appropriate communicative behavior in a given situation’’ (Larson,
Backlund, Redmond, & Barbour, 1978). However, McCroskey
(1984) argued that in most cases, what was measured was the ac-
tual CC, not the subjects’ self-perception of her or his competence.
McCroskey (1997) suggested that it is not a person’s actual CC
or skill that determines their willingness to communicate, but
rather it may be the individual’s self-perceived communication
competence (SPCC) or skill. People make decisions about whether
to initiate communication on the basis of how competent they
think they are (McCroskey, 1997). This can be well supported by
the result that enhanced communication self-efficacy plays a
strong role in motivating participants for communication (Zorn
et al., 2006)
Scholars assert that CC is clearly not a personality-type orienta-
tion, but is substantially related to personalities that are associated
with cognitive and behavioral aspects of communication (Hwang,
2011; Richmond, McCroskey, & McCroskey, 1989; Spitzberg,
1983). In particular, studies have shown that SPCC is negatively
correlated with CA (Blood et al., 2001; Richmond et al., 1989). In
this study, we see SPCC is composed of many factors including ac-
quired communication skills (e.g. language skills) rather than a
personality trait. For example, Zheng, Young, Brewer, and Wagner
(2009) revealed in their experiment that non-native English speak-
ers felt more comfortable and confident participating in an English
306 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
conversation that took place in virtual world settings than class-
room settings. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between
the types of reality and individual shyness while controlling SPCC.
In addition to the effect of virtual reality on the relationship be-
tween shyness, CC and CA, another focal point of this study is
whether virtual reality has any effect on behavioral intent.
Although a few researchers have paid attention to the difference
between online communication and FtF settings in regard to inter-
personal persuasion (Marcus, Nigg, Riebe, & Forsyth, 2000; Wilson,
2003), very little research has been conducted on measuring the
persuasive power of virtual reality in term of their behavioral
intent.
Reardon (1991) describes interpersonal persuasion as follow-
ing: ‘‘interpersonal persuasion occurs when two or a few people
interact in a way that involves verbal and non-verbal behaviors,
personal feedback, coherence of behaviors (relevance fit of remarks
and actions), and the purpose (on the part of at least one interac-
tant) of changing the attitudes and/or behaviors of the other(s).’’
Considering that virtual reality and FtF settings have differences
such as visual/auditory cues and message delivery mode (e.g.
text-based or voice communication), it can be assumed that virtual
reality and FtF have different effects on an individuals’ intention to
change behavior. Therefore, the research question posed for this
study is:
RQ1. How do virtual reality and FtF settings differently influence
on an individuals’ behavioral intent?
In this study, the topic of college students’ drinking problems
was chosen. After each session, individuals were asked whether
they would be willing to change their current drinking patterns.
RQ2. How do interactivity and feeling of presence differently
influence individuals’ CA?
2. Method
2.1. Subjects and design
A total of 58 undergraduate students in a south eastern univer-
sity participated in the experiment for the incentive of extra credit.
The sample consisted of 37 females and 21 males that ranged in
age from 18–23 years old. The subjects were recruited from several
different classes to increase the probability that each individual
participating in the same session do not know each other. We used
a 2 (shy vs. non-shy)  2 (virtual setting vs. real life setting) post-
test only group design for this study.
2.2. Procedure
Subjects were told that they would have focus group interviews
regarding drinking issues among college students. The drinking is-
sue topic was selected as a discussion topic because, due to its per-
vasiveness and controversy, it is one of the most common topics
which college students acknowledge and have opinions about.
They were also told that, before and after the discussion, there
would be surveys as to their opinions about the topic and their
experience regarding the discussion in which they participated.
The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two different
conditions: Second Life and face-to-face settings. In both condi-
tions, each session consisted of 5–8 participants. Each session took
approximately 20–25 min.
2.2.1. Virtual world
When all the subjects arrived in the research lab, they were
asked to complete a questionnaire measuring their self-perceived
shyness and communication competence, along with their drink-
ing habits before the discussion started. For the virtual world
groups, the questionnaires were completed online not to distract
the subjects from their online experience. When everyone finished
the survey, they were asked to log onto Second Life with a login
name and a password provided to them.
The focus group discussion took place in a virtual meeting room
in Second Life for approximately 20–25 min. Subjects participated
in the discussion via their avatars. The equal number of male and
female avatars was created in advance, and for the manipulation
of anonymity, the avatars were randomly provided to subjects
regardless of the name and the race of each subject. The subjects
participated by typing in messages and were able to see other
people’s messages on the computer screen. Because not every sub-
ject was familiar with Second Life, subjects were provided with a
brief instruction about how to log on, to be seated and to type in
before the discussion started. Since the conversation in Second Life
was text based, the conversation was saved as a text file for
analysis.
After the 20–25 min of online discussion regarding drinking is-
sues among college students, the subjects were given another
questionnaire designed to measure their experience of the discus-
sion: feeling of presence, perceived interactivity and their per-
ceived communication apprehension during the discussion. Items
about their willingness to change their drinking habit were also in-
cluded for extended analysis.
2.2.2. Real-life group
Unlike the virtual world setting, real-life group condition was
conducted like usual focus group studies. Subjects were asked to
meet at a meeting room and be seated at a big round table. Be-
fore discussion, they were asked to fill out a printed question-
naire that is identical to the one given to virtual world
subjects. The discussion also lasted 20–25 min, and participants
spoke out their opinions and listened to others.’ The conversation
was recorded and transcribed for later analysis. Like the virtual
world condition, the second questionnaire was also given to sub-
jects, but it did not included items for feeling of presence and
perceived interactivity because these items were designed for on-
line interaction.
2.3. Measurements
Self-report questionnaires were used for data collection for this
experiment. The questionnaires, which were given before and after
discussion (stimulus), consisted of the following categories: first,
shyness and communication competence were measured before
the discussion as an independent variable. Also, a few items mea-
suring rebellious tendencies were added to the first questionnaire
to convince the subjects of the purpose of the study. Second, com-
munication apprehension perceived during the discussion was
measured as a dependent variable. Third, for a manipulation check,
anonymity items were used to measure the perceived anonymity
of the participants during the discussion. Considering the nature
of online interaction, feeling of presence and interactivity items
were used specifically for participants of the virtual world
condition.
2.3.1. Shyness
Shyness was measured with the McCroskey Shyness Scale
(MSS) which is a 14-item, five-interval, Likert-type scale (McCros-
key, 1984). According to the MSS, the lower score indicates the
greater the degree of shyness. Reliability in a previous study was
reported to be .93 (Richmond et al., 1989). The reliability for the
test was 0.94.
 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
2.3.2. Communication competence
The self-perceived communication competence (SPCC; McCros-
key, 1984) was selected to measure the participants’ perception of
their own communication competence. There were several self-re-
port measures of communication competence, but they were
mostly designed to measure the actual communication compe-
tence of the subjects, rather than how the subjects perceived their
competence (McCroskey, 1984). This measure consists of 12 items
categorized in four types of communication context (public, meet-
ing, group, and dyad) and three types of communication receivers
(stranger, acquaintance, and friend). The total reliability of SPCC is
0.90 and in this research, it was 0.89.
2.3.3. Communication apprehension
Communication apprehension was measured by The Traitlike
Communication Apprehension (TCA), which is one of the two mea-
sures of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension
(PRCA) developed by McCroskey (1984). The TCA consists of 24
items with 5 intervals and is categorized to four dimensions: group
discussion, meetings, interpersonal, and public speaking. State
Communication Apprehension (SCA) was not selected because
items of SCA tended to be vague, mostly focusing on physiological
indicants of the participants although it was designed to measure
for one situation. Compared to SCA (e.g. I was fearful), TCA was
more specific in addressing different contexts causing communica-
tion apprehension (e.g. I am tense and nervous while participating
in group discussions).
However, the dependent variable of this experiment was not a
general pattern of anxiety/fear across communication contexts as
the TCA was originally designed (McCroskey, 2009), but the com-
munication apprehension that participants felt during the specific
discussion that they participated. The reason is that communica-
tion apprehension that an individual has is not expected to be
changed by a 20 min discussion alone. Therefore, items of the
TCA have been adjusted to be able to measure the level of the
dependent variable (e.g. I was tense and nervous while participat-
ing in the group discussion). The reliability in this research was
0.95.
2.3.4. Feeling of presence
Feeling of presence was measured by a short-ended version of
the Independent Television Commission-Sense of Presence Inven-
tory (ITC-SOPI; Lessiter et al., 2001). The ITC-SOPI is a self-reported,
posttest presence measure composed of 44 Likert scale items. The
questionnaire is divided in two parts: respondents’ thoughts and
feelings after and during the experience. It is also designed to mea-
sure four dimensions of presence (physical, engagement, natural-
ness, and negative effects) (Li et al., 2002). The reliability in this
test was 0.87.
2.3.5. Interactivity
Interactivity was measured by Measures of Perceived Interac-
tivity (MPI) which is an 18-item scale developed by McMillan
and Hwang (2002). The items of MPI represent three elements of
interactivity: direction of communication (e.g. the concepts of
responsiveness and exchange), user control (e.g. participation),
and time (e.g. time required for information retrieval) (McMillan
& Hwang, 2002). The reliability in this test was 0.84.
3. Results
H1 predicted an interaction effect between the types of reality
(condition) and shyness. There was a significant interaction effect
found, F (1, 53) = 4.41, p < 0.05. As predicted, the shy individuals
in the virtual reality condition exhibited far less CA, M = 0.90,
307
SE = 0.41, than the shy individuals in the real focus group condi-
tion, M = 0.06, SE = 0.27 while no significant difference was found
among the non-shy individuals. Therefore, H1 was supported
(Fig. 1).
RQ1 asked whether the condition has an impact on individuals’
behavioral intent. There was a significant condition effect on indi-
viduals’ behavioral intent (i.e. intention to change their drinking
behaviors), t (1, 55) = 3.9, p < 0.01. Those individuals in the real fo-
cus group condition exhibited a higher level of intention to change
their drinking behaviors, M = 0.41, SD = 0.97, and n = 31, than those
who were in the virtual group condition, M = 0.48, SD = 0.75, and
n = 27.
RQ2 asked whether interactivity and feeling of presence influ-
ence individuals’ communication apprehension. A linear regression
model was used to test the relationship only among those who
were in the virtual reality group. As expected, shyness was found
to be a significant predictor of CA, F (1, 24) = 5.22, p < 0.05 in the
first model with R square of 0.18. In addition, only feeling of pres-
ence was found to be a significant predictor of CA, F (2, 24) = 6.49,
p < 0.01 in the second model with R square of 0.37. Interactivity
was not shown to be a significant predictor for CA, p > 0.05.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the effect of virtual reality on CA based
on an individuals’ personality trait, shyness. Feeling of presence,
perceived interactivity, and anonymity were also assessed as pos-
sible moderators affecting the results. The results of the experi-
ment show that virtual reality positively affects people with
shyness to feel less CA. This can be explained by the existing view
from the literature that compared FtF settings, the absence of vi-
sual and auditory cues in virtual worlds positively reduces the pos-
sibility that shy people detect negative or inhibitory feedback cues
from others (Stritzke et al., 2004).
In regards to the relationship between shyness and CA, this
study shows that shy people were significantly influenced by vir-
tual reality on CA while non-shy people did not show much of a dif-
ference between the virtual world conditions and FtF settings.
Because CA is based on fear of communication, the results can also
be interpreted that the reduced experience of detecting negative
cues in virtual worlds led shy people to feel less fear in communica-
tion. Considering that fear is one of the possible factors causing shy-
ness, the result can explain why shy people felt less CA in virtual
worlds than FtF conditions. Further research should be conducted
to investigate the factors mediating communication outcomes.
Unlike shyness, the perceived CC did not turn out to be affected
by virtual reality in regard to CA. This can be interpreted in such a
way that the reduced experience of detecting negative cues may
reduce fear, but it does not make shy people feel that they have en-
hanced communication skills in virtual worlds.
Additionally, the results of this study provide a clue to answer
the research question: compared to virtual environments, FtF set-
tings turned out to be more effective in persuading the subjects’
intention to change their drinking behavior. More research is
needed to identify what kind of factors of virtual worlds might
influence the result, and how the process of persuasion takes place
differently online. One of possible reasons is that the existence of
visual/auditory cues in FtF settings increases engagement from
the participants. It is also possible to predict that the opinions pro-
vided in FtF settings can be perceived to have a better reliability
than in virtual settings where there are no visual/auditory cues.
Despite the findings of this study, there are limitations that
need to be addressed. First, manipulation check on anonymity
did not turn out significant. Considering that anonymity is one of
the factors of virtual reality that are often discussed in regard to
308 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
Fig. 1. Interaction between the conditions and shyness on CA.
self-disclosure (Stritzke et al., 2004), it could have been an impor-
tant factor explaining the outcome of why shy people in virtual
groups felt less CA than shy participants in FtF settings. One possi-
ble reason why the anonymity manipulation check was not suc-
cessful was that the subject sampling was limited to college
students from the same college. Under the condition of sampling
from the limited pool of subjects, it was challenging to control
the possibility that the students who participated in each session
may know each other. Another limitation to this study was the
technical challenges in conducting the experiment, which impeded
the subjects from perceiving the virtual reality. Experiments
involving three-dimensional virtual worlds, such as Second Life, re-
quire high performance computer graphics and fast Internet
speeds. The less than ideal capabilities of the computer equipment
in these two senses might have reduced subjects’ feelings of being
immersed in their virtual reality experience.
Findings from this study can be extended to future research in
several areas. The study of communication personality traits can
be replicated in other types of online media. Given that each type
of media has different features and environmental factors, future
research could investigate how shyness and CA can be differently
influenced by other media (e.g. synchronized/unsynchronized or
text-based/visual or voice media). The study of shyness, communi-
cation competence, and CA in online environments is also closely
related to the educators’ concern of encouraging students’ partici-
pation. The question of what kind of class environment can encour-
age shy students, or students with CA to participate in class can be
explored from the findings of this study. Furthermore, these com-
munication personality traits can be studied in association with an
individual’s cultural background (e.g. Asian students).
5. Conclusions
This study shows a potential that for shy people, virtual worlds
can be a more comfortable environment for communication or
discussion, where they can express themselves feeling less
communication apprehension. Since virtual reality has so many
elements that interact with each other, it has yet to be fully inves-
tigated as to what kind of characteristics of virtual worlds, that is
different from FtF communication, reduces shy people’s communi-
cation apprehension. Based on a few clues suggested by this study
such as the nature of text-based communication and that interac-
tivity did not appear influential, it is possible to make this predic-
tion: shy people felt less intimidated in virtual worlds compared to
FtF settings when they have to face all the expressions of the other
participants delivered by their visual and audio cues.
The results of this study indicate that virtual worlds affect shy
people to feel less communication comprehension, but did not
make them to feel more confident about their communication abil-
ity. That is, shy people’s feeling less comprehended in communica-
tion might not have originated from their enhanced confidence in
communication, which supports the prediction regarding the lack
of visual and audio cues.
However, the finding that FtF has more effect in changing peo-
ple’s intention to change drinking behavior suggests that virtual
reality has less persuasive power than FtF. That suggests that
although virtual reality can be a more comfortable setting for shy
people to express themselves or participate in communication,
the communication in virtual worlds may come across as less con-
vincing. Therefore, the results of this study open up an extensive
possibility for future research. Such research will contribute to a
better understanding as to how virtual worlds can benefit people
with communication challenges, and further how each of the com-
munication environments can be best utilized for different com-
munication purposes.
References
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human
Behavior, 18(2002), 1–10.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and internet use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 71–80.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). On the internet no one
knows I’m an introvert: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5(2), 125–128.
 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The
use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations
of teachers, students, and social context. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
17(2008), 102–141.
Bardi, C. A., & Brady, M. F. (2010). Why shy people use instant messaging: Loneliness
and other motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1722–1726.
Barnes, S. (2007). Virtual worlds as a medium for advertising. The DATA BASE for
Advances in Information Systems, 38(4), 45–55.
Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for
research. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 5–22.
Birnie, S., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of internet social
communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7, 13–27.
Blascovich, J. (2002). Social influence within immersive virtual environments. In R.
Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual
environments (pp. 127–145). London: Springer.
Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Tellis, G., & Gabel, R. (2001). Communication apprehension
and self-perceived communication competence in adolescents who stutter.
Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 161–178.
Briggs, S. R. (1988). Shyness: Introversion or neuroticism? Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 290–307.
Brookey, R. A., & Cannon, K. (2009). Sex lives in second life. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 26(2), 145–164.
Buhr, T. A., & Pryor, B. (1988). Communication apprehension and alcohol abuse.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3(3), 237–243.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman.
Campbell, S. W., & Neer, M. (2001). The relationship of communication
apprehension and interaction involvement to perceptions of computer-
mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 391–
398.
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic
use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648.
Caplan, S. E., & Turner, J. S. (2007). Bringing theory to research on computer-
mediated comforting communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2007),
985–998.
Chak, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and locus of control as predictors of internet
addiction and internet use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 559–570.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and
Social Research, 41, 330–339.
Christensen, D. H. (2012). Increasing student voice and empowerment through
technology: The perceptions of communication apprehensive Latter-day Saint
(LDS) seminary students. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1166.
<http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1166>.
Crozier, W. R. (1990). Social psychological perspectives on shyness, embarrassment,
and shame. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment: Perspectives from
social psychology (pp. 10–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and
evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of second DMI.
Computers and Education, 52(1), 220–233.
Dennen, V. P., & Branch, R. C. (1995). Considerations for designing instructional
virtual environments. In eyes on the future: Converging images, ideas, and
instruction. In Selected readings from the annual conference of the International
Visual Literacy Association (pp. 101–110), Chicago, IL.
Dunn, R. A., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). My avatar and me – Gender and personality
predictors of avatar-self discrepancy. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 97–
106.
Ebeling-Witte, S., Frank, M. L., & Lester, D. (2007). Shyness, internet use, and
personality. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(5), 713–716.
Edelmann, R. J. (1987). The psychology of embarrassment. New York: Wiley.
Eysenck, H. J. (1956). The questionnaire measurement of neuroticism and
extraversion. Revista de Psicologia, 50, 113–140.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. E. G. (1975). Manual: Eysenck personality inventory. San
Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face
communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46(3),
250–268.
Franceschi, K., Lee, R. M., Zanakis, S. H., & Hinds, D. (2009). Engaging group E-
learning in virtual worlds. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1),
73–100.
Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and
neuroticism and the different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human
Behavior, 16, 441–449.
Henderson, L. M., Zimbardo, P. G., & Carducci, B. J. (2001). Shyness. In W. E.
Craighead & C. B. Nemeroff (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopaedia of psychology and
behavioral science (3rd ed., pp. 1522–1523). New York: Wiley.
Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). Shyness. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia
of mental health (pp. 497–509). San Diego: Academic.
Hertel, G., Schroer, J., Batinic, B., & Naumann, S. (2008). Do shy people prefer to send
e-mail? Personality effects on communication media preferences in threatening
and nonthreatening situations. Social Psychology, 39(4), 231–243.
High, A. C., & Caplan, S. E. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated
communication during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal
perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 475–482.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2003). Uses of the Internet and their relationships with
individual differences in personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2003),
59–70.
309
Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion
expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 35(2), 190–207.
Hwang, Y. (2011). Is communication competence still good for interpersonal
media?: Mobile phone and instant messenger. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
924–934.
Joinson, A. N. (2004). Self-esteem, interpersonal risk, and preference for e-mail to
face-to-face communication. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(4), 479–485.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media and Society, 4(3),
355–383.
Kondo, D. S. (1994). A comparative analysis of interpersonal communication
motives between high and low communication apprehensives. Communication
Research Reports, 11(1), 53–58.
Larson, C. E., Backlund, P. M., Redmond, M. K., & Barbour, A. (1978). Assessing
communicative competence. Falls Church, VA.: Speech Communication
Association and ERIC.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 47, 65–75.
Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A cross-media presence
questionnaire: the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence, 10(3), 282–297.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product
knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of
presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43–57.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 3(2). <http://
www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html> Retrieved
Marcus, B. H., Nigg, C. R., Riebe, D., & Forsyth, L. H. (2000). Interactive
communication strategies: Implications for population-based physical-activity
promotion. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(2), 121–126.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehesion: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.
McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication
apprehension, and self-perceived communication competence:
Conceptualizations and perspectives. In Daly, et al. (Eds.), Avoiding
communication: Shyness, reticence, & communication apprehension (pp. 75–
108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Communication apprehension: what have we learned in the
last four decades. Human Communication, 12(2), 157–171.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1986). Oral communication apprehension. In W. H.
Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and
treatment (pp. 279–293). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Self-report measurement. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey
(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness reticence, and communication
apprehension (pp. 81–94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V. P. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE and
communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs,
68, 360–366.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and
shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal,
33, 458–468.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: an
exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time
in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.
Meyer, K. A. (2006). When topics are controversial: Is it better to discuss them face-
to-face or online? Innovative Higher Education, 31, 175–186.
Neo, R. L., & Skoric, M. M. (2009). Problematic instant messaging use. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 627–657.
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
The influence of shyness on the use of facebook in an undergraduate sample.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 337–340.
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus
technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25,
1367–1372.
Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research.
In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of
Internet Psychology (pp. 71–88).
Reardon, K. K. (1991). Persuasion in practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1989). An investigation of self-
perceived communication competence and personality orientations.
Communication Research Reports, 6, 28–36.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with facebook use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 25, 578–586.
Rubin, A. M. (1993). The effect of locus of control on communication motivation,
anxiety, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 41, 161–171.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the
relationship between the big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and facebook
usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658–1664.
Salt, B. Atkins, C. Blackall, L. (2008). Engaging with second life: Real education in a
virtual world. SLENZ project. <http://piensl.pbworks.com/f/
slliteraturereviewa1.pdf> Retrieved 05.12.09.
Saunders, P. L., & Chester, A. (2008). Shyness and the internet: Social problem or
panacea? Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2649–2658.
Scealy, M., Phillips, J. G., & Stevenson, R. (2002). Shyness and anxiety as predictors of
patterns of internet usage. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5, 507–515.
310 J.K. Hammick, M.J. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 302–310
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A
conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and
students’ facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 67–75.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and
impression. Communication Education, 32(3), 323–328.
Stacks, D., & Stone, J. D. (1983). The effect of self-concept, self-discipline, and type of
speech course on communication apprehension. Communication, 12, 105–
127.
Steuer, J. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.
Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 33–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stritzke, W. G. K., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated
communication: A self-presentational experiences. Media Psychology, 6, 1–22.
Suh, K. S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: an
empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 673–697.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on
disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one
another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Ward, C. C., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2004). Relation of shyness with aspects of online
relationship involvement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,
611–623.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in
communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 185–199.
Wilson, E. V. (2003). Perceived effectiveness of interpersonal persuasion strategies
in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 19,
537–552.
Wizelberg, A. (1997). The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals
with eating disorders. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(3), 393–407.
Wright, K. (2002). Social support within an on-line cancer community: An
assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and
disadvantages, and motives for using the community from a communication
perspective. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(3), 195–209.
Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Brewer, R. A., & Wagner, M. (2009). Attitude and self-efficacy
change: English language learning in virtual worlds. CALICO Journal, 27(1),
205–231.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness: What it is, what to do about it. Sydney: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.
Zorn, T., Broadfoot, K., Roper, J., & Weaver, C. (2006). Focus groups as sites of
influential interaction: Building communicative self-efficacy and effecting
attitudinal change in discussing controversial topics. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 34(2), 115–140.