Liar, Liar: Internet Faking but Not Frequency of Use Affects Social Skills, Self-Esteem,

Social Anxiety, and Aggression

JEFFREY P. HARMAN, CATHERINE E. HANSEN, Ph.D., MARGARET E. COCHRAN, Ph.D.,and CYNTHIA R. LINDSEY, Psy.D.

ABSTRACT

Misuse of the Internet can affect various aspects of children’s social lives. It was predictedthat children who misrepresent themselves on the Internet would have less well-developedsocial skills, lower levels of self-esteem, and higher levels of social anxiety and aggression.The frequency of Internet use was also assessed. Students aged 11–16 years were recruited forthe study from classes after obtaining consent. Questionnaires included a query of Internetbehaviors, the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters Appropriate Social Skillsand Inappropriate Assertiveness subscales, Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, and the Social Anx-iety Scale for Children–Revised. It was found that children who reported the most faking be-havior on the Internet (e.g., pretending to be older) had poorer social skills, lower levels ofself-esteem, higher levels of social anxiety, and higher levels of aggression. Frequency of use,however, did not affect these factors in the current study.

1

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIORVolume 8, Number 1, 2005© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

THE INTERNET has provided one of the largestand most important modes of communication.

From 1984 to 1998, the number of people with acomputer increased substantially, to more than 20million in the United States, becoming more repre-sentative of the world.1–3 Research has shown on-line interpersonal communication to be common.4,5

The Internet, however, may be substituted for di-rect human interaction, contributing to increaseddepression and decreased social support.6 Whilethe Internet has become a valued public tool, it hasserious pitfalls such as lacking many social cues.7One of the main groups to use the Internet is chil-dren and adolescents, with many being exposed tocomputers in school as well as at home.2,8 Concernhas consequently arisen regarding exposure to andimitation of maladaptive behavior that could per-meate a child’s off-line life.9

Social relationships play important roles in child-hood development, with social skill mastery pre-dicting important social outcomes. Children mustmaster several aspects of social competence andself-control (self-esteem, social anxiety, aggressioncontrol, and general social skills) in order to ade-quately perform in social settings. Many positiveopportunities for social interaction on the Internetexist such as newsgroups, entertainment, chat,10

and virtual worlds. While the Internet would notinherently be considered detrimental to children’ssocial lives, a more detailed investigation is war-ranted, as Internet access exists in 70 million house-holds with children.11 The Internet, like television,also affords much opportunity to vicariously ob-serve inappropriate behaviors modeled by others.Such exposure and potential for imitating mal-adaptive behavior could permeate a child’s off-linelife, thereby stifling a child’s social skill develop-ment. One suspect characteristic of Internet com-

Department of Psychology, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 1

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

munication necessary to explore is the falsificationof one’s identity. Children may lie about demo-graphics such as their age, race, or weight, or maybehave differently than in their face-to-face interac-tions. All such behaviors will henceforth be re-ferred to as faking.

Social variables

The factors examined in the current study (socialskills, social anxiety, self-esteem, and aggression)exist as meaningful constructs relevant to a child’soverall social character development. Each of the fac-tors chosen, due to the expectation that they might beaffected by one’s Internet faking behaviors, is dis-cussed below. A lack of social practice opportunities(peer relations, self-management, academic, compli-ance, and assertion skills12) including the nonverbalskills lacking on the Internet, put children at risk ofdeveloping poor peer relationships,13,14 dropping outof school,14,15 developing mental health problems,and violent and antisocial behavior.16 Though ex-perience of some social discomfort is a normal phe-nomenon, particularly regarding popularity anddating,17,18 social anxiety may result in social avoid-ance, withdrawal, inhibition, and social phobia,19

which reciprocally decrease opportunities for socialinteractions.20,21 With deficient self-esteem (self-confi-dence and self-depreciation),22 vicious cycles of poorself-worth, anxiety, isolation, poor peer relations,23,24

less psychological well-being, and poor interper-sonal functioning may ensue.13,23 Anger expressedaggressively is increasingly more commonplace inthe classroom.25 Untreated early aggressive actioncan become highly threatening and assaultive, andhighly resistant to change,26 and is the strongest pre-dictor of adolescent delinquency and school dropouts.25,27–30 Losing one’s self-awareness can result infailing to take responsibility for one’s actions (deindi-viduation) and behaving differently than usual,31

whether in crowds or on-line.

Internet variables

The Internet offers many advantages as well asdangers. One main benefit is the safe environmentfor practice of early social interactions with fewerexpectations from others, relieving social anxi-eties.32 Internet use may be reinforcing, bolsteringself-esteem as well as providing status and re-spect,33–35 with less chance of rejection. Several dan-gers, however, have been identified in cyberspace,including on-line predators, accessibility of inap-propriate material,32 substitution of large quantitiesof on-line communication for physical world social

interactions,32 loss of the many social cues availablein the physical world that better enable social skillacquisition, and the shipboard syndrome36 (easycharacter abandonment and new creation with de-ception such as gender switching,4,37 thereby requir-ing little responsibility for one’s actions33).

Communicating via the Internet has revolution-ized interaction with society, asynchronously38 orsynchronously.32,33 MUDs and MOOs (Internetzones to create worlds and assume identities ofimaginary characters, role play, and compete)39–41

are attractive in that one does not need to worryabout prejudices based upon physical features orprior interactions, as one may recreate oneself.40

The relationship between the real self in the physi-cal world and that fabricated in virtual reality maybe of concern.42 Children may begin to relate tothese new personas more than their own, making itmore likely that they would be critical and intru-sive,43 more outgoing, and more aggressive.36 Thislack of accountability or responsibility (deindividu-ation) may easily contribute to such negative socialinteractions as aggression.7,33

Such negative social interactions may generalizeface-to-face interactions. As a clearer understand-ing of these effects is necessary, the current studyundertook the task of assessing demographic falsi-fication effects upon social skill, social anxiety, self-esteem, and aggression in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

Students were recruited from 6th (n = 43), 7th (n =84), and 8th (n = 60) grade classes from severalsouthern communities. Evaluation of the originaldata uncovered data of six participants that consti-tuted outliers. These were removed from the data,leaving 187 students. Mean age was 12.65 (SD =0.95) years, with a range of 11–16 years. One hun-dred and nine (58%) were girls. The majority of thesample (85.5%) was European American (n = 160),with 16 African Americans (8.5%), three AsianAmericans (1.6%), one Latino (less than 1%), andseven students (3.7%) who did not divulge theirethnicity. All participants were treated in accor-dance with the ethical standards of the AmericanPsychological Association (APA) in the “EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.”44

Materials

Demographic questions were employed to deter-mine the sample characteristics. Variables query in-

2 HARMAN ET AL.

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 2

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

cluded age, grade, sex, and race. As there was noknown instrument available to query about Inter-net use frequency and behaviors, questions weredeveloped and queried in the demographic sectionof the current study questionnaire battery to assessthe frequency of Internet use (three items, currentCronbach alpha = 0.70) and the type of demo-graphic or behavioral faking (nine items, currentCronbach alpha = 0.73) perpetrated when on theInternet. One such question was “How frequentlydo you pretend to be older while talking to peopleon the Internet?”

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale45 is a brief mea-sure of 10 items that was constructed to be facevalid and provide ease of administration. Test-retest reliability and validity are good. It is inter-nally reliable, with a coefficient alpha of 0.80–0.84.46

In the current study, the Cronbach alpha was 0.83.The Social Anxiety Scale for Children–Revised47

is an 18-item instrument, with three factors: (1) Fearof Negative Evaluation, (2) Social Avoidance andDistress–New Situations, and (3) General SocialAvoidance and Distress. Response format consistsof a five-point Likert scale. Internal consistency re-liability for the subscales has ranged from 0.66 to0.86, with 0.93 in the current study. Convergent anddiscriminant validity study provided evidence ofexpected relationships.20

The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills withYoungsters (MESSY),48 with a set of 62 items anda five-point Likert scale response format, wasdeveloped to screen for children with possiblesocial skill difficulties. Factor analytic study re-sulted in five factors entitled Appropriate SocialSkill, Inappropriate Assertiveness, Impulsive/Recalcitrant, Overconfident, and Jealousy/With-drawal. Several studies have assessed the psycho-metric properties of the MESSY, finding that theinstrument possesses utility, and predominantlygood internal consistency, split-half reliability,test-retest reliability, and validity.49 For the cur-rent study, only the Appropriate Social Skill andInappropriate Assertiveness (measure of aggres-sion) scales were employed. Because of similar-ity of constructs, inappropriate assertiveness ishenceforth referred to as aggression in the currentstudy.

Procedure

Approval was obtained from appropriate schoolboards and school personnel. Only those childrenat each of the several schools who returnedparental consent forms were allowed to participatein filling out questionnaires.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the data in preparation for uni-variate and multivariate analysis determinedthat skewness was a problem for all four of thedependent variables (social skills, self-esteem, so-cial anxiety, and aggression). Therefore, with alogarithmic transformation of them and the dele-tion of the outliers, adequate improvement re-sulted. All other assumptions of analyses weresatisfied.

Further preliminary analyses were performedto assess whether sex, grade, or racial differencescould confound the results. There were signifi-cant preexisting gender effects upon the depen-dent variables (F(4,182) = 9.635, p = 0.0005, �2 =0.175). See Table 1 for descriptive statistics. Girlsreported significantly better social skill than didboys, F(1,185) = 37.014, p = 0.0005, �2 = 0.167,and boys reported significantly more aggressionthan girls, F(1,185) = 7.07, p = 0.009, �2 = 0.037.Consequently, subsequent analyses concerningsocial skill and aggression were performed withsex as a covariate. Differences were not found forself-esteem, F(1,185) = 2.039, p = 0.155, �2 = 0.011,nor for social anxiety, F(1,185) = 2.66, p = 0.105,�2 = 0.014.

The group of individuals reporting higheramounts of Internet use were compared with thosereporting lower amounts of Internet use on the fourdependent variables. There were no effects, how-ever, upon any of the dependent variables purelyfrom the frequency of Internet use. More specifi-cally, for self-esteem and social anxiety, the resultswere not significant, F(2,126) = 0.279, p = 0.757, �2 =0.004. For social skill and aggression, results werealso not significant, F(2,126) = 2.0, p = 0.140, �2 =0.031.

A MANOVA was next employed to assess theeffects of faking behaviors upon self-esteem andsocial anxiety, with an overall significant finding,F(2,125) = 6.289, p = 0.002, �2 = 0.091. Children fak-ing more on the Internet reported significantlylower self-esteem, F(1,125) = 9.970, p = 0.002, �2 =0.073 and significantly more social anxiety,F(1,125) = 9.606, p = 0.002, �2 = 0.071. A MAN-COVA was then performed for the other variables(social skill and aggression) with the effects of sexdifferences removed, resulting in significant over-all findings (F(2,124) = 10.348, p = 0.0005, �2 =0.143). Children faking more on the Internet re-ported significantly less social skills, F(1,124) =7.903, p = 0.006, �2 = 0.059 and significantly moreaggression, F(1,124) = 17.820, p = 0.0005, �2 = 0.125regardless of gender.

INTERNET FAKING, SOCIAL SKILLS, AND AGGRESSION 3

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 3

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

DISCUSSION

Many children and adolescents have become re-markably proficient at computer technologies.Many further appear to spend much time on the In-ternet rather than participating in activities rich insocial learning opportunity. Though Internet usemay have simply replaced other activities per-formed in isolation or may include on-line socialcommunication with friends,5 some Internet usesmay be harmful.

In fact, the current study results determined thatchildren reporting high faking behaviors on the In-ternet had lower self-esteem, higher social anxiety,poorer social skills, and higher aggression than thegroup of children reporting minimal faking behav-iors. There was not, however, a negative effect fromsimply spending more time on the Internet. Theseresults suggest that, while many children are notharmed socially, those children who are using theanonymity of the Internet to purposefully misrep-resent themselves may be endangering their socialwell-being.

Perhaps children are not developing good socialskills in face-to-face interactions and escaping inevi-table social anxieties by submerging themselves intotheir on-line persona, interacting in a fantasizedworld with less restraint, and utilizing fewer oppor-tunities to overcome such anxieties. This lack ofrestraint may further generalize to uninhibited be-

havior in real life encounters, including deindividu-ation and aggressiveness. Creation of a new identityon-line may also serve as a means for children withpoor self-esteem to become absorbed in an ideal self,instead of learning to love their real self and therebyresulting in greater self-disparagement.

While faking behaviors had an impact on socialfactors, the mere frequency of Internet use did notseem to affect children in this way. Though exces-sive use of the Internet may minimize children’sopportunities for participating in face-to-face inter-actions, some positive use of the Internet (interac-tions, entertainment, and information) may still beexperienced on-line, as long as the children are act-ing similarly to face-to-face encounters.

It behooves parents to supervise their childrenon the Internet in order to positively impact theirsocial skill, social anxiety, self-esteem, and aggres-sive impulses. School personnel located wheremany students primarily access computers shouldadditionally be made aware of the potential harmthat the Internet may cause students. Though somepublic policy for the Internet has been pursued, ithas focused upon the utility as a resource for infor-mation and commercial endeavors.6 Though com-munication through such avenues as InstantMessaging have allowed greater positive social ac-tivity, it would be wise to provide supervision forthis as well as such environments as MUDs andMOOs. It might, in fact, be wise to include such en-

4 HARMAN ET AL.

TABLE 1. NUMBERS, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR GENDER, INTERNET USE, AND FAKING

BY SELF-ESTEEM, SOCIAL ANXIETY, SOCIAL SKILLS, AND AGGRESSION

Gender Internet use Faking

Scale n M SD n M SD n M SD

Male Low LowSelf-esteem 78 31.01 4.85 71 31.82 4.81 62 32.71 4.66Social anxiety 78 44.77 14.61 71 43.18 13.68 62 38.29 11.97Social skills 78 92.95 11.55 71 99.35 11.21 62 102.16 9.03Aggression 78 39.77 10.16 71 35.96 8.11 62 34.15 8.17

Female High HighSelf-esteem 109 32.05 4.90 58 31.21 6.02 66 29.94 5.23Social anxiety 109 41.34 13.87 58 43.22 16.24 66 45.95 15.64Social skills 109 102.35 9.53 58 96.36 13.00 66 95.15 13.33Aggression 109 35.96 9.27 58 39.16 10.49 66 41.29 9.34

Total Total TotalSelf-esteem 187 31.62 4.89 129 31.54 5.38 128 31.28 5.13Social anxiety 187 42.77 14.25 129 43.20 14.82 128 42.24 14.45Social skills 187 98.43 11.38 129 98.01 12.09 128 98.55 11.94Aggression 187 37.55 9.81 129 37.40 9.36 128 37.83 9.47

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 4

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

vironments in parental censoring software in orderto prevent such ill effects as those uncovered in thecurrent study.

Since the current study was attempting to identifychildren who purposefully misrepresent them-selves, it is logical to expect some degree of falsifica-tion of answers in the study. While the importance ofthe study was stressed and anonymity assured, re-sponse bias measurement was not measured. Otherlimitations of the current study were the relativelysmall sample size, low response rate, sample beingrecruited only from schools in the rural south, onlyfrom 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, and the sample being al-most entirely comprised of European American chil-dren and likely a skewed socioeconomic status. Suchlimitations would therefore hinder generalizabilityof these results. A final limitation to the currentstudy was the unavailability of instrumentation formeasurement of Internet activity. Therefore, the cur-rent investigators were forced to create items toquery Internet use and faking behaviors in the cur-rent study. These items were used merely to obtainfrequency data for all Internet use and frequencydata for faking behaviors. These items were conse-quently not validated.

The Internet is a powerful tool with which comesresponsibility. Researchers must uncover the risksand benefits of this tool so as to provide parentsand teachers with guidance in supervision of chil-dren’s on-line activities. Further research should beconducted in order to discover what other areas ofa child’s life are being harmed by Internet fakingbehaviors. In light of the current study, it is impor-tant to further investigate the detrimental con-sequences of faking behaviors on the Internet,including development of psychometrically soundinstrumentation for Internet study, determinationof demographic faking causes, prevention of suchfaking, and ensuring healthy social opportunitiesfor children.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We wish to show appreciative acknowledgementfor Dr. Glenda Thorn. She was quite helpful in in-troduction to a school board and school personnel.

REFERENCES

1. Miller, T.E., & Clemente, P.C. (1997). The 1997 Ameri-can Internet User Survey: realities beyond the hype [On-line]. Available: www.findsvp.com/.

2. Becker, H.J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: chil-dren’s access to and use of computer technology. Fu-ture of Children 10:44–75.

3. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Al-fred A. Knopf.

4. Griffiths, M. (1999). Internet addiction: fact or fic-tion? The Psychologist 12:246–250.

5. Gross, E.F., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S.L. (2002). Internetuse and well-being in adolescence. Journal of Social Is-sues 58:75–90.

6. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., et al. (1998).Internet paradox: a social technology that reducessocial involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist 53:1017–1031.

7. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breachingor building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of com-puter-mediated communication. Communication Re-search 25:689–715.

8. Jones, A., & Selby, C. (1997). The use of computers forself-expression and communication. Journal of Com-puting in Childhood Education 8:199–214.

9. Pratarelli, M.E., Browne, B.L., & Johnson, K. (1999).The bits and bytes of computer/Internet addiction: afactor analytic approach. Behavior Research Methods,Instruments, & Computers 31:305–314.

10. Perse, E.M., & Dunn, D.G. (1998). The utility of homecomputers and media use: implications of multime-dia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Elec-tronic Media 42:435–456.

11. Sleek, S. (1998). Isolation increases with Internet use.American Psychological Association Monitor 29:30.

12. Caldarella, P., & Merrell, K.W. (1997). Common di-mensions of social skills of children and adolescents:a taxonomy of positive behaviors. School PsychologyReview 26:264–278.

13. Hartup, W.W., & van Lieshout, C.F.M. (1995). Person-ality development in social context. Annual Review ofPsychology 46:655–687.

14. Rush, S., & Vitale, P.A. (1994). Analysis for determin-ing factors that place elementary students at risk.Journal of Educational Research 87:325–333.

15. Bullock, J.R. (1992). Children without friends: whoare they and how can teachers help? Childhood Educa-tion 69:92–96.

16. Walker, H.M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Anti-social behavior in school: strategies and best practices.New York: Brooks/Cole.

17. Cohen, E., Reinherz, H.Z., & Frost, A.K. (1993). Self-perceived unpopularity: its relationship to emotionaland behavioral problems. Child and Adolescent SocialWork Journal 10:107–122.

18. Crick, N.R., & Ladd, G.W. (1993). Children’s per-ceptions of their peer experiences: attributions,loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. De-velopmental Psychology 29:244–254.

19. Silverman, W.K., & Kurtines, W.M. (1996). Anxietyand phobic disorders: a pragmatic approach. New York:Plenum Press.

20. Ginsburg, G.S., La Greca, A.M., & Silverman, W.K.(1998). Social anxiety in children with anxiety disor-

INTERNET FAKING, SOCIAL SKILLS, AND AGGRESSION 5

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 5

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ders: relation with social and emotional functioning.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26:175–185.

21. Vernberg, E.M., Abwender, D.A., Ewell, K.K., et al.(1992). Social anxiety and peer relationships in earlyadolescence: a prospective analysis. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology 21:189–196.

22. Owens, T.J. (1993). Accentuate the positive and thenegative: rethinking the use of self-esteem, self-deprecation and self-confidence. Social PsychologyQuarterly 56:288–299.

23. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., et al.(1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem:different concepts, different outcomes. American Soci-ological Review 60:141–156.

24. Block, J., & Robins, R.W. (1993). A longitudinal studyof consistency and change in self-esteem from earlyadolescence to early adulthood. Child Development64:909–923.

25. Gable, R.A., Hendrickson, J.M., & Sasso, G.M. (1995).Toward a more functional analysis of aggression. Ed-ucation and Treatment of Children 18:226–242.

26. Patterson, G.R. (1992). Developmental changes in an-tisocial behavior. In: Peters, R.D., McMahon, R.J., &Quinsey, V.L. (eds.), Aggression and violence through-out the life span. London: Sage, pp. 52–82.

27. Kupersmidt, J.B., & Coie, J.D. (1990). Preadolescentpeer status, aggression, and school adjustment aspredictors of externalizing problems in adolescence.Child Development 61:1350–1362.

28. DeRosier, M.E., Cillessen, A.H.N., Coie, J.D., et al.(1994). Group social context and children’s aggres-sive behavior. Child Development 65:1068–1079.

29. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peergroup behavior and social status. In: Asher, S.R., &Coie, J.D. (eds.), The rejected child. New York: Cam-bridge University Press, pp. 17–59.

30. Juvonen, J. (1991). Deviance, perceived responsibil-ity, and negative peer interactions. DevelopmentalPsychology 27:672–81.

31. Spivey, C.B., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1990). Assessingthe directionality of deindividuated behavior: effectsof deindividuation, modeling, and private self-con-sciousness on aggressive and prosocial responses.Basic and Applied Social Psychology 11:387–403.

32. Bremer, J., & Rauch, P.K. (1998). Children and com-puters: risks and benefits. Journal of American Acad-emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 37:559–560.

33. Whittle, D.B. (1997). Cyberspace: the human dimension.New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

34. Hammersley, R. (1995). Communication on AD-DICT-L Internet discussion group.

35. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity,and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior ResearchMethods, Instruments, & Computers 31:433–438.

36. Curtis, P. (1997). Mudding: social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. In: Kiesler, S. (ed.), Culture ofthe Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, pp. 121–143.

37. Bruckman, A. (1992). Identity workshop: emergentsocial and psychological phenomena in text-basedvirtual reality [On-line]. Available: media.mit.edu;directory: pub/asb/papers; file: identity-workshop.txt.

38. Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communi-cations: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperper-sonal interaction. Communication Research 23:3–43.

39. Curtis, P. (1992). MUDding: social phenomenon intext-based virtual realities. Intertrek 3:26–34.

40. Figueroa-Sarriera, H. (1991). In and out of the digi-tal closet: the self as communication network. In:Gray, C.H. (ed.), The cyborg handbook. New York:Routledge, pp. 127–138.

41. Parks, M.R., & Roberts, L.D. (1998). “MakingMOOsic”: the development of personal relationshipson-line and a comparison to their off-line counter-parts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15:517–537.

42. McGerty, L. (2000). Nobody lives only in cyberspace:gendered subjectivities and domestic use of the In-ternet. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3:895–899.

43. Jessup, L.M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D.A. (1990). To-ward a theory of automated group work: the deindi-viduating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research21:333–348.

44. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethicalprinciples of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist 47:1597–1611.

45. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

46. Kivimaki, M., & Kalimo, R. (1996). Self-esteem andthe occupational stress process testing two alterna-tive models in a sample of blue-collar workers. Jour-nal of Occupational Health Psychology 1:187–196.

47. LaGreca, A.M., Dandes, S.K., Wick, P., et al. (1988).Development of the Social Anxiety Scale for Chil-dren: reliability and concurrent validity. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology 17:84–91.

48. Matson, J.L., Rotatori, A.F., & Helsel, W.J. (1983). De-velopment of a rating scale to measure social skills inchildren: The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills WithYoungsters (MESSY). Behavioral Research and Therapy21:335–340.

49. Spence, S.H., & Liddle, B. (1990). Self-report mea-sures of social competence for children: an evalua-tion of the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills forYoungsters and the list of social situation problems.Behavioral Assessment 12:317–336.

Address reprint requests to:Catherine E. Hansen, Ph.D.

Department of PsychologyNorthwestern State University

Natchitoches, LA 71497

E-mail: hansenc@nsula.edu

6 HARMAN ET AL.

13905C01.PGS 2/16/05 12:15 PM Page 6

Cyb

erPs

ycho

logy

& B

ehav

ior

2005

.8:1

-6.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

onl

ine.

liebe

rtpu

b.co

m b

y H

aifa

on

09/1

9/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.