Are Shy Adults Really Bolder Online? It Depends on the Context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether individual differences in shyness and context influenced the amount of computer-mediated self-disclosure and use of affective language during an unfamiliar dyadic social interaction. Unfamiliar young adults were selected for high and low self-reported shyness and paired in mixed dyads (one shy and one nonshy). Each dyad was randomly assigned to either a live webcam or no webcam condition. Participants then engaged in a 20-minute online free chat over the Internet in the laboratory. Free chat conversations were archived, and the transcripts were objectively coded for traditional communication variables, conversational style, and the use of affective language. As predicted, shy adults engaged in significantly fewer spontaneous self-disclosures than did their nonshy counterparts only in the webcam condition. Shy versus nonshy adults did not differ on spontaneous self-disclosures in the no webcam condition. However, context did not influence the use of computer-mediated affective language. Although shy adults used significantly less active and pleasant words than their nonshy counterparts, these differences were not related to webcam condition. The present findings replicate and extend earlier work on shyness, context, and computer-mediated communication to a selected sample of shy adults. Findings suggest that context may influence some, but not all, aspects of social communication in shy adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it