Impact of social anxiety on communication skills in face-to-face vs. online contexts
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
Individuals with social anxiety have been shown to prefer communicating through online platforms. Part of this preference may be accounted for by their self-perceived level of social skill ability in online modalities. However, it is unclear whether perceived social skill abilities change across in-person and online contexts. Therefore, this study investigated whether specific social skills, like sociability, assertiveness, self-disclosure, and non-verbal emotion recognition vary across online and face-to-face settings. We first validated the Real and Electronic Communications Skills (RECS) questionnaire using a confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 780 participants, who completed the survey through Qualtrics. We then conducted a series of correlations and a doubly multivariate GLM to evaluate whether perceived social skills abilities are influenced by communication medium and social anxiety. Our results indicated that we were able to validate the RECS, and that specific social skills like sociability and assertiveness are influenced by communication medium. Specifically, higher social anxiety scores were associated with decreased in-person sociability, emotion recognition, and assertiveness. The results highlight a potential perceived barrier to approaching in-person interactions, which may exacerbate avoidance of social interaction, thus resulting in social isolation and loneliness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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