Research on the Internet: Validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale



Two studies were performed to assess the validity of a World-Wide Web (WWW) measure of self-monitoring. In Study 1, Usenet Newsgroups likely to be read by high and low self-monitors were identified and a comparison was made of the extent to which contributors engaged in a form of self-presentation (use ofhandles orscreen names) likely to be influenced by self-monitoring tendencies. Handles were used significantly more frequently in thehigh self-monitoring Newsgroups, supporting the distinction made. In Study 2, participants recruited through these sets of Newsgroups completed the WWW-mediated test. Those from the high self-monitoring groups scored significantly higher. Self-reports of self-monitoring behavior also reflected scores on the scale. The results are interpreted as demonstrating the construct validity of the instrument used and the viability of criterion-group-oriented methods in Internet-mediated research.


  1. Allie, D. A. (1995). The Internet and research: Explanation and resources.Journal of Mind & Behavior,16, 339–368.Google Scholar
  2. Batinic, B. (1997). How to make an Internet based survey? In W. Bandilla & F. Faulbaum (Eds.),SoftStat ’97 advances in statistical software 6 (pp. 125–132). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  3. Bechar-Israeli, H. (1995). From (Bonehead) to (cLoNehEAd): Nicknames, play and identity on Internet relay chat.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line serial],1(2). Available: Scholar
  4. Buchanan, T., &Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World-Wide Web.British Journal of Psychology,90, 125–144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronbach, L. J. (1990).Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  6. Gangestad, S. W., &Snyder, M. (1985). “To carve nature at its joints”: On the existence of discrete classes in personality.Psychological Review,92, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goffman, E. (1959).The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Harré, R. (1983).Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Hewson, C. M., Laurent, D., &Vogel, C. M. (1996). Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krantz, J. H., Ballard, J., &Scher, J. (1997). Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oakes, W. (1972). External validity and the use of real people as subjects.American Psychologist,27, 959–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pasveer, K. A., &Ellard, J. H. (1998). The making of a personality inventory: Help from the WWW.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pilkonis, P. A. (1977). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to other measures of social behavior.Journal of Personality,45, 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reips, U. (1996, October).Experimenting in the World-Wide Web. Paper presented at the 1996 Society for Computers in Psychology Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Schiano, D. J. (1997). Convergent methodologies in cyber-psychology: A case study.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 270–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmidt, W. C. (1997). World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, M. A., &Leigh, B. (1997). Virtual subjects: Using the Internet as an alternative source of subjects and research environment.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,30, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snyder, M. (1987).Public appearances/private realities. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., &Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,48, 1427–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Snyder, M., &Gangestad, S. W. (1982). Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self-monitoring processes.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,43, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snyder, M., &Gangestad, S. W. (1986). On the nature of selfmonitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,51, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Snyder, M., &Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,47, 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stones, A., &Perry, D. (1997). Survey questionnaire data on panic attacks gathered using the World Wide Web.Depression & Anxiety,6, 86–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Szabo, A., &Frenkl, R. (1996). Consideration of research on Internet: Guidelines and implications for human movement studies.Clinical Kinesiology,50, 58–65.Google Scholar
  26. Younger, J. C., &Pliner, P. (1976). Obese-normal differences in the self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Research in Personality,10, 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, School of Social and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of WestminsterLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations