Studies examining the associations between Internet use and social skills are increasingly frequent. However, most of them only evaluate offline social skills and consider them as equivalents to online social skills. So far, no instrument allowed differentiating social skills depending on online versus offline contexts. This study aimed to develop and validate the Real and Electronic Communication Skills questionnaire (RECS), a new measure evaluating several dimensions of social skills in two different contexts (i.e., face-to-face and computer-mediated communication). Results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses among a sample of 657 adolescents and young adults (mean age = 17.68 years; 67% female) showed that the best fitting model for each context is a bifactor solution, with one general factor (Social Competence) and four specific factors (Sociability, Emotion Decoding, Disclosure, and Assertiveness). Each specific factor was differentially correlated with theoretically relevant subscales of the Social Skills Inventory, confirming the external validity of the RECS. The RECS is the first instrument allowing not only to assess social competence in online settings but also to quantify the relationships between offline social skills and their online counterpart. Given its ease of use and brevity, the RECS is a useful and promising instrument to capture social skills in both online and offline contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JoinsonAN. (2003) Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: virtual worlds, real lives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
2.
ArgyleM, FurnhamA, GrahamJA. (1981) The effect of the situation on behaviour. In ArgyleM, FurnhamA, GrahamJA, eds. Social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–67.
3.
McFallRM. A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 1982; 4:1–33.
4.
CaplanSE. A social skiil account of problematic Internet use. Journal of Communication, 2005; 55:721–736.
5.
ChanTH. Facebook and its effects on users' empathic social skills and life satisfaction: a double-edged sword effect. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:276–280.
6.
EngelbergE, SjöbergL. Internet use, social skills, and adjustment. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2004; 7:41–47.
7.
HarmanJP, HansenCE, CochranME, et al.Liar, liar: internet faking but not frequency of use affects social skills, self-esteem, social anxiety, and aggression. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2005; 8:1–6.
8.
ValkenburgPM, PeterJ. Adolescents' identity experiments on the internet: consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 2008; 35:208–231.
9.
PeterJ, ValkenburgPM, SchoutenAP. Characteristics and motives of adolescents talking with strangers on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2006; 9:526–530.
10.
TrepteS, ReineckeL. The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: a longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:1102–1112.
11.
WangJ-L, JacksonLA, GaskinJ, et al.The effects of Social Networking Site (SNS) use on college students' friendship and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 37:229–236.
12.
AntheunisML, ValkenburgPM, PeterJ. Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2007; 10:831–836.
13.
KnopK, ÖncüJS, PenzelJ, et al.Offline time is quality time. Comparing within-group self-disclosure in mobile messaging applications and face-to-face interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:1076–1084.
14.
WilsonSR, SabeeCM. (2003) Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In GreeneJO, BurlesonBR, eds. Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–50.
15.
CaldarellaP, MerrellK. Common dimensions of social skills of children and adolescents: a taxonomy of positive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 1997; 26:264–278.
16.
ReichSM. Connecting offline social competence to online peer interactions. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2017; 6:291–310.
17.
Semrud-ClikemanM. (2007) Development of social competence in children. In Semrud-ClikemanM, ed. Social competence in children. New York: Springer, pp. 11–37.
18.
HargieO. (2011) Skilled interpersonal communication. New York: Routledge.
19.
GalassiMD, GalassiJP. Assertion: a critical review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1978; 15:16–29.
20.
LazarusAA. On assertive behavior: a brief note. Behavior Therapy, 1973; 4:697–699.
21.
SchroederHE, RakosRF, MoeJ. The social perception of assertive behavior as a function of response class and gender. Behavior Therapy, 1983; 14:534–544.
22.
ArrindellWA, BridgesKR, van der EndeJ, et al.Normative studies with the Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour (SIB): II. US students: a cross-cultural comparison with Dutch data. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2001; 39:1461–1479.
23.
RathusSA. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973; 4:398–406.
24.
BuhrmesterD, FurmanW, WittenbergMT, et al.Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988; 55:991–1008.
25.
TardyCH, DindiaK. (2006) Self-disclosure: strategic revelation of information in personal and professional relationships. In HargieO, ed. The handbook of communication skills. New York: Routledge, pp. 229–266.
26.
AltmanI, TaylorD. (1973) Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
27.
CheekJM, BussAH. Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981; 41:330–339.
28.
MayerJD, RobertsRD, BarsadeSG. Human abilities: emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 2008; 59:507–536.
29.
SchmidtKL, CohnJF. Human facial expressions as adaptations: evolutionary questions in facial expression research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2001; 116:3–24.
30.
PlanalpS, DeFranciscoVL, RutherfordD. Varieties of cues to meotion in naturally occurring situations. Cognition and Emotion, 1996; 10:137–153.
31.
Federal Statistical Office. (2019) Economic and social situation of the population. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Federal Statistical Office.
32.
GenoudPA. (2005) SocioEconomic Status Index (IPSE) [In French]. Fribourg, Switzerland: Chaire de Psychologie Clinique, Université de Fribourg.
33.
BouvardM, CottrauxJ, MollardM, et al.Validation and factorial analysis of Rathus's schedule for assessing assertive behaviors [In French]. Psychologie Médicale, 1986; 18:759–763.
34.
InglésCJ, HidalgoMD, MéndezFX. Interpersonal difficulties in adolescence: a new self-report measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2005; 21:11–22.
35.
GrossJJ, JohnOP. Facets of emotional expressivity: three self-report factors and their correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 1995; 19:555–568.
36.
RiggioRE. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 51:649–660.
37.
RiggioRE, CarneyDR. (2003) Social Skills Inventory manual. Redwood City: Mind Garden.
38.
CronbachLJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951; 16:297–334.
39.
GuttmanL. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 1945; 42:567–578.
40.
McDonaldRP. (1999) Test homogeneity, reliability, and generalizability. In McDonaldRP, ed. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 76–120.
41.
R Development Core Team. (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
42.
RevelleW, RocklinT. Very Simple Structure: an alternative procedure for estimating the opimal number of interpretable factors. Multivatiate Behavioral Research, 1979; 14:403–414.
43.
McDonaldRP. (1999) The common factor model. In McDonaldRP, ed. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 167–196.
44.
BeauducelA, WittmannWW. Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 2005; 12:41–75.
45.
FleesonW, NoftleE. The end of the person-situation debate: an emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2008; 2:1667–1684.
46.
CortinaJM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993; 78:98–104.
47.
BurlesonBR, KunkelAW, SamterW, et al.Men's and women's evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: when sex differences make a difference and when they don't. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1996; 13:201–224.
48.
boydD. (2014) It's complicated: the social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
49.
LenhartA. (2015) Teens, social media & technology overview www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015 (accessed November7, 2018).
50.
YauJC, ReichSM. Are the qualities of adolescents' offline friendships present in digital interactions?. Adolescent Research Review, 2018; 3:339–355.
51.
NesiJ, Choukas-BradleyS, PrinsteinMJ. Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2-Application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2018; 21:295–319.
52.
SuterL, WallerG, BernathJ, et al. (2018) JAMES: Youth, Activities, Media—Swiss Survey. Zürich, Switzerland: Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
