A Twin Study of Computer Anxiety in Turkish Adolescents

Abstract

The present study investigated computer anxiety within a sample of Turkish twins aged 10–18. A total of 185 twin-pairs participated in the study. Of the twins, 64 pairs (34.6 percent) were monozygotic (MZ) and 121 pairs (65.4 percent) were dizygotic (DZ). Of the 121 DZ twins, 54 pairs (44.63 percent) were same-sex twins and 67 pairs (55.37 percent) were opposite-sex twins. Computer anxiety was assessed using Computer Anxiety Rating Scale-Turkish Version (CARS-TV), one of the three main scales of “Measuring Technophobia Instruments” developed by Rosen and Weil. The results of paired t test comparisons showed no significant differences in MZ and same-sex DZ twin-pairs' levels of computer anxiety. On the other hand, a significant difference was found in opposite-sex DZ twin-pairs' level of computer anxiety. Interesting enough, males appeared to be more computer anxious than their female co-twins. In the present study, using Falconer's formula, heritability estimate for computer anxiety was derived from correlations based on MZ and DZ twins' mean scores on CARS-TV. The results showed that 57 percent of the variance in computer anxiety was from genetics and 41.5 percent was from nonshared environmental factors. Shared environmental influence, on the other hand, was very small and negligible. Interpretations of results and potential directions for future research are presented.

Introduction

The fourth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) describes anxiety as a mood state in which a subject experiences fear, apprehension, nervousness, worry, and tension.¹ Spielberger² identified two types of anxiety: trait anxiety and state anxiety. Trait anxiety is a relatively stable personality characteristic pertaining to feelings of anxiety induced by a broad and diverse set of conditions.³ State anxiety, on the other hand, is a transient condition, centralized upon and specifically related to certain situations.⁴ Computer anxiety has been defined as an irrational anticipation of fear evoked by the thought of using (or actually using) computers, the effects of which result in avoiding, or minimizing computer usage.³ Computer anxiety is also labeled by researchers with various terms like techno-anxiety, computerphobia, technophobia, cyberphobia, computer-stress, techno-stress, computer aversion, and other similar terms. Although some researchers regard computer anxiety as a form of state anxiety, Raub⁵ argues that computer anxiety is an interaction between state and trait anxiety, hypothesizing that an individual's level of computer anxiety may change over time, but that the extent of that change may depend, at least in part, on his/her level of trait anxiety. Similarly, Deane et al.⁶ argued that computer anxiety is part of trait anxiety that manifests itself as a heightened state anxiety only in the presence of relevant stressors. In a recent study,⁷ computer anxiety was found to be related more strongly to trait anxiety than to state anxiety. Weil et al.,⁸ based on their clinical experiences, identified three types of computerphobics as follows.

The Anxious Computerphobics exhibit the classical signs of an anxiety reaction, including sweaty palms and heart palpitations. Cognitive Computerphobics experience critical internal self-statements and dialogues about their incompetence with computers or specific computer fears (e.g., pushing the wrong button). Uncomfortable Users are people who may have slight anxiety or mildly negative cognitions or both.

Hence, some researchers have suggested that computer anxiety should be viewed as a potentially serious affliction, as it satisfies the defining aspects of specific phobia as set out in the DSM IV.^7,9 As is known, specific phobias are characterized by irrational fear and aversion in response to specific objects or places.¹

In 1992, Yeaman¹⁰ stated that “it seems anomalous there is almost no computer anxiety research on ethnicity, the other common genetic and cultural distinction between people.” Since then, however, numerous studies have been conducted on the correlates of computer anxiety in different cultures. These studies revealed that computer anxiety was a real universal phenomenon^11,12; computer anxiety was not related to age^5,13,14; and the relationships among computer anxiety, gender, and computer experience were inconclusive.^14–17 Besides, recent studies that investigated personality variables contributing to computer anxiety revealed that the high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low openness^18–20; and the high irrational beliefs, high pessimistic self-perception, and low self-disclosure were associated with high scores on computer anxiety.²¹ Despite the plethora of research into computer anxiety, to our knowledge, there still is no study on genetic and environmental etiology behind computer anxiety. One widely used approach to estimating genetic and environmental contributions to variables under investigation is the classical twin design.

Logic of the classical twin design

Twin studies provide a unique opportunity to partition the relative contributions of genes, environment, and gene–environment interaction to variables under investigation. Different designs can be used in twin researches. One of these designs is the classical twin design. The classical twin design compares resemblance within reared-together monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs to resemblance within reared-together dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs.²² By comparing the covariation among and between MZ and DZ twins, the classical twin designs partition the variance of a measured trait, called a phenotype, into additive genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental components.²³ The classical twin design adopts the equal environment assumption. This assumption suggests that the shared environment has the same influence on MZ and DZ twins. Estimating heritability in the classical twin design relies on the comparison of correlations between variables for MZ and DZ twins. Because MZ twins are genetically identical—whereas DZ pairs share only half their variable genes, on average—it is assumed that differences in intrapair correlations can be used to estimate the amount of the total variation that is genetic in origin.²⁴ On the other hand, if MZ twins are no more similar than DZ twins, strong evidence is provided that genetics are not important for the trait.²⁵ Estimating heritability by comparing correlations for MZ and DZ twins has attracted certain criticism, but recent defenses of the design have provided satisfactory responses to the issues.^22,26 For example, Bishop²⁷ defenses the classical twin design as follows.

Although media attention focuses on studies of twins reared apart, one does not need to use such rare cases to gain useful information from a twin study. Twins growing up together will resemble one another, insofar as they are subjected to many of the same environmental influences, including prenatal as well as postnatal factors. However, if similarity between two members of a twin pair is greater for MZ than for DZ twins, then this points to a role of genes.

Studies have shown that many psychological and behavioral traits such as anxiety and phobias are heritable.^28,29 However, to date, no study has examined the genetic and environmental etiology of computer anxiety. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to examine the genetic and environmental etiology of computer anxiety in Turkish adolescent twins, using the classical twin design. The second aim of this study is to assess whether levels of computer anxiety significantly differ in MZ and DZ twin-pairs in terms of sex.

Method

Participants

The participants consisted of 185 Turkish twin-pairs. Of the twins, 64 pairs (34.6 percent) were monozygotic (identical) twins (42 female and 22 male) and 121 pairs (65.4 percent) were dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Of these 121 dizygotic twins, 54 pairs (44.63 percent) were same-sex twins (31 female and 23 male) and 67 pairs (55.37 percent) were opposite-sex twins. Zygosity was determined by the twins' self-report and physical similarity. The mean age was 12.57 (SD=1.92; range=10–18). One hundred forty seven twin-pairs (80 percent) reported that they had access to a computer at home. Besides, 161 twin-pairs (87 percent) reported that they took an elective computer course at their schools. All of the twins were reared together.

Measures

Computer Anxiety Rating Scale-Turkish Version (CARS-TV): The original Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (Form C) is a 20-item self-report scale yielding a total possible score ranging from 20 to 100. This scale is one of the three main scales of Measuring Technophobia Instruments (MTI) developed by Rosen and Weil.³⁰ All three scales of MTI-Turkish Version proved to be valid and reliable instruments to measure technophobia in Turkish adults.³¹ The Computer Thoughts Survey and the General Attitudes toward Computers Scale however produced unacceptable reliability and validity measures in our study. Thus, we obligated to use the only data from the CARS-TV.

The items of CARS were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=a fair amount, 4=much, and 5=very much). The CARS begins with the following instruction “For each item, place a check under the column that describes how anxious (nervous) each one would make you at this point in your life,” and sample items from the CARS include “Thinking about taking a course in a computer language” and “Getting error messages from the computer.” Higher scores were associated with higher levels of computer anxiety. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for CARS-TV in the present study was 0.88. Norms established by empirical research and reported by Rosen and Weil for CARS are presented in Appendix Table A1. In the data-gathering phase of the study, all of the participants responded to the items independent of communication with their twins.

Statistical analyses

To investigate whether levels of computer anxiety significantly differ in MZ and DZ twin-pairs, paired t test comparisons were performed. Genetic analysis comprised the correlational analysis. To estimate heritability of computer anxiety, Falconer's³² formula of heritability was applied: [h²=2(r_MZT −r_DZT)], where h² is an estimate of narrow-sense heritability (the proportion of observed variance associated with additive genetic variance), whereas r_MZT and r_DZT are the within-pair intraclass correlations for MZT and DZT twins, respectively, and T indicates twins who have been reared together. Shared (c²) environmental factors increase similarities between siblings, whereas nonshared (e²) environmental factors make siblings different from each other.³³ In this study, using Plomin's formulae (in Beatty et al.³⁴), shared environmental influence was estimated by subtracting heritability from the MZ correlation [c²=r_MZT −h²], and nonshared environmental influence was estimated from the residual difference between MZ twins [e²=1 −r_MZT].

Although heritability estimates in many twin studies are based on attenuated correlations, Beatty and colleagues³⁴ emphasized that “because environmental effects are calculated by subtracting the heritability estimate (h²) from r_MZT, use of attenuated correlations deflates heritability estimates and inflates environmental effects.” Therefore, in the present study, heritability and environmental estimates were based on disattenuated coefficients, eliminating the differential effects of measurement error on estimates.

Results

The mean computer anxiety score for the total sample was 50.33 (SD=15.22), showing that almost half of the participants exhibited moderate-to-high levels of computer anxiety (see Appendix Table A1). Therefore, following results must be interpreted with that in mind.

Computer anxiety in monozygotic twins

The means, standard deviations, and paired t test results for computer anxiety in MZ twins are reported in Table 1. Results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean computer anxiety scores of MZ twin-pairs either in general (total) [t (63)=−0.685, p=0.496] or in terms of sex, for female MZ twin-pairs [t (41)=−0.867, p=0.391] and for male MZ twin-pairs [t (21)=0.107, p=0.916]. Intraclass correlation (Pearson's r) for computer anxiety within MZ twin-pairs was r=0.585 (p=0.000).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired t Test Results for Computer Anxiety in Monozygotic Twins

					Paired differences
	Pair	n	M	SD	M	SD	SE	t	df	p
Female	Group 1	42	46.16	15.25	−1.881	14.06	2.16	−0.867	41	0.391
	Group 2	42	48.04	14.86
Male	Group 1	22	51.13	15.03	0.272	11.99	2.55	0.107	21	0.916
	Group 2	22	50.86	11.97
Total	Group 1	64	47.87	15.24	−1.1406	13.32	1.66	−0.685	63	0.496
	Group 2	64	49.01	13.90

SE, standard error.

Computer anxiety in same-sex dizygotic twins

Table 2 shows means, standard deviations, and paired t test results for computer anxiety in same-sex DZ twins. Results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the mean computer anxiety scores of same-sex DZ twin-pairs either in general (total) [t (53)=−1.505, p=0.138] or in terms of sex, for female same-sex DZ twin-pairs [t (30)=−2.06, p=0.058] and for male same-sex DZ twin-pairs [t (22)=−0.287, p=0.777]. Intraclass correlation for computer anxiety within same-sex DZ twin-pairs was r=0.298 (p=0.029).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired t Test Results for Computer Anxiety in Same-Sex Dizygotic Twins

					Paired differences
	Pair	n	M	SD	M	SD	SE	t	df	p
Female	Group 1	31	45.64	11.87	−5.45	14.70	2.64	−2.06	30	0.058
	Group 2	31	51.09	14.22
Male	Group 1	23	54.26	14.52	−1.30	21.80	4.54	−0.287	22	0.777
	Group 2	23	55.56	19.16
Total	Group 1	54	49.31	13.63	−3.68	17.99	2.44	−1.505	53	0.138
	Group 2	54	53.00	16.49

Computer anxiety in opposite-sex dizygotic twins

The means, standard deviations, and paired t test results for computer anxiety in opposite-sex DZ twins are presented in Table 3. Results revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean computer anxiety scores of females and males [t (65)=−3.824, p=0.000]. Interesting enough, males appeared to be more computer anxious than their female co-twins. Intraclass correlation for computer anxiety within opposite-sex DZ twin-pairs was r=0.336 (p=0.006).

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Paired t Test Results for Computer Anxiety in Opposite-Sex Dizygotic Twins

				Paired differences
Pair	n	M	SD	M	SD	SE	t	df	p
Female	67	47.12	14.34	−8.333	17.70	2.17	−3.824	65	0.000
Male	67	55.45	16.26

Heritability estimate of computer anxiety

Table 4 shows intraclass correlations for MZ and DZ twins, and the heritability and environmental estimates for computer anxiety. Among the twins, the MZ correlation for computer anxiety was 0.585 (n=67, p=0.000) and the DZ correlation was 0.30 (n=121, p=0.001), yielding a heritability estimate of 57 percent. As can be seen, correlation between MZ twins was higher than those between DZ twins, suggesting a substantial genetic contribution to computer anxiety. Nonshared environmental influence, on the other hand, accounted for 41.5 percent. The remainder of the variance was attributed to shared environmental influence (accounted for 1.5 percent); however, it was not statistically significant from zero.

Table 4.

Intraclass Correlations and Heritability Estimates for Computer Anxiety

Variable	r_MZ (n=64 pairs)	r_DZ (n=121 pairs)	h²	c²	e²
Computer anxiety	0.585^a	0.300^a	0.570^a	0.015	0.415^b

p<0.001.

p<0.05.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to examine the heritability of computer anxiety. We found that individual differences in computer anxiety were due to both genetic (57 percent) and nonshared (41.5 percent) environmental factors. However, the magnitude of the heritability of computer anxiety was moderate. These findings are consistent with the findings of many other behavioral genetic studies showing that many behavioral traits are moderately heritable,³⁵ and environmental influences on most behavioral traits are of the nonshared rather the shared variety.^36,37 Therefore, future studies should try to identify specific sources of nonshared environment and investigate associations between nonshared environment and computer anxiety for both MZ and DZ twins.

In the present study, we used Falconer's narrow-sense estimate of heritability formula (based on a simple correlational analysis) to estimate the genetic contribution to computer anxiety. Future studies, however, with larger samples, might use more complex maximum likelihood model-fitting analysis to better assess the genetic and environmental influences on computer anxiety. In addition, because the present study did not specifically examine the genetic and environmental contributions to computer anxiety in female and male twin-pairs separately, future studies can illuminate whether the genetic and environmental influences may be different for female and male twins.

As mentioned earlier, our twin sample consisted of adolescents. There is a debate in the related literature that genetic factors may be more influential on a trait during the early stages of the lifespan.^37–39 Hence, the heritability of computer anxiety, like some other behavioral traits' heritability may decrease with age. Furthermore, it is known that nonshared environmental influences are transient or time specific.⁴⁰ Therefore, both cross-sectional and longitudinal examinations are needed to clarify these issues.

This study examined the heritability of computer anxiety within the context of Turkish culture. Because heritability is a statistic that describes genetic contributions to the phenotypic variance of a trait within a particular population of individuals, the heritability of any given trait may not necessarily be the same for all cultures.⁴¹ Similarly, McGue and Bouchard³⁷ emphasized that heritability estimates, like any statistics, can change over time and vary across cultures. Therefore, future research should examine the heritability of computer anxiety in different cultures. Especially, cross-cultural studies can be useful to better understand the role of genetic factors on computer anxiety.

In the literature, there are many studies indicating that women experience greater computer anxiety than men.^5,21,42–45 In the present study, however, the opposite pattern of sex difference was found for computer anxiety within the opposite-sex DZ twin-pairs. Namely, males were found to have more computer anxiety than their female co-twins. One possible explanation could be that male adolescents in the Turkish culture maybe expected to be more skillful in computer usage that results in greater anxiety. For example, Brosnan and Lee⁴⁶ noted no gender differences for computer anxiety in the United Kingdom but a higher level of anxiety among men in Hong Kong, suggesting that cultural influences may be relevant. Therefore, cross-cultural studies carrying out cross-gender comparisons are needed to clarify this issue. In many twin studies comparing same-sex and opposite-sex DZ pairs, the latter often found to be less similar. Loehlin⁴⁷ questioned this difference stating that “is it differences in the degree to which environments are shared, or is it sex limitation–some of the genes shared being differently expressed in males and females?” To better understand sex-related differences within opposite-sex DZ twins earlier mentioned questions should be answered.

As stated previously, some researchers have viewed computer anxiety as a potentially serious affliction, as it satisfies the defining aspects of specific phobia as set out in the DSM IV. Because there are no published studies on the heritability of computer anxiety, our results can be compared with the studies on the heritability of specific phobias. Generally speaking, genetic studies of specific phobias and other anxiety disorders indicate a general pattern of moderate genetic influence.^29,48–53 For example, Lichtenstein and Annas⁵⁴ conducted a study on the heritability of specific fears and phobias in the Swedish twins aged 8–9. They found that genetic factors have a moderate effect on specific phobias. Specifically, the genetic contribution for animal phobia was 58 percent, for situational phobia was 50 percent, for mutilation phobia was 28 percent, and for any specific phobia was 65 percent.⁵⁴ In Eley and colleagues'²⁸ study, the genetic contribution for specific phobia was found as 46 percent. A study by Kendler, Karkowski, and Prescott,⁵⁵ on the other hand, showed that when measurement error was taken into account, estimated heritabilities across the phobias were in the 50 percent to 60 percent range. Consequently, it can be concluded that our results of the heritability of computer anxiety are consistent with the results of studies done in the heritability of specific phobias. However, the similarity between the heritability estimates is not enough to consider computer anxiety to be a subtype of specific phobias. Therefore, future studies should try to identify whether there are different types of computer anxiety.

As can be remembered, based on their clinical experiences, Weil et al.⁸ identified three types of computerphobics as the anxious computerphobics, cognitive computerphobics, and uncomfortable users. At first glance, the description of anxious computerphobics (people who exhibit the classical signs of anxiety reaction including sweaty palms and heart palpitations) reminds “specific phobia” whereas the description of cognitive computerphobics (people who have critical self-statements about their incompetence with computers) reminds “social or performance anxiety,”⁹ because cognitive computerphobics have specific fears such as making fool of himself/herself by pushing the wrong button and breaking the computer. Uncomfortable users, however, are people who may have slight anxiety or mildly negative cognitions or both. For this reason, uncomfortable users may show “avoidance behaviors,” namely prefer not to use computer technology. Therefore, researchers should conduct extensive studies to distinguish different types of computer anxiety, and develop diagnostic methods and instruments to better identify different types of computer anxiety. Classification of computer anxiety into subtypes will be of importance to determine the level of symptom severity, prevalence of co-morbid personality dimensions and other anxiety-related disorders, origins of fear, anxiety or phobia acquisition (e.g., inborn, classical conditioning, vicarious [social] learning, negative information learning, inherited phobia-proneness, etc.), as well as successful treatments.

The present study was designed to investigate the etiological basis of computer anxiety. Although the results are preliminary it would help serve as a starting point for future research. Despite the fact that computer technology is highly penetrated not only in developed countries but also in many developing countries, computer anxiety, however, still appeared to be a real universal phenomenon. Therefore, we hope that both psychology and instructional technology researchers will begin to direct more attention to the role of genetic and environmental factors on computer anxiety. We also believe that better understanding of its etiological components may lead to proper description of those factors necessary in alleviating it.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Appendix

Appendix Table A1.

Three Categories for Computer Anxiety Norms on the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale and the Percentage of Participants Within Each

Computer anxiety levels	CARS norm	Percent
None	20–41	29.5
Low	42–49	21.6
Moderate/high	50–100	48.9

CARS, Computer Anxiety Rating Scale.

References

American Psychiatric Association (APA). 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Spielberger

. 1966. Anxiety and behaviour. New York: Academic.

Brosnan

. 1998. Technophobia: the psychological impact of information technology. London: Routledge.

Campbell

. Correlates of computer anxiety of adolescent students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1988; 3:107–117.

Raub

. 1981. Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia.

Deane

, Henderson

, Barelle

, Saliba

, Mahar

. 1995. Construct validity of computer anxiety as measured by the computer attitude scale. Anzai

, Ogawa

, Mori

. Advances in human factors/ergonomics 20A symbiosis of human artifact. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 581–586.

Beckers

, Wicherts

, Schmidt

. Computer anxiety: “trait” or “state”? Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:2851–2862.

Weil

, Rosen

, Wugalter

. The etiology of computerphobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 1990; 6:361–379.

Thorpe

, Brosnan

. Does computer anxiety reach levels which conform to DSM IV criteria for specific phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:1258–1272.

10.

Yeaman

ARJ

. Seven myths of computerism. Tech Trends, 1992; 37:22–26.

11.

Rosen

, Weil

. Computer anxiety: a cross-cultural comparison of university students in ten countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 1995; 11:45–64.

12.

Weil

, Rosen

. The psychological impact of technology from a global perspective: a study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students from twenty-three countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 1995; 11:95–133.

13.

Henderson

, Deane

, Barelle

, Mahar

. Computer anxiety: correlates, norms and problem definition in health care and banking employees using the computer attitude scale. Interacting with Computers, 1995; 7:181–193.

14.

Rosen

, Maguire

. Myths and realities of computerphobia: a meta-analysis. Anxiety Research, 1990; 3:175–191.

15.

Chua

, Chen

, Wong

AFL

. Computer anxiety and its correlates. A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 1999; 15:609–623.

16.

Nelson

, Wiese

, Cooper

. Getting started with computers: experience, anxiety and relational style. Computers in Human Behavior, 1991; 7:185–202.

17.

Rosen

, Sears

, Weil

. Computerphobia. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 1987; 19:167–179.

18.

Korukonda

. Differences that do matter: a dialectic analysis of individual characteristics and personality dimensions contributing to computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:1921–1942.

19.

Anthony

, Clarke

, Anderson

. Technophobia and personality subtypes in a sample of South African university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 2000; 16:31–44.

20.

Korukonda

. Personality, individual characteristics, and predisposition to technophobia: some answers, questions, and points to ponder about. Information Sciences, 2005; 170:309–328.

21.

Ceyhan

. Computer anxiety of teacher trainees in the framework of personality variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 2006; 22:207–220.

22.

Segal

. The importance of twin studies for individual differences research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 1990; 68:612–622.

23.

Turkheimer

, D'Onofrio

, Maes

, Eaves

. Analysis and interpretation of twin studies including measures of the shared environment. Child Development, 2005; 76:1217–1233.

24.

Richardson

, Norgate

. The equal environments assumption of classical twin studies may not hold. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2005; 75:339–350.

25.

Walker

, Plomin

. Nature, nurture, and perceptions of the classroom environment as they relate to teacher-assessed academic achievement: a twin study of nine-year-olds. Educational Psychology, 2006; 26:541–561.

26.

Beatty

, Marshall

, Rudd

. A twins study of communicative adaptability: heritability of individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 2001; 87:366–377.

27.

Bishop

. Developmental cognitive genetics: how psychology can inform genetics and vice versa. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2006; 59:1153–1168.

28.

Eley

, Rijsdijk

, Perrin

, O'Connor

, Bolton

. A multivariate genetic analysis of specific phobia, separation anxiety and social phobia in early childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2008; 36:839–848.

29.

Skre

, Onstad

, Torgersen

, Lygren

, Kringlen

. The heritability of common phobic fear: a twin study of a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2000; 14:549–562.

30.

Rosen

, Weil

. 1992. Measuring technophobia: a manual for the administration and scoring of the computer anxiety rating scale, the computer thoughts survey and the general attitude toward computer scale. Carson, CA: California State University, Dominguez Hills.

31.

Ursavaş ÖF. 2010. İlk ve ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin teknoloji korku düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Examination of elementary and high school teachers' levels of technology fear] Unpublished master's thesis. Karadeniz Technical University: Trabzon, Turkey.

32.

Falconer

. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: Wiley.

33.

Hughes

, Cutting

. Nature, nurture, and individual differences in early understanding of mind. Psychological Science, 1999; 10:429–432.

34.

Beatty

, Heisel

, Hall

, Levine

, La France

. What can we learn from the study of twins about genetic and environmental influences on interpersonal affiliation, aggressiveness, and social anxiety? A meta-analytic study. Communication Monographs, 2002; 69:1–18.

35.

Plomin

, Caspi

. 1999. Behavioral genetics and personality. Pervin

, John

. Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York: Guilford Press, 251–276.

36.

Plomin

, Daniels

. Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987; 10:1–60.

37.

McGue

, Bouchard

Jr.

Genetic and environmental influences on human behavioral differences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 1998; 21:1–24.

38.

Haworth

CMA

, Dale

, Plomin

. The etiology of science performance: decreasing heritability and increasing importance of the shared environment from 9 to 12 years of age. Child Development, 2009; 80:662–673.

39.

Bergen

, Gardner

, Kendler

. Age-related changes in heritability of behavioral phenotypes over adolescence and young adulthood: a meta-analysis. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2007; 10:423–433.

40.

Nes

. Happiness in behaviour genetics: findings and implications. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2010; 11:369–381.

41.

Saudino

, Gagne

, Grant

et al. Genetic and environmental influences on personality in adult Russian twins. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1999; 23:375–389.

42.

Okebukola

. The gender factor in computer anxiety and interest among some Australian high school students. Educational Research, 1993; 35:181–189.

43.

McIlroy

, Bunting

, Tierney

, Gordon

. The relation of gender and background experience to self-reported computing anxieties and cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2001; 17:21–33.

44.

Broos

. Gender and information and communication technologies (ICT) anxiety: male self-assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2005; 8:21–31.

45.

Brosnan

. The impact of psychological gender, gender-related perceptions, significant others and introducer of technology upon computer anxiety in students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1998; 18:63–78.

46.

Brosnan

, Lee

. A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxieties: the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behavior, 1998; 14:559–577.

47.

Loehlin

. Environment and the behavior genetics of personality: let me count the ways. Personality and Individual Differences, 2010; 49:302–305.

48.

Fyer

, Mannuzza

, Gallops

et al. Familial transmission of simple phobias and fears: a preliminary report. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1990; 47:252–256.

49.

Kendler

, Neale

, Kessler

, Heath

, Eaves

. The genetic epidemiology of phobias in women: the inter-relationship of agoraphobia, social phobia, situational phobia, and simple phobia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1992; 49:273–281.

50.

Rose

, Miller

, Pogue-Geile

, Cardwell

. Twin-family studies of common fears and phobias. Gedda

, Parisi

, Nance

. Twin research 3: intelligence, personality, and development. New York: Alan R. Liss, 169–174.

51.

Stevenson

, Batten

, Cherner

. Fears and fearfulness in children and adolescents: a genetic analysis of twin data. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1992; 33:977–985.

52.

Fyer

. Current approaches to etiology and pathophysiology of specific phobia. Biologic Psychiatry, 1998; 44:1295–1304.

53.

Hallet

, Ronald

, Rijsdijk

, Eley

. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation of anxiety-related behaviors in middle childhood. Depression and Anxiety, 2009; 26:316–324.

54.

Lichtenstein

, Annas

. Heritability and prevalence of specific fears and phobias in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2000; 41:927–937.

55.

Kendler

, Karkowski

, Prescott

. Fears and phobias: reliability and heritability. Psychological Medicine, 1999; 29:539–553.