Many individuals now meet and develop friendships while online. As a result, people must form impressions of online acquaintances based on that person’s online representation. Here, we investigate personality inferences and intentions to befriend based solely on simple avatars (i.e., customized cartoon representations of the self). Our data show that some traits are more easily inferred from avatars than others, avatars can communicate accurate and distinctive information regarding personality, and individuals with certain personality traits create avatars that are more likely to be perceived accurately. We also found that agreeable and normative individuals created avatars that elicited more desire for friendship from others, implying that the impression given by one’s digital avatars may have social consequences.
AmbadyN.HallahanM.RosenthalR. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518-529.
2.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2008). How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from email addresses. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1116-1122.
3.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132-145.
4.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225-238.
5.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 1-3.
6.
BelisleJ.BodurH. O. (2010). Avatars as information: Perception of consumers based on their avatars in virtual worlds. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 741-765.
7.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853-885.
8.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645-657.
9.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
CornettoK. M.NowakK. L. (2006). Utilizing usernames for sex categorization in computer-mediated communication: Examining perceptions and accuracy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 377-387.
11.
DionK. K.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
12.
DunnR. A.GuadagnoR. E. (2012). My avatar and me—Gender and personality predictors of avatar-self discrepancy. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 97-106.
13.
EatonL. G.FunderD. C. (2003). The creation and consequences of the social world: An interactional analysis of extraversion. European Journal of Personality, 17, 375-395.
14.
FunderD. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
FunderD. C.DobrothK. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418.
16.
FunderD. C.SneedC. D. (1993). Behavioral manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 479-490.
17.
FurrM. R. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267-1315.
18.
GillA. J.OberlanderJ.AustinE. (2006). Rating e-mail personality at zero acquaintance. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 497-507.
19.
GillathO.BahnsA. J.GeF.CrandallC. S. (2012). Shoes as a source of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 423-430.
20.
GoslingS. D.GaddisS.VazireS. (2007, March). Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. Paper at the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Boulder, CO.
21.
GoslingS. D.KoS. J.MannarelliT.MorrisM. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379-398.
22.
HeislerJ. M.CrabillS. L. (2006). Who are “stinkybug” and “Packerfan4”? Email pseudonyms and participants’ perceptions of demography, productivity, and personality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 114-135.
23.
HoffnerC. (2008). Parasocial and online social relationships. In CalvertS. L.WilsonB. J. (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 309-333). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
24.
HolzwarthM.JaniszewskiC.NeumannM. M. (2006). The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 70, 19-36.
25.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C. (2011). Target adjustment and self-other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 202-216.
26.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C. (2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 248-272.
27.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
28.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.
29.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford.
30.
JugertP.NoackP.RutlandA. (2011). Friendship preferences among German and Turkish preadolescents. Child Development, 82, 812-829.
31.
KafaiY. B.FieldsD. A.CookM. S. (2010). Your second selves: Player-designed avatars. Games and Culture, 5, 23-42.
32.
KüfnerA. C. P.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2013). The two pathways to being an (un-)popular narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81, 184-195.
33.
McAndrewF. T.De JongeC. R. (2011). Electronic person perception: What do we infer about people from the style of their e-mail messages?Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 403-407.
34.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
35.
NaumannL. P.VazireS.RentfrowP. J.GoslingS. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661-1671.
36.
NowakK. L.HamiltonM. A.HammondC. C. (2009). The effect of image features of judgments of homophily, credibility, and intention to use as avatars in future interactions. Media Psychology, 12, 50-76.
37.
NowakK. L.RauhC. (2006). The influence of the avatar on the online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 153-178.
38.
NowakK. L.RauhC. (2008). Choose your “buddy icon” carefully: The influence of avatar androgyny, anthropomorphism, and credibility in online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1473-1493.
39.
OkdieB. M.GuadagnoR. E.BernieriF. J.GeersA. L.Mclarney-VesotskiA. R. (2011). Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 153-159.
40.
ParkA. E.HenleyT. B. (2007). Personality and fantasy game character preferences. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 27, 37-46.
41.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.
42.
RouseS. V.HaasH. A. (2003). Exploring the accuracies and inaccuracies of personality perception following Internet-mediated communication. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 446-467.
43.
SelfhoutM.BurkW.BranjeS.DenissenJ.van AkenM.MeeusW. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509-538.
44.
SpenceJ. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624-635.
45.
SteinkuehlerC. A.WilliamsD. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.”Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909.
46.
StopferJ. M.EgloffB.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2013). Being popular in online social networks: How agentic, communal, and creativity traits relate to judgments of status and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 592-598.
47.
TaylorL. D. (2011). Avatars and emotional engagement in asynchronous online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 4, 207-212.
48.
VasalouA.JoinsonA. N. (2009). Me, myself, and I: The role of interactional context on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 510-520.
49.
VasalouA.JoinsonA.BanzigerT.GoldieP.PittJ. (2008). Avatars in social media: Balancing accuracy, playfulness and embodied messages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 801-811.
50.
VazireS. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472-481.
51.
VazireS.GoslingS. (2004). E-perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123-132.
52.
WallH. J.TaylorP. J.DixonJ.ConchieS. M.EllisD. A. (2013). Rich contexts do not always enrich the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1190-1195.
53.
WaltherJ. B.LohT.GrankaL. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36-65.
54.
WilliamsD.KennedyT. L. M.MooreR. (2011). Behind the avatar: The patterns, practices, and functions of role playing in MMOs. Games and Culture, 6, 171-200.
55.
WohlrabS.FinkB.KappelerP. M.BrewerG. (2009). Differences in personality attributions toward tattooed and nontattoed virtual human characters. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 1-5.
56.
YeeN.DucheneautN.NelsonL.LikarishP. (2011). Introverted elves and conscientious gnomes: The expression of personality in World of Warcraft. In TanD. (Ed.), Proceedings of CHI 2011 (pp. 753-762). New York, NY: ACM Press.
57.
YeeN.HarrisH.JabonM.BailensonJ. N. (2011). The expression of personality in virtual worlds. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 2, 5-12.
58.
YoonG.VargasP. T. (2014). Know thy avatar: The unintended effect of virtual-self representation on behavior. Psychological Science, 25, 1043-1045.
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.
