Social media services have become increasingly important in Chinese people’s daily lives, and among them, WeChat is one of the most popular applications. There have been studies examining individuals’ practices of self-presentation and identity production in various online platforms, and they have found the impact of anonymity on users’ presentation and construction of self. However, little is known about whether users present their actual self or construct new identities different from those in their offline life. To fill this gap, this study explores the association between expression of personality traits on circle of friends and their actual personality traits in offline life. Participants were 93 college students from China. Their personality traits were measured through Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five-Factor Inventory, and their posts on circle of friends platform were extracted and split into words by Chinese Lexical Analysis System. The results showed consistency in the dimension of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, except for neuroticism, suggesting that the contents posted on circle of friends platform can reflect the user’s real personality traits. As an instrumental tool developed in this study, the semantic cues were further discussed regarding its usefulness in evaluating subjects’ personality traits.
Amichai-HamburgerY. (2005). Personality and the internet. In Amichai-HamburgerY. (Ed.), The social net: Human behavior in cyberspace (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
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.
3.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.. . . GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374.
4.
BarkerR. G.WrightH. F. (1951). One boy’s day; a specimen record of behavior. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
5.
BoydD. M.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
6.
BuchananT. (1999, October28–29). Online personality assessment: Equivalence of traditional and WWW personality measures. Paper presented at German Online Research Conference, Nuremberg, Germany.
7.
ChenS. H.HeW. (2014). Study on knowledge propagation in complex networks based on preferences, taking WeChat as example. Abstract and Applied Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aaa/2014/543734/cta/.
8.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1989). The neo-PI/neo-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5.
10.
EhrenbergA.JuckesS.WhiteK. M.WalshS. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 739–741.
11.
EllisonN.HeinoR.GibbsJ. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441.
12.
FeiX. (1992). From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society: A translation of Fei Xiatong’s Xiangtu Zhongguo. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
13.
FreudS.StracheyJ. (1962). The ego and the id. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
14.
FuchsC. (2016). Baidu, Weibo and Renren: The global political economy of social media in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 26, 14–41.
15.
FunderD. C. (2000). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.
16.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.HeinoR. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177.
17.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
18.
GoslingS. D.AugustineA. A.VazireS.HoltzmanN.GaddisS. (2011). Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 483–488.
19.
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.
20.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
21.
GrahamL. T.GoslingS. D. (2012). Impressions of World of Warcraft players’ personalities based on their usernames: Interobserver consensus but no accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 599–603.
22.
HoganR. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
23.
HolleranS. E.MehlM. R. (2008). Let me read your mind: Personality judgments based on a person’s natural stream of thought. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 747–754.
24.
IvcevicZ.AmbadyN. (2012). Personality impressions from identity claims on Facebook. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1, 38.
25.
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 Press.
26.
KennyD. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280.
27.
KennyD. A.HornerC.KashyD. A.ChuL. C. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88.
28.
KurtzJ. E.SherkerJ. L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self-other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21–48.
29.
LimJ. (2014). A model of functional rules for social media in the networked news sphere. Asian Journal of Communication, 24, 279–294.
30.
LiuY. (2015). Tweeting, re-tweeting, and commenting: Microblogging and social movements in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 25, 567–583.
31.
MaldonadoJ. G.MoraM.GarcíaS.EdipoP. (2001). Personality, sex and computer-mediated communication through the Internet. Anuario De Psicologia, 32, 51–62.
32.
ManagoA. M.GrahamM. B.GreenfieldP. M.SalimkhanG. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446–458.
33.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509.
34.
McKennaK. Y.GreenA. S.GleasonM. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
35.
MehlM. R.GoslingS. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862–877.
36.
MichikyanM.SubrahmanyamK.DennisJ. (2014). Can you tell who I am? Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 179–183.
37.
NieL.FuC. X.ChengD. (2013). WeChat circle of friends: Virtual community under the perception of social network. Journalism Review, 5, 015.
38.
NowsonS. (2006). The Language of Weblogs: A study of genre and individual differences (PhD dissertation). The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
39.
ParkerW. D.StumpfH. (1998). A validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1005–1025.
40.
PennebakerJ. W.KingL. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296.
41.
PittsJ.ColesC.ThomasP.SmithF. (2002). Enhancing reliability in portfolio assessment: Discussions between assessors. Medical Teacher, 24, 197–201.
42.
QiuL.LinH.RamsayJ.YangF. (2012). You are what you tweet: Personality expression and perception on Twitter. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 710–718.
43.
ReesC. J.MetcalfeB. (2003). The faking of personality questionnaire results: Who’s kidding whom?Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 156–165.
44.
RheingoldH. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.
45.
RozinP. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2–14.
46.
SchuergerJ. M.ZarrellaK. L.HotzA. S. (1989). Factors that influence the temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 777.
47.
SupovitzJ. A.MacGowanI. I. I. A.SlatteryJ. (1997). Assessing agreement: An examination of the interrater reliability of portfolio assessment in Rochester, New York. Educational Assessment, 4, 237–259.
48.
SurrattC. G. (1998). Netlife: Internet citizens and their communities. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishing Inc.
49.
TorgersenS.MyersJ.Reichborn-KjennerudT.RøysambE.KubarychT. S.KendlerK. S. (2012). The heritability of Cluster B personality disorders assessed both by personal interview and questionnaire. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 848.
50.
TosunL. P.LajunenT. (2010). Does Internet use reflect your personality? Relationship between Eysenck’s personality dimensions and Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 162–167.
51.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
52.
Van DaalenE.KemnerC.DietzC.SwinkelsS. H.BuitelaarJ. K.Van EngelandH. (2009). Inter-rater reliability and stability of diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder in children identified through screening at a very young age. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 663–674.
53.
Van der LindenD.OostromJ. K.BornM. P.Van der MolenH. T.SerlieA. W. (2014). Knowing what to do in social situations: The general factor of personality and performance on situational judgment tests. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 107–115.
54.
VargoJ.NesbitJ. C.BelferK.ArchambaultA. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25, 198–205.
55.
WangX. (2016). Social media in industrial China (p. 236). London, England: UCL Press.
56.
YanY. (1996). The culture of guanxi in a North China village. The China Journal, 35, 1–25.
57.
YeeN.HarrisH.JabonM.BailensonJ. N. (2011). The expression of personality in virtual worlds. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 5–12.
58.
YurchisinJ.WatchravesringkanK.McCabeD. B. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in the context of internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33, 735–750.
ZhaoS.GrasmuckS.MartinJ. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.
