The Proteus Effect in Dyadic Communication: Examining the Effect of Avatar Appearance in Computer-Mediated Dyadic Interaction

Communication Research

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 838-860

  Van Der Heide, Brandon ^a   Schumaker, Erin M ^a   Peterson, Ashley M ^a   Jones, Elizabeth B ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

behavioral compensation; computer mediated communication; Proteus effect; the hyperpersonal model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886426163     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650212438097     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anderson S. M.,Bem S. L.Sex typing and androgyny in dyadic interaction: Individual differences in responsiveness to physical attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981;41:74-86.
2. Bargh J. A.,McKenna K. Y. A.,Fitzsimons G. M.Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the "true self" on the Internet.Journal of Social Issues. 2002;58 (1): 33-48.
3. Bem D. L.Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.Psychological Review. 1967;74:183-200.
4. Bond M. H.Effect of an impression set on subsequent behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972;24:301-305.
5. Burgoon J. K.,Hale J. L.The fundamental topoi of relational communication.Communication Monographs. 1984;51:193-214.
6. Burgoon J. K.,Hale J. L.Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication.Communication Monographs. 1987;54:19-41.
7. Burgoon J. K.,Newton D. A.Applying a social meaning model to relational message interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant perspectives.Southern Communication Journal. 1991;56:96-113.
8. Burgoon J. K.,Olney C. A.,Coker R. A.The effects of communicator characteristics on patterns of reciprocity and compensation.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1987;11:146-165.
9. Dion K.,Berscheid E.,Walster E.What is beautiful is good.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972;24:285-290.
10. Ellison N.,Heino R.,Gibbs J.Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2006;11:415-441.
11. Gergen K. J.The effects of interaction goals and personalistic feedback o the presentation of the self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965;1:413-424.
12. Goffman E.The Presentation of self in everyday life. Carden City, NY: DoubleDay Anchor; 1959:.
13. Gonzales A. L.,Hancock J. T.Identity shift in computer-mediated environments.Media Psychology. 2008;11:167-185.
14. Hefner D.,Klimmt C.,Vorderer P.Identification with the player character as determinant of video game enjoyment. International conference on entertainment computing 2007, lecture notes in computer science 4740; 2007Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2007. 39.
15. Herz R. S.,Inzlicht M.Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in mate selection: The importance of smell for women.Evolution and Human Behavior. 2002;23:359-364.
16. Ickes W.,Patterson M. L.,Rajecki D. W.,Tanford S.Behavioral and cognitive consequences of reciprocal versus compensatory responses to preinteraction expectancies.Social Cognition. 1982;1:160-190.
17. Johnson R. D.,Downing L. L.Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37:1532-1538.
18. Klimmt C.,Hefner D.,Vorderer P.The video game experience as "true" identification: A theory of enjoyable alterations of players' self-perceptions.Communication Theory. 2009;19:351-373.
19. Krippendorff K.Estimating the reliability, systematic error, and random error of interval data.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30:61-70.
20. Krippendorff K.Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations.Human Communication Research. 2004;30:411-433.
21. McCroskey J. C.,McCain T. A.The measurement of interpersonal attraction.Speech Monographs. 1974;41:261-266.
22. Parkinson B.Emotions in direct and remote social interaction: Getting through the spaces between us.Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;24:1510-1529.
23. Peña J.,Hancock J. T.,Merola N. A.The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings.Communication Research. 2009;36:838-856.
24. Reicher S.,Spears R.,Postmes T.A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena.European Review of Social Psychology. 1995;6:161-198.
25. Rosenthal R.,Jacobson L.Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1968:.
26. Rosenthal R.,Rosnow R. L.Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1985:.
27. Singh D.,Luis S.Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women's attractiveness.Human Nature. 1995;6:51-65.
28. Snyder M.,Tanke E. D.,Berscheid E.Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1977;35:656-666.
29. Tice D. M.Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;63:435-451.
30. Toma C.,Hancock J. T.What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles.Journal of Communication. 2012;62:78-97.
31. Toma C.,Hancock J. T.,Ellison N.Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008;34:1023-1036.
32. Tong S. T.,Walther J. B.The confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association in New Orleans, LA; 2011; 2011.
33. Turkle S.Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1995:.
34. Van Gelder L. V.Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices. Dunlop C.Kling R., ed. Boston, MA: Academic Press; 1991:364-375.
35. Walther J. B.Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.Communication Research. 1992;19:52-90.
36. Walther J. B.Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.Communication Research. 1996;23:3-43.
37. Walther J. B.Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition.Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23:2538-2557.
38. Walther J. B.,Burgoon J. K.Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction.Human Communication Research. 1992;19:50-88.
39. Walther J. B.,Liang Y.,DeAndrea D. C.,Tong S. T.,Carr C. T.,Spottswood E. L.,Amichai-Hamburger Y.The effect of feedback on identity shift in computer-mediated communication.Media Psychology. 2011;14:1-26.
40. Yee N.,Bailenson J.The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior.Human Communication Research. 2007;33:271-290.
41. Yee N.,Bailenson J. N.The difference between being and seeing: The relative contribution of self perception and priming to behavioral changes via digital self-representation.Media Psychology. 2009;12:195-209.
42. Yee N.,Bailenson J.,Ducheneaut N.The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior.Communication Research. 2009;36:285-312.
43. Zimbardo P. G.The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. 1969 Nebraska symposium on motivation; 1969Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 1969. 237-307.