Assignment Two: Impression Formation.

I was excited about this week’s assignment, as I thought it would be an exciting experience to try online impression formation firsthand after last week’s lecture. Upon entering a chatroom, I received chat requests from four users, with whom I chatted for a considerable period of time. I will limit my discussion to my interactions with one particular chatroom member, a twenty-year-old Italian male medical student.

Although I talked to this individual for almost an hour, I struggled to form any impression of him without any nonverbal or visual cues. Furthermore, I noticed that I constantly asked him questions, in an attempt to obtain a better grasp on his personality, rather than responding to his comments or talking about my own experience. Overall, any impressions that I did manage to form of him were neutral or slightly positive. He used emoticons frequently throughout the conversation, which lead me to believe he is friendly and agreeable, however, it was difficult to gauge his level of extraversion, or even whether or not we would be friendly in a face to face setting. Out of all of the “big five” personality traits, I feel most confident in assessing his openness; I interpreted his interest in my life in the US to mean that he is receptive to new ideas and cultures. As far as his neuroticism and conscientiousness, I cannot comment either way.

My experience conforms most closely to the CFO perspective, as my impressions lacked both intensity and breadth. My impressions were fairly neutral, and I found it difficult to form them on more than one or two dimensions. As Hancock and Dunham predicts, it was especially difficult to form impressions regarding extraversion and neuroticism, to which nonverbal cues are critical. Of the two CFO theories, the Social Presence Theory seems most relevant, as the decreased social presence of my partner led to impoverished impression formation. I didn’t find the Reduced Social Context Cues Theory relevant, in that I was no more likely to focus on myself than when conversing face-to-face.

My experience contradicted the SIP theory in that I was unable to adapt to channel over time in order to reach nearly the same level of social information exchange as I would face-to-face. In fact, my impression did not vary significantly within the hour-long timeframe. In addition, my experience ran contrary to the Hyperpersonal model, which shares some elements with the SIP model. Not only did I not form exaggerated impressions, but I also didn’t engage in selective self-perception, which is integral to the theory. I felt no desire to self-select what to present, perhaps because I didn’t feel emotionally invested in how my partner perceived me.