TTYL :-) … Nonverbal cues and perceptions of personality and homophily in synchronous mediated communication

References

• Adkins, M., & Brashers, D. E. (1995). The power of language in computer-mediated groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 289–322. doi: 10.1177/0893318995008003002
   Google Scholar
• Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1289–1295. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyle, M. (1972). Non-verbal communication in human social interaction. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Nonverbal communication. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290. doi: 10.1037/h0055756
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargh, J. A. & McKenna, K. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
   Google Scholar
• Blerhoff, H. (1989). Person perception and attribution. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 229–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-mail recipients’ impressions of senders’ likability: The interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients’ personality. Journal of Business Communication, 44(2), 137–160. doi: 10.1177/0021943606297902
   Google Scholar
• Carter, K. (2003). Type me how you feel: Quasi-nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 60(1), 29.
   Google Scholar
• Constantin, C., Kalyanaraman, S., Stavrositu, C., & Wagoner, N. (2002, November). Impression formation effects in moderated chatrooms: An experimental study of gender differences. Paper presented at the 88th annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). The functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people's technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 739–741.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the eysenck personality inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Fiore, A. T. & Donath, J. S. (2005, April). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself? Short paper presented at CHI, Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102(4), 652–670. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.102.4.652
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajadhar, J. & Green, J. (2005). The importance of nonverbal elements in online chat. Educause Quarterly, 4, 63–64.
   Google Scholar
• Gallaher, P. E. (1992). Individual differences in nonverbal behavior: Dimensions of style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 133–145. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.63.1.133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.48.1.26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hamid, N. A., Ishak, M. S., & Yazam, S. S. N. M. (2015). Facebook, YouTube and Instagram: Exploring their effects on undergraduate students’ personality traits. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 4(2), 138–165.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence form online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. doi: 10.1086/687533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, D. S., & Langstedt, E. (2014). The influence of personality on digital photo sharing. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 3(2), 42–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ip, A. (2002). The impact of emoticons on affect interpretation in instant messaging. Retrieved from http://www.amysmile.com/doc/emoticon_paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(1), 34.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, S. A. (2013). Peeling back the multiple layers of Twitter’s private disclosure onion: The roles of virtual identity discrepancy and personal traits in communication privacy management on Twitter. New Media & Society, 15(6), 813–833. doi: 10.1177/1461444812471814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, M. L. (1972). Nonverbal behavior in human interaction. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Krishnan, A., & Atkin, D. (2014). Individual differences in social networking site users: The interplay between antecedents and consequential effect on level of activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanaido, D., Volkovich, Y., Kappler, K., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Gender homophily in online dyadic and triadic relationships. EPJ Data Science, 5(19), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York, NY: Van Nostrad.
   Google Scholar
• Liebman, N., & Gergle, D. (2016). It’s (not) simply a matter of time: The relationship between CMC cues and interpersonal affinity. Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippa, R. (1998). The nonverbal display and judgment of extraversion, masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: A lens model analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 80–107. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999). How to achieve better impressions in computer-mediated communication? Commerce. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED437035.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Ginther, D., & Zelhart, P. (2001). How do frequency and duration of messaging affect impression development in computer-mediated communication? Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 893–913.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luor, T., Wu, L. L., Lu, H. P., & Tao, Y. H. (2010). The effects of emoticons on simplex and complex task-oriented communication: An empirical study of instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 889–895. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantovani, F. (2001). Cyber-attraction: The emergence of computer-mediated communication in the development of interpersonal relationships. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 236–250). Amsterdam: IOS.
   Google Scholar
• Marengo, D., Gianotta, F., & Settani, M. (2017). Assessing personality using emoji: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 74–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markey, P. M. & Wells, S. M. (2002). Interpersonal perception in internet chat rooms. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 134–146. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2002.2340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221–233. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(88)90015-5
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
   Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
   Google Scholar
• Nowak, K. L., Hamilton, M. A., & Hammond, C. (2009). The effect of image features on judgments of homophily, credibility, and intention to use avatars in future interactions. Media Psychology, 12(1), 50–76. doi: 10.1080/15213260802669433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Social and technological motivations for online photo sharing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 624–642. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2016.1234478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provine, R. R., Spencer, R. J., & Mandell, D. L. (2007). Emotional expression online: Emoticons punctuate website and text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 299–307. doi: 10.1177/0261927X06303481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezabek, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1998). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: Supplementing text with emoticons. Journal of Visual Literacy, 18, 201–215. doi: 10.1080/23796529.1998.11674539
   Google Scholar
• Riggio, H. R., & Riggio, R. E. (2002). Emotional expressiveness, extraversion, and neuroticism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(4), 195–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. J., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 578–586. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siegman, A. W., & Feldstein, S. (1978). Nonverbal behavior and communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2017, January 12). Record shares of Americans now have smartphones, have home broadband. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology/
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H. (2016). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research, 43(5), 595–625. doi: 10.1177/0093650214534962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, D., & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105–120. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. A., & Fougler, D. A. (1996). Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 225–243. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(96)00004-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2015). The confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 42(2), 186–212. doi: 10.1177/0093650212466257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDS: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1, 22–47.
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects of computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381–398. doi: 10.1080/10570319309374463
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324–347. doi: 10.1177/089443930101900307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., Kashian, N., Jang, J., & Shin, S. Y. (2016). Overattribution of liking in computer-mediated communication: Partners infer the results of their own influence as their partners’ affection. Communication Research, 43(3), 372–390. doi: 10.1177/0093650214565898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar