Saakara Meets CafeiMemory

I chose the psychological space IMVU, an online multiplayer video, because I have had previous experience with that space. Although primarily a synchronous text based channel, IMVU utilizes a video mode of communication that allows limited nonverbal cues through a humanoid character, an Avatar. The three main attractions of this psychological space are that the communicators remain anonymous, the program randomly assigns the communicators, and the communicators have the freedom to design rooms, websites, and outdoor locations that reflect a communicator’s personality and tastes. My first attempt led me to a twenty-year-old man who wore purple boxers on his head and called himself a superhero. Because I did not know how to factor insanity into my analysis, I logged on at another time.

Next, I communicated with an eighteen-year-old girl from Macau, China. I was able to see her Avatar, CafeiMEmory, but as with most electronically simulated programs, the Avatar doesn’t change facial expression. Due to this fact, I evaluated our conversation primarily on the text of our dialogue and the space and clothing that her Avatar possessed. Because I did not want to be immediately influenced by CafeiMEmory’s choice of clothing and choice of room, I chose to meet her in one of my areas, a rather plain coffeehouse. Since it took five minutes for her Avatar to load her choice of clothing, I only saw her in the IMVU standard clothing of plain green shorts and green top. With her in this unadorned outfit, I introduced myself as my Avatar name “Saakara” and she responded accordingly. From there on the conversation was pretty mundane, and I learned that she was my polar opposite when it came to hobbies and physical activities. She wrote, “I hate the sun,” and she thrives on shopping, which I despise. However, within fifteen minutes, we found a common viewpoint that “[…] men only want sex, not love.” Although she typed in faulty English at times, which I attribute to the fact that English is her second language, I found her entertaining. Soon we went to her spacious and well furnished establishment, and I saw her expensive looking, all-white clothing. I got the general impression that she was a very elegant person.

Although, I was probably the victim of selective self-presentation, due to the fact that she draped herself in diamonds and her house in silk, I felt that it did not affect the intensity of my impression formation. Before I even saw her place, I would rate her personality either strongly agree or strongly disagree to the questions in the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Costa &Mc Crae 1991) used by Hancock and Dunham 1991. In other words, I felt that I had formulated an “intense” reading of her personality within fifteen minutes, and I had, via overattribution, created an embellished persona of CafeiMemory. As both selective self- presentation and overattribution fall under the category of the hyperpersonal model, my initial impression was consistent with the results presented by Hancock and Dunham in 2001.

For me this CMC experience raised several question about CMC impression formation. I felt that within a brief interaction I had formulated strong personality traits for CafeiMEmory; but, with time, I had changed from cold to warm feelings toward her. Granted, we would predictably find a common viewpoint, because this particular OMV is primed and attracts communicators of about my age and CafeiMEmory is my gender. My question is: does CMC communication allow dissimilar personalities to find common interests that would not have occurred FtF or faster than FtF? Also, do the nonverbal cues of a FtF interaction possibly segregate the communicators and present a barrier to further communication?