huh
. .,
x,

J

h. ...r :1
.. i h? ...t.

a... ..u
E ...nmu. ...
1.343%.)
:5? ...?? EH3!
..fim .: . a. a
J... .

27‘ a I «.1.
s). .1. ...3..2n..:..
a: I»... . . .. its}: . ..
‘Lc 3th.“ 1.; .I. . .. .-
.flm :2: . kw.
. «:1! 9 .1.
h. u 6: .
.
it.
3...
11...!

"‘10:...w
finkihzjr
a.

 

l:

1....- \3 3.3.3.: 23.3.5
1

1M. €199}. I.:l...s..l.t‘.

.Pfinnu... urflmwrdufim s
E hwnxfiwnhi 4.“ $5
3.. ...rzlbza

p. at”
11% ).Ulh.:..l.r1
..?}..KEJ .

bailing.
3‘.

1.". )
’uf \. .

 

is.»

V ‘1‘ lllrl
. . "Ems? n. ..uk....u.i
‘ ..lv‘ . . 303A. .a...»n..1..:.e.: .Ia.m.~.wm.:.? .

vi. u!..4¢...l.|..n..
: ......:.. I .: ..v

....? : _ . 2...... flimfiwfiéfia éxfiaéafiifi

 

THEEHS

 

..-. ”mm ’ I!””Hill”WINHUNlllllllfllflflllfllflfllfllfllll
Mm; igan State

 

 

Unwersity

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Perception and Persuasion On-Line: The
Influence of Sex. Gender and Nonverbals in
On-Line Interactions

presented by

Trina Lea Anderson
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Masters degree in Telecommunications

.1 3,4“

Major professor

 

 

 

Date ___D_ecemher_fi._l_9.98

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

SM 1 7 my

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

188 com“

PERCEPTION AND PERSUASION ON-LINE: THE INFLUENCE OF SEX,
GENDER AND NONVERBALS IN ON-LINE INTERACTIONS

By

Trina Lea Anderson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunications

1998

ABSTRACT

PERCEPTION AND PERSUASION ON-LINE: THE INFLUENCE OF SEX,
GENDER AND NONVERBALS IN ON-LINE INTERACTIONS

By

Trina Lea Anderson

The present research explores the extent to which sex, psychological gender,
and nonverbal cues influence perception of others and persuasion. Two
experiments were conducted that examined a computer-mediated interaction that
utilized the desert survival task. The first experiment allowed minimal use of
emotional expression, while the second experiment did not allow for emotional
expression, but did vary the gender of the confederate script. The results from
the two experiments indicated very few differences between subjects in their
perception of their partner, however frequency analyses showed interesting
changes in subjects’ perception of their partner’s sex as compared to the
perceived psychological gender. In Experiment 1, subjects in low smile
conditions were more likely to exhibit higher degrees of persuasion, while
subjects in Experiment 2 showed no variance in persuasion levels based on the

gendered script.

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family, my personal cheerleaders.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Tom Muth and Dr. Frank Biocca
who provided encouragement and direction; Kristi Nowak, my mentor and
research partner, without whom this project could not have been completed; and
the MIND Lab. In addition, I would like to thank Jim Cash, who provided the
encouragement to undertake this field of study and offered the flexibility at work

to make it possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Literature Review .................................................................................................. 3
Categorization Schemes ................................................................................... 3
Psychological Gender ....................................................................................... 8
Facial Expressions ............................................................................................ 9
Sex & Language .............................................................................................. 11
Electronic Language ........................................................................................ 12
Sex & Computer Mediated Communication .................................................... 13
Persuasion ...................................................................................................... 16
Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 18
Research Questions ........................................................................................ 18
Method ................................................................................................................ 21
Design ............................................................................................................. 21
Experiment 1 ....................................................................................................... 22
Subjects .......................................................................................................... 22
Materials .......................................................................................................... 22
Measurement Instruments ............................................................................... 23
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 24
Results ............................................................................................................ 26
Experiment 2 ....................................................................................................... 33
Subjects .......................................................................................................... 33
Materials .......................................................................................................... 34
Measurement Instruments ............................................................................... 34
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 34
Results ............................................................................................................ 35
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 39
Discussion .......................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX A: Consent Form .............................................................................. 47
APPENDIX B: Pre-Interaction Survey ................................................................. 49
APPENDIX C: Desert Survival Task Materials .................................................... 56
APPENDIX D: Post-Interaction Survey ............................................................... 59
APPENDIX E: Experiment 1 Confederate Script ................................................ 70
APPENDIX F: Experiment 2 Confederate Scripts ............................................... 72

References ......................................................................................................... 80

LIST OF TABLES

Experiment 1
Table 1: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Sex by Subject Sex

Table 2: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject Sex

Table 3: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject
Psychological Gender

Table 4: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

Experiment 2
Table 5: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Sex by Subject Sex

Table 6: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject Sex

Table 7: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject
Psychological Gender

Table 8: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Frequency of change and degree of change comparisons across
Experiments 1 and 2 by condition. The ‘male script’ and ‘female script‘ conditions
refer to those in Experiment 2, and ‘smile’ and ‘neutral’ conditions refer to the
merged conditions in Experiments 1.

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BSRI ................................................................................ Bern Sex Role Inventory
CMC ............................................................... Computer Mediated Communication

viii

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable debate as to whether or not gender makes a difference in
computer mediated communication. As Yates (1997) pointed out, “CMC interactions lack
a great deal of the non-verbal information present in face-to-face interactions upon which
assessments of social status are built. This has led to a number of conflicting arguments

about the role of social status cues such as gender, race and class in CMC interactions”

(p. 282).

People make important social judgments about the personalities and capabilities of
others based on very limited social cues very quickly (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall,
1996; Ichheiser, 1970; Reeves & Nass, 1996). Many of the cues that we use to make
judgements about others are nonverbal — how they walk, facial expressions, body
language — but these cues are not available in cyberspace. It is important to discover how
people accommodate for the lack of nonverbal cues in these environments. If people are
aware that these nonverbal cues are unavailable, will they change how they interact, or
will they attempt to apply the same “rules” in cyberspace as they use in their daily lives?
Will the computer, in fact, “afford opportunities that human interaction could, but does

not often, afford” (Salomon, 1990, p.41)?

We may attempt to control nonverbal cues in our daily interactions, however, the
computer offers a more controlled environment for this purpose, and it can eliminate cues
that we may not want to be readily available — such as race, age, and sex. It does offer a

more deliberate environment for conveying other cues such as mood, whereas in a face-

to-face interaction, there are some things that are more difficult to control like our eyes

and facial muscles.

By eliminating some diffuse characteristics, computers may remove the initial
stereotypes that are applied due to the automatic categorization that occurs in
interactions. As people become accustomed to the unavailability of these characteristics
in on-Iine interactions, they may as a result start applying a different categorization
scheme. These new categorization schemes would translate into our daily interactions,

and those that we are currently accustomed to will become secondary.

Additionally, with the proliferation of virtual worlds in cyberspace, the advances
being made with virtual environments for use in business and educational settings, and
the increase in gender awareness, it is time to take a second look at the concept of
psychological gender. The amount of “gender-bending” that is occurring in on-line
worlds draws us to the question of whether there are sexual-based behavioral differences
beyond the traditional male/female dichotomy. We need to look at psychological gender

versus biological sex as an indicator of person perception in on-line environments.

Literature Review

CATEGORIZATION SCHEMES

One of the main concepts in social cognition is schema, the organized collection of
one’s beliefs and feelings about something (Baron & Byme, 1987). People usually
organize information based on logic; thus people of all cultures usually put similar things
— things that look alike and things that are alike in function — into the same categories.
Categories are also created based on only one or a few attributes of the items being
grouped, so a person may be a part of one group but not of another (e. g., same age group
but different race). These schemas are used as filters when there is too much information

and to fill in gaps when not enough information is present.

In order to make sense of our everyday life, people place things in categories. We
come in contact with so many things that we must rely on previous experience to help us
process and react appropriately to situations we encounter. Much of this is associated
with our survival instinct. Epstein (1988) states that “human reason makes it possible to
make categories of discrete things and events in nature and in social life. Developing
concepts that group things and events is economical and practical” (p. 11). People often

treat these concepts as real, even though they are only representations of real things.

Because people also make value judgments, they organize and create categories and
often reorganize them according to these perceptions and interpretations. Not only do

stereotypes assist with information processing, they also influence how we perceive

others, how we interpret others’ behavior, what we remember about them, and what we

infer about them (Heilman, 1995).

While stereotypes are deemed necessary to simplify the volumes of information that
we are constantly receiving, Reeves and Nass (1996) point out that they also cause us to
miss critical individual differences. “Stereotypes provide a justification for
discrimination” (Snizek & Neil, 1992, p.411). When the physical cues that allow us to
categorize another person sidetrack us, we overlook key information that may not only be
integral to the interaction, it may entirely contradict the stereotypes that we are assigning
to that individual. When these individuating characteristics are seen, they may be
assimilated into an existing stereotype, rather than being looked at as discrete
information. Even when information about an individual is not available, inferences are

made about that individual that are consistent with the stereotype.

These interpretations have the power to make categorization real. Categorization can
lead to favoritism and discrimination in certain contexts. A study on the minimal
intergroup discrimination effect (Locksley, Ortiz, & Hepburn, 1980b) found that simple

categorization of persons in-groups is sufficient to reliably induce in-group favoritism.

Categorization Based on Sex

“Being a male or female is so important a fact of existence that when our
judgement fails — when there just are not enough cues available for us to
know the sex of someone — we are truly confused and uncomfortable.
Without knowing the sex of someone, we are unable to make a host of
important, though probably unconscious, assumptions without which
‘normal’ interaction is seriously impaired” (Hall, 1984, p. 3)

Ashmore & Del Boca (1979) defined gender stereotypes as “the structured set of

beliefs about the personal attributes of women and men” (p. 261). The categorization of

people based on their gender has important ramifications for our everyday interactions. It
is widely believed that societies have made men and women different by educating them
differently and giving them different job roles. Studies have shown that there are two
distinct clusters of traits that distinguish men from women. These traits are bipolar with
the male traits typically in the dominant! competent cluster, and female traits in the
submissive/expressive cluster. Specific traits in the dominant/competent cluster for the
male include independence, competitiveness, objectivity, dominance, activeness,
logicality, ambitiousness and self-confidence. For the female, the traits include
dependence, non-competitiveness and subjectivity. The second set of qualities are
generally seen as expressive qualities—women are seen as tactful, gentle, and aware of
others’ feelings, while men are seen as blunt, rough, unaware of others and unable to

express their feelings.

These stereotypes reflect cultural values, which include attributing a higher value to
the competency cluster than the expressive cluster. Just categorizing the male
characteristics as competent and the female characteristics as expressive indicate that the
traits associated with males are held to be more important in our society. The
status/gender identity model discussed by Unger (1978) further maintains that just being
male suggests and confers high status, and as a result of this, the behavioral differences
between males and females may actually be due to differences in status rather than
differences in sex. Structural theories of status propose that the gender differences related
to power are a result of society’s status rankings that are attached to gender, which reflect
the evaluations of worth and value. Included in these evaluations is the shared belief that

those of higher status are more competent and have the right to exercise influence over

those of lower status, who should defer to these attempts to influence (Molm & Hedley,

1992). These stereotypic beliefs have been widely assumed to affect the judgments of

individuals.

What makes the study of gender consequential in this area is not just that men and
women are perceived as having different attributes, but as Berscheid (1993) stated, “these
attributes are differentially valued. Most of the attributes ascribed to males are those that
society, both its male and female members, often regard as better, superior, or more
admirable for a human being to possess, than are the qualities typically ascribed to

females” (p. ix).

Sex stereotyping is evident in studies of performance and competence. F oschi (1992)
concludes “when there is no objective criteria for performance evaluation, men’s
contributions to the task solution are often judged to be better than women’s” (p. 202).
Even in the situations when the objective criteria clearly demonstrates that women’s
performances are as good as those of men, gender often results in a devaluation of
women’s performance. Deaux & Emswiller (1974) found that equivalent performance by
a male and female on a task was perceived differently by both male and female subjects.
It was found that regardless of the task, the males were perceived to be more skillful,
whereas the female’s performance was attributed to luck. Miller & McReynolds (1973)
found that, holding all other source qualifications (i.e., only providing name and
eliminating audio/visual cues) and the message constant, receivers will rate a male
communicator as more competent than a female communicator. Not only are female

successes more likely to be attributed to unstable factors, such as luck or effort, their

performances are usually evaluated lower than those of men, even when the performance

is identical.

Reeves and Nass (1996) took this a step further. They gave a computer program a
synthesized voice and had subjects evaluate it. Some subjects heard a female sounding
voice synthesis and other subjects heard a male sounding synthesis. Subjects were told
that it was not a male or a female talking to them, but a synthesis of a voice, but subjects
still applied gender stereotypes to their rating of the program. Those who heard the more
feminine voice rated it less competent in a tutorial about computers and more competent
for a love and relationships tutorial. Subjects rated the male voice more competent on
computers and less competent with love and relationships. Prior research by Fulton
(1992) offers support relative to the linguistic output of computers influencing the user’s

attributions of power to the computer.

There are differences in men and women’s everyday use of language. Everyday
language contains a power variable that links power to the male gender. Women tend to
show uncertainty and indefiniteness in their use of language, whereas men tend to be
more authoritative and definite. Because the language output of the computer is primarily
written by males in a mathematical/logical language, it is often viewed and reacted to as a

male (Fulton, 1992).

However, Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn (1980a) found that subjects’
judgments were strongly influenced by behavioral information about the target, and not
sex stereotypes. They concluded that sex stereotypes might affect judgments of

individuals when little else is known except their social category, but these stereotypes

have minimal impact when behavioral characteristics are introduced. This is in line with
the theory of status characteristics and expectation states (Berger, Conner, & Fesek,
1974; Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977) which proposes that the differences in
status characteristics, such as gender, race and age, affect the distribution of participation,
prestige, and influence in task oriented groups. Without additional information, groups
that are initially undifferentiated in other characteristics will make judgements that
members with the more valued status traits are more competent than those with lower

status traits are.

PSYCHOLOGICAL GENDER

It has been argued that gender is socially constructed and, as such, it is better
described as a continuum rather than a dichotomy comprised of masculinity and
femininity (Bem, 1993; Bergvall, Bing, & Freed, 1996; Talley & Richmond, 1980). The
concept of psychological androgyny denotes the integration of masculine and feminine
characteristics in the same individual. It implies that it is possible for an individual to be
both compassionate and assertive, both expressive and instrumental, both feminine and

masculine, depending upon the situational appropriateness of these various modalities

(Bem, 1931).

The Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was designed to measure psychological
androgyny. What distinguishes it from other masculinity-femininity scales is that it treats
masculinity and femininity as two separate dimensions, rather than two ends of a single
dimension. This enables a person to indicate whether they are high on both dimensions,

low on both dimensions, or high on one dimension and low on the other.

“In addition, the BSRI is based on a conception of the traditionally sex-
typed person as someone who is highly attuned to cultural definitions of
sex-appropriate behavior and who uses such definitions as the ideal
standard against which her or his own behavior is to be evaluated. In this
view, the traditionally sex-typed person is motivated to keep her or his
behavior consistent with an idealized image of femininity and masculinity,
a goal that she or he presumably accomplishes by selecting behaviors and
attributes that enhance the image and by avoiding behaviors and attributes
that violate the image” (Bern, 1981).

It has been found that there are differences in cognitive performance among groups
differentiated by psychological gender (Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982). By
using the BSRI, we can determine if the concept of androgyny is a relevant variable when
studying person perception. We will compare the results by gender (masculinity-
femininity—androgynous-undifferentiated) to those results by sex. If there is a significant
difference in how subjects perceive others based on gender and sex, it will support the

BSRI as a relevant tool in examining person perception.

Little research is found which takes the concept of psychological gender developed in
the 19705 and applies it to virtual interactions to determine what influence it has on
person perception. While the concept itself has been highly debated through the years
(Hall, 1984; Locksley & Colten, 1979; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Spence, 1984;
Spence & Helmreich, 1981), it warrants a second look specifically because of the new

rules being developed in cyberspace.

FACIAL EXPRESSIONS

According to Zimbardo and Leippe (1991), powerful people tend to smile less (p.
265). To support the stereotype that women smile more than men (Hall, 1984), there is

now an abundance of evidence (Deutsch, 1990; Hall, 1984; Kennedy & Camden, 1983;

Key, 1975). This tendency to smile more has ofien been linked with the submissiveness
of women (Kalbfleisch & Cody, 1995; Key, 1975; Thorne & Henley, 1975) and the
associated power of men. One piece of evidence found by Kennedy and Camden (1983)
was that women were more likely to be interrupted when smiling. According to Thorne
& Henley (1975) “Interruption may also be considered a dominant gesture, and allowing
interruption, the corresponding submissive gesture” (p. 197). Deutsch (1990) found that
higher status males smiled more than lower status males, whereas females smiling did not

significantly differ across condition.

There are several arguments as to why women smile more than men do. Differences
in non-verbal behavior may have its origins in status differences between the sexes. The
female may be trying to please the male if she is in a weaker position (Hall, 1984). For
example, while joke telling by women was for years considered unladylike, it was
permissible, in fact expected, for women to laugh at a man’s joke (Blumenfeld & Alpem,

1986).

It is generally assumed that because women smile more, they have fewer negative
expressions. However, it has been found that women in general exhibit greater general
facial expressiveness (Hall, 1984; LaFrance & Banaji, 1992). This evidence suggests that
women engage in more facial behavior (both positive and negative) than men, and may
fitrther indicate that it is not different norms of pleasantness that distinguish men and

women, but rather different norms of expressiveness (Hall, 1984).

10

SEX & LANGUAGE

The popular writings by Deborah Tannen (1986) brought renewed interest to the well- I
established finding that women and men speak differently (Coates, 1993; Key, 1975;

Lakoff, 1975). Wolfinger & Rabow (1997) found that not only do men and women speak

differently, the listener frequently recognizes these differences in speech.

In her seminal article on women, language and power, Lakoff (1975) argued that
women’s language is different from that of men. She cites several forms of “women’s
language”: empty adjectives, tag questions, hedges, use of the intensive “so”,
hypercorrect grammar, super-polite forms, lack of jokes, and speaking in italics (pp. 53 -
57). These forms are, according to Lakoff, indicative of women being subjugated to an

inferior position to men, one of powerlessness.

Associated with these differences in communications styles are differences in writing
styles. Differences in the way men and women communicate translates into their writing
styles (Roen, Peguesse, & Abordonado, 1995). Research by Roulis (1995) suggests that
the reader’s responses to male and female writers are related to these communication

differences.

Women today recognize their unequal status with men and are attempting to change
this status discrepancy. Coates (1986) discusses three forms in which this is occurring
through women’s use of language. The first is assimilation, where women take on the
dominant group’s speaking traits, such as using deeper voices, displaying more
assertiveness in interactions, using taboo language, addressing traditionally male topics,

and using prosodic patterns more typical of men. The other two forms involve re-

11

evaluating characteristics previously described negatively and creating new dimensions
for comparison. For example, women’s cooperative conversation style, which was
perceived as unassertive and weak, is now valued for negotiating conflict and promoting

dialogue.

ELECTRONIC LANGUAGE

Computer mediated communication, or ‘electronic language’ (Collot & Belmore,
I996), displays features associated with both written and spoken communication (Collot
& Belmore, 1996; Condon & Cech, 1996; Werry, 1996; Yates, 1996). Like face-to-face
conversations, many electronic conversations take place in real time, but through the
medium of written language. This has resulted in the language appearing “more similar to
that of spontaneous genres such as interviews, spontaneous speeches, and personal
letters” (Collot & Belmore, 1996, p. 22). Participants in CMC can, much like participants
in oral communication, partake in emotional, expressive and involved communication

(December, 1993).

Despite its similarities with the written and spoken modes of communication,
electronic language exhibits some unique characteristics, such as its efficient nature due
to the frequent omission of unnecessary linguistic material (Condon & Cech, 1996); its
greater use of first and second person personal pronouns; and its ability to combine
production and consumption modes, such as being produced ‘on the fly’ like speech, but

being read at any pace the reader chooses (Yates, 1996).

12

SEX 8: COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Face-to-face interactions provide us with enduring cues which reveal demographic
data — age, sex, race, possibly ethnic origins, possibly status or occupation (Harrison,
1975). Researchers predicted that computer mediated communication would help
mitigate gender differences and promote social equality by filtering out these social cues.
Cultural indicators — of social position, of age and authority, of personal appearance ——

are relatively weak in the computer-mediated context (Reid, 1994).

The perception that gender equality can be realized in cyberspace because of the lack
of social presence cues is questionable. Watson (1997) states that it will take more than
technology to erase the stereotypes and distinctions that people use for classifying groups
of people. In some instances, women can use gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to
overcome social barriers (much the same as female writers in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries), however, basic differences in communication styles still allow one
to determine gender. Hall (1984) also found that rather than neutralizing gender,
cyberspace is intensifying it as users exaggerate societal notions of masculinity and

femininity in an attempt to gender themselves in the absence of physical cues.

As we begin to experiment with various characters in virtual environments, we
develop a fluid sense of self, and a more fluid sense of others may result. If we no longer
feel compelled to rank or judge the “elements of our multiplicity,” it is possible that
stereotypes can be overcome because they become irrelevant (Turkle, 1995). It is no
longer beneficial to categorize based on appearance, because appearance may not be a

reflection of ‘reality’. As people begin to experiment with several identities, making

13

judgments based on appearance may be inaccurate, since these appearances are fluid.
“The lack of actual physical presence, indeed the great physical distances between
individual participants, demands that a new set of behavioral codes be invented if the
participants in such systems are to make sense to one another” (Reid, 1994, p. 166). This
will potentially lead to the use of alternative criteria, such as behavioral actions, rather

than appearance-based stereotypes.

Gender-swapping is an opportunity to explore the issues and conflicts that arise
because of one’s biological gender. It provides the opportunity to experience what it
‘feels’ like to be the opposite gender or to have no gender at all (Turkle, 1995). Virtual
gender swaps give people the ability to explore other roles and greater emotional ranges.
Dietrich (1997) however, considers it a myth that sexism against women may be reduced
through virtual reality programs that allow men to log on as the female gender and ‘take’
the woman’s point of view. She argues that this ignores the fact that our culture socially
constructs our identities in such a way that they are powerfully inscribed onto our bodies.
It is simplistic to think that by assuming the role of the other gender for a temporary
duration would overturn the sexual hierarchy so deeply embedded in society. However,
this fi'eedom to construct gender in more liberal ways than one can in face-to-face
interactions may actually assist in disassociating gender with biological sex, and force

new gender schemata.

Rodino (1997) concluded from her observational study of an Internet Relay Chat
environment that conceptualizing gender as a dichotomy neglects the variety of gender
constructions that occur in computer mediated environments. Yet dichotomous

perceptions still occur, in that men are perceived as having more power.

14

Ferris (1996) did an informal study by sitting in on a small newsgroup for one week
and observed the differences in communication between men and women participating in
the group. Ferris concluded that gender differences continue to show up in the use of
CMC. She found that the women appeared to be interested in maintaining interaction
through continuous dialogue, while the men were primarily trying to establish control -
characteristics apparent in face-to-face dialogue. Men monopolize on-line conversations,
and even when women do contribute, they are often driven to silence by the adversarial
style of male responses, either ceasing to post messages or withdrawing from the
discussion (Collins-Jarvis, 1995; Herring, 1994; Spender, 1996). It appears that while
both men and women are interested in information exchange, they interact in gendered

ways, with women continuing to be supportive, while men are often critical (Herring,

l 996).

We (1993) also found that men and women both feel that it is easier to communicate
on-line than face-to-face. The realization that gender differences may be socially
constructed could occur to users of CMC given that they can rarely tell whether one is
female or male. Perhaps, more importantly, people are realizing that it does not matter.
One male respondent stated that without the visual cues, it doesn’t occur to him to make
gender-oriented speculations that he would make in face-to-face communications.
Another man added, “Women get heard more because they can finish a thought without
being interrupted. Also men tend to deal with the content of what women say, rather than

dismissing it, because it comes from a woman” (We, 1993).

However, Spender (1996) argues that despite electronic networks being theoretically

gender-, race-, and class-blind, users are working out ways to identify gender on-line.

15

Virtual cues are being used to make decisions about gender. “Even when one tries to
construct genderless avatars, there is no social, communicative space without gendered
speakers” (Spender, 1996, p. 244). Women and men may have recognizably different
styles in posting to the Internet and different communicative ethics. As a result, “women
are experiencing. . .the same kinds of trouble they experience in other conversations”, and
these troubles may actually be intensified on-line (Kramarae & Taylor, 1993, p. 54). Not
only do men attempt to continue to dominate communication in cyberspace by
interrupting and correcting, they also exhibit more assertive behavior on-line such as

‘flaming” and sexual harassment.

PERSUASION

Persuasion is the process of influencing others. Any persuasive situation can be
thought of as consisting of a recipient, the topic, and the persuasive appeal. Of interest is
how the two variables, recipient and appeal, influence attitude change. Persuasion is an
integral variable in the study of social presence and person perception, because it allows
us to quantify how the perception of the communicator influences the receiver. A
person’s perception of another is related to how much they allow themselves to be
influenced. For example, sources perceived as more credible or attractive are more

persuasive (McCroskey, Hamilton, & Weiner, 1974).

It has been argued by Chaiken and Eagly (1983) that how one processes persuasive
messages depends on the media in which the message was conveyed. The more salient

status cues and characteristics are, the more likely the receiver will use those variables in

 

I "Flaming" is sending hot-tempered messages in response to a disliked contribution. This type of message is typically not conveyed

16

deciding to accept or reject the message. Likewise, the less salient those cues are (e.g.,
written text), the more likely the receiver will process the message systematically and
evaluate the arguments. When persuasion is brought about systematically rather than
heuristically, the change is more enduring and may strengthen the connection between
opinions and behavior (Chaiken, 1980; Pallak, 1983). Siero & Doosje (1993) take a
different approach in arguing that people first make a judgement about the message, and

then begin to evaluate it based on arguments.

Does receiver sex make a difference in the effect of persuasion? Cody, Seiter and
Montagne-Miller (1995) have summarized the debate in this area, and although the
research has shown that statistically women are more influenced on the average than
men, they question taking this data at face value. These differences may actually be due
to experimental conditions (Cody et al., 1995; Puddifoot, 1996). Yet individual
differences do impact the affect of a persuasive message on the recipient, and message
persuasiveness can be improved significantly by matching the messages to the recipient’s

self-schema (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984).

In a computer-mediated environment, heuristic cues are minimized. With that in
mind, it would be expected that the fewer cues present, the higher the persuasion effect.
In text-based interactions, emoticons and writing styles can be used as cues, when
alternative sources of information, such as name, are not available. In such cases, we
would expect that people exposed to fewer cues would be more persuaded by the

message, and display a greater degree of acceptance of it. In a study by Kiesler et al.,

 

in face-to-face interactions because physical presence may act as a deterrent. With the anonymity that the intemet affords. this self-
control may be relinquished.

17

(1984) it was found that subjects changed their position more frequently in computer-

mediated environments than they did in face-to-face environments.

Hypotheses

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How does sex and psychological gender influence person perception and
persuasion in on-line interactions?

2. Is psychological gender a better indicator of how one perceives others than
biological sex?

3. What is the relationship between sex, psychological gender and persuasion?

4. Why is psychological androgyny important to person perception?

Hypothesis 1: Psychological gender is a more accurate indicator of how a
person will perceive others and how others will be perceived

Subjects will not only be identifying themselves as male or female, they will also be
completing the BSRI, which will identify their psychological gender. Cognitive-
developmental theory postulates that people develop values consistent with their gender.
Social learning theory postulates that sex—typing is a learned behavior. Regardless of how
these behaviors are learned, psychological gender allows people to define themselves
more accurately than simply male or female. This more descriptive definition will
translate into within sex-group differences in person perception. That is, male subjects
will perceive others differently based on their psychological gender. This will also be true

for female subjects.

18

Additionally, our research will attempt to determine whether people consciously or
unconsciously recognize these differences in others within an interaction. Although
people immediately place others in sex-defined groups, at an unconscious level people
may perceive the other based on psychological gender characteristics differently. Put
simply, we expect that there will be a significant difference in how subjects perceive their
partner when asked to rate them as male or female, versus describing their characteristics
using the BSRI.

Hypothesis 2: People who perceive themselves as sex-typed are more
likely to make strong attributions of gender in others.

According to the literature, sex-typed subjects are more attuned to cultural gender
stereotypes and more likely to abide by them (F rable & Bern, 1985). People falling into
the androgynous category may be more comfortable not knowing the gender of the
person they are interacting with, and are thus more comfortable recognizing both
masculine and feminine traits in the same person. Markus et al. (1982) found that there
are important differences among individuals in how gender-relevant knowledge is
organized in memory. Assuming this is true, then subjects who are sex-typed as
masculine or feminine would be more likely to recognize those traits as bi—polar attributes
and would not rate their partner as high or low on both sets of attributes, but rather as
either masculine or feminine.

Hypothesis 3: People who smile more will be perceived as female or
feminine because it is considered feminine to smile a lot.

While there is considerable discussion as to why women smile more than men do,
there is little question in the literature that there is a definite difference in smile frequency

between the sexes. This discrepancy is also noted in computer-mediated communications,

19

where it has been found that women use emoticons with a higher frequency than men
(Winner & Katzrnan, 1997). We hypothesize that subjects will perceive their interaction

partner as female or feminine in the high smile condition.

Hypothesis 4: People who smile less will be more persuasive.

Sources perceived as more credible are more persuasive (McCroskey et al., 1974).
Because the tendency to smile more has often been linked with the submissiveness of
women (Kalbfleisch & Cody, 1995; Key, 1975; Thorne & Henley, 1975), we hypothesize
that people who smile less will be perceived as more powerful and credible, and thus,

more persuasive.

Hypothesis 5: People can accurately predict the sex of others based solely
on written cues.

Observatory research has shown that in CMC interactions, even without the provision
of cues such as name or sex, people do make judgements about the sex of their
interaction partner. Popular literature such as Tannen’s You Just Don ’r Understand
(1986) and Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (1992) demonstrate that
men and women speak differently. Although CMC is primarily text based, it is often in a
conversational form, lending it characteristics from written and verbal based
communication. We hypothesize that the combination of these cues will provide enough
information for participants to make judgements about the sex and psychological gender

of their partner.

20

Hypothesis 6: People are more likely to be persuaded when interacting
with a confederate using a male-written script rather than a female-written script.

Men write and converse in a more authoritative style, while women are more likely to
include more hedges, etc. The female style may cause the message recipient to feel that
the speaker is less credible, and thus less persuasive. While it has been found that men are
sometimes more influenced by women who use a less powerful style because they feel
less threatened (Booth-Butterfield & Geatz, 1992), we hypothesize that, overall, subjects

will be more persuaded when the male-written script is used.

Method

DESIGN

Two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses. Both experiments tested for
the subjects’ psychological gender and the perceived sex and psychological gender of the
partner. Experiment 1 used a between-subjects experimental design with one factor —
expression of emotion with three levels. The levels of the independent variable were no
expressive ability, high smile and low smile. Experiment 2 was designed with one factor
- sex of confederate script. Three male scripts and three female scripts, randomly
selected from Experiment 1, were used as the confederate script. Emotion was not a
factor in Experiment 2. Independent variables were sex of subject and psychological

gender of subject.

21

Experiment 1

SUBJECTS

Fifty-four undergraduates at a large Midwestern university took part in this
experiment for class credit. Most participants were freshmen or sophomores; all were
members of the psychology subject pool and had participated in other studies throughout

the semester. Eighteen participants were in each of the three conditions.

MATERIALS

Microsoft Netmeeting. This interaction took place in a computer-based environment
using Microsoft NetMeeting 2.1. This program allows interaction between networked
computers. A person types in the window and hits the return key to send the message.
The text is immediately readable on the interaction partner’s computer screen.
NetMeeting also allows people interacting to share files and other programs. This feature
allowed us to share the screen that contained the smiley or neutral faces, as described

below.

Director. Director was used as a shared program. On a program screen that both the
participant and confederate could see, there was a small neutral face or a small smiley

face2 that could be seen, depending on which expression was selected. In the bottom

 

2 The avatars used here were the generic guest avatars used in the Palace (http://www.thepalaee.com): this is one of the most popular
interactive two-dimensional chat rooms. The yellow smiley face was chosen as a neutral avatar for this study, in concurrence with the
reasoning provided by I. Bumgardner on using it for the Palace. “I wanted the users to be able to identify or equate themselves with
the avatars. so I chose extremely abstract artwork. The smiley head is about as abstract 3 you can get" (Bumgardner. 3/30/98)... Why
yellow in particular? I think it was an arbitrary choice. probably influenced by the pervasive yellow smiley buttons of the 705"
(Bumgardner, 3/31/98).

22

comer of this shared portion of the screen were two small faces, one neutral’ and one
smiling, which the confederate and the subject clicked on when selecting an expression

during their respective turns.

Desert Survival Task (Lafferty & Eady, 1974). This tool was comprised of a list of
twelve items‘ which subjects were required to rank in the order of importance they felt

these items would be needed if they were stranded in the desert.

Surveysaid. All questionnaires were filled out using Surveysaid, a computerized
questionnaire software. Subjects point and click the appropriate response and hit the ‘next
question’ button to move on. The data is automatically coded and stored in a database for
later statistical analysis. Even during the post-experimental questionnaire subjects put
their answers into the computer, allowing them to freely express opinions and

suggestions for future research.

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS

Psychological Gender. Subjects completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bern, 1974)
prior to beginning the interaction. The BSRI consisted of 60 items, twenty of which were
rated as masculine—typed, 20 of which were neutral, and 20 of which were feminine
typed. Subjects responded to the 60 descriptive statements using 7-point scales anchored
by ‘never or almost never true’ and ‘always or almost always true’. Raw scores were

determined by adding the respondents’ values of the 20 item numbers for each scale and

 

3 There was some question about this being neutral. When selected instead of a smile, it is possible this could have appeared negative.
or more like a frown.

4 The items included a magnetic compass. a 20-by-20 piece of heavy-duty. light blue canvas. the book Edible Plants of the Desert. 3
rearview mirror, a large knife. a flashlight (four-battery size). one jacket per person, one transparent ground cloth (6 feet by 4 feet) per
person. a loaded .38-caliber pistol, one 2-quart plastic canteen per person, full of water. an accurate map of the area and a large box of
kitchen matches.

23

dividing by 20 to find the average scores. Sex-type was determined on the basis of a
median split (Bear, 1981). Normative data was based on that provided by Bern (1981).
Subjects whose raw scores for both scales were higher than the medians were ranked
androgynous. Subjects whose raw scores were lower than the medians were ranked

undifferentiated.

Persuasion. Persuasion was a two-fold measure based on frequency of change and
degree of change. Frequency of change was determined by counting the number of items
that subjects re-ranked after their interaction. Degree of change was the sum of the
number of points that each re-ranked item was moved. For example, if a subject initially
ranked the compass as number one, and later changed it to number five, the degree

change was 4.

PROCEDURE

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. After subjects signed
a consent form indicating their voluntary participation in this experiment, they used
Surveysaid to respond to a few demographic questions including their sex, ethnicity, age
and year in school. Subjects then completed the BSRI. When the participants completed
this initial questionnaire, they were given a one-page instruction sheet, which outlined the
Desert Survival scenario and described the protocol for their online interaction.
Participants then rank ordered the twelve items listed on the Desert Survival scenario

sheet

When participants finished their rank ordering, the interaction with a confederate

began using NetMeeting. In this interaction they discussed their rank of each item and the

24

reason for their choice. The confederate also gave the rank and reason for each item from
the script assigned. The confederate’s contribution was completely scripted’, which
meant that each participant had the same text and the same messages during the
interaction, the only difference would be whether and to what extent the confederate
smiled during the interaction. Participants did not see the confederate at any time during

the interaction.

In two of the conditions participants were asked to select an expression prior to
sending text-based messages each time that it was their ‘turn’. Selecting an expression
consisted of clicking with the mouse on the small avatar in the comer of the program,
which would cause that face to pop up larger in the shared Director screen. Subjects
could not see the expressions they chose, but only the expressions chosen by their
interaction partner, who would select the expression assigned prior to sending text

comments from the script.

In all conditions, participants saw this screen with either a smile or a neutral face. In
one condition, participants interacted with this cartoon-like (unrealistic) avatar (or low
level cyberspace embodiment) which maintained a neutral expression throughout the
interaction. In this condition, participants could not visually communicate emotion and
did not receive this feedback from the confederate. In the second and third conditions,
participants interacted with a cartoon-like (unrealistic smiley faced) avatar and could
visually communicate emotion. Choices were limited to either the smile or a neutral

expression described above. In the second condition, the confederate smiled during 2/3 of

 

5 Nass and Reeves ( 1996) also used this script during much of their research for their book. The subjects were to discuss their ranking
of items they would like to have with them if they were stranded in a desert with their interaction partner.

25

the interactions and had a neutral expression during 1/3 of their ‘turns’. In the third
condition, the confederate smiled during 1/3 of their ‘turns’ and had a neutral expression

during 2/3 of their ‘turns’.

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1: Psychological gender is a more accurate indicator of how a
person will perceive others and how others will be perceived

The first part of this hypothesis postulates that a person’s psychological gender (sex-
type) will be a more significant indicator in the perception of others rather than one’s
biological sex. Using the 60 items on the BSRI, we first determined the subject’s
psychological gender, and then also determined the perceived psychological gender of the

confederate.

Table 1 establishes the baseline for the comparisons through the illustration of
subjects’ perceptions for their partners’ sex. This table illustrates little variance between

male and female subject’s perception of the sex of their partner.

Table 1: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Sex by Subject Sex

 

Perceived Partner Sex

 

 

 

Subject Sex Male Female Undetermined Total

Male 15 1 1 7 33
45.5% 33.3% 21.2%

Female 1 1 5 5 21
52.4% 23.8% 23.8%

 

26

Looking at the distribution as shown in Table 2, it is evident that female subjects are
much more likely to perceive the confederate as masculine (81%), while male subjects
are more evenly divided in their perception of the confederate as either masculine

(45.5%) or undifferentiated (51.5%).

Table 2: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject Sex

 

Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

 

 

 

Subject Sex g Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
Male 33 15 0 1 17
45.5% 3% 51.5%
Female 21 17 O 0 4
81% 19%
Total 54 32 0 1 21
59.3% 1.9% 38.9%

 

These differences in perception of the partner’s psychological gender are reiterated
when looking at the psychological gender of the subject. As shown in Table 3, feminine-
typed subjects perceived the confederate as masculine in 92% of the cases, whereas
masculine-typed subjects were again more evenly divided in their perception of the
confederate as masculine (44%) or undifferentiated (56%). Androgynous and
undifferentiated subjects were also more evenly divided in their perception of the

confederate as either masculine or undifferentiated.

27

Table 3: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject
Psychological Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Perceived Partner Psychological Gender
Psychological
Gender 3 Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
Masculine 16 7 0 0 9
43.8% 56.3%
Feminine 12 1 1 0 0 1
91.7% 8.3%
Androgynous 20 1 1 O 1 8
55% 5% 40%
Undifferentiated 6 3 0 0 3
50% 50%
Total 54 32 0 1 21
59.3% 1.9% 38.9%

 

The second part of this hypothesis predicts that people will maintain differing
perceptions of others based on the other person’s psychological gender rather than on
their biological sex. A frequency analysis showed that during 48% of all interactions, the
confederate was rated male, and in only 30% was the confederate rated female with 22%

undecided.

However, the results of frequency analysis based on the perceived psychological
gender of the confederate, tell a different story (Table 4). This showed that when asked to
rate the confederate according to various personality traits, 59% of the subjects rated the

confederate as masculine, 39% as undifferentiated (low in masculine and feminine traits),

28

and 2% as androgynous. Zero percent of the subjects rated the confederate as feminine

sex-typed.

Table 4: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

 

 

n Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
54 32 0 1 21
59.3% 1.9% 38.9%
Hypothesis 2: People who perceive themselves as sex-typed are more

likely to make strong attributions of gender in others.

Subjects were classified according to the BSRI as masculine, feminine, androgynous
or undifferentiated. For the purpose of this hypothesis, masculine and feminine subjects
were grouped as sex-typed, and androgynous and undifferentiated subjects were grouped
as non-sex typed. The same grouping technique was applied to the perceived gender of
the confederate The results of a chi-square analysis demonstrated that there was not any
association between the subjects’ sex-type and their perceived sex-type of the confederate

(x2 [1, g = 54] = 0.609, p = 0.435).

Since none of the subjects ranked the confederate as feminine, sex-typed in this case
means masculine. In nearly 60% of the cases, the subjects rated the confederate as
masculine, and in nearly 40%, the subjects rated the confederate as low in masculine and
low in feminine traits. This is very likely due to the nature of the script, which was very
formal. Not only was it dominant in nature, it was also very straightforward, providing

few clues as to the personality of the confederate. Several subjects thought that they were

29

interacting with a computer, which provides insight into the high percentage of subjects
that ranked the confederate as undifferentiated.

Hypothesis 3: People who smile more will be perceived as female or
feminine because it is considered feminine to smile a lot.

This involved a one-item indicator with the confederate rated as female or male, and
the 60-item Bem Social Role Inventory (BSRI). Fisher’s Exact Test was used to
determine if there was an association between the level of smiles and (a) perceived sex
and (b) perceived psychological gender. Given the p-values associated with perceived sex
and perceived gender (N = 54, p > 0.05), the hypothesis that there is an association
between the independent variable smile and the dependent variables sex and gender was

rejected and the analysis did not proceed.

A frequency analysis showed that, overall, the confederate was rated male 48% of the
time and as masculine-typed 59% of the time. This results could very well be attributed to
the dominant nature of the script, or to the fact that the confederate began the interaction

and led the discussion.

Hypothesis 4: People who smile less will be more persuasive on issues of
desert survival.

An analysis on persuasion effects was conducted by examining both the frequency of
change, which was defined as the number of items that were re-ranked, and the degree of
change from the subjects’ initial rankings to their re-rankings of the desert survival items.
The frequency of change can take on the values between 0 and 12, with the exception of

l, and for the initial analysis was classified as High (frequencies >=7) or Low

30

(frequencies <=6). The conditions were merged to form a smile and no smile condition in

order to test for an association between presence of smiles and frequency of change.

The results of a Chi-square analysis (X2 [1, N = 51] = 4.194, p=0.041) indicate that

there is an association between the presence of smiles and the frequency of change.

The Somer’s D CIR statistics, which measures the strength of the association,
provided a negative value (0294) indicating that the frequency of change tends to be

higher when smiles are not present.

A value of 0.241 was found for the Estimate of Relative Risk, which means that the
odds of high relative frequency of change in the smile group are 0.241 higher than the
odds of high relative frequency of change in the no smile group. Put simply, subjects that
interact with a non-smiling confederate are 4.15 times more likely to have a higher

frequency of change than subjects interacting with a smiling confederate are.

A more detailed analysis was then conducted on the level of smiles (neutral, low,
high) and frequency of change, which was classified as High (frequencies >= 9), Medium

(frequencies in the range of 5-8) and Low (frequency <= 4).

Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted to determine if there was an association between
the smile condition and frequency of change. Given the p—value associated with Fisher’s

Exact Test (N = 51, p = 0.016), the hypothesis of association is accepted.

The Somers’ D CIR statistics provided a negative value (-0.401) indicating that there

is a moderate negative association between the smile condition and frequency of change

31

variable. Negative association means that the lower the smile level is, the higher the

frequency of change tends to be.

An initial analysis was then conducted to determine the association between the
presence of smiles and the degree of change. Degree of change was classified as Low (for

values <=24) or high (for values >=25).

The results of the Chi-Square (X2 [1, N = 51] = 8.854, p = 0.003) indicate that there is

a significant association between the presence of smiles and degree of change.

The Somer’s D CIR statistics provide a negative value (-0.441), indicating there is a
negative association between the presence of smiles and the degree of change. This
negative association means that the degree of change tends to be higher in the smile

condition.

A value of 0.147 was found for the Estimates of Relative Risk, which means that
subjects who are in the no smile condition are 6.803 (=1/0.l47) more likely than the

subjects interacting in the smile conditions to have a higher degree of change.

A more detailed analysis was then conducted to determine the association between
the level of smiles (neutral, low, high) and the degree of change. For this analysis, the
degree of change can take on values between 0 and 72, and was classified as High (for
values >=49), Medium (for values in the range of 25-48), and Low (for values <=24).
Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted to determine if there was an association between smile
condition and degree of change. The results of the analysis (N = 51, p = 0.015) indicate

that the probability of the association being due to chance is only a 1.5%.

32

The results of the Somers’ D CIR (-0.3 34) indicate that there is a moderate negative
association between presence of smiles variable and the degree of change variable. This
negative association means that the lower the smile level is, the higher the degree of

change tends to be.

The next step was to examine any association between the sex of the subjects and
level of persuasion. In looking at frequency of change, we found a difference in the
means, with a higher frequency of women changing (M = 8.1) than men (M = 5.9). The
means again showed a greater degree of change in female subjects (M = 31.8) than in
male subjects (18.9). Male subjects showed a greater frequency of change in the no smile
condition (M = 8.85) than female subjects (M = 8.6), while female subjects displayed a
higher frequency of change in the smile condition. (M = 7.6) than male subjects (M =
5.08). However, a Chi-square analysis revealed that despite these trends, there was not a
significant association between the sex of the subject and frequency of change (X2 [2, N
= 51] = 3.595, p > 0.05).or between sex of the subject and degree of change (X2 [2, _N_ =

51] = 2.212,p > 0.05).

Experiment 2

SUBJECTS

Forty-two undergraduates at a large Midwestern university took part in this

experiment for class credit. Most participants were freshmen or sophomores; all were

33

members of an intermediate telecommunications course“. Twenty-one participants were

in each of the two conditions.

MATERIALS

This experiment also utilized Microsoft NetMeeting 2.1, Surveysaid and the Desert
Survival Task. For the Desert Survival Task, the traditional confederate script was
substituted with scripts developed from Experiment I chat transcripts. Three scripts were
randomly selected from the male subjects and three were randomly selected from the
female subjects. These scripts were modified slightly to reflect the role that the

confederate had in leading the interaction.

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS

Psychological gender and persuasion were measured in Experiment 2 using the same

instruments from Experiment 1.

PROCEDURE

The procedure for Experiment 2 was identical to that from Experiment 1 except for
the use of emotions. Experiment 2 used a strictly text based interaction. The debriefing

occurred via email after all subjects completed the experiment.

 

°rc 201

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1: Psychological gender is a more accurate indicator of how a
person will perceive others and how others will be perceived.

The first part of this hypothesis postulates that a person’s psychological gender (sex-
type) will be a more significant indicator in the perception of others rather than one’s
biological sex. Using the 60 items on the BSRI, we first determined the subject’s
psychological gender, and then also determined the perceived psychological gender of the

confederate.

Table 5 establishes the baseline for the comparisons through the illustration of
subjects’ perceptions of partner sex. This table illustrates little variance between male and

female subject’s perception of the sex of their partner.

Table 5: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Sex by Subject Sex

 

Perceived Partner Sex

 

 

 

Subject Sex Male Female Undetermined Total

Male 10 10 9 29
34.5% 34.5% 31%

Female 2 5 4 1 1
18.2% 45.5% 36.4%

 

Looking at the distribution as shown in Table 6, it is evident that subjects were
overall less likely to make sex-typed attributions. The frequency analysis does not
demonstrate any visible differences between male and female subjects in gender

attributions.

35

Table 5: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject Sex

 

Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

 

 

 

Subject Sex [1 Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
Male 29 9 0 1 19
31 % 3.4% 65.5%
Female 1 1 3 1 0 7
27.3% 9.1% 63.6%
Total 40 12 1 1 26
30% 2.5% 2.5% 65%

 

This is reiterated when looking at the psychological gender of the subject. As shown
in Table 2, regardless of the subject’s psychological gender, subjects displayed minimal
variance in ranking their partner as either undifferentiated or masculine. The low _N_ for

feminine-typed subjects makes it difficult to ascertain any unique distributions for this

group.

Table 6: Frequencies of Perceived Psychological Gender by Subject
Psychological Gender

 

 

 

 

Subject Perceived Partner Psychological Gender
Psychological
Gender _n Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
Masculine 20 5 1 0 14
25% 5% 70%
Feminine 3 2 0 O 1
66.7% 33.3%

 

36

 

Androgynous 10 3 0 1 6

 

 

30% 10% 60%
Undifferentiated 7 2 0 0 5

28.6% 71 .4%
Total 40 1 2 1 1 26

30% 2.5% 2.5% 65%

 

The second part of this hypothesis predicts that people will maintain differing
perceptions of others based on the other person’s psychological gender rather than on
their biological sex. A frequency analysis showed that during 30% of all interactions, the
confederate was rated male, and in 37.5% the confederate rated female with 32.5%

undecided.

However, the results of frequency analysis, based on the perceived psychological
gender of the confederate, again tell a different story (Table 7). This showed that when
asked to rate the confederate according to various personality traits, the percentage of
masculine-typed partners remained constant with those typed as male, but the percentage
of partners ranked as female did not carry over into the feminine-typed category. Rather,

the undifferentiated group doubled from the undetermined group.

Table 7: Frequencies of Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

Perceived Partner Psychological Gender

 

 

n Masculine Feminine Androgynous Undifferentiated
40 12 1 1 26
30% 2.5% 2.5% 65%

 

37

Hypothesis 2: People who perceive themselves as sex-typed are more
likely to make strong attributions of gender in others.

Subjects were classified according to the BSRI as masculine, feminine, androgynous
or undifferentiated. Masculine and feminine-typed subjects were grouped as sex-typed,
and subjects classified as androgynous and undifferentiated were grouped as non-sex
typed. The same grouping technique was applied to the perceived gender of the
confederate. The results of Fisher’s Exact Test (N = 54, p > 0.05) indicate that there is
not an association between the subjects’ sex-type and their perceived sex-type of the

confederate.

Hypothesis 5: People can accurately perceive the sex of their partner
based on a text-based interaction.

Six scripts were used in this study, three female and three male. It was expected that
subjects could detect the sex of the confederate based on the interaction in which the
confederate was using either a male or a female script. However, the non-significant
results from a C hi-square analysis demonstrate that there is not a significant association
between the script used and the perceived sex (X2 [2, N = 40] = 0.144, p > 0.05) or

psychological gender (X2 [3, N = 40] = 3.487, p > 0.05) of the confederate.

Hypothesis 6: People are more likely to be persuaded when interacting
with a confederate using a male-written script than a female-written script.

The results from Fisher’s Exact Test demonstrate that there is no difference between
level of persuasion and the script (N = 52, p = 1.0). In fact, even the means between

subject groups are similar, with the frequency of change for male subjects (M=3.9) very

38

close to that of female subjects (M=4.5), and the degree of change for male subjects

(M=8.7) very close to that of female subjects (M=9.S).

Limitations

The low number of subjects in each experiment (N = 54, N = 40) may limit the
statistical power of some tests. There was also a low number of female subjects in both
experiments (N = 21, N = 11), which would again limit any statistical comparisons

between subjects based on sex and psychological gender.

In Experiment 1, some subjects figured out that if they clicked on the smile or neutral
icons representing their partner’s expression choices, they could change the expression
displayed by their partner. In this way, even though the confederate may have selected
the neutral expression, some subjects could change this to a smile. The fact that this
expression screen was also set off to the side of the screen instead of being directly

adjacent to the text may have also limited its effect on subjects.

Discussion

The frequency analyses for subject perception of sex versus psychological gender of
the confederate provide some interesting overall trends. In Experiment 1, when asked to
determine the sex of their partner, participants selected male 48% of the time, and female
30% of the time. However, when completing the sex-role inventory for their partner, only
1.9% of the subjects gave the confederate a high ranking on feminine traits, but 59%

ranked the confederate as highly masculine. These results were also demonstrated in

39

Experiment 2, where subjects determined that there partner was male in 30% of the cases,
and female in 37.5% of the cases. Yet, while the subjects rated their partner to be
masculine in 30% of the cases also, they only rated their partner as high in feminine traits

(androgynous and feminine) in 5% of the cases.

This data provides evidence that judgements people make about others based on
stereotypical traits may frequently not correspond with the biological sex category that
they assign the person to. Put simply, just because a person may perceive a stereotypical
feminine trait in another person does not force them to automatically conclude the person
they are interacting with is female, and the predominance of masculine traits does not

necessarily lead to the conclusion that the person is male.

This may be due to a number of factors. First, the subjects may be attuned to the traits
associated with sex stereotypes, and may have avoided classifying their partner according
to these traits to appear less judgmental. That is, subjects may have made the connection
between the traits and their perception of their partner’s sex. There may also be a gradual
change in sex-based stereotypes that should be accounted for. That is, traits that were
assigned as primarily female and primarily male in the 19705 — when several inventories
including the BSRI were created -— may not accurately reflect the traits that people two
decades later assign as being typical of women and men. This should be further
investigated in order to determine if these inventories are accurate for person perception

studies.

Leet-Pellegrini (1979) found that male experts were significantly more controlling in

openings and closings than female experts were. In Experiment 1, subjects universally

40

ranked the confederate as being male or masculine-typed across conditions, and several
commented either within the interaction transcript or in a post-experiment questionnaire
that they believed their partner to be an expert in desert survival. Due to the nature of the
script being very rigid in its opening and closing, the lack of differences across conditions
is not surprising. In Experiment 2, there were not any significant differences from the use
of a female script to that of a male script, which may be due to the fact that the

confederate still controlled the opening and closing of the interaction.

Except for Experiment I where female subjects displayed a higher frequency (f =
81%) of perceiving their partner as masculine than male subjects (I = 45.5%), there were
minimal differences between male and female subjects’ perception of their partner’s sex
across conditions in both experiments. This may indicate that differences in the
perception of others in CMC are not all that great between the sexes. Men and women
may actually be more similar than different in how they perceive others in CMC. What is
different is how they use the information that they received. Although the results were
not significant, the trends in Experiment 1 showed that women were more persuaded than
men when they received the additional nonverbal cues, however men were more
persuaded than women were when these cues were not available. These trends indicate
that future research should focus less on differences in how men and women perceive
others, and more on how they utilize the information that is received through nonverbal

CUES.

The fact that the data showed significant differences between smile conditions on
persuasion effects is of special interest. Not only did subjects change more items in the no

smile condition, they changed these items in significantly greater degrees. These results

41

support the argument made by Pallack, Muroni and Koch (1983) and Chaiken (1980) that
persuasion that is brought about systematically is more enduring and stronger than
change based on heuristics. The analysis did provide information on the impact of limited
nonverbal on the persuasiveness of the communicator. This information indicates that as
people use CMC to convey persuasive messages, fewer nonverbal cues equates with a
stronger persuasive message. However, Experiment 2, which eliminated the expression
variable, did not demonstrate similar levels of persuasion (Figure 1). This indicates that
people may require a minimum number of cues in their interactions, and the second

experiment may not have reached this minimum.

 

  
  
  
   

 

 

 

 

 

35.00E__7 ___—___ _ 1H._ _

30.00 __ - L _ _ _

25.00 ._- -3-.- -_-_. , - . -, - .__*- . .. -__-_---E
c 20.00 a -__-_-.-- -. _
3 _fi_ Frequency of Change
5 15.00 .__-_ _ - _..Degree of Change

10.00 WE“--- ___

5.00 ._ ___ - ___".fi— _____

0.00 __ _

Male Script Female Snile Neutral
Script
Condition
Figure 1: Frequency of change and degree of change comparisons across

Experiments 1 and 2 by condition. The ‘male script’ and “female script’ conditions refer to
those in Experiment 2, and ‘smile’ and ‘neutral’ conditions refer to the merged conditions

in Experiments 1.

42

The lack of persuasion effects in Experiment 2 could be due to the fact that these
scripts were pulled randomly fiom Experiment 1, in which many of the subjects felt that
their partner was an expert. In fact, the post experiment comments by participants
indicated suspicion that the interaction partner was in fact a computer’. The subjects’
scripts used in Experiment 2 may have been more submissive or less authoritative in
nature as a result. The subject scripts that were used in Experiment 2, while increasing
believability that the interaction partner was another student, may have all been similar in

writing style due to the nature of the interaction in Experiment 1.

Conclusion

The presence of women on-line is growing every year. 1995 demographic reports by
(CommerceNet/Nielsen, 1998) found that women comprised 35.5% of the Internet
population and 43% in 1998. Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center's (GVU) WWW
User Survey (M) also shows continued growth (38.7% female users in 1998, as
compared to 32.32% in 1996) and points out that new users, those who have been on the
Net for less that one year, are mostly female (51.7%). New research by Jupiter
Communications found that women account for 45 percent of Web users, and are on
track to outnumber men within four years. As these numbers continue to grow, the way
the Web works will change. As Kaplan and Farrell (1994) found, women are redefining
“their relations to the technologies, transforming what the wider culture codes as male

into a tool they themselves identify with characteristically female traits and capacities”

 

7 This is believed to be because of the language used in the script and the format of the interaction. The language in the script used in
Experiment I was more that of a desert survival expert. which is where it originated. The scripts in Experiment 2 incorporated
language that an undergraduate would use, however the rigid format of the interaction remained.

43

(3 9). Women are using the Internet for different purposes than men, and changing the
face of it in the process. The Internet can no longer be considered “another male bastion”

as stated by Jesse Berst, the Editorial Director at ZDNet AnchorDes/c“.

New technology will continue to shape our interactions, as well as create additional
confounds. For example, speech recognition software is steadily improving and becoming
more accessible to users, as shown by Dragon NaturallySpeaking W9, blurring the lines
between written and spoken language even further. Future research should look at the
implications of this type of technology on person perception and persuasion in electronic

interactions.

While people will still want to know if the person they are interacting with on-line is
male or female for building mental models of that person, how they interpret that
information is bound to change. For example, as more women use the Web, the
stereotype that women aren’t as good at computers will repeatedly prove inaccurate. The
assumptions will change. In fact, in the e-commerce arena this is already changing, as the
number of women on-line continues to grow. Investors and intemet executives agree that
given the ever-growing purchasing power of women, major advertisers and retailers will

be driven to the Net (Hoffman, 1998).

As modes of electronic communication proliferate, it will be necessary for e-
commerce merchants to know how to model their persuasive messages to reach their
target audiences, for the new crop of virtual universities to know the best method to

educate their students, and for media designers to know how to design their systems to

 

8 ZDNet is a popular shareware site. AnchorDesk offers technology news. http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk

44

best accomplish the task without alienating users. While attempting to replicate a face-to-
face interaction is not the most efficient use of technology, it is apparent from this study
that there is a sufficiency threshold that users require in their interaction. Subjects in the
second experiment had fewer nonverbal cues to rely on to make judgements about their
interaction partner and the interaction in general, than those in the first experiment did.
Future research should explore further at what point a sufficiency threshold is reached,

and how much information is enough for users to feel comfortable with their interaction.

 

9 http://www.naturalspeak.com

45

APPENDICES

46

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM

47

Consent Form

As virtual reality and virtual environments continue to proliferate in academic,
social and business environments, people will need to interact in this new
medium. We are interested in researching how people interact in these virtual
environments when they have had no prior face-to-face interactions with their
panner

You are only being asked to participate in this study on this single occasion. You
are not being asked to participate in multiple sessions. This single session will
last approximately one hour. During this session you will be asked to complete a
preliminary questionnaire, participate in a virtual interaction and complete a
follow-up questionnaire. You will not be involved with any treatments or incur any
risk of physical injury during your participation In this study. At the end of your
participation, we will explain in more detail the purpose of this research project
and take the time to answer any questions you may have about your participation
here.

You are being asked to freely participate in this study. Participation is voluntary,
and you can elect to not participate in this study. At any time during this study,
you may discontinue your participation.

All results from this study will be treated with strict confidence. This means that
your name will not be associated with the answers you provide to questions in
any report of research findings. Your name is only requested so that we may
inform your instructor of your participation. On request, and within these
restrictions, results may be made available to you. If you have any questions or
concerns about your participation in this interaction, please contact either Frank
Biocca (biocca@tcimet.net) or Trina Anderson (simontri@pilot.msu.edu).

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by signing this
consent form.

Signed Date:

 

 

 

Print Name Here

48

APPENDIX B

PRE-INTERACTION SURVEY

49

12

13

l4

l7

Surquddbyl‘ltkednLHascers Fun I

Instructions:
U-sdeaONLYONECholee [_l-selaccALLthacapply.

Thnlkyomforaareematoparidpareinom omexpcimannfieaserakeafewmesooflomthefollowiu
WWWyouarefinrshed, pleasenodfyyowexperim.

thwhareclflcbackaomddoyoumoscscrondyidencifyyowself?

African-American Chi Korean Hispani
81m Insulin Other U c
Are You

UMale L}Female

What year In school are you?

{_}Freshman {.}Sophmore (_Hunior {_jSenior {_}Graduate
How old are you?

How often have you charted on-Iine?

$33: {Jone to two times L}monrhly ijeekly

People often use emoticons in on-llne text interactions to convey emotion. Do you know what the following
emodconmeas? :)(IfNocAnsweredSkiptol9)

{_tes (Skip to l 8) {_}No (Skip to_ If _9)

Whatdoesciisemociconmeanh)

 

Tlisemodcon:)isoftenusedinon-llneinteracdonstodenotehapphress.

Do you know what the following emoticon moms? :( (If Not Answered Skip to # 12)
L}Yes (Skip_to_#_l I) L}No (Skip_to_#_12)
What does dis emoticon mean? :(

 

This emoticon :( Is often used in on-line Interactions to denote unhappiness.

Doyouknowwhasdlefoflowingemoticonmeans?;)(lfNocAnsweredSkiptoJ IS)
L}Yes (Skip to I 14) {_}No (Skip_ to_ If _15)

WhacdoesthisemociconmeanhHlfNotAnswaedSkiptolfIS)(lfAnsweredSkiptolIS)

 

Tflsanodcon;)isoftenrnedinon-Iineinreracclonstodenotesarcasm.

Onthefollowinapages,youwillflndllstedanumberof personality duracteristics.Vlewouldllkeyouto
usechosechxacterisdcstodesaibeyotuself, thatis, wewouldllkeyoutolndicate, onasalefroml to7,
howcrnaofyoueachofchesecharacteristics kHeasedonotleavemychuacserlsslcrmmarked.
Heaselndacehownueofyondrefolhwinachnacwisdciszbefendmyownbeflds

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostdwayscrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7U

50

I9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

memmnm

"momma-enfyoudnfolowhgduactuisdckm
moralmostnevertrue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4U 5U 6L}

fleaseinrlcatehowu-ueofyouthefolowk'chmisdcistm

moralmostnever

true

i{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L) 6L}
"enchantehowaueofyoudrefoflowhuchtacterisdclszlndependent
neveroralmostnever

true
iL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaselndicatehowtrueofyouthefollowingduracterisdcisdympadsedc

true
1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Homelndcatehowtrueofyouthefoilowingcharacterlsticls:floody

neveroralmostnevertrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Plaaseindcatehowu'ueofyouthefollowingcharacteristiciszAsertive

neveroralmostnevertrue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6i.)

always or almostalways true
7L}

always or almost always true
7i.)

Heaehrdacehowuneofyoudnfoflowingcharanakdckduuidvemneedsofothers

neveroralmostnevertrue

1L} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pieaselntlcatehowtrueofyouthefollowingcharacteristicis: Reliable

neveroralmostnevertrue

1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

always or almost always true
7L}

always or almost always true
7L}

Heasehrdatehowcueofyouthefoflowingdunctaisdcisficongpersonaflty

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

Heaseinrlcatehowaueofyoudlefollowingcharactedsdckzuwerstandnx

neveroraimostnevertrue

IL} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseinrlcatehowtrueofyouthefollowingcharacteristiclsflealous

1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindicatehowu'ueofyouthefoliowingdraracterisdclszforceful
moralmostnever

true
'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

Pleaseindcatehow¢ueofyoudrefoflowln¢duancteristicis=€ompassionate

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pieasehrrlcatehown-ueofyouthefollowingdnncterisdciszTruthful

neveroralmostnevertrue

'L} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

51

always or almost always true
7L}

a7lzva}ysorallnostdwaystrue

aiwaysoralmostalwaystrue
7i.)

always or almostalways true
7L}

always or almost always true
7L}

always or almost always true
7L}

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

4|

42

43

45

SilveySaidbyHarketincHasters Pan-3

Heaselndaulnwcueofyoudnfolowhrgduracwbdcicflaveleadssflpabifldu

alumst‘true alwaysal-ostdways
mm mm} 2L} 3L} «J 5L} 6L} 7L)" a"

Heaeinaauhowaueofyouthefoflowmgchlmkdckzfiagumsoodnlnnfeeflna

almost true always _almostalways
m" m '0 2U 3L} 4L} 50 6L} 7L} °' W

Pieaseinrlcasehowcueofyoudrefollowingdu-acterisdcmkaedve

almostnevertrue alw almostalwaystrue
m" IL} 2L} 3L} 4L) 5L} 6L} 7L?”

Pleaselndotehowaueofyoudnfoilowingcharaau'lsdck:wmingtoukeflsks

neveroralmostnevertrue a7lwaysoralmostalwaystrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Heaseinrlcatehowtrueofyouthefollowingcharacteristicls:Warm

never or almost never true always or almost always true
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pleueinrlcatehownueofyouthefoliowingcharacteristicis:Adaptable

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoraimostalwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pleaseindicatehowuueofyouthefollowingcharacteristiciszbominant

neveroralmostnevertrue a7l?:a}ysoralmostalwaystrue

IL} 1L} 3L} f{-} 5L} 6L}
PleaseinrlatehowuueofyouthefoilowlngcharacteristicissTender

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
|{-} 7U

2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindcatehowtrueofyouthefollowingcharacteristicis: Conceited

neveroralmossnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue

' L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Heaseiwcatehowuueofyouthefoflowingcharaaerisdck:w1mn¢tonkeastand
neveroralmostnevertrue aylzgysoralmostdwaystrue

1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindcatehowu'ueofyouthefollowingcharacterlsticls: Lovediidren

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pleasehullcatehown'ueofyouthefollowingcharacteristiciszTactfd

neveroralmostnevertrue a7lwaysoralmostalwaystrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindcatehowa'ueofyouthefollowingcharactuisdcls:Auressive

neveroraimostnevertrue _ alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Heaselndtatehowu-ueofyouthefollowinzcharacteristicis:6entle

neveroralmostnevertrue a7lza}ysoralmostalwaystrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

52

47

48

49

52

53

54

S6

57

59

mwnmmnm Page4

Pleasehdcatehown-ueofyouthefolowhgchtaeteristlciszm

mudmostneveruue

IL} 2L} 3U 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindcatehown'ueofyouthefollowingchanaerisdclszworeilant

neverordmoanever

alwaysoralmostdwystrue
70

true always duostalwaystrue
to 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7i.) °'

Pleaseindicatehowo-ueofyouthefoflowlngcharacterisdciszYielding

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pleaseinrficatehown-ueofyoudiefoilowhrgcharacteflsdcisfllelpfu

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
H.) 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pieaseindicatehowtrueofyouthefoiiowlngcharacteristicis:Atfletic

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoraimostaiwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3U 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L)

Pleaseindicatehowuueofyouthefollowingchancteristiciszcm

never or almost never true always or almost always true
|{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Please lndcate how true of you the following characteristic is: linsysternatic

neveroralmostnever alwaysoralmostalwaystrue

true
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7i }
PleaseintlcatehowuueofyouthefollowingchracterisdcistAnalydcal

never or almost never true always or almost always true
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7U

Pleaseindicatehowtrueofyouthefollowingcharacteristicis:$lry

neveroralmostnevertrue afigysordmostalwaystrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pieaseindcatehowu'ueofyouthefoilowingcharactetisticis: Inefficient

neveroraimostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleasehrdatehowcueofyoudlefoflowingcha’aauisdcistflakededsionsufly

neverordmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostdwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Pleasehulcatehowaueofyoudlefollowlngchu'acterisdcistflauerable
neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue

. IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5U 6L} 7L}
Ploasehtflcatehowtrueofyoudrefoilowlngchracterisdclsflheauical

neveroralmostnevertrue a7lzv-a}ysoralmostalwaystrue

1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindiauhowoueofyouthefoflowhgdraracserisdclsdelf-mffldmt

neveroralmostnevertrue aiwaysoralmostalwaystrue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

53

6|

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

7|

72

73

Suvey Sid by HarketinLMasters

Pleaseindlatehowcueofyouthefoiluhgchmactcistlchtoyal

neveroralmoanever

cue
i{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseirndicatehowcueofyoudtefoiiowhngdraractuisdchllappy

neveroralmostnevercue

IL} 1L} 3L} 4L) 5L} 6L}

Heaeindlatehowcueofyoudwfoflowingcharacaisdchlndivlduallsdc

never or almost never cue

'L} 2L} 3i.) 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you the following characteristic is: Soft-spoken

neveroralmostnevercue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

Please indicate how cue ofyou the following characteristic is: Unpredictable

never or almost never cue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you the following characteristic is: Masculine

never or almost never cue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you the following characteristic is: Guilible

never or almost never cue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5U 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you the following characteristic is: Solemn

never or almost never

cue
'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyouthefoiiowingcharacterlsdciszampedtive

never or almost never cue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyouthefoliowingcharacteristiclstmldlike

neveroralmostnevercue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you the following characteristic is: leable

neveroralmostnevercue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyouthefollowingchuacterlsdcis:Ambltious

neveroralmostnevercue

1L} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

alwaysordmostdwayscue
7L}
aiwaysoraimostdwayscue
7L}
alwa}ysoralmostalwayscue

always or almost always cue
7L}

flagsorflmostalwayscue

a7l2va)ys or almost always cue

a7l2va}ys or almost dways cue

a7i2va}ysoralmostalwayscue

alwa}ysoralmostalwaystrue

a7lzva}ys or almost always cue

always ordmost always cue
7L}

always or almost always cue
7L}

Pleueindicatehowcueofyoudnfoflowingdnraaerhdchbonotusehanhhnguge

neveroralmostnevertrue

|{.} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaselndlcatehowcueofyouthefoilowingchuacteristiciszm

ueveroralmostnevercue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

54

aylzva}ysoralmostalwayscue

always or almost always cue
7L}

74

75

76

77

WE M6

PleaseinrlcnehowuueofyoutlmfolowhchmacmrkticiszActasaleadc

madmoetnever gaysoralmostahvayscue

"7'0 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseinrlmehowcueofyouthefollowingchcactchdclstfenmrine

neveroralmostnever alwaysoralmostalwayscue

"m 2L} 3L} 4L} 50 6L} n.)
Pleaseindratehowcueofyouthefoilowingdraracteristiclszfriendly

neveroralmostnever a7lzv-a}ysoralmostalwayscue

"it; 2L} 3L} 4U 5L} 6L}
Pleasetelitheexperimenterthatyouarefinished.

55

APPENDIX C

DESERT SURVIVAL TASK MATERIALS

56

 

 

Media Interface & Network DesignLAB

 

T hank you for agreeing to participate in this decision-making task and agreeing to
have your session recorded.

You and your partner will be discussing the Desert Survival Problem after which you will
answer some questions about the discussion. In today's world, much decision-making no
longer takes place face-to-face. Sometimes people interact with others by computer,
telephone, or videophone; and sometimes they interact with a computer. In this study,
people will be conducting the decision task electronically.

You will be interacting electronically with a student in another lab. You might be
interested to know that a group of survival experts have come up with the ideal answer to
this problem, using their expertise. Your partner, like yourself, does not have access to
this information. You will be evaluated on the quality of your final rankings. as well as
those of your partner so you are free to convince your partner to change his/her ranking
when you think its incorrect.

You will be discussing all 12 items in order. Due to time constraints, you can't go back to
an item or discuss it more than once, which may make the interaction seem a bit
disjointed. In other words, after you make your comment about an item, simply go on to
the next topic instead of continuing the discussion of that topic. However, you should
remember that your partner will use your comments in making his/her final ranking.
After you have completed interacting on the 12 topics, you will have a chance to offer
any final opinions and thoughts you might have. You will also have a chance to make a
final ranking.

To repeat, you cannot go back and discuss an item more than once. After you've
made your comment about an item, please go on to the next topic.

Use the paper provided to make notes to yourself, then fill out your final rankings. Your
chat will begin when you are both ready.

57

 

 

Media Interface & Network DesignLAB

 

Stranded in the Desert

You are on a reconnaissance mission in the Kuwaiti desert when your jeep crashers,
killing several members of your group. The rest of you are uninjured.

The nearest outpost is forty-five miles east. When you don’t report back for the evening,
others will know you are missing, and know generally, but not specifically, where you
are. The terrain is dry and rugged. A nearby shallow water hole is contaminated by
worms, animal leavings, and dead mice. The temperature will reach 108 degrees, and you
are dressed in lightweight summer clothes with hats and sunglasses. The remaining
survivors are able to salvage the following items.

Rank these items according to how important they are to your survival, with l for the
most important to 12 for the least important.

.—

Magnetic compass

20-by-20 piece of heavy-duty, light blue canvas
Book, Edible Plants of the Desert

Rearview mirror

Large knife

Flashlight (four-battery size)

One jacket per person

One transparent ground cloth (6 feet by 4 feet) per person
Loaded .3 8-caliber pistol

One 2-quart plastic canteen per person, full of water
Accurate map of the area

I Large box of kitchen matches

 

 

58

APPENDIX D

POST-INTERACTION SURVEY

59

IO

Stl'veySaidbyHckedngHasters Ml

Instructions:
{_}-selectONl.YONEChoice [_J-selectALLthatmply.

2
_magnetic compass
_ZO-by-ZO foot of heavy duty. It!!! blue canvass
_book, Plants of the Desert

_hrte
_flashllght (four-battery size)
___oneiacketper plas' undcioth(6ftby4ft)
one cansparent tic gro per person
:loaded .3 8-callber pistol
_one 2-quart plastic canteen per person, full of water
accurate map of the area
:large box of kitchen matches

Directions: Please Indicate how accru'ate each of these Is in describing your experience with your partner.
My partner was highly involved.

Not At All Accurate l{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} S {_} 6L} 7L} Very Accurate

Directions: Please indicate how accurate each of these Is in describing your experience with your partner.
My partner was detached.

Hot At All Accurate I{_} 2{_} 3{_} 4L} 5L} 6{_} 7{_} Very Accurate

Directions: Please Indicate how accurate each of these is in describing your experience with your parmer.
My partner was cooperative.

Not At All Accurate lL} 2L} 3{_} 4L} S{_} 6{_} 7{_} Very Accurate

Directions: Please Indicate how accurate each of these is In describing your experience with your partner.
Hypartnercreatedasenseofdistance.

NotAtAll Accurate 1L} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7{_} Very Accurate

Directions: Heaseindiauhowxacueuchofthesekinduaibingyomexpaiumewithyomparmc.
Mypartnerwasopentomyideas.

NotAtAllAccurate IL} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6{_} 7L} Very Accurate

Directions: Please indicate how accurate each of these is in describi your experience with your partner.
l‘ly partner expressed opinions that tidn’t matter to me.. ng

NotAtAlIAccurate i{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6{_} 7L} Very Accurate

Directions: Please indicate how accurate each of these is in describing your experience with your partner.
My partner showed me different ways to view situations.

Not At All Accurate i{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L} Very Accurate

Directions:Heaseindiauhowacamuchofdimekindescibingyomexpckncewidryompama.
Mypartnerknewagreatdealaboutthetopicwediscussed.

Hot At All Accurate iL} 2{_} 3{_} 4{_} 5{_} 6L} 7L} Very Accurate

Directlons:Pleaseindicatehowaccwateeachoftheseisindescribi yotn'experlencewithyourpartner.
Hypartnerapproachedthetaskwithprofesslonallsm. It!

Not At All Accurate 1L} 2{_} 3L} 4L} S{_} 6L} 7{_} Very Accurate

Directions:Heueindiauhowxacauexhofdnsekmdesaibingyomexpaiencewithyomparch
eouldrelyonmyparmernottomakemyiobmoredifticult.

Not At All Accurate l{_} 2{_} 3L} 4{_} S{_} 6L} 7L} Very Accurate

60

l2

l3

l4

l6

l7

I9

20

2|

22

23

Survey Said by Marketing Masters Page 2

WMWMMMMthMWmWMMW I
amsatisfiedwiththetotalconclbutionmadebymypcmer. .

Not At All Accurate IL} 2{_} 3{ } 4L} 5L} 6L} 7{_} Very Accuaee

Directions: Please indicate how accuate each of these is' In describing you experience with your parmer.
My partner promoted a spirit of cooperation between us.

NotAtAllAccurate II} 2{_} 3t-) 4t-) 5L} 6L} 7L}VeflAccurate

Directions: Please indicate how accurate each of these' Is in describing you experience with your pcmer.
My parmer did not have much influence on me.

NotAtAllAccuratel{} 2{} 3L} 4L} sI_) 6L} 7L}VeryAccuate

Directions: Please indicate howaccuateeachofthese is In desa-iblngyouexperiencewlthyouparmer I
enioyed working with my partner.

Not At All Accurate I{ } 2{_ ) 3L} 4{_ } S{_ } 6L} 7{_ )Very Accurate

Onthefollowingpagesareaseriesofadiectivepairs thatareoftenusedtoevaluatepartners. Eachisonal
to 7 scale, with I representing a high degree of the adiective on the left and 7 representing a high degree
of the adiective on the right. For example, I a very intelligent and 7 a very unintelligent.

Usi the adiectlvepar rs,piease Indicate the number that best reflects you general impressions of YOUR
PAR ER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2,3,4, 5, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
Insure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating your first response.

Very Intelligent I{_} 2{_} 3{ _} 4L} sI_ } 6{__} 7L} Very Unintelllgent

Using the adiective pairs please indicate the number that best reflectsyour general impressions of YOUR
PARTNER' S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
unsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating your first response.

Veryuninforrned l{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} sI_} 6L} 7L}Veryinformed

Using the adlectlve pairs, please indicate the number that best reflects you general Impressions of YOUR
PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, S, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
tissue, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating your first response.

Veryexperienced IL} 2{_} 3L} 4L} m 6{_} 7{_}Veryinexperienced

Using headiective pairs, please indicate the number that best reflectsyour general impressions of YOUR
PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, or 7. If you are neucal or
assure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating your first response.

Vervinexpert IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}V¢W°XW

Using the adiective pairs please indicate the number that best reflects your general impressions of YOUR
PARTNER' S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, S, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
mtsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, Indicating your first response.

Very incompetent l{_ } 2{_} 3L} 4{_ } 5L} 6L) 7L} Very competent

Usin the adiec trvepairs, please Indicate the number that best reflects your general impressions of YOUR
PAR ER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, S, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
me, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating your first response.

Very dominant I{_ ) 2{_} 3L) 4L} 5{_} 6{_} 7L} Very submissive
Using headiective pairs, please Indicate the number that best reflects your general Impressions of YOUR
PARTNER' S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
Imsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very confident I{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} sI_} 7L} Very unconfident

61

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

3f

32

33

34

SuveySaIdbyMarketinLMaster-s' Page 3

theadiective pairs, please iymcndlcaredrenmberthatbesrreflects generallnresslonsonOUR
PAR ER'S DISCUSSION OFTHE ITEMS. Youmayselectl 2, 3, 4, 5, m6, or7. Ifyouareneucalor
Imsue,circlea4. Workquickly, indiatingyouflrstresponse.

Very sluggish I{_ } 2{_ } 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6{_} 7{_} Very energetic
Using the adiectivepar rs,pIease indicate the munber that best reflectsyou generalimpressioru of YOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, S, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very silent I{_ } 2I. I 3L} 4{_} 5I- I 6L} 7I-} Vent talkative
Usingtheadiectivepat rs,easepl indicatethentmberthatbestreflectsyou generalimpressionsonOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 45 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsue, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Vendvnamic I{_} 2{_} 3I-} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7{- )Verypasslve
Using the adiective rs,pIease indicate the number that best reflectsyo ugeneral impressions of YOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsue, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very Irresponsible IL} 2{_} 3{_ I 4{_} 5L} 6L) 7L} Very responsible
UAggNthe thead iective pairs, please indicate the number that best reflects you general impressions of YOUR

R'S iDISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsue, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very sincere I{_ } 2{_ } 3{_} 4{_ } 5{_} 6{_} 7{_} very insincere
Using the adiective pairs, please Indicate the mtmber that best reflects you general impressions of YOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, y5, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
utsue,circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very trustworthy |I- } 2{_} 3{_ } 4{- } 5L} 6L} 7I-} very “WWW"!
UsingNthe adIective epairs, please indicate the number that best reflects you general Impressions of YOUR

PAR ER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 54, 6, or 7. If you are neutral or
Imsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very high character I{_ } 2{_} 3{_} 4{_} S{_ } 6{_} 7{_} Very low character
Using the adiectivepa rs,pIease indicate the number that best reflectsyou general Impressions of YOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsure, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Very ImItIrrIuI II- I 2L} 3L} 4{- I 5L} 6L} 7L) Iackirrt Ir- IantIrr
Using the adiective parsi ,please indicate the number that best reflectsyou general Impressions of YOUR

PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsue, circle a 4. Work quickly, Indicating you first tresponse.

vtry cum IL} 2I- } 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L} very deceptive
pairs, please indicate the number that best reflectsyou impressions of YOUR

Using the adiective general
PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5, your6, or 7. If you are neucal or
Insure, circle a 4. Work quickly, Indicating you first response.

Very tricky I{_} zI I 3L} 4{ I sI I III_I' 7L} very straightfoward
Using the adiective pairs, please indicate the number that best reflectsyo ugeneral impressions of YOUR
PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. You may select I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. If you are neucal or
unsue, circle a 4. Work quickly, indicating you first response.

Varsimnartome I{_) 2{_} 3{_} 4{_} sI_I 6L} 7L} very different fromme

62

35

36

37

38

39

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

wwHfimHm-s Pas-4

Ushgtheadectivepairs, pleasemtflatethemnmrutlmtbmtreflectsyou gmualluiresslousonOUR
PARTNER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. Youmayselectl, 2, 3, 4,5, 6,or7. If youareneutrdor
mum'e,circlea4 .Workmdckly,lndiotingyouflrstresponse.

Tansalotlkeme Doesn'ttlunklikemeat‘
'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5U 6L} 7i.)

“W adIectivepairs, pleaseindtatethenumberthatbestreflectsyou generdlnressionsonOUR
P ER'S DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. Youmayselectl, 2, 3,4, 5,6,or7. lfyouareneucalor
me,chdea4.Workquickly, indlcatingyouflrstresponse.

verymuchllkeme IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} S{_} 6{_} 7Unotlikemeatall
Onthefoilowingpages,youwiflflndlistedantmrberofpmsonantychuactuistics.Wewotddflkeyouto
usethosecharacteristicstodescribeyouparmerithatis,wewotddiilteyoutolndieete,lonascalefrom

”TMWMWIIRWIIOIM of.youpartner Pleasedonotleaveany
characteristicunmarked.

Please Indicate how cue of you parmer the following characteristic is: Defend own beliefs

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
II-l 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Please Indcate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Affectionate

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

lI-l 2{_} 3L} 4{_} 5I-} 6L} 7L}
Pleaselntlcatehowcueofyouparmerthefollowlngcharacteristicls: Conscientious

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6i-) 7L}
Heaseindcauhowmeofyouparmudmfoilowingdnraauisticisflndepmdent

neveroralmostnevercue ' alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7i.)
Pleaseintlcatehowcueofyouparmerthefollowlngcharacteristicls: Sympathetic

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2I.) 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L) 7L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyoupartnerthefollowingcharacterlstic is: Moody

never or almost never true always or almost always cue

IL} 2L} 3I-} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
PleaseintlatehowcueofyouparmerdmfoflowingduracterisdclstAsserdve

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyoupartnerthefollowingcharacteristlcis:Sensitivetoneedsofothers

neverordmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
II.) 20 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7U

Measeindcatehowmmofyouparmerthefoflowingcharacterlsdcis:Reliable

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Masehdatehowcueofyouparmuthefoflowingcharactuisdckdcongpersomflty

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwaystrue
II-) 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}

63

48

49

50

52

53

54

55

56

57

59

6|

SuveydebyMarketingMaseers Pages

Hemebdatehowcuedyoupumudmfoflowhgdmhdchndcstm-ding

neverualmostneveruue alwaysoralmostdwayscue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6U 7U

Pimeindlcatehowcueofyouparmermefoflowingdraracmrisdciszlealou
neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

II.) 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Measehrtlcatehowcueofyouparmerthefoliowingduracterisdcis:Foreehd

neverordmostnevercue :waysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please indicate how true of your partner the following characteristic is: Compassionate

neveroralmostnevercue a7lwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L}
Measeindicatehowcueofyouparmcdrefollowingcharacterlsdcls:Tmmftd

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3I-} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please Indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Has leaderslip abilities

neveroralmostnevercue aylzv-afsoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2{_} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindicate howmreofyouparmerthefollowingcharatteristlcis: Eagertosoothehutfeelings

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4L) 5L} 6L} 7L}
Mmeintflcatehowcueofyouparmcmefoflowingcharacterisdcis:Secedve

neveroralmost nevercue always or almost always cue

II-) 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6I-} 7I_}
Measehrdicatehowcueofyouparmcdrefollowingchuacterisdcis:Winingtotakerisks

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate how true of you partner the following characteristic is: Warm

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7I_}
Pleaseindeetehowcueofyouparmerthefollowingcharacteristicis: Adaptable

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} I{_} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleaselndlcatehowcueofyouparmerthefollowingcharacteristitls: Donunant

neveroralmostnevercue a7lza}ysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindcatehowmreofyouparmerdmfollowhrgcharactmisdcis:1ender

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
1L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7}

Pleaseiudicatehowcueofyoupartnerthefollowingcharacteristicis: Conceited
neveroralmostnevercue a7lwa}ysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4I-} 5L} 6L}

64

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

7i

72

73

74

7S

SuveySaldbyMarketingMaseers Page6

thehdauhowcudyoupumumehflowmgmkdckmmmkeasmd

nevuoralmostneverc'ueu 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} a7lza}ysordmostdwaystrue

Hemeinrlaeehowcueofyoupumcdtefolowmgchmerisdciszuvesciiuen

almost dmost
m" m'i'u 20 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 93'" m"

Pleaseindcatehowclmofyoupuumrdmfoflowingduracteristicis:Tactfd

al
neveror mostnevuct'rz} 2U 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} aways“) oralmostalwayscue

Measemtflatehowcueofyouparmcthefonowingcharaautsdcis:Aanssive
neverordmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I L} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pieaseindcatelmwcueofyoupa-merthefoflowingduractefisticls:6ende
neverordmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleaseindicate howcueofyoupartnerthefollowingcharacteristicis: Conventional

al stnevercue always almostalw
m" m II.I 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L} " mm

Please inacate how cue of your partner the following characteristic Is: Self-reliant

neveroralmostnevercue a7lwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4U 5L} 6L}
Pleaselndicatehownueofyouparmerdmfoflowingdmracterlsdcis:Yielding

neverordmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
I{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} SI-) 6L} 7L}

Pleaseindicatehowcueofyouparmerthefoilowingcharacteristicis: Helpful

neveroralmostnevercue always almostalwayscue
I{_} 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5{-} 6L} 7L} °'

PimehidicatehowcueofyouparmerthefoflowingdnracteristlclszAtldedc
neveroralmostnevercue a7lwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaseindatehowcueofyouparmerthefouowingchaacterisdcls:Cheerful

neveroralmostnevercue dwaysoralmostalwaystrue
II.) 20 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}

Phaseindatehowcueofyouparmcdrefoflowlngdmracterisdck:Unsystemadc
neveroralmostnevercue a7lwa}ysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L}
MeaseintflcaeehowcueofyouparmcthefonowingcharacterisdcktAnalydcal

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5I-} 6L} 7

Measehrtlcatehowmofyouparmerthefollowingdraractetisticis:5hy
neveroralmostnevercue a7lwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L) 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}

65

76

77

78

79

82

83

84

85

86

87

89

SuveySaIdbyMarketingMasters Page7

Measeinrflcatehowcueofyoupumuthefoflowhgchuactclsdcls:lneflldent

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysordmostdwayscue
I{_} 20 3U IL) 5L} 6U 7L)

Mencindiauhowcueofyoupumcdnfoflowmgchcactsisdcis:Makededsiomeuly

never or almost never cpeU 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 5L} :8” or almost always cue

Pleaseindicatehowcueofyoupamrermefonowingtharactclsdciszfiaccable
neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

II.) II.) 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Measeindiatehowcueofyouparmerdmfoflowhtgcharacterisdcis:TheacicaI

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

'L} 2L} 3L} 4i-) 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please Indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic Is: Self-sufficient

never or almost never cue always or almost always cue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic Is: Loyal

never or almost never cue always or almost always cue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Happy

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Individualistic

never or almost never cue a7lwa}ys or almost always cue

I U 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Please Indicate how true ofyou putner the following characteristic is: Soft-spoken
neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please Indicate how cue of you parmer the following characteristic Is: Unpredictable

neveroralmostnevercue dwaysoralmostalwayscue

I L} 2L} 3L} H.) 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueyoupartneryouthefollowlngcharacteristicls: Masculine
neveroralmostnevercue a7lza}ysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L}
Pleaselndicatehowcueofyoupartnerthefollowingcharacteristicis: Gulllble

neveroralmostnevertrue alwaysoralmostalwayscue
I{_} -2{.} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}

PleaseindlcatehowcueofyouparmerdlefoflowingchuacterisdcistSoIenm

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

| L} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Measehrtficatehowcueofyouparmcthefoflowingduractmisdcls:Compecuve
neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostdwayscue

IL} 1L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L}

66

9i

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

101

102

103

104

Mflflmw Past 8

Pleaseindcaeebowcueofyouparmcthefollowlngcharacmristlclssalflte

neveroralmostnevercue ' alwaysoralmostahuyscue
IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6U 7U

Measeindicatehowcueofyouparmcthefollowingcharactcisticis:Ukable

almost
"flammai'u 2{_} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 9'3”" mm

Please indicate how cue ofyou partner the following characteristic is: Ambitious

neverorflmostnevercue a7I\{v-}aysoralmostalwayscue

i{_} 20 3L} 4L} St) 6L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyoupartnerthefollowlngcharacteristicls: Doesnotuseharshlanguage
neveroralmostnevercue' ailzv-aysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5U 6L}
Please indicate how cue of you putner the following characteristic Is: Sincere

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

I{_} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5I-} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Acts as a leader

never or almost nevercue alwaysoralmost alwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4L} 5L} 6L} 7L)
Please indicate how cue of you partner the following characteristic is: Feminine

neveroralmostnevercue alwaysoralmostalwayscue

IL} 2L} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Pleaseindicatehowcueofyouparmerthefoilowingcharacteristicls: Friendly

never or almost nevercue alwaysoralmostdwayscue

I{_} 2{_} 3L} 4{_} 5L} 6L} 7L}
Please indicate what sex you thoudrt you partner was:
{_}Undetermined L}Male L}Female
Wouldyousaythepersonyoudiscussedyourankingswlthwas
Impersonal I{_} 2L} Personal
Wouldyousaythepersonyoutflscussedyourankingswithwas
lnsensitive IL} 2{_} Sensitive
Wouldyousaythepersonyoudscussedyourankingswithwas
Cold I{_} 2{_} Warm
Wouldyousaythepersonyoudiscussedyourankingswithwas
Unsociable I{_} 2L} Sociable
Towhatextentdidyoufeelyougotagoodenoughideaofhowpeopleattheotherendarereacting.
Verygoodidea I{_} 2L}Notgoodatail
To what extent'did you feel you got a "feel” for the person at the other end?
abletogeta"feel" I{_} 2{_} not able togeta"feel"

67

106

107

109

110

112

113

114

116

117

Err-Said by "lieutenant-2 he- 9

TowlratexcenttldyoufeslyouwereuletoformmInmresslonofpcsonalcontactwithyouputnu?

abletoformanimpressionofpusonalcontact'L} 2nie.t}abletofortuanilqiresslonofper'sonalcontact

Towhuextentdidyoufedyouwceabletoasessyoupumusnacdommwlutyousald?

abletoasessreactions IL} 2L}notabletoassessreactions
Towhatextentwastlislikeaface-to—facemeeting?

Alotlikefacetoface IL} 2L}notliltefacetofaceatall
Towhatextentwastlisllkeyouwereinthesameroomwithyoupartner?

Alotlikebeinglnthesameroom IL} 2L)notlikebeinglnthesameroomatalll
Towhatextentdldyoupartnerseem'real'?
veryreal IL} 2{_}notrealatall

How likely' Is it that you would choose to use this system of interaction for a meeting in which you wanted
topermade others of something?

very likely IL} 2L} not likely at all
To wlut extent did you feel you could get to know someone that you met only though this system?
very well I{_} 2L} not at all
You have now finished the experimental part of you participation. The following few questions are designed

togiveusanideaofhowyoufeltaboutthisexperience. Pleasebeashonestand straightforwardasyou
can. Yourcommentswilibeusedtohelpusdestgnbetterexperimentsinthefutue. Thankyou!

Pleasetakecrisdmetolndicateanyquestionsyouhaveaboutdisexperimem. Aretheretiungsyoudonot
urderstand?ThingsthatareuncIeartoyou?

 

 

 

Doyouunderstandtheoverallpurposeoftheexperiment?

LIV-r I-INO
If everything is not clear, please explain what is unclear.

 

 

 

Weflnd that everyonereactsdifferentlytodif'ferent situations. It would helpusconduct futueresearchlf
you would tell us about you feelings and reactions tothe experiment. How did you feel about the
proceedue?Wasitapleasantexperience? Whydidyouanswerasyoudid?

 

 

 

Wasthceanytlingintheexperiment thatyoufound odd, confusing, ordlstublng?
L}Yes LINo

68

 

119

120

mama-42 “810

Hmuewmsomecdngdntyoufo-doddummwasigadwhyddyoulbdkodd?

 

 

 

Pleaseletuknowifyoufelturytlinglntheprocedueaffeceed bebaviordulngtheexperlment.Tlis
wflhelpuinmrovetheproceduelnthefutue. m

 

 

 

flunkyoufuyouhwolvemenufieasetelldmexperimentuthatyouareflmshed.

69

APPENDIX E

EXPERIMENT 1 CONFEDERATE SCRIPT

7O

 

Confederate Script

1. Hello, let’s get started. What is your rank on the magnetic compass?

2. I ranked it 12. What was the reason for your ranking?

3 I ranked the compass 12 because the group should not try to walk out, they should stay

5"

>I.o~

9°

10.
11.

12.
l3.

14.
15.
16.
17.

I8.
19.

20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

with the bus. The heat, lack of water, and shock from the recent trauma means they
probably wouldn’t survive if they ventured out. What was your rank of the blue canvas?
I ranked it 7. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the canvas 7 because it is good for shade and reduced dehydration. What was
your rank of the book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

I ranked it 10. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the book 10 because food is not as serious a problem as water. What was your
rank of the rearwiew mirror?

I ranked it 1. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the mirror 1 because it is the most important communication tool for the desert.
What was your rank of the large knife?

I ranked it 5. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the knife 5 because it can help in the construction of a solar still for fresh
drinking water. What was your rank of the flashlight?

I ranked it 8. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the flashlight 8 because it is good for night signaling. What was your rank of the
jackets?

I ranked them 2. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the jackets 2 because they will help prevent dehydration, one of the most serious
problems in the desert. They will also protect from the cold at night. What was your rank
of the ground cloths?

I ranked them 4. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked it 4 because the transparent ground cloths can be used to make the still. What
was your rank of the pistol?

I ranked it 9. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the pistol 9 because it can be used as an auditory signaling device. What was
your rank of the canteens of water?

I ranked them 3. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the canteens 3 because water is a necessity. If dehydration is reduced, this could
last three days. What was your rank of the map? -
I ranked it 11. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked it 11 because the group should not venture out. What was your rank of the
matches?

I ranked them 6. What was the reason for your ranking?

I ranked the matches 6 because they can help protect from cold at night and are also good
for signaling. That looks like all of the items, do you have anything else you would like
to add?

I don’t have anything else to add. It looks like we’re finished. Thanks.

71

APPENDIX F

EXPERIMENT 2 CONFEDERATE SCRIPTS

72

Script #1 - Male

1.
2.
3

>19

9°

10.
ll.

12.
l3.

14.
15.

l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 4. ?

I ranked it 4 because without the magnetic compass, I would have no use for the
map - which I ranked 3. What did you rank the blue canvas?

Why? I ranked it 6.

I ranked the canvas 6 because I thought the canvas could be important to shelter the
group from the sun. What did you rank the book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 2.

I ranked the book 2 because next to water, I felt food to be the most important item
to my survival. What did you rank the rearview mirror?

Why? I ranked it 12.

I ranked the mirror 12 because I simply could not think of a use for the mirror. What
did you rank the large knife?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 10.

I ranked it 10, I felt it would be hard to find animals to hunt in the desert. And it
would be difficult to kill them with a knife. What did you rank the flashlight?
Why? I ranked it 9.

I ranked it 9. Although I felt the group would spend most of the night sleeping, I
thought there would be times the flashlight would be useful for travel. What did
you rank the jackets?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked them 7.

I ranked them 7 because Jackets would be useful to stay warm at night, and could
possibly be used as shelter from the sun and dust storms. What did you rank the
ground cloths?

Why? I ranked them 5.

I ranked them 5, I felt the ground cloth could protect the group from the hot sand
and would be useful to sleep on at night. What did you rank the pistol?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 8.

I ranked it 8 because it would be difficult to find animals to hunt. But it would be
easier to kill them with a pistol than with a knife. What did you rank the canteens of
water?

Why? I ranked them 1.

I ranked them 1, I felt water to be the most important item to my survival. What did
you rank the map?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 3.

I ranked it 3, without the map, I would never know how to reach the outpost. What
did you rank the matches?

Why? I ranked them 11.

I ranked them 11, it's hot enough in the desert. That looks like all of the items, do
you have anything else you would like to add?

I don't have anything else to add. It looks like we're finished. Thanks.

73

Script #2 — Female

1.
2.
3

>19"

9°

10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

l6.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? i marked it 8.

i marked it 8 because I thought that it might be useful if I needed to eventually get
out of the desert. What did you rank the blue canvas?

Why? I ranked it 2

I ranked the canvas 2 because it is good for shade and reduced dehydration. What
did you rak the book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 9.

I ranked it 9, I thought it might be somewhat useful but not really vital, it might help
if we were force to go in search of food. What did you rank the rearview mirror?
Why? I ranked it 12

I ranked the mirror 12, it did not seam to have any purpose. What did you rank the
large knife?

Why did you rank it that way? I marked it 4

I marked the knife 4. I thought that it might be useful to kill something if we were
attacked. What did you rank the flashlight?

Why?

I ranked the flashlight 6. What did you rank the jackets?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked the jackets 10.

I ranked the jackets 10, I thought that we were already protected from the sun by the
canvas so they were not very useful what did you rank the ground cloths?

Why?

I ranked the cloth 1 1. What was your rank of the pistol?

I ranked the pistol 3, what about you? Why did you rank it that way?

I ranked the pistol 3 because I have no idea what kind of animals live in the Kuwaiti
desert but I did not want to be eaten by them. What did you rank the canteens of
water?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked them 1.

I ranked the canteens l, I thought that it was pretty important to have water in the
desert. What did you rank the map?

Why? I ranked the map 7.

1 ranked the map 7. I thought that it might be good to have if we needed to attempt
to leave the desert. What did you rank the matches?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked the matches 5.

I ranked the matches 5 because I thought that they would be useful to make the
group easy to spot at night. That looks like all of the items, anything else you want
to add?

Looks like we’re finished. Thanks.

74

 

Script #3 - Male

1.
2.
3

3"

>35"

9°

10.
ll.

12.
13.

14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25 .

26.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? My rank on the magnetic compass is 7.

I ranked it 7 because I ranked my map 6. You need a compass to follow a map.
What did you rank the blue canvas?

Why? I ranked it 8.

I ranked it 8 because I got all the necessary items out of the way like the water, gun,
knife , matches, book, the mao and the compass. What did you rank the book,
Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 5

I ranked it 5 because the members of the group really need to know what they can
eat just in case they can’t find any other food. What did you rank the rearview
mirror?

Why? I ranked it 12.

I ranked the mirror 12, I really couldn’t find a use for the mirror except to reflect
light on something. What did you rank the large knife?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 3.

I ranked it a 3 because I felt that you need a knife to survive in the desert. It can be
used to gut animals or chop down plants to eat. What did you rank the flashlight?
Why? I ranked it a 10.

I ranked it 10, I really didn’t think it was that important for survival. What did you
rank the jackets?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked the jackets an 11.

I ranked the jackets an 11. I didn’t think you needed a jacket in 108 degree weather..
What did you rank the ground cloths?

Why? I ranked it a 9.

I ranked it 9, I felt that a ground cloth was not a true necessity because it is only
there for comfort. The soldiers were probably trained to sleep on the ground
without any problems. What did you rank the pistol?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it a 2.

I ranked it 2.Since we are on a reconnaissance mission I felt the one of the most
important keys to survival was a weapon. Especially in hostile territories. What did
you rank the canteens of water?

Why? I ranked them 1.

I ranked it 1 because I felt that water was the most important thing for surviving in
the desert. What did you rank the map?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 6.

I ranked it 6. Because when the group splits up and a person is missing a map is a
good thing to have so you can locate the missing group member. What did you rank
the matches?

Why? I ranked it a 4.

1 ranked it a four because you can use the matches for cooking food or sending out
smoke signals. That looks like all of the items, do you have anything else you would
like to add?

I don’t have anything else to add. It looks like we’re finished. Thanks.

75

 

Script #4 - Female

1.

INN

39.“?

9°

10.
ll.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
l7.

18.
19.

20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.
27.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? i have it at 2.

I ranked it 2 because I thought it could give them some direction on which way is
east and help with finding the people at the outpost. What did you rank the blue
canvas?

Why? I put it at 6, but i was unsure of its use

What did you rank the book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 10

I ranked it 10 because I figured the searchers would find by morning at least
because they know the general direction of the survivors, they wouldn’t starve.
What did you rank the rearview mirror?

Why? I ranked it 12.

I ranked it 12, actually had no idea of the use in this situation. What did you rank
the large knife?

Why did you rank it that way? 1 ranked it 9

I ranked it 9, it can be a useful for plants (food) What did you rank the flashlight?
Why? I ranked it 4

I ranked it 4 because it will get dark soon and the survivors need to be aware of all
the things around them, dangerous snakes, ets... What did you rank the jackets?
Why did you rank it that way? I ranked them at 5

I ranked them at 5 because it give them protection from the sun, but also at night
desert reach freezing temp. and they will need all the warmth they can get since they
are only in lightweight summer clothes What did you rank the ground cloths?
Why? i ranked it 11

I ranked it 11 because i really had no clue, but as i’m chating i realized that it will
help to collect water and deserves a higher ranking. What did you rank the pistol?
Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 8

i ranked the pistol 8 because it can be useful in case of danger. What did you rank
the canteens of water?

Why? I ranked those at 1

I put those at number 1 because dehydration is a major problem in deserts. What did
you rank the map? ‘

Why did you rank it that way? I put that at 3

i put that at 3, this is because i was choosing to venture out but now i see that there
are some major risks by doing so.. What did you rank the matches?

Why? I put those at 7

i put those at 7, if they could by chance salvage anything that could burn from the
wreck they will need the heat of a fire at night.

That looks like all of the items, do you have anything else you would like to add?
i think i’m set to make my final rankings. thank you

76

 

Script #5 — Male

.V'PP’IQI"

NP‘

9°

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.

l6.
17.
18.

19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it nine.

1 rande it 9, more improtant than other things. What did you rank the blue canvas?
Why? 1 ranked it 10.

10, once again it did not seem very useful for this situation. What did you rank the
book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I put the book 8.

I put it at 8. I seemed somewhat helpful in the desert. What did you rank the
rearview mirror?

Why? I ranked it 4

I ranked it 4, because i could use it to reflect the light to signial for help. What did
you rank the large knife?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 2

I ranked the knife 2, for protection. What did you rank the flashlight?

Why? I ranked it 7.

I ranked it 7, it might help ,but not necessary for survival. What did you rank the
jackets?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 12.

I ranked the jackets 12, because it is 108 who needs a jacket. What did you rank the
ground cloths?

Why? I ranked it 11, no real need for it.

What did you rank the pistol?

I ranked the pistol 5, you never know when you need protection. What did you rank
the canteens of water?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked them first of course.

water is essential for life if you don’t have enough you will die. What did you rank
the map?

Why? I ranked it 6.

I ranked it 6, the map would direct you. What did you rank the matches?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked them 3

I ranked the matches 3 because it could be used to make a fire for signaling or
heating food. That looks like all of the items, do you have anything else you would
like to add?

I don’t have anything else to add. It looks like we’re finished. Thanks

77

Script #6 - Female

9:599“?

>I9~

9°

10.

ll.
12.
13.

I4.
15.

16.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

Hi, let’s start. What did you rank the magnetic compass?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked it 4.

I ranked it 4 so they could walk to east. What did you rank the blue canvas?
Why? I ranked 9..

I ranked it 9, If they were walking east, they could have the canvas for the night or
to rest. What did you rank the book, Edible Plants of the Desert?

Why did you rank it that way? I put 10.

I put it 10 because Ijust didn,t that was too important because other people were
going to look for them soon. What did you rank the rearview mirror?

why did you rank it that way? I ranked 1

I ranked 1 because the sun could shine the mirror and they could be spotted. What
did you rank the large knife?

I ranked the knife 11 for the because I thought the pistol would be more important.
What about you?

What did you rank the flashlight?

Why? I ranked it 2

1 ranked it 2 because they could use the light at night and the other people could
spot them at night.What did you rank the jackets?

why? I ranked the jacket 8

I ranked the jacket 8 for the night and it could be useful from the sun.What did you
rank the ground cloths?

Why did you rank it that way? I ranked the ground cloth 7 because the sand is hot
during the day..

What did you rank the pistol?

why?

I ranked it 6 for and desert animals. What did you rank the canteens of water?
why did you rank it that way?

I ranked it 3 for because water helps prevent dehydration. What did you rank the
map?

why?

I ranked the map 12 because they knew where they are. What did you rank the
matches?

why did you rank it that way?

I ranked it 5 because they could burn the dead mice and animal leavings for heat at
night. That looks like all of the items, do you have anything else you would like to
add?

I think we are done. Thanks.

78

References

79

References

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex Stereotypes and Implicit
Personality Theory: Toward a Cognitive-Social Psychological
Conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5(2), 219-248.

Baron, R., & Byrne, D. (1987). Social Psychology: Understanding Human
Interaction. (5 ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bem, S. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventory Manual. Redwood City, CA: Mind
Garden.

Bern, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual
inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fesek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A
theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: VIflnthrop.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. J. (1977). Status
characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.

Bergvall, V. L., Bing, J. M., & Freed, A. F. (1996). Rethinking language and
gender research: theory and practice. New York: Longman.

Berscheid, E. (1993). Forward. In A. Beall & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology
of gender. New York: Guilford Press.

Blumenfeld, E., ’& Alpem, L. (1986). The Smile Connection: How to use humor in
dealing with people. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hill, Inc.

Booth-Butterfield, 8., & Geatz, L. (1992). The Cue Utilization Effects Model.
Communication Quarterly, 40(2), 138-148.

Bumgardner, J. Palace Avatar Question. [Online] Available email:
simontri@pilot.msu.edu from jbum@jbum.com, March 30, 1998.

 

 

80

Bumgardner, J. Re: Palace Avatar Question. [Online] Available email:
simontri@pilot.msu.edu from flaqujbumcom, March 31, 1998.

 

 

Burgoon, J., Buller, D., & Woodall, W. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The
Unspoken Dialogue: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Chaiken, S., & A.H., E. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of
persuasion: the role of communicator salience. Joumal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(2), 241-256.

Coates, J. (1993). Women, Men and Language: A sociolinguistic account of
gender differences in language. (Second ed.). London & New York:
Longman.

Cody, M., Seiter, J., & Montagne-Miller, Y. (1995). Men and Women in the
Market Place. In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, Power and
Communication in Human Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Collins-Jarvis, L. (1995). Explaining gender group discrimination in computer-
mediated communication: A social identity approach. Paper presented at
the The Organization for the Study of Communication, Language and
Gender, Minneapolis, MN.

Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic Language: A new variety of English.
In S. C. Herring (Ed), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic,
Social and Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp. 13-28). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

CommerceNet/Nielsen. (1998). Internet Demographic Survey (June). Available:
http://www.commerce.net.

 

Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Functional comparisons of face-to-face and
computer—mediated decision making interactions. In S. C. Herring (Ed.),
Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross Cultural

81

Perspectives (pp. 65-80). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of Successful Performance on
Sex-Linked Tasks: What is Skill for the Male is Luck for the Female.
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80-85.

December, J. (1993, July 8). Characteristics of Oral Culture in Discourse on the
Net. Paper presented at the Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and
Composition, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Dietrich, D. (1997). (Re)-Fashioning the Techno-Erotic Woman: Gender and
Textuality in the Cybercultural Matrix. In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual Culture:
Identity and Communication in Cybersociety. London: Sage Publications.

Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender and the Social Order.
New York: Yale University Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

Ferris, S. P. (1996). Women on-line: cultural and relational aspects of women's
communication in on-Iine discussion groups. Interpersonal Computing and
Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 4(3-4), 29-40.

Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and Double Standards for Competence. In C.
Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, Interaction, and Inequality. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Frable, D., & Bem, S. (1985). If you are gender schematic, all members of the
opposite sex look alike. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology,
49(2), 459-468.

Fulton, M. (1992). Gender and Double Standards for Competence. In C.
Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, Interaction, and Inequality. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Graphic, V., & Usability Center's (GVU). . WWW User Survey. Available:
http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/.

 

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: Harper
Collins Publishers.

82

Hall, J. (1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and
Expressive Style. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Harrison, R. P. (1975). Beyond Words: an introduction to nonverbal
communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hellman, M. E. (1995). Sex Stereotypes and Their Effects in the Workplace:
What we know and what we don't know. Joumal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 10(6), 3-26.

Herring, S. C. (1994, June 27). Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated
Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier. Paper
presented at the American Library Association annual convention, Miami.
[Online] Available http:I/www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt.

Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C.
Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and
Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81-106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

Hoffman, K. E. (1998). Women's sites benefit as face of the web changes.
Internet World(September 28).

Ichheiser, G. (1970). Appearances and Realities; Misunderstanding in Human
Relations: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

Kalbfleisch, P., & Cody, M. (1995). Gender, Power, and Communication in
Human Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Kaplan, N., Farrell, E. (1994). Weavers of Webs: A Portrait of Young Women on
the Internet. Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(3). [On-line]
Available httpzl/www.lib.ncsu.edulstacks/elejvc/aejvc-v2n03-kaplan-
weavers.txt.

Key, M. R. (1975). Male / Female Language. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow
Press, Inc.

83

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of
computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-
1 134.

Kramarae, C., & Taylor, H. J. (1993). Women and Men on Electronic Netorks: A
conversation or a monologue? In H. J. Taylor, C. Kramarae, & M. Ebben
(Eds.), Women, Information Technology, and Scholarship . Urbana, IL:
Women, Information Technology, and Scholarship Colloquium Center for
Advanced Study.

Lafferty, J. C., & Eady, P. M. (1974). The desert survival problem . Plymouth,
Michigan: Experimental Learning Methods.

LaFrance, M., & Banaji, M. (1992). Toward a reconsideration of the gender-
emotion relationship. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and Social Behavior
(Vol. 14, ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper Colophon
Books.

Leet-Pellegrini, H. (1979). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and
expertise. In H. Giles, W. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives: Pergamon Press.

Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., 8. Hepburn, C. (1980a). Sex Stereotypes
and Social Judgment. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(5), 821-831.

Locksley, A., & Colten, M. (1979). Psychological androgyny: a case of mistaken
identity? Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 1017-1031.

Locksley, A., Ortiz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980b). Social Categorization and
Discriminatory Behavior: Extinguishing the Minimal Intergroup
Discrimination Effect. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),
773-783.

Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-Schemas and
Gender. Jounal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 38-50.

84

McCroskey, J., Hamilton, P., & Weiner, A. (1974). The effect of interaction
behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction.
Human Communication Research, 1, 42-52.

Miller, G., & McReynolds, M. (1973). Male Chauvinism and Source Competence:
A Research Note. Speech Monographs, 40, 154-155.

Molm, L., & Hedley, M. (1992). Gender, Power, and Social Exchange. In C.
Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, Interaction, and Inequality. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Pallak, S., Murroni, E., Koch, J. (1983). Communicator attractiveness and
expertise, emotional versus rational appeals, and persuasion: A heuristic
versus systematic processing interpretation. Social Cognition, 2(2), 122-
141.

Pedhazur, E., & Tetenbaum, T. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical
and methodological critique. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(6), 996-1016.

Puddifoot, J. E. (1996). The persuasive effects of a real and complex
communication. The Joumal of Social Psychology, 136(4), 447-459.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: Cambridge University
Press.

Reid, E. M. (1994). Virtual Worlds: Culture and Imagination. In S. Jones (Ed.),
CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp.
164-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rodino, M. (1997). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its
relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Joumal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 3(3).

Roen, D., Peguesse, C., 8. Abordonado, V. (1995). Gender and language
variation in written communication. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Composing Social
Identity in Written Language . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

85

 

Roulis, E. (1995). Gendered voice in composing, gendered voice in evaluating:
gender and the assessment of writing quality. In D. Rubin (Ed),
Composing Social Identity in Written Language . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive Effects With and Of Computer Technology.
Communication Research, 17(1), 26-44.

Siero, F., & Doosje, B. (1993). Attitude change following persuasive
communication: Integrating Social Judgement Theory and the Elaboration
Likelihood Model. European Joumal of Social Psychology, 23(541-554).

Snizek, W. E., & Neil, C. C. (1992). Job Characteristics, Gender Stereotypes and
Perceived Gender Discrimination in the Workplace. Organization Studies,
13(3), 403-427.

Spence, J. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of
masculinity and femininity. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 59-
95.

Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1981). Androgyny versus gender schema: A
comment on Bem's Gender Schema theory. Psychological Review, 88(4),
365-368.

Spender, D. (1996). Nattering on the Net Women, Power and Cyberspace.
Australia: Spinifex Press.

Talley, M., & Richmond, V. (1980). The relationship between psychological
gender orientation and communicator style. Human Communication
Research, 6(4), 326-338.

Tannen, D. (1986). You just don 't understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1975). Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance.
Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Turkle, S. (1995). Identity in the Age of the lntemet; Life on the Screen. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

86

Unger, R. K. (1978). The Politics of Gender: A Review of Relevant Literature. In
J. A. Sherman & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), The Psychology of Women: Future
Directions in Research (pp. 461-517). New York: Psychological
Dimensions, Inc.

Watson, N. (1997). Why We Argue about Virtual Community: A Case Study of
the Phish.Net Fan Community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity
and Communication in Cybersociety. London: Sage Publications.

We, G. (1994). Cross-gender communication in cyberspace. Arachnet Electronic
Journal on Virtual Culture, 2(3). [Online] Available
httpzllwww.lib.ncsu.edulstacks/e/ejvclaejvc-VZn03-we-crossgender.txt.

Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat.
In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic,
Social and Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp. 47-64). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wltmer, D., & Katzrnan, S. (1997). On-Line Smiles: Does Gender Make a
Difference in the Use of Graphic Accents? Jouma/ of Computer Mediated
Communication, 2(4).

Wolfinger, N., & Rabow, J. (1997). The Different Voices of Gender: Social
Recognition. Crisp, 2(6), 50-65.

Yates, S. (1997). Gender, identity and CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted
Leaming, 13, 281-290.

Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing.
In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic,
Social and Cross Cultural Perspectives (pp. 29-46). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

87

 

"‘lllllllllllllllr