Personality Online 1
Running head: ONLINE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
Fantasy Friends: Personality Assessment in Online Worlds
Daniel Catterson
Psychology Departmental Honors Thesis
The University of Texas at Austin
December 2007
Faculty Advisors:
Drs. Samuel D. Gosling & Art Markman
Personality Online 2
Abstract
How is the self is perceived from the outside? Friends, family members, and even
strangers can pick up on personality cues an individual intentionally and unintentionally leaves
behind. The way we dress, our music choices, the way we talk, and even our home and office
environments can all serve as cues that express our personality to others. As modern technology
changes the way we interact, personality researchers are beginning to look at how people express
themselves in online environments. One such environment is in the popular game World of
Warcraft. This massive, dynamic online environment provides players with a unique opportunity
to communicate and interact with others. As the average Warcraft player spends over 20 hours a
week in this environment, friendships exclusive to the game often form. The current study
examines these online interactions to see if people convey an accurate sense of their personality
through online gaming. Both online and real-life friends show high consensus for several
personality characteristics, suggesting that players of online games present similar cues in
different environments. Though not every personality characteristic is salient in an online setting,
the results indicate that online in-game interactions do result in behavioral residues that can be
used to make accurate personality assessments. Furthermore, overall online informant ratings
correlate higher with self-reported idealized characteristics, suggesting that people engage in
self-enhancing behaviors online.
Personality Online 3
Fantasy Friends: Personality Assessment in Online Worlds
Jim is tired. For the past few nights, he has stayed up well past midnight hanging out with
a new set of friends. He really likes these people, and is beginning to feel like part of the group.
After work, he’ll usually come home, have a quick dinner, and sit at his computer. Jim connects
to the Internet, starts up a popular online game, and instantly notices that several of his new
friends are online. He types in a few words of salutations, and begins playing with them.
It may seem strange that, while Jim is likely to have no contact with these people outside
of the game, he calls them his friends. His involvement and commitment to this online group
may seem surprising. In fact, millions of people worldwide play online games and form online
friendships and relationships. But how deep are these relationships? Does Jim really know any of
his online friends well? Do Jim’s online friends know him as well as his real friends? As his coworkers? What does it mean to “know” Jim? Can an individual ever really be defined or
understood?
These age-old philosophical and psychological questions are hardly specific to
personality in an online setting, and have historically challenged humans with the difficult task
of identifying and defining the self. In order to better understand how people express themselves
in online environments, however, researchers must first examine what personality is (and if it
exists) and how it can be accurately measured.
This paper will first examine the previous literature to explain how personality can be
accurately defined, measured and assessed. The paper will then discuss how the Internet has
changed the ways in which humans interact, and how online games present new questions for
personality researchers. Finally, a brief overview of World of Warcraft will both familiarize
readers with the details of the online game examined in the current study.
Personality Online 4
Literature Review
What is Personality?
Trait Theory
While few psychologists believe that you can ever completely know a person, the most
generally accepted method of initially understanding a person is through broad, comparative
traits. Traits are descriptive adjectives that people use to describe the personalities of others. If
you were to meet someone at a party, and later reflect that he was a shy, intelligent, witty, and
kind person, you would be defining them through traits. In one of the earliest studies on traits,
Gordon Allport (1936) searched through a dictionary to compose a list of 4,500 unique
adjectives that could be used to describe human personality. This painstaking and detailed
research not only provided the first framework for personality psychologists to use, but also
provided support for the idea that traits play a large role in the general population thinks about
other people. A study by Fiske & Cox (1979) confirmed this idea by showing that people
naturally use traits when asked to describe someone.
A significant body of research has shown that traits serve to explain and define
differences among individuals over long periods of time (Conley, 1985). This finding supports
the idea that traits are accurate and reliable measures of an individual’s personality. Furthermore,
Epstein (1979) shows that individual personality traits can be used to accurately predict related
behavior. If you have a friend who you know to be extroverted, you can be confident in your
prediction that she will not hide in a corner and will have no hesitation talking with strangers at a
large party. Traits are particularly valuable for use in personality research because they are
nonconditional and comparative (McAdams, 1995). Someone who is highly agreeable is likely to
both be agreeable in many settings and more agreeable than an average person.
Personality Online 5
Criticisms of trait theory
The natural tendency of the lay population to use traits as a means of description,
however, does not mean it is the only way to understand a person. An individual’s goals,
motivations, personal history, and experiences are all important and necessary concepts to
understand when trying to define a person (McAdams, 1995).
Some psychologists, such as Nisbett and Ross (1980), argue that traits are merely
constructs created by observers themselves, and not truly part of the individual. They argue that a
description of an individual’s traits are little more than linguistic conveniences, and serve to
reveal more about the observer and situation than about the subject’s behavior and personality.
Other researchers criticize trait theorists for relying too heavily on mere adjectives to define
complex individuals, while others fear that using traits to categorize individuals creates negative
labels similar to those used by clinical psychologists (McAdams, 1995). A label of “introverted”
for example, connotes many negative stereotypes or ideas (such as “cold”, “distant”, or “socially
awkward”) that may not apply to any one particular individual.
Furthermore, a description of an individual based on traits largely ignores conditional
elements of personality. An individual may be highly introverted sometimes (such as when
meeting new people), but highly extroverted at others (like when in the company of close
friends). Though few researchers argue that traits serve as a complete description of an
individual’s personality, the observation that individual personalities change depending on
specific situations and contexts troubled some psychologists and sparked the biggest debate in
the history of personality psychology.
The person-situation debate
Personality Online 6
In 1968, a researcher named Walter Mischel boldly declared that internal personality
characteristics did not exist, and could not accurately predict future behavior. Behavior, Mischel
concluded, was more influenced by specific, external situations than it was by individual
personality characteristics (Mischel, 1968).
This argument caught personality researchers completely off-guard. Traditionally more
concerned with developing self-reports tests, personality researchers were unable to immediately
respond to Mischel and other so-called “situationists” psychologists (Funder, 1999). In fact, it
took several decades for personality psychologists to address Mischel’s criticisms. Part of the
reason it took so long was that personality psychology entered a period of upheaval – many
psychologists believed personality was a “myth”, as did journal editors who often refused to
publish personality research (Funder, 1999). However, many of Mischel’s complaints, such as
the idea personality traits were not stable across the lifespan, required time-intensive longitudinal
studies to refute.
Slowly, the field began to reorganize, and many of the issues and questions Mischel
raised were addressed (Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Personality, it seemed, could be used to predict
an individual’s future behavior, even over long periods of time (Epstein, 1979; Conley, 1985).
One theory in particular helped to silence the situationists – the Big Five.
The Big Five
In 1981, Lew Goldberg began to research ways of more precisely codifying personality
assessment. In many ways, his research mirrored the work of Allport in the 1939s. Goldberg
used a factor analysis method to examine the total set of English language adjectives, and found
that most traits fell under only five common areas of human personality – Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, E motional Stability (sometimes called Neuroticism), and
Personality Online 7
Openness to experience (sometimes called Culture). Goldberg’s work, now commonly known as
the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, served as the first accepted and scientifically
recognized taxonomy of personality measurement.
The Big Five is by no means exhaustive. Psychologists continue to debate about its
merits and validity as a means of personality assessment (Block, 1995), or whether to expand it
to encompass a broader set of traits (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Nevertheless, the FFM helped
to focus and redirect personality psychology, and is the primary model used in research today.
Whereas previous research had often focused on developing redundant scales, the Big Five
provided a framework for psychologists to design scales that examine all the broad dimensions
of personality. Today, there are several different approaches to the FFM with their own merits
and limitations, such as the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the Big Five Inventory (John
& Srivastava, 1999) for personality researchers to choose from.
Goldberg’s research helped to focus and revitalize personality psychology. Most
psychologists now recognize that personality is an interaction between enduring individual
characteristics, and external situations (McAdams, 2000). Traits, it seems, can be used as an
efficient and reliable way to assess an individual.
How to measure personality?
The FFM of personality only serves to stable characteristics that help to distinguish one
individual from another. It does not provide a means of actually measuring those characteristics.
The more information on an individual’s personality a researcher can secure from different
sources the better. These sources may include questionnaires filled out by individuals, their
peers, or their family, physiological measurements, ability tests, and behavioral measurements
(Briggs, 1993). However, many of these methods require considerable time and resources to
Personality Online 8
carry out. Furthermore, animal research shows that there can be considerable variance in
behavioral measures – objectivity and accuracy is not guaranteed just because a behavior is
visible (Vazire, 2007a). For example, one judge’s definition of an interruption may differ from
another’s.
Self-reports
Due largely to the convenience, research in personality assessment is largely done
through self-report questionnaires (Vazire, 2006). Such methods are popular for several reasons.
Primarily, it is generally assumed that an individual is the best source of information on his or
her self. As an individual has had his entire life to observe his or her behavior and has unique
access to a wide range of insights, he or she can base personality assessments on such
knowledge. Only you know whether you’re acting reserved because you are generally a shy
person, or just don’t happen to trust a particular person.
Furthermore, no one spends as much time with you as yourself. Even those who spend a
large amount of time with an individual often only interact with him or her in a limited number
of specific environments and situations. Co-workers may have a different perception of an
individual than the individual’s family who might have a different perspective than the
individual’s friends. Even a marriage partner only spends a part of his or her day with you. Only
the individual sees how he or she behaves across multiple situations and environments.
However, it is important to note that self-reports by no means are guaranteed to be the
“gold-standard” of an individual’s personality. In fact, personality psychology suffers from the
lack of a clear criterion by which to make judgments (Funder, 1999). Individuals may not know
what a particular question means, they may not be interested in the survey and rush through it,
carelessly giving answers, or they may have a faulty view of their self (Briggs, 1993).
Personality Online 9
Many of these limitations are non-unique to personality, and plague all psychological
research. Yet the question of whether an individual can really offer an accurate assessment of the
self is a valid concern largely because personality research relies so heavily on self-reports to
support its theories (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). It would be a mistake to simply assume that an
individual has an accurate view of his personality. For though an individual does have access to
many insights about his or her personality that an observer does not, the observer has the
advantage of having an unbiased outside view (McAdams, 1995). While I may see myself as
clever and witty, others may see me as obnoxious and loud.
Some research supports the concern that individuals may not be the best judges of their
personality. For example, individuals tend to represent themselves in a positive light (Kenny,
1994). When asked to fill out a psychological survey, individuals highlight their positive
attributes and downplay their negative characteristics. While this urge may be a normal human
way to maintain a healthy self-image as Taylor & Brown (1988) suggest, it unfortunately
obfuscates the process of forming an accurate perception of the self.
Peer-reports
To increase accuracy of personality assessment, peer-reports are often used. An
individual is asked to nominate several people, usually from different areas of their life, who
knows them well. These informants then are asked to rate the individual (called the target) based
on their interactions. This informant rating can be compared to the self-rating as a way of
assessing how well an individual is known by others. Informants often provide reliable data on
an individual’s personality, because they are more likely to view the individual in an unbiased,
objective way (McAdams, 1995). While an individual might want to present himself in a positive
Personality Online 10
light, informants may be less likely to do so as they are less concerned with maintaining the
individual’s reputation.
Peer-reports help researchers to have a broad, more complete view of an individual’s
personality. While there is only one self, there are potentially many informants. One informant
may see the participant’s attention to duty and detail in a working environment, while the other
sees the participant’s sociability while going out for drinks. As personality characteristics are
generally stable across situations, it is likely that the two informants will often agree. Regardless,
each additional informant provides another perspective, and helps researchers achieve a more
reliable assessment of an individual.
However, peers see the self in limited situations – there is no one who spends more time
with an individual than that individual. Thus, someone who sees an individual in a stifling work
environment may rate him or her as someone who is very introverted, while outside of that
environment he or she is quite the opposite. Ideally, researchers would be able to obtain many
peer-reports from every aspect of an individual’s life. However, it is virtually impossible for
researchers to secure information from every possible source. Resources for researchers are often
limited, and informants are only so willing to comply with the demands of researchers.
The difficulties associated with obtaining informant reports ultimately do not outweigh
the benefits to personality research. In order to have a more accurate, more complete view of the
self, it is important to have both self-ratings and observer-ratings of an individual’s personality
(Kenny, 1994; McAdams, 1995; Briggs, 1993).
New forms of Personality Measurement.
Subject fatigue is a common problem for participants when completing self- and otherreport questionnaires. Traditional assessments of the Big-Five Inventory, such as the NEO-PI-R
Personality Online 11
take subjects approximately 45 minutes to complete, while shorter instruments, such as the BigFive Inventory still take up to 15 minutes to complete (John & Srivastava, 1999). Such time
makes recruitment much more difficult for researchers, and imposes strict guidelines for
participants interested in the study. As such, many researchers forgo scientifically validated
personality scales in their research (Gosling et. al, 2003)
The TIPI
To address this problem, Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003) developed and evaluated
a 10-item inventory based on several of the most popular traditional personality measurements.
Rather than ask roundabout questions regarding extraversion or openness, the Ten-Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI) extends a considerable body of previous research (which suggests
single-item measures can be as effective at assessing personality as multi-item scales) to justify
asking subjects direct questions about their personality. Though short, the TIPI was shown to be
reliable measurement of personality in accordance with other five-factor model measurements in
self, observer, and peer reports. The TIPI has also been shown to have adequate test-retest
reliability, and can predict future behavior accurately (Gosling et. al, 2003). While the authors
don’t recommend the TIPI replace other, more detailed and nuanced multiple-item inventories, it
can be an effective way to measure personality when longer tests would be impractical or
impossible.
Online Personality Reports
Another way to reduce subject fatigue is through online self and other questionnaires.
While having a subject fill out a questionnaire in a lab is relatively easy, getting the subject’s
family members or friends to fill out a questionnaire as part of an informant report can be very
difficult. Such individuals are rarely willing or able to come into the lab, and the costs associated
Personality Online 12
with mailing out questionnaires (and paying for the return postage) are often too great for
researchers to incur. As a reflection of this difficulty, such, an analysis of all personality research
in the 2003 issues of Journal of Research in Personality revealed that 70% of published
experiments only used self-reports (Vazire, 2006). In a comparison of online and paper methods
of data collection, Gosling et. al (2004) found that online methods are just as reliable as paper
methods. While online tests might be exploited by people on the Internet less interested in
assisting, and more interested in disrupting research, Buchanan, Johnson, & Goldberg (2005)
found in their efforts to develop and assess an online version of a Five-Factor Personality
Inventory that with careful inspection of data, researchers can effectively screen and eliminate
fictitious responses. Furthermore, when informant reports are offered online, response rates are
much higher than when informants are asked to fill out paper tests. Online data collection can be
an effective way to reduce the work for subjects, informants, and researchers (Vazire, 2006).
How can personality be assessed accurately?
The issue of accuracy in personality research is one that is directly tied to measurement.
While other fields, such as cognitive or Neuropsychology, use objective measures of clearly
defined processes and systems to conduct research, personality psychologists must often resort to
subjective measurements of theoretical constructs. Dopamine and reaction times to stimuli can
be measured with astonishing precision, yet there is no definitive way to measure aspects of an
individual’s personality.
One of the problems researchers face in measuring personality is the lack of a clear
criterion for accuracy. David Funder fully realizes this problem, and addresses the difficulties in
achieving accuracy in personality research in his book Personality Judgment: A Realistic
Approach to Person Perception (1999). Funder explains his Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM),
Personality Online 13
which states that in order to achieve accuracy in personality research, four levels of perception
on the part of the person assessing an individual’s personality must be achieved.
Relevance
Personality is expressed only through behaviors – if you don’t ever show signs of being
extraverted, you simply cannot call yourself an extravert. As such, in order for accuracy in
personality research to be exist, an individual’s behaviors must be relevant to some personality
trait. This is difficult to achieve, for several reasons. Primarily, multiple traits often influence one
behavior. Someone might be very sociable at a party both because they are an extravert and open
to new experiences. To say that every behavior is linked to a specific trait would be like saying
every physical characteristic is linked to a specific gene.
However, many traits may only be revealed in specific, rare behaviors. For example, in
our relatively safe and secure society, many people don’t get a chance to show whether or not
they are courageous. Some traits, then, may never be expressed because an individual hasn’t had
the opportunity to do so.
Availability
Once the relevance of behaviors has been established, those behaviors must be made
public others in order for accurate personality perception to occur. Covert behaviors, such as
thoughts and feelings, are only accessible to the individual, and limit the ability for others to
make accurate assessments. Such behaviors could also be so subtle, such as an increased heart
rate or profuse sweating, that most people fail to notice them.
Behaviors dependent on a specific situation can also limit the availability of relevant
behaviors. As there are very few, if any, people who have access to every individual’s
environment, it is likely that there will be some situations in which a particular trait is expressed
Personality Online 14
through some behavior that goes undetected. Other situations do not allow for the expression of
some traits. For example, it might be hard to measure the openness to new experiences of a coworker because the office presents little opportunities for related behaviors to be expressed. As
such, the more diverse and unconstrained situations shared between individuals, the more
available relevant behaviors will be.
Detection
No matter how many relevant cues are made available, the person making personality
assessments still must detect them. Personality assessment requires both automatic and highorder cognition (Funder, 1999). While the automatic, unconscious perceptions we make are
rarely disrupted, environmental distractions can greatly reduce an individual’s ability to detect
relevant behavioral cues. As such, it is not the mundane and routine interactions, but during rare
and vivid interactions between people that facilitate high levels of detection. Furthermore,
general inattentiveness on the part of the judge can cause many cues to be ignored. Even
attentive judges might miss out on certain cues, simply because they are overwhelmed with so
many other stronger personality cues.
Utilization
Even if a judge perceives the relevant behavior, how he or she utilizes the cue can affect
the accuracy of personality assessment. Judges often have their own set of biases, which often
influence their perceptions of others. Personality research shows that people tend to view others
as they see themselves; someone who is more conscientious may be more inclined to see others
as such than a truly objective observer, if such a person were to exist (Kenny, 1994).
Personality Online 15
Certain biases, however, can often result in higher assessment accuracy. Specifically
stereotypes about gender, race, and age often contain valid generalizations that, in concert with
relevant cues, can enhance a judge’s accuracy (Funder, 1999; Gosling, et. al, 2002).
Implications of the RAM
Accuracy, argues Funder, is an interaction between the preceding four levels of
personality perception. This interaction can be expressed as a formula, where accuracy equals the
product of each level, which is expressed as a number between 0 and 1. At most, accuracy can be
a 1 – this requires perfect performance on each of the four levels. Accordingly, if any of the four
levels rates a 0, then accuracy itself is 0.
The value of the RAM comes not from its formula (which is meant more for illustrative
purposes), but from the order it brings to a rather chaotic field. By breaking down personality
perception into four distinct steps, researchers can isolate likely areas of inaccuracy.
Furthermore, the model helps illustrate the importance of both self- and other-reports to accurate
personality perception.
Beyond accuracy.
The Social Relations Model
In addition to providing more information about an individual, peer-reports give
researchers insight into how individuals are perceived by others. In his book, Interpersonal
Perception, David Kenny (1994) presents a detailed model of this type of personality
assessment. His Social Relations Model (SRM) uses a round-robin design to measure not only
how an individual sees him or herself, but also how her or she sees others and how others see
him or her. In the round-robin design, a group of at least five people rate themselves and each of
Personality Online 16
the other four members in the group. From these data, researchers can take a more complex look
at interpersonal perception.
This methodology helps address the problem of subjects who are dishonest, either due to
innocent ignorance or a malicious desire to ruin the data, when filling out self-assessment
questionnaires. If I have a misconstrued sense of self, the round-robin design will show that
everyone is in consensus about how I really am. They can also see if one subject’s selfperception for a particular trait influences the way they see others. If I see myself as lazy, for
example, I may be more likely to rate others as lazy than someone who does not see himself as
lazy.
Consensus between observers
The SRM is not only important because it explains how people see themselves and each
other, but also gives a sense of whether these impressions are shared by others (Kenny, 1994).
Consensus is the overlap between two or more different judges (Figure 1). Examining the
consensus between observers can help researchers determine the accuracy of the impressions.
For example, if an individual perceives him or herself as emotionally stable, but a single
observer disagrees, there is no clear way to determine which judge is more accurate. In fact, it is
likely that both judges are accurate in some ways. If multiple informants agree with each other
that the target individual is highly neurotic, however, researchers can be fairly confident that the
neurotic impression is the accurate impression (Figure 2).
Meta-perceptions
The SRM also illuminates the significance of knowing whether or not people have a
sense of how they are seen by others (Kenny, 1994). There is considerable evidence that people
have difficulty assessing how others see them (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). Accuracy in meta-
Personality Online 17
perceptions is represented by the overlap between a participant’s perception of how others see
him or her, and how others actually judge the participant (Figure 3).
Beyond Face-to-Face Interactions.
Research has traditionally focused on how individuals express and assess personality
through face-to-face interactions. These interactions, however, do not necessarily have to be
among members in a long-term relationship, such as co-workers, family members, or friends.
Relative strangers, it seems, can make surprisingly accurate assessments about aspects of each
other’s personality.
Snap Judgments
In a study conducted by Willis and Todorov (2006) at Princeton University, subjects were
shown an image of a person’s face and asked to make several judgments about their
attractiveness, likeability, trustworthiness, competence, and aggressiveness. Subjects were either
exposed to the images for 100 ms, 500 ms, or 1000 ms, or given no time limit to make a
judgment. Surprisingly, there were high correlations between trait ratings given by subjects with
a time limit and subjects who had no time limit. While subjects became more confident in their
ratings when given more time, they did not seem to need the extra time to make their decisions
about the personality of the person in the image.
Office and home environments
Recent research also shows that people’s personalities are not only expressed through
face-to-face interactions, but through various other means. Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and Morris
(2002) hoped to examine how various identity claims might reveal information about an
individual’s personality. Self-directed identity claims are items that reinforce an individual’s self
view. Other-directed identity claims are those that help the individual communicate some shared
Personality Online 18
meaning to other people who see their living environment. Often times, a single item can serve
as both a self and other-directed identity claim. For example, an original photograph of
someplace foreign might reinforce the individual’s sense of a bi-cultural identity and remind her
of her family overseas, while also communicating to any outside observers that the individual
enjoys travel.
Individual living and working environments are extraordinarily rich sources of both self
and other-directed identity claims. Individuals intentionally include self and other-directed
identity claims when setting up their living and working environments, yet also leave
unintentional cues by living and working. A pile of dirty laundry, for example, is not something
an individual is likely to purposefully have present in their room. This information might reveal
that the person is not particularly clean, while a collection of alphabetized music CD’s can show
them to be well organized. Gosling names these unintentional personality cues behavioral
residues, and argues such cues might be just as relevant to personality assessment as identity
claims are.
To test these hypotheses, Gosling et al. looked at individual’s living and working
environments to determine whether or not people left accurate cues about their personalities in
their spaces. From these data, Gosling showed that judgments about an individual made from
their working environment are surprisingly accurate for such personality dimensions as
extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experiences. While other-reports were more
accurate than room observers for each dimension, office environments were confirmed to be
reliable sources of information about the occupant’s personality.
Personality judgments based on an individual’s bedroom was shown to be a more reliable
source of information for observers. Observers accurately judged all five of the dimensions of
Personality Online 19
the FFM, while other-reports were only able to accurately judge three - extraversion,
conscientiousness, and openness to new experience (Gosling, et al., 2003). Individuals, it seems,
unintentionally communicate important information about their personalities via self and otherdirected cues.
Personality in an Online World
As technology develops, people are beginning to provide personality cues and express
themselves and in new ways. The Internet has had an undeniable impact on our world.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, over 200 million people in the U.S. and over one billion
people worldwide now have access to the Internet (CIA, 2005). As more and more people begin
to integrate online resources and services into their daily lives, traditional daily routines are
changing. Millions of people use the Internet on a daily basis to communicate with others
through e-mail and instant messenger clients, play online games, read the news, buy and sell
products, share music and pictures, search for and conduct research, and express themselves
through personal websites. The Internet is a unique environment that offers instant and free
access to a large and diverse community of people.
The Online Disinhibition Effect
This community, however, can be detached from reality at times. As worried and
informed parents are well aware, individuals can pretend to be anyone on the Internet. The
anonymity of the Internet allows people to express themselves in ways that they would never
dream of in real life. This is perhaps best seen in a distinct Internet phenomenon called flaming.
Flaming refers to a tendency for people to (often violently and aggressively) attack each other
verbally online. Technically called the online disinhibition effect, flaming is more prevalent
online largely due to the anonymity and invisibility the Internet brings. Other causes include the
Personality Online 20
time-lag between sending a message and receiving a reply, an enhanced sense of self that comes
from being alone, and a lack of any formalized, enforceable rules on the Internet (Suler, 2004).
While in a face-to-face argument someone would have to face both his opponent and the
consequences of his words and actions, on the Internet something can be said with little
consequences.
This phenomenon is not limited to aggressive behavior. Much like someone who is
generally passive can act more aggressively online than they would in real life, an introvert can
open up in an online environment in a way that would terrify them in a real world situation. The
online disinhibition effect suggests, then, that people may have a very different manifest online
self. The discrepancies seen between online dating profiles and the real-life individuals creating
profiles are a particularly memorable example (Epstein, 2007).
Online Self-Enhancement
The anonymity of the Internet allows individuals to act with little to no accountability.
There is no easy way to track, or even identify, an individual who makes a particularly derisive
comment. This lack of accountability makes it even more likely that people will be more willing
to engage in self-enhancing behaviors online than they would in real life. It would be difficult for
an introvert to convince others in real-life that he or she was extraverted; doing so would require
making significant behavioral changes. With a few carefully chosen phrases or photos, however,
an introvert can seem highly extraverted online.
Self-enhancement is expressed as the overlap between an individual’s perceived idealself, and an informant rating (Figure 4). The accuracy of perceptions made from online
interactions or observations might be hindered by this tendency for individuals to easily enhance
Personality Online 21
various characteristics. If someone who is introverted in real-life seems extraverted online, it will
be more difficult for online judges to assess the individual’s true introversion.
Personality Assessment from Personal Websites
So, how reliable is the Internet as a source of information about an individual’s
personality? Recently, researchers have begun to apply methods in personality assessment to the
online world. Vazire and Gosling (2004) looked at personal websites, one of the most common
forms of individual expression, as a source of information about the author’s personality. They
culled hundreds of personal websites from the Internet and contacted the authors about
participating in a psychology study. The 89 authors who replied and agreed to participate were
asked to complete two self-reports – one assessed their personality as they believed it to be, the
other assessed their personality as they wished it to be. Subjects were also asked to have two
close friends complete and submit an other-report (both based on the FFM). A team of
researchers then looked over the personal websites and assessed the authors’ personalities.
The data suggest that personal websites are reliable sources of information about an
individual’s personality for every dimension of the FFM. Furthermore, authors of personal
websites seem to express not their ideal self, but their actual self (though ratings of extraversion
and agreeableness were slightly enhanced).
Facebook
A recent study by Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire (2007) extended the research on personal
websites to online social networks (OSNs) - a new type of online environment. OSNs are
websites such as Facebook or Myspace where, with the help of a user-friendly interface, people
can easily create a personal website. These pages created on OSNs differ from traditional
personal websites in several ways. Primarily, most OSNs give users a rigid structure to work
Personality Online 22
with, whereas personal websites are more open ended. The structured format of OSNs
encourages authors to include personal information like music and film preferences, or political
orientation, that might not be otherwise be included in a personal website.
Gosling et. al (2007) found that observers are able to make fairly accurate assessments
based on these identity claims, and show some consensus for all of the Big Five dimensions. In
line with Vazire and Gosling’s (2004) research on personal websites, OSN users enhanced some
aspects of their personality. However, unlike authors of personal websites, OSN users were
generally not able to make accurate predictions about how they were seen by others.
Current Study
Online Assessment from Behavioral Residue
Personal websites and facebook profiles reflect the conscious effort of Internet users to
communicate information about their selves to others. What about environments in which users
are not consciously trying to express themselves? How might an environment where behavioral
residue largely determines how others form their impressions differ from one where self and
other-directed cues are intentionally published?
World of Warcraft
Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) are an example of this kind of online
environment. MMOGs differ from OSNs in several ways. While users of OSNs can browse their
friends’ profiles of listed interests and hobbies, players of MMOGs interact in real-time. Though
players do socialize, the primary goal of MMOGs users is not to share information about oneself,
but to play a game.
With over eight million subscribers worldwide, World of Warcraft (WoW) is by far the
most popular online game (Blizzard, 2007). WoW lets people create their own characters and
Personality Online 23
roam about freely within a virtual fantasy world with other users. While game objectives and
landscapes are defined, communication among individuals is not. Behavior is also limited to
some degree, though there is considerably flexibility in how players can manipulate their
characters (Yee, 2006).
On average, users spend considerably more time in MMOG environments than they do
perusing Facebook profiles. While the average Facebook user spends over three hours a week
using the OSN (Holahan et. al, 2007), the average WoW player invests more than 20 hours a
week in the game – the equivalent of a part time job (Yee, 2006).
Though many people begin playing alone or with friends of theirs from other areas of
their lives, the nature of the game and the time most players invest often cause relationships
within the game to develop. Total strangers are logging on each night to play and socialize with
each other. Most people who pay $15 each month to play WoW do so because of the
socialization that occurs within the game (Yee, 2007). As much as WoW is a fantasy game, it is
also a place to make and hang out with friends.
In fact, communication among users is encouraged by the game design itself
(Ducheneaut, 2006). Through the use of either a keyboard or microphone, users can
communicate with each other similar to the way people communicate in a chat room.
Furthermore, the game requires cooperation among players to complete difficult tasks and
objectives. The game is designed such that players have unique abilities and skills that
compliment each other – it is virtually impossible to progress into the later stages of the game
without the help of other players (Yee, 2007).
To facilitate the organization and communication required by the game, players often
create and join groups called guilds. In addition to organizing users, guilds serve to unite players
Personality Online 24
and provide a smaller community for players to belong to. In a study examining the social
dynamics within WoW, Ducheneaut, Yee, Nickell and Moore (2006) found over 66% of users to
be in guilds. Membership in a guild seems to carry some sense of responsibility and commitment
to the group - players who are part of a guild play more than those who do not (Ducheneaut,
2006). These groups help strengthen the friendships that are formed online. As players settle into
their guild, they are likely to repeatedly interact with the same set of players. Players create a
“buddy list” of other players who they enjoy interacting with. Any time a member of this list
goes online, the player is notified, and they can arrange a place to meet. This feature facilitates
communication and interaction in the game, and helps to develop online friendships further.
How similar to real-life friendships are these online relationships? Do people really get to
know each other in this dynamic and growing environment, or is the socialization that seems to
draw so many people to the game hollow and trivial? Are people behaving in this online world as
they would in real life, or is the online disinhibition effect causing people to act out alternate
selves?
The current study was designed to answer these questions. Based on previous research
and our knowledge of the game environment, several predictions were made. First, it was
predicted that accurate assessments would be made for some of the more salient personality
characteristics, such as extraversion and agreeableness. Due to the limitations and nature of
online in-game interactions, in general these assessments should not be as accurate as face-toface interactions or assessments made from other online environments such as blogs or facebook
profiles. However, online friends might assess other characteristics that are particularly salient in
a game environment where players are forced to cooperate to achieve a goal, such as leadership
and dominance of group discussions, more accurately than real life friends. Due to the different
Personality Online 25
contexts in which informants had interacted with the participant, we did not expect the two
groups to have high consensus. We also predicted that participants would not have an accurate
perception of how they’re viewed by others in an online environment. However, we believed that
participants would be able to predict how the real-life informants saw them. Finally, the online
disinhibition effect was predicted to influence participants such that they would not be able to
accurately assess how their online informants saw them.
Personality Online 26
Methods
Participants
Participants were players of the popular online game World of Warcraft. Players were
recruited from game-related message boards, forums, and websites as well as from Introductory
Psychology courses and from flyers in the Psychology department. All players had been playing
the game for more than a year. All participants were given feedback from their self-assessment,
while those participants from the university population were also given research credit for their
introductory psychology course if needed.
Informants
Participants were asked to provide the names of four people who knew them well to
provide ratings of their personality. It was required that two of these people know the participant
exclusively from the game, while the other two of these people know the participant exclusively
from outside the game. Participants could not have communicated with their friends from the
game outside the game itself, nor could they have visited any of that individual’s personal
websites. Five $50 prizes were offered as a financial incentive to encourage participants to
collect and give informant contact information.
Personality Measures
Participants were asked to fill out a brief, 20-minute questionnaire. The first part of the
survey included basic demographic data about both the individual, and his or her experiences
playing Warcraft (Appendix A). The second part of the survey self-report survey (Appendix B)
was composed of the TIPI (Gosling et al, 2003) and 33 other questions from a previous
personality scale (Vazire, 2006b) measuring other areas of personality not covered by the BFI
including depression, self-esteem, anger, humor, leadership, and greed. The present study only
Personality Online 27
examined the Big Five dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, and openness to experience) and a small selection of the other dimensions (happiness,
dominance of group discussions, humor, leadership, impulsivity, self esteem, arrogance, and
liberalism). For each question, participants were asked to answer in each of the following four
ways: how they saw themselves, how they would like to be seen by others, how they were seen
by their real-life friends, and how they were seen by their Warcraft friends.
Informants were asked basic demographic questions (Appendix A) and given
questionnaire which asked them to rate the participant as best they could on either the basis of
their Warcraft character or real-life interactions (Appendix C).
Procedure
In order to reach the largest number of participants, an online survey was used.
Participants who were recruited were directed to the survey website
(http://survey.psy.utexas.edu/wow/), where they were informed of the nature of the study. After
consenting to participate electronically, participants were asked to provide names and e-mail
addresses of people who knew them well exclusively from inside the game and of people
exclusively from outside the game. Participants then filled out the questions on the survey. Upon
completion of the survey, participants were thanked for their time, and reminded that personality
feedback would be given upon completion of the study. Participants were also given the
opportunity to nominate other players of Warcraft who they thought might be interested in the
study and were willing to fulfill the requirements.
Friends of the participants were contacted directly by the researcher via e-mail. For those
informants who did not complete the ratings, reminder e-mails were sent every two weeks for
two months. Each informant was given a unique ID number, as well as a password. Informants
Personality Online 28
were directed to the survey website, where they were instructed to rate the participant as best
they could based on their interactions (either online or in real life). Informants were reminded
that the participants would not have access to their ratings, and all information would be kept
strictly confidential and only used for research purposes. Upon completion of this survey,
informants were thanked for their time, and offered the chance to complete the survey as a
participant.
Results
Figure 5 shows a broad overview of the results. The details of each analysis run for this
study are discussed below:
Observer Accuracy
To test the hypothesis that informants would make accurate assessments of participant’s
personalities based on in-game interactions, we correlated the aggregated informant ratings with
the participant’s self-report. As shown in the first column of Table 1, Warcraft informants were
able to accurately assess Agreeableness, dominates group discussions, and humor. The second
column of Table 1 shows that real-life informants made accurate assessments of Extraversion,
Agreeableness, happiness, humor, leadership, arrogance, and liberalism.
To test the hypothesis that real-life informants would be able to make more accurate
personality assessments than online informants, we computed correlations between real-life
informant and self-report ratings. Real-life informant ratings correlated significantly with
Extraversion, Agreeableness, happiness, humor, leadership, arrogance, and liberalism (see Table
1). As seen in Figures 6a and 6b, real-life informants were generally better at rating the
participants than online informants.
Personality Online 29
To see how accurate informants were overall, we correlated self-report ratings with the
aggregated Warcraft and real-life informant ratings. The third column of Table 1 shows that
informants as a group were able to accurately assess participants’ Extraversion, Agreeableness,
happiness, dominance of group discussions, humor, impulsivity, arrogance, and liberalism.
Informant Consensus
Observer consensus was determined by computing the correlation between Warcraft and
real-life informant ratings of the participant. As shown in the last column of Table 1, Warcraft
and real-life informants agreed on Extraversion, Openness to Experience, happiness, leadership,
and self-esteem. The mean level of consensus between Warcraft and real-life informant ratings
was 0.32.
Meta-Accuracy
We had also predicted that participants would have a better sense of how they convey
their personality to their real-life friends than their Warcraft friends. To determine whether
participants could make accurate predictions about how others saw them, we compared the
correlations between Warcraft and real-life informant ratings and self-reported meta-perceptions
(see Figures 7a and 7b). For the FFM dimensions, participant perceptions of how others saw
them only correlated significantly with real-life informant perceptions of extraversion (see Table
2). Participants were considerably better at assessing how their real-life friends saw them for the
other personality dimensions we measured, with significant correlations for every dimension
except dominance of group discussions and humor. Dominance of group discussions was the
only personality dimension participants were aware of conveying to Warcraft informants.
Self-enhancement
Personality Online 30
Finally, we had predicted that Warcraft players would engage in self-enhancing behaviors
online. To test this, we correlated Warcraft and real-life informant ratings with the ideal selfreport ratings. As seen in Table 3, Warcraft informant ratings correlated highly with ideal selfreports of agreeableness, emotional stability, and humor, while real-life informants correlated
highly only with extraversion and agreeableness. Figures 8a and 8b compare the correlations
between Warcraft informant ratings and self- vs. ideal-report ratings for the various personality
dimensions.
To see how much ideal ratings differed from their self-ratings, we computed the
correlation between participants’ ideal- and self-reports. As seen in the last column of Table 3,
the correlations were significant for every personality dimension we measured.
Discussion
As predicted, the results of this study suggest online game environments are a source of
some relevant personality cues. Overall, real-life informants made more accurate assessments
than Warcraft informants did (see Figure 5). This is likely because online game environments
limit behavior, reducing the types of cues people use to make judgments. Real-life interactions,
by contrast, expose individuals to a much wider array of potentially relevant behaviors.
The personality traits that Warcraft informants were able to accurately assess
(Agreeableness, dominance of group discussions, and humor) are all characteristics that are
highly salient in the online game environment. Many interactions between players occur in large
groups called guilds, where members often communicate and organize in order to complete game
objectives. In this context, it is easy to see how agreeableness and dominance of group
discussions would be expressed online. Yet Warcraft is ultimately a game that people play to
Personality Online 31
have fun. As supported by the data, there are many opportunities to express and perceive humor
online.
We were initially surprised that Warcraft informants did not accurately assess selfreported leadership, as players have opportunities to lead guilds in the game. However, to
demonstrate this kind of leadership needs requires little more than time and a few extra clicks of
the mouse to. Leadership requires a considerable amount of extra effort in real-life than it does
online. Online, everyone can easily be a hero.
To test whether people play online games as a form of self-enhancement, we compared
participant ideal self-ratings to informant reports. Informants who knew the participant only
through in-game interactions were able to better assess emotional stability and humor than reallife informants. The fun, often carefree environment an online game presents is hardly the place
to expose a neurotic disposition. It is likely that Warcraft players try to mask their true level of
Emotional Stability by engaging in self-enhancing behaviors online.
Despite basing their judgments on different types of interactions, both Warcraft and reallife had high consensus for Extraversion, Openness, happiness, leadership, and self esteem. This
suggests that participants may be presenting many of the same cues to both types of informants.
Interestingly, informants agreed with each other more than they agreed with the participant for
Openness, suggesting that the self may not always be the best judge of every characteristic of his
or her personality.
Overall, Warcraft informants were better at assessing an individual reported ideal-self,
while real-life informants were better at assessing the individual’s reported actual self (Figure 5).
It should be noted, however, that unlike previous studies (Vazire & Gosling, 2006; Gosling et. al,
Personality Online 32
2007), we did not aggregated weighted self- and informant-report scores to establish an accuracy
criterion.
In general, participants were unaware of how they presented themselves to their Warcraft
friends. Participant meta-perceptions correlated higher with the real-life informants than the
Warcraft informants. We believe this is because Warcraft players don’t expect to convey a sense
of their true personality online. When given a chance to comment on the study, many informants
reported that they were confident their online friends had little to no idea who they “really” were.
Our results contradict this sentiment.
There are several limitations to this study. The fact that real-life informants were not able
to make accurate personality assessments for several traits (such as conscientiousness and
openness) is cause for concern. Previous research shows that long-term friends should be able to
make accurate personality assessments for each of the Big Five dimensions (Kenny, 1994). In
fact, aggregate informant accuracy was even low compared to previous studies examining online
personality assessment (Vazire & Gosling, 2006; Gosling et. al, 2007). It is likely that due to the
large amounts of time the average Warcraft player is investing in the game, he or she spends less
time interacting with others in real-life environments than non-gamers. Warcraft player
personality characteristics might also vary compared to those of a normal population. Further
research should explore whether people who play online games are more difficult to assess than
other people, or whether this effect is unique to this study.
The study was also limited by low subject and informant participation. Though 200
Warcraft players took the self-report portion of the survey, only 56 provided informant names
and contact information. Of the 203 informant names collected from participants (each
Personality Online 33
participant was encouraged to give four names), only 50 informants responded. This response
rate is significantly lower than rates reported in other studies (Vazire, 2006).
Despite our efforts to assure participants of the confidential nature of this survey, we
expect this is because Internet users generally mistrust online surveys that request personal
information, as many less credulous individuals will sell the information to companies to use as
spam. Future attempts to collect informant data online might have more success giving
participants the option of contacting the informants themselves. Participants might be further
encouraged to give researchers informant information if they received feedback about how
people saw them (though this might influence informant responses).
Finally, this study examined what in-game cues informants were using to make their
personality judgments. Without this behavioral data, we are not sure of exactly what aspects of
online gaming lead to accurate personality assessment. For example, it may be that players base
judgments entirely on in-game chatting rather than character movements. Further research should
explore which cues participants use when making assessments.
Online gaming is a burgeoning form of entertainment that is changing the way
individuals conceptualize day-to-day interactions. Games are quickly becoming more realistic
and open-ended, encouraging people to socialize in online environments even more than they do
now. Future studies might examine some of the long-term effects of these new types of
socialization. As these changes in human interaction occur, it is important to understand how
perceptions made from online interactions compare to those made in real-life. This study found
that though this type of socialization does lead to accurate personality assessments for some
characteristics, it might also promote self-enhancing behaviors. Individuals who play online
games should be aware that their behaviors lead others to make accurate assessments for some
Personality Online 34
personality characteristics, though it appears online gaming is not a complete substitute for reallife interaction.
Personality Online 35
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston.
Blizzard Entertainment. (2007, January 11). World of Warcraft Surpasses 8 Million Subscribers
Worldwide. Blizzard Entertainment Press Releases. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from
http://www.blizzard.com/press/070111.shtml.
Block, J. (1995). A Contrarian View of the Five-Factor Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
187-215.
Briggs, S. R. (1993). Personality Measurement. In V.J. Derlega, B.A. Winstead, & W.H. Jones
(Eds.), Personality: Contemporary Theory and Research (pp. 27-64). Burnham.
Buchanan, T., Johnson, J., Goldberg, L. (2005). Implementing a Five-Factor Personality
Inventory for Use on the Internet. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2),
115-127.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2005). World Fact Book: Number of Internet users by country.
Retrieved March 20, 2007, from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
rankorder/2153rank.html
Conley, J.J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethodmultiassociation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., and Moore, R.J. (2006). "Alone Together? Exploring the
Social Dynamics of Massively Multiplayer Games." In conference proceedings on human
factors in computing systems CHI 2006, pp.407-416. April 22-27, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Personality Online 36
Epstein, R. (2007, February/March). The Truth about Online Dating [Electronic Version].
Scientific American Mind, 32-39.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: 1. On predicting most of the people much of the
time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126.
Fiske, S.T., & Cox, M. (1979). Person concepts: The effect of target familiarity and descriptive
purpose on the process of describing others. Journal of Personality, 47, 136-161.
Funder, D. (1999). Personality Judgment: A Realistic Approach to Person Perception. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1299.
Gosling, S.D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007). Personality Impressions Based on Facebook
Profiles. Paper presented at the 2007 International Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media. Paper retrieved November 2, 2007 from www.icwsm.org/papers/3--GoslingGaddis-Vazire.pdf
Gosling, S.D., Ko, S.J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M.E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality
judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 379-398
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O.P. (2004) Should we Trust Web-based
Studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires.
American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
Personality Online 37
Holohan, C., Hof, R., & Ante, S.E. (2007, September 25). Facebook: $10 Billion Social Network?
[Electronic Version]. BusinessWeek. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc20070924_995913.htm
John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin, & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Trait and research (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kenny DA, DePaulo BM. 1993. Do people know how others view them? An empirical
and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145–61.
Kenrick, D.T., & Funder, D.C. (1988). Profiting from Controversy: Lessons from the PersonSituation Debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What Do We Know When We Know a Person? Journal of Personality,
63, 365-396.
McAdams, D.P. (2000). Personality Psychology: History of the Field. In A.E. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Psychology (pp. 124-128). USA: Oxford University Press.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Paulhus, D.L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, R.
F. Krueger, (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. New
York: Guildford.
Personality Online 38
Paunonen, S.V., & Jackson, D.N. (2000). What is Beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of
Personality, 68:5, 821-835.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 321-326
Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychology Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472-481.
Vazire, S., Gosling, S. D., Dickey, A. S., & Schapiro, S. J. (2007a). Measuring personality in
nonhuman animals. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, R. F. Krueger, (Eds.), Handbook of
Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 190-206). New York: Guilford Press.
Vazire, S. (2007b). Model of self-knowledge and other-knowledge [Image]. Retrieved March 7th,
2007, from http://www.simine.com/research.html
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S.D., (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal
websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123-132.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-Ms
exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598.
Yee, N (2007). Motivations of Play in Online Games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772775.
Yee, N. (2006). The Psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional Investment, Motivations,
Relationship Formation, and Problematic Usage. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.),
Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments.
(pp. 187-207) London: Springer-Verlag.
Personality Online 39
Table 1
Personality Ratings: Consensus and Agreement between Self-Ratings and Informants.
Personality
Warcraft Inf.
Real life Inf.
Observer
Informant
dimension
accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
Consensus
n=22
n=28
n=32
n=17
Extraversion
.15
.69**
.49**
.49*
Agreeableness
.47*
.43*
.57**
.27
Conscientiousness
.04
-.21
-.08
.09
Emotional Stability
.15
.18
.16
.13
Openness to Experience
.15
.09
.16
.53*
M (FFM)
.19
.24
.26
.30
Is happy, satisfied with life
.32
.48*
.50**
.49*
Dominates group discussions .56**
.213
.41*
.23
Is funny
.44*
.51**
.53**
.33
Is a good leader
.07
.44*
.33
.79**
Tends to be impulsive
.08
.38
.43*
-.24
Has a high self esteem
.26
.34
.35
.53*
Is arrogant
.11
.52**
.42*
.18
Is politically liberal
.29
.47*
.51**
.29
M (other)
.27
.42
.44
.33
M (aggregate)
.24
.35
.37
.32
Note. Observer accuracy is the correlation between the aggregated informant ratings and the selfreport ratings. Informant consensus is the correlation between the Warcraft informant ratings and
the real life informant ratings.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Personality Online 40
Table 2
Agreement between Meta-Perception and Informant Ratings:
Personality
Self-Warcraft
Self-Real Life
dimension
accuracy
accuracy
n=22
n=28
Extraversion
.19
.78**
Agreeableness
.21
.28
Conscientiousness
.25
.00
Emotional Stability
.11
.25
Openness to Experience
-.02
-.01
M (FFM)
.15
.26
Is happy, satisfied with life
.24
.57**
Dominates group discussions .55*
.18
Is funny
.27
.29
Is a good leader
.16
.50**
Tends to be impulsive
.24
.54**
Has a high self esteem
-.1
.41**
Is arrogant
.02
.53**
Is politically liberal
.19
.48*
M (other)
.21
.44
M (aggregate)
.19
.37
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
.37
.32
Personality Online 41
Table 3
Online Self-Enhancement:
Correlation between Ideal-Self Ratings and Informant Ratings:
Personality
Warcraft Inf.
Real Life Inf.
Self and Ideal-self
dimension
accuracy
accuracy
agreement
n=22
n=28
n=200
Extraversion
.33
.54**
.67**
Agreeableness
.53*
.40*
.70**
Conscientiousness
.27
.00
.53**
Emotional Stability
.40*
.27
.43**
Openness to Experience
.11
.06
.66**
M (FFM)
.33
.25
.60
Is happy, satisfied with life
.12
.28
.35**
Dominates group discussions .28
.17
.57**
Is funny
.54*
.28
.63**
Is a good leader
.08
.20
.57**
Tends to be impulsive
.25
.10
.62**
Has a high self esteem
.10
-.10
.44**
Is arrogant
.28
.22
.62**
Is politically liberal
.18
.43*
.95**
M (other)
.23
.19
.59
M (aggregate)
.27
.21
.19
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
.32
Personality Online 42
Figure 1: Consensus is the overlap between self- and other-perceptions (figures adapted from
Vazire, 2007b).
selfperception
consensus
otherperception
Personality Online 43
Figure 2: Multiple informants can help resolve conflicting perceptions of the same target.
selfperception
accuracy
otherperception
informant
consensus
otherperception
Personality Online 44
Figure 3: Meta-perception accuracy is the overlap between the participant’s meta-perception and
the informant’s other perception.
self-perception
otherperception
metaperception
meta-perception accuracy
Personality Online 45
Figure 4: Self-enhancement is the overlap between idealized self-perceptions and otherperceptions. Note that self-enhancement is distinct from accuracy.
accuracy
actual self
otherperception
self and
ideal-self
agreement
ideal self
self enhancement
Personality Online 46
Figure 5: Mean Accuracies across informants.
Self Ratings
Ideal Ratings
Meta-Perceptions
0.4
0.35
0.3
Mean Accuracy
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Warcraft Informants
Real Life Informants
Personality Online 47
Figure 6a: Observer accuracy for FFM dimensions.
Warcraft Informant Accuracy
Real-life Informant Accuracy
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
E
A
C
ES
O
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
FFM Dimensions
E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness to Experience;
FFM = five-factor model.
Personality Online 48
Figure 6b: Observer accuracy for dimensions not included in FFM.
Warcraft Informant Accuracy
Real-life Informant Accuracy
0.6
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
happiness
dominance
humor
leadership
impulsivity
self esteem
arrogance
liberalism
Other Personality Dimensions
E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness to Experience;
FFM = five-factor model.
Personality Online 49
Figure 7a: Self meta-accuracy of Warcraft and real-life informant ratings for FFM
Warcraft Meta-accuracy
Real Life Meta-accuracy
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Accuracy
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
E
A
C
ES
O
-0.1
FFM Dimensions
E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness to Experience;
FFM = five-factor model.
Personality Online 50
Figure 7b: Self meta-accuracy of Warcraft and real-life informant ratings for other dimensions.
Warcraft Meta-accuracy
Real Life Meta-accuracy
0.7
0.6
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
happiness
dominance
humor
leadership
impulsivity
-0.1
-0.2
Other Personality Dimensions
self esteem
arrogance
liberalism
Personality Online 51
Figure 8a: Comparison between Warcraft-self and Warcraft-ideal accuracy in FFM.
Warcraft Informant Accuracy
Ideal Warcraft Informant Accuracy
0.6
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
E
A
C
ES
O
FFM Dimensions
E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness to Experience;
FFM = five-factor model.
Personality Online 52
Figure 8b: Comparison between Warcraft-self and Warcraft-ideal accuracy in other dimensions.
Warcraft Informant Accuracy
Ideal Warcraft Informant Accuracy
0.6
0.5
Accuracy
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
happiness
dominance
humor
leadership
impulsivity
Other Personality Dimensions
self esteem
arrogance
liberalism
Personality Online 53
Appendix A
Demographic Information and Initial Assessments:

Questions asked of participants:

Do you ever communicate with this person through e-mail or instant
messaging?
Do you ever visit this person’s blog or personal website?
Please answer the following questions about yourself. All information will be kept
strictly confidential:

What is your first name?

How old are you?

What is your gender?

Where are you from (list of countries)?

What is the highest degree of education you have achieved?

What is your email address?

What is your Warcraft character name?

What is your Warcraft character gender?

What is your Warcraft character race?

What is your Warcraft character class?

What is your Warcraft character level?

How long have you spent playing the game?

What is the average time per week you spend playing the game?

Do you use a microphone while playing?

How often do you socialize within the World of Warcraft?

What is the chief reason you play?
We also need the names and email addresses of two other people who know you
well but DO NOT play Warcraft with you. Family members, office co-workers, and
other friends would be good people to use, as they are likely to know you well.
Again, all names and information will be kept confidential, and will only be used for
research purposes. The people you include for this portion of the survey do not have
to know any of the other Warcraft players - they only have to know you.

Friend Name

Friend E-mail address

From where do you know this person?

How long have you known this person?

How well do you feel this person knows you?

How close do you feel to this person?

How much do you like this person?

How often do you physically spend time with this person?

How often do you interact with this person through other means (i.e.
through speaking on the phone, email, etc.)
Please list the names, email addresses, and Warcraft character names of two (2)
people you know exclusively from playing World of Warcraft. The names you
provide should be people you interact with online on a fairly regular basis, but have
never met in real life. Any names and emails you provide will be kept strictly
confidential and will only be used for research purposes. A researcher will contact
your friends shortly after you complete this survey to provide them with a link to
this website. (each question asked for each friend)

Friend Name

Friend e-mail address

Friend Warcraft character name

How long have you known this person?

How well do you feel this person knows you?

How close do you feel to this person?

How much do you like this person?

How often do you spend time with this person online?

Are you in a guild with this person?

Do you communicate through a microphone with this person?
Please answer the following questions about yourself:

What is your experiment ID?

What is your first name?

How old are you?

What is your gender?

Where are you from (list of countries)?

What is the highest degree of education you have achieved?

What is your email address?

What is your Warcraft character name?

What is your Warcraft character race?

What is your Warcraft character class?

What is your Warcraft character level?

How long have you spent playing the game?

What is the average time per week you spend playing the game?

Do you use a microphone while playing?

How often do you socialize within the World of Warcraft?

What is the chief reason you play?
Questions asked of Informants (Warcraft Friends):
Personality Online 54
Please answer the following questions about the person who selected you for this
survey:

How long have you known this person?

How well do you feel this person knows you?

How close do you feel to this person?

How much do you like this person?

How often do you spend time with this person online?

Are you in a guild with this person?

Do you communicate through a microphone with this person?

Do you ever visit this person’s blog, or personal website?
Questions asked of Informants (Real-world friends, family)
Please answer the following questions about yourself:

What is your experiment ID?

What is your first name?

How old are you?

Where are you from (list of countries)?

What is the highest degree of education you have achieved?

What is your email address?
Please answer the following questions about the person who selected you for this
survey. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential, and will no be shared with
anyone (including the person you are rating).

From where do you know this person?

How long have you known this person?

How well do you feel this person knows you?

How close do you feel to this person?

How much do you like this person?

How often do you physically spend time with this person?

How often do you interact with this person through other means (i.e.
through speaking on the phone, email, etc.)
Personality Online 55
Appendix B
Self-Report Questionnaire
For each personality trait below, rate how well the trait describes:
a) how you are (self)
b) how you would like to be seen by others (ideal)
c) how you think others who know you online see you (online)
d) how you think others who know you from real life see you (real)
Please answer all questions honestly – your name will not be matched with your
responses in the final data analysis.
I see myself as someone who:
1. Is extraverted, enthusiastic.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
2. Is critical, quarrelsome.
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3. Is dependable, self-disciplined.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3
agree
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
4. Is anxious, easily upset.
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
5. Is open to new experiences, complex.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
6. Is reserved, quiet.
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
7. Is sympathetic, warm.
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
8. Is disorganized, careless.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
Personality Online 56
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
9. Is calm, emotionally stable.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
10. Is conventional, uncreative.
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
11. Is happy, satisfied with life
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
12. Is intelligent
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
13. Has strong math skills
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
14. Has strong verbal skills
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
15. Is physically attractive
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
16. Tries to impress others
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
17. Is greedy
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
Personality Online 57
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
18. Is lonely
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
19. Has high self-esteem
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
20. Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
21. Is assertive
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
22. Tends to dominate group discussions
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
23. Is impulsive
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
24. Has a strong need to be around others, doesn’t like being alone
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
agree
15 strongly
15 strongly
15 strongly
15 strongly
25. Thinks and associates ideas in unusual ways, has unconventional thought
processes
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
26. Is arrogant, thinks too much of myself
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
Personality Online 58
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
27. Is politically liberal
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
28. Is a good leader
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
(real)
agree
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
31. Is depressed
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
32. Is aggressive
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
29. Is good at public speaking
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
33. Is power-oriented, values power in self and others
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
30. Is likeable
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
34. Likes to be the center of attention
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5
agree
35. Pays attention to detail
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
Personality Online 59
(self)
agree
(ideal)
agree
(online)
agree
(real)
agree
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
36. Tends to like others
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
37. Tends to be liked by others
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2
agree
38. Exaggerates my skills
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
40. Is funny
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
41. Has a strong drive to achieve, is motivated to do well
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
agree
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
42. Is easily angered/upset
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
39. Is honest
(self)
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
agree
43. Is trustworthy
(self)
strongly disagree 1
agree
(ideal) strongly disagree 1
agree
(online) strongly disagree 1
agree
(real)
strongly disagree 1
agree
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly
Personality Online 60
Appendix C
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
Informant Report Questionnaire
13. Has strong math skills
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
For each personality trait below, rate how well the trait describes your friend. Please
answer all questions honestly – your name will not be matched with your responses
in the final data analysis, nor will your responses be shared with your friend.
14. Has strong verbal skills
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
I see _____ as someone who:
15. Is physically attractive
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
1. Is extraverted, enthusiastic.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
2. Is critical, quarrelsome.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
3. Is dependable, self-disciplined.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
4. Is anxious, easily upset.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
5. Is open to new experiences, complex.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
6. Is reserved, quiet.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
7. Is sympathetic, warm.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
8. Is disorganized, careless.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
9. Is calm, emotionally stable.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
10. Is conventional, uncreative.
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
11. Is happy, satisfied with life
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
12. Is intelligent
16. Tries to impress others
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
17. Is greedy
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
18. Is lonely
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
19. Has high self-esteem
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
20. Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
21. Is assertive
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
22. Tends to dominate group discussions
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
23. Is impulsive
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
24. Has a strong need to be around others, doesn’t like being alone
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
25. Thinks and associates ideas in unusual ways, has unconventional thought
processes
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
26. Is arrogant, thinks too much of him/herself
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
Personality Online 61
27. Is politically liberal
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
42. Is easily angered/upset
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
28. Is a good leader
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
43. Is trustworthy
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
29. Is good at public speaking
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
30. Is likeable
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
31. Is depressed
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
32. Often gets angry/upset
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
33. Is power-oriented, values power in self and others
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
34. Likes to be the center of attention
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
35. Pays attention to detail
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
36. Tends to like others
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
37. Tends to be liked by others
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
38. Exaggerates his/her skills
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
39. Is honest
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
40. Is funny
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
41. Has a strong drive to achieve, is motivated to do well
strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 strongly agree
Personality Online 62