SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged acturatelly in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 518529.
  • Anonymous (2004). Encyclopædia britannica online. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=7898
  • Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5(2), 219248.
  • Balsamo, A. (1995). Forms of technological embodiment: Reading the body in contemporary culture. In M.Featherstone & R.Burrows (Eds.), Cyberspace/cyberbodies/cyberpunk: Cultures of technological embodiment (pp. 215237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634643.
  • Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354364.
  • Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., & Pycock, J. (2001). To what extent is cyberspace really a space? Collaborative virtual environments. Communications of the ACM, 4(7), 7985. Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid= 379300.379322
  • Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99112.
  • Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
  • Biocca, F., & Nowak, K. (2002). Plugging your body into the telecommunication system: Mediated embodiment, media interfaces, and social virtual environments. In D.Atkin & C.Lin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 407447). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Bull, P., & Rumsey, N. (1988). The social psychology of facial appearance. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Burgoon, J. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L.Knapp & G. R.Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 229285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Burgoon, J., Buller, D., & Woodall, W. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Clark, N. (1995). Rear-view mirrorshades: The recursive generation of the cyberbody. In M.Featherstone & R.Burrows (Eds.), Cyberspace/cyberbodies/cyberpunk: Cultures of technological embodiment (pp. 113133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Clatterbuck, G. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 5(2), 147157.
  • Daly, N., Bench, J., & Chappell, H. (1996). Interpersonal impressions, gender stereotypes and visual speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(4), 468479.
  • Damer, B. (1997). Avatars!: Exploring and building virtual worlds on the Internet. Berkley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  • Dietrich, D. (1997). (Re)-fashioning the techno-erotic woman: Gender and textuality in the cybercultural matrix. In S.Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 169184). London: Sage Publications.
  • Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285290.
  • Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved October 16, 2002, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html
  • Fisher, J. (1997). The postmodern Paradiso; Dante, cyberpunk, and the technosophy of cyberspace. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet Culture (pp. 106122). London: Routledge.
  • Garau, M., Slater, M., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Brogny, A., Steed, A., Sasse, M. A. (2003). The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. Proceedings of CHI’03. ACM Press.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149181). New York: Routledge. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html
  • Herring, S. (1994 June 27). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at the American Library Association Annual Convention. Miami, Florida.
  • Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Journal (formerly Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Newsletter), 18(1). Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html
  • Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Womack, D. (1997). Building Communication Theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
  • Koda, T. (1996). Agents with faces: The effects of personification. Proceedings of HCI 1996. London.
  • Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
  • Madden, M. (2004). America’s online pursuits: The changing picture of who’s online and what they do. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report.
  • McCroskey, J., & McCain, T. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261266.
  • McCroskey, J., & Young, T. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. The Central State Speech Journal, 32, 2434.
  • McCroskey, J. C., Hamilton, P. R., & Weiner, A. N. (1974). The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1(1), 4252.
  • McCroskey, J., Richmond, V., & Daly, J. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in international communication. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 323332.
  • Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E., & Reeder, H. (1993, April 2429). Anthropomorphism, agency, & ethopoea: Computers as social actors. Paper presented at the InterChi ‘93. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  • Nowak, K. L. (2004). The Influence of Anthropomorphism and Agency on Social Judgment in Virtual Environments. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(2). Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue2/nowak.html
  • Nowak, K. L. (2003). Sex categorization in computer mediated communication (CMC): Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5(1), 83103.
  • Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481494.
  • Oravec, J. (1996). Virtual individuals, Virtual groups: Human dimensions of groupware and computer networking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Persson, P. (2003). Exms: An animated and avatar-based messaging system for expressive peer communication. Proceedings of GROUP ‘03. ACM Press.
  • Rauh, C., Polonsky, M., & Buck, R. (2004). Cooperation at first move: Trust, emotional expressiveness and avatars in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Poster presented at ISRE 2004—Conference of the International Society for the Research on Emotions. New York, NY.
  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Schroeder, R. (1997). Networked worlds: Social aspects of multi-user virtual reality tecnology. Sociological Research Online, 2(4). Retrieved October 24, 2005, from www.soresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/4/5.html
  • Schroeder, R. (2002). Social interaction in virtual environments: Key issues, common themes, and a framework for research. In R.Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. London: Springer-Verlag.
  • Skitka, L., & Maslach, C. (1996). Gender as schematic category: A role construct approach. Social Behavior and Personality, 24(1), 5374.
  • Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2002). Meeting people virtually: Experiments in shared virtual environments. In R.Schroeder (Ed.), The social life Of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 146171). London: Springer-Verlag.
  • Spender, D. (1996). Nattering on the Net: Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.
  • Talamo, A., & Ligorio, B. (2001). Strategic identities in cyberspace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(1), 109122.
  • Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In R.Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 4062). London: Springer-Verlag.
  • Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1997). Cyberself: The emergence of self in on-line chat. The Information Society, 13(4), 375397.
  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1991). Doing gender. In J.Lorber & S. A.Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 1337). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Wexelblat, A. (1997). Don’t make that face: A report on anthropomorphizing an interface. Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://wex.www.media.mit.edu/people/wex/anthro-expt-paper/Anthro-r.htm