A glance, a few spoken words are sufficient to tell us a story about a highly complex manner…” (1946, p. Getting to know each other on the internet, however, holds special challenges to our impression formation skills.Compared to the dynamic of face-to-face-situations, the perceiver is provided with very limited input, because the options for self-presentation are usually restricted to static information such as text and photographs (Kim, Kwon & Lee, 2009; Toma & Hancock, 2010; Walther, 2007).Male subjects were presented with identical information about a young woman who presented herself either in a short video-clip, per audio-trace, in a written text that was accompanied by a photo or by written text only.Afterwards, participants judged how confident they felt with the impression they have formed of the target person, how pronounced the impression was, and how much they would like to get in contact with that girl.As expected, all three measures were significantly enhanced in the video as compared to the audio and the text-only condition, but they did not differ from the text-plus-photo condition.Thus, it seems that it was attractiveness information rather than media richness that enhanced desire for contact, confidence in, and clarity of the impression formed.
Parts of the results complete the self-presentation profiles.
Thus, depending on the diversity and depth of the factors assessed, these do of course substantially contribute the respective candidate’s self-presentation.
In free contact portals, singles usually introduce themselves far less comprehensively.
It made no difference whether attractiveness information was static (photo) or dynamic (video), nor whether, whether content information was static (written text) or dynamic (audio).
Singles indicated an overall stronger desire for contact and more confidence in their impressions than non-singles.