No abstract

Although a substantial body of research exists on gender differences in computer-mediated communication, relatively little empirical attention has been directed toward how people perform a different gender online, or to what behavioral cues other participants attend in assessing others’ real-life gender. This study analyzes deceptive gender performances and assessments of their authenticity in The Turing Game, a publicly available synchronous text chat environment that supports spontaneous identity games. Content analysis of game logs shows that contestants produce stereotypical content when attempting to pass as the opposite gender, as well as giving off stylistic cues to their real-life gender. However, contrary to previous evidence that people judge online gender authenticity on the basis of linguistic styles, the judges in The Turing Game base their assessments mostly on stereotyped content, leading to a high rate of error. These findings are interpreted in terms of signal costs and conscious accessibility of cues.

There is a general perception that synchronous, online chat about politics is fragmented, incoherent, and rife with ad hominem attacks because of its channel characteristics. This study aims to better understand the relative impact of channel of communication versus topic of communication by comparing chat about four different topics. Discourse analysis and coding for topic drift were applied to two hours of chat devoted to the topics of politics, auto racing, entertainment, and cancer support. Findings demonstrate that topic may have an effect on the coherence of chat, with discussion in the politics chat room surprisingly being more coherent than in the other rooms. This research suggests that users can sustain relatively coherent interaction on political talk, suggesting chat technology may not be an inherently problematic medium for political discourse.

Of the 1,302 articles, 595 (46%) contained an acknowledgement testifying to peer interactive communication. The total number of names cited in those acknowledgement statements was 3,252, giving an average of almost 5.5 names per acknowledgement. 66% of the acknowledgements were to females and 20% to males: the remainder were either to anonymous individuals (e.g. referees) or to individuals whose gender was unknown (see Table 2 for the overall distribution of name-linked acknowledgements). The vast majority of individuals were mentioned just once. Only thirty-five (of whom thirty-four were female) were acknowledged five times or more (see Table 3). The most frequently acknowledged individual (Rayna Rapp) received twenty mentions. Of the 377 articles analysed in Feminist Studies, 199 (53%) contained a PICbearing acknowledgement. The proportion for Signs was similar-50%. In both cases, the mean number of individuals mentioned per acknowledgement was approximately 5.6. Frontiers, however, had a much lower proportion of PIC-bearing acknowledgements-25%, These, on average, cited four individuals. Females were three to four times as likely to be acknowledged as men. The approximate female/male acknowledgement ratios for Feminist Studies, Frontiers and Signs were 4:1, 3.8:1 and 2.9:1, respectively. Editorials Over the twenty year period, the editorial staffs and boards of the three journals underwent many changes, making it virtually impossible to specify the

No abstract