Avatars and Nicknames in Adolescent Chat Spaces

Full text

Avatars and Nicknames in
Adolescent Chat Spaces
Lois Ann Scheidt
L597 – Gender and Computerization
Spring 2001
Introduction
Synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments have opened new
channels for adolescents to explore their personhood. In this medium they engage in
written conversation under a nickname, a participant selected name used to disguise their
real identity. Adolescents meet and talk about their lives, their personal problems, their
activities, or nothing in particular. In this way CMC mirrors real life face-to-face (FtF)
dialogue. Many of its CMC’s unique qualities revolve around the fact that it is an austere
mode of communication. There are no changes in voice, no facial expressions, no body
language, no (or very little) visual spatial environment as a context of meaning. (Suler
1997) Additional visual representation may be made by using an avatar
1
to create a
graphical representation of a physical “body” in chat space. Thereby creating a thicker
medium using facets of written, oral, and visual languages to communication with others.
HTML chat spaces, which support GMUKS (graphical multi-user konversations) (Suler
1999), allow written, oral, and visual communication in the familiar frames-based HTML
format used by many commercial and personal websites. GMUKS create a unique
graphical social environment, rather then being purely text-based as Donath, Karahalios,
Viégas (1999) discuss in their review of the design of graphical interfaces. Multimedia
characteristics add a visual dimension that allows users to create the illusion of
movement, space, and individuality. Avatars allow users to express their personalities
through pictures using standard jpg/gif format or through animated gif files
Upon entering the chat space, the participant is entreated to select a nickname, referred to
in chat spaces as a “nic”. This nickname then becomes the participant’s identifier when
talking to others or when others talk to them. Nicknames can be very fluid, and are easily
and quickly changed to meet the participant’s needs or desires. However Bechar-Israeli
(1995), found that nicknames become highly personal markers and that if forced to
change from a favored identity, participants maintain strong ties to their earlier selections.
(pg. 5)
Avatars add additional visual clues, though Walther (1999) postulates they are more
analogues to the clues a user receives from the chat nickname than to actual visual cues
1
A Sanskrit word that roughly translates to “God’s appearance on Earth.” (pg. xv) (Damer 1998)

received during a FtF exchange. In text-based communication, users selectively present
themselves, concentrating on purposeful message construction and eliminating
involuntary nonverbal clues from interaction. This interplay can magnify their sense of
the similarity and desirability of others, while they become more friendly and attractive to
other users. (Walther 1999)
In today's media-saturated world, identities are no longer built solely within the close-knit
communities of family, neighborhood, school, and work. Media and on-line
environments are part of our world today and therefore play an important role in the
formulations of our identities or constructions of self. (Grodin and Lindlof 1996) Young
people, in the midst of discovery and their own self-development, populate adolescent
chat spaces.
Adolescents approach the development of self, setting forth stages through which the self
differentiates and becomes connected to themselves and others throughout their lifetimes.
Gender is one variable with which adolescent’s must develop a personal performance.
“From early childhood, individuals learn to signal their gender identity in accord with
gender stereotypes. They learn to perform ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity’.” (Danet 1998)
Adolescence has been identified by all approaches as a time of heightened activity for
most in the loss and creation of new balances.
Given technological limitations, users and designers’ first impulse is to create versions of
physical bodies that conform to a predictably narrow band of stereotypes. Given that any
assertion of a virtual self is itself a rhetorical act, this tendency to create avatars that serve
as stereotypical shorthand is indicative of a host of attitudes underlying our interaction
with computers. (Kolko 1999)
This paper explores the ways, in which adolescents represent themselves through avatars
and nicknames, and how gender is presented through their avatar and nickname choices
in adolescent chat spaces. Research on adolescents in this medium is severely lacking. If
we are to understand how the Internet shapes their lives, and have sufficient background
to foretell what their impact on the World Wide Web (WWW) is likely to be, it is
essential that we seek an understanding of how adolescents utilize the personal
communication opportunities available to them on the WWW. This study aims to begin
to fill this research void.
Background
Communication in Internet communication in chat spaces allows participants to
communicate in the relative safety of anonymity. Walther (2001) has noted that CMC
participants, bereft of nonverbal cues, may engage in “selective self-promotion.” (pg. 4)
“It is important to remember that virtual community originates in, and must return to, the
physical. Life is lived through bodies.” (pg. 113) (Stone 1991)
Without visual clues and societal norms gender becomes more malleable in CMC.
(Bruckman 1993) Danet (1998) states that participants “typed nick is their mask.”

Though malleable, gender does not disappear; Reid (1991) argues that users construct
gender through nicknames they choose. Although it is possible to change one's nickname
at any time, and repeatedly within a single chat space session, Bechar-Israeli, (1995)
found that participants generally choose their nick carefully and then use it consistently
over long periods of time.
The richest form of identity expression, and self-promotion, can be achieved with avatars,
visual representations of a participant’s chosen online identity. (Kim 2000) McIlvenny
(2001) states “Avatars are clearly (ac)cultured and socialized: virtual embodiment and
materiality is socially constructed, just as it is in ‘meat space’.” Kolko (1999) states that
“on-line identity develops a kind of mediated electronic body that resulted in certain
inconsistencies between the virtual and physical self.” (pg. 177) In the real world we
have limited control over how we look, however when the participant selects an avatar as
a visual representation, they make a decision to present themselves with an artifact over
which they have significant control they can also change the avatar at will.
Three levels reveal gender in CMC chat spaces - nicknames, avatars, and discourse. This
becomes a hierarchy in that nickname selection is a default requirement of the computer
interface for access to the chat space. Once logged into a chat space the participants can
“lurk
2
,” watch the conversation without adding their own remarks, thereby limiting
additional gender related information. Finally if the participants choose to use an avatar
to represent themselves that pictorial image is entered into the system at the same time as
the nickname. Again the participant could “lurk,” or “spam
3
” with only their
nickname/avatar combination, thereby limiting gender information to the nickname or
nickname/avatar combination.
Gender may also be obscured, further separating the real body and the online
representation. (Stone 1991) CMC is less revealing of personal information than FtF
communication, and some user names and/or avatars are gender-neutral. Female
participants can choose to present themselves in ways so as to minimize discrimination
and harassment by adopting a gender-neutral nickname. (Bruckman 1993)
Jacobson (1999) showed that in text-based virtual communities people develop image of
one another. These impressions are based not only on cues provided, but also on the
conceptual categories and cognitive models people use in interpreting those cues. We sit
in front of a computer terminal not only as conscious beings but also as carnal beings.
Our vision is not abstracted from our bodies or from our other sensory modes of
perception that allow us to access the world. (Sobchack 1988)
In addition analyzing even the most gender-stereotyped of avatars requires deciding,
which bodily representation is the result of cultural conceptions and which is the result of
technological limitations. How physical bodies can be represented in electronic spaces,
ultimately reveals how gendered bodies come to affect gendered voices. (Kolko 1999)
2
“Refuse to communicate.” (pg. 2) (Marvin 1995)
3
Excess and/or repetitive posting of communication. (pg. 2) (Marvin 1995)

Many authors have referenced the developing gender exploration of adolescents, as a
time of separation, autonomy, and exploration. (Marcia 1993) Tanner (1990) argues,
“because boys and girls grow up in what are essentially different cultures…talk between
women and men is cross-cultural communication.” (pg. 18) For men, conversation is for
“holding center stage” and maintaining that attention. (pg 77) Morahan-Martin (1998)
and Tapscott (1998) discuss that girls want to explore relationships, whereas boys search
for self-identity through differentiating themselves from others. “Nowhere are these two
orientations toward relationships more obvious than in cyber play” and chat spaces. (pg.
168) (Tapscott 1998) Rushkoff’s (1996) postulates that “screenager,” the child born into
a culture mediated by television and the computer will interact with their world. This
point of view would necessitate a change in how adolescents view and utilize gender and
gender-stereotypes.
Nicknames and avatars are used as stand-ins for the participant in their process of self-
promotion, as signs. The metaphor of standing-in for is the basis of the observation that
signs are used to infer something not directly perceptible, or not directly obvious, from
something that simply is. Therein lies the point of sign use, representational conceptions
of signs, construing their perceptibility as a replacement or representative of that which is
not directly perceptible: The expression stands for that which is meant. (Keller 1998)
Semiotics occurs whenever we stand back from out ways of understanding and
communication, and ask how these ways of understanding and communication arise,
what form they take, and why. Semiotics is above all an intellectual curiosity about the
ways we represent our world to each other and ourselves. (Sless 1986)
Methodology
Data Collection
The adolescent chat space used for this study is part of a chat site consisting of 181
chatrooms, twenty-four of which are designated for General Chat and populated by
adolescents. Each room has a capacity of 30 participants. The total General Chat
participation regularly exceeds 200 participants. One General Chat room was selected for
this study based on the consistent use of avatars, and the regularity of 10 or more
participants around the clock.
The space in question is utilized 24-hours a day, therefore data was collected by dividing
the day into four time blocks. Data was collected in one-hour increments, two hours was
collected in each time block as both direct feed and source code. Individual avatars were
collected and saved for analysis.
Since this research is based solely on adolescents in a single chat space, it only accounts
for one of many types of the online space in which adolescents participate, and
conclusions about the construction of adolescents as chat space participants relate strictly
to this particular site. Samples were taken between February 26, 2001 and March 4,
2001.

Data was cleaned to remove avatars and nicknames for persons over 18 i.e., Hot M(35).
Site Moderators were also removed, as they must be 21 to hold that position.
Final data consisted of 119 unique avatars, and 396 unique nicknames.
Avatars
Content analysis was the primary method used to evaluate the avatars. Semiotic analysis
was incorporated to the extent possible. The coding scheme was developed during an
earlier pilot study. Coding categories were non-exclusive, so a single avatar may be
coding in multiple categories.
Avatars
Advertising logos
Baggy clothes
Combination
Coy Gaze
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
Eyes covered
Revealing Clothing
Sexually Suggestive
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
Nicknames
Content analysis was used to evaluate the nicknames. The 14 category coding scheme
framework as used in, Bechar-Israeli, H.(1995). Again coding was non-exclusive.
Bechar-Israeli Coding Scheme
Age related
Famous people/groups
Flora & fauna
Inanimate objects
Literature, fairy tales, characters
from films, plays, television
Meta comment on the anonymity
of the medium
Onomatopoeia
Place names
Provocative
Relationships to others
Self character traits
Sex-related
Technology related
Typography

6 additional categories were added.
Additional Categories
Actual name/Nickname
(diminutive)
Ethereal
Multiple chatters
Popular sayings
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
Social/status comments
A single rater was used for this project, though ad hoc input was solicited in some
situations.
Results
Avatars
The 58 avatars female avatars (table 2) were represented in all coding categories with the
exception of “eyes covered”. A coy gaze (Example 1) was present in 69.245 of the
female avatars. 55.17% were rated as sexually suggestive (Example 2). 41.38% were
wearing revealing clothing. Exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics, oversized
breasts, were present in 39.66% of the female avatars (Example 4). Combination avatars
- those that use a variety of elements including text, graphics, etc., to produce a unique
avatar – were used by 31.03% (Example 5). Baggy clothing primarily pants, and often in
combination with revealing tops, were present in 29.31% of the avatars (Example 6).
12.07% were wearing advertising logos (Example 6). Finally 6.9% of the avatars
reviewed were tagged as belonging to a “gang” or group (Example 7).
The 36 male avatars were represented in all coding categories. Baggy clothing, pants and
shirts, were present in 83.33% of the male avatars (Example 9). The eyes of the males
were covered in 66.67% of the avatars, most often by hats or sunglasses (Example 10).
33.33% of the males clothing shows advertising logos (Example11). Exaggerated
secondary sexual characteristics (Example 12), chest and arm muscles, were seen in
30.56%. Combination avatars (Example 13) were used by 19.44%. Revealing clothing
was seen in 15.89%, all cases were shirtless male doll avatars (Example 14). 5.56% of
the male avatars show coy gaze (Example 15). Sexually suggestive (Example 16) and
those tagged as belong to a “gang” or group accounted for 2.78% each of the male
avatars (Example 13).
Three avatars displayed both females and males and were represented in all coding
categories. The category breakdown for this group is a mix of the coding seen in the two
previous categories. However the group more closely mirrors the male only category.
100% of the avatars show baggy clothing. 66.67% each were combination avatars, show
covered eyes, revealing clothing, were sexually suggestive, show coy gaze, and

exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics. Advertising logos, and those tagged as
belong to a “gang” or group accounted for 33.33% each of the female & male avatars.
Two avatars of unknown gender (Example 17) display human characters whose gender is
not obvious from their physical characteristics or dress. These avatars were represented
in two of the coding categories and each is an exclusive coding, baggy clothing and eyes
covered.
Four avatars were non-human characters, including a bunch of cherries and a gnome.
These avatars were represented in none of the coding categories.
The 16 graphical avatars (Example 17) were those that show purely textual and graphical
elements. These avatars were represented in two coding categories. 56.25% were
combination avatars utilizing combinations of graphics, often publicly available, and text
to create a unique avatar. 25% were tagged as belong to a “gang” or group (Example 18).
Nicknames
The 150 nicknames of female participants were represented in 17 categories. Those not
represented were: meta comment on the anonymity of the medium, place names, and
tagged as belonging to a “gang” or group. 95% use an actual name/nickname/diminutive
(example 20). 51.33% utilized typography and special character sets to stylize their
nicknames (example 21). Self character traits represent 28.67% (example 22). 14.67%
include an age related component (example 23). Sex-related comments were present in
14.67% (example24). 10.00% were provocative comments, not sexually provocative
(example25). The category literature, fairy tales, characters from film, plays, and
television account for 8.67% of the female nicknames (example 26). Social/Status
comments also account for 8.67% of the nicknames (example 27). 5.33% were flora and
fauna nicknames (example 28). 5.33% were also stating their relationships to other
(example 29). Inanimate objects constitute 2.67% (example 30). Famous people &
groups were seen in 2.00% (example 31). Five categories represent 1.33% of the
categories. These include, ethereal (example 32), multiple chatters (example 33),
onomatopoeia (example 34), popular sayings (example 35), and technology related
(example 36).
The 112 male nicknames were represented in categories except onomatopoeia. 63.39%
utilize actual name/nickname/diminutive (example 37). Self character traits were seen in
25.00% (example 38). 19.64% utilized typography and special characters in their
nickname choice (example 39). 11.61% were sex-related (example 40). Famous
people/groups contribute 9.82% (example 41). 8.04% were tagged as belonging to a
“gang” or group (example 42). Age related nicknames appear in 5.36% (example 43).
The category literature, fairy tales, characters from film, plays, and television account for
5.36% (example 44). 4.46% were provocative (example 45). Three categories account
for 3.57% each. These include, place names (example 46), relationships to others
(example 45), and technology related (example 47). Inanimate objects were found in

2.68%, (example 45). Both flora & fauna (example 48), and meta comment on the
anonymity of the medium constitute (example 49) 1.79% each. Four categories
constitute 0.89% each: ethereal, multiple chatters, popular sayings, and social/status
comments.
The 134 of the nicknames of unknown gender were represented in 17 of the 20
categories. Three coding categories were not represented in this grouping, popular
sayings, relationship to others, and technology related. 35.07% show self character traits
in their nicknames (example 50). Typography and special characters were present in
29.85% of the nicknames. 14.93% show provocative comments. Sex-related nicknames
were present in 11.19% (example 51). The category literature, fairy tales, characters
from film, plays, and television account for 8.96%. Two categories account for 5.97%
each, flora & fauna, and social/status comments. Three categories show 5.22% each,
inanimate objects, ethereal, and tagged as belonging to a “gang” or group. 4.48% utilize
famous people/group names. Three categories account for 3.73% each,
name/nickname/diminutive, age related, and meta-comment on the anonymity of the
medium. 2.99% of the nicknames were onomatopoeia. 2.24% were place names.
Finally 0.75% indicated multiple chatters utilizing a single nickname.
Qualitative Results
Avatars
Table 1
Avatars
Female
58
Males
36
With Both Female and Male
3
Unknown Gender
2
Non-Human
4
Graphical
16
Table 2
Female
n = 58
Avatars Totals Percentages
Coy Gaze
39 67.24%
Sexually Suggestive
32 55.17%
Revealing Clothing
24 41.38%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
23 39.66%
Combination
18 31.03%

Baggy clothes
17 29.31%
Advertising logos
7 12.07%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
4 6.90%
Eyes covered
0 0.00%
Table 3
Male
n = 36
Avatars Totals Percentages
Baggy clothes
30 83.33%
Eyes covered
24 66.67%
Advertising logos
12 33.33%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
11 30.56%
Combination
7 19.44%
Revealing Clothing
5 13.89%
Coy Gaze
2 5.56%
Sexually Suggestive
1 2.78%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
1 2.78%
Table 4
Female & Male
n = 3
Avatars Totals Percentages
Baggy clothes
3 100.00%
Combination
2 66.67%
Eyes covered
2 66.67%
Revealing Clothing
2 66.67%

Sexually Suggestive
2 66.67%
Coy Gaze
2 66.67%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
2 67.00%
Advertising logos
1 33.33%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
1 33.33%
Table 5
Unknown Gender
n = 2
Avatars Totals Percentages
Baggy clothes
1 50.00%
Eyes Covered
1 50.00%
Advertising logos
0 0.00%
Combination
0 0.00%
Coy Gaze
0 0.00%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
0 0.00%
Revealing Clothing
0 0.00%
Sexually Suggestive
0 0.00%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
0 0.00%
Table 6
Non-Human
n = 4
Avatars Totals Percentages
Advertising logos
0 0.00%
Baggy clothes
0 0.00%
Combination
0 0.00%

Coy Gaze
0 0.00%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
0 0.00%
Eyes covered
0 0.00%
Revealing Clothing
0 0.00%
Sexually Suggestive
0 0.00%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
0 0.00%
Table 7
Graphical
n = 16
Avatars Totals Percentages
Combination
9 56.25%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
4 25.00%
Advertising logos
0 0.00%
Baggy clothes
0 0.00%
Coy Gaze
0 0.00%
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual
Characteristics
0 0.00%
Eyes Covered
0 0.00%
Revealing Clothing
0 0.00%
Sexually Suggestive
0 0.00%
Nicknames
Table 8
Nicknames
Female
150
Male
112

Unknown
Gender
134
Table 9
Female
n =150
Nicknames Totals Percentages
Actual name/Nickname
(diminutive)
95 63.33%
Typography
77 51.33%
Self character traits
43 28.67%
Age related
22 14.67%
Sex-related
22 14.67%
Provocative
15 10.00%
Literature, fairy tales, characters
from films, plays, television
13 8.67%
Social/status comments
13 8.67%
Flora & fauna
8 5.33%
Relationships to others
8 5.33%
Inanimate objects
4 2.67%
Famous people/groups
3 2.00%
Ethereal
2 1.33%
Multiple chatters
2 1.33%
Onomatopoeia
2 1.33%
Popular sayings
2 1.33%
Technology related
2 1.33%
Meta comment on the anonymity
of the medium
0 0.00%
Place names
0 0.00%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
0 0.00%
Table 10
Male
n = 112
Nicknames Totals Percentages

Actual name/Nickname
(diminutive)
71 63.39%
Self character traits
28 25.00%
Typography
22 19.64%
Sex-related
13 11.61%
Famous people/groups
11 9.82%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
9 8.04%
Age related
6 5.36%
Literature, fairy tales, characters
from films, plays, television
6 5.36%
Provocative
5 4.46%
Place names
4 3.57%
Relationships to others
4 3.57%
Technology related
4 3.57%
Inanimate objects
3 2.68%
Flora & fauna
2 1.79%
Meta comment on the anonymity
of the medium
2 1.79%
Ethereal
1 0.89%
Multiple chatters
1 0.89%
Popular sayings
1 0.89%
Social/status comments
1 0.89%
Onomatopoeia
0 0.00%
Table 11
Unknown Gender
n = 134
Nicknames Totals Percentages
Self character traits
47 35.07%
Typography
40 29.85%
Provocative
20 14.93%
Sex-related
15 11.19%

Literature, fairy tales, characters
from films, plays, television
12 8.96%
Flora & fauna
8 5.97%
Social/status comments
8 5.97%
Inanimate objects
7 5.22%
Ethereal
7 5.22%
Tagged as belonging to a "gang"
or group
7 5.22%
Famous people/groups
6 4.48%
Name/Nickname (diminutive)
5 3.73%
Age related
5 3.73%
Meta comment on the anonymity
of the medium
5 3.73%
Onomatopoeia
4 2.99%
Place names
3 2.24%
Multiple chatters
1 0.75%
Popular sayings
0 0.00%
Relationships to others
0 0.00%
Technology related
0 0.00%
Examples
Coy Gaze (Female)
Example 1

Sexually Suggestive (Female)
Example 2
Revealing Clothing (Female)
Example 3
Exaggerated Secondary Sexual Characteristics (Female)
Example 4
Combination (Female)
Example 5
Baggy Clothing (Female)
Example 6

Advertising logos (Female)
Example 7
Tagged as belonging to a “gang” or group (Female)
Example 8
Baggy Clothing (Male)
Example 9
Eyes Obscured (Male)
Example 10
Advertising logos (Male)
Example 11

Exaggerated Secondary Sexual Characteristics
(Male)
Example 12
Combination & Tagged as belonging to a “gang” or
group (Male)
Example 13
Revealing Clothing (Male)
Example 14
Coy Gaze (Male)
Example 15

Sexually Suggestive (Male)
Example 16
Unknown Gender
Example 17
Combination (Unknown Gender)
Example 18
Tagged as belonging to a “gang” or group (Unknown Gender)
Example 19
Example Nickname
20
Kristine
21
*~DeNeLLe~*
22
Ashley ~Pure Sugar~
23
Devil_babygrl_17
24
READY TO SCREW 2 HOT CHICKS
25
*^Prettie Mandy^* *~Jason's Angel~* œAn Angel To
Sum But A Bitch To Othersœ<
26
*~juliet~*(14F)

27
~Buffy~ *Single and looking* *Beauty Runs Within*
28
KITTEN......SOFT,CUDDLY,PLAYFUL,WITHCLAWS
29
Tracey14/Step-DaddysGirl
30
*aShLeIgH* ....DiScOmBoBuLaTeD.... -I Had to Fall to
Lose it All- ^In the End it Doesn't Even Matter^ a.k.a
....::Lil Green Bong::.…
31
~*Twiztid kLown girL*~
32
~§~Prin(c)ess ºf the Night~§~
33
MandyandChristina
34
Lzzy
35
~*Spoiled Brat*~(F)
36
Sugar & Spice (ICQ)
37
RON
38
SoUrBoY420
39
j
øë jøë Death be not prompt Thou so have called me
mighty and dreadful Thou art not so Quote of Children of
Bodom
40
HooTer Lover
41
N
o limit soldie
r
42
Snowboarder Boy Creator of the Hard Core
Snowboarders
43
HOT GUY 16
44
MAKAVELI ***kandi's man 4life******LEADER OF
THA MURDERERS******CO-LEADA OF THA
GANGSTA BOYZ***
45
JaKoB *The Voice In Your Head* *The Super Seeexay
Pieemp* *Burnin Buddies With Sle And Jack* *Weapon
Of Choice Platinum Lighter With DoCkTa JaKoB
Writin On It In Dimonds And A Can Of Gas* *Down
With The Klowns 4 Life* *Body Gaurd Of Sle and
Wizz* *I walk with a lieemp cuz i'm da greatest Pieemp*
*Pieemps in the front freeks in the back push em all into
the cadalacs
46
j
im alone in dor
m

47
matt (webcam)
48 k_dog
49 (M)e
50
~Hype~ ~CO-LEADA OF THE 2 RIPPED 4 U CREW~ I HAD
TO FALL TO LOSE TO IT ALL
51 ~spicy~
Discussion & Conclusions
The Bechar-Israeli (1995) coding format was not best suited to this data set. The low
numbers identified show that the adolescents were selecting nicknames from different
realms or with different motivations then the mostly adult IRC participants from whom
the coding scheme was developed. A future challenge will be to develop a scheme that
more closely mirrors this participant group.
In reviewing both the avatar and nickname categories several overarching interpretations
present themselves. Uniker-Sebeok (1996) in her semiotic analysis of magazine
advertising describes ritualized subordination as the female’s pictured adopt posture
which indicate submission to control of others. Adolescent females avatars show this
characteristic in coy gazes, sexually suggestiveness, adopting revealing clothing styles,
idealized bodies (Exaggerated Secondary Sexual Characteristics), and utilizing sex-
related nicknames.
Ware & Stuck (1985) in their content analysis of computer magazines advertisements
found that many stereotypical portrayals were found. Men appear more often then
women; women were relegated to roles as clerical worker or sex object. The current
study shows that sex object identification has continued through avatar and nickname
selection.
Adolescent females also advertise their true selves by utilizing nicknames that advertise
their age, actual name/nickname/diminutive, self character traits, and showing their
originality by utilizing innovative typography in their nicknames.
Umiker-Sebeok (1996) also found that “psychological withdrawal from the social context
(males stay attuned and ready for potential threats to their control of the situation while
females' attention drifts away).” (pg. 3) One common way to signify withdrawal is to
cover the face. In this study male participants showed this characteristic more then
females, distancing and obscuring the self through covered eyes, and baggy clothing.
While the adolescent male must “disconnect, must separate himself, must assert his right
to be distinct,” they also strive to create in group connects as shown through the use of
logos on clothing. (pg.81) (Archer 1993)

Finally adolescent males strive to be known for their true selves in the same way as
adolescent females. The advertise their true selves by using their actual
name/nickname/diminutive, self character traits, and showing their originality by utilizing
innovative typography in their nicknames.
Previous writes including Bruckman (1993), have discussed that participants who adopt
nicknames that do not disclose their gender are often female. In this study it had been
expected that the participants who adopted personas of unknown gender would mirror the
categories used by identified female participants. It was interesting that this expectation
was not born out. Participants in this study mirrored the advertising of the true self, using
both self character traits and typography innovatively. The participants in this group do
take the anonymity of their status to utilize provocative nicknames to challenge and
agitate the chat space.
Implications
The primary implication of this study is that adolescents vary from established research
findings based in adults in chat spaces. Research on adolescents in CMC spaces has been
limited, Thomas (2000) she found through her ethnographic study of children (8 – 15), in
the Palace 3D environment, that are “learning to converse with new semiotic systems,
some of which directly relate to computer programming cues, other are signs of their own
invention, both of which combine to create a new form of text which requires correct
interpretation for inclusively in the cyber world of children.” (pg. 13) Part of this new
semiotic system is bound within and around their developing sense of gender for
themselves, and their expectations of others. Further research is needed to establish how
contact with other adolescents through computer-mediated environments impacts and is
impacted by their personal explorations.
Suggestions for future research
First it appears that nickname selections of adolescents in internet based chat spaces vary
from those of adults in IRC spaces. A coding scheme that more accurately reflects these
participants must be developed.
Of the 119 avatars reviewed for this study only three avatars represented non-white
persons. Two show groups of adolescent males, dressed in hip-hop style and pointing
guns at the viewer. The third is a photo of a famous Hispanic actress who is scantily clad
and shown in a suggestive pose. Additional research is needed to evaluate the
representation of race in adolescent chat spaces.
Additional gender research is suggested by this study. A full semiotic analysis of the
nickname, avatar, HTML formatting, etc as a single unit of analysis may show additional
insight into adolescent behavior in CMC spaces.
The addition of discourse analysis and interviews, and/or ethnographic research to this
study would allow the researcher to evaluate the participants intended messages and the
messages received by avatar and nickname selections.

Finally this study raises research questions relating to the creators of the avatars and those
that maintain the publicly available avatar libraries from which most of the avatars in this
study were selected: What are their genders, how do they make design decisions, what
messages do they perceive are sent by their designs.
Bibliography
1. Archer, Sally L. 1993. Identity in relational contexts: A methodological proposal. In
Discussions on ego identity, edited by Kroger, Jane (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum).
2. Bechar-Israeli, Haya. 1995. From <Bonehead> to <cLoNehEAd>: Nicknames,
play, and identity on internet relay chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication [On-line] 1, no. 2.
3. Bruckman, Amy S. 1993. Gender swapping on the internet. at San Francisco CA.
4. Damer, Bruce. 1998. Avatars! Exploring and building virtual worlds on the
internet. Berkely CA: Peachpit Press.
5. Danet, Brenda. 1998. Text as mask: Gender, play, and performance on the net. In
Cyberspace 2.0, edited by Jones, Steve (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Publications).
6. Donath, J., K. Karahalios, and F Viegas. 1999. Visualizing conversation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line] 4, no. 4.
7. Grodin, Debra and Thomas. R. Lindlof. 1996. The self and mediated
communication. In Constructing the self in a mediated world, edited by
Grodin, Debra and Thomas. R. Lindlof (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.).
8. Jacobson, David. 1999. Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations
and offline experience in text-based virtual communities. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line] 5, no. 1.
9. Keller, Rudi. 1998. A theory of linguistic signs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Kim, Amy Jo. 2000. Community building on the Web: Secret strategies for
successful, online communities. Berkley CA: Peachpit Press.
11. Kolko, Beth E. 1999. Representing bodies in virtual space: The rhetoric of avatar
design. The Information Society 15:177-186.

12. Marcia, James E. 1993. The relational roots of identity. In Discussions on ego
identity, edited by Kroger, Jane (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
13. Marvin, Lee-Ellen. 1995. Spoof, spam, kurk, and lag: The aesthetics of text-based
virtual realities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line] 1,
no. 2.
14. McIlvenny, Paul. 2001. Avatars r us? Discourses of community and embodiment in
intercultural cyberspace. Intercultural Communication 1, no. 1.
15. Morahan-Martin, J. 1998. Males, females, and the internet. In Psychology and the
internet, edited by Gackenbach, J. (San Diego CA: Academic Press).
16. Reid, Elizabeth M. 1991. Electropolis: Communication and community on internet
relay chat. Masters Electropolis: Communication and community on
internet relay chat, Department of History, University of Melbourne.
17. Rushkoff, Douglas. 1996. Children of chaos. London: Harper Collins.
18. Sless, David. 1986. In search of semiotics. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.
19. Sobchack, Vivian. 1988. The scene of the screen: Toward a phenomenology of
cinematic and electronic 'presence'. In Materialities of Communication,
edited by Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich and K. Ludwig Preiffer (Stanford CA:
Stanford University Press).
20. Stone, Allcquere Rosanne. 1991. Will the real body please stand up? Boundary
stories about virtual cultures. In Cyberspace: First steps, edited by Benedikt,
M 5th ed. (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press).
21. Suler, J. 1997. Psychological dynamics of online synchronous conversations in text-
driven chat environments. In Psychology of Cyberspace, edited by Suler, J.
Web-Publishing).
22. Suler, J. 1999. The psychology of avatars and graphical space in multimedia chat
communities (or how I learned to stop worrying and love my Palace props).
In Psychology of Cyberspace, edited by Suler, J. Web-Publishing).
23. Tannen, Debra. 1990. You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: William Morrow.
24. Tapscott, Don. 1998. Growing up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Thomas, Angela. 2000. Cyber Children: Discursive and subjective practices in the
Palace.
26. Umiker-Sebeok, Jean. 1996. Power and the Construction of Gendered Spaces.
International Review of Sociology 6, no. 3:389-403.

27. Walther, Joseph B. 1999. Visual cues and computer-mediated communication:
Don't look before you leap. 1999, at San Francisco CA.
28. Walther, Joseph B. 2001. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Communication
Research 28, no. 1:105-135.
29. Ware, Mary Catherine and Mary Frances Stuck. 1985. Sex-role messages vis-a-vis
Microcomputer use: A look at the pictures. SexRoles: A journal of research
13, no. 5/6:205-214.