Although the article provided interesting reading this reviewer cannot recommend the information reported to be embodied within a larger content knowledge area with respect to the understanding of cultural diversity

2. Vazire, Simine and Gosling, Samuel D. (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality Impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87:1, 123-132.

Any research investigation must command enthusiasm, interest and passionate commitment. If these tenets are not adhered to then the research is merely an ad hoc exercise and not a scientific endeavor of importance. Further, research investigative situations that make use of numerical data must strictly adhere to a very stringent format that includes, but not limited to, a proposed research need, a stated research question, a formulation of a testable null hypothesis, a definition of the variables under investigation, and a selection on an instrument that will produce the needed data for statistical analysis. The article published by Vazire and Gosling will be evaluated with respect to these requirements.

Although the authors do define "personality impressions" (p 124) they fail to present the reader with an acceptable reference for definition. In other words, there exists no supportive information with respect to the legitimacy of their definition.

Even though an evaluation of definition is not an issue that comes first in a critical evaluation of a research endeavor, in the present situation it is one that unfolds in front of the reader immediately.

The authors abided by the requirement to state a research question in the beginning of the investigation (p 124); however, they failed, like Burkard and Knox, to present a testable null hypothesis. As mentioned in the evaluation of the first article, whenever statistical tools are employed in a research investigation...

Further, the authors failed to inform the reader as to the demographics of the websites as well as to their classification. Simply by stating that they are personal websites without classification is unacceptable in terms of sampling procedure. As a side bar note one would have to ask the authors whether or not the 385 authored websites were business related, sex related, issue related, or even profession related. These intervening and nested variables will, and can, impact the results of a study tremendously.
Out of the 385 websites contacted the authors report that 89 authors returned consent forms. Seemingly, therefore, this constitutes the sample used for the study. Needless-to-say this carries with it a great deal of uncontrollable bias that the authors never account for. In addition the authors "offer" (p 125) the participants a complimentary report of their individual self-report that impacts the results visa via bias, of the study if not accounted for.

The ill-stated "predictions" the authors stated cannot, and stress is placed on the word cannot, is not open for discussion. The reason being is that the authors did not properly form their hypotheses for statistical analysis nor did they assay or examine the variables needed for assessment. In fact, the lack of numerical data provided sufficient support for the fact that the study is not reliable or valid.

Finally, the research investigation under review was, for this reviewer, neither scientific nor palpable. In fact the research published by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is mere paper filler and does not add to any knowledge content.