Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
You say dāta, I say däta:  Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

You say dāta, I say däta: Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena – the case of player-avatar relationships

745

Published on

Early in graduate school, scholars are introduced to the foundational epistemologies and ontologies of their fields. Similar to the way in which children tend to adopt the world-views of their …

Early in graduate school, scholars are introduced to the foundational epistemologies and ontologies of their fields. Similar to the way in which children tend to adopt the world-views of their parents, young scholars tend to acclimatize to the theoretical and methodological assumptions of their advisors. In this process, scholars learn to harness the tools of their chosen focus of study, often at once mastering one tool-set and becoming blind to the potential utility of others. In this presentation, we present the results of a line of research on player-avatar relationships (PARs) that has successfully leveraged the seemingly-inherent friction of two very divergent approaches to research: interpretative scholarship aimed at generating rich data from conspicuous participants (in which the data analyzed are subjective accounts of human experiences gathered using quasi-ethnographic methods) and post-positive scholarship aimed at gathering broad data from anonymous participants (in which the data analyzed are observed cognitions, attitudes or behaviors produced through survey and experimentation). Initial solutions from both camps produced competing explanations regarding PARs – the former suggesting them to be best framed as authentic social relationships, the latter suggesting them to be best framed as para-social affinities. Subsequent studies theoretically and methodologically blended both approaches, resulting in a broader and deeper conceptualization of PARs that accounts for counterintuitive patterns in the qualitative data and substantially improves variance explained by data models designed to understand uses and effects.

Talk delivered at the University of Muenster, Thursday July 24. Images contained are not property of authors, with exception of data tables and figures.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
745
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Jaime Banks ~ @amperjay Nicholas David Bowman ~ @bowmanspartan West Virginia University, USA ~ @wvucommstudies #ixlab Harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena
  • 2. • Ontology - realism/objectivism • Epistemology – post-positivist/objectivist • Knowledge can approximate any “real” object • Additive knowledge becomes increasingly objective • Descriptive > Prescriptive • Methodology – scientific method, quantitative • experimental psychology • behavioral observation • (occasional) mass survey research • Research focus • Media psychology • Interactivity and message processing
  • 3. • Ontology - Material-semiotic • Epistemology - Relational • Constructivism • Situativity • Inter-subjectivity • Methodologies – Interpretive, qualitative • Phenomenology • Grounded Theory • Actor-Networks • Research focus • Identity, embodiment • Human-technology relationships
  • 4. Avatar = • User representations • Conduits of meaning/agency • Mediators of phenomenal gameplay
  • 5. •Audiences have always responded to on-screen media characters as if they were “real”, impacting • Attention and modeling • Narrative involvement • Enjoyment •Yet, we’ve never been able to interface with that on-screen persona
  • 6. Your wish is my command.
  • 7. • Psychological Merging • Dimensions • Identification • Suspension of Disbelief • Sense of Control • Sense of care/responsibility • Associated with play motivations, pro/antisocial tendencies, enjoyment/appreciation Lewis, Weber, & Bowman (2008)
  • 8. Relationship ≈ • valenced connection • between two people • where each influences the other Avatar Dyad Social groups Game environ. Interface Phys. Env. Culture
  • 9. Object Me Symbiote Other
  • 10. • Theoretically divergent (psychological merging, psychological differentiation) • Conceptual overlaps: agency, emotion • Predictive/associative value • Narrative involvement • Prosocial/cooperative play • Appreciation
  • 11. Avatar as Object Avatar as Me Avatar as Symbiote Avatar as Social Other Identification Low High Mid Low Suspension of disbelief Low Mid Mid High Sense of Control High Mid Mid Low Sense of care/ responsibility Low Mid Mid High
  • 12. Para-social Social
  • 13. • Anthro-autonomy • ~28% variance • α = .907 • Emotional investment • ~26% • α = .901 • Sense of companionship • ~16% • α = .888 ~70% variance explained
  • 14. Character Attachment • Identification (pretending, being, affinity) • Suspension of disbelief (error, plausibility) • Control (‘obedience,’ frustration) • Care/responsibility (wants, needs, interests) PAR Sociality • Anthro. autonomy (thoughts, feelings, life) • Emotional investment (love, appreciation, loss) • Companionship (friends, understanding, reciprocation)
  • 15. • Emotional Investment • ~24% variance • α = .910 • Anthropomorphic autonomy (humanness) • ~20% • α = .891 • Suspension of disbelief • ~17% • α = .891 • Sense of control • ~12% • α = .796 ~72% variance explained
  • 16. CMIN/df = 1.27, p = .076 CFI = .989 RMSEA = .036 Correlations shown are significant at the p < .001 level or greater. .42 .44 .32 -.45
  • 17. • Emotional Investment (from PAR) love, loss, appreciation • Suspension of Disbelief (from CA, adjusted) error, plausibility • Player Control (from CA) ‘obedience,’ control • Avatar Autonomy (life, feelings, thoughts)
  • 18. • Human-like relatedness F (4,385) = 64.49, p < .001, R2 = 401 (Adj. R2 = .395) Durbin-Watson = 1.94
  • 19. • Play motivations • Social: F(4,485) = 12.54, p < .001, R2 = .094 (Adj. R2 = .086), DW = 1.93 • Completion: F(4,487) = 1.40, p < .235, R2 = .011 (Adj. R2 = .003), DW = 1.88 • Immersion: F(4,488) = 34.76, p < .001, R2 = .222 (Adj. R2 = .215), DW = 1.93
  • 20. • PAR types Avatar as Object n = 267 Avatar as Me n = 88 Avatar as Symbiote n = 95 Avatar as Other n = 44 Emotional Investment 4.02a (1.57) 5.72b (1.12) 6.20c (.783) 5.45b (1.26) Anthropo- morphism 1.36a (.745) 1.89b (1.32) 3.30c (1.67) 3.37c (1.64) Suspension of Disbelief 3.33a 1.75) 4.53b (1.72) 5.06b (1.56) 4.54b (1.86) Control 6.26b,c (.965) 6.44c (.825) 5.85a,b (1.27) 5.83a (1.20)
  • 21. Object Me Symbiote Other
  • 22. • I sometimes forget my own feelings and take on those of my character. • I enjoy pretending my character is a real person. • I consider my character a friend of mine. • I enjoy pretending I am my character. • I could see myself being attracted to my character. • I daydream about my character.
  • 23. • Generalizability + context • Breadth and depth • Improved explanatory power
  • 24. • Learning other tool sets • Resolving philosophical differences • Being open to breaking things and being ‘wrong’
  • 25. • Emotional Investment • This avatar is very special to me. • I appreciate this avatar. • I would be heartbroken if I lost this avatar. • I love this avatar. • (R) I don’t really care about this avatar. • (R) I have no emotional connection to this avatar. • Player Control • This avatar does what I want. • I control this avatar. • Avatar Autonomy • When I log out of the game, this avatar has its own life. • This avatar has its own feelings. • This avatar has its own thoughts and ideas. • Suspension of Disbelief • I concentrate on inconsistencies in this avatar's story and the game story. • It is important to check for inconsistencies in this avatar's game. • I pay attention to errors or contradictions in this avatar's world.

×