A guest lecture, sponsored by the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University. The talk was given on 7 October 2014 in the Schoonover Lobby by Dr. Nick Bowman.

1. THE (NOT SO)
SECRET
LIFE OF
AVATARS
Interaction Lab
(#ixlab)
ND Bowman
Ohio University
6 October 2014

2. The (Not So) Secret Life of Avatars
1954: BEFORE THE AVATAR

3. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
• Media provides the “illusion of
face-to-face relationships with
the performer”…
• …that is “one-sided, non-dialectical,
and controlled by
the performer” Walter Cronkite, the most
Trusted man in America.

4. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
• The relationship can
– Make content more
enjoyable
– Let us explore new
relationships
– Provide feelings of
importance, acceptance

5. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
• All social encounters
involve a mindreading…
• …and these automated
processes happen even
with mediated
encounters

6. PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
• Mindreading leads to
(a sense of) mutual
awareness…
• …especially if
mediated personae
give off such cues!

9. Avatar =
• From Avatara
• Graphical user
representations
• Carriers of
meaning/agency
• Mediators of
phenomenal gameplay

10. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
“Organic” Player
“Inorganic” Avatar
These relationships exist
as headcanons, in the
mind of the player!

11. Your wish is
my command.

12. THROUGH A
POST-POSITIVIST LENS
• Concurrent validity
with;
– RPG play (3.96)
– Fantasy (.46)
– Diversion (.26)
– Social interaction
(.23)
– Enjoyment (.23)
– Time Played (.17)
– Addiction (.37)

14. THROUGH A
CONSTRUCTIVIST LENS
Avatar
Gender
Dyad
Relationship ≈
• valenced connection
• between two people
• where each influences the other
Game
environment
Social
groups
Interface
Physical
Environment
Culture
agents

15. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
Player Agencies
• Avatars as functional
tools
• Avatar as an
extension of the self
– Identity tourism
– Trait personality
– Moral decisions

16. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
Avatar Agencies
• Avatars as relational
partners with
– Needs
– Desires
– Affordances
• Proteus Effect

17. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
Object Me Symbiote Other

18. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
• Bowen (1976)
suggested that a key
to empathy is
distinguishing one
from another
• Separation leads to
“true” empathy,
without ego block
Object Me Symbiote Other

19. Character Bits Social
Bits
V.

20. THE BATTLE ROYALE …
Character Attachment
• Identification
(pretending, being, affinity)
• Suspension of disbelief
(error, plausibility)
• Control
(‘obedience,’ frustration)
• Care/responsibility
(wants, needs, interests)
PAR Sociality
• Anthropomorphic
autonomy
(thoughts, feelings, life)
• Emotional investment
(love, appreciation, loss)
• Companionship
(friends, understanding,
reciprocation)

21. Table 1. A typology of Player-Avatar Relationships (PAR), from Banks and Bowman (2013).
Avatar as Object Avatar a Me Avatar as Symbiote Avatar as Other
Identification
(I am that avatar)
Low
My avatar is a
digital form.
High
My avatar is me in
digital form.
Mid
My avatar is a part
of me.
Low
My avatar is its
own being.
Suspension of
Disbelief
(Accepts Digital
World as a Real
One)
Low
The environment is
a space of
competition.
Mid
I appropriate the
world to fit my own
view of it.
Mid
I am able to visit my
avatar’s world.
High
My avatar lives in a
digital world with
its own norms.
Sense of Control
(Physical)
High
My avatar is a tool
for mastery of in-game
challenges.
Mid
My avatar is my
social surrogate to
accomplish my
social play goals.
Mid
My avatar and I use
each other to
accomplish
negotiated goals.
Low
I am a tool for my
avatar; it tells me
how to control it to
accomplish its
goals.
Sense of Care &
Responsibility
(Affective)
Low
My avatar has no
needs.
Mid
My avatar is me – it
needs what I need.
Mid
My avatar and I
know each other’s
needs.
High
I help my avatar
get the things it
needs.

22. Para-social Social

23. EFA ~ THE BEAUTY PAGEANT
• Emotional Investment
– ~24% variance
• Anthropomorphic autonomy
– ~20% variance
• Suspension of disbelief
– ~17% variance
• Sense of control
– ~12% variance ~72%

24. CFA ~ THE TALENT SHOW
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

25. INTEGRATED MODEL …
• Emotional Investment (from PAR)
love, loss, appreciation
• Suspension of Disbelief (from CA, adjusted)
error, plausibility
• Player Control (from CA)
‘obedience,’ control
• Avatar Anthro-Autonomy (from PAR)
(life, feelings, thoughts)

26. PLAYER-AVATAR RELATIONSHIPS
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)
Anthromorphism-
Autonomy
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)

27. VALIDATIONS …
• Human-like relatedness
F (4,385) = 64.49, p < .001, R2 = 401 (Adj. R2 = .395)
Durbin-Watson = 1.94

28. VALIDATIONS …
• Play motivations
• Immersion: F(4,488) = 34.76, p < .001, R2 =
.222 (Adj. R2 = .215), DW = 1.93

29. BONUS: PLAYER-AVATAR
RELATION SCALE
• 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.

30. FOR MORE INFORMATION
Nick Bowman, Ph.D. [CV]
Twitter (@bowmanspartan)
Skype (nicholasdbowman)
nicholas.bowman@mail.wvu.edu
Interaction Lab
(#ixlab)
http://comm.wvu.edu
/fs/research/lab