you say dāta, i say däta: harnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better...
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
Jaime Banks ~ @amperjayNicholas David Bowman ~ @bowmanspartanWest Virginia University, USA ~ @wvucommstudies #ixlab
You say data, I say dätaHarnessing the friction of competing epistemologies to better understand social phenomena
Prologue …
Nick … • 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
Jaime …• Ontology - Material-semiotic• Epistemology - Relational
• Constructivism• Situativity• Inter-subjectivity
• Methodologies – Interpretive, qualitative• Phenomenology• Grounded Theory• Actor-Networks
• Research focus• Identity, embodiment• Human-technology relationships
‘Inherited Epistemologies’
Player-avatar relationsAvatar = • User representations• Conduits of meaning/agency• Mediators of phenomenal
gameplay
Through a post-positivist lens …•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
Your wish is my
command.
• Psychological Merging• Dimensions
• Identification • Suspension of Disbelief• Sense of Control• Sense of care/responsibility
• Associated with play motivations, pro/antisocial tendencies, enjoyment/appreciation
Character Attachment (CA)
Lewis, Weber, & Bowman (2008)
Relationship ≈ • valenced connection• between two people• where each influences the other
Avatar
Dyad
Socialgroups
Game environ.
Interface
Phys. Env.
Culture
Through a constructivist lens …
Player-Avatar Relationship(PAR)
Object Me Symbiote Other
But, but …• Theoretically divergent (psychological merging, psychological differentiation)
• Conceptual overlaps: agency, emotion• Predictive/associative value
• Narrative involvement• Prosocial/cooperative play• Appreciation
?
Intersection analysis 1: interpretive
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
Intersection analysis 2: quantitative
Para-social Social
PAR Sociality Scale …• Anthro-autonomy
• ~28% variance • α = .907
• Emotional investment• ~26% • α = .901
• Sense of companionship• ~16%• α = .888
~70% variance explained
Ludic + Narrative + Social
The Battle Royale …
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)
EFA ~ The Beauty Pageant• 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
CFA ~ The Talent ShowCMIN/df = 1.27, p = .076CFI = .989RMSEA = .036
Correlations shown are significant at the p < .001 level or greater.
.42
.44.32
-.45
Integrated model …• 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)
Validations … • Human-like relatedness
F (4,385) = 64.49, p < .001, R2 = 401 (Adj. R2 = .395)
Durbin-Watson = 1.94
Validations … • 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
Validations … • PAR types
Avatar as Objectn = 267
Avatar as Me
n = 88
Avatar as Symbiote
n = 95
Avatar as Othern = 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)
Problem solved: PAR ‘symbiotes’
Object Me Symbiote Other
Problem solved: CA ‘identification’• 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.
The payoff …• Generalizability + context• Breadth and depth• Improved explanatory power
The pains …• Learning other tool sets• Resolving philosophical
differences• Being open to breaking things
and being ‘wrong’
The practice …
@amperjay@bowmanspa
rtan
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.