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.

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

4. • 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

5. • Ontology - Material-semiotic
• Epistemology - Relational
• Constructivism
• Situativity
• Inter-subjectivity
• Methodologies – Interpretive, qualitative
• Phenomenology
• Grounded Theory
• Actor-Networks
• Research focus
• Identity, embodiment
• Human-technology relationships

7. Avatar =
• User representations
• Conduits of meaning/agency
• Mediators of phenomenal
gameplay

8. •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

9. Your wish is
my command.

10. • 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)

12. Relationship ≈
• valenced connection
• between two people
• where each influences the other
Avatar
Dyad
Social
groups
Game
environ.
Interface
Phys. Env.
Culture

13. Object Me Symbiote Other

14. • Theoretically divergent (psychological
merging, psychological differentiation)
• Conceptual overlaps: agency, emotion
• Predictive/associative value
• Narrative involvement
• Prosocial/cooperative play
• Appreciation

15. 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

16. Para-social Social

17. • Anthro-autonomy
• ~28% variance
• α = .907
• Emotional investment
• ~26%
• α = .901
• Sense of companionship
• ~16%
• α = .888
~70% variance explained

19. 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)

20. • 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

21. 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

22. • 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)

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

24. • 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

25. • 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)

26. Object Me Symbiote Other

27. • 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.

28. • Generalizability + context
• Breadth and depth
• Improved explanatory power

29. • Learning other tool sets
• Resolving philosophical
differences
• Being open to breaking things
and being ‘wrong’

32. • 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.