A polythetic model of player-avatar identification: Synthesizing multiple mechanisms.

Downs, Edward; Bowman, Nicholas David; Banks, Jaime

doi:10.1037/ppm0000170

Cited by 33 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, one could further divide these subconstructs to physical embodiment, instrumental embodiment, mental perspective-taking, and emotional perspective-taking, all of which would feed into a polythetic model. Thus, we do not argue that there is not a possible polythetic model of identification, but rather that the model proposed by Downs et al (2017) does not represent a theoretically coherent polythetic model of this construct.…”

Section: Not Clearly Polytheticmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…As a response to these diverse definitions, Downs et al (2017) proposed that identification should be seen as a polythetic construct. A polythetic construct, according to the source cited by Downs et al (2017), is one in which several objects are part of a class and share a family resemblance, yet need not share any particular attributes (Berrios, 2012). These authors reported data assessing the validity of six different subconstructs making up a comprehensive model of identification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualizing identification: A comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks (2017).

McDade-Montez

Dore

2020

Psychology of Popular Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and Banks (2017) noted, researchers use the term "identification" to refer to a variety of different types of measures that actually seem to assess quite disparate subconstructs. These authors proposed that identification should be seen as a polythetic construct and reported data assessing the validity of 6 different subconstructs making up a comprehensive model of identification. However, we propose that this conceptualization of identification is premature. First, given the diversity of the subconstructs, it would likely be difficult to give a precise definition of identification in this model, and we question whether identification is a useful term if it cannot be defined in a specific way. Second, we argue that it is not clear what "family resemblance" there is between these subconstructs that justifies their inclusion in a polythetic model of identification, and note that identification lacks the qualities of other more commonly accepted polythetic constructs, such as self-esteem and experiential avoidance. Finally, we argue that the data reported does not demonstrate that these subconstructs relate to a broader construct in a uniform way. We propose that rather than including these diverse approaches to measuring identification as subconstructs in a polythetic model, researchers should label their measures more specifically, allowing us to test important hypotheses about whether and how these different types of measures relate to each other and to outcomes of interest. Further research is needed to evaluate whether identification is a truly polythetic term before encouraging further confusion of terms in this subfield. Public Policy Relevance StatementSuccessful communication requires that members of a community share common understandings of the meaning of the terms they use. Downs et al. (2017) set forth a polythetic model of identification, but we argue that this line of thinking may further muddle how media researchers use the term "identification." Instead, we suggest that researchers label constructs more specifically so that all members of the community have a shared understanding of what is being measured.

show abstract

Section: Not Clearly Polytheticmentioning

confidence: 62%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing identification: A comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks (2017).

McDade-Montez

Dore

2020

Psychology of Popular Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Value Homophily. While the original study assessed perceived homophily with the character via a single-item, the present study used a 10-item measure of value homophily (α = .93, M = 3.24, SD = 1.57) adapted from past research (Andersen & Todd de Mancillas, 1978;Downs, Bowman, & Banks, 2017;Eyal & Rubin, 2003), following the same 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) response format.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Character morality, enjoyment, and appreciation: a replication of Eden, Daalmans, and Johnson (2017)

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Character morality, enjoyment, and appreciation: A replication of Eden, Daalmans, and Johnson (2017) Koji Yoshimura Much research on media entertainment seeks to explain why viewers enjoy and appreciate a variety of media content. Affective disposition theory suggests that media enjoyment results from perceptions of the morality of characters and viewers' expectations for characters' narrative outcomes. However, research has struggled to explain how characters with varying morality (i.e., not perfectly good or bad) entertain viewers. This study replicates a previous study conducted by Eden, Daalmans, and Johnson (2017) that investigated different types of morally ambiguous characters, using a typology of character types based on an online, collaboratively sourced typology. Like the original study, this study found that character types varied in morality across moral domains, and that MACs were not more associated with variables related to self. However, unlike the original study, the present study found that morality was not significantly related to enjoyment or appreciation. Rather, according to the replicated analyses, value homophily was found to be significantly related to enjoyment, and both value homophily and self-expansion were significantly related to appreciation. Additionally, after collapsing the self-expansion, wishful identification, value homophily, and IOS variables into a single aggregate variable, the new combined variable was significantly related to both enjoyment and appreciation. The results of this study suggest that media viewers do not make very nuanced moral evaluations of media characters. Character types including heroes, villains, and different types of MACs were often not significantly different from one another in terms of perceived moral upholding. This may be explained by the schemas that viewers access, which guide their affective dispositions and moral disengagement. Implications for entertainment media research and are discussed.

show abstract

“…step into their digital containers, they experience a "temporal shift in self-perception through adoption of valued properties [of another]" (Klimmt et al, 2009, p. 351). A polythetic model for player-avatar identification (Downs et al, 2019) contends that players can perceive variable levels of physical similarity, embodiment, value homophily, perspective-taking, and wishful identification with their on-screen avatar-none required but all contributing to felt identification.…”

Section: Players Avatars and Social Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Assembly Required: Player Mental Models of Videogame Avatars

Banks

Bowman

2021

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In playing videogames, players often create avatars as extensions of agency into those spaces, where the player-avatar relationship (PAR) both shapes gameplay and is the product of gameplay experiences. Avatars are generally understood as singular bodies; however, we argue they are functional and phenomenological assemblages—networks of social and technological components that are internalized by players as networks of knowledge about the avatar. Different PARs are based on different internalizations (i.e., mental models) for what an avatar is and why it matters. Toward illuminating nuances in PARs, we examine the content and structure of players’ internalizations of avatars as evidenced by descriptions of those digital bodies. Secondary analysis of N = 1,201 avatar descriptions parceled them by PAR type (avatars as asocial Objects, psychologically merged extensions of Me, hybrid me/other Symbiotes, and authentically social Other). Aggregated descriptions for each PAR type were subjected to semantic network analysis to identify patterns in salient avatar components, and then qualitatively compared across the four PARs. Results indicate component clusters that are universal to PARs (demographics and body features), common to three of four PARs (time, appearance, clothing, and player agency), and idiosyncratic to specific PARs (significance, character narratives, game dynamics, liminality, and gratifications). Findings signal the importance of theoretically engaging avatars as assemblages both (a) influenced by player-avatar sociality and (b) that contribute (in part and whole) to antecedents, processes, and effects of gameplay.

show abstract

A polythetic model of player-avatar identification: Synthesizing multiple mechanisms.

Cited by 33 publications

References 40 publications

Conceptualizing identification: A comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks (2017).

Conceptualizing identification: A comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks (2017).

Character morality, enjoyment, and appreciation: a replication of Eden, Daalmans, and Johnson (2017)

Some Assembly Required: Player Mental Models of Videogame Avatars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About