Response to “Conceptualizing identification: A comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks (2017)”.

Abstract

The following is a response to "Conceptualizing Identification: A Comment on Downs, Bowman, and Banks." We wish to thank the editors of Psychology of Popular Media Culture for the opportunity to respond as well as our colleagues for their lively critique and discussion. We recognize that the invitation and opportunity to respond is both an important and a necessary component in maintaining best practices in scholarly debate and in scientific research, and we eagerly engage the process.To recapitulate, McDade-Montez and Dore (2020) are concerned that Downs, Bowman, and Banks' (2017) assertion that identification can be considered a polythetic construct is premature for three reasons: (a) the lack of a formalized definition of identification, (b) conceptual challenges with identification being polythetic, and (c) empirical challenges with data supporting a polythetic architecture for identification (the Polythetic Identification Scale, or PID). We recognize our colleagues' concerns on all three points and indeed, on some aspects of their critique, we feel that McDade-Montez and Dore (2020) and Downs et al. (2017) are more aligned in their thoughts than what might appear. On other points, we counter our colleagues' concerns by offering clarifications to the Downs et al. (2017) article. Our responses to the three main points follow the general structure of McDade-Montez and Dore's (2020) commentary.

Which Lenders are More Likely to Reach Out to Underserved Consumers: Banks Versus Fintechs Versus Other Nonbanks?

“…Financial regulators in the U.S. have also contemplated other ways to facilitate successful integration of fintech into the traditional banks -- see Bowman (2020a, 2020b, 2021). Partnership between banks and fintechs could expedite digitization in banking and help banks to offer new products and services, expand customer base, increase portfolio diversification through a greater geographic footprint, improve operational efficiency, and enhance customer satisfaction overall.…”

Avatar, a Lasting Definition: A mediated self-representation that an intelligent user controls during dynamic interactions

“…A wide range of research has examined the relationship between the self and self-representing objects (e.g., avatars). The arguably most common concept, identification, can be understood as the psychological link between identity and other people or objects (Sanford, 1955), fictional or mediated characters (Cohen, 2001), or avatars (Hefner et al, 2007;Klimmt et al, 2010;Van Looy et al, 2012), though debates about specific definitions are ongoing (Bowman et al, 2020;Downs et al, 2019;McDade-Montez & Dore, 2020). Avatar customization research often incorporates Goffman's self-presentation theory (1959), noting that just as we have a frontstage (i.e., conventionally appropriate) and backstage (i.e., arguably intentionally hidden) version of ourselves, people may also use similar selection processes when designing their avatars (Messinger et al, 2019).…”