The Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments

Yee, Nick; Bailenson, Jeremy N.; Urbanek, Mark; Chang, F.H.; Merget, Dan

doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9984

Cited by 495 publications

(283 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

251

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the majority of studies suggest that users automatically treat computers and computer-animated agents as if they were human (Bente, Kraemer, Petersen & deRuiter, 2001;Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, & Merget, 2007) or social actors (see "media equation"; Nass & Moon, 2000; Reeves & Nass, 1996;Gong, 2008). Users are inclined to feel empathetic with animated virtual characters (Morrison & Ziemke, 2005) and tend to feel as though they are in a social situation when a computer-animated character is displayed (Garau, Slater, Pertaub, & Razzaque, 2005).…”

Section: Different From Playing Chess: the Moral Significance Of Virtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

Hartmann¹,

Toz²,

Brandon³

2010

Media Psychology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many avid gamers discount violent conduct in video games as morally insignificant as "it is just a game". However, recent debates among users, regarding video games featuring inappropriate forms of virtual violence, suggest a more complex truth. Two experiments (N 1 = 49, N 2 = 80) examined users' guilt responses in order to explore the moral significance of virtual violence. In both studies, justification of virtual violence and users' trait empathy determined guilt in a structurally similar way to real-world scenarios: people felt guiltier if they engaged in unjustified virtual violence, especially if they were empathetic players. These results show that video games are capable of inducing affective moral responses in users. Accordingly, virtual violence may be considered morally significant action.Keywords: violence, video games, guilt, empathy, justification, morality (Bartle, 2008).Virtual violence may be defined as any behavior intended to do harm to another video game character, who is motivated to avoid the harm-doing (Anderson et al., 2008;Baron & Richardson, 1994). Shooting virtual characters for example, in first-person shooter video games, provides a typical example of virtual violence. While many studies have shown that virtual violence depicted in video games increases aggression in users (Anderson et al., 2010), surprisingly little is known about how users perceive and experience virtual violence themselves (e.g., Scharrer & Leone, 2006, Young & Whitty, 2010.Violent video games are designed for entertainment purposes. Consequently, regular violent game players do not typically feel as though they are doing something wrong when they shoot virtual characters. A frequent argument put forward by avid gamers is that they are well aware that the violence depicted in video games "is not real" (Ladas, 2002). For example, Klimmt, Schmid, Nosper, Vorderer, and Hartmann (2006, see also Whitty, Young, & Goodings, in press) asked avid gamers how they experience virtual violence personally. The majority of players replied that they enjoyed virtual violence as they believe that shooting virtual characters is "just a game" (comparable to chess) and has "nothing to do with killing". This suggests that players maintain a psychologically detached and unaffected stance when playing violent games and that virtual violence is too artificial to be considered morally significant and thus trigger any moral response in the user.RUNNING HEAD: Virtual Violence and Guilt 2 However, Klimmt et al.'s (2006) study suggests that users may also perceive and judge virtual violence in a moral way. In their study, a number of players indicated that they would find it disturbing if they accidentally shot a child, for example, or if painful injuries were depicted in the video game. Related discussion of "inappropriate" virtual violence also exists in the video game community. Many video game-related online blogs and forums recently featured heated debate regarding a mission included in the popular online-role-playing game "...

show abstract

Section: Different From Playing Chess: the Moral Significance Of Virtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

Hartmann¹,

Toz²,

Brandon³

2010

Media Psychology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant research body on social norms in the offline world is gradually being extended into the virtual world, already finding parallels even down to eye gaze and social gestures [64] and group composition [65]. A willingness to engage online involves social pressures from the immediate social group, social identity [66] and trust in other network members [63].…”

Section: Social Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interplay Between Human and Machine Agency

Pickering

Engen

Walland

2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Human-machine networks affect many aspects of our lives: from sharing experiences with family and friends, knowledge creation and distance learning, and managing utility bills or providing feedback on retail items, to more specialised networks providing decision support to human operators and the delivery of health care via a network of clinicians, family, friends, and both physical and virtual social robots. Such networks rely on increasingly sophisticated machine algorithms, e.g., to recommend friends or purchases, to track our online activities in order to optimise the services available, and assessing risk to help maintain or even enhance people's health. Users are being offered ever increasing power and reach through these networks by machines which have to support and allow users to be able to achieve goals such as maintaining contact, making better decisions, and monitoring their health. As such, this comes down to a synergy between human and machine agency in which one is dependent in complex ways on the other. With that agency questions arise about trust, risk and regulation, as well as social influence and potential for computer-mediated self-efficacy. In this paper, we explore these constructs and their relationships and present a model based on review of the literature which seeks to identify the various dependencies between them. IntroductionA definition of agency based on the notion of non-deterministic behaviours [1] fails to recognise the increasing variety and complexity of human-machine networks 1 (HMNs) [2], the intention of technology designers [3], and active intervention by bots within social networks [4,5]. The concept of agency is particularly problematic in human-machine interactions [6]. Machine or material agency may be seen as automation, which originally required some tolerance from human agents [7]. But this is no longer true: technology can actively support human activity [8], and manifests increasingly complex interaction types [9]. Machine and human agency may not be the same and yet equally valid [10]; machine agency may be just "perceived autonomy" [11]; and it 1 In the following we use human-machine network and network interchangeably.certainly enables human agency [12]. Indeed, agency may well be becoming a social and group construct where both humans and machines play a part [13,14]; and used effectively, agency may even lead to innovative review of working practice [15].The enabling contribution of machine agents within a network may have an effect on self-efficacy. Bandura's original definition of self-efficacy as an individual's belief in their ability to be able to achieve a given objective [16][17][18] has also been applied to technology [19,20] and its acceptance [21]. There are, however, constraints on the support and positive contribution of technology to human self-efficacy, not least in terms of anxiety and suspicion around technology use [22,23]. This may be further exacerbated by increasing machine animism: it may not always be obvious what machines ar...

show abstract

“…For instance, Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, and Merget (2007) conclude that social interactions in online environments are governed by similar norms and interaction patterns as those in the physical world even though the mode of interaction differs. Additionally, McLaughlin and Vitak (2011) report that online social norm violations often resulted in similar patterns of social rejection as those that Eliasoph and Lichterman (2003) report, which suggests some level of generalizability to online collectives.…”

Section: Community Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Triandis (1994) made this observation in relation to offline cultures, but the social dynamics in online collectives and groups have become increasingly similar to offline interactions (Jiang et al, 2013;Yee et al, 2007). Prior virtual community and computer-mediated communication research has demonstrated that online discussion forums have social norms that are expected to be followed and not following them may result in flaming and stronger in-group identification (Kayany, 1998;Kim, 2011).…”

Section: Interaction Of Culture-in-interaction and Occupational Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Noise or Quality? Cross-Nested Hierarchical Effects of Culture on Online Ratings

Mattson¹

2017

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Previous feedback system research in a variety of contexts has focused on the impact that ratings (as proxies for quality) have on a variety of social and economic outcomes with equivocal findings. These mixed findings may be partially due to noise (factors not related to quality) embedded in aggregated or average positive and negative ratings. One significant source of ratings noise may come from culturally diverse raters' issuing ratings in virtual environments. Culture impacts how groups of individuals are socialized to behave and think, which may result in members' having different attitudes towards publicly downgrading (negative ratings) or praising (positive ratings) other members in the feedback system. In this paper, I investigate how culture influences rating practices specifically in public electronic knowledge sharing communities. Using a cross-nested hierarchical linear model, I demonstrate empirically that cultural differences at the community, occupation, and national levels interact in unique ways to increase or decrease an individual's propensity to give and receive a positive or a negative rating. My study contributes to the literature on rating systems along with having practical ramifications for the designers of feedback systems.

show abstract

The Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments

Cited by 495 publications

References 29 publications

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

The Interplay Between Human and Machine Agency

Noise or Quality? Cross-Nested Hierarchical Effects of Culture on Online Ratings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About