Interactions - May/June 2010

[ 7] Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., and Neumann, M.M. “The Influence of Avatars on Online Consumer Shopping Behavior.” http://www. atypon-link.com/ AMA/doi/pdf/10.1509/ jmkg. 70. 4.19/ [ 8] “The Four Big Myths of Profile Pictures.” Jan. 20, 2010. http://blog. okcupid.com/index. php/2010/01/20/the-4- big-myths-of-profile-pictures/ [ 9] Reeves, B. J., and Nass, C. The Media Equation, Clifford & Byron Reeves, 1996.

[ 10] Reeves, B. J.
Read, L. “Avatars
in the Workplace.”
http://blogs.hbr.org/
cs/2010/01/avatars_at_
work.html/
[ 11] Donath, J. Berkman
Faculty Fellow. http://
smg.media.mit.edu/
people/judith/
[ 12] Morris, E. http://
twitter.com/errolmorris/
status/7523256942/
May + June 2010

[ 13] “‘Avatar’ wins
Golden Globes.” http://
rogerebert.suntimes.
com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20100117/
COMMENTARY/
100119976/
interactions

soon should it be changed? How long will it remain changed? Will it remain changed across media channels, signaling an identity shift rather than a temporary allegiance?

Ritual. There are those for whom changing an avatar is a nonissue; they observe a single identity across all social media—flickr, Facebook, personal blogs. There are others still whose avatar is such a mismatched experience that there is no parsing meaning. Yet it is the third group for whom ritual is crucial: the frequent changer. This indecisive group changes their avatar on a whim, and like the eccentric neighbor with eyeglasses to match every outfit, the changer seems to have a different image with every ping, tweet, and status update.

This rate of change leaves
the audience in the untenable
position of interpreting—does
this signal something new?
These obtuse strategies could
be as innocent as a play with
the tools or as meaningful as
an identity crisis. Yet our prior
face-work knowledge gives us
no other way but to interpret
the changed face with rudi-
mentary means.
Homophily. We know that
birds of a feather flock togeth-
er; homophily is the tendency
for individuals to bond with
those like themselves. It can
also correspond to the “per-
ceived degree of psychological
similarity between the images
and the human psyche, or the
extent to which one is per-
ceived to be similar to the per-
ceiver” [ 5]. In research, people
were drawn to avatars that
looked most like themselves,
and people’s confidence in the
content increased when an
avatar was perceived to appear
more confident. From the simi-
larities, we build up rule sets
and interpretations and inter-
pret the content of the corre-
sponding messages accordingly.

making meaning

When a person is able to represent herself within media, at least within a virtual world, it fundamentally changes the psychology of interactive technology. Research shows that even though all the action is within a virtual world, people’s hearts beat faster, and the areas of the brain that regulate social interactions are more engaged—people care how their avatars are treated [ 10].

When it comes to interpret-
ing, we’ve navigated meaning
fairly well. We can look to fields
such as signaling theory, rooted
in anthropology, to understand
how to interpret some of the
juxtapositions between avatar
and content. The work of Judith
Donath explores why certain
signals are reliable and oth-
ers are not [ 11]. What happens
when signals are not reliable?
Where is the threshold for
unreliability, and how much
can we tolerate before the
signals in the digital network
become meaningless?

About the Author Liz Danzico is equal parts designer, educator, and editor. She is chair and cofounder of the MFA in Interaction Design Program at the School of Visual Arts and an independent consultant in New York, on the editorial board for Rosenfeld Media, and on the board of Design Ignites Change. In the past, Danzico directed experience strategy for AIGA and the information architecture teams at Barnes & Noble.com and Razorfish New York. She lectures widely and writes at Bobulate.com.