[ 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.
doi: 10.1145/1744161.1744164
© 2010 ACM 1072-5220/10/0500 $10.00