Interpersonal Distance: SecondLife as a field for research.

SecondLife itself is stirring up the blogosphere since LindenLab claimed to have passed the 1 Mio-Users-Milestone. Attention is also drawn to SL by the scientific community, e.g. from the Virtual Human Interaction Lab of the University of Stanford, CA/US. Graduate Student Researcher Nick Yee (brief bio) together with other researchers presented a paper entitled „The Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments.“ (download as PDF). In this paper several interesting findings are proclaimed which I will try to discuss here now. One of them raised some criticism: Yee proclaims, that

If people behave according to the same social rules in both physical and virtual worlds even though the mode of movement and navigation is entirely different [..], then this means it is possible to study social interaction in virtual environments and generalize them to social interaction in the real world.

A poweruser of SL, Fiend Ludwig (seems to be his SL-Identity) wrote an article about the beforementioned paper of Yee’s group which was published in the Second Life Herald – a news mag, which writes about SL – and contains some interesting information. Fiend criticizes the published paper in many regards through his article „Eavesdropping in SL – The Unbearable Weight of Erroneous Assumptions“. The basic points will be listed now here [Accentuation added by myself!]:

  1. Of the five variables gender, interpersonal distance, mutual gaze, talking, and location only interpersonal distance and location can be accurately measured observing avatars while they communicate.
  2. Yee’s conclusions based on avatar gender and their relationship to real world observations are invalid, because gender cannot be figured out in the end.
  3. The mutual gaze measurements are also problematic because user attention is usually directed to the UI chat window anyway.
  4. To regard two avatars who are standing adjacent to one another as chatting with each other only in case if they are showing the typing animation may be misleading, because these may indeed be chatting because the keystroke-animation might be overridden by a replacement-animation.
  5. Yee excluded dyads that were observed as being more than 3.7m apart [AFAIK: The proxemic distance defined by E.T. Hall], as this was shown in real world studies to be the distance further than which social interaction does not occur, but in SL one can zoom the field of sight towards targets across long distance using the avatar’s camera without moving the avatar itself, which allows for chatting across long distance, also the use of SL instant messaging will bypass usual chatting and is usually invisible to any external observation

Fiend therefore concludes:

There may be patterns of social interaction observable in Second Life, these patterns may give the observer some insight into the behavior of avatars, and this insight may lead to generalization about the social norms of virtual online environments as a whole. But, without detailed information about the people who are driving these virtual interactions, drawing parallels between real world norms and observed ‚virtual norms‘ seems both erroneous and premature.

From my personal view, Fiend is right, but at the same time Yee did not claim to have found the ultimate truth and he points out several limitations of his study. What seems to be more interesting to me is the fact, that people behave in SL according to the same social rules as in real life. This has huge impact in regard to the design, development and testing of future software i.e. social software applications. Future development of applications need to take into account that networked multiuser-applications – like e.g. Google-Spreadsheets – are affected in their use by social rules which are working behind the scenes though this place seemed to be pretty non-social until now. But this in the end is not at all that surprising: To design software which fits to the task and the needs of humans was a target for development all the time. It also does not seem that surprising, people carry their behaviour patterns over to SL. this is true I think for any different cultural environment we enter, we always take ourselves with us. This means our habits, experiences and the complete history we run through.

Update 24.2.2007 23:55 Uhr
This question was also discussed on the Terra Nova site in detail in the thread named „The Prison of Embodiment“ which was started by Nick Yee himself. So much of the discussion around these findings can be found over there. (Thanks to Fiend Ludwig who gave this link in the SLH thread).

Update 8.3.2007
Regarding the issue of gender-guessing in virtual contexts a nice discussion can be found in a blog-post called „The Turing Game (Amy Bruckman)“ on misbehaving.net.

misbehaving.net is a weblog about women and technology. It’s a celebration of women’s contributions to computing; a place to spotlight women’s contributions as well point out new opportunities and challenges for women in the computing field.

[ Regard the blockquote above as my contribution to IWD (International Women’s Day 2007) ;-) ]

Update 29.5.2013
Another interesting thesis about this subject can be found at named Self-construal and interpersonal distance (full PDF in german language) by author Ute-Regina Roeder.

Why do I blog this? Yee and his group did research questions which are also very viable for my current work, though I did not do any research in a 3D or 2.5D virtual worlds but instead in a „Flat-Screen-2D-World“ of Business Applications. Having read the paper I will try to find out where I can do better than they did in the aspects which were criticized by Fiend Ludwig’s article in the Second Life Herald.

Was soll ich bloß studieren?

Eine Frage, bei der man mit einem Test vielleicht weiterkommt. Die Universität Hohenheim hat einen Test „Was studiere ich?“ online gestellt, mit dem man seine Neigungen zu einem passenden Studienfach ermitteln kann. Ich konnte es nicht lassen und habe den Test einmal für mich durchgespielt, um einen Eindruck zu gewinnen, wie gut der Test funktioniert. Das Ergebnis kann man hier sehen. Interessant, die drei Vorschläge für ein Studium sind folgende:

  1. Kommunikationswissenschaft (Bachelor)
  2. Wirtschaftsinformatik (Bachelor)
  3. Wirtschaftswissenschaften mit ökonomischem Wahlprofil (Bachelor)

Das deckt sich ziemlich gut mit dem was ich tatsächlich studiert habe, nämlich Wirtschaftsinformatik. Ich studierte neben Informatik im Endeffekt Wirtschaftswissenschaften mit Wahlprofil, nämlich Marketing und Finanzwirtschaft. Und Marketing war mein Lieblingsfach (stark verwandt mit Kommunikationswissenschaften). Der Test hat mich überzeugt, bzw. das Ergebnis des von Prof. Dr. Heinz Schuler’s Lehrstuhl für Psychologie entwickelten Tests – dessen Entwicklung eine Analyse von über 500 Berufsbildern zugrundeliegt – erscheint sehr plausibel. (via Pit’s Lernpfade gemeldet in Bildungsklick)

Update 7.5.2007
Auch die Uni Bremen bietet gerade jetzt, wo einige Ihr Abitur gerade beendet haben einen ca. 90 Minuten dauernden Online-Selbsttest an, der es Studienanfängern leichter machen soll, sich zu orientieren. Mit dem Test kann man die eigene Neigung und Eignung für die Studienfächer in den Gesellschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften sowie in den Naturwissenschaften überprüfen.

Why do I blog this? Zum einen machen mir freiwillige Tests schon immer Spass. Dieser Test scheint einen hohen Nutzwert zu haben und von daher würde ich als angehender Student durchaus darauf zurückgreifen. Ich weiß zwar nicht, ob ich zu Beginn meines Studiums die Fragen ähnlich beantwortet hätte, aber das ich sie derzeit so beantwortet habe, das ein Ergebnis rauskommt, was plausibel ist, bestätigt zumindest, dass der Test meine derzeitigen Interessen richtig verortet hat. Jede Uni sollte so etwas anbieten.
Was mich überrascht hat, unter den Studienfächern, die eine hohe Übereinstimmung mit meinem Interessenprofil aufweisen wird mir vorgeschlagen: Hörfunkmoderator/in, Redakteur/in, Reporter/in und Musiker/in, ob das meine Neigung zum Podcasting erklärt? ;-)

Readerbeitrag: Gender in E-Learning

Ein neuer Beitrag meines Chief-in-Power ist erschienen in Buchform: „Gender Mainstreaming of E-Learning Courses: Theoretical Review, Design Considerations, and Usage Differences“ lautet der Titel seines 23 Seiten umfassenden Beitrags in dem neu erschienen Reader zu “Gender in E-Learning and Education Games”.

Aus dem Abstract:

Starting with a short review of gender differences in education, learning related abilites and activities, computer related activities and attitudes, and theories to understand these differences, the main gender mainstreaming approaches in education are presented and a general design guideline for gender inclusive didactics of E-Learning is developed.

Auch empirische Funde werden vorgestellt. Näheres in seinem Blog. (via Prof. Dr. Karsten D. Wolf)