Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Social Networks in virtual worlds Aleks Krotoski University of Surrey.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Social Networks in virtual worlds Aleks Krotoski University of Surrey."— Presentation transcript:

1 Social Networks in virtual worlds Aleks Krotoski University of Surrey

2 Overview The Social Life of Virtual Worlds –What does it mean to be close? Informal learning in virtual worlds –Who teaches who what? Important Ethical Concerns –In research and in general practice

3 But before we get ahead of ourselves… The differences between online and offline: –Anonymity –Physical appearance –Physical proximity –Greater transience (more weak ties) –Absence of social cues

4 So how can the interactions in cyberspace be meaningful ? In traditional definitions of community, thered be no such thing in cyberspace –How can you develop meaningful relationships with people youve never met?

5 Its been happening for years These virtual worlds are the places which the online communities are tied to

6 London Memorial in Second Life –Between 12-1pm on 7 July 2005, over 150 Second Life residents visited. It was open for 7 days and racked up thousands of visitors –Fewer than 10% claimed any British ties –Makers motivations were altruistic and purely community-driven Places of ritual

7 Places of collaboration Neualtenburg: an experiment in collective democracy

8 Places of friendship

9 So how does it happen? The same reasons offline community does: –Make friends, offer support, meet like-minded others What we know about online relationships: –Proximity and frequency of contact –Similarity –Self-presentation –Reciprocity & self-disclosure –Consistency

10 Virtual worlds are designed for sociability – people must rely upon one another to survive and advance Anonymity becomes Pseudonymity Whatever role trust plays in offline communities, it plays in online communities because these interactions are human-bound

11 Social Learning Theory We learn from those around us We learn from similar others We adapt these learnings for our own goals Social norms dictate acceptability

12 Social Capital We learn from those we trust We learn who to trust through reputation

13 Building reputations Trust is based upon… –past experience… –…which is either based upon functional goals or pre-existing social relationships… –…or some kind of disinterested third party (e.g., Craigs List or MySpace) You Must Comply: –A non-official policing force in a space where an official police is absent –The emphasis is on friendship and dedication to the group –Rejection is cruel

14 How the heck do you measure this? Social Network Analysis …studies social relationships as a series of interconnected webs. …focuses on inter- relationships rather than individuals attributes

15 SNA offers… A measure of the social context, as defined by the actors within that context, rather than the researcher Identification of key people for use as independent variables in social influence assessment A map of the direction information will spread, including rate and possible barriers

16 SNA and friendship Whos connected with whom? How closely? How many people are they connected with? Who else is connected to this many people?

17 Asking personal questions Surveys –Who do you know? Who do you communicate with? Who do you trust? –Define your relationship: Whos trustworthy? (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2003; Cvetkovich (1999); Renn & Levine, 1991) Whos credible? (Renn & Levine, 1991) Who do you compare yourself with? (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) Whos the most prototypical?

18 N=675

19 This N=75 But what does it mean if someones considered close or distant?

20 The micro-network: influence Density Position Role Direction

21 Results: Single explanatory variable (General Communication) yβ 0 (Std. Error) β (Std. Error) σ2eσ2e Loglikelihood (fixed model LL) Prototypicality0.026 (0.101) 0.305 (0.066) 0.543 (0.035) 1292.354 T (1335.299) Credibility-0.093 (0.102) 0.519 (0.071) 0.531 (0.035) 1272.354 T (1404.954) Social Comparison-0.098 (0.118) 0.399 (0.064) 0.408 (0.027) 987.966 T (1132.416) General Trust-0.135 (0.098) 0.645 (0.064) 0.408 (0.027) 1114.31 T (1345.777) *N=538; **N=539; σ 2 e : variance accounted for between avatars; T p<0.000, df=2 The greatest prediction comes from general trust followed by credibility, which is not surprising, as this is proposed in Sherifs (1981) contact hypothesis.

22 Single explanatory variable: General Trust & SNC categories Explanatory Variableβ 0 (Std. Error) β (Std. Error) σ2eσ2e Loglikelihood (fixed model LL) Online Public Communication 0.085 (0.093)0.370 (0.052) 0.476 (0.031) 1124.182 T (1345.777) Online Private Communication 0.070 (0.094)0.442 (0.062) 0.407 (0.027) 1115.396 T (1345.777) Offline Communication 0.070 (0.090)0.459 (0.047) 0.427 (0.028) 1159.681 T (1345.777) N=539; σ 2 e : variance accounted for between avatars; T p<0.000, df=2 Effect of interpersonal closeness on mode of communication (e.g., Garton et al, 1997) Offline communication contributes the most to the estimate of General Trust. Online public communication contributes the least.

23 Spare a thought for ethics Be transparent Give something back Talk to anyone who asks Follow ethics guidelines (AoIR, UNESCO and others)

24 In Sum Closeness has implications for social learning, even in the virtual environment Virtual communities operate in very similar ways to other communities – both on and offline They bring together distributed individuals based on common experience, motivations and reputation This is particularly true for virtual world participants because of the explicit social design of the software Trust varies according to communication medium Trust is paramount Dont jeopardise that trust.

25 Thank you! E: W: http://www.toaskid.com SL: Social Simulation Research Lab, Hyperborea

Download ppt "Social Networks in virtual worlds Aleks Krotoski University of Surrey."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google