Choose your "buddy icon" carefully: The influence of avatar androgyny, anthropomorphism and credibility in online interactions

In both online and offline interactions, the visual representation of people influences how others perceive them. In contrast to the offline body, an online visual representation of a person is consciously chosen and not stable. This paper reports the results of a 2 step examination of the influence of avatars on the person perception process. Specifically, this project examines the reliance on visual characteristics during the online perception process, and the relative influence of androgyny, anthropomorphism and credibility. In the first step, 255 participants fill out a survey where they rated a set of 30 static avatars on their credibility, androgyny, and anthropomorphism. The second step is a between subjects experiment with 230 participants who interact with partners represented by one of 8 avatars (high and low androgyny, and anthropomorphism by high and low credibility). Results show that the characteristics of the avatar are used in the person perception process. Causal modeling techniques revealed that perceptions of avatar androgyny influence perceptions of anthropomorphism, which influences attributions of both avatar and partner credibility. Implications of these results for theory, future research, and users and designers of systems using avatars are discussed. People are selecting avatars to represent them during a variety of online interactions including work related projects, and relationship maintenance and development (Schroeder, 2002). The images that people select to represent them during online interactions have been called ‘buddy icons,’ avatars, or virtual images (see Suler, 1996; Damer, 1997) and can be created, borrowed, or even purchased. Many collaborative and communication applications, including instant messaging, have a buddy icon, or avatar. The Pew Internet and American Life project estimates that 53 million Americans are using instant messaging systems (IM), with 62% of those aged 18-27 using it and more than 46% of this age group using it more than email both for work related applications, and for keeping in touch with friends and family (Shiu & Lenhart, 2004). Companies have started using avatars in online advertising and customer support (Ikea, 2006). BBC even has a news segment anchored by avatars (Maseon, 2006). The types of avatars are quite diverse and may resemble other humans, animals, objects, or anything the user (or designer) can dream up and generally have little or no resemblance to the user’s offline appearance (Benford et al., 1995; Damer, 1997; Suler, 1996). Oravec (1996) argued that the avatar selected for an interaction is analogous to clothing selected for a meeting in that both are vehicles of expression. Some users have one avatar that they use most or all of the time (Becker & Mark, 2002) but most have a variety of avatars they use to represent them that they frequently change during interactions to represent their various moods and locations (Oravec, 1996; Soukup, 2004; Taylor, 1999, 2002). The use of avatars online influences people’s involvement in the interaction as well as their perceptions of others they encounter (Biocca & Nowak, 2002; Lee, 2004; Nowak, 2004; Schroeder, 2002; Taylor, 2002). Therefore, the increased use of avatars is likely to have implications for communication outcomes and relationship development. This project uses causal modeling techniques to examine the relative influence of the visible characteristics of the avatar (androgyny, credibility, and anthropomorphism), and the behavior of the person, on impressions of androgyny and credibility. The role of visual characteristics in person perception online and offline There are obvious differences and similarities between the avatar and the offline body. The effect of those differences on the perception process is not so obvious. They are similar in that both are the visible representation of another’s ‘presence’ during an interaction, and both are used to represent and identify a person. One important difference is that a person is born with an offline body, and it stays relatively consistent throughout his or her life, while the avatar is computer generated, chosen and can be easily modified or even completely changed (Benford, et al., 1995; Oravec, 1996; Taylor, 2002). This section considers the potential influence of these similarities and differences. Despite the obvious media differences, previous research suggests that the underlying process of perceiving people online is analogous to the process of perceiving people offline. Indeed, the process of reducing uncertainty has been shown to continue in online interactions where people adapt the uncertainty reduction process to utilize whatever information is provided in an interaction (Nowak, 2004; Ramerez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002; Walther, In Press). Uncertainty reduction theory argues that people strive to understand the past and current behavior of those they encounter. People also work to interpret the motives of others and work to increase confidence in their ability to predict future behavior (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Clatterbuck, 1979). People use all information available to reduce uncertainty and make interpersonal judgments in the online person perception process, including the characteristics of the avatar, usernames, and even images on a person’s webpage (Lea & Spears, 1992; Nowak, 2004; Sherman et al., 2001; Taylor, 2002; Wexelblat, 1997). Researchers have considered the distinction between conscious and unconscious signals in nonverbal behavior, and people seem to have more confidence in visually presented information that is not consciously controlled, such as appearance (Argyle, 1988; Burgoon, 1994). Impressions based on offline physical appearance are used to make attributions about other people’s personality with little conscious effort and people feel comfortable about the completeness and accuracy of these attributions (Ambady, Hallhan, & Rosenthal, 1995; Bull & Rumsey, 1988; Burgoon, 1994; Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Ichheiser, 1970). Research suggests that “observers assume a person possesses personality characteristics that are consistent with his or her physical appearance” (Madison, 2000, p. 148). The fact that we can separate the avatar from the behavior allows an exploration of the extent to which this reliance on visible information in the perception process is due to the lack of conscious control and the relative stability of the body. Perceivers know that the avatar is consciously chosen, easy to change, and not stable. Therefore, if people rely more on a person’s behavior than on the visual information (avatar) when online, it is likely that people rely on characteristics of the offline body due to its stability and the fact that it is beyond conscious control. However, if the characteristics of the avatar have a stronger effect on the online person perception process than behavior, this implies that people rely on visual characteristics for some other reason. The effect of anthropomorphism on person perception Anthropomorphism can be defined in terms of either behavior or appearance. In behavioral terms, anthropomorphism implies the assignment of human qualities, such as mental abilities and behavior (DiSalvo & Gemperle, 2003), to objects that are not human. In appearance terms, anthropomorphism defines an object that has human morphology or visual characteristics (DiSalvo & Gemperle 2003; Nowak, 2003; Nowak & Rauh, 2005; Shapiro, 1997). Here we examine anthropomorphism only in terms of human morphology, or appearance of avatars and not to behavior and we extend this definition to apply to humans represented by avatars. In these terms, an anthropomorphic image has visible characteristics that make it appear more human than a less anthropomorphic image, such as an object (see Nowak, 2004). As with a person’s offline body, research has shown that the avatar influences how people categorize others, and has a large influence on the person perception process. Specifically, the characteristics of avatars, including anthropomorphism, strongly influence social liking and attributions of credibility (Nass, Steuer, Tauber, Reeder, 1993; Nowak, 2004). However, the direction of this effect is unclear. While some researchers found that more anthropomorphic avatars lead to more positive perceptions (more liking and credibility) than less anthropomorphic avatars (Koda & Maes, 1996; Wexelblat, 1997), others found that less anthropomorphic avatars led to more positive perceptions than more anthropomorphic avatars (Nowak, 2004; Nowak & Biocca, 2003). Understanding the influence of the avatar, much like the influence of offline physical appearance, is not trivial. These conflicting findings may be explained by the different contexts of the interactions, the different avatars used in the studies, or by other variables that were not considered in these studies. For example, in a study of virtual images realism, Garau et. al (2003) found a stronger effect for inconsistency of image type and behavior (low anthropomorphic image with very realistic behavior and vice versa) than for anthropomorphism alone. In some contexts, higher anthropomorphic images may set up higher expectations. These expectations are more difficult to meet, which results in disappointment and lower credibility and likeability ratings following interactions with those represented by anthropomorphic avatars (Slater & Steed, 2002; Nowak, 2004). Shneiderman (1988) argues that system designers arbitrarily apply certain anthropomorphic qualities to their design, which leads to user over-expectation and disappointment when the system fails to perform to these expectations. While researchers agree that the characteristics of avatars influence person perception, it is premature to conclude that the discerning factor is anthropomorphism. One limitation to the research discussed above is that researchers did not perform a manipulation che