Social Influence in Second Life: Social Network and Social Psychological Processes in the Diffusion of Belief and Behaviour on the Web
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social Influence in Second Life: Social Network and Social Psychological Processes in the Diffusion of Belief and Behaviour on the Web Aleksandra K Krotoski Thesis submitted for Ph.D. degree in Psychology August 2009 Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH UK ! 2009, Some Rights Reserved (See: Appendix 4) Aleksandra K Krotoski 2 Abstract The Internet has challenged social psychological theories of influence that have focussed on interpersonal perceptions of trustworthiness, expertise and similarity, and normative attributions of social identity. As knowledge is increasingly decentralised and user-generated, new questions arise about how online participants identify which information to adopt or reject. This thesis examines which social psychological and social network analytic features predict attitude and behaviour change using information gathered about 47,643 related avatars in the virtual community Second Life. Using data collected over three studies from online surveys and data accessed from the application’s computer servers, it describes why the structure of a social system, an individual’s position in a social group, and the structural content of an online relationship have been effective at predicting when influence occurs. The first study assessed the relationship between network strength and attributions of trust, credibility, social comparison and prototypicality. Results suggested that network theories that describe influence on the basis of network strength do so because it implicates interpersonal and normative features of influence, evident in this community by the amount of offline information account holders disclose to online contacts. The second study examined the features that predicted attitudes to sexual activity in the virtual world. In the online space, perceptions of norms were the strongest predictors of personal attitudes, and network features identified how accurate and inaccurate they were. The third study followed the diffusion of the new voice service through Second Life over a nine-month period. Network features emerged as most important immediately before and after an innovation achieved critical mass, but the psychological features assured that diffusion persisted during periods of slow uptake. The results extended the theoretical understanding of the interplay between psychological and network processes in the adoption of attitudes and behaviour online. Krotoski 2009 3 Statement of Originality This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. This thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part for any other academic degree or professional qualification. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not drafts have been so- assessed, the University reserves the right to require an electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for assessment as above. Krotoski 2009 4 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people. I would like to give my sincere thanks to my supervisors, Dr. Julie Barnett and Dr. Evanthia Lyons. I am grateful that they had the faith in the project, and that they were patient with my impulsiveness. I learned more by watching them debate online environments than I did by logging in and studying them. I am thankful for their tolerance of my many other obligations and deeply obliged to them for the meticulousness, the rigour and the inspiration that they have instilled in me. I am indebted to the Department of Psychology at the University of Surrey for their financial support during the first three years of this process. This research would not have been completed without the skills of the talented technical people who contributed to this work. Many thanks go to John McMurtrie, Paul Connell, and to the team who broke down the quantum of data from the Linden Lab database: Bert Chi, Space Linden, Phoenix Linden and Einstein Linden. Indeed, I would like to express my gratitude to the people at Linden Lab who supported me throughout the process, particularly Robin Harper, Cory Ondrejka, Jeska Dzwigalski, Stephany Filimon and Everett Harper. Thanks as well go to the many people who read the thesis in its various forms, in particular Sarbjit Bakhshi. Also, to the Second Life community: thank you for your questions, your challenges, your bizarre creations and for opening up a whole new world that I might never have discovered without you. Finally, on a personal note, this thesis would not have been possible without the enduring support of my family, who ensured, with comments and feedback, personal anecdotes, escape havens, care packages, shoulders, phone calls and many other things, that I made it to the summit. Finally, this thesis is dedicated to Max, who made sure in every possible way that the world continued on its orbit while I was on Planet Thesis. Krotoski 2009 5 Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 11 1.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 11 1.2. Overview of the Chapters............................................................................................ 17 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 7 ............................................................................................................................ 20 2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................. 22 2.1. Psychological Perspectives of Social Influence......................................................... 26 Interpersonal influence ...................................................................................................... 27 Normative influence ........................................................................................................... 31 2.2. Applying Psychological Perspectives to Online Communities.................................. 34 Online communities............................................................................................................ 35 Interpersonal influence in online communities ................................................................. 37 Normative influence in online communities...................................................................... 42 2.3. Social Network Perspectives of Social Influence ...................................................... 48 Relationships between psychological and network perspectives ................................... 49 Structural influence ............................................................................................................ 51 2.4. Conclusions and Research Question ......................................................................... 62 3. Method..................................................................................................................................... 65 3.1. Sample.......................................................................................................................... 65 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 66 Sampling strategy............................................................................................................... 68 Researcher involvement .................................................................................................... 71 3.2. Instruments................................................................................................................... 74 Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 75 Automated data extraction................................................................................................. 82 3.3. Ethical considerations.................................................................................................. 84 Anonymity ........................................................................................................................... 86 Secondary sources ............................................................................................................ 87 Special ethical considerations for automated data collection techniques...................... 89 3.4. Conclusion...................................................................................................................