Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

Second Life, Second Morality?

Katleen Gabriels
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT, Centre for Ethics E-mail: katleen.gabriels@vub.ac.be

Joke Bauwens
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT E-mail: jo.bauwens@vub.ac.be

Karl Verstrynge
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT, Centre for Ethics E-mail: karl.verstrynge@vub.ac.be
Abstract This study is an examination of in-world morality of frequent residents of Second Life. Given the lack of systematic research on morality in non-gaming virtual worlds, the authors conducted an explorative small-scale, in-depth qualitative study with regular Second Liferesidents. Drawing on cyber-anthropology, cybersociology and game studies, they explore to what extent ideas and pictures of in-world moral behaviour differ from moral categories and definitions used in real life situations. Research findings show, firstly, that communication and sanction mechanisms (e.g. gossip), known from real life, are important means to create social control and group cohesion in Second Life. Secondly, the technologically mediated context intensifies and provides new tools for social control (e.g. alternative avatar). Thirdly, residents also make use of out-world systems to restrict or punish immoral behaviour (e.g. blogs, discussion forums, web search engines). In general, findings indicate that morality in Second Life is not completely different from morality shown in real life. On the other hand, they also point at distinctiveness in a mediated environment because of specific technological tools.i

Introduction Although today millions of people are spending a considerable amount of time in three-dimensional nongaming virtual worlds, little systematic research has been done regarding the question of morality and its distinctive nature in these particular worlds. The scant attention given to morality in social virtual worlds is in sharp contrast to the extensive studies on morality in virtual games. Also, instead of researching on morality in a profound way, much ink has flowed in popular media discourses about the absence of morality in these social virtual worlds. In those panic waves, the freedom that users have to experiment without restraints is often linked with the upsurge of immoral or amoral behaviour (e.g., Kuipers, 2006). Many journalists and commentators fear that everything seems to be allowed and possible in social virtual environments. As the number of people that have an avatar in one or more social virtual worlds is increasing on a daily basis (e.g., Castronova, 2007) and the public debate on morality in social virtual worlds is heavily framed in moral panicterms, the importance of academic knowledge on the grounds and meanings of moral values and practices in these worlds can hardly be overestimated.

Research Design: Questions and Methodology The research presented here aims to provide a more profound and evidence-based understanding of how people reflect on and construct morality when they are virtually engaging with each other. We focus on the popular and widely known social virtual world Second Life (SL). SL was created in 2003 by Linden Lab and is defined as an immersive, user-created online world (Au, 2008, p. x). Linden Lab does not impose a gameoriented goal on its residents; they are free to choose how to spend their time in-world. Exactly the freedom to act and to experiment in a world that is believed to be a second, different or so-called otherworld (Dibbell, 1993) is the starting point of our investigation. We explore if people who often engage in SL experiment with morality and to what extent they apply a different morality than in real life. Social life has produced different systems to restrict and punish immoral behaviour in real life, so one can ask oneself if these systems also stand in virtual worlds. Or to phrase the question more radically: does it really matter that immoral behaviour is limited or punished in virtual worlds, as these worlds are only virtual and thus not rooted in actuality? Our specific focus in this study is on the dynamics and mechanisms of social control: how they are rooted in offline social conventions people bring along when they dwell in SL, but also how they are shaped and activated through the technological design and tools of SL. In particular, the in-world prevention, exclusion, and punishment of immoral behaviour are discussed here. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth qualitative study in order to examine the in-world morality of frequent residents. Drawing on a multi-method virtual ethnographic research design, we interviewed devoted SL-residents (N=14) and discussed their moral experiences in SL, in order to gain an understanding of the moral nature of social interactions in SL. We conducted two focus group interviews and four individual interviews. Starting from the idea that interview contexts are always affected through the interaction and relation between the interviewer and the respondents (Fontana, & Frey, 2005), all interviews were conducted by the same researcher in order to control the effects of social dynamics as much as possible. The interviews were semi-structured: the interviewer started from an interview guide with a set of

29

Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

pre-determined topics, but equally left scope for discussion (in the focus groups) and excursions (in the individual interviews). Except for two electronic interviews through Voice Over IP, all interviews were face-to-face. However, given the availability of audio and visual cues and the synchronous course of communication, the VoIP interview comes close to face-to-face interaction. We used purposive sampling strategy to select the respondents. Considering the importance of language in interpretive research, all respondents in our study were Dutch-speaking (13 Belgian and 1 Dutch participant). Another characteristic important to our study was Table 1. Overview respondents (N=14) Education Gender Year of Birth R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 F M M F M M F M M F F M M M 1984 1946 1979 1943 1947 1965 1953 1985 1985 1972 1959 1966 1974 1944 College High school College High school College College University College High school High school University College College High school

familiarity with SL. All respondents first logged in between January 2005 and June 2007 and were actively engaged in SL since three to five years. The time that they are in-world varies from 4 hours per week (minimum) to 12 hours per day (maximum). Apart from these characteristics, we aimed for a heterogeneous sample in order to explore the diversity and multiplicity of moral practices in SL. Dimensions of variety in the sample were socio-demographics (gender, age, education, SES), and the kind of investments, expectations, and gratifications people show in their SL visits and stays (see table 1 for overview).

Marital status children Single / 0 Married / 3

Selfreported primary motivation Curiosity Curiosity Work Curiosity Leisure Curiosity Curiosity Leisure Curiosity Social contacts Curiosity Curiosity Work Leisure / Because his wife is also active in SL

Main activity in-world

Creation, work Social Work Social Social, SL real estate Social, creation Social Social Social, creation Social Social, creation Social Work Social, creation

Relationship / 0 Widow / 2 Married / 2 Married / 0 Married / 2 Single / 0 Single / 0 Divorced / 5 Married / 2 Married / 1 Cohabitation /2 Married / 2

Explanation of the terms: Creation: the primary motivation to reside in SL is to build virtual SL-objects or to create SL-art (e.g. photography). Leisure: SL is a form of relaxation and enjoyment, without any obligations. Social: the primary motivation consists of meeting friends, looking for a relationship or extending ones social network. Work: the primary motivation is professional; these residents are in SL because of their job and are being paid to be in-world.

30

Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

Results and Discussion In agreement with other studies (Markham, 1998; Turkle, 1995; Boellstorff, 2008), the respondents in our study consider their involvement in a virtual world as part of significant life experiences. As regular and mature users who have been in-world since a number of years, they all acknowledge the avatars as representations of human beings and identities and not as soulless objects. SL is a social virtual world to them and for that reason they ascribe high significance to the group and community they belong to. Furthermore, our respondents consider SL not as a noncommittal game, but as a real social world, which entails a serious investment, whether in personal, emotional, psychological or professional terms. In this context, we noticed that our respondents talked about growing up in SL. This process was described in terms of growing avatar attachment, increasing recognition of the commitments, rules and conventions in SL and, especially, stronger settling in social groups. For a comprehensible reflection on our findings, we have inductively demarcated our results in three different fields. First, we discuss the correlation between motivations and main activities on the one hand and perceptions of morally un/acceptable behaviour on the other. Second, we elaborate on the moral consequences of anonymity, traceability, and sociality as experienced by SL-residents. Third, we consider the types of social sanctions the SL-residents we talked to discern and display when dealing with practices they morally disapprove of.

partner. Equally they believe that violations of Linden Labs terms and conditions are impermissible. In general, they hold the conviction that playing with someones feelings must be punished. In their stories they suggest that these basic principles influence their in-world behaviour. They also believe that it is permitted to make use of a wide range of technological tools offered and enabled in SL. For instance, they do not denounce spying on someone, whether by creating an alt (i.e. an alternative avatar), asking someone else to do it, saving chatlogs, or making screenshots of disclosing behaviour. What all respondents have in common is the importance they ascribe to SL-seniority: the longer someone is online, the more trustable he or she is. They are suspicious when someone pretends to be a noob, i.e. a new SL-resident, but turns out to be very experienced with the specific tools of SL (e.g. walking around, teleport, scripts, textures). All respondents indicate that when you have built a close relationship with someone and have invested time, emotions, and energy in this person, lies are not accepted. There is also a general belief that cheaters will eventually fail, for instance by betraying themselves or by showing discontinuity in their behaviour. Many respondents also have the tendency to verify the truthfulness of a person on the web, through search engines like Google or on social networking sites like Facebook.

The Influence of Motives on Morality The analysis of the interviews showed that motives for participating in SL and main activities displayed inworld regulate personal views on what residents believe is un/acceptable behaviour. Respondents that are in SL because of professional reasons (in table 1 labelled under work and creation) are aware that they are being supervised and, this way, they make no distinction between SL-behaviour and real life behaviour. Throughout the interviews these respondents showed themselves as less emotionally involved, as their ties in SL are mostly work-related and their activities focus on professional gratification to explore the innovative use of SL and develop software. These respondents accept telling untruths about age or gender in SL easier than in real life. However, they do have a problem with illegal issues, such as underage residents, infringement of intellectual property or having sex with a child or animal avatar. Also, telling untruths about profession-related skills and experiences is deemed bad. This professional-detached position contrasts sharply with the approach taken by respondents who are in-world for social reasons, which leads to higher emotional investment. Respondents who are looking for love or friendship, have more problems with lies about age and gender, especially when they are looking for a

Anonymity, Traceability, and Sociality The sense of anonymity and, related to that, the sense of traceability have an effect on how in-world morality is conceived of. Respondents that have linked their SLprofile to information that makes the real life connection explicit and traceability easier (e.g. name, website), show themselves more conscious about how they present and represent themselves in SL. Conversely, when you do not reveal real life information and leave no traces of personal identity data, it seems easier to disappear and to start again (with an alt, i.e. an alternative avatar) because you have no commitments. Still, the respondents in our research all shared the idea that the tendency to remain anonymous and untraceable was only tempting when making its entry in SL. The ease of openly expressing emotions, flirting, telling lies hence, the appeal of disengaged and uncommitted social interactions clashes at a certain point in time with the socialisation process residents go through. More particularly, respondents that do not share links to real life information experience stricter self-regulation when they become embedded in a network. As they have been in-world for an extensive period, they have invested resources like time, energy, emotions, and money and they do not want to put these at stake. During the years, our respondents have collected a group of friends and connections in-world and many of them have also met in real life. Being embedded in a close network leads to

31

Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

social control (group cohesion, group regulation) and regulates behaviour. Therefore, our respondents, who have been in-world for an extensive period, simply represent their actual identity. Other academic research shows that people, who often engage in virtual environments, including digital games, prefer being themselves rather than experiment with new identities and personalities (Yee, 2006, p. 15). Moreover, the respondents in our study explained that they often share personal information in intense conversations and that they are connected to out-world (i.e. not in SL), social networks, both offline (e.g. meetings in real life) and online (connections via Skype, MSN, Facebook, different blogs and forums). For all these reasons, managing and controlling lies, biased truths or fictionalized data about oneself is far from easy. Obviously, residents who work or create in-world are also embedded in a network, albeit a professional or business set of social contacts. To them, it is essential to have and to maintain a good reputation, as a bad name might result in a loss of clients or contacts. When they are accused falsely, they defend themselves, either inworld or on blogs and forums. Especially blogs are important means to restore ones reputation in the group. Respondents also talk about others to learn more about their reputation and to find out if they are trustable to cooperate with.

contact will be broken in a quiet way, for instance, by ignoring the harm doer or by muting him or her, which is technologically possible in SL. This way, chances are high that the harm doer will eventually become an outcast and disappear. Finally, the respondents in our study agree on the principle that victims of serious harm will exclude the harm doer from his community and banish him from the communicative sphere, i.e. punishment by excommunication. The cheater will be pilloried, not only in-world but also on blogs and forums. Although these three mechanisms recall practices in tribal societies as has been dealt with within anthropology, evolutionary psychology and moral sciences, the communication and information technological tools of SL enable an intensification and stronger coordination of social sanctioning. Compared to real life, it becomes easier for the deceived persons to start an active, almost organized campaign against the cheater. It is striking how much technological tools affect social behaviour, and more specifically forms of punishment. If there are proofs, for instance incriminating (disclosing) screenshots or chatlogs, they are distributed by the deceived ones. It is important to point at the significance of the blogosphere here: the reputation of the harm doer is actively damaged on different blogs, not only to give a clear signal to the cheater, but also to warn others for him or her. There are also forms of group punishment to make clear that the harm doer is no longer allowed in the group, for instance by collectively removing him or her out of the friend list or by banning him or her from sims.

Social Sanctions Finally, the respondents in our study talked about the different mechanisms they know and apply when confronted with morally unacceptable practices. First of all, it is important to note that the residents, and not Linden Lab, seem to regulate these forms of sanctioning. As an everyday, familiar and concrete example of unacceptable behaviour, we discussed with our respondents cheating in the most general sense. In line with other studies on online communities (e.g. teenagers and social networking sites, instant messaging boards), the mechanisms virtual communities use for sanctioning objectionable behaviour are pre-eminently communicative (Reid, 1999; Baym, 2010). First, there is sanction through inflated communication. This means that the deceived person will inform others, often close friends, about what has happened. Although the respondents state that they only do this when the damage is worth mentioning, they equally suggest that it is more accepted in SL to make commotion about less grave harm. Clearly, this form of punishment is closely linked to reputation, i.e. punishing the cheater by gossip to ruin his or her reputation. Respondents point out that this happens on a regular basis and is conventional in SL. Second, punishing unacceptable behaviour also takes place through non-communication. This means that all

Conclusion This research, albeit explorative, local and small-scale, has aimed to contribute to a better understanding of lived experiences and meanings. Our results show that SL is not an isolated world in which no such things as morals exist(Meadows, 2008, p. 78) nor a separated world for which users create a second morality. Following our results, SL can be looked upon as a microcosm of real life, which is in line with other scientific research, as substantial evidence demonstrates that people behave in a similar way in virtual environments as in real life situations (e.g., Yee et al, 2007). Avid users of virtual worlds state that their virtual experiences are not isolated from their real life experiences, and moreover, they state that both worlds affect each other (Yee, 2006). Similar to actual life, activities in virtual worlds include various types of social interaction like hanging out with friends, collaborating in groups, establishing intimate relationships, and starting love affairs. As a consequence, several aspects of human sociality occur in SL, because residents take real life social conventions and conduct with them. However, as social virtual worlds like SL are technologically designed and constructed, the question how moral practices are

32

Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

contingent on, activated by or disabled through technology needs also to be taken into consideration when discussing the social and moral meaning of life experiences in social virtual worlds. As mentioned before, the public debate on morality in social virtual worlds is heavily framed in moral panicterms. Many express their worries about these worlds without constraints where people are believed to have the freedom to cross moral boundaries. Interestingly, our data put these panics into perspective, as we see that different kinds of social mechanisms restrict unrestrained immoral behaviour. Being traceable, being embedded in a network, group cohesion, social control, amongst others, lead to both self- and group-regulation. Also, our respondents are normal people as opposed to deviant and pathological. This contrasts with the References Au, W. J. (2008). The making of Second Life. Notes from the New World. New York: HarpinCollins Publishers. Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of Age in Second Life. An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton / Oxford: Princeton University Press. Castronova, E. (2007). Exodus to the virtual world: How online fun is changing reality. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Dibbell, J. (1993). A rape in cyberspace How an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society, in The Village Voice (newspaper article), December 23, 1993, pp.36-42. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview. From neutral stance to political interview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kuipers, G. (2006). The social construction of digital danger: Debating, defusing and inflating the moral dangers of online humor and pornography in the Netherlands and the United States. New Media & Society 8, pp.379-400. Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Meadows, M. S. (2008). I, Avatar: The culture and consequences of having a second life. Berkeley: New Riders. Reid, E. (1999). Hierarchy and power: Social control in cyberspace. In A. Marc, & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 107-133). London: Routledge.

stereotypical portrayal of a frequent user of virtual worlds in various popular media: ugly, isolated, alienated, escapist, failed in his or her first life Obviously, we must point out that we have been dealing with residents who were willing to participate and to open up about experiences that have been heavily stigmatized in various discourses. In the future, the cultural and social diversity of SL-residents, SL-groups, SL-sims will need to be taken more into account in order to reveal similarities and differences. Also, the question of how to study continuity and discontinuity between so-called first life and second life morality keeps bringing with it methodological challenges.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Touchstone. Yee, N. (2006). The psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional investment, motivations, relationship formation, and problematic usage. In R. Schroeder, & A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 187-207). London: Springer-Verlag. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychology and Behavior 10, pp.115-121. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus Effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research 33, pp.271290.
i

A longer analysis of this study will be available as a book chapter: Gabriels, K., Bauwens, J., & Verstrynge, K. (2011, in print). Second Life, Second Morality? In N. Zagalo, L. Morgado, & A. Boa-Ventura (Eds.), Virtual worlds and metaverse platforms: New communication and identity paradigms. USA: IGI Global.

33