Video- vs. Avatar-Based Communication: A Newfound Reliance on Virtual Environments
At the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, the extent to which humanity would rely on virtual platforms and online communication could not be predicted. We have seen nearly every industry trust companies like Zoom, Teooh, and Webex to sustain ‘business as usual’ with the great change of limited face-to-face interactions. We have witnessed first-hand the economy’s dependence on virtual events, wi-fi connections and cellular data. Though the pandemic has stretched our emotional capacities, our resourcefulness has not been stunted. We have advanced our technologies and adapted to create more efficient solutions to problems, as human beings have always done.
Among these adaptations is our greater, necessary, reliance on video- and avatar-based virtual platforms. Without, or at least with limited, face-to-face interactions, companies have had to reinvent the wheel, depending more on platforms that implement web conferencing software to show virtual conversations between employees to maintain companies’ missions. In this light, a new debate has arisen within the digital economy: is avatar or video conferencing more effective?
Avatar Behaviour in Reality
According to the Association of Psychological Science, avatar usage can have real-life implications. They conducted a study where participants used a Superman, Voldemort (don’t say this aloud!), or a circle avatar for five minutes; these three conditions reflected heroic, villainous, or neutral behaviour, respectively. The most ingenious part of this study came after the supposed end of the avatar play study: each participant was given a blind taste test of chilli and chocolate sauces and told another person would be required to eat all of the sauce on the plate. Results showed that those in the heroic condition placed two times as much chocolate on the plate, whereas those in the villainous condition poured two times as much chilli. Lead researcher Gunwoo Yoon from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign stated that ‘Just five minutes of role-play in virtual environments as either a hero or villain can easily cause people to reward or punish anonymous strangers.‘ Therefore, these results suggest that in business, using avatars could possibly reinforce coordinated group behaviour, as employees engaging in avatar-based platforms are necessarily on the same side and, thus, require co-workers to perform at their greatest capacity. The similar intention from all users aiming for the same goal would plausibly place them in the heroic condition, as each person (or avatar) would help others because it helps themselves.
In video-based environments, there is a similar common goal, but there is no avatar-play. Therefore, these platforms lack the disengagement from oneself that is necessary to take on a ‘heroic condition.’ Without this heroic condition, there is no anonymity and, thus, no change in the dynamic between employees. Of course, in these platforms, co-workers will share goals, but these goals are not transferred into the avatar-like reality, which is demonstrated to change behaviours in reality. The video feature is a true reflection of the person behind the screen, whereas the avatar is a refraction of the persona behind the account. In other words, conversing with an avatar allows employees to project themselves in the best light that helps the company reach its goals.
Avatars as Users Themselves
Additionally, platforms like Teooh which have a selection of avatars that are customisable are really to the likeness of the user. Users are also required to type their own name into the platform which becomes later the names of their avatars. Thus, there is some attributability to the actions of the avatar, so more affable actions perhaps will be shown. However, this is not to state that avatars are the exact reflections of the users themselves in the same way as video-chatting. Customisable avatars invent a space that is both the persona and anonymisation of the user behind the screen. Therefore, it is plausible that avatar-based virtual communication live streaming conjures more amiable behaviour from co-workers than video conference calls.
Keeping Interest
Additionally, there are reports that video-chatting becomes boring faster than avatar-chatting. In a study on multitasking during video-based communication, aptly called ‘It’s Kind of Boring Looking at Just the Face,’ researchers suggest that multitasking is ‘ok’ and even perhaps necessary to have a meaningful conversation. Thus, it is an element of important to keep employees engaged and to interact with audience whilst communicating over online platforms. Avatar-based conferencing can be the answer to this problem.
Gunwoo Yoon and other researchers have postulated that ‘the degree to which participants are “keyed into” the game might be an important factor driving behavioural effects they observed.’ In this light, avatar-based business communication could conceivably affect the interest not only in the conference being held but also the timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency of meeting goals. When co-workers become ‘co-players’ there is an increased interest in the business ‘game’ and end-goal, allowing employees to coordinate plans and achieve company success.
Where to Next?
As the pandemic has necessitated more reliance than ever on virtual platforms, avatar-based communication will become more commonplace. We will see the effects of video-chatting experiences and research the effect of avatar-based business communication on common goals. As we arrive at the end of the beginning of this pandemic, we have shared in newfound reliance on virtual environments and the camaraderie necessary to persevere as human beings when risks are presented to the human race itself.
