Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find Racial Bias In Virtual Worlds
schliz writes "Real-world behaviours and racial biases could carry forward into virtual worlds such as Second Life, social psychologists say. According to a study that was conducted in There.com, virtual world avatars respond to social cues in the same ways that people do in the real world. Users, who were unaware that they were part of a psychological study, were approached by a researcher's avatar for either a 'foot-in-the-door' (FITD) or 'door-in-the-face' (DITF) experiment. While results of the FITD experiment revealed no racial bias, the effect of the DITF technique was significantly reduced when the experimenter took the form of a dark-skinned avatar."
You're just saying that because I'm blue...
I had never heard of the Foot-In-The-Door experiment or Door-In-The-Face experiments before reading the article. Turns out they are actually very interesting and clever experiments which reveal behavioral tendencies the explanation of which is plausably related to how a person sees themselves (in the FITD case) or how they see others (in the DITF case).
In a nutshell, if someone makes a small request of you that you are likely to agree to, then you will be more likely to agree to a second, larger request, because you will have seen yourself as being helpful in complying with the first request and want to continue being helpful by complying with the second request.
And, if someone makes a large request of you, a request so onerous that most people would not accept it, then you will be more likely to agree to a smaller second request, to a greater extent than you would have had you not been asked the first, more onerous request. The explanation for this is that you are trying to reciprocate on the asker's reducing the size of their request by increasing your willingness to respond to a request beyond what your base level would otherwise be. It's a kind of a subconscious negotiation process that you are engaging in with someone else, basically meeting them halfway.
However, this second scenario is affected by how worthy you subconsciously believe that the other person is of this kind of negotiation (the first scenario is not because your response is affected by how you see yourself, not how you see the asker). And apparently, if you perceive the other person as being unworthy of this kind of negotiation, then you are less likely to meet them halfway and agree to the second request.
OK, so, this article basically says that darker-skinned avatars in virtual worlds essentially are less likely to be met halfway, ostensibly because, on average, they are perceived as being less important than lighter-skinned avatars.
I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that people's racial biases are carried through to a virtual world from the real world. So in a sense, this whole article, aside from being informative about some interesting psychological tests and their results, is kind of one big 'no duh'.
What would be really interesting to know is if, in these situations, there is a greater degree of this kind of bias in one race or socioeconomic class than another, or if it's universal.
Also, I would just like to point out that racial bias does not necessarily mean racism. I personally believe that racial bias is a natural part of the human psyche, and as long as it is recognized, and understood, and does not adversely disadvantage any particular group of people, should be accepted. But that's just me.
A relatively interesting experiment, no doubt, but the article didn't answer a lot of obvious and relevant questions.
First, how big was the sample size? Everything is given as percentages and we all know how meaningless they can be if the number of people tested is small.
Second, what is the racial demographic of the users on There.com? There are plenty of parts of the world, e.g. Russia, where racism (in particular against black people) would not come as a surprise to anyone. If the demographic is primarily American or European then it would be slightly more surprising.
Third, and this is just curiosity, how many people actually complied with the first (totally unreasonable) request in the DITF experiment?
apterous.org
He just needed more /b/lackup in order to finish the experiment :)
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I saw a TV program that demonstrated that people are more likely to help an injured jogger if he is wearing the same team's football shirt. It is not necessarily racist
Isn't that caused by the fact that those virtual world avatars are controlled by people in the real world?
I have both light-skinned and dark-skinned characters in Guild Wars. I'd say I regularly get called a noob regardless of skin color. )=
people are more likely to assume the good will of others if they are like themselves, being race, religion, sex, or nationality.
Of course extreme situations can change this behavior.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You make a stupidly large request, followed by a reasonable one, to a stranger. There is a statistical difference in response depending on whether you are in a light or dark skinned avitar.
Researchers conclude that in first case it's because it's how you view yourself and second case it's how you view others and there is racial prejudice. Sounds like psychobabble to me.
Couldn't it be more like, "wow this stranger made a request that would take 2 hours of my time, then asked for 2 minutes... hmmm do I (consciously or subconsciously) find their avitar attractive enough to risk wasting time with a potential nutjob?"
TFA doesn't say who the target audience is, but I'm guessing mostly light skined avitar ppl who might just have a statistically higher attraction to ppl of lighter skins. What if they tried this test using ugly light skinned avitars and @#$%ing hot dark skinned avitars? I think they would have to rethink their conclusions.
Instead of the Foot-In-The-Door experiment or Door-In-The-Face experiment, you have the Gank-the-N00b experiment and the Give-Gold-And-Items-to-Hot-Female-Night-Elves-Who-Are-Really-Men experiments.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
While results of the FITD experiment revealed no racial bias, the effect of the DITF technique was significantly reduced when the experimenter took the form of a dark-skinned avatar.
Okay, black vs white. Easy enough. It makes sense that people's IRL biases would carry over to the online world - You can see that clearly enough with gender, where having an even remotely female-sounding name results in far more attention (sometimes unwanted) and deferential behavior than a neutral or male name.
But what about anthropomorphic animal avatars (furries)? What about blue-skinned humanoids? What about amorphous purple blobs? This study had the potential to reveal so much more, yet they limited it to merely demonstrating online what we already knew from the real world. Pity.
That's where my curiosity lies. If they're taking the time to do this, it's all fine and dandy that they can say white avatars get 20% compliance for DITF, whereas black avatars get only 8%; however, I think it's important to note the color of the User's avatar, as well as the gender. Were User's with white avatar's MORE or LESS biased against black avatars? What about User's with black avatar's? How about User's with a female avatar? Were they more likely to give compliance, or less? Were the researcher's Avatars always male, or did they use equal white/black/male/female? I would guess that any female avatar would be more likely to get compliance, as men are still chivalrous, for the most part, and will comply with a woman when they wouldn't with a man. I think that this would have been important to note. In our world, racial/gender bias can be presumed to exist without much difficulty; we all know it's there. However, I think it would very interesting to see whether it was a cross-cultural or cross-gender phenomenon, and not just that it exists. Also, I've known just as many black people that were more suspicious of a black man than of a white man! Normally that has come from those that grew up in, shall we say, less-than-upscale areas, and who have dealt with bad male role models, etc. I think the experiment was interesting, but pointless without more depth. Proving the existence of racial bias, even VIRTUAL racial bias, is a lot like trying to prove that the majority of people enjoy sex. It's more of a "No, really?!"
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
I assume that in the US, racism of black people among themselves might be less prevalent, but, yes, it exists. Here in Brasil (zil for you USers) it is rather common. Being no sociologist, I would say it comes from a low-self esteem, derived from the lack of people you perceive similar to you in commendable positions.
I would invite you to watch brazilian television. If you know nothing about where it came from, you might guess you were in Sweden. I've seen more black/dark colored skinned people on TV when I lived in Germany than here. This does have an incredible effect on young people; if you see no black people labeled as "good", whatever good means in your society, you start to believe you aren't good as well. Over the years, I guess I only saw one Playboy magazine with black woman "bunny". No wonder black women feel diminished in relation to white women, and even black men who achieve financial success prefer to marry white (usually blonde) women. Yep, brazilian society is very different from american - I'd guess we won't even say that Obama is black here. But I doubt the self-racism isn't present at some level in american society.
As for the experiment, and for the people which says someone with a racial bias is not necessarily a racist, consider this: suppose you are the one doing job interviews. What are the odds you will give someone a job if you have a bias against him/her to start with? Perhaps if he can prove he is much better than others, he will get the job, but he starts with a handicap. This is racism. I agree it is not in the same league as wearing KKK vests and burning people, or even cursing them, but it is racism.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
"virtual world avatars respond to social cues in the same ways that people do in the real world"
This phrase made me lol. Though I understand it's a metonymy, I choose to nitpick this fine morning, so there.
Avatars can't respond to anything, being representations. But people respond to representations in much the same ways as to the represented. So, to fix the phrase: "People respond to representations of social cues through avatars in virtual worlds in the same ways people respond to social cues." The claim has this "duh" quality. There is a reason those things are called "representations": they represent something for humans. We react to a video, a story or a picture of a love scene or a murder scene in ways similar to our reactions to the real thing, if weaker. All culture, from casual conversations (word representations) to art in any media is based on that premise. Why would the Second Life be any different?
Racism is obviously not limited to the real world. It becomes clear if you read forum threads, play World of WarCraft, chess with avatars on Yahoo and whatnot. Our picture of a black or white dude doesn't change just because we enter a virtual world. After all, that's exactly why movies use shady-looking guys as villains, because we all know what that guy looks like. If we met this person in real life, we would - at least subconsciously - perceive him as a less-than-good person because of what he or she looks like.
Full Tilt
While results of the FITD experiment revealed no racial bias, the effect of the DITF technique was significantly reduced when the experimenter took the form of a dark-skinned avatar.
They never saw a good /b/ raid in Habbo.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
De Georgio: "Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies, Chinks, you name it."
Gonzales: "How does he feel about Mexicans?"
De Georgio: "Ask him."
Harry: "Especially Spics."
Group identity should be your family members, individuals who actually share your genetic code. They might not look like you but they still share the same bloodline.
The second should be those who think like you, your religion, your faith, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.
Race doesn't have anything to do with group identity, it's social identity. And honestly I don't see how it's rational to share any identity with people you've never met merely because they look the same. If you don't know how they think and act then you just don't know them.
If you believe in racial identity then you are the sorta person who supports Jeff Dahmer, OJ Simpson, and others because you feel like they are a part of some fictional group that only exists in your mind. Now on the otherhand if you are a gang member, a member of the mafia, or an actual tribe member then it's different but lets be realistic, most everday racists aren't members of anything, not even a church.
Was it just the skin color? Was it two avatars in the same suit, just different skin tones or was one a black rastafarian and the other a white office worker?
That puts it at far more then simple racism. If I avoid the black drug-dealer on the corner but happily sit next to the white nun you could say I am judging on race but that ain't really the case. I would also avoid the WHITE drug-dealer and sit next to the BLACK nun.
In the series frazier there is a character called Ken Winston or something. What do you first think when you see him. 'Snob', 'brit' or 'black'? I didn't even realize he was black until someone commented that this was the only black character to appear on the show repeatedly. His dark skin tone alone was not enough to trigger the 'black' response in me, because he is whiter then Niles.
Same in real life, do we judge people of other races purely on their skin color OR on behaviors that we have come to associate with negative experiences with people in the past?
I do know racism exist, but do you know where I find it strongest, among so called minorities themselves. Was on a job with an older turkish man and we were in and out of the car constantly, I asked if he shouldn't lock it. He said, no need, there are no morocans around. A white person would have been in serious trouble for saying that but a turk had no problem saying it.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to back it up. Turks are, in holland, less likely to commit crime then other immigrant groups. Turkish men have a rep of being a bit slow/stupid mostly because their language skills tend to be poor but on the whole trustworthy. Men that look 'turkish' get no overly negative response. Turks tend be slightly heavier and hairier. Morocans on the other hand are lighter, often thin and less facial hair. They got a bad rep in holland, not entirely undeserved as a group.
The odd effect is that I seen a morocan guy with a high education but who physical appearance is associated with trouble youth get badly treated while the turkish guy is treated friendly but as a retard.
Of course, that was if I stood WELL to the back. Because invariably if people got a choice between a white guy, a turk and a morocan, they talk to the white guy. The killer? I ain't white, just pale but my genetics come from the same corner of the world.
So I wonder, did this experiment PURELY test skin color or where the avatars behaving differently as well and what does it ultimately show? That we use past experience to judge our reaction to new situations.
I am convinced that if a person never had any reason to associate race X/group Y with a negative experience before, they wouldn't react to it.
The proof? Do you react negativly to say an american indian as a european? No, you never dealt with them, never heard negative stories about them, didn't see them hanging on street corners, so you start the encounter with a blank slate.
Do another experiment, this time use a green-skinned avatar. Then you know wether it is about skin color OR the association we make based on visual signals about what type of person we are dealing with. I am convinced that as soon as you add other signals that this person belongs to a group you can trust, the skin color quickly disappears.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is the fact that I'm a Catperson in EQ2 and hate all Rat people make me racist, or Role playing? My point is in a virtual world, how can you decide if someone is showing there true feelings or playing a character?
I'm not going into the all out racism thing, but as a World of Warcraft junky I have noticed that there is a certain bias. If you look statistically at the game, the two most common races are Night Elves and plain'ol humans. There aren't a lot of customizations in WoW, but one of them is skin color. I finally decided to make a human for whatever reason, and I decided to give her dark skin - not black as in African, but probably the sort of skin tone the average person in India would have.
Nearly all other characters in the game are white. And when I say nearly, I've seen two low level "banker toons" (also chose female avitars with white hair oddly enough), and I ran into one level 3 character with dark skin. I have yet to see anyone seriously level a character with dark skin, and I see hundreds of other human avitars in passing every day and not one of them has darker skin?
I generally mind my own business and I can't say race is much of a concern in my sphere of reality, however the fact that virtually no one in WoW chose a dark skin character really makes me wonder about a few things.
While the linked to article is pretty good for the general audience, it does leave out a lot of the specifics. Here is a link to a pdf of the actual article
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I doubt you were as successful as you remember, you're most likely experiencing a confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
If I was drawing a line in the sand then "dressing up like an animal and fucking other animals" would be so far on the gassing side you might as well just climb in the oven now.
Even pedos seem to be rehabilitatable, compared to the rabid defense of the "furry fandom" when we want to gas you bastards - and also whole "its about fucking animals, its about unleasing my inner dragon (all over that badgers face)" bullshit.
The most freaky shit I've ever done was three girls at once. (One of them was fat, so it hardly counts). Most of male society would agree that it was fucking awesome, and it was. I'm definitely on the side of the line-drawers, and not side of the furrys burning in their semen and gas soaked fursuits.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
"So what does it mean when you hate people of your own race then?"
That your opinion isn't worth listening to and that you're not terribly bright.
I'm serious, by the way. And before you mod me down, I'd feel that way if you hated anyone (with the possible exception of people who are intentionally ignorant).
So I guess that means, in light of the fact that I despise people who remain ignorant by choice, that I in fact despise you. Thanks for the insight.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Years ago, I attended a community Labor Day parade. I wore a bright orange T-shirt with the word "STAFF" across the back. Worked wonders for gaining access to areas off-limits to ordinary "unwashed masses" folks. Social engineering can be entertaining.
Entertaining, yes... so I figure you"ll appreciate this. http://improveverywhere.com/2006/04/23/best-buy/
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
For anyone interested, look up the recent posts of Thufir. He's nothing but a Vanilla Neo-Nazi. I have to say, I'm almost amused by the logical contortions Neo-Nazis create to justify their bigotry. They've created some interesting new definitions because they couldn't defend their old definitions. Just in this post, I see brand new definitions for:
Racism (Racially Biased)
White race (organism)
Lynching (helping your own race first)
Nice work, ass-pirate.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You're assuming that the response to the hypothetical green-skinned dude is based on subjective reactions to objective observations; i.e., for example, you observe that he interrupts you a lot, and then which conclusion one draws is influenced by biases.
The problem is that deep-seated biases will go deeper than just influencing which conclusion you draw from what you observe; they will influence what you observe. You may only be bothered so much about the guy interrupting you because his skin is green. Behaviors that you would hardly notice or remark on from somebody of a positively valued skin color will be seen as glaring coming from a green-skinned dude.
Are you adequate?
I moved from a smaller city in western Canada to a large city in Ontario. Culturally, Canada is a pretty good mixing pot in general, but there's definitely a bigger mix here.
Hopefully I'm being honest with myself when I say that I didn't come with a lot of preconceptions about certain races/origins. I had never really met people from these places before, and had nothing to form an opinion on (either positive or negative).
However, I have come to recognize certain patterns derived from cultural backgrounds of various ethnicities.
Do these apply all the time: no. But they do apply often enough that one begins to profile, even if unwillingly, various others. Ways of doing business, driving habits, etc, can be very strongly influenced by one's origins. Certain countries have driving conditions much different than here, and it seems their driving habits often reflect this. Certain countries do business differently, and their business-habits reflect this. What's polite in one place can be rude in the other.
So, when coming across people from these various origins, whether driving on the road, in the store, or elsewhere, is it truly racist to have some bias based on prior experience?
If 85% of purple people tend to drive aggressively (maybe because in their originating country traffic patterns dictated this as normal), is it racist of me to take extra care when driving around somebody that appears to be of this origin?
If people from a predominantly Mauve country have a tendency to fudge facts on their resume (maybe it's easier due to corruption/politics in that country), what does it mean if I take extra care to verify the details of a Mauve person's resume.
One of the things I hate these days is feeling like a racist due to situations like the above. What's racism and what's prudence. Certainly I wouldn't hire a less-skilled Blue person over a more-skinned Orange person over personal bias, nor would I intentionally treat either one person with less respect. But what's bias, what's profiling, and what's experience?