Advertisement

The Contextual and Collaborative Dimensions of Avatar in Real-Time Decision Making

  • Norita AhmadEmail author
  • Reza Barkhi
Part of the Annals of Information Systems book series (AOIS, volume 13)

Abstract

Technology, combined with the changing nature of work, has created a new environment where individuals have significant options for communication, interaction and real-time decision making. An interesting research question is how various contextual and collaborative approaches influence human decision makers through interface manipulations. We focus on Second Life (SL), a virtual world with media rich context in which avatars interact and make real-time decisions. Even though the decisions in virtual worlds currently have limited impact and consequences, we make the case that it is a good laboratory to study real-time decision making. We study how a sense of presence and a sense of context can be achieved through SL. We design an experiment to study the contextual dimensions of the avatars in SL, user behaviour and perceptions about SL. The results of this study support an assertion that when individuals feel that SL is useful in a real-time decision-making context, it can influence the SL experience and together with SL experience can impact the attitude towards use of SL in real-time context.

Keywords

Second Life Virtual world Real-time decision making Context Collaboration Technology acceptance model Avatar Presence 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Au, W.J., Notes from the New World: The Making of Second Life. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Barfield, W. and S. Weghorst, “The Sense of Presence within Virtual Environments: a Conceptual Framework,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 1993, 699–704.Google Scholar
  4. Barki, H. and J. Hartwick, “Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude,” MIS Quarterly, 18, 1, 1994, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, S.J., S. Abraham, B. Battino, L. Shipnuck and A. Neus, “New Business Models for the New Media World,” Strategy & Leadership, 35, 4, 2007, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beroggi, G.E.G. and W.A. Wallace, “The Effect of Reasoning Logics on real-time Decision Making,” IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, 27, 6, 1997, 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boellstorff, T., An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human: Coming of Age in Second Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. Borges, M.R.S., P. Brézillon, J.A. Pino and J.-C. Pomerol, “Groupware System Design and the Context Concept,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 31, 68, 2005, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulos, M.N.K., L. Hetherington and S. Wheeler, “Second Life: An Overview of the Potential of 3-D Virtual Worlds in Medical and Health Education,” Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24, 4, 2007, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cagnina, M.R. and M. Poian, “Second Life: A Turning Point for Web 2.0 and E-Business?” in D’Atri, A., De Marco, M., and Casalino, N. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Aspects of Information Systems Studies: The Italian Association for Information Systems. Heidelberg: Physica, 2008, 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewin and L.M. Seiford, Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Application. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. Chaturvedi, A.R., G.K. Hutchinson and D.L. Nazareth, “Supporting Complex real-time Decision Making Through Machine Learning,” Decision Support Systems, 10, 22, 1993, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheal, C., “Second Life: Hype or Hyperlearning?” On the Horizon, 15, 4, 2007, 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Culnan, M.J., “How Did They Get My Name?: An Exploratory Investigation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Secondary Information Use,” MIS Quarterly, 17, 3, 1993, 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, F.D., “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End User Information Systems: Theory and Results,” in Ph.D. Thesis, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, F.D., “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 1989, 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis, A., et al., “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly, 16, 2, 1992, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dey, A. and G. Abowd, “Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness,” GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-00–18, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Doll, W.J., A. Hendrickson and X. Deng, “Using Davis’s Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use Instruments for Decision Making and Multi-Group Invariance Analysis,” Decision Sciences, 29, 4, 1998, 839–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durvasula, S., et al., “Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes: Are Students and General Consumers Indeed Different?” Journal of Asian Business, 13, 1, 1997, 71–84.Google Scholar
  21. Featherman, M.S. and P.A. Pavlou, “Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 4, 2003, 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fjermestad, J. and S.R. Hiltz, “An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology and Results,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 3, 1998, 7–150.Google Scholar
  23. Gefen, D., E. Karahana and D. Straub, “Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model,” MIS Quarterly, 27, 1, 2003, 51–90.Google Scholar
  24. Gefen, D. and D. Straub, “The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease-of-Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 8, 2000, 1–20.Google Scholar
  25. Grover, V. and A.H. Segars, “Re-examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” MIS Quarterly, 17, 4, 1993, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heller, F., P. Drenth, P. Koopman and V. Rus, Decisions in Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. Hendrickson, A.R., P.D. Massey and T.P. Cronan, “On the Test-Retest Reliability of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use,” MIS Quarterly, 17, 2, 1993, 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hiltz, S.R., “Productivity Enhancement from Computer-Mediated Communication: A Systems Contingency Approach,” Communications of the ACM, 31, 12, 1988, 1438–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarmon, L. and J. Sanchez, “The Educators Coop Experience in Second Life: A Model for Collaboration,” The Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 4, 2, 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Jarmon, L., T. Traphagan and M. Mayrath, “Understanding Project-Based Learning in Second Life with a Pedagogy, Training, and Assessment Trio,” Educational Media International, 45, 3, 2008, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaenampornpan, M. and E. O’Neill, “Modelling Context: An Activity Theory Approach,” in Markopoulos, P., Eggen, B., Aarts, E. and Croeley, J. L. (eds)., Ambient Intelligence: Second European Symposium on Ambient Intelligence, EUSAI 2004, volume 3295 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, 2004, 367–374.Google Scholar
  32. Kumar, S., J. Chhugani, C. Kim, D. Kim, A. Nguyen, P. Dubey, C. Bienia and Y. Kim, “Second Life and the New Generation of Virtual Worlds,” IEEE Computer Society, 41, 9, 2008, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagorio, C., “The Ultimate Distance Learning,” The New York Times. January 7, 2007, URL = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07innovation.html
  34. Lave, J., “The practice of learning: The problem with context,” in Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Boston: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 3–32.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, P.D., N. Ahmad and A. Hudson, “The Use of Second Life in Graduate Education,” Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Linden, A., “Three Questions about PIVOTE by Daden, as used by St. George’s University London (SGUL) in Second Life,” October 28, 2009, URL = //blogs.secondlife.com/community/workinginworld/blog/2009/10/28/three-questions-about-pivote-by-daden-as-used-by-st-george-s-university-london-sgul-in-second-life
  37. Lombard, M. and T. Ditton, “At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 2, 1997.Google Scholar
  38. Maher, M.L., “Designing the Virtual Campus as a Virtual World,” in Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Hoadley, C. and Roschelle, J. (eds.). Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1999.Google Scholar
  39. Mania, K. and A. Chalmers, “A Classification for User Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual Environments,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. Amsterdam: IOS/Ohmsha, Ltd., 1998, 177–182.Google Scholar
  40. Mathieson, K., “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Information Systems Research, 2, 3, 1991, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGahern, R., “Manchester Business School Hosts First UK Virtual Graduation,” February 19, 2009, URL = http://www.trainingjournal.com/news/1953.html
  42. Metz, C., “The Emperor’s New Web: Some of the Biggest Names in High Tech Are Convinced That Second Life and Other Virtual Worlds Are the Future of the Net. Are They Fooling Themselves?” PC Magazine, 26, 9, 2007, 70–77.Google Scholar
  43. Moon, J. and Y. Kim, “Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web Context,” Information and Management, 28, 2001, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nowak, K.L. and C. Rauh, “The Influence of the Avatar on Online Perceptions of Anthropomorphism, Androgyny, Credibility, Homophily, and Attraction,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1, 2005, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ondrejka, C., “Escaping the Gilded Cage: User Created Content and Building the Metaverse,” New York Law School Law Review, 49, 2004, 81–101Google Scholar
  46. O’Reilly, T. and Musser, J., Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, 2006.Google Scholar
  47. Perlin, K., “Real-time Responsive Animation with Personality,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 1, 1, 1995, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ringo, T., “IBM Explores New Frontiers in Collaborative Innovation,” Research Technology Management, 50, 5, 2007, 6–7.Google Scholar
  49. Rymaszewski, M., M. Wallace, C. Winters and W. J. Au, Second Life: The Official Guide. New York: Wiley, 2006.Google Scholar
  50. Second Life official website. January 2010, URL = http://www.secondlife.com
  51. Second Life Success Stories, December 2009, URL = http://work.secondlife.com/en-US/­successstories/case/chmc/
  52. Segars, A.H. and V. Grover, “Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” MIS Quarterly, 17, 4, 1993, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seyama, J. and R.S. Nagayama, “The Uncanny Valley: Effect of Realism on the Impression of Artificial Human Faces,” Presence, 16, 4, 2007, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, S. “Second Life Mixed Reality Broadcasts: A Timeline of Practical Experiments at the NASA CoLab Island,” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1, 1, 2008.Google Scholar
  55. Straub, D.W., M. Limayem and E. Karahanna-Evaristo, “Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing,” Management Science, 41, 8, 1995, 1328–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Subramanian, G.H., “A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement,” Decision Sciences, 25, 5/6, 1994, 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Szajna, B., “Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Management Science, 42, 1, 1996, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tapley, R., Designing Your Second Life. Berkeley: New Riders, 2007.Google Scholar
  59. Taylor, S. and P.A. Todd, “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models,” Information Systems Research, 6, 2, 1995, 144–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thie, S. and J. van Wijk, “A General Theory on Presence: Experimental Evaluation of Social Virtual Presence in a Decision Making Task,” in Presence in Shared Virtual Environment Workshop, University College London, UK, 10–11 June 1998.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, M., “Using Second Life as a Business-to-Business Tool,” Information Week, April 2007, URL = http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/04/using_second_li_2.html;jsessionid=GGSANGEHOLJK3QE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN
  62. Witmer, B.G. and M.J. Singer, “Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 3, 1998, 225–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhu, Q., T. Wang and Y. Jia, “Second Life: A New Platform for Education,” Information Technologies and Applications in Education, ISITAE, 23, 25, 2007, 201–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementAmerican University of SharjahSharjahUAE
  2. 2.Pamplin College of BusinessVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations