Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In the fields of psychology and communication, one can find a great deal of research
on the impact of media on people—behaviorally, culturally, and emotionally, particu-
larly in childhood development. In technical and design fields of media, studies abound
on how users behave and what they like. Nass and Reeves were the first to ask seri-
ously and systematically about the ways in which this new media is perceived not as
content or culture but as phenomenon. In the literature across the fields of communica-
tion, HCI, and psychology, this phenomenon has come to be known, after the research
by Reeves and Nass, as the media equation.
In my analysis of networked media engagement, research such as the media equation
helps to illuminate our actual new media use. Because of our increasing use of compu-
tational and interactive formats, how media affects us—or how we find media affect-
ive—gains increasing importance to understanding our world, designing for it, and act-
ing in it. For my purposes, in understanding a generational shift toward an accelerated
mediation, where we engage avatars and other forms of media simulation on a nearly
daily basis, I am suggesting that the media equation has strong implications for how we
understand mediated presence and networked agency.
I look at the implications of these findings for a networked generation and issues
around X-reality use and design. Reeves and Nass summarize the their findings in
The
Media Equation
, citing over two decades of experimental research to prove their hypo-
ulus (activity in the world) and synthetic stimulus (the simulated activity): we perceive
them to be the same.
If the media equation rings false—or at least tinny to the ear—that is because it is
counterintuitive. We have all had the experience of successfully distinguishing between
a character we saw in a movie and the person we see across the dinner table. And,
certainly, experience, intelligence, and other factors help us negotiate the difference
between real and simulated events. But, on the level of perception, Reeves and Nass
explain that we are still prehistoric brains reacting in a fight or flight manner to what is
before us. The reptile part of the brain did not evolve special sensors for video games;
we respond to stimulus in a manner that keeps us safe in a dangerous world, and not
though, our brains are good at that too.
