Does an Avatar affect your perception of the poster?

[Scarpia]

Does and Avatar affect your perception of the poster?  I think it surely does. 

The only avatar I have previously used on this site is the one attached, which is Pasquale Amato's portrayal of Scarpia.   For a while I have not used it and have had no avatar, and I put it back recently.  I must say that people seem to interpret my posts as more hostile when I have the Amato-Scarpia avatar visible, presumably transferring their perception of the picture to my posts.  This is not good, so I have replaced it with a painting I like by Walkowitz.  I may replace it with something simpler, which looks better at reduced size.

I also think my impression of fellow posters is colored by the avatars chosen.  I generally get a positive impression from avatars that contain interesting cultural references, like a bit of architecture, a painting.  Knight, Marc and Drasko make a stimulating impression.  Composer portraits (especially pompous looking ones) are stuffy and off-putting.   On the far negative extreme, Greg's succession of submissive child-woman Manga pictures made it very difficult to take anything he posted here seriously, and the latest one (the cackling animated gif) put me over the edge.  He is now the first and only person ever put on my ignore list here, just to suppress that avatar.

[springrite]

I don't remember avatars ever colored my impression of a poster. But the signature line quote have. I particular remember a couple that quoted another poster's supposedly negative or "brainless" post. That is like perpetuating a fight whenever he posted. I did not like that at all.

[Verena]

That's a really interesting question. In my case, it seems to me that I am indeed influenced by avatars as long as they picture human beings - or perhaps animals which I connect to in some way. As far as Greg's or your current avatar are concerned, the avatar does not affect my perception of the posts at all - probably since they don't picture human beings. I actually more or less ignore them and focus on the posts themselves. 

[Franco]

I have my forum preferences set to not display avatars, and for the most part haven't used one myself.   

The text of a post is all I'm interested in. 

[Renfield]

I think - as you observe above, Scarpia - it is inevitable that one is subconsciously affected by every stimulus accompanying another stimulus; and that certainly holds for avatars and posts. More so when it becomes a consistent association.

Likewise, as Paul points out, with the signatures. Or even, say, the bolding of Paul's name I just did, which might associate me with Karl Henning and his opinions, even if my use of it is an independently-justified adoption (i.e. I'm not also adopting his views).


For better or for worse, this is part of the communication game. As is the fact that a certain association can mean different things to different people: again, using my own example, I'm sure there have been at least a few people to have found the Karajan quote in my signature off-putting, as a token of posturing, expressing my approval of a certain attitude, or aesthetic that they dislike.


So, yes, avatars matter, almost certainly even for those who claim they don't! Unless they turn them off, like Franco.

Whether they matter more than other things in one's estimation of a poster, though, is obviously a different matter.

[Verena]

I think - as you observe above, Scarpia - it is inevitable that one is subconsciously affected by every stimulus accompanying another stimulus..

I don't believe so. I think we necessarily have to be selective in order to survive - and even the question whether one is subconsciously affected by a stimulus depends on whether you have been sensitivized to this stimulus before. But this is just my intuition, based hopefully on some shreds of half-knowledge that I cannot piece together any more at the moment.
But the important question is really whether a stimulus - even if you are subconsciously affected by it - affects your perception of the overall "phenomenon" (in this case, the poster). And this question can be answered in the negative, I think. It has been shown that people sometimes do not even recognize what one would consider the most egregiously noticeable/memorable stimuli. For instance, in a study by Simons and Chabris (1999) "... participants counted basketball passes by players wearing white shirts and ignored passes made by players wearing black. Under these conditions, approximately 50% of observers failed to notice when a person in a gorilla suit entered the display, stopped and faced the camera, thumped its chest, and exited on the far side of the display."
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Inattentional_blindness
So obviously here is a case where a very strong stimulus has not affected people's perception of the scene, because they did not attend to it - whether they somehow subconsciouly noticed something is not really crucial to answering the original poster's question.
However, I also feel that it is likely that one is indeed affected by avatars in many (or possibly all) cases, but this is probably not something that can be taken for granted. As I said I feel that non-animate avatars - especially ones I cannot make head or tail of - do not really affect my perception of posters. I might be wrong, of course. So for me this is rather an open question for which I'd be curious to know the answer.

[Renfield]

I don't believe so. I think we necessarily have to be selective in order to survive - and even the question whether one is subconsciously affected by a stimulus depends on whether you have been sensitivized to this stimulus before. But this is just my intuition, based hopefully on some shreds of half-knowledge that I cannot piece together any more at the moment.
But the important question is really whether a stimulus - even if you are subconsciously affected by it - affects your perception of the overall "phenomenon" (in this case, the poster). And this question can be answered in the negative, I think. It has been shown that people sometimes do not even recognize what one would consider the most egregiously noticeable/memorable stimuli. For instance, in a study by Simons and Chabris (1999) "... participants counted basketball passes by players wearing white shirts and ignored passes made by players wearing black. Under these conditions, approximately 50% of observers failed to notice when a person in a gorilla suit entered the display, stopped and faced the camera, thumped its chest, and exited on the far side of the display."
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Inattentional_blindness
So obviously here is a case where a very strong stimulus has not affected people's perception of the scene, because they did not attend to it - whether they somehow subconsciouly noticed something is not really crucial to answering the original poster's question.
However, I also feel that it is likely that one is indeed affected by avatars in many (or possibly all) cases, but this is probably not something that can be taken for granted. As I said I feel that non-animate avatars - especially ones I cannot make head or tail of - do not really affect my perception of posters. I might be wrong, of course. So for me this is rather an open question for which I'd be curious to know the answer.

With your permission, I'd like to try and answer that without being 'that annoying guy who lectures everyone'. Hopefully I'll succeed.

(And that's definitely not a given!)


The Simons and Chabris study you quote above is a study of attention. The question here is not whether our attention is diverted to a poster's avatar - which, you are correct, might not at all be the case - but whether the avatar influences our attitude towards them.

I am sadly not nearly the super-genius kind of student, who can instantly quote infinite series of studies on any and every area of their field. But it has certainly been found, repeatedly, that when it comes to forming our attitudes, subconscious stimuli (things we don't pay attention to) can often be as important, if not more important that what we consciously realise we know, have observed, or care about.

It's just one of those 'strange' facts about the way our brains process information.


If you wish to discuss this more in-depth, I would be happy to do so - but I'm not quite sure Scarpia would welcome psycho-jargon here.

[Todd]

Does an Avatar affect your perception of the poster?

Nope.

[Scarpia]

If you wish to discuss this more in-depth, I would be happy to do so - but I'm not quite sure Scarpia would welcome psycho-jargon here.

No particular objection to psych-jargon, although less jargon is normally preferred.

Interesting that some refuse to consider the possibility that they are affected by these things.  That does not mean that they are not affected by them, in fact.  If there is someone out there writing their dissertation on internet discussion boards, they could obviously to a study by making identical posts with different "avatars" and see if the reaction is different. 

[springrite]

If there is someone out there writing their dissertation on internet discussion boards, they could obviously to a study by making identical posts with different "avatars" and see if the reaction is different.

I should do that study. To begin with, I should change my avatar from Kimi to Confucius and see if people take me more seriously.

[Scarpia]

I should do that study. To begin with, I should change my avatar from Kimi to Confucius and see if people take me more seriously.

Mozart is a really, really bad composer. 

--------------------

Ok, let's see what happens.   

[Josquin des Prez]

I chose this Avatar to show off my interest in Renaissance music, of which until very recently i was the premier authority in this forum, before my brain melted into gelatinous goo.

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't remember avatars ever colored my impression of a poster.

What about Grieg?

[springrite]

What about Grieg?

I don't even remember his avatars. I do remember some of his posts, though.

[Verena]

The Simons and Chabris study you quote above is a study of attention. The question here is not whether our attention  is diverted to a poster's avatar - which, you are correct, might not at all be the case - but whether the avatar influences our attitude towards them.

I am sadly not nearly the super-genius kind of student, who can instantly quote infinite series of studies on any and every area of their field. But it has certainly been found, repeatedly, that when it comes to forming our attitudes, subconscious stimuli (things we don't pay attention to) can often be as important, if not more important that what we consciously realise we know, have observed, or care about.

It's just one of those 'strange' facts about the way our brains process information.

I see. I think I get your point. And my position is actually not that much different, but I may have phrased my "argument" in a very infelicitous way. I just wanted to point out that it is not necessarily always the case that one's avatar subconsciously (or consciously) influences one's attitudes - even though it is certainly (at least) very often the case (it dawns on me slowly but surely that this is not a very substantial point to make ..) 

[Todd]

Interesting that some refuse to consider the possibility that they are affected by these things.  That does not mean that they are not affected by them, in fact.

Some people are not affected because they separate superfluous things like posts from even more superfluous things like avatars.  That's the category I place myself in.

Take Sean.  Many of his avatars have been innocuous enough (I can't remember them all), but his posts ranged from innocuous comments to horrid slop.  My impression of him, to the extent I truly have formed one, has been formed based on his posts.

What about forums that don't have avatars?  In such cases, my impressions of the posters are also based solely on the posts.

And what about users who regularly change avatars?  How does one establish an impression of a moving target?  Once again, posts only.

I must also note that the impressions I form are of online personae rather than the posters themselves.  I don't know anyone I interact with on forums and so cannot conclude what they are really like.  I still distinguish between the virtual and the real.

[Szykneij]

The avatar definitely affects my initial perception of the poster because the user has purposely selected that avatar as a visual representation of him or herself on the forum. It generally catches my eye before the user name, so if the avatar is juvenile, hostile, interesting, inspirational, or whatever, I tend to (at least subconsciously) regard the poster in that light unless the post itself changes that perception.

[bhodges]

The avatar definitely affects my initial perception of the poster because the user has purposely selected that avatar as a visual representation of him or herself on the forum. It generally catches my eye before the user name, so if the avatar is juvenile, hostile, interesting, inspirational, or whatever, I tend to (at least subconsciously) regard the poster in that light unless the post itself changes that perception.

Very clearly put, Tony!  As a visually-oriented type, I am much the same way, and figure that the poster has chosen an image for a reason (sometimes with unintended, or unsuccessful, side effects).  It's the online equivalent of including an illustration with a story.

--Bruce

[DavidW]

I am influenced by avatars Scarpia, but I think in the opposite way that you are.  I view paintings and photographs as impersonal, I think that you might as well not have an avatar if you go with that route.  In the middle are the composer portraits (like I have) which tells you something about the poster: they really like that composer!  It's highly appropriate.  And then avatars like Sarge has or Greg are personal because it tells you something about them, they are probably the best.

[drogulus]

 
     If an avatar has an effect it must be a small one. If you wanted to have a big effect you'd have to make it offensive in some way. I can't think of a single example. 
   
     I got tired of changing avatars (it was fun for awhile) so I decided to settle on one that represented some aspect of my interests.

     An obvious avatar choice is a favorite composer or performer. I don't want to be associated with any individual artist. Using an old picture of me playing a guitar seems like a fairly neutral and perhaps interesting method of alluding to my own interests without giving an impression of monomania. I let my posts do that, or not.