Slactions2010_Second Life, Second Morality?

Proceedings of the SLACTIONS 2010 International Conference

Life, imagination, and work using metaverse platforms

29

Second Life, Second Morality?

Katleen Gabriels Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT, Centre for Ethics E-mail: [email protected]

Joke Bauwens Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT E-mail: [email protected]

Karl Verstrynge Vrije Universiteit Brussel, IBBT-SMIT, Centre for Ethics E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study is an examination of in-world morality of

frequent residents of Second Life. Given the lack of

systematic research on morality in non-gaming virtual

worlds, the authors conducted an explorative small-scale,

in-depth qualitative study with regular Second Life-

residents. Drawing on cyber-anthropology, cyber-

sociology and game studies, they explore to what extent

ideas and pictures of in-world moral behaviour differ

from moral categories and definitions used in ‘real life’

situations. Research findings show, firstly, that

communication and sanction mechanisms (e.g. gossip),

known from real life, are important means to create social

control and group cohesion in Second Life. Secondly, the

technologically mediated context intensifies and provides

new tools for social control (e.g. alternative avatar).

Thirdly, residents also make use of ‘out-world’ systems to

restrict or punish immoral behaviour (e.g. blogs,

discussion forums, web search engines). In general,

findings indicate that morality in Second Life is not

completely different from morality shown in ‘real life’. On

the other hand, they also point at distinctiveness in a

mediated environment because of specific technological

tools.i

Introduction

Although today millions of people are spending a

considerable amount of time in three-dimensional non-

gaming virtual worlds, little systematic research has

been done regarding the question of morality and its

distinctive nature in these particular worlds. The scant

attention given to morality in social virtual worlds is in

sharp contrast to the extensive studies on morality in

virtual games. Also, instead of researching on morality

in a profound way, much ink has flowed in popular

media discourses about the absence of morality in these

social virtual worlds. In those ‘panic waves’, the

freedom that users have to experiment without restraints

is often linked with the upsurge of immoral or amoral

behaviour (e.g., Kuipers, 2006). Many journalists and

commentators fear that everything seems to be allowed

and possible in social virtual environments. As the

number of people that have an avatar in one or more

social virtual worlds is increasing on a daily basis (e.g.,

Castronova, 2007) and the public debate on morality in

social virtual worlds is heavily framed in moral panic-

terms, the importance of academic knowledge on the

grounds and meanings of moral values and practices in

these worlds can hardly be overestimated.

Research Design: Questions and Methodology

The research presented here aims to provide a more

profound and evidence-based understanding of how

people reflect on and construct morality when they are

virtually engaging with each other. We focus on the

popular and widely known social virtual world Second

Life (SL). SL was created in 2003 by Linden Lab and is

defined as “an immersive, user-created online world”

(Au, 2008, p. x). Linden Lab does not impose a game-

oriented goal on its residents; they are free to choose

how to spend their time in-world. Exactly the freedom

to act and to experiment in a world that is believed to be

a second, different or so-called “otherworld” (Dibbell,

1993) is the starting point of our investigation. We

explore if people who often engage in SL experiment

with morality and to what extent they apply a different

morality than in real life. Social life has produced

different systems to restrict and punish immoral

behaviour in real life, so one can ask oneself if these

systems also stand in virtual worlds. Or to phrase the

question more radically: does it really matter that

immoral behaviour is limited or punished in virtual

worlds, as these worlds are only ‘virtual’ and thus not

rooted in actuality? Our specific focus in this study is

on the dynamics and mechanisms of social control: how

they are rooted in offline social conventions people

bring along when they dwell in SL, but also how they

are shaped and activated through the technological

design and tools of SL. In particular, the in-world

prevention, exclusion, and punishment of immoral

behaviour are discussed here.

We conducted a small-scale, in-depth qualitative study

in order to examine the in-world morality of frequent

residents. Drawing on a multi-method virtual

ethnographic research design, we interviewed devoted

SL-residents (N=14) and discussed their moral

experiences in SL, in order to gain an understanding of

the moral nature of social interactions in SL. We

conducted two focus group interviews and four

individual interviews. Starting from the idea that

interview contexts are always affected through the

interaction and relation between the interviewer and the

respondents (Fontana, & Frey, 2005), all interviews

were conducted by the same researcher in order to

control the effects of social dynamics as much as

possible. The interviews were semi-structured: the

interviewer started from an interview guide with a set of



30

pre-determined topics, but equally left scope for

discussion (in the focus groups) and excursions (in the

individual interviews). Except for two electronic

interviews through Voice Over IP, all interviews were

face-to-face. However, given the availability of audio

and visual cues and the synchronous course of

communication, the VoIP interview comes close to

face-to-face interaction.

We used purposive sampling strategy to select the

respondents. Considering the importance of language in

interpretive research, all respondents in our study were

Dutch-speaking (13 Belgian and 1 Dutch participant).

Another characteristic important to our study was

familiarity with SL. All respondents first logged in

between January 2005 and June 2007 and were actively

engaged in SL since three to five years. The time that

they are in-world varies from 4 hours per week

(minimum) to 12 hours per day (maximum).

Apart from these characteristics, we aimed for a

heterogeneous sample in order to explore the diversity

and multiplicity of moral practices in SL. Dimensions

of variety in the sample were socio-demographics

(gender, age, education, SES), and the kind of

investments, expectations, and gratifications people

show in their SL visits and stays (see table 1 for

overview).

Table 1. Overview respondents (N=14)

Gender Year

of

Birth

Education Marital

status /

children

Self-

reported

primary

motivation

Main activity in-world

R1 F 1984 College Single / 0 Curiosity Creation, work

R2 M 1946 High school Married / 3 Curiosity Social

R3 M 1979 College Relationship /

0

Work Work

R4 F 1943 High school Widow / 2 Curiosity Social

R5 M 1947 College Married / 2 Leisure Social, SL real estate

R6 M 1965 College Married / 0 Curiosity Social, creation

R7 F 1953 University Married / 2 Curiosity Social

R8 M 1985 College Single / 0 Leisure Social

R9 M 1985 High school Single / 0 Curiosity Social, creation

R10 F 1972 High school Divorced / 5 Social

contacts

Social

R11 F 1959 University Married / 2 Curiosity Social, creation

R12 M 1966 College Married / 1 Curiosity Social

R13 M 1974 College Cohabitation

/ 2

Work Work

R14 M 1944 High school Married / 2 Leisure /

Because his

wife is also

active in SL

Social, creation

Explanation of the terms: Creation: the primary motivation to reside in SL is to build virtual SL-objects or to create SL-art (e.g. photography).

Leisure: SL is a form of relaxation and enjoyment, without any obligations. Social: the primary motivation consists of meeting friends, looking for a relationship or extending one’s social network.

Work: the primary motivation is professional; these residents are in SL because of their job and are being paid to be in-world.



31

Results and Discussion

In agreement with other studies (Markham, 1998;

Turkle, 1995; Boellstorff, 2008), the respondents in our

study consider their involvement in a virtual world as

part of significant life experiences. As regular and

mature users who have been in-world since a number of

years, they all acknowledge the avatars as

representations of human beings and identities and not

as soulless objects. SL is a social virtual world to them

and for that reason they ascribe high significance to the

group and community they belong to. Furthermore, our

respondents consider SL not as a noncommittal game,

but as a real social world, which entails a serious

investment, whether in personal, emotional,

psychological or professional terms. In this context, we

noticed that our respondents talked about growing up in

SL. This process was described in terms of growing

avatar attachment, increasing recognition of the

commitments, rules and conventions in SL and,

especially, stronger settling in social groups.

For a comprehensible reflection on our findings, we

have inductively demarcated our results in three

different fields. First, we discuss the correlation

between motivations and main activities on the one

hand and perceptions of morally un/acceptable

behaviour on the other. Second, we elaborate on the

moral consequences of anonymity, traceability, and

sociality as experienced by SL-residents. Third, we

consider the types of social sanctions the SL-residents

we talked to discern and display when dealing with

practices they morally disapprove of.

The Influence of Motives on Morality

The analysis of the interviews showed that motives for

participating in SL and main activities displayed in-

world regulate personal views on what residents believe

is un/acceptable behaviour. Respondents that are in SL

because of professional reasons (in table 1 labelled

under ‘work’ and ‘creation’) are aware that they are

being supervised and, this way, they make no

distinction between SL-behaviour and real life

behaviour. Throughout the interviews these respondents

showed themselves as less emotionally involved, as

their ties in SL are mostly work-related and their

activities focus on professional gratification to explore

the innovative use of SL and develop software. These

respondents accept telling untruths about age or gender

in SL easier than in real life. However, they do have a

problem with illegal issues, such as underage residents,

infringement of intellectual property or having sex with

a child or animal avatar. Also, telling untruths about

profession-related skills and experiences is deemed bad.

This professional-detached position contrasts

sharply with the approach taken by respondents who are

in-world for social reasons, which leads to higher

emotional investment. Respondents who are looking for

love or friendship, have more problems with lies about

age and gender, especially when they are looking for a

partner. Equally they believe that violations of Linden

Lab’s terms and conditions are impermissible. In

general, they hold the conviction that playing with

someone’s feelings must be punished. In their stories

they suggest that these basic principles influence their

in-world behaviour. They also believe that it is

permitted to make use of a wide range of technological

tools offered and enabled in SL. For instance, they do

not denounce spying on someone, whether by creating

an ‘alt’ (i.e. an alternative avatar), asking someone else

to do it, saving chatlogs, or making screenshots of

disclosing behaviour.

What all respondents have in common is the importance

they ascribe to SL-seniority: the longer someone is

online, the more trustable he or she is. They are

suspicious when someone pretends to be a noob, i.e. a

new SL-resident, but turns out to be very experienced

with the specific tools of SL (e.g. walking around,

teleport, scripts, textures…). All respondents indicate

that when you have built a close relationship with

someone and have invested time, emotions, and energy

in this person, lies are not accepted. There is also a

general belief that cheaters will eventually fail, for

instance by betraying themselves or by showing

discontinuity in their behaviour. Many respondents also

have the tendency to verify the truthfulness of a person

on the web, through search engines like Google or on

social networking sites like Facebook.

Anonymity, Traceability, and Sociality

The sense of anonymity and, related to that, the sense of

traceability have an effect on how in-world morality is

conceived of. Respondents that have linked their SL-

profile to information that makes the real life

connection explicit and traceability easier (e.g. name,

website…), show themselves more conscious about

how they present and represent themselves in SL.

Conversely, when you do not reveal real life

information and leave no traces of personal identity

data, it seems easier to disappear and to start again

(with an alt, i.e. an alternative avatar) because you have

no commitments. Still, the respondents in our research

all shared the idea that the tendency to remain

anonymous and untraceable was only tempting when

making its entry in SL. The ease of openly expressing

emotions, flirting, telling lies… hence, the appeal of

disengaged and uncommitted social interactions clashes

at a certain point in time with the socialisation process

residents go through. More particularly, respondents

that do not share links to real life information

experience stricter self-regulation when they become

embedded in a network. As they have been in-world for

an extensive period, they have invested resources like

time, energy, emotions, and money and they do not

want to put these at stake. During the years, our

respondents have collected a group of friends and

connections in-world and many of them have also met

in real life. Being embedded in a close network leads to



32

social control (group cohesion, group regulation) and

regulates behaviour.

Therefore, our respondents, who have been in-world for

an extensive period, simply represent their actual

identity. Other academic research shows that people,

who often engage in virtual environments, including

digital games, prefer being themselves “rather than

experiment with new identities and personalities” (Yee,

2006, p. 15). Moreover, the respondents in our study

explained that they often share personal information in

intense conversations and that they are connected to

out-world (i.e. not in SL), social networks, both offline

(e.g. meetings in real life) and online (connections via

Skype, MSN, Facebook, different blogs and forums…).

For all these reasons, managing and controlling lies,

biased truths or fictionalized data about oneself is far

from easy.

Obviously, residents who work or create in-world are

also embedded in a network, albeit a professional or

business set of social contacts. To them, it is essential to

have and to maintain a good reputation, as a bad name

might result in a loss of clients or contacts. When they

are accused falsely, they defend themselves, either in-

world or on blogs and forums. Especially blogs are

important means to restore one’s reputation in the

group. Respondents also talk about others to learn more

about their reputation and to find out if they are

trustable to cooperate with.

Social Sanctions

Finally, the respondents in our study talked about the

different mechanisms they know and apply when

confronted with morally unacceptable practices. First of

all, it is important to note that the residents, and not

Linden Lab, seem to regulate these forms of

sanctioning. As an everyday, familiar and concrete

example of ‘unacceptable behaviour’, we discussed

with our respondents cheating in the most general

sense. In line with other studies on online communities

(e.g. teenagers and social networking sites, instant

messaging boards), the mechanisms virtual

communities use for sanctioning objectionable

behaviour are pre-eminently communicative (Reid,

1999; Baym, 2010).

First, there is sanction through inflated communication.

This means that the deceived person will inform others,

often close friends, about what has happened. Although

the respondents state that they only do this when the

damage is worth mentioning, they equally suggest that

it is more accepted in SL to make commotion about less

grave harm. Clearly, this form of punishment is closely

linked to reputation, i.e. punishing the cheater by gossip

to ruin his or her reputation. Respondents point out that

this happens on a regular basis and is conventional in

SL.

Second, punishing unacceptable behaviour also takes

place through non-communication. This means that all

contact will be broken in a quiet way, for instance, by

ignoring the harm doer or by muting him or her, which

is technologically possible in SL. This way, chances are

high that the harm doer will eventually become an

outcast and disappear.

Finally, the respondents in our study agree on the

principle that victims of serious harm will exclude the

harm doer from his community and banish him from the

communicative sphere, i.e. punishment by

excommunication. The cheater will be pilloried, not

only in-world but also on blogs and forums.

Although these three mechanisms recall practices in

tribal societies as has been dealt with within

anthropology, evolutionary psychology and moral

sciences, the communication and information

technological tools of SL enable an intensification and

stronger coordination of social sanctioning. Compared

to real life, it becomes easier for the deceived persons to

start an active, almost organized campaign against the

cheater. It is striking how much technological tools

affect social behaviour, and more specifically forms of

punishment. If there are proofs, for instance

incriminating (disclosing) screenshots or chatlogs, they

are distributed by the deceived ones. It is important to

point at the significance of the blogosphere here: the

reputation of the harm doer is actively damaged on

different blogs, not only to give a clear signal to the

cheater, but also to warn others for him or her. There

are also forms of group punishment to make clear that

the harm doer is no longer allowed in the group, for

instance by collectively removing him or her out of the

friend list or by banning him or her from sims.

Conclusion

This research, albeit explorative, local and small-scale,

has aimed to contribute to a better understanding of

lived experiences and meanings. Our results show that

SL is not an isolated world in which “no such things as

morals exist”(Meadows, 2008, p. 78) nor a separated

world for which users create a second morality.

Following our results, SL can be looked upon as a

microcosm of real life, which is in line with other

scientific research, as substantial evidence demonstrates

that people behave in a similar way in virtual

environments as in real life situations (e.g., Yee et al,

2007). Avid users of virtual worlds state that their

virtual experiences are not isolated from their real life

experiences, and moreover, they state that both worlds

affect each other (Yee, 2006). Similar to actual life,

activities in virtual worlds include various types of

social interaction like hanging out with friends,

collaborating in groups, establishing intimate

relationships, and starting love affairs. As a

consequence, several aspects of human sociality occur

in SL, because residents take real life social

conventions and conduct with them. However, as social

virtual worlds like SL are technologically designed and

constructed, the question how moral practices are



33

contingent on, activated by or disabled through

technology needs also to be taken into consideration

when discussing the social and moral meaning of life

experiences in social virtual worlds.

As mentioned before, the public debate on morality in

social virtual worlds is heavily framed in ‘moral panic’-

terms. Many express their worries about these worlds

without constraints where people are believed to have

the freedom to cross moral boundaries. Interestingly,

our data put these panics into perspective, as we see that

different kinds of social mechanisms restrict

unrestrained immoral behaviour. Being traceable, being

embedded in a network, group cohesion, social control,

amongst others, lead to both self- and group-regulation.

Also, our respondents are ‘normal’ people as opposed

to deviant and pathological. This contrasts with the

stereotypical portrayal of a frequent user of virtual

worlds in various popular media: ugly, isolated,

alienated, escapist, failed in his or her first life…

Obviously, we must point out that we have been dealing

with residents who were willing to participate and to

open up about experiences that have been heavily

stigmatized in various discourses. In the future, the

cultural and social diversity of SL-residents, SL-groups,

SL-sims… will need to be taken more into account in

order to reveal similarities and differences. Also, the

question of how to study continuity and discontinuity

between so-called first life and second life morality

keeps bringing with it methodological challenges.

References

Au, W. J. (2008). The making of Second Life. Notes

from the New World. New York: HarpinCollins

Publishers.

Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital

age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of Age in Second Life.

An anthropologist explores the virtually human.

Princeton / Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Castronova, E. (2007). Exodus to the virtual world:

How online fun is changing reality. New York:

Palgrave MacMillan.

Dibbell, J. (1993). A rape in cyberspace – How an evil

clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast

of dozens turned a database into a society, in The

Village Voice (newspaper article), December 23, 1993,

pp.36-42.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview. From

neutral stance to political interview. In N. K. Denzin, &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research (pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kuipers, G. (2006). The social construction of digital

danger: Debating, defusing and inflating the moral

dangers of online humor and pornography in the

Netherlands and the United States. New Media &

Society 8, pp.379-400.

Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real

experience in virtual space. Walnut Creek: AltaMira

Press.

Meadows, M. S. (2008). I, Avatar: The culture and

consequences of having a second life. Berkeley: New

Riders.

Reid, E. (1999). Hierarchy and power: Social control in

cyberspace. In A. Marc, & P. K. Smith (Eds.),

Communities in cyberspace (pp. 107-133). London:

Routledge.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age

of the internet. New York: Touchstone.

Yee, N. (2006). The psychology of MMORPGs:

Emotional investment, motivations, relationship

formation, and problematic usage. In R. Schroeder, &

A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play:

Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual

environments (pp. 187-207). London: Springer-Verlag.

Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., &

Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being

digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in

online virtual environments. CyberPsychology and

Behavior 10, pp.115-121.

Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus Effect:

The effect of transformed self-representation on

behavior. Human Communication Research 33, pp.271-

290.

i A longer analysis of this study will be available as a

book chapter: Gabriels, K., Bauwens, J., & Verstrynge,

K. (2011, in print). Second Life, Second Morality? In

N. Zagalo, L. Morgado, & A. Boa-Ventura (Eds.),

Virtual worlds and metaverse platforms: New

communication and identity paradigms. USA: IGI

Global.

Documents

Slactions2010_Second Life, Second Morality?