How Collaboration Context and Personality Traits Shape the Social Norms of Human-to-Avatar Identity Representation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As avatars have evolved from simple digital representations into extensions of our identities, they offer unprecedented opportunities for self-expression and customization beyond the physical world limitations. While virtual platforms foster new forms of identity exploration, social norms still play a crucial role in defining what is considered appropriate in these environments. In this study, we surveyed 150 participants to investigate social norms surrounding avatar modifications, examining how perspectives, contexts, and personality traits influence attitudes toward appropriateness. Our findings reveal that avatar modifications are generally viewed as more appropriate when considered from a partner's perspective, especially for changeable attributes. However, these modifications are perceived as less acceptable in professional settings such as workplaces. Additionally, individuals with high self-monitoring tendencies tend to be more resistant to changes, while those scoring higher on Machiavellianism are more accepting of changes, particularly regarding unchangeable attributes and emotional expressions. These findings provide valuable insights for platform developers and designers, highlighting the importance of implementing context-aware customization options that balance core identity elements with personality-driven preferences, thereby enhancing user experiences while respecting social norms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it