Avatars and MetaHumans

Should we be calling Avatars MetaHumans?

by The Metaverse

There is something quite amazing and awe-inspiring about how talented designers and creators of new digital technology are. The box office success of the Avatar movie is a testament to this.

In line with this, the creation and use of 3D Avatars as an online representation of a human in a virtual environment is not a new phenomenon for gamers. There are some really interesting studies that showcase how these avatar representations can be very helpful in improving overall self-esteem. The Ideal Elf and The Proteus Effect are well-cited examples of the research done in this area. 

With the current rise in awareness of the Metaverse as the technology heralded as replacing the current internet, there seems to be a bit of a love-affair with how we represent ourselves online in the future. In line with this, there is new terminology in the naming of these online human representations of ourselves as ‘Meta Humans’. How these are created can be seen in the video below.

As much as I admire and celebrate this incredible creative talent, from a psychological point of view, I would suggest that the terminology used may have unintended consequences on us as humans that we have not yet considered. I would suggest that these could be: 

  • The Facebook has recently renamed itself ‘Meta’. Although I suspect that this is to gain a head-start associative mental link to the future of the interactive online world, it is a worry that the ‘MetaHuman’ naming convention is so closely linked to the Facebook holding company renaming.
  • Avatars are human representations, they are not in-and-of-themselves humans with all the biological, social and communal nuances that make us uniquely human. How and to what extent will this blurring of the cognitive boundaries between how we view and interact with a physical human and an avatar affect our future self-image and that of others in the metaverse?
  • We are already aware of The Online Disinhibition Effect that comes from us acting very differently in an online world to how we act in an offline world, how will engaging in a Metaverse with an avatar representation either increase or decrease our disinhibition to treat others in socially unacceptable ways? 

There are a number of other concerns I have with the MetaHuman naming convention, but they are currently inklings of worry that I have not fully identified or am able to clearly articulate. But what I do feel strongly about is how quickly we are rushing headlong into an new phase of online interactions without fully considering all the unintended consequences (along with all the potential benefits, of course) that may come from doing so. 

We really do need more researchers and academics in this field of CyberPsychology. With the rapid compounding advances in digital technology, there is too much to research and not enough people diving into this critical area of human psychology and behaviour. 

Related Articles
Digital Decluttering

Digital Decluttering – removing unnecessary tech

by Work-Home-Play Balance

A lot of us tend to purchase and use digital technology without thinking about the consequences. Once we engage with tech, we get to experience the benefits that technology provides and start engaging with it more. Until it becomes hard to distinguish between the time and attention digital tech consumes and the benefits that technology gives. The smartphone, for instance, promises to make us so much more efficient, informed and productive. Which in so many ways it has. But, in so many ways it steals our time, distracts us, keeps us awake and keeps us preoccupied.

If you had to count the number of digital devices you engage with daily (including your smart meter, smartwatch, smartphone, laptop, etc) you may be surprised at how many devices you juggle. Or it may be that you are not at all surprised yet may feel slightly beholden to check and engage with them on a regular basis.

Many people advocate taking a ‘digital detox’. The problem with a detox (complete abstinence from technology for a certain period of time), is that once that detox time is completed, we tend to revert to old habits – despite being adamant at the end of the detox period not to do so.

 

Digital decluttering should be about taking a more strategic (and then tactical) approach to how you use digital technology. Maximising the benefits and minimising the negative impact is an individual decision and depends on your job and home-based responsibilities. Making a choice to spend more physical time and mental energy with physically present people has greater (physical and mental) health benefits than spending time and mental energy with ‘digital people’.

Much like any project involving minimalism, a better option is to reduce the amount of technology available to use. In an interview with Jordan Harbinger, Cal Newport (a computer scientist trained at MIT) talks through his insights into Digital Decluttering.

Cal explains more in this video.

What Cal doesn’t take into account is that within this decluttering, we need to consider the separation of work and home-based technology use. One area where having more technology is useful (especially for consultants, managers and the self-employed) is the option of having a personal phone and a professional phone. Although it is tempting to give your personal phone number out for business purposes and upload work emails onto your personal phone, it does mean that you never mentally leave work.

It is too easy to check those emails just before going to bed. 

It is too easy to reply to that WhatsApp message on a Sunday. It’s too easy to pick up that call on a Friday evening because your client is working late and has a question they forgot to ask you earlier.

By having a professional phone, it’s much easier to turn it off or leave it in your work bag or in the drawer of your home office in the evenings and weekends. It becomes just that little bit less easy to check and respond. 

A few additional YouTube interviews with Cal Newport on his book are included below.

Related Articles
Digital Accountability

Digital Accountability of Strangers when Remote Working

by Hybrid, Remote & Flexible Work

If you were self-employed or worked as a freelancer prior to March 2020, you would already have been familiar with the daily struggles with procrastination,  meeting and setting (often self-imposed) deadlines and accountability to self and others. Frustration and guilt can become constant companions when not entrenched in an office-based work environment with clients, colleagues and managers in constant attendance. 

For those who have become (un)willingly indoctrinated into this ‘way of working’, it has been difficult, at times, to adjust and cope. It is said that we have limited capacity for self-regulation and willpower. If we are tired or stressed, the ability to tape into these and once the dregs of willpower are used up each day, it becomes really difficult to keep going. It is why having set routines and relying on automated behaviour is such an important part of us being able to be more effective at what we do on a daily basis. 

Since the start of the pandemic, many workers have found tools and techniques to attempt some element of focus and motivation. The most effective of these is accountability to others. A friend of mine (a freelance food writer) started virtually attending the London Writers Salon online writing hour on a daily basis. Having accountability with anyone, even strangers can help one to focus on a particular task that needs completing. Focusmate is one of those ways of doing exactly that. 

What is coming to light is that our focus and attention are being eroded, both through the technology we use (and how we use it) and potentially through our lifestyle norms that include: higher levels of workplace expectations and stress, lower levels of exercise, less focus on good nutrition and lower quality and quantity of sleep. Technological distractions are a great temptation when hard-cognitive work is required of us. Social media feeds and web browsing is like ‘brain candy’ when we are faced with harder cognitive gymnastic-like tasks.

Having someone you can be accountable to for a short period of time, that forces you to achieve tasks is a useful way to make that happen. Alternatively, teaming up with a work-buddy, a coach or an accountability partner can also help. 

There are plenty of apps and programmes that can help you physically minimise your digital distractions. Find tools and processes that work for you. Whatever you find most effectively, start building that into a daily habit and build on that by finding something else that works well for you. Technology should be used as a tool to make you more productive and efficient. If there are apps or tech behaviours that are too distracting or reducing your ability to get work done, reach out to others (especially if they were already self-employed or freelancing prior to the start of the pandemic) to find out if or how they are trying to maximise technology more effectively. 

Related Articles
Silicon South Panel Interview 16 Feb 22

Silicon South – Employee Performance and Wellbeing

by News and talks

Maintaining and improving employee wellbeing

9th February 2022 (In Person – Barclays Eagle Lab Bournemouth)

This hybrid event looked at :

  • How to maintain and improve employee wellbeing and productivity through challenging conditions
  • How a sustainability agenda can improve staff engagement

Topics Covered: 

  • Employee mindset
  • Knowing where your staff are at
  • Keeping people engaged with the company, through a sustainability agenda
  • Keeping staff motivated

You can watch a recording of the event in the video below.

In this panel discussion, we talk about the various elements of workplace wellbeing, which includes Digital Mental Health and Wellness. 

Related Articles - Talks and Events
Tech and our brains

Our brains are malleable and technology is changing them

by Digital Brain

Why is regular engagement with technology important to consider when it comes to mental and physical wellbeing?

From a physical and cognitive perspective, a term that has fairly recently found its way into the public domain is ‘neuro-plasticity’.

When it comes to human-computer psychology, this is an important factor that really needs greater levels of understanding, research and publicity.

Previously, developmental psychologists stated that at a certain age (around the late teen/early 20’s) our brain has completed its development. They believed that the structure of our brain throughout the remainder of our lives was fixed, and we couldn’t do much about it after that.

But this now has been disproven. Our brains continue to develop and change as we go about life, as we meet people, as we do things and as we learn things.

The information that comes in through our 5 senses activates specific neurons associated with those senses. The bonds between these neurons, and those they are connected to, are strengthened as they are activated.

The more we do something, the stronger and more connected those neurons become. These strong neural bonds allow information to flow quicker and more easily through the brain.

Those neurons that are not continuously used become weaker and information flow becomes a little sludgier. 

This is why developing a new skill or habit is hard work and requires additional willpower and determination. It is also why practising something embeds familiarity and makes a task easier.

It is really the basis of what we call ‘muscle memory’ when we are developing a new skill and expertise. It is also why breaking a bad habit is so difficult to do.

Additionally, the effort of honing a desired skill and doing something well releases mini dopamine hits into our system. Dopamine in our bodies is our natural happy drug, but in doses that give us lower-level, longer-lasting contentment, rather than the mass hits of synthetic ecstasy drugs that give us short-term thrills.

This is relevant, from a technology use point of view, in that technology (including social media and gaming) are specifically designed to keep us hooked.

The flashing and moving images and copy changes distract our eyes, engage our attention and release mini-hits of dopamine. The neural development that happens while using those apps becomes directly associated with the mini-dopamine hits, which we start relying on when we are feeling a little low – and this is what keeps us hooked.

Some us spend substantial amounts of time on our phones: switching regularly between emails, social media or checking messages alongside attempting to get work done. We often open up notifications as soon as they pop up (which most of us do within 30 sec’s of receiving them – no matter the source of the notification). We read that story just in, we check what the score is on the game running in the corner of the screen, we listen to that song now playing on Alexa, we quickly reply to mum’s text, we get back to that email, we message that friend about drinks this evening, we write another paragraph of the presentation, we reply to another email …

What you are doing in this process, is training your brain to reduce the ability to focus and concentrate on harder, more difficult tasks that result in productive work. You are also training your brain, through the mini-dopamine hits you get with each bits of activity.

Hard thinking (deep) work takes mental effort and energy. It’s so much easier, and emotionally more pleasing, to flick between tasks and shower our brain with another quick dopamine hit. In the process, our brains start getting into a habit of being distracted. We crave constant stimulation and the mini-dopamine rush that comes from social connection and information hits.

The overall message here is that although we generally attribute technology addiction and dependence on gamers and teens on social media, a number of us have our own level of reliance on technology. It may not be in the ‘addiction or disorder’ realm, but we do need to be aware of how we use technology and what it is doing for and to us.

Related Articles
Busyness and overwork in the Workplace

Busyness in the workplace and the stealing of leisure time

by Workplace Norms, Expectations and Responsibilities

A century ago, social status was accompanied by ‘an abundance of leisure’. The wealthy and upwardly mobile demonstrated their wealth by how little they did, and how much others did for them.

We’ve now flipped those expectations completely so that social status now comes from a narrative around ‘busyness without leisure’. To the point, that busyness has become a status symbol. When someone asks how work is going, the first response we often get is ‘Things are really busy at the moment, there is so much going on’.

We also seem to get some kind of internal reward from others seeing as hardworking and the ‘look how busy and important I am’ mental narratives that come with additional responsibilities in an organisation.

Longer hours are seen as a core characteristic of the socially privileged and those who have ‘made it’.

For those of us who do not produce ‘things’, but rather ‘ideas’, busyness has become a signal of our knowledge value.

The logic in this is that the busier we make ourselves out to be, the scarcer our knowledge resource must be, and so is, therefore, of greater value than another who isn’t as busy.

But, the longer-term effect of this working longer hours, to increase the perceived value of our knowledge, is that we spend more, and more time at work or ‘doing’ work.

Because these knowledge workers conduct the majority of their work with the tools of technology, they end up being constantly connected to these tools, often worried about not being available when needed or missing out on that ‘one big opportunity’.

Research conducted in this area clearly demonstrates that this type of Always On, Always Available behaviour is stressful and exhausting. It can also reduce both quality and quantity of sleep, thereby not allowing enough cognitive or physical recovery time overnight. This means next-day productivity levels are low and distraction levels are high.

This can result in more work pressure over time. It can also lead to longer-term stress, anxiety and perceived burnout. 

Related Articles
4 Day Work Week

Not all 4-day work weeks are created equal

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job Control

There seems to be some excitement around the 4-day-work-week being trialled in the UK. However, not all 4-day work weeks are created equal.

There are a few different ways that an employer could implement a shorter working week. Either employees:

* work the same number of hours per week, but reduced to 4 longer work days
* work less hours with the same amount of pay
* work less hours with less pay

The article suggests that of the 30 businesses taking part, participants are required to still complete the same amount of work they were previously doing. And they will still be required to work up to 35 hours per week (i.e. the same number of hours they were required to work previously over 5 days). What this implies is that these workers will be working less number of days, but more hours within each of those days. It also does not make clear who this 4-day work week would apply specifically to. It seems from the link supplied in the article to the 4 Day Week website, that there is a skew towards those who belong to a trade union. I wonder what impact this would have on the potential for overtime hours (and therefore, the potential for earning overtime pay) may have on these workers.

There is only so much productive, effective work our brains are cognitively able to do each day. Expecting increased productivity with the same number of hours worked per week – shoe-horned into just 4 days (as per the current research being conducted in the UK), seems a bit of a self-defeating exercise to me. I also fear that a number of these employees will still be working on their ‘day off’, but not in the office environment. Unless there is a mandated ‘no technology use in your day off’, it will be difficult to manage and monitor the effectiveness of the ‘day off’.

I also wonder how working more hours each day may impact those who are working parents – who have to drop off and collect children from preschool or school. How do these parents manage to fulfil their home-based responsibilities, such as homework, bath times, family meals etc if they are working longer hours? It doesn’t quite seem as feasible or idealistic as initially presented in the Time-Out article or on the ‘Why a 4-day week’ website.

I hope to be proven wrong.

Research conducted by the BCG in 2009 showcases a different type of 4-day work week. Although project teams trialled different working time off options during the week, the main criteria for each of the trials conducted was that consultants were required to refrain from technology use during their mandated time off.

An additional, and I think critical, point is that the teams worked together to decide which team member took the time off and when. The team members also negotiated how the client work would be completed without the client suffering from any team-mandated time-off.

What the research found is that those who participated in the experiments were more productive, and had higher energy levels and standards of service delivered. They were also more likely to stay at the company for longer and reported higher levels of job satisfaction. In addition, the need to maintain high client service levels increased the level of teamwork and effective communication among team members.

I would suggest the BCG model is a better option than simply ‘demanding’ that a working week be reduced to 4 days while working the same number of hours for the same amount of pay.

Related Articles
Social Connections and VR of the Future

Ready Player One or The Matrix? How prevalent will Virtual Reality be in the future?

by Immersive Reality

In a recent Guardian article on David Charmers new book the stance taken by David of VR in the future becoming the norm, and reality becoming the exception is a psychologically irresponsible (and a very 1st-world) one.

I am a great advocate for VR / AR. We’ve only just started scratching the surface of the overall potential of this technology. I do agree with the point that scenarios, objects and situations in VR can feel as psychologically real as ‘real-life’. It’s a phenomenon referred to as ‘Presence’. Your real-world visual and auditory sensory input is ‘overridden’ by what you are seeing and hearing in VR. While in VR, you become very unaware of what is going on in your physical environment. This is why gaming has grown exponentially in the past 2 years. It has been a great way for many to cope with stress and fear. It can be a useful temporary emotional safe haven.

However, when you remove the headset, your brain transforms you instantaneously back into life (with all its joys and worries). Suggesting that living in VR is bound to become a way of living does not consider the physical and biological connectivity that we humans need with others. We are creatures of community and social structure. We live and exist in a physical world. We always have, we always will. We psychologically need physical connectedness with others, with nature, with our food, with our interests. As much as I am a Virtual Reality advocate, I am a much greater advocate for Real-World Reality.

As a case in point – in a 2017 TED talk, Susan Pinker showcases how Social Integration via ‘close personal relationships and face-to-face interactions’ has a greater impact on a person’s longevity than refraining from smoking or drinking. Having people around you that you can trust, lean and rely on (when you most need it) is part of what makes for a longer life. This is rarely the reality of virtual globally-based communities.

Another case in point – Jean Twenge, in her book iGen, demonstrates how smartphones and social media are already changing how young people interact with peers and others. The reduced social interaction of our teens is not conducive to forming and building future families.

We need to be encouraging the building and maintaining of healthy physical communities, that set a strong foundation for optimising any psychological and emotional benefits we get from building and maintaining our virtual connections. Technology should be a tool we use to optimise and improve our real-world lives, not make us slaves to them.

Related Articles
The Autonomy Paradox

Technology both helps and hinders autonomy

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job ControlResearch
'The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devides for Knowledge Professionals'
Extracts and summary of the research by: Melissa Mazmanian, Wanda J. Orlikowski and JoAnne Yates (October 2013)

A note: The original qualitative research for this paper was conducted during 2004 and 2005. It is therefore reminiscent of knowledge workers use of mobile email devices (e.g. Blackberries) and mobile phones (rather than smartphones). Although some mobile phones had internet connection capability from 2001, the first iPhone was launched in 2007.

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘Although individual use of mobile email devices offered professionals flexibility, peace of mind, and control over interactions in the short term, it also intensified collective expectations of their availability, escalating their engagement and thus reducing their ability to disconnect from work’
  • ‘Professionals were ending up using [mobile email devices] everywhere/all the time, thus diminishing their autonomy in practice’
  • ‘[The] autonomy paradox reflected professionals’ ongoing navigation of the tension between their interests in personal autonomy on the one hand and their professional commitment to colleagues and clients on the other’
  • ‘The ongoing use of mobile email devices enacted a collective dynamic of escalating engagement that was attenuating the very autonomy that professionals were extolling. Having the freedom to use the device anywhere, anytime, the professionals ended up using it everywhere, all the time’.

Summary of the research: 

Autonomy is defined (in this article) as: ‘the ability to exercise a degree of control over the content, timing, location, and performance of activities’. It is traditionally either endowed (through status or seniority) or bestowed (e.g. through experience or length of service) on those who have earned the privilege to decide when and how they get their work done.

In this qualitative research, a number of professionals within interdependent teams were interviewed on their use of mobile email devices (i.e. blackberries). Within these discussions, the researchers came to understand that although these professionals felt that they had been empowered, through the use of a mobile email device, to be more responsive and available to their managers, colleagues and clients as a way of demonstrating their competence, work ethic and desire to succeed in their job, they individually and collectively changed the workplace norms around availability and responsiveness within their work environment.

The workers not only justified their increased technology use by stating that the constant checking of their email device:

  • allowed them to stay up to speed with and manage the flow of information that passed by them
  • gave them the ability to ‘watch work’ and a sense of control over their workload
  • ensured that they did not become a work bottleneck when they were not in the office
  • helped to enhance their sense of professional status and competence

However, the constant checking of their devices had a number of unintended consequences:

  • it shifted the norms, expectations and assumptions of others (colleagues, clients and managers) in terms of accessibility, availability and responsiveness times
  • it increased the number of hours spent looking at and responding to emails, thereby directly reducing their amount of downtime
  • it blurred the lines (temporal boundaries) between work and private time
  • it increased the levels of stress experienced by these professionals

The professionals justified their voluntary increased use of the devices as a way to demonstrate their level of autonomy and their ability to act as responsible and competent professionals. They also stated it to be a consequence of their ‘Type A’ workaholic type personalities that are an integral part of succeeding within a professional environment.

The very behaviour used by these professionals to showcase their workplace dedication, escalated tacitly into a normative expectation by others of what it means to operate within that particular professional environment. The individual actions of each professional subtly changed the collective behaviour of all professionals, increasing ‘the pace and volume of communication in the network, raising expectations of responsiveness and accessibility and leading to a collective reduction of autonomy as workers began to engage with work at all times’. i.e. the normative expectations around quick response times to emails became the very thing that restricted the personal autonomy that these professionals were trying to live out and capitalise on in their daily working lives, and to showcase their level of commitment to their jobs.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Scheduling-Autonomy

There is a Difference Between Job Control and Autonomy

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job Control

Those who are allowed either job control and/or autonomy within their role are more likely to experience lower levels of stress, anxiety and perceived burnout.

The simple explanation of the difference between these two concepts is that:

  • Schedule Control is the ability to schedule working hours within the course of a day.
  • Job Autonomy is schedule control plus the freedom to decide what and how to get the job done.

Schedule control is often associated with flexible working practices. In 2014 the UK Government passed the Flexible Working Regulations. These regulations allowed for all employees to apply for flexible working, rather than only caregivers and working parents. However, the decision to approve an employee’s flexible work request is the remit of each individual company. These regulations do seem, therefore, to be more of a token gesture, than a viable solution for those who would benefit from flexible working practices.

When it comes to remote and hybrid working, schedule control comes into its own. In research I conducted during Lockdown 1.0 amongst working parents, those who were able to schedule their working day to allow for homeschooling and other home commitments, seemed to be less stressed than those who couldn’t. This was especially important for those who had children under 6 years old (especially as they engage in higher levels of active childcare).

Job autonomy, prior to March 2020, was mostly the remit and privilege of those in particular professional occupations, who had extensive work experience or were in more senior managerial roles. Essentially, job autonomy is the ability and freedom a worker has to make independent, job-related decisions and to choose how and when the tasks get completed.

In theory, this would be an enviable position for many – allowing for a greater ability to manage a more robust work-life balance. However, research has found that instead of technology-aided autonomy allowing workers greater levels of freedom to manage their work role, workers tended to rather spend increased amounts of time on their phones. They effectively diminished their autonomy by justifying extra hours of unpaid work through rationalising the perceived expectation that others had of them.

Research conducted just prior to March 2020, already showcased how workplace norms and the pace of work demands mean that workers felt constantly tethered to their technology. With seniority (and social status synonymous that comes with autonomy), came an additional perception of being indispensable to others. This includes an expectation of needing to keep an eye on project-related communications, ensuring projects are kept moving forward and subordinates are given continuous guidance and answers. This inability to disconnect actually reduced workers’ autonomy and increases their overall job stress.   

Referred to as “The Autonomy Paradox”, the very flexibility and freedom granted to workers – allowing them the ability to work and engage in professional technology-related communication anytime and anywhere, can be the very thing that binds workers to the company, their colleagues and clients every waking hour.

Related Articles