Reality and its relationship to media Presence, identification, realism

How do we think about reality? It seems so obvious that we never really give it much thought Two major concerns about reality are: – Our theory of it (ontology) – How we come to know it (epistemology)

What is reality? The objectivist stance, which most Americans accept, is that there is a definite, physical world out there regardless of our perception of it. That world has definable features and runs according to a set of physical laws that do not vary based on our actions or perceptions of it. – If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, it still makes a sound.

The less-commonly accepted subjectivist stance says that reality is in our heads and the nature of some external world is indeterminate, if there is one at all. – Consciousness defines reality, and if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, there is no sound. More importantly, if there is no one there there is no tree or forest, either.

How do we come to know reality? Objectivists state that our senses react predictably and effectively to real stimuli in ways that allow us to come to understand the world around us. Experience drives our understanding, which allows us over time to abstract from experience to theory about the world, which is then tested and rewritten, etc.

Peggy Vaughan

Subjectivists argue that reality is constructed through imagination, interaction with the physical world, or social interaction. Reality is a product, not a definite external ‘thing.’

Practically speaking From a cognitive information processing standpoint, we have two things interacting that produce reality: Sensory input, which is actually digital information flowing from our receptors to our brains, and Theories about what the data represent, stored in memory, based on prior experiences and thoughts

But Senses can mislead Theories can be wrong

Idealization

Abstraction

Realism

Mediated reality All content that reaches us through some form of mechanical mediation is at least a distorted view of a natural reality if not a construction of reality itself – No form of mediation reflects the original content exactly Framing Amplification Distortion Inclusion/exclusion Emphasis Color Etc.

The experience of mediation—that is, the perception that the content is not as it would be if the audience member were ‘really there’ is a variable—and it varies widely

The experience of mediation The experience of mediation is not part of the sensory input—it is based on the schema held in long-term memory that “explain” any new information reaching the brain

Schema of mediation Mediation schema can be said to be based on two somewhat independent features of the experience of exposure to mediated content— – Formal features of the exposure Technology Situation – Content features Narrative fidelity Context

Content features The ‘realism’ of a particular character, or story, is part of the craft of storytelling, production, etc. The actual level of realism desired is not always high – The content producer may wish to limit the realism of a character or story for creative reasons – Knowing how to produce a realistic portrayal is a valuable art

New technologies New technologies have allowed content producers to generate stories, etc. that provide physical features experienced as more and more ‘real’ – The “Holy Grail” of the gaming industry is to reach the level where the player experiences the game as though she were actually living it Presence

Physical features that enhance realism Field of vision – The less the peripheral vision, ambient sound intrudes, the more ‘real’ the experience seems to be IMAX VR helmet Sound – Quiet in physical surroundings during exposure – Inclusion or exclusion of music – Background noise within the video, etc.

Roderick Munday

Physical features Image complexity/fidelity with experience – The more an image seems like visual stimuli experienced in real life, the greater the realism of the experience 3D v. 2D Animated characters v. living characters Perspective Character movement

Point of view Single v. multiple Spectator – Omniscient – Observer Actor – First person shooter

Physical features Interactivity – Does the medium/content adjust to the audience member’s physical action? – Propriocentrism

Sensory richness Haptics – Touch, vibration, etc.

Content features What indicators do audience members use to determine whether the content is ‘real’? – Narrative fidelity Are actions, events, and characters presented in ways that the audience member accepts as logical or at least plausible? – This will vary with a range of expectations brought to the experience by the audience member.

Hall’s research Plausibility Typicality Factuality Involvement Narrative consistency Perceptual persuasiveness

Busselle Program quality Program richness Program quality Program richness Viewing motives—viewing for instruction leads to higher evaluation of reality

Shapiro and Chock (1998) concluded that viewers based realism judgments in terms of typicality. If they thought portrayals were similar to a typical or common manifestation of the content, they they were judged realistic. They concluded that audience members compared the content they observed to a prototype for that class of observation. – Genre

With increasing age through early life, audience members move from possibility as a criterion for realism to probability as a criterion.

Identification or involvement If audience members are emotionally taken with a presentation they experience it as more real. – This though they realize that the context/narrative is fantastic Involvement with at least one character has the impact of increasing the feeling of realism

Busselle’s dimensions

... studies of immersion in computer games argue that children use existing schemas of reality to understand and read meaning into the hypertexts of computer games (Taylor 2002, Douglas & Hargadon 2001).schemasTaylor 2002Douglas & Hargadon 2001

Also, arguing that aesthetic pleasure of immersion and engagement relies on the participant acknowledging and understanding the differences between reality and the illusions of hyperreality (Douglas & Hargadon 2001, Aarseth 1998, Kampmann Walther 2003). The notion of “gameplay” requires a balance of immersion in “play” (fantasy) and acceptance of “game” (its structure and organization in space and time) (Kampmann Walther 2003, Douglas & Hargadon 2001). It is only at this stage when a participant experiences a state of “flow” where “self-consciousness disappears, perceptions of time become distorted”, and one is completely absorbed in concentration (Douglas & Hargadon 2001).Douglas & Hargadon 2001 Aarseth 1998Kampmann Walther 2003Kampmann Walther 2003Douglas & Hargadon 2001

However, even when in such a state of flow where participants report a sensation of exiting real time and reality, they must also retain full awareness of the game and its structure, rules, and constraints, or the game will end (Kampmann Walther 2003, Douglas & Hargadon 2001).Kampmann Walther 2003Douglas & Hargadon 2001