Zephyrhawke: Critique of Cabiria Article 1
Kate Zephyrhawke
Dr. Downey– Virtual Worlds Research
Critique of Cabiria article
Feb. 7, 2009
Dr. Jonathan Cabiria is a professor of psychology at Baker College in Flint,
Michigan. This article discusses first the social construction of identity and how
certain populations, such as gays and lesbians, are marginalized, often leading
them to have negative self-image, feelings of loneliness, isolation, depression
and so on. As identity is the primary psychosocial construction for an adolescent
trying to fit into the adult world, it is extremely important for families and
educators to look out for the well-being of teenagers and to find ways to address
problems they may face adjusting to their social circumstances. Research has
shown that a person's self-esteem and self-concept can change in response to
either positive or negative remarks made by others, and those who are
marginalized may become withdrawn or actively antisocial in self-defense. In a
1987 study at a center for gay and lesbian people in New York City, researchers
noted that the most frequent problem presented was isolation–social, emotional,
and cognitive–and often resulted in suicide ideation or suicide attempts. Dr.
Cabiria predicted that experience in virtual worlds would provide a safe space for
these marginalized people to become comfortable with their sexual identity, to
begin to interact with others in a low risk environment, and to develop coping
skills to deal with possible negative experiences in the real world. Cabiria found
that not only did the virtual environment of Second Life provide positive benefits
for these marginalized people, but that these benefits transferred to the real
world. These same kinds of benefits could be of enormous value in education for
troubled adolescents who are not performing to their potential.
Introduction: Dr. Cabiria’s topic does seem to be an important one for society,
not just for a small segment of the population, such as gays and lesbians, but for
many other minority groups who are marginalized for any number of reasons that
people may be or perceive themselves as outside the norm and not well
accepted. The language is quite clear and readable, not dense, ponderous and
pretentious as research articles can often be. There is no distinct literature
review, since, according to the Grounded Theory methodology, this would give
preconceived notions about what to look for. There is, however, a discussion of
the concepts of the social construction of identity which references previous
research, and in this the paper is positioned well. The problem is well-defined as
well as significant: gay and lesbian adolescents often feel isolated to the point of
suicide ideation or suicide attempts. Cabiria based his prediction of the positive
results that would ensue from engagement with others in the virtual world on the
Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), which
posits that people can best develop both resilience and skills to cope with
stressful or negative environments through small positive experiences (in Cabiria,
2008 p. 5).
Zephyrhawke: Critique of Cabiria Article 2
Methods: This is a qualitative study based on Grounded Theory– a methodology
used in the social sciences which emphasizes generation of theory from data in
the process of conducting research. This is the reverse of traditional methods:
from the data collected, key points are marked with codes, the codes then
grouped into similar concepts, which are then formed into categories. These
categories form the basis of a theory (or hypothesis). Cabiria used software
analysis tools and manual coding for the creation of categories. The data was
collected from questionnaires as well as semi-structured interviews. He
employed content analysis of both the interviews and the open-ended responses
of the questionnaires to discover emerging themes while comparing and
contrasting participant responses. These are appropriate implements for a
qualitative study which concerns 1) the construction of multiple identities, 2)
responses that elicited tacit knowledge and subjective
understandings/interpretations, 3) delving in-depth into complexities and process,
4) little-known phenomena (Marshall & Rossman, 2006, in Cabiria, 2008). While
130 participants composed the initial sample population, 32 were selected for the
first phase of the study and 14 were selected to complete the full study. All
completed three questionnaires and participated in a minimum of two hour-long
interviews. SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys was used to search for meaningful
terms and categorization; the results were compared with hand-coding during the
search for emergent themes and theories. Since Cabiria also used an audit trail,
recording his actions (process notes, intentions notes, personal reactions notes
and instrumentations notes), other researchers can determine how conclusions
were drawn. While extraneous data are possible, considering the fluid concept of
self being studied, I don’t see them as significantly altering the outcome, and the
data collection instruments seem appropriate, reliable, and valid.
Results: I thought the results were clearly stated, although Cabiria did not
provide his questionnaire or interview questions; my assumption is that this was
a space constraint of the publishing journal.
Discussion: The findings were well-summarized. Although various aspects of
affect were explored, the study was rather simple, looking mainly for
psychological benefits transferrable to the real world. I wondered if further
analysis would reveal specific details and patterns of benefits, some greater than
others, or if there were areas of no benefit. Cabiria didn’t mention this. The
discussion does lead back to the study’s objectives, and I can’t think of any
alternate conclusions to the research as discussed. His prose is concise, clear,
and correct, his arguments rational. I would have liked to have known more about
the settings and the demographics of the participants as well as how they were
selected– this seems like a glaring omission.