Author details: Michele Willson School of Media, Culture, and Creative Arts Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. Email: m.willson@curtin.edu.au (Acknowledgments to be included at end of text post refereeing: The author notes that this research was partly funded by an Australia Research Council Research Linkage Grant (ARC Linkage LP11200026) . The author ould also like to tha k her olleague, the u contributions to this article.) a ed resear her for his i dire t 1 Social Games as partial platforms for identity co-creation A stra t: While so ial ga es su h as ) ga s Farmville are often positioned as poor gaming experiences or as disguised financial and data extraction processes (Bogost, 2010; Rossi, 2009), this paper considers social games instead as part of a wider regime of social interaction and creative identity work. Social games, by definition, are located within extensive online social networks. Gameplay is thus situated within a number of overlapping contexts: the game, the broader social network, the material conditions of access, including different devices (mobile or desktop) and different locations. Moreover, given widely discussed differences between social game players and console and PC-based game players (Wohn, 2011: 199), and game play mechanics, these broader contexts further a reading of social gameplay as part of the diverse milieu of everyday life. This paper argues social games are spaces of creative expression, social dynamics and identity cocreation that cannot be understood without their broader contexts. (word count: 149 words) Introduction I've heard the analogy that games like FarmVille or FrontierVille are almost like a mini zen garden for people. It's kind of their own little private sanctuary where they can be in control of everything. (Lien, 2012, quoting Mitch Zamara, a senior designer at Storm8) This genesis of this exploratory paper emerged from auto-ethnographic and participant observations (Ellis, Adams and Bochner, 2010) collated during a larger research project. The researchers (myself and another colleague) were investigating a number of facets of online social games (alternately called social network games). Part of this investigation involved a period of roughly three months playing a number of these games daily and individually writing down our experiences and observations. One of the things that struck me very early on was the different types of play practices 2 and presentations of this play and of playing that myself and my colleague engaged in. While we were indeed playing the same games, some of the ways we played and the ways we presented ourselves as players in this environment and indeed to our larger social environment/network (particularly salient to this article) were notably different. For example, we chose to represent ourselves in different ways, and we constructed and navigated our virtual game environments quite differently. These differences not only affected the look of our games, and the broadcasting of our game play to our wider networks, but also led to reflection about the need to consider social games more broadly; considering more than simply ithi the ga e (a point also made elsewhere about games more generally, e.g. Crawford, Gosling and Light, 2011; Apperley, 2010). Issues such as identity or impression management, creativity but also the place of the game within everyday life were raised. This article will explore some observations and issues that became apparent for the researchers during this game play period alongside literature from a range of fields such as media, internet, game studies and social theory. The argument advanced is that if we are to understand practices such as social games played on networked technological devices, we also need to consider these games more broadly; to consider them as intermeshed in the practices and considerations of everyday life (Pink and Mackley, 2013) and thereby continually negotiated and managed. Thus this is to partly negate or qualify the assertion made in the opening quotation that players are in complete control of everything. As will become obvious below, at one level they may feel like they are in complete control (and this has specific consequences and appeal), but on another level, this is blatantly not the case, control is a matter of negotiation and the interplay of a range of agencies. Analysis needs to also consider the intersection of technologies and social networks as cocontributory factors. As such the article could be positioned at the edge of what Apperley and Jayemane (2012) refer to as the material turn in game analysis. 3 Media, Technologies and Everyday Life This paper argues that social games are more than just games; they perform important interactive a d i tegrati e fu tio s ithi people s li es and require management and negotiation as a result. Social games enable spaces for and practices of creative expression, social dynamics and identity cocreation. They also form a mechanism through which relations can be enacted and maintained across and outside of the game environment (Boudreau and Consalvo, 2014; Paul, 2012). In their examination of the uptake and use of media within the home, Pink and Mackley (2013) map the ways in which people incorporate media into everyday domestic routines. In particular they are, concerned with how media are situated as part of the routine, habitual, tacit, normally unspoken sensitivities of everyday life in the home (Pink and Mackley, 2013: 678). This is to understand media not just as a location and conveyor of content, but also as a material artefact incorporated into routi es a d pra ti es i a i di idual s so ial orld: it is to ide tif a d arti ulate relatio ships between the individual being studied and the devices and locations with which they interact. This paper adopts a similar outlook and points to the importance of recognising individuals as always-already situated within networks (both online and offline, human and technical), platforms, affordances and locations. This approach acknowledges multiple agencies or agentic capacities that need to be taken into a ou t as a result: the ter o- reatio , for e a ple, is used to dra attention to the agentic quality of a number of actors (technical, social, individual) involved in identity construction and presentation. This is not to remove capacity from the individual for intervention, disruption and appropriation in varied ways; but it is to recognise the many factors (or to use an ANT Term, actants) that are contributory to a particular outcome or performance. Michel de Certeau (1984) notes in The Practice of Everyday Life how strategies and tactics are initiated by participants (readers, audiences, pedestrians, and so forth) in order to enable them to fashion or appropriate their environments and practices in personalised customised ways despite the constraints of a number of factors; economic, social and technical. To demonstrate this 4 argument, de Certeau uses the analogy of a rented apartment where occupants can customise and personalise the space but only within the constraints that are a result of them renting the apartment from someone else and thus having to accommodate certain processes and considerations. They a ot, for e a ple, k o k out a all i the apart e t ithout the o er s appro al. Similarly, while the game environment or ecology is constrained in some ways, the user/player is also involved in negotiations and employing tactics that enables customisation in various ways into their lives. Social Games described Social games are games accessed and played within social network sites (SNS) such as Facebook. They generally operate using a freemium model (free to play but offer microtransactions –small monetary transactions – as an option within the game to enhance player game experience). They are accessed through a variety of technical platforms: deskbound PC, laptop, smart phone or tablet which means they can be played within a range of locales. Game play does not require large blocks of time commitment inasmuch as players can play for short periods of time. As a consequence, game designers build in a range of game attributes to encourage continual and timely return to the game. Social games, like casual games (Juul, 2009), are also relatively accessible in terms of the level of technical and game proficiency required in order to play - very little skill or knowledge is required to participate successfully. The capacity of low cost (or free) game play requiring little time investment, little game knowledge and little technical skill offered within popular social networking sites has opened up the game industry to a range of players who fall outside of the traditional game demographics (Wohn et al., 2011, Paul, 2010). Social games draw heavily on a i di idual s so ial et ork. Game progression can be facilitated by interactions with other pla ers fro a i di idual s personal social network site or by using cash. Engagement with personal social networks, however, does not just take place within the game (i.e. with other players within that particular game) but also through activities and actions outside of the game and with those who are not playing. For example, in-game activities are often broadcast on 5 the pla er s so ial et ork site to other members of their social network (though this can be customised and controlled by the player to some degree). There have been a number of criticisms of social games and of the social game industry made by game commentators and academics alike. Social games have been critiqued as not actually being games (as they are mundane, involve little skill, and have no end goal) and positioned instead as data gathering exercises for the purpose of financial gain (encouraged through the incorporation of compulsive play elements) (Bogost, 2010). They have also been critiqued as not being social given they involve mostly asynchronous play, offer few communicative options within the games, and position friends as resources for play advancement (Rossi, 2009). However, social games have attracted many hundreds of millions of players: Facebook, for example, indicates that currently on average, approximately 375 million people play Facebook-connected games each month (Gupta, 2014). These figures suggest that social games do offer something of alue to pla ers, a d/or that the perfor a fu tio i people s li es. Early analyses of social games noted the comparatively large number of female players drawn to social games suggesting that there might be something these games offer not as easily accessible in more traditional game formats. (Dafferner, et al., 2010: 2). Indeed, it has been suggested in response to some of the above critiques that, a discourse of deep-seated masculinity can run through such classification processes [determining what is a game and what is not] –proper games are really the games that boys a d e pla . Other ga es are for girls a d sissies . (Crawford et al., 2010: 283. See also Keogh, 2013-14 for a similar argument) Differing demographics, play practices and extensive uptake presents as an opportunity to consider what role/place/function these games might hold and how we might understand them contributing to identity co-creative practices. Indeed, some of the reasons for the uptake of social games may be 6 the appeal of factors critiqued by commentators because of how they can be integrated into the everyday: parents with young children at home, for example, may find the social game format fits easily into their daily schedule when they can only grab multiple but short periods of time for game play. Jesper Juul (2009) makes a similar claim about casual games which share many similarities with social games. While there is existing games studies research on navigation across different spaces (in game and out), player dynamics, consideration of technical affordances, varying identity practices and so forth (see, for example, Apperley and Jayemane, 2012 for one of many overviews of the field); social games present some different and mundane but complicating factors to this analysis that render this research at the very least in need of supplementation. These differences include the following: • Engagement across multiple platforms and in multiple locations • Short time engagement/episodic play: can dip in and out of play • Different player demographics • E eshed ithi so ial et orks a d so ial et ork sites: li ked to authe ti identity (Crawford et al., 2010) • Portability of play melds corporeal with technological (Hjorth and Richardson, 2009) The researcher experience As noted in the introduction, I was involved in a research project into social games with another colleague. We individually played a number of social games available through the social network site, Facebook, every day for a period of roughly three months. Time spent playing varied from two to four hours a day across the various games. During this time, we wrote down our individual observations and took screen shots as we went along: noting our responses to game initiatives, the decisions we made in navigating quest, games, friending practices, length of play, location of play and rationale as well as game or technology constraints and interventions. We also frie ded o e 7 another so that we could also o ser e the other s pla pra ti es a d e iro e ts as ell as the very pragmatic reason of needing to have more players in our games. Some differences between our game play and the way in which we integrated these activities into our lives quickly became evident. Some of these differences are discussed below under the headings of identity management, pragmatics, aesthetics or counterplay, and platform sociality. These are presented as illustrative examples of ways in which social games and social game play are incorporated, modified and adapted within everyday life. Identity management The most immediate observation when embarking on social game play is the potential impact on the prese tatio of self to others i o e s so ial et ork. Be ause the ga e is a ailed through a “N“, activity undertaken becomes visible to others who belong to o e s perso al so ial graph (Rossi, 2009). In addition, through granting permission to the game provider for access to and collection of your personal information, access and collection of information about that social graph is also enabled. Therefore, the first decision we had to make concerned our individual profiles: whether we should use existing profiles linked to our identities and own personal networks or whether we should fabricate alternate profiles using pseudonyms (without existing social graphs). Not only were there ethical issues to do with granting a game provider access to friends information indirectly, there were questions of our identity management. What might friends think? Should activities in-game be made visible to out-of-game networks, and if so to whom if this visibility is customisable? Who, if any friends, should be invited to play and what might an invite then reveal about us and our interests? All of these questions involve what Goffman (1969 [1959]) refers to as impression management: the need to manage, curate and perform a particular presentation of self to a particular audience. This is further complicated by the need to manage the actions of the technology and its programmed imperative to map and broadcast these activities to others. Researchers note 8 the ways in which social network site profiles entail a range of identity performance and impression management practices (see, for example, boyd, 2007 or Siibak, 2009). Social game activity announcements and their management across a range of locations add another layer of complexity to this performance. In this instance, I used my authe ti so ial et ork profile (linked to family, friends, and some colleagues), the other researcher created an alternate site using a pseudonym. As a result, there was a noticeable difference in the ways we published our in-game activity on our Facebook sites (i.e. to our personal social network): the researcher using a pseudonym posted extensively all activity, I, using my own personal site, posted far ore judi iousl . The resear her usi g a fake site did ot have to address questions or comments that their posting may have raised since they had no personal social network attached to their site, I, on the other hand, did. Given some of the ridicule that social games have invoked within academia, amongst game developers, mainstream press and some of the general population (who have been spammed by various game initiatives), some level of apprehension about sharing game activity across a social network was unsurprising. In a blog posting, Jessica Vitak, who was researching social games, noted how she felt on quitting the game Farmville: … I removed all game-related applications from my Facebook. And I felt a relief when I did so, like I had taken out the trash, trash that was starting to stink. Oka , a eI e aggerati g a little o that last state e t. But I did feel so e relief he I quit playing the games, like I no longer had to hide a dirty little secret–that I played the most annoying game on the Internet–from my friends. (http://jessicavitak.com/2010/08/23/why-iquit-farmville/) I managed my presentation of self as game player in a number of ways: I posted an explanation for social games postings and activities on my Facebook site noting I was involved in a project studying 9 social games; I chose only to send gifts to those who I knew were already playing these games rather tha spa others ith u a ted posts o their sites; a d I also chose what to allow (where possible) the game provider to post on my site in increasingly restricted ways once it became apparent how prolific such postings could be. I experienced numerous comments from friends about these activities – some on my SNS, some within social environments elsewhere not on technological platforms – thus triggering further social engagement and identity management strategies. Other management strategies were also employed (how my in-game play was managed, where I played games and so forth) and some of these are discussed in more detail below. Pragmatics, aesthetics or counterplay? Another difference that quickly became evident was how each of us approached actual game play: my colleague seemingly approached game play from an efficiency point of view (for example, planting monoculture crops and efficient placement of buildings in Farmville) and preferred games such as CityVille, while I played with an eye for aesthetics trying different crops and building placement, more regularly visiting farms of other players and also gifting more regularly. Clearly there were different motivations, perceptions, and game style preferences at play. Elsewhere, the individualised ways in which people adopt and customise their use of mobile phone practices has been noted (Richardson, 2011): Similarly, social games play, preferences and use as a social interactive mechanism display individually customised approaches, something a broader study could investigate further. Personal customisation and individual performances include players taking advantage of possibilities for alternate play or design gaps (Kirman, 2010) in a game and their sharing of this activity with others outside of the actual game site. While I was relatively circumspect in terms of where I posted and in advertising game activity, many others are less so. Multiple cheat sites for sharing game hints, and fan sites sharing experiences or screenshots are used by social game players. Similarly, the practice of pixel or tile art, where in-game items are used (at times, outside of their originally 10 desig ed purpose to reate i ages ra gi g fro artoo hara ters, people s i ages a d so forth are captured in screenshots and then shared on purpose-specific external sites (such as tile art sites) for others (an audience broader than a i di idual s so ial et ork o e tio s to comment on. Multiple communities are created and engaged with as a result of these types of activities with associated identity performance and impression management enacted. Tho as Apperle s otio of counterplay provides a useful conceptual tool here to flag how individual players appropriate, customise and employ various game possibilities in different ways. Players can and do exploit possibilities within games to enact actions and outcomes that may have not been envisaged initially by the game designers or that do not accord with the main intent of the game:, for example, some of the tile or hay bale art referred to above. I would like to suggest that this notion of counterplay can be usefully extended to incorporate activities outside of the particular game space and across larger media ecosystems. De Certeau s o ser atio of the a s i hi h environments and practices are customised, and appropriated by users a ords with creative across-ga e pra ti es that sit outside of de eloper a d ga e desig ers pri ar i perati es. For example, the commercial imperatives driving social game design results in multiple ways to extract personal information about a player and their social graph. However, the use of a fabricated SNS profile such as that used by the other researcher hinders that imperative – a fake identity is outside of the terms and conditions of the site but it is clearly possible. In other ways, the extension of game references outside of the game itself – whether through the circulation of derogatory memes or parodies through social media or, alternately, the holding of theme birthday parties with Farmville cakes ( photographed, posted and commented upon and then re-distributed online through an SNS posting) all point to outcomes or possibilities that have not been directly built into game design, but instead are appropriated, customised and circulated through social networks by individuals. This does not appear to be antithetical to the way in which Apperley employs the term. He notes, 11 Counterplay implies that to understand digital games we must move beyond the notion of the materiality of code—and a hermeneutic approach to digital game scholarship that conceptualizes digital games as clearly defined singular artefacts that may be examined and understand in isolation—in order to make visible the role of everyday life in shaping digital game play. (Apperley, 210: 134) Platform sociality (and platform identity?) Jose van Dijck (2013) argues that we are moving or indeed, have already moved, from a time of et orked o u i atio i to a period of hat she refers to as platfor so ialit . Desig atio of platform sociality recognises the multiple platforms with which we increasingly engage on a daily, even hourly, basis whereby, [a]s a result of the interconnection of platforms, a new infrastructure emerged: an ecosystem of connective media with a few large and many small pla ers. (van Dijck, 2013: 4) What becomes apparent in the ways in which social games are played is the complex interplay between platforms, users and the intermeshed nature of these: platform sociality (and by inference, platform identity practices) is evident. Social games are not discrete artefacts: they are designed and played in such a way as to engage with overlapping and concentric spheres of influence inasmuch as game play ripples out across spaces and places through design but also player and technology initiated action. For example, I might be playing Farmville on my desktop PC at home which is situated in a room adjacent to the lounge room, the screen and my farm visible to all family members or visitors in the vicinity; while at the same time posts are being made by underlying software programs on to my Facebook site visible to members of my social graph located elsewhere about some ribbon I have achieved; while I harvest crops or gift a unwither to a neighbour in game. Thus multiple actions and impression management strategies are employed simultaneously. The need for multiple actions and strategies are heightened by the affordances of particular technologies and the ways users navigate their engagement with these devices to fit within everyday 12 routines and practices. Nick Lee (2013: 77) details a report in 2011 that records higher digital content access and sharing on computers and mobile phones during the day (workplace and out) and more on tablets in the evening when people are relaxing at home. Facebook developers have also noted that multiplatform players – those who play on multiple devices - play more frequently, spend more money and more time on games than single platform/device players (Gupta, 2014) rendering multiplatform players as more desirable users to be harnessed and catered to in future development plans. I noted that I would choose different technologies for different tasks according to their affordances: it was quicker to harvest and plant crops from my tablet than on PC, and it was a task that I could do while away from my desk. On the other hand, I had to use my PC if I wished to arrange items in the game: I then had to determine whether I would do this at work in my office with the potential for interruptions and the navigation of what work colleagues and students may have thought if seen, or from home with the potential disruptions of children or comments about the amount of time I may ha e ee spe di g a d the alue of ti e-spent on such an activity. I slotted game play into periods when time and circumstances were suitable, meaning some days I played for shorter periods than others, or played more frequently some times to others. Thus, a range of determinants as to when I played, where I played, why I played and what I played came into consideration according to how play could be accommodated as part of my everyday routines and impression management practices. The table below displays just a few of the ways in which technologies, places, game and identity practices are negotiated and enacted. Table 1. Game play, identity practices and platforms used (platformed sociality?) Platform Locale Network/audience Practice/reaction/motivation and identity practices 13 game Personal game Space and avatar players customisation; gift giving; task completion and helping neighbours, social acts. All: mobile phone, social network site PC, tablet, etc Fan sites; social Social graph (profile, Identity management: degree newsfeeds, and selection of game reveal timelines) and game reveal audience Other players Degree of expertise, media more identification with others and generally, web shared experience, sense of community Back-end Developer Refined design, pushed commercial operator, advertising, personalisation, data aggregators social filtering and recommendations leading to game modification and changing user choices Mobile/portable Mobile/public (ie General public, cocooning, management of networked anywhere away surrounding encounters with others, from a fixed audience passing time (Wohn & Lee, devices: phones, Mobile/Portable technology access 2013 ), performed identity of devices: smart 14 phones, ipods, tablets, etc. point: public technology (and game?) transport, dentist proficient owner and user waiting room, etc) Pc/desktop work station fixed locale (e.g. Occupants; co- monitor use and display; work, home) located others provide explanations and justifications for use Conclusion The everyday, though mundane, is not static; it made up of constantly shifting patterns of movement and interaction amongst spaces, places, people and things. As noted above, these patterns and practices are implicated along with the devices which we use to conduct these, in identity co-creative practices. Cocooning oneself from engagement with others through the activity of playing a social game on a tablet or a mobile device in public is just one example. With the increasing move of many everyday activities online, mediated through technology, (think of ubiquitous computing, Google Glass, Oculus Rift etc.), analysis such as the one conducted above that consider the intersection of technologies, practices and people in everyday life will become increasingly salient. Social games, and all that connotes – the game, the environment, the technologies, the practices and the people, places and spaces – clearly provide a partial platform for identity co-creation and offer the researcher an opportunity to explore the role the pla i people s everyday life. References Apperley, T., 2010, Gaming Rhythms: Play and Counterplay from the Situated to the Global, Theory on Demand #6, Institute of Network Cultures¸ Amsterdam. 15 Apperley, T.H., & Jayemayne, D., , Games Studies Material Turn , Westminster Papers, no. 9, 1, October, pp 5-25. Retrieved from http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/182448/002.-Game-Studies-MaterialTurn-Thomas-H.-Apperley-and-Darshana-Jayemane.pdf Boudreau, K., & Consalvo, M., 2014, Families and social network games , Information, Communication & Society, no. 17, 9, pp 1118-1130. Bogost, I., 2010, Cow Clicker: The Making of Obsession. Ian Bogost - Videogame Theory Criticism, Design. Retrieved from http://www.bogost.com/blog/cow_clicker_1.shtml boyd, d., 2007, Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life , in D. Buckingham (ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume, pp.110-142, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Crawford, G., Gosling, V.H., and Light, B., 2011, It s ot just a ga e Co te porar halle ges for games research and the Internet , in G. Crawford, V. H. Gosling and B. Light (eds), Online Gaming in Context: The Social and Cultural Significance of Online Games, pp. 230-294, Routledge, London & New York. Dafferner, A., Chan, J. and Valette, R., March 2010, Social Gaming: Trends and Outlooks , Sector Update, GP Bullhound Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.gpbullhound.com/researchpdf/GPB Social Gaming Report - March (3).pdf de Certeau, M., 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall, University of California Press, Berkeley. Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A., , Autoeth ograph : A O er ie , Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, no. 12, 1, . Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095 Goffman, E., 1969 [1959], The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Allan Lane, The Penguin Press, London. Gupta V., March 19, 4, Facebook @ GDC: Driving discovery and engagement for cross-platform games [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2014/03/19/facebook-at-gdc-2014/ Hjorth, L., and Richardson, I., 9, The waiting game: Complicating notions of (tele)presence and gendered distraction in casual mobile gaming , Australian Journal of Communication, no. 36, 1, pp. 23-35. Juul, J., 2009, A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their Players, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 16 Keogh, B., 2013-14, Across Worlds and Bodies: Criticism in the Age of Video Games , Journal of Games Criticism, no.1, 1, Retrieved from http://gamescriticism.org/articles/keogh-1-1/ Kirman, B., , Emergence and playfulness in social games , Proceedings of the 14th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek '10, ACM, pp. 7177. doi: 10.1145/1930488.1930504 Lee, N., 2013, Facebook Nation: Total Information Awareness, Springer, New York. Lien, T., (Tracey Lien @traceylien), August , , The Secret Sauce of Social Games , Polygon, Retrieved from http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/22/3539902/the-secret-sauce-of-social-games Paul, C. A.,2012, Wordplay and the Discourse of Video Games, Routledge, New York and Oxon. Pink, S., and Mackley, K. L., 2013, Saturated and situated: Expanding the meaning of media in the routines of everyday life , Media Culture & Society, no. 35,6, pp. 677-691. doi: 0.1177/0163443713491298 Richardson, I., , The hybrid ontology of mobile gaming , Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, no. 17,4, pp. 419-430. Rossi, L. , 2009, Playing your network: Gaming in social network sites , Proceedings of DiGRA 2009: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/09287.20599.pdf Siibak, A.,2009, Constructing the Self through the Photo selection - Visual Impression Management on Social Networking Websites , Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, no. 3, 1, article 1. Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009061501&article=1 Van Dijck, J., 2013, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media, Oxford University Press, New York. Wohn, D. Y., 2011, Gender and race representation in casual games , Sex Roles, 65, pp. 198-207. Wohn, D. Y., Lampe, C., Wash, R., Ellison, N., and Vitak J., 2011, The “ i “o ial Net ork Ga es: Initiating, Maintaining, and Enhancing Relationships , Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference in System Sciences, HIC““ , Kauai, HI Jan, IEEE. 17