Beyond Self-Selection in Video Game Play: An Experimental Examination of the Consequences of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game Play (Smyth, 2007)

Abstract

There is burgeoning interest in the study of video games. Existing work is limited by the use of correlational designs and is thus unable to make causal inferences or remove self-selection biases from observed results. The recent development of online, socially integrated video games (massively multiplayer online role-playing games [MMORPGs]) has created a new experience for gamers. This randomized, longitudinal study examined the effects of being assigned to play different video game types on game usage, health, well-being, sleep, socializing, and academics. One hundred 18- to 20-year-old participants (73% male; 68% Caucasian) were randomly assigned to play arcade, console, solo computer, or MMORPG games for 1 month. The MMORPG group differed significantly from other groups after 1 month, reporting more hours spent playing, worse health, worse sleep quality, and greater interference in “real-life” socializing and academic work. In contrast, this group also reported greater enjoyment in playing, greater interest in continuing to play, and greater acquisition of new friendships. MMORPGs represent a different gaming experience with different consequences than other types of video games and appear to pose both unique risks and benefits from their use.

More details can be found at Educational Games Research.

Smyth, J. M. (2007). Beyond self-selection in video game play: An experimental examination of the consequences of massively multiplayer online role-playing game play. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 717-721.

Hostility differences between cooperative versus competitive play in video games (Eastin, 2007)

Abstract

Most research on violent video game play suggests a positive relationship with aggression-related outcomes. Expanding this research, the current study examines the impact group size, game motivation, in-game behavior, and verbal aggression have on postgame play hostility. Consistent with previous research, group size and verbal aggression both displayed a significant positive relationship with hostility. From these results, avenues for future research on anti- and prosocial outcomes from group gaming are offered.

Rationale

The differences between competitive and cooperative play is how players achieve a desired goal. That is whether a goal is interdependent with other people’s goals or not. For example in cooperative play, “I need to kill a dragon, but I can’t do it alone. So having others who share the same goal would help”. Whereas in competitive play, “I want to kill that dragon myself, but there are others who wants to. I’d better be the one who did the deed.”Therefore, between cooperative and competitive play different strategies will be adopted.

Researchers have found that competition is related to aggression. If you think of hockey, fights break out often for the slightest offences. Or the case of the headbutt of Zinedine Zidane. So, the literature says that competition is associated with frustration from being unable to achieve a goal, anger, and arguments. On the other hand, cooperative is associated with feelings of cohesion, camaraderie and agreement. Therefore, there are differences in experiences between cooperative (coop) and competitive play and this can translate into other situations as well.

Group size within MMOs can range from 2 players to thousands in a single guild. As group size increase, so does the feelings of competitiveness and disagreements. In addition, subgroups (i.e. cliques) would form that would compete with other subgroups. Decreased perceived individual achievement and competitiveness and increased perceive anonymity within a group are factors of this in-group competitiveness.

Longer you play, the more hostile you feel: examination of first person shooter video games and aggression during video game play (Barlett et al., 2007)

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of video game play on aggression. Using the General Aggression Model, as applied to video games by Anderson and Bushman, [2002] this study measured physiological arousal, state hostility, and how aggressively participants would respond to three hypothetical scenarios. In addition, this study measured each of these variables multiple times to gauge how aggression would change with increased video game play. Results showed a significant increase from baseline in hostility and aggression (based on two of the three story stems), which is consistent with the General Aggression Model. This study adds to the existing literature on video games and aggression by showing that increased play of a violent first person shooter video game can significantly increase aggression from baseline.

Barlett and company investigated on the effects of different game controllers and length of game play aggression. What I like about this study is the emphasis on using a single video and experimentally controlling video game factors that may affect results. Some examples of video game factors are the amount of violence, character development and story development. The results have found that play is associated with state aggression, hostility, physiological arousal. In combination with playing a light gun, the effect is stronger than playing with a traditional controller. However, play time and frustration was not found to be significant.

In this study, the types of game controllers (light gun vs. controller) will tell us whether there are differences in aggression. One reason is the weapons effect, where the mere presence of a weapon increases aggressive behaviours.

The other factor being investigated is the amount of time a player spends on a violent video game in a session, not in the long term. IMO, Barlett et al. did not wrote much about it. What is being explained is simply a snowball effect: exposure to aggression or committing an aggressive act leads to increased aggressive cognition, emotions and physiological arousal. This could lead to increases in aggressive behaviours. So the logic is more exposure to violence equals more aggression. Well it seems there are two theories being tested: (1) there will be an increase, but it will not increase continuously during play. (2) There will be an increase and it would continue to increase as long as play continues.

Frustration is included within the study. It’s defined by the feelings of not being able to achieve goals.

Barlett et al. provided some info about Craig Anderson’s (2004) meta-analytic study and his criteria of “best-fitting” video game studies. What’s “best-fitting” to include in his meta-analysis is that it used a pre-post design (good), clearly defined non-violent and violent video games (no brainer), and “produced evidence that the video games differed from one another to not contaminate the experimental conditions.” This last criterion is puzzling me and perhaps I’m reading it wrong, so it’s best fitting if the study used different video games? If we were to compare two non-violent games that are different and achieve different results… so does it mean that other factors within the experiment can influence results? I just don’t see how it works out.

Hypotheses

 

1. The longer you play, the more hostile and aroused you become.
2. Playing with a more interactive controller is associated to higher increase in aggression than a standard controller.

Law and Order: Special Victims Unit: Avatar

You know what? I should have taped the episode so I could remember and tease it apart. So someone please post and/or send the episode online or to me.

Anyways, the game graphics are pretty crappy and much like any other shows that deals with video games, like that episode in CSI:Miami in relation to GTA. or that other episode in Law and Order that also deals with a GTA lookalike. But I guess the point in the stories is that graphics has no direct relation to criminality.

The police detectives arrested three possible suspects: a guy who reads and fantasizes a lot on execution of the middle ages, a stereotypical geek/otaku and of course the real killer whom I somehow recognize him from other shows and immediately knew he was the real perpetrator.

Let’s start with the guy with the execution fetish, in his virtual avatar he dressed up as like an executioner seen in films about the middle ages and has read a lot books on it too, but if we look at his behaviours and demeanor. It shows that books and the virtual life fantasies doesn’t make him a killer or psychopath. Indeed, the police detectives had an immediate bias towards him because of the books read and of his virtual avatar. But this doesn’t hold very much in police investigation and objective evidence. So the point here is that virtual media isn’t isolated or independent from anything, it is pretty much interdependent with other media like books and such media isn’t going to make anyone psychopathic.

The stereotpical geek/otaku: pretty much describes and perhaps is representative of the meek demeanor and harmlessness of the geeks. Again, it shows to the audience that geeks and perhaps computer addicts aren’t that violent or psychopathic.

The real killer: the point of this character showed that the virtual reality is merely a medium and not even the cause of his murderous actions. Why? Because he still have that picture of his first victim, he is still obsessive of his fantasies to the point where he recreated his moments, like recreating his forest cabin in a real location and (straight to the point) he’s already a psychopath.

Some might argue that the virtual reality triggered his psychopathy, I could counter-argue that the chances of that are the same in real life. He simply had a chance encounter with someone who looks like his first victim and went psychopathic. About his recreations in virtual life, has anyone seen that CSI episode where that women recreated miniatures of her murders? Again, its not the medium’s fault, it’s the person’s intent and abnormal fantasies.

Well there are other elements that I can talk about, but my mind just went blank.

Other assanine comments:

• I like how the players told the detectives that it doesn’t hurt anyone.
• Somehow when some characters said: “Second chance…”, it caused a type of reaction within me, perhaps it the allusions I made allusions to Second Life.
• I like the artistical connection between books and virtual reality: they both have common element: fantasy I think, but also the historical stigma these media went through.
• The annoyingly witty comments and one-liners related to virtual reality, “he’s off the line… or something like.”
• going to Montreal, it’s my city!
• The owner of the virtual game being seen as a normal person and not someone eccentric.
• The police detectives initial reactions upon learning what the virtual game is about. something that would reflect the public’s opinion about virtual games.
• The theme of the episode being that no matter what is being used or what is the cause, there’s always an old, underlying and fundamental element. That is something evolutionists might say a few words.
• Me being an idiot for not taping the episode.