The impact of voice in an online video game (Williams et al., 2007)

This relates to the kotaku article about players using teamspeak. This study is more related to the video games than the Sheeks & Birchmeier (2007) study. On that note from Kotaku about voice being a mood killer, it sounds like a nice hypothesis to check out. I should also check out the mostly-male players reactions to a woman’s voice, I wonder if the males would fight each other in order to court that woman… I’m not thinking straight right now…feeling drowsy.

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a controlled field experiment in which voice communication was introduced into an existing online community (online gaming guilds within the popular game “World of Warcraft”), comparing a mix of voice and text with text only. Quantitative results suggest increases in liking and trust due to the addition of voice, as well as insulation from unexpected negative impacts of text-only play. The findings are discussed with respect to social capital, cyberbalkanization, and the general computer-mediated communication literature, with special attention paid to social information processing theory.

What’s strange about me is that I like playing video games and watching anime. However, I never played online multiplayer games once in my life and yet I want to study them. Maybe that unknown territory makes it very tempting to see how it looks like. If you’re wondering why, it’s because I’m still on dial-up and I have a fear of MMO addiction (quite the irrational thought).

Shyness, Sociability, and the Use of Computer-Mediated Communication in Relationship Development (Sheeks & Birchmeier, 2007)

What does that got to do with computer games? Actually it relates to our communication with each other through computers. Kotaku wrote a nice post from Wired’s Clive Thompson about using Teamspeak over at World of Warcraft (I prefer the kotaku link first because of the funny picture, but kotaku still has the wired link). Read it and you’ll get it why it’s here.

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) offers its users a reduced-cues environment, a chosen degree of identifiability to others, and a forum to express facets of one’s self. Previous research suggests CMC is more appealing than traditional forms of communication to certain individuals whose desires to be sociable with others are prohibited by social inhibitions. The present study predicted that individuals who indicated higher levels of both shyness and sociability would be able to express their true-selves to a greater extent online. Their relationships online would grow more quickly and be more satisfying relative to others. The pattern of results supports our hypotheses, except for the predicted relationship between true-self expression and CMC use. Suggestions for future research as well as implications for the application of CMC use in therapy for certain populations are addressed.

So busy, busy, busy and why am I just putting the article’s abstract? It’s not fair for the readers, I guess.

Social evaluations of stereotypes in video games (Brenick et al., 2007)

Gamepolitics.com featured a Fox News show called Live Desk where they talked about the sexual scenes in Mass Effect. What got my attention is the study that Cooper Lawrence had mentioned.

“Darling, I gotta go with the research. And the research says there’s a new study out of the University of Maryland right now that says that boys that play video games cannot tell the difference between what they’re seeing in the video game and the real world…”

So, I went googling and sent e-mails to Cooper Lawrence (actually to her show’s e-mail) and to Dr. Melanie Killen at the University of Maryland whom she’s the closest match to Lawrence’s descriptions. Dr.Killen responded that it sounds like that Lawrence is referring to one of her study (which I’m going to talk about later), but she wasn’t sure. I’m not sure either, starting from the article’s title. Perhaps, a case of exaggeration? No response yet from Cooper Lawrence, but then I think my e-mail wasn’t comprehensible, had severe stomaches. So, here’s the closest article, unfortunately it’s 25 pages long and I’ve got lots of lab work to do…

Until Cooper Lawrence confirm that this is indeed the study she referred to, there’s little point in analyzing to counter her arguments. The reasons are that her statement might be interpreted in many ways or that she might confused. One possibility is that Mrs. Lawrence might be referring to the death cases of MMO addicts.

 Update (25/01/08): I googled around to get some more info and there’s seems to be some confusion over this journal article, some blogs ( like this one at destructoid) had made some references to news article (1), (2). Apparently, they are all talking about the same study which it was presented in conferences years ago, but is recently published in an academic journal. (A little insight: studies don’t get published right away until the reviewers and editors are satisfied, this could take between 1 month to who knows. And distinguished journals like Nature, have very strict quality control.)

 Update (31/01/08): an MTV article about Cooper Lawrence following the Mass Effects sex scenes had made a direct reference to the journal article that I had suspected. HOWEVER, it is still not clear whether Cooper Lawrence provided the reference or not. In any case, I decided to write my ’summary’ of the study. However, I advise anyone to read the journal article itself, if possible.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess late adolescents’ evaluations of and reasoning about gender stereotypes in video games. Female (n = 46) and male (n = 41) students, predominantly European American, with a mean age 19 years, are interviewed about their knowledge of game usage, awareness and evaluation of stereotypes, beliefs about the influences of games on the players, and authority jurisdiction over three different types of games: games with negative male stereotypes, games with negative female stereotypes, and gender-neutral games. Gender differences are found for how participants evaluated these games. Males are more likely than females to find stereotypes acceptable. Results are discussed in terms of social reasoning, video game playing, and gender differences.  

Appeal of violent video games to lower educated aggressive adolescent boys (Lemmens & Bushman, 2006)

This article came up in my mind while I was in my shower, I was thinking about the Konijn et al. (2007) article and one of its methodological limitation of using boys from a lower-echelon education level instead of a representative sample of the entire youth population. In any case, this article here looks into education as a factor in aggressiveness and violent video game use.

 Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the effect of individual differences on appeal and use of video games. Participants were 299 adolescent boys from lower and higher secondary schools in the Netherlands and Belgium. In general, boys were most attracted to violent video games. Boys that scored higher in trait aggressiveness and lower in empathy were especially attracted to violent games and spent more time playing video games than did boys lower in trait aggressiveness. Lower educated boys showed more appreciation for both violent and nonviolent games and spent more time playing them than did higher educated boys. The present study showed that aggressive and less empathic boys were most attracted to violent games. The fact that heavy users of violent games show less empathy and higher aggressiveness suggests the possibility of desensitization. Other studies have shown that playing violent games increases aggressiveness and decreases empathy. These results combined suggest the possibility of a violence cycle. Aggressive individuals are attracted to violent games. Playing violent games increases aggressiveness and decreases empathy, which in turn leads to increased appreciation and use of violent games.

I’ll read it as soon as I can… 

Lemmens, J. S., & Bushman, B. J. (2006). The appeal of violent video games to lower educated aggressive adolescent boys from two countries. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 638-641.

Violent video games and public policy (Gentile, Saleem & Anderson, 2007)

This came up in my google search alert (psychology video games) and my first reaction was “how do you make a new scholarly journal?” and “Don’t we have too many to read, especially in my case as VG researcher?” Anyways, Gentile & Anderson along with their grad student Muniba Saleem wrote an interesting review article fit for a class and for the audience.

Abstract

Policymakers and the public have been concerned about the effects of media violence on children for decades. Scientific psychological research can be an important source of information for policy, as the goal of science is to separate facts from opinions. This article reviews children’s exposure to media violence, describes theories that explain the effects media violence could have, summarizes the research on the effects of media violence exposure, and describes several moderators that can enhance or mitigate those effects. These scientific findings provide useful information for public policy, yet there are many barriers to their use, including misunderstandings of how causality is determined in scientific and public health circles and how large the effects are. Finally, the implications for public policy are discussed, including what has and has not worked in the United States, what other countries and the international community are doing, and where opportunities for new approaches for effective policies may exist.

So I’ll just summarize what they wrote:

Their introduction makes references to school shootings and how the public made knee-jerk reactions for restricting anything related to these shootings, including violent video games. However, at normal times, the public seems ignorant and skeptical of media violence research. Sounds like they’re saying hypocrisy. Well that’s mob rule in this era.

Aggression is defined differently from the public and the scientific community. The public’s definition is quite varied and broad, try asking one person to the next, while scientists maintain a single standard definition so comparisons between studies can be made. IMO, the definition itself is sometimes not good enough (Dodge, Coie & Lynam, 2006) in which researchers have to define different types of aggression (relational aggression).

A definition of media violence: “Media violence refers to media depictions of aggressive and violent behavior directed at characters in the media story. Those characters can be human or nonhuman, cartoonish or visually realistic. Fictional, unrealistic, or animated violence is still considered violence if it meets the above definitions.” (p.17) This is such a good definition that I’ll like to include within wikipedia. An interesting note is that the public tend to view media violence according to content, cartoon violence vs. graphic violence. They don’t see many violent acts in cartoons because their criterion is mainly the graphicness of violence. While studies using the scientific definition have found the opposite, suggesting that humour and/or animation might be attenuating influences of seeing violent acts in people.

They addressed the issues of exposure and the contradicting views of cartoon violence between public and science. Using graphicness solely, (looking at Jack Thompson and the rest) isn’t a good indicator of media violence because it’s like scratching the iceberg and other aspects of violence are relevant and accounted for, such as the intent to harm and how media characters feel or think about harming others. IMO, I like shows and movies that while ultra-violent, respect the audience’s intelligence. Like that movie, Children of Men.

What about Japanese TV? I am such an otaku right now that I could easily switch over to cultural psychology. Contexts seemed to be a factor that differentiates Japanese and American TV violence, not the amount. (Please remember the gauging bias of using graphicness) It’s determined that while being very graphic, the emphasis is on the consequences of such violent acts, usually negative. Any manga/anime consumers would agree to that.

Technological advancement and violence exposure (Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007)

I am supposed to be writing something more important that, but somehow it feels more fun (or easy) to be reporting on academic studies.

Abtract

The possible impact of technological advancement on video games’ effects—particularly in the case of violent games—has often been discussed but has not been thoroughly explored by empirical research. The present investigation employed a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment to examine the interplay of technological advancement and violence by exposing participants (N = 120) to either a newer or older version of a violent or nonviolent game and measuring these factors’ effects on players’ sense of presence, involvement, physiological arousal (measured by skin conductance), self-reported arousal, and affective and cognitive aggression. The results indicate that technological advancement increased participants’ sense of presence, involvement, and physiological and self-reported arousal. Neither advancement nor violence had statistically significant effects on accessibility of players’ aggressive thoughts, but there is some tentative evidence that violent game content increased players’ state hostility. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research.

One of the technological variables Jack Thompson to argue his case against violent video games is realism and technological advancement. Jack Thompson et al. believes that as games become more realistic, it is more likely to generate psychos on a massacre (and more lawsuits on a court, more laws on a legislature, more restrictions on a video game, more violence on a country) because it blurs the boundaries of reality and fantasy.

Counter-arguments from gamers and the industry are that realism have nothing to do with individuals distinction between reality and fantasy because they do make a distinction between them, even among children. However, Gentile et al. (2007) argue that it is irrelevant and that only violent content in video games have an effect on individuals’ aggression, adult or child. IMO, those who don’t make a distinction between reality and fantasy would already be diagnosed with a mental disorder.

So in this study by Ivory and Kalyanaraman, they will be looking at how video games of different eras differ on individuals’ aggressive cognitions and affect. Other variables included are presence (I’m weak in explaining it: the feeling of actually being in a virtual environment while still feeling in being in the physical world), involvement (“a psychological state experienced as a consequence of focusing one’s energy and attention on a coherent set of stimuli or meaningfully related activities and events”) and arousal.

Video Game Violence and the Female Game Player: Self- and Opponent Gender Effects on Presence and Aggressive Thoughts (Eastin, 2006)

Okay this is my last one for today… I hope. Now following Dr.Eastin’s academic trail, he wrote an article published last year. Since I’m trained in APA, I do find that the words in the title seemed so wrong. All capitalized, how strange…

Abstract

Adding depth and breadth to the general aggression model, this paper presents three experiments that test the relationships among user and opponent gender representation, opponent type, presence, and aggressive thoughts from violent video game play. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that females experience greater presence and more aggressive thoughts from game play when a gender match between self and game character exists. Studies 2 and 3 indicate that playing against a human opponent (rather than a computer) increases aggressive thoughts. Finally, although Studies 1, 2, and 3 indicate that playing as a female against a male opponent increases aggressive thoughts, Studies 1 and 2 suggest that playing as a male against a female opponent consistently and significantly decreases aggressive thoughts.

In this study, Eastin examined the relations on the effect of gender representation in a series of experiments. Now, gender representation means the player’s character’s gender and the opponent’s gender, either from the character or from the opponent player. Other examined relations are the concept of presence, agency of the opponent (human player vs. computer player).

Now, the dependent variable is aggressive thoughts of players (cognition).

One of the aggression factors of violent video games is identification, it is especially true for FPS games. Some games allow a creation process of which players can represent themselves within the game world, such as height, weight, clothes, skin color, hair style and gender. Hence, this creates a connection and an emotional investment between one’s identity and the avatar’s identity. As these identities are connected, in-game behaviours activate cognitive schema within individuals. In FPS games, psychologists would usually view these in-game behaviours as aggressive and violent for good reasons. Thus, repetition of aggressive behaviours and a strong identification to violent characters would lead to more easily accessible cognitive schema of aggression. Mind you, this does not translate directly into aggressive behaviours or attitudes as said in other studies.

Eastin wondered whether gender would be a factor in character identification. For example, a women who plays a female game character would be more likely to aggress. IMO, that depends on how someone views femininity, since it being female can be as caring, compassionate and non-violent. Well I’ll have to think on it further…

Tied to gender representation is presence. I’m a little weak on the concept of presence, as it is a relatively recent concept in social science. Eastin follows presence as “feeling in one even when located in another.” (p.354) However, there are three aspects of “presence”: social, spatial and self. What Eastin is more likely looking at is self-presence and social presence, which fits in this study’s operational definition.

In relation of presence to FPS games, players experience a strong sense of presence, since it is first-person view, we can interact with game objects, or get up-close and personal with the enemy, but importantly serve a point of reference within the virtual environment. I’m not sure if you can follow my summary, but that’s the best I can do.

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.