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.

Appeal of online First Person Shooters (Jansz & Tanis, 2007)

Here’s something to counter argue anti-video games advocates claims of gamers being loners in regards to FPS games on the online world. Anyways, to the authors’ knowledge FPS games are not researched in depth, but they are peripherally. Even the claims of increase in hand-eye coordination is based on the definition of “those that have fast motion, require vigilant monitoring of the visual periphery, and often require the simultaneous tracking of multiple targets.” (Green & Bavelier, 2006) which includes FPS, shoot’em ups, racing, beat’em ups, etc.

Jansz and Tanis conducted an exploratory survey on online FPS players like Counter-Strike, so a survey based on unproven knowledge, i.e. stereotypes heard from media, general knowledge, etc. and gratification theory.  The survey results are that online FPS gamers, in particular players in clans, are motivated by competition and challenge. In addition, players are also in it for the social interaction. i.e. not loners.

Method

• Participants: 751 Dutch-speaking participants who completed the survey online on two unidentified popular websites for online FPS.
• Questionnaires: Demographics (age average = 18, gender mostly male, game behaviour and clan membership: 80% are clan members)
• A likert scale questionnaire based on the gratification theory of which they diluted the answers into 6 categories of motives: competition, interest, enjoyment, fantasy, social interaction, excitement and challenge.

The demographic results are the usual thing: young male who played about 2.6 hours per day. In addition, FPS gamers play an average of 16 hours per compared to RPG gamers who play between 23-25 hours per week and that RPG gamers are older (average 28 years, see Nick Yee).

Looking into the correlational relationship between the 6 categories and demographics revealed some statistically significant relationships. Although they’re significant, the correlations seem awfully small.