Deciding to Defect the Effects of Video-Game Violence on Cooperative Behavior Brad E

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Report Deciding to Defect The Effects of Video-Game Violence on Cooperative Behavior Brad E. Sheese and William G. Graziano Purdue University ABSTRACT—This experiment examined the effect of video- This study examined how video-game violence affects delib- game violence on cooperative decision making. Partici- erate decisions to behave cooperatively or competitively and pants (N 5 48) were randomly assigned to play either a expectations about how other individuals will behave. On the violent or a nonviolent version of the video game Doomt in basis of the GAM, we made two hypotheses. The first hypothesis dyads. Following the video-game task, participants were was that playing a violent video game would cause participants to separated and given an opportunity to choose to cooperate anticipate less cooperative and more competitive behavior from with their partner for mutual gain, withdraw from the interaction partners. The second hypothesis was that playing a interaction, or exploit their partner for their own benefit. violent video game would cause participants to choose to com- Participants in the violent condition were significantly pete, rather than cooperate, in subsequent interactions. more likely to choose to exploit their partners than par- Weused a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) game to examine ticipants in the nonviolent condition. These findings sug- competitive and cooperative decision making. The PD has been gest that playing violent video games may undermine used extensively in previous research to examine conditions prosocial motivation and promote exploitive behavior in that promote mutual cooperation (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). social interactions. For the current study, we used a modified version of the PD (PD- ALT; Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990) that allowed participants to choose among cooperating, defecting, and Recent research has found a positive association between withdrawing. In a traditional PD decision matrix, a decision to playing violent video games and aggressive feelings and be- defect may reflect either a decision to exploit a partner who is haviors (e.g., Anderson et al., in press; Bushman & Anderson, trusted or a decision to defend oneself from an exploitive in- 2002; Sherry, 2001). Recent research has also provided initial teraction partner. In PD-ALT, a ‘‘withdraw’’ choice that presents evidence of a negative association between playing violent an intermediate level of reward is available, making it possible video games and prosocial behavior (Anderson & Bushman, to distinguish between participants who trust their partners but 2001; Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Wiegman & VanSchie, want to exploit them and participants who do not trust their 1998). According to the General Aggression Model (GAM; partners. The matrix is designed so that if participants do not Anderson & Bushman, 2002), one way that exposure to violent trust their partners, they should choose the option labeled ‘‘Y’’ media may be linked to both pro- and antisocial behavior is (the withdrawal option). If participants do trust their partners through the activation of aggression-related schemas that are and want to cooperate, they should choose the option labeled stored in memory. The activation of these schemas may alter the ‘‘X’’ (the cooperation option). If participants trust their partners way subsequent information is processed, such that neutral or but want to exploit them, they should choose the option labeled ambiguous cues may be interpreted as threatening or aggres- ‘‘Z’’ (the defection option). sive. Consequently, the activation of aggression-related sche- The PD-ALT decision matrix allowed us to examine how mas may alter appraisal and decision-making processes, playing violent video games affected trust and decisions to ultimately leading to more antisocial, and fewer prosocial, defect separately. Additionally, prior to making a decision for behaviors. themselves, participants were asked to anticipate their partner’s decision. Examining the participants’ predictions and decisions Address correspondence to Brad E. Sheese, Department of Psycho- separately provided a direct method for testing the hypothesis logical Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third St., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2004; e-mail: [email protected]. DOOM is a regis- that violence should affect the participants’ perceptions of other tered trademark of Id Software, Inc. individuals’ intentions. 354 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society Volume 16—Number 5 Brad E. Sheese and William G. Graziano On the basis of the PD-ALT framework and our predictions Teams were initially trained on how to play the video game derived from the GAM, we anticipated the following pattern of and were familiarized with the rules and objectives. They were outcomes. First, we hypothesized that, relative to participants then given 25 min to complete as many mazes as possible. who played a nonviolent video game, those who played a violent After 25 min had elapsed, the participants were separated. video game would be significantly more likely to anticipate that They were then presented with the PD-ALT decision matrix, their partner would either withdraw or defect. Second, we hy- which showed three choices labeled ‘‘X,’’ ‘‘Y,’’ and ‘‘Z.’’ They pothesized that participants would be significantly more likely were told that the total number of points they had earned would to choose to defect if they played a violent video game than if be multiplied by a fixed amount, determined by their decision they played a nonviolent game. and their partner’s decision. If both partners decided to pick X To test these hypotheses we developed a specially modified (cooperate), both partners’ scores would be multiplied by a version of the video game Doomt. In the nonviolent version of moderate amount (1.5). If both partners picked Z (defect), then the game, participants were asked to find the end of a three- both partners would lose half their points (i.e., their scores dimensional maze. In the violent version of the game, partici- would be multiplied by 0.5). However, if one partner chose to pants were asked to find the end of the same three-dimensional cooperate and the other chose to defect, the defecting partner’s maze, but weapons and simple computer-controlled opponents score would be multiplied by a large amount (2), whereas the were also introduced. The opponents, various kinds of fictional cooperating partner would lose half of his or her points. Finally, monsters, were easy to kill with the available weapons and did if either partner picked Y (withdraw), both partners’ scores not present a significant challenge to the participants. They did, would remain the same (i.e., their scores would be multiplied however, present players with an opportunity to shoot and kill by 1). opponents while in the process of finding their way through the After successfully completing a brief quiz, to show they un- maze. derstood the instructions and the decision matrix, participants were asked to anticipate what choice their partner would make. Finally, they were asked to make the decision for themselves. METHOD RESULTS Participants Undergraduate students (N 5 48; 6 women) participated in The participants’ predictions of their partners’ choices were pairs. Participants were primarily (80%) non-Hispanic whites. used to calculate two outcome variables. Predicted trust, indicating whether participants anticipated that their partners would trust them and not withdraw, was scored as follows. Participants who anticipated that their partners would pick Procedure either Choice X (cooperate) or Choice Z (defect) received a Two participants, who were unfamiliar with one another, were score of 1 for predicted trust; participants who anticipated that brought into a lab setting and randomly assigned to be either their partners would pick Choice Y (withdraw) received a score ‘‘Player A’’ or ‘‘Player B.’’ They were told that they would be of 0. Of the 48 participants, 42 anticipated that their partners competing with all of the other study participants who had the would trust them (21 in the violent condition, 21 in the nonvi- same designation, but that they were not competing with each olent condition). Predicted defection, indicating whether the other. It was explained that when the study was completed, both participants anticipated that their partners would choose to the best-performing Player A and the best-performing Player B defect, was scored as follows. Participants who anticipated that would be awarded $100. their partners would pick Choice Z (defect) received a score of Teams were then asked to play a multiplayer video game, 1; participants who anticipated that their partners would pick Doomt, in which they would complete a series of three-di- Choice X (cooperate) or Choice Y (withdraw) received a score of mensional mazes. They were told that they would earn points for 0. Of the 48 participants, 3 anticipated that their partners would every maze they completed within 25 min. Both players had to choose to defect (2 in the violent condition, 1 in the nonviolent reach the end of a given maze before the pair could advance to condition). the next maze. The participants’ own decisions using the PD-ALT matrix Teams were randomly assigned to play either a violent or a were also used to calculate two outcome variables. The trust nonviolent version of Doomt. In the two conditions, the mazes score, reflecting whether the participant trusted his or her and the goal of the game were identical. However, in the violent partner and did not withdraw, was 1 for participants who picked condition, both players were provided with weapons, and the either Choice X (cooperate) or Choice Z (defect) and 0 for mazes included opponents that would attack the two players. In participants who picked Choice Y (withdraw). Of the 48 par- the nonviolent condition, players had no weapons, and there ticipants, 43 chose to trust their partner and not withdraw (23 in were no opponents within the mazes. the violent condition, 20 in the nonviolent condition).

Load more