DOCSLIB.ORG

A Conceptual Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Conceptual Analysis Lasse Sakari Honkala COOPERATIVE GAME PLAY A Conceptual Analysis Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences Master’s Thesis April 2021 ABSTRACT Lasse Sakari Honkala: Cooperative Game Play: A Conceptual Analysis Master’s Thesis Tampere University Master's Degree Programme in Game Studies April 2021 Cooperative game play has emerged as an intriguing topic for academic and commercial research in the last decade or so, with actors from various fields investigating its impact on social interaction, player experience, and gamified serious contexts. So far, however, the notion has lacked dedicated analyses elaborating on the concept itself. While consist- ently described as an activity involving a common goal between the players, the entailed subtleties are rarely specified much further, making one ill-equipped to make substantial claims about the assumed effects, either. To fill this gap, this study proposes an intentional explanation for what cooperative game play is, how the players’ goals, goal-relations, and the related attitudes distinguish it from other types of cooperative affairs and social play forms, what kind of collectively stronger and weaker versions can be identified by mixing these elements, and to what extent mul- tiplayer game play presupposes cooperation in general. These questions were approached by the method of conceptual analysis, with the aim of providing the necessary and suffi- cient conditions for the external and internal readings of cooperative game play (“game play as cooperation,” “cooperation as game play”) and the relevant subcategories, viewed as species of planned, playful, and prosocial activities. The theoretical framework consists of philosophical studies on collective intentionality, definitions of games and play, as well as psychological accounts on goals, frames, and social interdependence. The findings suggest that cooperative game play is defined not only by the goal-contents at different levels of abstraction, but also the conative and epistemic modes (intentions, acceptances) directed at them. It is also argued that this structure involves a paradoxical double perspective, with the meaning of the plan changing when switching from one psy- chological frame to another. Depending on the specific attributes and relations of these components among the agents, the activity is then further classified by the corresponding interaction relationships, agential modes, and framing alignments—the combinations of which amount to several possible forms of cooperative game play (externally and inter- nally), varying in the prevalence of the entailed individualistic and collective interests. Compared to the previous descriptions and classifications of the notion, the theory pre- sented in this thesis expands on the intricacies related to the participants’ goals, illustrat- ing the complex ways that self-oriented and group-oriented aims may intertwine during the activity. It therefore offers a more detailed and flexible framework for conceptualizing cooperative game play in design and research, while also contributing to the debates about the role of the self and the group in multiplayer game play generally. Keywords: cooperation, game play, collective intentionality, goals, conceptual analysis The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Previous Literature ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.1 Game Play as Cooperation (GPaC) ............................................... 3 1.1.2 Cooperation as Game Play (CaGP) ............................................... 5 1.1.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 8 1.2 Method .......................................................................................................... 9 2 GOALS AND INTENTIONALITY ......................................................................... 13 2.1 Acceptance ................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Intention ...................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Contents ...................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 22 3 GOALS AND GAME PLAY .................................................................................. 23 3.1 Acceptance ................................................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Pretend Acceptance ..................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Voluntary Acceptance .................................................................. 29 3.2 Intention ...................................................................................................... 32 3.2.1 Autotelic Intention ........................................................................ 33 3.2.2 Allotelic Intention .......................................................................... 35 3.3 Contents ...................................................................................................... 37 3.3.1 Participant Frame ......................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Player Frame ............................................................................... 41 3.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 44 4 GOALS AND COOPERATION ............................................................................ 46 4.1 Acceptance ................................................................................................. 47 4.1.1 I-mode Acceptance ...................................................................... 48 4.1.2 We-mode Acceptance .................................................................. 50 4.2 Intention ...................................................................................................... 56 4.2.1 I-mode Intention ........................................................................... 56 4.2.2 We-mode Intention ....................................................................... 59 4.3 Contents ...................................................................................................... 64 4.3.1 Predicates .................................................................................... 64 4.3.2 Agentive Subjects ........................................................................ 67 4.4 Goal Relations ............................................................................................. 71 4.4.1 Positive and Negative Interdependence ....................................... 72 4.4.2 Persistence Interdependence ....................................................... 77 4.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 79 5 SYNTHESIS ........................................................................................................ 83 5.1 Game Play as Cooperation (GPaC) ............................................................. 85 5.2 Cooperation as Game Play (CaGP) ............................................................. 88 5.3 Frame Relations .......................................................................................... 90 5.3.1 Depth ........................................................................................... 90 5.3.2 Alignment ..................................................................................... 92 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 94 6.1 Application Areas ........................................................................................ 96 6.2 Limitations and Future Guidelines ............................................................... 97 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 99 APPENDIX 1: GOALS AND COOPERATIVE GAME PLAY ...................................... 109 1 INTRODUCTION Cooperation and games have long appeared interrelated in academic literature. While the latter has traditionally been employed as an example of the former (see, e.g., Mead, 1925; Parten, 1932), the evolution of digital gaming and the popularity of online multiplayer games have also attracted attention to the reverse case. Indeed, industry actors and schol- ars from a wide variety of fields have shown growing interest in the design and analysis of cooperative game play, in contexts such as learning environments, interaction, and in- gameplay experience (Sedano et al., 2013). The reasons for this are manifold. In educational research, for instance, collaborative se- rious games have been viewed as a potential tool for supporting learning through visual- ization, as well as improving knowledge creation, decision-making processes, teamwork, motivation and attitudes (Oksanen, 2014, p. 22). Some experimental studies have com- pared the effects of cooperative and competitive games on people’s contributions in gam- ified systems, such as crowdsourcing platforms (Morschheuser et al., 2019), while others have been interested
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Video Games and Enhancing Prosocial Behaviour
    Chapter GAMING FOR GOOD: VIDEO GAMES AND ENHANCING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Holli-Anne Passmore∗ and Mark D. Holder Department of Psychology, IKBSAS, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada ABSTRACT The number of publications pertaining to video gaming and its effects on subsequent behavior has more than tripled from the past to the current decade. This surge of research parallels the ubiquitousness of video game play in everyday life, and the increasing concern of parents, educators, and the public regarding possible deleterious effects of gaming. Numerous studies have now investigated this concern. Recently, research has also begun to explore the possible benefits of gaming, in particular, increasing prosocial behaviour. This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the research literature examining the effects of video game playing on prosocial behaviour. Within this literature, a variety of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies have been adopted. For example, many researchers invoke the General Learning Model to explain the mechanisms by which video games may influence behaviour. Other researchers refer to frameworks involving moral education, character education, and care-ethics in their examination of the relationship between gaming and prosocial development. Diverse parameters have been explored in these studies. For example, different studies have Email: [email protected]. 2 Holli-Anne Passmore and Mark D. Holder assessed both the immediate and delayed impacts of gaming, and investigated the effects of different durations of video game playing. Additionally, based on each study’s operational definitions of “aggressive behaviour” and “prosocial behaviour”, a variety of behaviours have been assessed and different measures have been employed. For instance, studies have used self-report measures of empathy, the character strengths of generosity and kindness, and the level of civic engagement, as well as used word-completion and story completion tasks and tit-for-tat social situation games such as “Prisoners' Dilemma”.
    [Show full text]
  • Spontaneous Emotional Speech Recordings Through a Cooperative Online Video Game
    Spontaneous emotional speech recordings through a cooperative online video game Daniel Palacios-Alonso, Victoria Rodellar-Biarge, Victor Nieto-Lluis, and Pedro G´omez-Vilda Centro de Tecnolog´ıaBiom´edicaand Escuela T´ecnica Superior de Ingenieros Inform´aticos Universidad Polit´ecnicade Madrid Campus de Montegancedo - Pozuelo de Alarc´on- 28223 Madrid - SPAIN email:[email protected].fi.upm.es Abstract. Most of emotional speech databases are recorded by actors and some of spontaneous databases are not free of charge. To progress in emotional recognition, it is necessary to carry out a big data acquisition task. The current work gives a methodology to capture spontaneous emo- tions through a cooperative video game. Our methodology is based on three new concepts: novelty, reproducibility and ubiquity. Moreover, we have developed an experiment to capture spontaneous speech and video recordings in a controlled environment in order to obtain high quality samples. Keywords: Spontaneous emotions; Affective Computing; Cooperative Platform; Databases; MOBA Games 1 Introduction Capturing emotions is an arduous task, above all when we speak about cap- turing and identifying spontaneous emotions in voice. Major progress has been made in the capturing and identifying gestural or body emotions [1]. However, this progress is not similar in the speech emotion field. Emotion identification is a very complex task because it is dependent on, among others factors, culture, language, gender and the age of the subject. The consulted literature mentions a few databases and data collections of emotional speech in different languages but in many cases this information is not open to the community and not available for research.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Guilt in Dayz Marcus Carter and Fraser Allison Guilt in Dayz
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Sydney eScholarship FOR REPOSITORY USE ONLY DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 8 Guilt in DayZ Marcus Carter and Fraser Allison Guilt in DayZ Marcus Carter and Fraser Allison © Massachusetts Institute of Technology All Rights Reserved I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I kill someone. —Player #1431’s response to the question “Do you ever feel bad killing another player in DayZ ?” Death in most games is simply a metaphor for failure (Bartle 2010). Killing another player in a first-person shooter (FPS) game such as Call of Duty (Infinity Ward 2003) is generally considered to be as transgressive as taking an opponent’s pawn in chess. In an early exploratory study of players’ experiences and processing of violence in digital videogames, Christoph Klimmt and his colleagues concluded that “moral man- agement does not apply to multiplayer combat games” (2006, 325). In other words, player killing is not a violation of moral codes or a source of moral concern for players. Subsequent studies of player experiences of guilt and moral concern in violent video- games (Hartmann, Toz, and Brandon 2010; Hartmann and Vorderer 2010; Gollwitzer and Melzer 2012) have consequently focused on the moral experiences associated with single-player games and the engagement with transgressive fictional, virtual narrative content. This is not the case, however, for DayZ (Bohemia Interactive 2017), a zombie- themed FPS survival game in which players experience levels of moral concern and anguish that might be considered extreme for a multiplayer digital game.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Cooperative Agents for Nba Jam
    DEVELOPING COOPERATIVE AGENTS FOR NBA JAM A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Computer Science By Charlson So 2020 SIGNATURE PAGE Project: DEVELOPING COOPERATIVE AGENTS FOR NBA JAM Author: Charlson So Date Submitted: Spring 2020 Department of Computer Science Dr. Adam Summerville Project Committee Chair Computer Science _____________________________________ Dr. Amar Raheja Computer Science _____________________________________ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to give a special thanks to Professor Adam Summerville for his lessons and advice with my project. I am extremely grateful to have such a caring and passionate advisor. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Amar Raheja. His class, Digital Image Processing, is one I will remember throughout my career. To my dad, Kyong Chin So, my mom, Jae Hyun So, and sister, Katherine So, it was only through your love and support that I was able to succeed in life. Through all the rough times and struggle, here’s to a brighter future. Charlson So iii ABSTRACT As artificial intelligence development has been rapidly advancing, the goal of creating artificial agents that can mimic human behavior is becoming a reality. Artificial agents are becoming capable of reflecting human behavior and decision making such as drawing creative art pieces and playing video games [10][24]. Therefore, they should be able to mimic one of the greatest human strengths, cooperation. Cooperation is an integral skill that allows humans to achieve feats that they cannot do alone. It is also a highly valuable skill that can be developed for artificial agents as software with intelligent programming becomes integrated into human society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Cooperative Gameplay on Aggression and Prosocial Behavior
    Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 5 2019 The Effects of Cooperative Gameplay on Aggression and Prosocial Behavior Ariqua M. Furse Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Furse, Ariqua M. (2019) "The Effects of Cooperative Gameplay on Aggression and Prosocial Behavior," Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology: Vol. 14 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition/vol14/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Furse: Effects of Cooperative Gameplay The Effects of Cooperative Gameplay on Aggression and Prosocial Behavior Ariqua Furse Brigham Young University Abstract Over a quarter of the world’s population spends an average of 5.96 hours a week gaming. The top ten most played games are either exclusively multiplayer or have a multiplayer option, with 70% containing violent content. Despite the prevalence of multiplayer gaming, most video game research has been focused on single player modes. Video game aversion is based on this single player research. There is a lesser awareness of the effects of cooperative video game play. The majority of the literature on the effects of cooperative game play on aggression and prosocial behavior reviewed shows that, when played cooperatively, video games, regardless of content, have little or no effect on aggression or prosocial behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • It's in the Game: the Effect of Competition and Cooperation on Anti-Social Behavior in Online Video Games David P. Mclean Thes
    It’s in the Game: The effect of Competition and Cooperation on Anti-Social Behavior in Online Video Games David P. McLean Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Communication James D. Ivory, Chair Beth M. Waggenspack Marcus Cayce Myers 6/15/2016 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: Video Games, Hostility, Online interaction Copyright © 2016 Dave McLean It’s in the Game: The effect of Competition and Helpfulness on Anti-Social Behavior in Online Video Games David P. McLean ABSTRACT Video games have been criticized for the amount of violence present in them and how this violence could affect aggression and anti-social behavior. Much of the literature on video games effects has focused primarily on the content of video games, but recent studies show that competition in video games could be a major influence on aggression. While competing against other players has been shown to increase aggression, there is less research on whether the mere presence of a competitive environment can influence aggression. The existing research has also primarily been performed using surveys and lab experiments. While these two approaches are very useful, they lack the ecological validity of methods like field experiments. This study examined how competitiveness, teamwork, and co-operation affect anti-social behavior in video games. A 2 (competition: high vs low) x 2 (cooperation: vs no cooperation) x 2 (team: teammates vs opponents) online field experiment on hostile speech was performed. In this study, it was found that players experience more hostile language from their teammates than they do opponents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relation Between Gaming and the Development of Emotion Regulation Skills Adam Lobel the Relation Between Gaming and the Deve
    GAME ON Hanneke Scholten // [email protected] 06-2372-1158 Martin Perescis // [email protected] 06-4711-2810 Aula, Comeniuslaan 2 Radboud University Defense Party 6525 HP Nijmegen 14:30 sharp @ INVITATION Contact paranymphs: The Relation Between Gaming Soul, Funk, & Rock ‘n Roll and the Development of 6512 EN Nijmegen Emotion Regulation Skills Leemptstraat 34 Emotion Regulation Skills American BBQ + Thieme Loods, Adam Lobel 18:30 @ Adam Lobel 20 17 14349_Adam Lobel_Cover.indd 1 13-12-16 11:25 Game on: The relation between gaming & emotion regulation development Adam Lobel The studies described in this thesis were funded by the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen. Publication of this thesis was financially supported by the Radboud University Nijmegen. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Crackman by Typodermic Fonts, Inc. Pokemon GB by Jackster Productions. Roboto Condensed Font by Christian Robertson. Cover & bookmark design by David Auden Nash. Nevermind screenshot (Chapter VII title page) courtesy of Erin Reynolds, Flying Mollusk. Printed by Ridderprint with special thanks to Robert Kanters. ISBN: 978-94-6299-514-7 © Adam Lobel, December 2016 For my Mishpacha & For my Savta Rita, who would have been so proud to read the books of her offspring Game on: De relatie tussen gamen en de ontwikkeling van emotieregulatie waardigheden Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. J.H.J.M. van Krieken, volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag, 18 januari, 2017, om 14:30 uur precies door Adam Lobel Geboren op 13 juli 1987 te New York, New York, Verenigde Staten Promotors: prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Video Game Play and Generosity : Oxytocin Production As
    COOPERATIVE VIDEO GAME PLAY AND GENEROSITY: OXYTOCIN PRODUCTION AS A CAUSAL MECHANISM REGARDING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR RESULTING FROM COOPERATIVE VIDEO GAME PLAY By Matthew Nelson Grizzard A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Communication – Doctor of Philosophy 2013 ABSTRACT COOPERATIVE VIDEO GAME PLAY AND GENEROSITY: OXYTOCIN PRODUCTION AS A CAUSAL MECHANISM REGARDING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR RESULTING FROM COOPERATIVE VIDEO GAME PLAY By Matthew Nelson Grizzard Recent research has begun to examine whether contextual features of video game play, such as the cooperative versus competitive nature of interaction between game play participants, can mitigate aggressive responses related to violent video game play, or even lead to prosocial responses such as generosity. This research provided the foundation for the current dissertation that sought to (a) examine the effect of cooperative play on generosity and (b) associate cooperative game play with increased production of oxytocin, a neuromodulating hormone related to bonding, trust, and social interaction. The potential negative effects of video game play have been a central focus of psychological and communicological research, with the majority of studies using competitive, aggressive games as their stimulus materials. By utilizing a non- aggressive game, examining the role of cooperative versus solo play in that game, and assessing changes in oxytocin production and associating those changes with post-game play generosity, the current study provides an opportunity for determining potential prosocial effects of non- aggressive video game play and linking those effects with an endocrinological mechanism. A random assignment (solo versus cooperative play) experiment with an offset control condition was conducted using a guitar-music video game as stimuli.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Basic Game Rules
    This Rules Supplement offers strategy hints, as well as variants that allow you to customize Dungeon Alliance to your taste. You must read the Full Rulebook first in order to understand the additional rules in this supplement. Of particular interest below is the “Basic Game,” which allows you to learn the strategies of the game more gradually. Managing your entire team with one deck of cards can be quite challenging, but after your first game or two, it will become second nature. To help new players avoid frustration, we strongly recommend that you try the Basic Game your first time out. We have included special Generic Starting Deck Cards that will ease you into the types of strategies that are required to become a master of Dungeon Alliance. I. Basic Game Rules Preset AlliAnces When playing the Basic Game, instead of drafting Hero Cards in the manner indicated in the Set Up section of the full rulebook, place the Hero Cards into face down groups of four heroes as defined below. Have each player select one team at random. Hero set 1: Holgar, Krom, Lorna, Mysterios Hero set 2: Belzamin, Graltar, Jypzy, Petra Hero set 3: Krolt, Mirabell, Root, Runyon Zay Hero set 4: Bull, Emanon, McFarlin, Melinda Generic stArtinG Deck cArDs Even though your Heroes are more powerful with their unique Starting Deck Cards, each Generic Starting Deck Card is usable by all of your heroes, so you don't have to worry about having the wrong cards for the wrong hero at the wrong time. 1) starting Decks: Each Hero Card has 3 corresponding Starting Deck Cards (marked 1, 2, 3 in the upper right corner).
    [Show full text]
  • Vocabulaire Du Jeu Vidéo
    Vocabulaire du jeu vidéo manette multijoueur console de jeu jouabilité personnage jeu d’aventure mission avatar monde virtuel rétroludique costumade quête frag tridimensionnel jeu en ligne vidéoludique intrajeu ludographie niveau réseau local Office québécois de la langue française par Yolande Perron Vocabulaire du Catalogage avant publication Perron, Yolande Vocabulaire du jeu vidéo / par Yolande Perron. [Montréal] : Office québécois de la langue française, 2012. ISBN Version imprimée : 978-2-550-64423-1 ISBN Version électronique : 978-2-550-64424-8 1. Jeux vidéo – Dictionnaires français 2. Jeux vidéo – Dictionnaires anglais I. Office québécois de la langue française 794.803 GV 1469.3 Vocabulaire du manette multijoueur console de jeu jouabilité personnage jeu d’aventure mission avatar monde virtuel rétroludique costumade quête frag tridimensionnel jeu en ligne vidéoludique intrajeu ludographie niveau réseau local Office québécois de la langue française par Yolande Perron Vocabulaire réalisé sous la direction de Danielle Turcotte, directrice générale adjointe des services linguistiques, et sous la responsabilité de Tina Célestin, ex-directrice des travaux terminologiques à l’Office québécois de la langue française. Révision Micheline Savard Direction des travaux terminologiques et de l’assistance terminolinguistique Personnes-ressources (jeu vidéo) Jean Quilici Etienne Désilets-Trempe Direction des technologies de l’information Conception graphique Liliane Bernier Direction des communications Le contenu de cette publication est également
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Versus Cooperative Video Game Decision Making and Its Relationship To
    Running Head: VIDEO GAME DECISIONS RELATIONSHIP TO PVGP 1 Competitive versus Cooperative Video Game Decision Making and its Relationship to Problematic Video Game Play Ryan P. Foley University of Michigan Mentor: Dr. Frank Yates Graduate Mentor: Neil Lewis Jr. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Psychology from the University of Michigan 2015 VIDEO GAME DECISIONS RELATIONSHIP TO PVGP 2 Author Note Ryan P. Foley, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. This project was the combined effort of myself, my mentor, graduate student collaborators and lab mates. Without the support and assistance of Dr. Yates and the members of the Judgment and Decision lab this project would have never gotten off the ground. Being a member of the JDM lab has been a consistent and robust support to my research. I would like to thank Neil Lewis Jr. specifically, for his non-ceasing, expert support and mentoring throughout this entire process, without his assistance this project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Andrew Moore for his collaboration on devising items for the CCVDS scale and his assistance in statistical analysis. Lastly, I’d like to thank all my class-mates, friends and family for their continued support and collaboration. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ryan Foley, 3913 Vorhies Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Email: [email protected] VIDEO GAME DECISIONS RELATIONSHIP TO PVGP 3 Abstract Are video game players who are more inclined towards competitive in-game decision making versus cooperative decision making more likely to have health problems associated with their video game play? In this study, we test this question, comparing the effects of in-game decision making to those of other well-documented video game play-related health factors.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 al- lowed participants to choose among cooperating, defecting, and Recent research has found a positive association between withdrawing.
    [Show full text]