Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU ETD Archive 2013 The Effects of Video Game Difficulty Selection on Flow Experience Michael W. W. Buncher Cleveland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive Part of the Communication Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Buncher, Michael W. W., "The Effects of Video Game Difficulty Selection on Flow Experience" (2013). ETD Archive. 374. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/374 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in ETD Archive by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECTS OF VIDEO GAME DIFFICULTY SELECTION ON FLOW EXPERIENCE MICHAEL W. BUNCHER Bachelor of Arts in Communication University of Minnesota Duluth May 2007 submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION THEORY AND METHODOLOGY at the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY May 2013 THESIS APPROVAL SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION This thesis has been approved for the School of COMMUNICATION and the College of Graduate Studies by: _________________________________________________ Thesis Chairperson, Cheryl Bracken _________________________________________________ Department & Date _________________________________________________ Gary Pettey _________________________________________________ Department & Date _________________________________________________ Elizabeth Babin _________________________________________________ Department & Date DEDICATION To Dr. Paul Skalski; my advisor, teacher and friend. You never gave up on me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First I would like to thank my parents, whose love and support constantly surprises me and without whom I am not sure what kind of trouble I would have gotten into. I would like to thank Dr. Bracken, who really stepped up at what was surely a most inconvenient time. She introduced me to so much in my first graduate class; it is only fitting that I end my time at CSU with her leading the way. No acknowledgment section would be complete without mentioning Dr. Pettey. His methods courses gave me the tools I needed to complete this endeavor. He was also the best at making me realize just how little I knew about anything. To Dr. Babin, you have also earned my continued thanks for stepping in to help me out at the last hour. Thank you for your willingness to help someone you do not even know. All of the time, effort, and patience Dr. Paul Skalski gave me for years also needs to be acknowledged. Without him this never would have been finished. I gave up on myself, and without him there to help me back I would never have finished. Also deserving special mention are Dr. Aaron Boyson for getting me into this mess, Sandy Thorp for continually helping me to take care of paperwork I should have been able to take care of myself, and all of the wonderful faculty at CSU who made my time there the best experience possible. Finally, a special thank you goes to my partner Olivia Seifert who has stood by me through all my troubles. Thank you for your support, love, and especially your patience. I could not have done this without you. I love you. THE EFFECTS OF VIDEO GAME DIFFICULTY SELECTION ON FLOW EXPERIENCE MICHAEL W. BUNCHER ABSTRACT This study investigates selective exposure and video gameplay by borrowing methods employed in previous selective exposure studies on television and the Internet. Also studied was the impact of mood-managing behaviors on the experience of flow, both of which are concerned with affective homeostasis. It was predicted that participants manipulated to experience stress would select easier difficulty levels and play at a slower pace than those who experienced boredom. Means of manipulated groups were consistently in the predicted positions, but there was limited support for hypotheses derived from selective exposure. A negative relationship between self-reported boredom and difficulty selection was counter to predictions derived from selective exposure, but a negative relationship between self-reports of stress and rate of play supported such predictions. Finally, there was limited evidence that flow experience was delayed due to mood-managing behaviors. These mixed findings are discussed and future research directions are recommended. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I, INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE .................................................. 1 CHAPTER II, LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUALIZATION .................. 5 Selective Exposure ..................................................................................................... 5 Selective Exposure to Interactive Media................................................................ 8 Selective Exposure to Video Games ...................................................................... 9 Flow and Enjoyment ................................................................................................ 10 Flow in Video Games ........................................................................................... 10 Homeostasis in Flow and Selective Exposure ......................................................11 Summary .................................................................................................................. 13 Hypotheses and Research Question ..................................................................... 14 CHAPTER III, METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 18 Overview .................................................................................................................. 18 Participants ............................................................................................................... 18 Setting ...................................................................................................................... 18 Stimulus .................................................................................................................... 19 Procedure.................................................................................................................. 19 Independent Variables .............................................................................................. 21 Arousal Manipulation........................................................................................... 21 Boredom condition ........................................................................................... 21 Stressed condition ............................................................................................ 21 vi Control ............................................................................................................. 21 Measuring Self-Reported Arousal (Manipulation Check) ................................... 22 Measuring Video Game Skill ............................................................................... 22 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................. 23 Measuring Difficulty Selection ............................................................................ 23 Measuring Rate of Play (RoP) ............................................................................. 23 Measuring Flow ................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER IV, RESULTS ............................................................................................ 26 Descriptives .............................................................................................................. 26 Manipulation Check ................................................................................................. 27 Hypothesis 1: Condition Arousal and Difficulty Selection ...................................... 27 Hypothesis 2: Condition Arousal and Rate of Play .................................................. 28 Hypothesis 3: Self-reported Arousal and Difficulty Selection ................................ 30 Hypothesis 4: Self-reported Arousal and Rate of Play............................................ 31 Research Question .................................................................................................... 32 Hypothesis 5: Condition Arousal and Flow ............................................................ 32 Hypothesis 6: Paired samples Flow Test .................................................................. 33 Hypothesis 7: Correlating Game Playing Skill and Difficulty Selection ................ 34 CHAPTER V, DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 36 Overview .................................................................................................................. 36 Findings .................................................................................................................... 37 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 41 Directions for Future Research ...............................................................................