Our virtual selves, our virtual morals – Mass Effect players’ personality and in game (Eva...
-
Upload
interactive-technologies-and-games-education-health-and-disability -
Category
Education
-
view
133 -
download
0
Transcript of Our virtual selves, our virtual morals – Mass Effect players’ personality and in game (Eva...
Our virtual selves, our virtual morals:
Mass Effect players’ personality and in game choices.
Dr Eva Murzyn @EvaMurzyn
Evelien Valgaeren
• Many studies look at relationship between video game play and violence (Ferguson, 2015)
• Cognitive enhancement and training is also gaining popularity
• How do people engage with games?
• Games that give the players a choice
2
Background
• Built in in a lot of game genres
• Important factor for immersion
• Mass Effect trilogy – Saving the world – fixed goal
– Two alignment axes - flexible means
3
Choice in games
How do players engage with moral choices in games?
• 1007 Mass Effect players recruited through social media and game forums – 697 women (69.2%), 190 men (18.9%), 107 identified as non-binary
(10.6%) – Mean age 22.84 years (SD 5.01, range 18-64).
• Questionnaires used:
– 44-item Big Five Inventory or the BFI (John and Srivastava, 1999) – Mass Effect play survey – 2 basic trolley scenarios
4
Method
• Significant association between player and character gender (χ2(1, N = 878) = 274.103, p <.001).
5
Results 1: Gender
Women Men
Playing a male character 52 114
Playing a female character 639 73
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Character gender and player gender
• No significant association between gender and playstyle (χ 2(2, N = 887) = 1.75, p = .416)
6
Results 2: Player gender and alignment
Women Men
Renegade 68 22
Mixed 99 21
Paragon 524 144
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Character alignment and player gender
• Significant association between the character gender and playstyle (χ 2(2, N = 878) = 15.81, p < .001)
7
Result 3: Character gender and alignment
Female character Male character
Renegade 59 31
Mixed 100 20
Paragon 553 115
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Character gender and playstyle
• Significant association between character gender and playstyle for women (χ 2(2, N = 691) = 24.57, p < .001)
• No association for male players (χ 2(2, N = 187) = 1.95, p = .378)
8
Break-down by gender
Female character
Male character
Renegade 53 15
Mixed 90 9
Paragon 496 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Female players
Female character
Male character
Renegade 5 16
Mixed 10 11
Paragon 57 87
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Male players
9
The Big 5 Personality
Extraversion
Outgoing, enthusiastic,
active
Shy, solitary, independent
Neuroticism
Tense, moody, anxious
Secure, resilient
Conscientiousness
Disciplined, efficient, organized
Relaxed, spontaneous,
easygoing
Agreeableness
Cooperative, kind,
affectionate
Uncooperative, antagonistic,
suspicious
Openness
Curious, creative,
adventurous
Practical, rational, skeptical
10
Group differences in Agreeableness
Paragon Mixed Renegade
• Paragon/Renegade – p<0.001 – Hedge’s g = 0.62 – CI 0.24 - 0.57
• Mixed/Renegade – p=0.004 – Cohen’s d = 0.4 – CI 0.07-0.47
• Paragon/Mixed – p=n.s. – CI 0.01 - 0.28
• No association between playstyle and action (χ 2(2, N = 878) = .070, p = .965)
11
Trolley task 1
Paragon Mixed Renegade
No 77 13 14
Yes 689 122 92
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Trolley scenario 1: pushing the lever
• Significant association between playstyle and decision (χ 2(2, N = 878) = 19.94, p < .001).
12
Trolley task 2
Paragon Mixed Renegade
No 537 81 49
Yes 229 54 57
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Trolley scenario 2: pushing a bystander
• Participant's in game alignment was related to their trolley task decisions and personality – Games present scenarios for moral reasoning
• Complex and emotionally engaging • Challenging to use in an experimental paradigm
• Limitations: – Only looked at one facet of ethical decisions Look at
principles next – Narrow game focus Investigate more diverse games
13
Conclusions
• Create games that encourage players to think about ethical dilemmas:
– Professional education (medical and business ethics)
– Civic education
– Future challenges (ethics of human enhancement or AI interaction)
14
Thinking forward
Games for ethical reflection:
Papers, Please This War of Mine