Ingroup Versus Outgroup Conflict in the Context of Violent Video Game Play

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated a positive influence of cooperative video game play on participants’ cooperative strategies (tit-for-tat behaviors) in a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). The current study tested whether these positive effects are applicable to ingroup and outgroup conflict. Eighty participants were assigned to play a violent video game cooperatively or competitively with a confederate posing as an outgroup or ingroup member. The main findings corroborate previous research on the beneficial effects of cooperative game play and suggest playing cooperatively can increase helping behavior. Furthermore, cooperation with an outgroup member can actually reduce aggression. Implications of findings for future research are discussed.

Keywords

violent video games cooperation intergroup relations aggression

An enduring debate exists over the potential effects of violent video game exposure on aggression. Some scholars advance the belief that a link exists between violent game play and aggressive affect, cognitions, and behaviors (Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman & Anderson, 2002). Some research suggests violent media can prime aggressive thoughts or activate aggression-related schemas stored in memory emphasizing the important role cognitions may play in violent video game effects (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009). This priming effect may influence appraisals and decision-making processes, which in turn can lead to antisocial behaviors (Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier, 2009).

On the other side of the debate, criticisms of the above research suggest a number of methodological flaws contributing to an over-estimation of the effect of playing violent video games on subsequent aggression (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010). Indeed, a growing number of meta-analyses do not corroborate the link between increased aggression and violent video games (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Sherry, 2007) and some studies even suggest a decrease in aggression due to exposure to such games (Colwell & Kato, 2003; Durkin & Barber, 2002; Kutner & Olson, 2008, Valadez & Ferguson, 2012). Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of research on both sides, the debate continues to spur research into violent video game effects.

The video game industry has experienced substantial growth despite the continuing controversy over their possible negative effects. The success of the video game industry, particularly in the early 1980s, may have been largely due to the social context in which video games were played. The gaming environment in the early 1980s revolved around public video game arcades. In 1982 these public arcades brought in approximately 8 billion dollars compared to home video games that earned 1.7 billion dollars (Dominick, 1984). Furthermore, only 6% of girls and 21% of boys reported going to arcades alone (Dominick, 1984). The social context of public arcades was, therefore, the focus of early video game research. For instance, research explored the effects of violent video games on observers (Cooper & Mackie, 1986). Results indicated that female players and observers experienced increased activity and aggression due to violent video game exposure. This study was one of the first to explore the social context in which video games are played and suggests the social context may prove to be an “important factor in determining [video games’] effects” (Dominick, p. 145).

The social emphasis of video games waned in the 1990s due to the progression of home console technology (Lawry et al., 1995). Research began to focus on the individual and how violent video games affected her or him in isolation. However, a recent trend in the video game market has shifted the focus of players and researchers back to the social context of video game play. The advent of internet and online features of video games has increased the popularity of multiplayer video games in recent years. Some have argued that the popularity and frequency of these multiplayer games warrant a new look into the social context of video games (e.g., Kutner & Olson, 2008; Williams, 2006). The current study focuses on the social context of video game play. To advance beyond prior research in this context, this experiment examines the influence of cooperative versus competitive violent game play on subsequent intergroup processes.

Cooperation and Competition of Video Games

Research suggests that video game players not only prefer to play multiplayer games but also to work cooperatively with other players during game play (Lenhart et al., 2008; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Rhodes, & Eno, 2008). This is congruent with an online survey that suggests players prefer to use a community-oriented style of game play (Whang & Chang, 2004). Community-oriented players were driven to succeed in the game by forming and participating in social networks. Another example of players’ preference for cooperative game play can be seen in an observational study by Lawry et al. (1995). Researchers observed young adolescent boys playing a video game in a museum. Typically, the boys did not know the other boys playing, but cooperative play quickly emerged in the boys’ interactions without any intervention or pressure from others. Recent research has provided more insights into the social context of video games. For instance, survey research suggests the majority of people prefer to play violent video games with multiple players, specifically working together against a common opponent (Durkin & Barber, 2002; Kerr, 2006; Kutner & Olson, 2008; Southwell & Doyle, 2004). Furthermore, research suggests that players who play more violent genres that allow cooperative play are more likely to exhibit helping behaviors during online and offline game play compared to those who play less violent genres such as racing and role-playing games (Ferguson & Garza, 2011; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2008). This research suggests that cooperative play is an important component of playing violent video games. But what are the effects of cooperative behavior while playing violent games?

One of the first studies exploring the effects of cooperative and competitive game play provides an example of the methodological issues experienced in this field. Chambers and Ascione (1987) conducted a study where children ranging from 8 to 15 years of age played either a prosocial game (Smurfs), an aggressive game (Boxing), or no video game. In the prosocial game, participants cooperated by controlling different aspects of the character’s movement. One participant controlled the forward progression of the character while the other controlled the jumping and ducking ability. In the aggressive game, participants controlled their own character and competed against each other. After the game, the participants had an opportunity to donate some or all of the money earned during the study to a charity. Results showed that participants in the competitive condition donated significantly less to the charity compared to the control condition. Participants in the cooperative condition did not show any increase in donation. A major limitation to this study was the unusual and unrealistic style of play in the cooperative condition. The conceptualization of cooperative play in this study may have frustrated players and should have mirrored the competitive condition more closely by letting players control separate characters. Therefore, more research is needed to properly recreate the social context in which video games are played.

An early study by Anderson and Morrow (1995) suggests that whether people play cooperatively or competitively influences aggressive outcomes. Participants played the Nintendo game Super Mario Brothers cooperatively or competitively with another player for thirty minutes. The results showed that players in the competitive condition killed more video game characters than players in the cooperative condition. Interestingly, the increased aggression toward video game characters did not advance their status in the game and was not associated with ratings of friendliness, hostility, or liking for one’s game partner. However, the study did not include a control condition to determine if aggressive outcomes of competitive game play were significantly greater than playing alone. Nevertheless, the increased aggression due to competitive game play may result in less cooperation with another person after game play (Sheese & Graziano, 2005). Therefore, research suggests the social aspects of violent video games can have deleterious effects on gamers when competitively played by increasing within-game aggression (Anderson & Morrow, 1995), and decreasing prosocial behaviors (Chambers & Ascione, 1987, Sheese & Graziano, 2005).

On the other hand, prior research suggests that playing a violent video game cooperatively results in less aggression than playing alone. One study found that playing violent video games in groups, compared to solitary play, reduced feelings of hostility. This was especially true for players in the cooperative game play condition (Eastin, 2007). Similarly, research has shown cooperative game play decreases aggressive cognitions (Schmierbach, 2010). Indeed, a longitudinal study exploring massively multiplayer role-playing users did not find an increase in participants’ level of aggression cognitions or self-reported aggressive behaviors after one month of playing even though participants averaged over 50 hours of play time (Williams & Skoric, 2005). Though the authors suggests the lack of aggressive effects of game play may be due to the unrealistic fantasy violence within the video game, it is important to note that in order to succeed in this game, players must actively cooperate with each other to overcome the fantasy creatures (Williams & Skoric, 2005). However, as research on both sides of the debate suffers from methodological issues, this longitudinal study was no exception (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007).

Social game play may also play a crucial role in determining the effects of violent video game exposure on prosocial behaviors. One recent study explored the effects of cooperative and competitive play on prosocial behaviors, revealing positive effects of cooperative game play on helping behavior. Using a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task completed after playing the video games, participants in the cooperative condition were more likely to use strategies that increased cooperative behavior (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). Taken together these findings suggest that cooperative play may moderate any possible effects that playing violent games could have on subsequent aggression. That is, cooperative game play may mitigate possible aggression due to violent video game exposure (Eastin, 2007) while competition may increase aggression (Anderson & Morrow, 1995). More importantly, Ewoldsen et al. (2012) provides evidence that cooperation in violent video games increases cooperative strategies in subsequent tasks beyond the game environment. This extant research leads to the present study’s first hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Persons playing cooperatively will be more likely to exhibit cooperative behavior in a subsequent task than those playing competitively.

Research on Intergroup Conflict and Video Games

Intergroup relations have been studied for decades and have predominantly focused on resolving prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behavior. Early work in social psychology focused on intra-individual and interpersonal factors that led to discrimination. Yet, it was not until the Sherif (1966) pioneered the realistic group conflict theory (RCT) that the functional relations between social groups were studied.

RCT’s central hypothesis is that intergroup conflict arises from the conflict of group interests (Campbell, 1965, p. 287). Group interests are conceptualized as the resources that each group needs and conflict tends to occur when both groups need the same resources. These conflicting interests will develop into competition that eventually results in overt social conflict. However, an interesting corollary to competition between groups is the increase in intra-group cohesiveness, morale, and cooperation (see Fiedler, 1967; Kalin & Marlowe, 1968; Vinacke, 1964). Therefore, conflicts of group interests not only lead to intergroup competition but also result in heightened identification and positive attachment to ingroup members (Tajfel & Turner, 2001).

A consistent finding in the intergroup literature is that individuals randomly assigned to two groups will exhibit ingroup favoritism and discrimination toward the outgroup (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel, Bilig, Bundy & Flament, 1971). Yet, contrary to RCT, there was no shared interest in resources among these groups, nor did any hostility preexist between the two groups. Regardless, the mere perception of group membership was sufficient to cause intergroup competitive or discriminatory responses towards an outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Social identity theory (SIT) was developed to explain these intergroup processes. SIT is based on several assumptions; one of which is membership to a social group with negative or positive connotations can affect one’s self-esteem. Another assumption is the evaluation of one’s group is determined by comparisons with other groups on important characteristics and value-laden attributes. Therefore, people strive for positive social identities through favorable comparisons between the ingroup and outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). This urge to achieve superiority over an outgroup can be used to explain how two arbitrary groups will naturally exhibit discrimination and competitive responses toward each other.

Viewing intergroup research through the lens of SIT sheds light on the natural processes that occur in intergroup conflict. What is learned through applying SIT to intergroup conflict research is that the simple categorization into groups creates an urge to promote positive identity salience through ingroup superiority over any relevant outgroup. Therefore, ingroup members will cooperate in order to achieve this goal. This leads to the present study’s second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Persons playing with an ingroup member will be more likely to exhibit helping behavior in a subsequent task than those playing with an outgroup member.

A major goal of the present study is to explore the interaction between the first two hypotheses. There is a gap in the literature when it comes to the exploration of competitive and cooperative game play effects in an intergroup context. The present study will address this gap by having participants cooperatively or competitively interact with an ingroup or outgroup member and then measure cooperation on a subsequent task. Therefore, the main research question of the present study is as follows:

Research question 1 (RQ1): Will there be an interaction between game play orientation (cooperative vs. competitive) and group status (ingroup vs. outgroup) on a subsequent cooperation task?

Aggression and Arousal

Some research has found that violent video game content increases aggressive affect and behaviors (Carnagey & Anderson, 2005) although other research has contradicted these findings (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011; Ferguson et al., 2008; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010). Furthermore, competitively oriented participants play more aggressively than cooperatively oriented participants (Anderson & Morrow, 1995). In addition, Eastin (2007) argued that larger groups were more aggressive because they were more competitive. Taken together, these findings led to the following hypotheses regarding the role of competitive game play:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Persons playing cooperatively will be less likely to exhibit aggressive affect than those playing competitively.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Persons playing cooperatively will be less likely to exhibit aggressive behavioral tendencies than those playing competitively.

It was mentioned above that individuals strive for positive social identities through favorable comparisons between the ingroup and the outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Once someone categorizes another person as an outgroup member, s/he will then begin to naturally exhibit discrimination and competitive responses toward that outgroup member, including anger and aggression (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Previous research has established that arbitrary group assignment is sufficient to lead to intergroup conflict between members of different groups (Tajfel, 1970). However, people belong to groups voluntarily (i.e., sports team fan, political party affiliation) and/or involuntarily (i.e., race, gender) that lead to categorization of others as ingroup or outgroup members in everyday interactions. For instance, research has shown that manipulating the college affiliation of a persuasive message’s source leads to ingroup/outgroup biased processing of the message, thus demonstrating that preexisting group affiliations can effectively incite intergroup processes (MacKie, Gastardo-Conaco, & Skelly, 1992). The current study will utilize prior group membership of participants to manipulate intergroup conflict. This leads to the present study’s fourth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): Persons playing an ingroup member will be less likely to exhibit aggressive affect than those playing with an outgroup member.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): Persons playing an ingroup member will be less likely to exhibit aggressive behavioral tendencies than those playing with an outgroup member.

Prior research has shown that violent video game play is positively associated with physiological arousal (Anderson, 2004; Bartlett, Harris, & Baldassaro, 2007). However, methodological flaws in this research may account for the purported relationship between violent video games and arousal. For instance, previous research has not consistently matched nonviolent and violent video game stimuli on crucial aspects related to arousal: difficulty, competitiveness, and pace of action (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). When controlling for such discrepancies in video game stimuli the relationship between violent video game exposure, aggression, and arousal is more tenuous (Przybylski et al., 2010). However, whether playing violent video games with outgroup members can increase arousal is unknown and therefore, the current study asks the following research question:

Research question 2 (RQ2): What are the effects of game play orientation (cooperative vs. competitive) and group status (ingroup vs. outgroup) on self-reported arousal?

Method

Participants

33 female and 47 male communication students from a large Mid-Western University participated in this experiment for course extra credit.

Design and Procedure

This study employed a 2 (game play orientation: cooperative vs. competitive) × 2 (group status: ingroup vs. outgroup) between-participants experimental design. For each experimental session a confederate waited outside of the laboratory with one other participant. Participants and confederates entered the laboratory and were asked to sit in front of a television with several seats to choose from. They both signed an informed consent form and completed a pretest questionnaire consisting of questions about previous video game play habits and the Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). Following the completion of the questionnaire the experimenter briefly explained the video game controls of the first-person-shooter Unreal Tournament III for a Microsoft Xbox 360 home video game console and then allowed participants to practice the game for 5 minutes and then watch the confederate practice for 5 minutes.

After the practice session was completed, the experimenter informed participants they would play Unreal Tournament III for 15 minutes using the Team Deathmatch mode of the game. In this mode, the purpose is to kill the other team members more times than they kill you. Participants in the cooperative condition were informed that the confederate was on their team and thus they should play cooperatively with him. Those in the competitive condition were told that they should compete against the confederate. Participants and confederates were given their avatar’s name and physical description in each other’s presence to allow participants to identify the confederate during game play. Next, participants were shown to their individual rooms, each of which had a Microsoft Xbox 360 (with game controller and attached headset) and a mounted television screen. Participants were informed they could talk to the other student (confederate) via a headset during the game. Participants then played the video game with the confederate for 15 minutes and the experimenter recorded visual and audio data from the television screen and within the room.

After the game was completed and while still seated in their separate cubicles, participants interacted with the confederate in a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task previously shown to be a good measure of cooperation after violent video game play (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). The Prisoner’s Dilemma task was modified from the version used by Van Lange and Kuhlman (1994) by shortening the number of trials from 25 to 10 and using dimes instead of a token worth 25 Dutch cents. The participants were given 4 dimes at the beginning of each round and were informed they could keep all the dimes or give away any number of dimes to the confederate. Participants were informed the donated dimes would double in value for the confederate. Participants indicated to the experimenter how many dimes they wanted to donate by pointing to a sheet containing all the available options. The results of each round were revealed to the participant after both the participant and confederate had made their choice. The participant then received the money given to them by the confederate at the end of each round.

For the first round, out of 10 rounds, the confederate always gave 2 dimes to the participant. On subsequent rounds the confederate followed a tit-for-tat strategy by giving the participant the number of dimes donated by the participant on the previous round (Axelrod & Dion, 1988; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981; Sheldon, 1999). The participant was allowed to keep the monies from the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task.

Following the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task, participants completed paper and pencil questionnaires assessing self-reported affect, self-reported arousal, and aggressive behavioral tendencies.

Group Status Manipulation

Throughout the entire study the confederate was wearing a predetermined ingroup university or outgroup university t-shirt in order to manipulate the group status of the confederate in relation to the participant. After the completion of the first questionnaire where participants and confederates were in each other’s presence, the experimenter and confederate used a verbal script to bring the participants’ attention to the confederates’ t-shirt. When the confederate was wearing an outgroup shirt the experimenter said to the confederate, “interesting shirt.” The confederate replied, “my family went to [rival university] so you know.” When the confederate was wearing an ingroup shirt the experimenter said to the confederate, “I like your shirt” at which time the confederate said “Yeah, go [participants’ university]!.”

During the 15-minute video game play, confederates asked the participants for help at two predetermined instances. Five minutes into the game the confederate asked the participant if he/she could help him find a better weapon. In the competitive condition, the confederate communicated this request by stating, “you keep killing me and I need a better weapon to even have a chance at killing you.” In the cooperative condition the confederate stated, “I keep dying and need a better weapon to have a better chance.” Ten minutes into the game the confederates asked the participants for help a second time. In the competitive condition the confederate said, “you keep killing me and I need health packs.” In the cooperative condition the confederate said, “I keep dying and I need health packs.” In an effort to make the confederates’ request for help more believable confederates purposely played the game worse than participants in the practice and main experimental game session.

Stimulus Material

The video game used in the study was Unreal Tournament III, a highly realistic and graphically violent video game. In this game, players control a realistically-rendered human character that exchanges gunfire with enemy human characters. In an effort to ensure that all participants were exposed to similar game content, the Team Deathmatch mode of this game was used. In this mode the game was programmed for exactly 15 minutes of game play with 6 computer-controlled enemy characters of equal ability. If either the participant’s character or the enemy characters were “killed,” they would simply reappear in the game at a new location. This ensured that at any given time all participants in this condition were playing a game with an equal number of enemies.

Measures

Aggressive affect

A total of 13 items were used as a measure of self-reported affect after game play. These items were taken from the State Hostility Scale (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). Participants were shown 13 affective statements (e.g., “I feel mad.”) and rated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A principle components factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed 3 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which accounted for 70% of the variance, similar to previous research utilizing the State Hostility Scale (Anderson & Carnagey, 2004). Averaged scales were created for the factors. None of the items loaded less than 58% on their primary factor or more than 40% on their secondary factor. The first factor was labeled as irritation (α = .86) and included the following items: I feel irritated, furious, frustrated, aggravated, and I feel like swearing. The second factor was labeled as agreeableness (α = .86) and included the following items: I feel agreeable, friendly, good-natured, and amiable. The third factor was labeled as meanness (α = .83) and included the following items: I feel mean, cruel, disagreeable, and bitter.

Aggressive behavioral tendencies

Participants were asked to read 4 vignettes that depicted hypothetical situations where others have done something to provoke the participants. The vignettes were adapted from a study by Tremblay and Belchevski (2004). For example, one vignette read “You are walking across a busy intersection, and it is clear that you have the right of way. Someone in a car, who is trying to turn right, almost hits you. The driver brakes in the middle of the street and yells out at you, “You stupid idiot.” The driver then pulls over in a parking spot a few meters away.”

After each of the 4 vignettes the participants were asked 5 questions about how they would be likely to respond to these situations. These items were designed to measure two separate forms of behavioral aggression: verbal expression of aggression and physical expression of aggression. The questions were designed in a funnel format with each subsequent item measuring a more intensely aggressive response. The questions assessed the participants’ likelihood to (1) express anger, (2) be rude, (3) yell, (4) threaten, and (5) use physical force. All aggressive-tendency items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very likely). The responses to each of the 5 items were averaged across all 4 vignettes (express anger α = .76, be rude α = .86, yell α = .82, threaten α = .77, and use physical force α = .73)

Arousal

A total of 10 items were used as a measure of self-reported arousal after game play. These items were taken from the Perceived Arousal Scale (Anderson et al., 1995) and were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A principle components factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed 2 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which accounted for 68% of the variance. Averaged scales were created for the factors. None of the items loaded less than 60% on their primary factor or more than 40% on their secondary factor. The first factor was labeled as fatigue (α = .90) and included the following items: I feel exhausted, sluggish, fatigued, drowsy, and tired. The second factor was labeled as arousal (α = .84) and included the following items: I feel aroused, energetic, alert, excited, and lively.

Control variables

Gender (male, female), trait aggression (Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire), and prior experience with the video game (have you ever played this game before, yes or no) were used as control variables in all analyses. The Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) includes 28 items that measure four areas of trait aggression: physical aggression (e.g., “Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.”), verbal aggression (e.g., “I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.”), anger (e.g., “Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.”), and hostility (e.g., “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.”).¹ All 28 items were on a 7-point scale (1 = “extremely uncharacteristic of me,” 7 = “extremely characteristic of me”). These 28 items were averaged into a single scale (α = .87).

Results

Manipulation Check

As a manipulation check, participants responded to an open-ended question asking them to indicate which university was on the confederate’s t-shirt. The majority of students answered correctly (n = 63, 78.8%). It is also important to note that none of the participants had mistaken the university of the ingroup t-shirt for the outgroup university and vice-versa. Additionally, regardless of the confederate’s group status, participants did not differ in terms of answering the open-ended question correctly (F < 1). Though the majority of participants correctly remembered the confederate’s t-shirt, the high margin of error associated with open-ended responses may have underestimated the effectiveness of the group status manipulation.

Given there are clear winners and losers in the competitive game play condition compared to cooperative game play, it is possible the game play conditions differ in perceptions of success and failure. In order to determine if the results are driven by differences in perceptions of success and failure, analyses were conducted comparing conditions on self-ratings of game play proficiency, effort spent playing, and ratings of game difficulty and frustration. ANOVAs indicate the game play conditions did not differ on these variables and therefore, they will not be discussed further (all F-test scores were < 1).

Helping Behavior

The first two hypotheses and RQ1 deal with the effect of game play orientation and group status on helping behavior, as measured by a modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task. The data from this task were analyzed in two ways. In the first analysis, the number of dimes given to the confederate on each of the 10 trials were analyzed in a 2 (game play orientation: cooperative vs. competitive) X 2 (group status: ingroup vs. outgroup) × 10 (task trial: rounds 1 to 10) repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for gender, trait aggression, and prior experience with the video game. Game play orientation and group status were between-participant variables. Initial analysis showed that none of the covariates were significant. The data were therefore reanalyzed as 2 × 2 × 10 repeated measures ANOVA.

Results showed a main effect of trial, F(9, 684) = 3.80, p < .001, η_p² = .05. As can be seen in Figure 1, participants generally gave more dimes in the later trials. H1 predicted that the cooperative game play orientation would lead to more cooperative behavior in the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task. Participants in the cooperative play condition gave significantly more dimes to the confederate in the first and third trials than did participants in the competitive play condition providing partial support for the first hypothesis. The two-way interaction between trial and game play orientation was also significant, F(9, 684) = 2.14, p < .05, η_p² = .03. Participants in the cooperative play condition did not change the number of dimes they were giving to the confederate across the trials. However, participants in the competitive play condition significantly increased the number of dimes they were giving to the confederate across trials. None of the other main effects or interactions was significant and therefore, did not lend support for the second hypothesis and the first research question regarding the role of playing with ingroup versus outgroup member (all F-test scores were < 1).

Figure 1.

Effect of game play orientation (cooperative vs. competitive) on helping behavior.

In the second analysis, the degree to which participants engaged in tit-for-tat behaviors was analyzed. Tit-for-tat was calculated as the absolute value of the difference between coins given on the current trial and the coins received from the partner on the prior trial. Lower scores indicate that participants are engaging in more tit-for-tat behaviors. The first trial is not included in the analysis because there is no previous trial to compare with the number of dimes given in the current trial. The degree of tit-for-tat behaviors was analyzed in a 2 (game play orientation) × 2 (group status) × 9 (task trial: rounds 2 to 10) repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for gender, trait aggression, prior experience with the video game, and the total number of dimes given. Total dimes given served as a covariate in this analysis because it serves as an upper limit on the use of the tit-for-tat strategy. Game play orientation and group status were between-participant variables. Initial analysis revealed that the only significant covariate was total dimes given. Data were reanalyzed as 2 × 2 × 9 repeated measures ANCOVA controlling only for total dimes given.

Results indicated that the total number of dimes given was a significant covariate, F(1,74) = 5.95, p < .05, η_p² = .07. In addition, the main effect of trial was significant, F(8, 592) = 2.33, p < .05, η_p² = .03. The linear effect of trial was also significant for the level of tit-for-tat, F(1,74) = 5.64, p < .05, η_p² = .07. As can be seen in Figure 2, the use of tit-for-tat behaviors clearly increased (as indicated by lower scores) across the trials. While tit-for-tat behaviors are cooperative, the use of tit-for-tat strategies is the best strategy for increasing long-term cooperative behavior (Axelrod & Dion, 1988; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). However, tit-for-tat behaviors did not differ between game play conditions and therefore, did not support the first hypothesis.

Figure 2.

Increase in tit-for-tat behaviors across the trials (as indicated by lower scores).

Aggression and Arousal

Hypothesis 3a and 4a predicted that game play orientation and group status would cause changes in aggressive affect. These hypotheses were analyzed with a 2 (game play orientation) X 2 (group status) ANCOVA, controlling for gender, trait aggression, and prior experience with the video game. While the manipulations had no significant effect on aggressive affect, there were effects on arousal, thereby answering RQ2 but not supporting hypotheses 3a and 4a. Specifically, participants in the cooperative condition reported significantly more arousal (M = 4.57, SD = 1.10) than did those in competitive condition (M = 3.96, SD = 1.35), F(1, 73) = 4.78, p < .05, η_p² = .06. Further, cooperative participants reported marginally less fatigue (M = 2.61, SD = 1.39) than did competitive participants (M = 3.15, SD = 1.43), F(1, 73) = 2.91, p = .09, η_p² = .03.

H3b and H4b predicted that game play orientation and group status would cause changes in aggressive behavioral tendencies. These hypotheses were also analyzed with a 2 × 2 ANCOVA, controlling for gender, trait aggression, and prior experience with the video game. Although most of the aggressive behavioral tendencies items failed to achieve significance, there was a significant interaction effect for the potential use of physical force in reaction to the scenarios, F(1, 73) = 7.67, p < .01, η_p² = .10 (see Figure 3). Post-hoc analyses (Tukey and Scheffe procedures) revealed that playing cooperatively with an outgroup member decreased the potential use of physical force (M = 1.55, SD = 0.82) as compared with playing cooperatively with an ingroup member, therefore providing support for H4b but not H3b, (M = 2.28, SD = 1.15).² Results for the competitive ingroup (M = 1.79, SD =0.84) and outgroup (M = 2.18, SD = 1.16) were not significantly different from each other or those in the cooperative groups. These results suggest that the act of cooperating with an outgroup member can reduce aggression.

Figure 3.

Effect of group status and game play condition on likelihood to use physical force

Discussion

As in previous research, the current study demonstrates the possible benefits of cooperative game play. However, previous findings have only shown an increase in cooperative strategies (tit-for-tat behaviors) after cooperative game play (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). Tit-for-tat behaviors are not cooperative behaviors but are precursors to cooperative behavior (Komorita, Parks, & Hulbert, 1992; Oskamp, 1971; Sheldon, 1999). Therefore, the current results go beyond previous findings by demonstrating an increase in cooperative behaviors after cooperative game play. The current results also expand previous research demonstrating the attenuating effects of cooperative game play on aggression (Eastin, 2007; Schmierbach, 2010). Cooperative game play in an intergroup context decreased the potential use of physical aggression as evidence by outgroup members in the cooperative condition being less likely to use physical aggression in a hypothetical situation. However, this measure of physical aggression may better serve as an examination of aggressive cognitions as hypothetical situations call upon cognitive decision processes. This corroborates previous research demonstrating the diminishing effect of cooperative game play on aggressive cognitions caused by violent video game play (Schmierbach, 2010).

The current study found some interesting results in regards to tit-for-tat strategies and the number of dimes that participants gave away in the Prisoner’s Dilemma task. Contrary to previous research, participants in both the cooperative and competitive play conditions showed an overall tendency to use these cooperative strategies. The current set of findings is intriguing considering previous research that has demonstrated the interactive effect of playing aggressive games competitively on subsequent aggressive behavior (Eastin, 2007; Sheese & Graziano, 2005). Furthermore, participants in both conditions were more likely to use these cooperative strategies as the Prisoner’s Dilemma task progressed. What about the Prisoner’s Dilemma task contributed to these unique findings? What is unique about this study is the confederate’s use of tit-for-tat strategies. On each trial, the confederate gave the same number of dimes to the participant that the participant had given on the previous trial. The tit-for-tat strategy utilized by confederates has repeatedly been shown to effectively elicit reciprocal tit-for-tat behaviors from a partner and increase cooperative behaviors (Komorita, Parks, & Hulbert, 1992; Oskamp, 1971; Sheldon, 1999). However, it is interesting that the use of a cooperative strategy overcame the combined effects of competitive play and exposure to violent video games.

Higher levels of cooperative behaviors were exhibited by participants in the cooperative condition compared to participants in the competitive conditions in only the first and third trials of the Prisoner’s Dilemma task. The increase in helping behaviors exhibited by participants in the competitive play condition on trial two of the Prisoner’s Dilemma task may be explained by the confederates’ tit-for-tat strategy. On the first trial the confederates were instructed to only give the middle amount of dimes (e.g., two). However, participants in the competitive condition gave on average 1.75 dimes on trial one. The number of dimes chosen by the confederate was revealed at the end of the first trial and therefore, competitive condition participants were aware of the confederates’ comparatively larger first donation. This may have affected participants’ donations for trial two due to the perception of a cooperative confederate. On trial two, confederates reciprocated the participants’ smaller donation on trial one and therefore, may have decreased participants’ donations for round three by portraying a now noncooperative or punishing confederate. However, after trial three we see an interesting development with competitive participants. The number of dimes given by cooperative participants after trial three remained relatively constant while the number of dimes given by competitive participants steadily increased. In short, competitive participants began to parallel cooperative participants’ donations. The current study suggests the tit-for-tat strategy used by the confederates may have taken full effect after three trials. The tit-for-tat strategy effectively elicits helping behaviors by punishing participants giving low donations and rewarding participants giving high donations (Axelrod & Dion, 1988; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). This demonstrates that circumstances such as these stimulate cooperative behavior in players even after competitive game play in a violent video game, suggesting the effects of violent video game exposure and competitive game play are short-lived and easily modified by tit-for-tat strategies. It is also worth noting that the current study’s group status manipulation did not affect cooperative behaviors suggesting social game play superseded any previous group affiliations’ effect on such behaviors. It is possible that cooperative game play served as a stronger manipulation of the confederate’s ingroup status. Future research should address the formation of in and outgroups through social game play.

Previous research has already shown cooperative game play decreases aggressive cognition, interest in future violent play, and state hostility (Eastin, 2007; Schmierbach, 2010). However, the current study furthered these findings by examining the potential use of various kinds of aggression in hypothetical situations (Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). We found that playing cooperatively with an outgroup member decreased the potential use of physical aggression. Past research on intergroup conflict may help explain these results. Previous research advocates the use of superordinate goals to ease relations between groups (Sherif, 1966). It is possible that relying upon an outgroup member for success in the game provided a superordinate goal with the result that hostility toward the outgroup members was decreased. However, why did cooperative game play significantly interact with group status but competitive game play did not? Again, we believe this finding further speaks to the strength of cooperative game play effects. The current results suggest that the use of video game play as a superordinate goal for outgroup can be a readily accessible and cost-effective way to ease relations. Future research should explore when playing a video game cooperatively operates as a superordinate goal.

In addition the current study demonstrated interesting results regarding arousal levels and cooperation. Prior violent video game research suggests there may be a positive association between arousal and aggression after playing violent video games (Anderson et al., 2010), though controversies surround this literature (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011; Przybylski et al., 2010). However, unique to the current study, results suggest that cooperative game play in a violent context increases both arousal and helping behaviors. This effect occurs without increases in aggressive behavioral tendencies. Perhaps the mechanism by which arousal, purportedly, increases aggressive tendencies can increase people’s tendencies to engage in helping behaviors as a result of playing cooperatively. Further evidence of the link between arousal and helping behaviors is provided by the correlation between arousal and the number of dimes given in the first round, r (78) = .31, p < .05. These results suggest that there is something stimulating about cooperating with others while playing a video game compared to competing with others. Further research should explore this interaction between arousal and helping behaviors.

There are certain limitations to the current study that future research should consider. The use of the tit-for-tat strategy by the confederate appears to have had an effect on the participants’ donations. Future research needs to explore the effects of the confederate using other types of strategies in the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task. This research could be used to understand the length and magnitude of competition effects on subsequent behaviors. The dissipation of competition effects so soon in the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task in the current study speaks to the tit-for-tat strategy’s utility in attenuating both the effects of playing competitively and playing an aggressive game. Another limitation is the lack of stimuli diversity. The current study kept violence constant by using one violent video game. There could be something about the video game that was used in the current study that influenced the level of cooperative behaviors exhibited by the participants. However, it should be noted that a previous study utilizing similar methods but a different game found similar, though not identical, results (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). Nevertheless, future research should utilize multiple video games to better explore these effects with violent and nonviolent content. Additionally, the aggression measures in the current study examined self-reported hypothetical behavior and not actual aggressive behaviors. Future research should further explore aggressive behaviors resulting from competitive and cooperative violent video game play using measures of real behaviors.

The current study has demonstrated the beneficial effects of cooperative game play on players. Interestingly, the patterns of giving by competitive participants exhibited in the modified Prisoner’s Dilemma task suggest the negative effects of competitive and violent game play may be easily and quickly modified depending on the behavior of other people the player is interacting with after game play. Furthermore, the current study suggests the style of play in violent video games may be of greater importance than previously acknowledged. Indeed, players prefer and report cooperative play more than any other style of play in video games (Roskos-Ewoldsen, Rhodes, & Eno, 2008). The results of the current study, as well as other studies looking at cooperative play (Anderson & Morrow, 1995; Chambers & Ascione, 1987; Eastin, 2007; Ewoldsen et al., 2012 Lawry et al., 1995; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Rhodes, & Eno, 2008; Schmierbach, 2010; Sheese & Graziano, 2005), clearly indicate that the social context in which violent video games are played requires further investigation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special Thanks to Ellen Eichner, Ryan Martin, Jason McCartan, Marie McGinnis, Jon Revell, Alison Wagner, and Luca Zanello for all your hard work in conducting this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

John A. Velez is a doctoral student in the School of Communication at the Ohio State University.

Chad Mahood is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

David R. Ewoldsen is a professor in the School of Communication and Department of Psychology at the Ohio State University.

Emily Moyer-Gusé is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at the Ohio State University.

References

Adachi

P. C.

Willoughby

(2011). The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more than just the violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 55-62.

Anderson

C. A.

(2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122.

Anderson

C. A.

Carnagey

N. L.

(2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In Miller

(Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 168-192). New York, NY: Guilford.

Anderson

C. A.

Deuser

W. E.

DeNeve

(1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434-448.

Anderson

C. A.

Dill

K. E.

(2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790

Anderson

C. A.

Gentile

D. A.

Buckley

K. E.

(2007). Violent video game effects on children and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson

C. A.

Ihori

Bushman

B. J.

Rothstein

H. R.

Shibuya

Swing

E. L.

. . . Saleem

(2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.

Anderson

C. A.

Morrow

(1995). Competitive aggression without interaction: Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1020-1030.

Axelrod

Dion

(1988). The further evolution of cooperation. Science, 242, 1385-1390.

10.

Axelrod

Hamilton

W. D.

(1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390-1396.

11.

Bartlett

C. P.

Harris

R. J.

Baldassaro

(2007). Longer you play, the more hostile you feel: Examination of first person shooter video games and aggression during video game play. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 486-497.

12.

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686

13.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

14.

Campbell

D. T.

(1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Levine

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283-311). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

15.

Carnagey

N. L.

Anderson

C. A.

(2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882-889.

16.

Chambers

J. H.

Ascione

F. R.

(1987). The effects of prosocial and aggressive videogames on children’s donating and helping. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148, 499-505.

17.

Colwell

Kato

(2003). Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-158.

18.

Cooper

Mackie

(1986). Video games and aggression in children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 726-744.

19.

Dominick

J. R.

(1984). Videogames, television violence, and aggression in teenagers. Journal of Communication, 34(2), 136-147.

20.

Durkin

Barber

(2002). Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive adolescent development. Applied Development Psychology, 23, 373-392.

21.

Eastin

M. S.

(2007). The influence of competitive and cooperative play on state hostility. Human Communication Research, 33, 450-466.

22.

Ewoldsen

D. R.

Eno

C. A.

Okdie

B. M.

Velez

J. A.

Guadagno

R. E.

DeCoster

(2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 277-280

23.

Ferguson

C. J.

Garza

(2011). Call of (civic) duty: Action games and civic behavior in a large sample of youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 770-775.

24.

Ferguson

C. J.

Kilburn

(2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 759-763.

25.

Ferguson

C. J.

Kilburn

(2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and over interpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations—Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 174-178.

26.

Ferguson

C. J.

Rueda

S. M.

Cruz

A. M.

Ferguson

D. E.

Fritz

Smith

S. M.

(2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311-332

27.

Fiedler

F. E.

(1967). The effect of inter-group competition on group member adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 20, 33-44.

28.

Greitemeyer

Osswald

(2009). Prosocial video games reduce aggressive cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 896-900.

29.

Kalin

Marlowe

(1968). The effects of intergroup competition, personal drinking habits and frustration in intra-group cooperation. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (APA), 3, 405-406.

30.

Kerr

(2006). The business and culture of digital games: Gameworks/gameplay. London, UK: SAGE.

31.

Komorita

S. S.

Parks

C. D.

Hulbert

L. G.

(1992). Reciprocity and the induction of cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 607-617.

32.

Kutner

Olsen

C. K.

(2008). Grand theft childhood. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

33.

Lawry

Upitis

Klawe

Anderson

Inkpen

Ndunda . . . Sedighian

(1995). Exploring common conceptions about boys and electronic games. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14, 439-459.

34.

Lenhart

Kahne

Middaugh

MacGill

Evans

Mitak

(2008). Teens, video games and civics: Teens gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp

35.

MacKie

D. M.

Gastardo-Conaco

Skelly

J. J.

(1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145-151.

36.

Oskamp

(1971). Effects of programmed strategies on cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and other mixed-motive games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15, 225-259.

37.

Przybylski

A. K.

Rigby

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154-166.

38.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

Rhodes

Eno

C. A.

(2008, May). Helping behavior in the context of video game play. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

39.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

Carpentier

F. D.

(2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 74-93). New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Schmierbach

(2010). “Killing Spree”: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research, 37, 256-274.

41.

Sheese

B. E.

Graziano

W. G.

(2005). Deciding to defect: The effects of video-game violence on cooperative behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 354-357

42.

Sheldon

K. M.

(1999). Learning the lessons of tit-for-tat: Even competitors can get the message. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 1245-1253.

43.

Sherif

W. G.

(1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

44.

Sherry

J. L.

(2007). Violent video games and aggression: Why can’t we find links? In Preiss

Gayle

Burrell

Allen

Bryant

(Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 231-248). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

45.

Southwell

B. G.

Doyle

K. O.

(2004). The good, the bad, or the ugly? A multilevel perspective on electronic game effects. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 391-401.

46.

Tajfel

(1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

47.

Tajfel

Bilig

M. G.

Bundy

R. P.

Flament

(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.

48.

Tajfel

Turner

(2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Hogg

M. A.

Abrams

(Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94-109). Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.

49.

Tremblay

P. F.

Belchevski

(2004). Did the instigator intend to provoke? A key moderator in the relation between trait aggression and aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 409-424.

50.

Valadez

J. J.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2012). Just a game after all: Violent video game exposure and time spent playing effects on hostile feelings, depression, and visuospatial cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 608-616.

51.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kuhlman

D. M.

(1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 126-141.

52.

Vinacke

W. E.

(1964). Intra-group power differences, strategy, and decisions in inter-triad competition. Sociometry, 27, 25-40.

53.

Whang

L. S.

Chang

(2004). Lifestyles of virtual world residents: Living in the on-line game “Lineage.” CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 592-600.

54.

Williams

(2006). Why game studies now? Gamers don’t bowl alone. Games and Culture, 1, 13-16.

55.

Williams

Skoric

(2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an online game. Communication Monographs, 72, 217-233.