Competitive Video Game Play

Abstract

Sports often go beyond simple games to something that individuals identify and relate to throughout their lives. Furthermore, passive and active sports consumption (i.e., video games) allows individuals to further create a sense of fanship and identification with their favorite teams. The following study manipulates player saliency to team, saliency to opponent, and competitive outcome to examine those impacts on enjoyment and hostility. A 3 (opponent saliency) × 2 (team identification) × 2 (competitive outcome; win vs. loss) experimental design was invoked to study these effects. Results indicate that competitiveness was significantly related to both enjoyment and hostility. Furthermore, data suggest a significant interaction between identification and competitive outcomes on hostility.

Keywords

video game play violence competition game enjoyment hostility sports games identification enjoyment aggression competitive outcome

Sports games are noted as one of the most popular genres of video games (Stein, Mitgutsch, & Consalvo, 2012); yet, research looking into the effects of play are limited. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA; 2011), the sports video game genre represents one of the highest selling categories at 16%, second only to the action genre. Despite this genre’s popularity, there is a dearth of research looking into how sports video games can be used as a vehicle to address affective and learning outcomes from socially constructed identifiers, such as sports teams—and how varying the gaming situation is impacted by the identification with competitors and competition outcomes.

Recently, researchers have come to understand that competition is a core component to gaming (Song, Kim, Tenzek, & Lee, 2013). Here, researchers have made strong arguments to support contentions that the competitive aspect of video games leads to aggression, not the violent content (Adachi & Willoughy, 2011, 2013). On the other hand, research has also demonstrated that competitive video gaming can lead to enjoyment and positive affect (Vorderer, Hartmann, & Klimmt, 2006). That is, there may be differences beyond violent or non-violent content that predicts aggressive cognitions and behaviors as well as more positive outcomes related to enjoyment. In regard to sports competition, identification with character or team may likely exacerbate post–game play outcomes related to enjoyment and state hostility.

To this end, this research explores (a) the role of identification, (b) the role of competitive outcomes, and (c) the effect of sports gaming on affective outcomes such as enjoyment and state hostility—thereby extending the media effects literature by exposing the intricacy of gaming where gamer, opposition, and gaming outcome interact to create unique outcomes beyond what research has investigated in the past.

Identification With Game Content

Cohen (2001) defined identification as a “mechanism through which audience members experience reception and interpretation of the text from the inside, as if the events were happening to them” (p. 245). That is, identification is a motivation for, and an outcome from, media exposure (Cohen, 2001)—thus helping shape a person’s attitudes. As a general concept, identification explains how individuals become cognitively involved with a media representation. This experience involves individuals adopting the goals of their character and connecting with their emotions and motivations (Cohen, 2001). Thus, identification strengthens primarily when information is processed from the media content perspective and is then transformed into empathetic emotions (Cohen, 2001; Howells, 2002; Jansz & Martis, 2007; Zillmann, 1994). Identification, within this context, has been shown to positively impact affinity, attachment, affect orientation, emotional reactions, similarity, and imitation of content (Chory-Assad & Cicchirillo, 2005; Cohen, 2001; Eyal & Rubin, 2003; Jansz & Martis, 2007; Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Zillmann, 1994).

While Cohen (2001) interpreted identification through the television medium, recent game-based research (Van Looy, Courtois, De Vocht, & De Marez, 2012) supports a three-dimensional operational definition of identification consisting of avatar identification, group identification, and game identification. Here, avatar identification is defined as a “temporary alteration in self-perception of the player induced by the mental association with their game character” (p. 206). Group identification is defined through perceived self-attributes based on in-group game membership, and finally, game identification is defined through perceived membership to the community surrounding the game (p. 206). In defining identification within these dimensions, Van Looy et al. allow researchers to expand identification beyond Cohen (2001) and others research investigating how players interact with avatars and agents to a more group-based definition within game play (i.e., group and game identification). That is, the extension to a more social definition extends to how players interact with players and play within a group.

Furthermore, video games allow the player to be involved in the creation of the narrative of that game rather than a passive consumer of that content (Malliet, 2006).Thus, interactive technologies, in particular video games, allow the player to be a collaborator and co-creator of the game content. In regard to sports-themed video games, Crawford and Gosling (2009) have noted that “sports-themed games facilitate the development of gamer narratives, and also often act as a resource in social narratives constructed around both video games and wider sports-related themes” (p. 63). As sports fans, individuals strongly identify with certain teams that impact their interpretation of that narrative (i.e., the game). Investigations in the sports domain have found team identification is the “strongest explanatory factor in predicting repatronage” (Wakefield, 1995, p. 349; Wakefield & Wann, 2006) and has additional positive correlations with a sense of belonging (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002), a general positive outlook on life (Branscombe & Wann, 1991), and a better quality of life (Smith, 1988), as well as purchasing associative products (End, 2001; Wakefield & Wann, 2006).

Research indicates that “one’s school identification is an important part of self-definition” (Reeves & Tesser, 1985, p. 329) of which a school’s sport team is an extension (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1999). Further evidence is seen in a study where students wore more school-related clothing following a home team victory than following a defeat (Cialdini et al., 1976). For the purposes of this study, identification refers to the degree of psychological and emotional connection to a team (Wakefield, 1995; Wakefield & Wann, 2006; Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). This identification is then constructed in the real-world through group and extended into play. In a sense, like Van Looy et al. (2012), this construct is derived through group membership and game play.

In the current situation, defining groups as fans of a college sports team promotes group membership by an already-established and salient college affiliation (Cialdini et al., 1976; Hirt, Zillmann, Erickson, & Kennedy, 1992)—and the competition between teams increases distinction and solidarity. Here, due to saliency differences associated with identification, it is thought that stronger identification increases enjoyment. Because identification has shown to increase enjoyment levels (Klimmt & Vorderer, 2003), the following was hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Player identification predicts enjoyment levels where playing as an identified team is more enjoyable than playing as a non-identified team.

It is also expected that opponent-identification will likely impact levels of enjoyment. Identification in a sports context also relates to the opponent—referred to as a comparison group or out-group. Compared to the player’s home team, opponent would receive a low degree of psychological connection. According to prior research, accessibility and salience of out-group identification varies (Bruner, 1957; Taylor & Moriarty, 1987; Voci, 2006), often depending upon the social meaning of similarities and differences. Socially, certain groupings and distinctions should come to a person’s mind more readily than others, perhaps from historical intergroup contexts such as competition (Worchel, Axsom, Ferris, Samaha, & Schweizer, 1978). When this occurs, the identification effects are enhanced.

Opponents or competitors faced yearly and who readily conjure memories of great victories and defeats for a conference championship should be most salient—hence competing against this opponent should produce greater effects. An opponent played regularly as part of a conference should follow second. Finally, an opponent rarely played with little context (i.e., out of conference schedule opponent) should be least salient and produce the smallest effects. To this end, given the saliency differences based on the opponent, outcomes such as affect should differ based on opponent; therefore, enjoyment levels are hypothesized to be greatest against a main rival, followed by a conference opponent, and finally an “other” opponent.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Opponent identification predicts enjoyment levels where playing against a salient team (e.g., main rival) will garner greatest enjoyment levels, followed by conference team and an “other” team, respectively.

Identification and Competition

A majority of American citizens believe in competition and believe it to be a basic component of society—a necessary factor for achievement in economics, arts, science, and sports (Bonta, 1997). A basic element to competition is the inverse relationship of goal attainment between two entities—as one advances toward achieving a given goal, the other moves further away from it. All sporting events consist of competition, either being interactive (e.g., football) or non-interactive (e.g., figure skating; Deci & Olson, 1989). Interestingly, “competition is said to promote comradery and friendship, and the mastery of general and unique motor skills, attained through disciplined training” and is essential for character formation (Zillmann, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989, p. 244).

Spectatorship in relation to sports helps integrate and cement social circles, be it a community, town, state, region, or country by bolstering self-worth and societal belongingness (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Smith, 1988). Gaming represents active involvement on the part of the player rather than more passive consumption related to television. Moreover, regarding sports, it allows the player to extend from a spectator (e.g., in television) to an active participant. Players become engaged in the content of the game and help to shape the outcome of the event. Although it is a simulation (Malliet, 2006), players may cognitively and emotionally engage in the result of that game. Thus, in competitive gaming contexts, there are winners and losers, and a gamer must take credit for defeat as much as victory—thus a person cannot engage in mental maneuvering to distance the self from a losing team (Cialdini et al., 1976). In this way, a football video game encompasses interactivity, involvement, and identification processes.

Important to note in competition is team relevancy (Vorderer et al., 2006). In football, two teams compete during a contest; however, accessibility and salience of the player and opponent vary (Bruner, 1957; Taylor & Moriarty, 1987; Voci, 2006). Here, certain groupings come to a person’s mind more readily than others, enhancing categorization and identification effects. For instance, prior research regarding competition indicates, “Seeing a liked player struggle with a tough rival not only should be more suspenseful, but should also liberate more enjoyment than the safe play against a weak opponent” (Zillmann et al., 1989, p. 266), meaning enjoyment increases in intensity as saliency of player and opponent increase (Vorderer et al., 2006).

Finally, due to saliency differences with the team played as (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), and against (Bruner, 1957; Taylor & Moriarty, 1987; Voci, 2006), it is predicted state hostility levels will increase as saliency of identification increases. That is, because state hostility levels have shown to increase in competitive situations (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990; Bonta, 1997; Wann et al., 2001), particularly through frustrating situations (i.e., a loss), the following are hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3 (H3):Player identification predicts state hostility levels where playing as an identified team garners greater state hostility levels than playing as a non-identified team.

Hypothesis 4 (H4):Opponent identification predicts state hostility levels where playing against a salient team (e.g., main rival) will garner greatest state hostility levels, followed by a conference team and an “other” team, respectively.

Competitive Outcomes in Gaming Contexts

Studies have evidenced that competitive video games can increase enjoyment (Vorderer et al., 2006). Peng and Crouse (2013) found playing competitively against another person (even if separated physically) resulted in higher levels of enjoyment compared to playing alone. Research has further shown that player performance (in a competitive gaming situation) is positively associated with enjoyment (Trepte & Reinecke, 2009). Thus, research supports contentions that competition and competitive outcomes can result in a positive outcome such as enjoyment.

However, research has shown that excessively violent content in sports video games has also been linked to aggressive affect, attitudes, behaviors, and cognition (Anderson & Carnagey, 2009). Competition is inherently frustrating because of continual resistance toward obtaining a desired goal. Berkowitz (1989, 1990) has shown aggression develops as a response to frustration. Examining competition effects within violent play, Adachi and Willoughby (2011) examined video games that differed on violence but were similar on level of competitiveness (Experiment 1). Results support contentions that competitiveness increases aggressive effects in the short term, not violence (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). Supporting Berkowitz, this may occur because competition increases levels of frustration, in that someone else is intentionally blocking the player’s chances of winning (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013). Thus, there is evidence to support both contentions that competition can lead to enjoyment and hostility.

To better understand competition and potential positive and negative affective responses, the current research will look at competitive outcomes (i.e., winning or losing). Simply put, it could be suggested that winning results in positive affect, while losing results in negative affect. Nummenmaa and Niemi (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on studies that manipulated success or failure either through intelligence tests, exam feedback, cognitive tasks, or miscellaneous manipulations that included sports competition results. The results demonstrated that success and failure impact positive affect and negative affect, respectively (Nummenmaa & Niemi, 2004). Specifically related to video game playing, Katsyri, Hari, Ravaja, and Nummenmaa (2013) examined functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) responses to success and failures within a competitive video game. Results showed that winning and losing in a competitive video game activated cognitions associated with reward and motivational pathways (i.e., striatum; Katsyri et al., 2013), thus supporting the notion that winning and losing within a competitive video game can predict both enjoyment- and hostility-based outcomes. Therefore, two different affective states can be expected based on the outcome of the gaming situation (winning vs. losing).

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Competition outcome predicts enjoyment levels where winning the competition will garner greater enjoyment levels compared with losing.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Competition outcome predicts state hostility where losing the competition will produce greater state hostility compared with winning.

Research supports the notion that opponent type does impact aggression (Eastin, 2006, Eastin & Griffiths, 2006, Eastin & Griffiths, 2009). Furthermore, looking at identification and competitive outcomes, research (Branscombe & Wann,1991) suggests that identification can interact with competition to influence the expression of negative affect or cognitions. Furthermore, research shows that opponent type impacts levels of aggression generated in a competitive gaming situation. For instance, Williams and Clippinger (2002) found evidence that individuals experienced more aggressive affect after playing a computer opponent than after playing unknown individual face-to-face. Williams and Clippinger (2002) noted that “the playing situation and the identity, and perhaps the proximity, of the opponent has an impact on the feelings of aggression and hostility associated with playing the game” (p. 504). Thus, predictions can be made that identification with a salient opponent may interact with the competitive situation to create hostility. However, not enough video gaming research exists on this topic to develop a directional prediction. Therefore, two research questions were posed:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Will team identification interact with competitive outcome to predict negative (hostility) outcomes?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Will opponent saliency (identification) interact with competitive outcome to predict negative (hostility) outcomes?

Method

Participants

Two hundred and ninety-four participants successfully completed the pre-test and post-test (88% response rate). Approximately 43% of the participants were male and the average age was 20.50 years (SD = 3.27). Seventy-nine percent were Caucasian, 12% were African American, 3% were of Asian descent, and 2% were Latino/Hispanic. The remaining participants comprised Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and other ethnicities. A vast majority (91%) earned below US$20,000 annually, while 23% were in their first year of college, 29% were sophomores, and 29% were juniors. Turning to prior gaming experience, a small percentage of the sample had never played a video game, but the vast majority had (97%). Furthermore, 85% of the sample has been playing for more than 5 years. For those who played regularly, 33% played mostly sports-themed games, 33% played action-oriented games, and only 7% played violent games.¹

Pilot Study

To ensure the manipulations met with their respective intent, a brief pilot study was conducted prior to the main experiment. As mentioned, opponent membership consisted of three factors: main rival, conference opponent, and other opponent. For operationalization purposes, main rival is considered the opponent for which participants have high emotional regard, and against which the participants believe winning is imperative. For this, we assessed player involvement with each team. This factor is based on previous literature which indicates that involvement impacts motivation, arousal, and interest in a sports team (see Funk, Ridinger, & Moorman, 2004, p. 40). Thus, opponent involvement was measured to ensure the appropriate levels existed between main rival, conference opponent, and other opponent. It should be such that the main rival creates higher levels of involvement than other opponents. Pairwise comparisons indicate the main rival was significantly greater from conference opponent, t(99) = 4.68, p < .05, main rival was significantly greater from other opponent, t(99) = 4.96, p < .05, and conference opponent was significantly greater from other opponent, t(99) = 3.54, p < .05.

Player membership situation included two factors: identifier and non-identifier. Identifier represented playing as the team most readily identified. Based upon pilot study information of the general demographic, Ohio State was the overwhelming response (M = 5.86, SD = 1.83). Non-identifier represented playing as a lowly identified team (San Diego State) (M = 1.06, SD = 0.21) and thus was the team utilized for the non-identifier group. Identification distinctions allowed for strength of identification (e.g., high and low) to be manipulated. The difference between identifier and non-identifier was significant, t(99) = 26.39, p < .05.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from communication classes at the main campus of a large Midwestern university. Anyone could participate in the study and those who did received extra credit for their participation. Participants completed the trait measures (trait hostility, trait competitiveness) 2 weeks prior to participating in the experiment. All other variables state hostility, enjoyment, perceived arousal, and attention were measured following game play. Upon arrival, participants were directed toward the gaming environment, given verbal instructions in how to use the controls for approximately 5 minutes, and allowed to practice alone for approximately 10 minutes. Participants played a third-person football game, EASports NCAA Football, on the XBOX 360 connected to a Panasonic 42-inch high definition plasma television. During this training time, participants practiced offense (e.g., play calling, running, and passing), defense (e.g., play calling and tackling), and kicking (e.g., field goals). After the practice session, they were given final instructions and then left “alone” to play.

Participants were randomly placed into 1 of the 12 experimental conditions. The conditions differed on opponent type main rival (Michigan), conference rival (Indiana), or other opponent (Northern Illinois), teams identification (identifier vs. non-identifier), and competitive outcome (winning vs. losing). The manipulation of the competitive outcome was invoked via the confederate. In the competitor wins condition, the participant is the ultimate winner of the game whereas in the competitor loses condition, the participant’s opponent is the ultimate winner of the game. Winning or losing was based on the total number of points scored during the game’s time frame (roughly 20 minutes generated from the natural game play of four, 2-minute quarters). The confederate received numerous hours of training on the gaming situation, so that winning or losing was done at will. In no assigned condition was the outcome (winning or losing) different from what was expected.

Participants played the game for approximately 20 minutes (a complete game with four, 2-minute quarters) against an unknown human opponent (i.e., confederate) and perceived console opponent. The confederate was placed in a separate room with the gaming consoles linked via XBOX Live to provide private viewing of content action and maintain the illusion the participant was competing against the console opponent, not a human.

Independent Variables

Identification measures

To glean a general understanding of the participants and study, several other measures were included, such as identification with the teams and general demographics.

Identification was measured through the 7-item Team Identification Scale developed by Wann and Branscombe (1993). The measure includes questions such as “How important to YOU is it that the Ohio State football team wins?” “How strongly do your FRIENDS see YOU as a fan of the Ohio State football team?” and “How often do YOU display the Ohio State football team’s name or insignia at your place of work, where you live, or on your clothing?” Respondents then respond on an 8-point Likert-type scale whether each item is not important (1) to very important (8). Identification for the teams played as and teams played against were assessed (α = .91; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). In this study, identifier (M = 6.25, SD = 1.61) was significantly greater than non-identifier (M = 1.07, SD = 0.22) in terms of identification, t(293) = 54.93, p < .05. Moreover, main rival (M = 1.47, SD = 0.59) was significantly greater than conference opponent (M = 1.21, SD = 0.50), t(293) = 6.28, p < .05; main rival was significantly greater than other opponent, t(293) = 10.09, p < .05; and conference opponent was significantly greater than other opponent (M = 1.12, SD = 0.26), t(293) = 3.33, p < .05.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables assessed related to enjoyment and state hostility. All summed scales have been converted to their respective average sum.

Enjoyment was assessed using an Enjoyment Scale used in sports research (Su-lin, Tuggle, Mitrook, Coussement, & Zillmann, 1997). The seven-item questionnaire used an 11-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 11 = extremely) and included items such as “I enjoyed it,” “It excited me,” and “It bored me” (reverse coded). Prior research has demonstrated the scale to have a high alpha level (M = 7.82, SD = 2.03, α = .95; Su-lin et al., 1997).

State hostility was measured using the Anderson, Deuser, and DeNeve (1995) State Hostility Scale (M = 2.03, SD = 0.52, α = .96). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each mood statement through 35 Likert-type items. The items ranged from a score of 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Example items include “I feel furious” and “I feel angry.” Of the 35-items, 11 needed to be reversed scored (e.g., “I feel friendly”). The State Hostility Scale is composed of feeling unsociable, feeling mean, lack of positive feelings, and aggravation. However, in order to protect degrees of freedom, we are treating this variable as one overall scale.

Control Variables

Competitiveness, trait aggression, perceived arousal, attention allocation, and gender were controlled, when appropriate, as alternative explanations for the dependent variables.

Regarding enjoyment, gender, attention allocation, and perceived arousal were controlled. Prior research has shown that aspects of attention allocation positively associate with enjoyment (Shafer, 2013; Shafer, Carbonara, & Popova, 2011). Furthermore, research has found that perceived arousal positively impacts the gaming experience (Anderson & Dill, 2000), which could lead to greater enjoyment.

Regarding state hostility, gender, attention allocation, perceived arousal, trait hostility, and trait competitiveness were controlled. Perceived arousal, trait hostility (Anderson & Bushman, 2001), and trait competitiveness (Berkowitz, 1989; Bonta, 1997) have shown to positively impact state hostility.

Trait competitiveness was measured from the 25-item Sports Orientation Questionnaire (Gill & Deeter, 1988; Giuliano, Popp, & Knight, 2000; Houston, McIntire, Kinnie, & Terry, 2002). Items ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) (M = 3.83, SD = 0.72, α = .94; Houston et al., 2002).

Trait aggression was measured utilizing the 29-item Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). Trait aggression was assessed via the questionnaire’s four scales: Anger, Hostility, Physical Aggression, and Verbal Aggression. The 29 items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 indicates extremely uncharacteristic of me and 7 indicates extremely characteristic of me (M = 3.10, SD = 0.96, α = .91; Buss & Perry, 1992).

Attention allocation was assessed using the Attention Allocation sub-scale of spatial presence (see Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfield, 2004). The eight items of the Attention Allocation scale were assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I do not agree at all) to 5 (I fully agree) (M = 4.39, SD = 0.72, α = .93). Example items include “I devoted my whole attention to the video game,” “I dedicated myself completely to the video game,” and “My attention was caught by the video game.”

Perceived arousal was garnered from the Perceived Arousal Scale (Anderson et al., 1995). The scale consists of 24 items of self-report arousal (e.g., “active,” “excited”) measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely). Fourteen items were reverse coded (e.g., “exhausted”; M = 3.62, SD = 0.67, α. = 94).

Results

The results demonstrated that H1 nor H2 were not supported by the data—meaning, neither player membership, F(1, 278) = 0.06, p > .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .00, nor opponent membership, F(2, 278) = 0.95, p > .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, were significant predictors of enjoyment.² Also, hypotheses H3 and H4 were not significant predictors of state hostility. Thus, as a main effect, it did not matter if the gamer played as an identified team, F(1, 276) = 1.37, p > .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, and it did not matter who the gamer played against, F(2, 276) = 1.25, p > .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, in terms of state hostility.

However, the competition outcome did significantly predict enjoyment, F(1, 278) = 69.79, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .20, thus supporting H5 and state hostility supporting H6, F(1, 276) = 54.25, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .16. Participants who won the competition (M = 8.45) experienced significantly more enjoyment than after a loss (M = 7.20). Furthermore, two controlled variables, the process factor of attention allocation, F(1, 278) = 87.33, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .24, and perceived arousal, F(1, 278) = 80.90, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .23, were significant predictors of enjoyment. Also, the competition outcome did impact state hostility levels. Those who lost the competition experienced greater hostility levels (M = 2.24) than those who won (M = 1.82).

Finally, RQ1 and RQ2 examined interaction effects between player membership and competition outcome. Here, the interaction between player membership and competition outcome was significant, F(1, 276) = 5.27, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02 (see Figure 1). Playing as identifier and losing created the most state hostility levels (M = 2.33), followed in order by losing as non-identifier (M = 2.15), winning as non-identifier (M = 1.85), and winning as identifier (M = 1.79).

Figure 1.

Interaction—Player membership × Competition outcome on state hostility.

The interaction between opponent membership and competition outcome was also significant, F(2, 276) = 3.00, p = .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02 (see Figure 2). Losing to the main rival produced the highest state hostility levels (M = 2.36), followed in order by losing to other opponent (M = 2.27), losing to conference opponent (M = 2.09), winning against conference opponent (M = 1.85), winning against other opponent (M = 1.82), and winning against main rival (M = 1.80).

Figure 2.

Interaction—Opponent membership × Competition outcome on state hostility.

In addition to the main effect of competition outcome and the interaction effects just described, the controlled variable of trait aggression significantly predicted state hostility, F(1, 276) = 14.12, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05.

Discussion

This study examined the role of identification, opponent saliency, and competitive outcome on hostility and enjoyment as outcomes of playing a sports video game. Research suggests that competition can lead to frustration, which in turn results in aggression and hostility (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011, 2013). However, research suggests competition within a video game context results in positive affect and enjoyment (Vorderer et al., 2006). To that end, this research attempted to understand under what conditions hostility or enjoyment might be elicited in competitive video gaming situations (i.e., sports video games). Identification was examined as a potential mechanism to understanding how individuals process outcomes in the context of competitive sports video games. Speaking to the main effects, data did not support the effect for identification on enjoyment or hostility. This is counter to research suggesting identification is positively associated with enjoyment (Klimmt & Vorderer, 2003). It could be that identification in this type of context does not impact enjoyment or hostility by itself without considering other factors.

As expected, competitiveness was significantly related to both enjoyment and hostility. Here, results showed that losing the game produced greater hostility compared to winning. This result further supports prior research addressing frustration, competition, and hostility (Berkowitz, 1989, 1990). As mentioned, while frustration may be a key component to eliciting hostility among video game players (see Adachi & Willoughby, 2013), player performance (i.e., playing at a high level) can result in positive experiences in gaming situations (Trepte & Reinecke, 2009).

The overall results suggest the competition outcome is a significant component to post–game play responses. This research is consistent with broader psychological effects research on the role of success or failure on the impact of positive and negative affect (Nummenmaa & Niemi, 2004). This has important implications for video game research that proposes violence in the gaming situation causes aggressive responses. These data suggest the outcome of the gaming situation also influences aggression-related outcomes. Thus, game researchers need to consider more than content when estimating effects.

Another significant finding of this research relates to the interaction between identification and competitive outcome on hostility. There was no main effect for identification on either state hostility or enjoyment; however, this null effect may be explained through the interaction between identification and competition. Data demonstrated that losing when playing as an emotionally relevant gaming avatar increases state hostility more than playing as an irrelevant gaming avatar. This finding is consistent with past research indicating increases in identification with aggressive character impacts aggressive-related outcomes (Konijn, Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007).

The interaction of opponent membership and competition outcome was also significant—demonstrating the potential importance of opponent with regard to state hostility. This finding supports similar research that opponent type can greatly impact aggressive outcomes (see Williams & Clippinger, 2002). Moreover, the identification and competitive outcome interaction indicates that losing, especially to a more salient opponent, draws stronger reactions than winning against a salient opponent. Researchers have noted that losing elicits stronger narrative reactions (Baker-Ward, Eaton, & Banks, 2005). Here, individuals may have more interpretations for the way in which they played a game that resulted in a loss. Thus, narrative aspects (i.e., competitors) and ludic aspects such as how the game is played and circumstances of the game (bowl game, national championship, etc.) can have a greater impact than either one alone. Furthermore, it is possible that losing to a more salient opponent draws stronger reactions because of the shared narrative history (i.e., rivalry) between the competitors.

The interaction effect can be explained by looking at research related to social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). “Social identity is defined as that part of the individuals’ self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance of that membership” (Tajfel, 1982, p. 24). Because humans belong to numerous potential identities, self-concept may be heightened or accentuated under certain conditions (Hogg, 2003; Mastro, 2003; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). It has been shown that intergroup behavior, such as competition, enhances in-group solidarity, as well as hostility toward the out-group (Worchel & Austin, 1986). The greatest state hostility was found when losing to the main rival, the most salient out-group. Furthermore, social identity has shown to influence uses and gratifications of media (Harwood, 1999). Being able to play as a favored identity (or team) or having the chance to beat a hated rival could help explain the immense popularity of games, particularly sports video games.

In conclusion, this study provides a glimpse into the affective reactions to competitive situations that are continually built upon, stored, and strengthened over time—and because games afford general learning behavior, reactions experienced during gaming transcend into fan behavior, and general personality traits triggered by competitive events.

This inherent function of competition is a necessary component to gaming effects research due to its influence. In this regard, competition outcomes may be best posited as a situational input within the general aggression model (Anderson et al., 1995; Bushman & Anderson, 2002), or more universally, the general learning model (Buckley & Anderson, 2006). Regarding identification, understanding who the gamer is playing as or against influences affective outcomes. Although initially this was not taken into consideration in gaming research (Anderson, 2004), recent research has started to manipulate the player’s avatar (Eastin, 2006, Eastin, Appiah & Cicchirillo, 2009). Based on the identification literature, greater effects were expected to occur when manipulating a relevant team (as with the case of this study).

Limitations and Future Research

This research might benefit from examining in-game behaviors and emotions during actual game play. For instance, research has shown that affect and uncertainty during a sporting event (as spectatorship) fluctuate during a sporting event (see Knobloch-Westerwick, David, Eastin, Tamborini, & Greenwood, 2009). However, in-game affect was not continuously assessed in this study so that the overall gaming experience was not interrupted.

The current research could be enhanced by understanding how identification and, more specifically, competition outcomes impact violent gaming situations. For instance, NCAA Football is generally not rated as a violent game by the gaming industry (NCAA 07 is rated “E” for Everyone by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB; 2007). However, some individuals may argue that inherently football is an aggressive sport. Understanding whether violent gaming effects are simply a result from competition outcome could substantially progress the gaming field. At the very least, future gaming effects research should control for competition outcome.

Furthermore, by investigating how children identify with gaming characters within competitive environments, it is possible to obtain a better understanding of how gaming impacts children and developmental learning. Just because the game is not labeled as aggressive or violent, the inherent competitiveness, as well as identification with media characters, shows state hostility can arise from seemingly non-violent situations—for example, simply competing against a salient other (e.g., a sibling or best friend) could induce greater hostility than against anyone else. On the other hand, such frustrating experiences through losses in competitive video gaming may foster an opportunity for developmental learning of coping responses to frustration, which could result in better sportsmanship attitudes and greater resilience to real-life frustrations. Another fruitful research direction would be to incorporate many newer games’ capability of creating the players’ own team. Perhaps there is a more pronounced impact when competing with the gamers’ own name, favorite colors, and logos. More generally, with the increased focus on personalization, games including digitized images of the game player could show dramatic increases in gaming effects in the coming years.

Footnotes

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

Robert P. Griffiths (PhD, Ohio State University) is the Senior Director of Digital Scholarship for the Office of Distance Education and eLearning at Ohio State University. Dr. Griffiths has significant knowledge in deploying technology-empowered learning experiences, including spearheading the distance education initiative for the institution andthe ODEE Impact Grant program in an effort to study how using technology can engage students, increase instructor efficiency, and support anytime/anyplace learning. He also oversees Ohio State’s effort for Massively Open Online Courses.

Matthew S. Eastin (PhD, Michigan State University) is an Associate Professor in the Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations at The University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on understanding how audiences interact with media. From this perspective, he investigates message development, information processing, and the social and psychological factors associated with the use and effects of newer technology.

Vincent Cicchirillo (PhD, Ohio State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations. As a media effects researcher, Dr. Cicchirillo looks at the social and psychological outcomes of video game play.

References

Adachi

P. C.

Willoughby

(2011). The effect of video game competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 259-274.

Adachi

Willoughby

(2013). Demolishing the Competition: The longitudinal link between competitive video games, competitive gambling, and aggression. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(7), 1090-1104.

Anderson

C. A.

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

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.

Anderson

C. A.

Carnagey

N. L.

(2009). Causal effects of violent sports video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 731-739. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.019

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.

Baker-Ward

L. E.

Eaton

K. L.

Banks

J. B.

(2005). Young soccer players’ reports of a tournament win or loss: Different emotions, different narratives. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 507-527.

Berkowitz

(1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

10.

Berkowitz

(1990). On the formation of regulation of anger and aggression. American Psychologist, 45, 494-503.

11.

Bonta

B. D.

(1997). Cooperation and competition in peaceful societies. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 299-320.

12.

Branscombe

N. R.

Wann

D. L.

(1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15, 115-127.

13.

Bruner

J. S.

(1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123-151.

14.

Buckley

K. E.

Anderson

C. A.

(2006). A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. In Vorderer

Bryant

(Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 363-378). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

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.

16.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

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

17.

Chory-Assad

R. M.

Cicchirillo

(2005). Empathy and affective orientation as predictors of identification with television characters. Communication Research Reports, 22, 151-156.

18.

Cialdini

R. B.

Borden

R. J.

Thorne

Walker

M. R.

Freeman

Sloan

L. R.

(1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

19.

Cohen

(2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-264.

20.

Crawford

Gosling

V. K.

(2009). More than a game: Sports-Themed video games and player narratives. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1), 50-66.

21.

Deci

E. L.

Olson

B. C.

(1989). Motivation and competition: Their role in sports. In Goldstein

J. H.

(Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (pp. 83-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Dietz-Uhler

Murrell

(1999). Examining fan reactions to game outcomes: A longitudinal study of social identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 15-27.

23.

Eastin

M. S.

Appiah

Cicchirillo

(2009). Identification and the Influence of Cultural Stereotyping on Post Video Game Play Hostility. Human Communication Research, 3, 337 – 356.

24.

Eastin

M. S.

(2006). Video game violence and the female game player: Self and Opponent gender effects on game presence and aggressive thoughts. Human Communication Research, 32, 351–372.

25.

Eastin

M. S.

Griffiths

R. P.

(2006). Beyond the shooter game: Examining presence and hostile outcomes among male game players. Communication Research, 33(6), 448–466.

26.

Eastin

M. S.

Griffiths

R. P.

(2009). Unreal. Hostile Expectations and Social Game Play. New Media & Society, 509 – 531.

27.

End

C. M.

(2001). An examination of NFL fans’ computer mediated BIRGing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 162-181.

28.

Entertainment Software Rating Board. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp

29.

Entertainment Software Association (2011).Essential facts about the computer and video game industry.Retrieved from http://www.isfe.eu/sites/isfe.eu/files/attachments/esa_ef_2011.pdf

30.

Eyal

Rubin

A. M.

(2003). Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and parasocial relationships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 77-98.

31.

Funk

D. C.

Ridinger

L. L.

Moorman

A. M.

(2004). Exploring origins of involvement: Understanding the relationship between consumer motives and involvement with professional sport teams. Leisure Sciences, 26, 35-61.

32.

Gibson

Willming

Holdnak

(2002). “We’re Gators . . . Not just Gator fans”: Serious leisure and University of Florida football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 397-425.

33.

Gill

D. L.

Deeter

T. E.

(1988). Development of the Sport Orientation Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 191-202.

34.

Giuliano

T. A.

Popp

K. E.

Knight

J. L.

(2000). Footballs versus barbies: Childhood play activities as predictors of sport participation by women. Sex Roles, 42, 159-181.

35.

Harwood

(1999). Age identification, social identity gratifications, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 123-136.

36.

Hirt

E. R.

Zillmann

Erickson

G. A.

Kennedy

(1992). Costs and benefits of allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus defeat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 724-738.

37.

Hogg

M. A.

(2003). Social identity. In Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462-479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

38.

Houston

J. M.

McIntire

S. A.

Kinnie

Terry

(2002). A factorial analysis of scales measuring competitiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 284-298.

39.

Howells

S. A.

(2002). Watching a game, playing a movie: When media collide. In King

Krzywinska

(Eds.), Screenplay: Cinema/videogames/interfaces (pp. 110-121). New York, NY: Wallflower Press.

40.

Jansz

Martis

R. G.

(2007). The Lara phenomenon: Powerful female characters in video games. Sex Roles, 56, 141-148.

41.

Katsyri

Hari

Ravaja

Nummenmaa

(2013). Just watching the game ain’t enough: Striatal fMRI reward responses to successes and failures in a video game during active and vicarious playing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1-12.

42.

Klimmt

Vorderer

(2003). Media psychology “is not yet there”: Introducing theories on media entertainment to the presence debate. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 346-359.

43.

Knobloch-Westerwick

David

Eastin

M. S.

Tamborini

Greenwood

(2009). Sports spectators’ suspense: Affect and uncertainty in sports entertainment. Journal of Communication, 59, 750-767.

44.

Konijn

E. A.

Bijvank

M. N.

Bushman

B. J.

(2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1038-1044.

45.

Konijn

E. A.

Hoorn

J. F.

(2005). Some like it bad: Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psychology, 7, 107-144.

46.

Malliet

(2006). An exploration of adolescents’ perceptions of videogame realism. Learning, Media and Technology, 31, 377-394.

47.

Mastro

D. E.

(2003). A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television messages. Communication Monographs, 70, 98-113.

48.

Nintendo. (2007). Wii.Nintendo.com—In-depth regional Wii coverage. Retrieved from http://wii.nintendo.com/mii_channel.jsp

49.

Nummenmaa

Niemi

(2004). Inducing affective states with success-failure manipulations: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 4, 207-214.

50.

Reeves

R. A.

Tesser

(1985). Self-evaluation maintenance in sports team rivalries. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 329-331.

51.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106.

52.

Shafer

D. M.

(2013). An integrative model of predictors of enjoyment in console versus mobile video games. PsychNology Journal, 11, 137-157.

53.

Shafer

D. M.

Carbonara

C. P.

Popova

(2011). Spatial presence and perceived reality as predictors of motion-based video game enjoyment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20, 591-619.

54.

Sherif

(1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

55.

Smith

G. J.

(1988). The noble sports fan. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 12, 54-65.

56.

Song

Kim

Tenzek

K. E.

Lee

K. M.

(2013). The effects of competition and competitiveness upon intrinsic motivation in exergames. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1702-1708.

57.

Stein

Mitgutsch

Consalvo

(2013). Who are sports gamers? A large scale study of sports video game players. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 19(3), 345-363.

58.

Su-lin

Tuggle

C. A.

Mitrook

M. A.

Coussement

S. H.

Zillmann

(1997). The thrill of a close game: Who enjoys it and who doesn’t? Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 21, 53-64.

59.

Tajfel

(1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.

61.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

62.

Taylor

D. A.

Moriarty

B. F.

(1987). Ingroup bias as a function of competition and race. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 192-199.

63.

Trepte

Reinecke

(2011). The pleasures of success: Game-Related efficacy experiences as a mediator between player performance and game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(9), 555-557.

64.

Van Looy

Courtois

De Vocht

De Marez

(2012). Player identification in online games: Validation of a scale for measuring identification in MMOGs. Media Psychology, 15, 197-221.

65.

Voci

(2006). Relevance of social categories, depersonalization and group processes: Two field tests of self-categorization theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 73-90.

66.

Vorderer

Hartmann

Klimmt

(2006). Explaining the enjoyment of playing video games: The role of competition. In Marinelli

(Ed.), ICEC Conference Proceedings 2003: Essays on the Future of Interactive Entertainment (pp. 107-120). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Press.

67.

Vorderer

Klimmt

Ritterfield

(2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388-408.

68.

Wakefield

K. L.

(1995). The pervasive effects of social influence on sporting even attendance. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 335-351.

69.

Wakefield

K. L.

Wann

D. L.

(2006). An examination of dysfunctional sport fans: Method of classification and relationships with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 168-186.

70.

Wann

D. L.

Branscombe

N. R.

(1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

71.

Wann

D. L.

Melnick

M. J.

Russell

G. W.

Pease

D. G.

(2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York, NY: Routledge.

72.

Williams

R. B.

Clippinger

C. A.

(2002). Aggression, competition, and computer games: Computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 495-506.

73.

Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(1986). Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

74.

Worchel

Axsom

Ferris

Samaha

Schweizer

(1978). Determinants of the effect of intergroup cooperation on intergroup attraction. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 429-439.

75.

Zillmann

(1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics, 23, 33-51.