Being Bad in a Video Game Can Make Us Morally Sensitive

Abstract

Several researchers have demonstrated that the virtual behaviors committed in a video game can elicit feelings of guilt. Researchers have proposed that such guilt could have prosocial consequences. However, this proposition has not been supported with empirical evidence. The current study examined this issue in a 2 · 2 (video game play vs. real world recollection · guilt vs. control) experiment. Participants were first randomly assigned to either play a video game or complete a memory recall task. Next, participants were randomly assigned to either a guilt-inducing condition (game play as a terrorist/recall of acts that induce guilt) or a control condition (game play as a UN soldier/recall of acts that do not induce guilt). Results of the study indicate several important findings. First, the current results replicate previous research indicating that immoral virtual behaviors are capable of eliciting guilt. Second, and more importantly, the guilt elicited by game play led to intuition-specific increases in the salience of violated moral foundations. These findings indicate that committing ''immoral'' virtual behaviors in a video game can lead to increased moral sensitivity of the player. The potential prosocial benefits of these findings are discussed.

Fun Versus Meaningful Video Game Experiences: A Qualitative Analysis of User Responses

“…They might, for example, encourage viewers to engage in the kind of effortful sociomoral reasoning that Bartsch and Oliver (2011) suggest is related to meaningful entertainment experiences. For example, research has shown that video game decisions can result in guilt reactions in players (Grizzard et al 2014). More specifically, players felt more guilt when committing acts of violence in a video game when the violence was unjustified than when it was not ).…”

The effects of moral disengagement and avatar identification on player experience of guilt

“…The model also suggests, however, that the salience of moral foundations can be altered by media exposure. In line with this suggestion, the most recent research concerning video games and MFT found that violating the care/harm and fairness/cheating domains (via unjustified video game violence) increased the salience of these domains, and this effect was mediated by guilt (Grizzard et al, 2014).…”

“…Obtaining a measure outside of the lab context was preferable because previous research has suggested that the salience of moral foundations may temporarily change after in-game moral violations (Grizzard et al, 2014).…”

“…In the current study, the subscales had the following internal consistencies (as measured by α): care/harm = .57, fairness/cheating = .61, loyalty/betrayal = .64, authority/subversion = .61, and sanctity/degradation = .72. Although these values are low, it is unfortunately common for measures of moral foundations to have reliabilities in this range (see, for example: Graham et al, 2011;Grizzard et al, 2014;Tamborini et al, 2013). Descriptive statistics for this measure (and all other measures of interest) are provided in Appendix C.…”

“…Thus far, research in this area can be roughly divided into two categories. One line of research has examined video games and morality through the lens of moral foundations theory Grizzard, Tamborini, Lewis, Wang, & Prabhu, 2014;Joeckel, Bowman, & Dogruel, 2012Weaver & Lewis, 2012), while another line of research has examined video games and morality through the lens of moral disengagement theory (Bowman, Schultheiss, & Schumann, 2012;Gabbiadini, Andrighetto, & Volpato, 2012;Gabbiadini, Riva, Andrighetto, Volpato, & Bushman, 2014;Gollwitzer & Melzer, 2012;Hartmann, Toz, & Brandon, 2010;Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010;Klimmt, Schmid, Nosper, Hartmann, & Vorderer, 2006;Lin, 2011;Shafer, 2012). A separate domain of research has recently developed to examine the effects of avatar 1 identification in video games (Bluemke, Friedrich, & Zumbach, 2010;Fischer et al, 2009;Fischer, Kastenmüller, & Greitemeyer, 2010;Klimmt, Dorothée, & Peter, 2009;Klimmt, Hefner, Vorderer, Roth, & Blake, 2010;Konijn, Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007;Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008;Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004).…”