As I mentioned a while back I wrote an article for GamePro magazine about the psychology of shooters and why interacting with game worlds through the barrel of a gun is often so appealing. I got some great input from people doing real research in this area and I like how the article turned out.
Now, for those of you allergic to paper, GamePro.com has published the article online where you can read it if you haven’t already. Begin clicking and let me know what you think.
If you can get your hands on the new issue of GamePro magazine (#267, December 2010 with Diablo 3 on the cover), check out my article on the psychology of horror. The timing with Halloween was better a week or so ago when the issue first came out.
This is another one of those topics that I was unsure of when the editor at GamePro asked me to tackle it. Not only did I not t really know much about the topic, I’m not even a fan of horror movies or games in particular. I’ve never seen a Saw movie or any other “gore pr0n” in my life, nor do I want to. Still, that’s why they call it “research” so I hit the library and found some more informed experts in the fields of psychology, media studies, and communications to help fill in the blanks. I got some great material, and the article turned out to be a lot of fun to write.
This is the issue to look for if you want to read the article.
I turned Bobo the Quote Monkey loose on the article, and he returned with this:
Bobo want banana.
So I gave him a banana, reminded him about the performance standards in his contract, and sent him back. This time he came up with the following:
A second set of explanations for horror’s delight posits that we hate the horror, but like the proverbial man who bangs his head against the wall because it feels so good when he stops, we love the relief that comes at the end.
Excitation transfer theory, credited earlier with enabling spooky soundtracks to do their job, has also been hypothesized to give us a kind of “thank god that’s over” high. “People become physically aroused due to the fear they experience during the media event –and then when the media event ends, that arousal transfers to the experience of relief and intensifies it,” Sparks says. “They don’t so much enjoy the experience of being afraid –rather, they enjoy the intense positive emotion that may directly follow.”
Other explanations for the appeal of horror are cited, plus I also ruminate on what the research tells us about scary video games in particular. I really don’t have any feedback on how well these GamePro pieces are being received, so if you’re reading them, post a comment and tell me what you think.
A few months ago I wrote an article for GamePro magazine about what effects deindividuation and anonymity had on gamers. For those of you who aren’t subscribers or who didn’t pick up the magazine, GamePro recently published the article on their website for your clicking pleasure.
Nifty artwork by Andrew Yang
I turned Bobo the Quote Monkey loose on the article and he came back with this:
A recent comprehensive review of the whole body of deindividuation research appeared in the journal Psychological Bulletin. The review confirms that studies where there’s a strong, external message about how to behave were the most likely to elicit the deindividuation effect-but it didn’t always result in antisocial behavior. For example, in one study researchers repeated the electric shock experiment described previously, but had some anonymous subjects dress up like Ku Klux Klan members and others dress up as nurses. The people in the white Klan robes shocked more, while those dressed as nurses-a profession associated with helping and healing-shocked less. Why? While the people under those uniforms knew they were anonymous, part of a group and likely experienced an “I am not who I normally am” feeling, they still took some of their cues on how to behave from the environment. By understanding the results of this study, it’s not hard to see how expectations were placed on the subjects to behave the way they did when under the influence of deindividuation.
The same logic applies to the gaming world.
At any rate, enjoy.
The new issue of GamePro magazine (October 2010, #265) is out and features my article on the psychology of shooters. ((Shooters, as in the genre of video games. Not, like, people.)) If you buy the magazine on the store shelf, the cover is the one on the left below. If, however, you’re a subscriber and got yours through the mail, you got the variant cover on the right that features some of the artwork by Andrew Yang that accompanies my article inside:
Oooh, alternate covers!
So, for at least one of the variants, I guess I have the cover story. Which is kind of cool.
The whole issue is themed around the idea of shooters, with previews of a gaggle of upcoming games from that genre plus some articles like mine addressing the theme. Here’s a quote:
Researchers Andrew Przybylski and Scott Rigby, who work with game designers, believe people are motivated to play a particular video game based on how well it satisfies three basic psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence deals with a sense of control, mastery, and feeling like you’re making things happen the way you want. A well designed difficulty curve makes us feel an ever-increasing sense of competence, as does appropriate matchmaking in multiplayer games. Games high in autonomy give you the opportunity to make many meaningful decisions about what goals to pursue and how to pursue them. Finally, relatedness is concerned with a feeling that you matter to other players and social interactions with them.
These needs certainly aren’t unique to shooters, but one could argue that many of the qualities inherent to virtual gunplay create well worn paths to satisfying these needs.
This article is actually one of my favorite things that I’ve written on the psychology of games since I started this project, but I didn’t expect it to end up that way at first. In fact, when the folks at GamePro asked me to write something that “explores gamers’ fascination with the genre and why the primary interaction point in the majority of games seems to be through a gun and bullets,” I just blanked out and stared at my computer monitor for a few minutes. I had no idea off the top of my head about how to address that question, and my initial impulse was to turn down the assignment for fear of not being able to deliver on it.
Fortunately I decided instead to push back from the keyboard and ruminate on it a bit first. That gave me time to realize that even if I didn’t know the answer off the top of my head, I did know how to do research and find someone who does –they don’t let you out of graduate school without stuffing that particular skill in your back pocket. So I hit my local university library one evening to browse PsychINFO and was delighted to almost immediately find out about the research program described in the quote above. Those guys are doing some really cool stuff around what motivates us to play video games, and they were even kind enough to talk to me via e-mail for the article.
All that was left to do was to pull together half a dozen or so articles and a couple of books into one narrative for the GamePro piece. Fortunately they also taught us how to do that in school as well. So I guess the lesson is: stay in school, kids. Like, uniil your early thirties. At least.
So if you’re not already a GamePro reader, thumb through a copy the next time you can find one on the store shelf to see if you think it’s worth buying or subscribing to. ((Protip: subscribing is way cheaper.)) I’ve got another article due out in next month’s issue dealing with the psychology of horror games, and I’m currently adapting my article on the psychology of immersion for another feature the month after that.
Speaking of which, if you’re a game developer who has something to say about immersion and what makes games immersive, I’d love to hear from you and maybe quote you in the GamePro article. Drop me a line.
Back in January 2010 when I launched this site, I laid out the things it could lead to on a continuim from low to high. On the low end was “Nobody likes it, everybody dies.” On the very top of the high end was “Book deal, everyone lives” and close behind that was “Someone hires me to write magazine articles about this stuff.” Well, there’s still no book deal but a few months ago GamePro’s John Davison contacted me saying that he liked the site and wanted to know if I was interested in writing for the GamePro print magazine.
After I finished fist pumping, I said that I most definitely was.
Fast forward to today and if you pick up this issue of GamePro you’ll see my article on the psychology of anonymity starting on page 49 and accompanied by some awesome artwork by Andrew Yang. Here’s the cover of the issue:
Just look for the murderous Alice and you'll find it.
Here’s a snip:
Psychologists actually have models of what anonymity tends to do to people because they’ve been studying its effects long before the first person ever rage quit a game of Pong. While little of that early research involved video games, it did employ painful electric shocks, children in Halloween costumes, and college co-eds dressed up as nurses –sometimes two of those things at the same time.
…But is “antisocial” our default mode when we bring up a web browser or multiplayer menu? Is donning a virtual version of Jack’s face paint by adjusting the “brow height” slider on a character creation tool sufficient in and of itself to make us punt all morals out the window? Psychologists say no, it’s not. According to recent research on the topic, there are additional factors at play, which redefine the whole issue.
I had written a bit on deindividuation and anti-social behavior here, but while conducting actual research for the article I found out that I didn’t know the entire story with the current state of research on deindividuation and anonymity. You can read the GamePro article for the whole thing, and if they ever put ito n GamePro.com I’ll certainly link to it there as well.
All in all it was a fun experience writing the article, with the not unsubstantial bonus that they paid me to do it. When the anonymity piece was done my editor Patrick went on to assign me a second article, which has at this point also been written, turned in, and scheduled to appear in next month’s issue. ((Print scheduling lag is weird.)) And as of this moment I’m working on a third piece, so apparently they like what I’m doing well enough so far. If you like the anonymity piece or have something else interesting to say about it, please let GamePro know at feedback@gamepro.com. If you don’t like it, then write your Senator or something. I dunno.
While we’re on the topic, though, I really like changes that GamePro has made to its print magazine in the last several issues. They seem to realize that they can’t compete with websites for timely content or reviews, so they seem to be going for more in-depth stories that require some actual research and reporting. Stuff like the history of GameStop, the impact of Metacritic on the gaming scene, the nature of bug testing in games, the impact of piracy on the games industry, and more.
I’ve been published in “legitimate” outlets both online and in print before, but I’m still happy to be in the pages of GamePro. Blogging dreams do come true! Plus it’s nice that nobody has to die.
Last Thursday I did a talk at 2010 Login Conference in super nifty downtown Seattle. The title of the talk was “The Psychology of Games: Why We Do What We Do When Playing With Friends (And Screw That Other Guy).” I was pretty proud of myself for getting a talk accepted when it included a mild vulgarity in the title and had promised to make the slides and my notes available on the site after the conference. BEHOLD:
Perform clicking motions above to download a .pdf version of the presentation, including my stupid little personal notes.
Anyone who is a regular reader of this site may be a little disappointed, though, because it may appear that most of the talk was based on articles I’ve already posted here. Not true! It’s actually the case that the articles posted here were based on the lecture. I had to submit a detailed outline with my proposal several months ago, and after it was accepted I decided to create blog posts out of the stuff I was pulling together for the talk. In academia, we call this technical process “squeezing blood out of a stone.” Or a turnip. Your choice.
Anyway, I think the talk went fairly well, and I was pleased to see a handful of regular readers/commenters there. ((HI GUYS! THANKS FOR COMING!)) One of them (“Psychochild” I think) even did some impromptu group participation by shouting out “Line B!” in the part of the lecture illustrating the social proof concept. When I get up in front of a crowd I actually don’t see it when I look at it, but I was told later that the room was mostly full and people were taking notes. Because the computer that I was using chewed up some of my notes formatting I got a little lost and missed making a few points, but I think I got the main points and came in just about 30 seconds under the 60 minute time limit. Look, here’s even a picture of me gesturing in a semi-academic way:
"Rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, that the quality of this presentation is such that several of the slides within contain extreme vulgarities."
And so, with that I’m going to shut up about this whole Login talk thing for a while. All the talks were video taped, however, so I’ll break that silence once the conference folks post them online for you to view. Not just for mine, but also because there were several other really good talks with psychological angles on things like addiction, motivation, and mental accounting that I think anyone visiting this site ((Besides those of you who are web search engine spiders)) would be interested in. So I’ll highlight those once they’re available.
Have you ever wanted to hear me go on about the psychology of video games without that annoying Internet between us? You HAVE? Are you going to be in Seattle, Washington, USA on May 14th at 2pm? You ARE? Well, you’re in luck, because I’m teaming up with some of the folks at GameSpy Technology to lecture at the 2010 Login Conference in beautiful ((well, I assume; I’ve only heard nice things)) Seattle Washington.
The lecture is entitled The Psychology of Video Games: Why We Do What We Do With Friends (And Screw That Other Guy). ((It sounds catchier in my head than in yours))
Nifty title, you say, but you need more info? Fine. Here’s an official sounding summary:
What can decades of research by psychologists tell us about how gamers behave differently when playing video games with strangers versus with friends or alone? Under what conditions will grown men and women in multiplayer games do things like cheat, abuse glitches, hurl vulgarities, form allegiances, return favors, play fair, welcome newcomers, and form communities that persist outside of your game?
Hey, this stuff is human nature, and psychologists and behavioral economists have been looking at these kinds of things in other contexts for a long time. They just use their own jargon –stuff like prospect theory, deindividuation, reciprocity, game theory, social identity building, decision-making heuristics, person-organization-fit, distributive justice, and other fancy terms. Sometimes they even draw diagrams.
In this session, a Ph.D. in psychology who also happens to be an avid gamer will bridge the gap between these two worlds by looking at what the science of psychology has to tell us about why gamers do what they do when they’re in groups and how game designers might leverage these kinks in the human mind to design better experiences for everyone involved. Each topic will be accompanied by a review of relevant scientific research from the fields of psychology and behavioral economics, as well as real-world data from actual gamers to back up the claims and test the hypotheses.
That’s STILL not enough information for you? Okay, okay. Here’s an outline of the actual lecture:
- Introduction
- Who we are
- The psychology of video games
- GameSpy Tech
- How the two are working together
- I provide expertise on psychology and research methodology
- They provide expertise on community building and hard data
- What we hope to accomplish in this lecture
- Some education
- Some entertainment
- Some solid ideas for things you can experiment with yourself
- The Glitcher’s Dilemma – To cheat, abuse glitches, or play fair?
- Game theory and the prisoner’s dilemma
- Concept overview
- Examples from video games
- Review of theory and experimental data
- Classical experiments
- Effects of knowing the other person
- Effects of anonymity
- Effects of replaying games with same person
- Things you can do
- Reducing anonymity
- Facilitating “tit for tat” strategies
- Increasing the public nature of play
- How to Build an Antisocial Jerk for Fun and Profit
- Deindividuation – How to make people lie, steal, and cheat (or not)
- Concept overview
- Examples from video games
- Review of theory and experimental data
- Classical experiments
- Effects of anonymity on antisocial behavior
- Effects of being in a group
- Effects of transferred responsibility
- Effects of leaders and role models on group behavior
- Things you can do
- Reducing (or enhancing) anonymity
- Facilitate communication and information sharing among groups
- Provide queues for desired behavior
- Designate group leaders and reward proper behavior
- Fanboys and Witch Hunts
- Social Identity Theory – “Us” vs. “Them”
- Concept overview
- Examples from video games
- Review of theory and experimental data
- Classical experiments
- How groups form
- How groups unform
- Things you can do
- Providing queues to help groups form
- Helping groups NOT form
- Facilitating the sharing of group identities
- Back Scratches All Around – The Power of Reciprocity
- Reciprocity – Returning favors and building social debt
- Concept overview
- Examples from video games
- Review of theory and experimental data
- Classical experiments
- The evolutionary psychology angle
- Things you can do
- Build “favors” into your game
- Allow people to track each other down outside of game
- Facilitate and frame information about favors
- Make it about the individual, not the team
- The People (and Orcs) make the place – How Guilds Form
- The Attraction-Selection-Attrition model of organization development
- Concept overview
- Examples from video games
- Applicability to guilds, clans, fan sites, messageboards, etc.
- Review of theory and experimental data
- Classical experiments and theory
- The importance of leaders
- The importance culture
- Things you can do
- Build tools organizations can use to communicate culture
- Build tools for leaders to use
- Build tools for organizations to evaluate new members
- Q&A to Fill Remaining Time
Act now and I’ll throw in this Speaker Biography:
Jamie Madigan has a Ph.D. in psychology with an emphasis in Industrial-Organizational psychology and works for the federal government as a personnel psychologist. He is a life-long gamer and spent several years in the gaming business at GameSpy Industries where he assisted in the development of many web properties, including FilePlanet.com, arguably the Internet’s largest distributor of game-related files. He currently runs www.psychologyofgames.com, a weblog dedicated to using psychology to understand why game players and developers do what they do.
So, if you’re going to Login by any chance, please come and see me! And bring a friend. Or an enemy. I honestly don’t care which.