COMPETENCE IMPEDANCE AND AGGRESSION 449 Method elated ags ion and eniovme Partici and found that players who bee me inc Upon enteting the laborat play by (40 y.participants were o one of four condition (a)experience and low violence chal .08 violence challenge.Participants assigned to one of the two expe Study5 The aim of Study 5 was to conceptually replicate and further Study 2. the-pricn activitie te how Study 5 ex ded on Study 1where tw o gan e controls was ant across s but those in the n all participants completed a questionnaire particinants then plaved onditions and gave players in one condition the opportunity to oe of the wo versions of the game ued in Study 2.presaged by alvtie findines v.2001.2007.whic d the ion In articular and they w (M =131,SD 048. 72)and 81 30 laver competen eed satisfaction.In line with this idea we evaluated four hypoth ed satisfaction (M=2.77.SD 1.11.a= 89),and player r 72,a=.92)wer First,we hypothe sized that opportunities to build stery-of-controls een variables. A behavioral was used as ar ience would positively influ appe ted that gardin how to spend the atory tim ed satisfaction would serve to nediate link om both e game o ng and motivation finally.we predicted that increased aggre was der Table 4 Correlations Observed Between Variables in Sudy 5 6 Experienc on Check for Content) of-Co &102<1.一p<0Lthe game insofar as they influenced overall player competence satisfaction. Gaming-related aggression and enjoyment. We expected and found that players who became increasingly aggressive as a consequence of engagement would experience less enjoyment of play by regressing the former onto the latter, (140)
.28, p .001, R2
.08. This result indicated that shifts in aggressive feelings were negatively associated with game enjoyment. Study 5 The aim of Study 5 was to conceptually replicate and further evaluate how experimental manipulations meant to thwart players’ competence needs would predict short-term shifts in aggression and enjoyment. Study 5 expanded on Study 1 where two games that were used incidentally differed in the difficulty of controls, and on Studies 3 and 4 where the complexity of the game controls was designed to make the controls in one condition more difficult than in the other. In Study 5, we used a complex interface in both conditions and gave players in one condition the opportunity to develop experience with the game. This manipulation was inspired by meta-analytic findings in the gaming-related aggression literature (Sherry, 2001, 2007), which revealed that players’ length of exposure to and experience with games moderated the extent to which play was associated with indicators of aggression. In particular, results showed that very brief periods of video game play were most strongly associated with aggression. Viewed from the SDT perspective we are apply￾ing, this result suggested to us that insufficient experience with games might be a source of increased aggression because limited experience would thwart mastery-of-controls and competence￾need satisfaction. In line with this idea we evaluated four hypoth￾eses. First, we hypothesized that opportunities to build experience with a game would foster greater mastery-of-controls, leading to lower player aggression and higher game motivation. Second, we predicted that amount of player experience would positively influ￾ence overall competence-need satisfaction insofar as it bolstered mastery-of-controls. Third, we expected that players’ competence￾need satisfaction would serve to mediate links from both levels of player experience and mastery-of-controls to both aggressive feel￾ings and motivation. Finally, we predicted that increased aggres￾sive feelings would be negatively related to players’ game moti￾vation. Method Participants and procedure. One hundred twelve undergrad￾uates (33 males) received extra course credit for participating. Upon entering the laboratory, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (a) experience and low violence chal￾lenge, (b) experience and high violence challenge, (c) no experi￾ence and low violence challenge, or (d) no experience and high violence challenge. Participants assigned to one of the two expe￾rience conditions engaged in a 10-min training period, which was an abbreviated version of the practice that all participants had in Study 2. Participants in the no-experience condition activities spent the 10-min period by playing with the game used in Studies 3 and 4. Therefore, the time and activity of using some types of game controls was constant across groups, but those in the no experience condition had less exposure to the target game. Fol￾lowing the practice period and before the 10-min challenge period, all participants completed a questionnaire. Participants then played one of the two versions of the game used in Study 2, presaged by short films that framed play as either kill-or-be killed combat in the high-violence condition or a friendly game of tag in the low￾violence condition. After this, participants completed a second questionnaire, and the experimenter provided them with a choice of either continuing with another 10-min period of play or brows￾ing the Internet. A technical problem prevented data from three participants being recorded, and they were dropped from the study. Measures. Measures, using 5-point scales, of aggressive feel￾ings were assessed before (M
1.31, SD
0.48,
.72) and after play (M
1.40, SD
0.51,
.81), and measures of mastery-of-controls (M
3.07, SD
1.07,
.83), overall player competence-need satisfaction (M
2.77, SD
1.11,
.89), and player motivation (M
2.48, SD
0.72,
.92) were measured only after engagement. Table 4 presents zero-order correlations between variables. Player motivation. A behavioral assessment was used as an additional method for evaluating game appeal. Following the sec￾ond survey, the experimenter offered participants specific choices regarding how to spend the remaining 10 min of laboratory time: they could persist at playing the game or browse the Internet. The time participants played with the game was considered a measure of game motivation and was derived from the frequently used free-choice measure of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971). To create a parsimonious, overall measure of game appeal, the behavioral Table 4 Correlations Observed Between Variables in Study 5 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Violent Content — 2. Game Experience .01 — 3. Threat (Manipulation Check for Content) .29

.04 — 4. Mastery-of-Controls .05 .27

.02 — 5. Player Competence .02 .38


.01 .63


— 6. Player Motivation .14 .21
.04 .33


.48


— 7.  Aggressive Feelings .03 .20
.02 .16 .30


.23
Note. n
109.
p .05.

p .01.


p .001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. COMPETENCE IMPEDANCE AND AGGRESSION 449