正在加载图片...
PRZYBYLSKI.DECI.RIGBY.AND RYAN characte grammed by the expe nenter verbally supp ported less mastery of the game interface also reported in- he original version nd a ve reated).which wereused for he The 41 did no cant interaction.B(97)=04.p=65 anmsofleelOfvioicentcoaite Study 3 alle nt age an petenc-impedinginrfa Results eport I check oent conten and not ga ations of the gaming experience To les whe nanipula on of co Method Particinants and One hundred fou ,B(100) 27,P ates (30 males) ed th tenin To test if indvertently manipulated player Par ere randomly assigned t play. participants completed a lexica mastery- Plaver competence. us the et in ce feec gre g the lab,participants were rand ned to play (sce ure 2A) violent =+1).B(99)=-09.p =32.Results from this Measures.After play.participants Table 1 of-controls (M-3.01,SD-1.30.93).Table 2 presents Correlations Observed Between Variables in Study 2 eil reAgolo-go lex 2 3 Check) objective of this task was to evaluate how quickly participants -31 ant ment was crafted to teach participants how to use the game-control interface to interact with the gaming environment. A friendly character programmed by the experimenter verbally supported participants, providing them with instructions, encouragement, and suggestions when they faltered. The other two environments (i.e., the original version and a version we created), which were used for the primary game play, were structurally identical but varied with respect to how the participant removed a competitor from play. In the low-violence condition, competitors (i.e., the computer) used a nonlethal “marker” to tag participants, and participants used a psychic-ball power that teleported competitors away. The power lifted and evaporated competitors to remove them. In the original high-violence condition, both the competitors (computer) and the participants used firearms to maim and dispatch the opponents, leaving them spewing blood and lying dead in the game world. Thus, the two game variants were motivationally fixed but varied in terms of level of violent content. Measures. Participant age and gender were assessed before the challenge period, aggressive feelings were measured before (M 2.88, SD 0.86, .97) and after the challenge period (M 2.53, SD 0.82, .93), and mastery-of-controls (M 5.33, SD 1.32, .87), was assessed after the challenge period. Table 1 presents zero-order correlations between observed variables. Results Manipulation check. To ensure that redesign influenced violent content and not game structure, we conducted two manipulation checks. To test whether the manipulation of content was successful, we assessed perceived threat using the single item: “I felt vulnerable during play.” We regressed these scores onto game type (low violence 1, high violence 1), (100) .27, p .01, R2 .08. This result showed the violent game was more threatening. To test if the design inadvertently manipulated player competence, we regressed mastery-of-controls scores onto game type, (100) .08, p .44. The results showed that the violent content manipulation was successful (i.e., higher player threat) without influencing game structure (i.e., invariance in mastery-ofcontrols). Player competence. We hypothesized that participants’ poor mastery-of-controls, and thus their felt incompetence, would lead them to experience increased levels of aggression. To test this, we regressed residualized change scores in aggressive feelings simultaneously onto mastery-of-controls, (99) .22, p .03, and the target game type (nonviolent 1, violent 1), (99) .09, p .32. Results from this analysis conceptually replicated those derived from Study 1. Using a more rigorous method, we found that those who reported less mastery of the game interface also reported increased levels of aggressive feelings. Player competence and target game differences. The experimental design allowed us to evaluate two additional relations: an overall effect for violent game content, in line with theory advanced by Anderson et al., 2004, and a potential interaction between player competence and content. Results derived by regressing change in aggressive affect onto game type, (99) .08, p .41 did not support a main effect for violent content. We evaluated a hierarchical moderation model to test if competence frustration and violent content interacted, and we found no significant interaction, (97) .04, p .65. Study 3 The central aim of Study 3 was to examine how competenceimpeding gaming influences aggressive thoughts. The design used in Study 3 experimentally manipulated the control interface of a nonviolent puzzle game, making it either simple and intuitive or complex and highly challenging. Of interest was the effect that this competence-impeding interface might have on players’ accessibility of aggressive thoughts and their evaluation of the game. We hypothesized that players randomly assigned to use the complex interface would report lower levels of mastery-of-controls, have faster access to aggressive thoughts, and hold less positive evaluations of the gaming experience. Method Participants and procedure. One hundred four undergraduates (30 males), mean age 19.92 years (SD 1.23), participated in exchange for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to 10 min of game play using either a simple or a complex control interface. Following game play, participants completed a lexical decision task assessing the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and a thought-listing task measuring the positivity of evaluations of the game. Target game complexity. We used a variant of Tetris, a popular puzzle game, in Studies 3 and 4 because it provides straightforward challenges and unambiguous performance feedback that communicates an immediate sense of ability. Upon entering the lab, participants were randomly assigned to play by using either a simple button layout (see Figure 2A) or a complex layout requiring more effort to master (see Figure 2B). Measures. After play, participants completed the lexical decision task to measures aggressive thoughts, a thought listing task to measure game attitude, and a self-report assessment of masteryof-controls (M 3.01, SD 1.30, .93). Table 2 presents zero-order correlations observed between study variables. Lexical decision task: Aggressive thoughts. A go/no-go lexical decision task was used to evaluate how readily accessible aggressive thoughts were following game engagement. The objective of this task was to evaluate how quickly participants could identify words linked to aggression relative to neutral words. In full, participants completed 110 trials, the first 10 of which were practice trials. Each trial began with participants focusing on a fixation point of “” for 200 ms, which was Table 1 Correlations Observed Between Variables in Study 2 Variable 1 2 3 1. Violent Content — 2. Threat (Content Manipulation Check) .27 — 3. Mastery-of-Controls .08 .22 — 4. Aggressive Feelings .08 .48 .31 Note. n 101. 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. 446 PRZYBYLSKI, DECI, RIGBY, AND RYAN