Our virtual selves, our virtual morals – Mass Effect players’ personality and in game (Eva Murzyn and Evelien Valgaeren)

Our virtual selves, our virtual morals:

Mass Effect players’ personality and in game choices.

Dr Eva Murzyn @EvaMurzyn

Evelien Valgaeren

• Many studies look at relationship between video game play and violence (Ferguson, 2015)

• Cognitive enhancement and training is also gaining popularity

• How do people engage with games?

• Games that give the players a choice

2

Background

• Built in in a lot of game genres

• Important factor for immersion

• Mass Effect trilogy – Saving the world – fixed goal

– Two alignment axes - flexible means

3

Choice in games

How do players engage with moral choices in games?

• 1007 Mass Effect players recruited through social media and game forums – 697 women (69.2%), 190 men (18.9%), 107 identified as non-binary

(10.6%) – Mean age 22.84 years (SD 5.01, range 18-64).

• Questionnaires used:

– 44-item Big Five Inventory or the BFI (John and Srivastava, 1999) – Mass Effect play survey – 2 basic trolley scenarios

4

Method

• Significant association between player and character gender (χ2(1, N = 878) = 274.103, p <.001).

5

Results 1: Gender

Women Men

Playing a male character 52 114

Playing a female character 639 73

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Character gender and player gender

• No significant association between gender and playstyle (χ 2(2, N = 887) = 1.75, p = .416)

6

Results 2: Player gender and alignment

Women Men

Renegade 68 22

Mixed 99 21

Paragon 524 144

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Character alignment and player gender

• Significant association between the character gender and playstyle (χ 2(2, N = 878) = 15.81, p < .001)

7

Result 3: Character gender and alignment

Female character Male character

Renegade 59 31

Mixed 100 20

Paragon 553 115

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Character gender and playstyle

• Significant association between character gender and playstyle for women (χ 2(2, N = 691) = 24.57, p < .001)

• No association for male players (χ 2(2, N = 187) = 1.95, p = .378)

8

Break-down by gender

Female character

Male character

Renegade 53 15

Mixed 90 9

Paragon 496 28

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Female players

Female character

Male character

Renegade 5 16

Mixed 10 11

Paragon 57 87

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Male players

9

The Big 5 Personality

Extraversion

Outgoing, enthusiastic,

active

Shy, solitary, independent

Neuroticism

Tense, moody, anxious

Secure, resilient

Conscientiousness

Disciplined, efficient, organized

Relaxed, spontaneous,

easygoing

Agreeableness

Cooperative, kind,

affectionate

Uncooperative, antagonistic,

suspicious

Openness

Curious, creative,

adventurous

Practical, rational, skeptical

10

Group differences in Agreeableness

Paragon Mixed Renegade

• Paragon/Renegade – p<0.001 – Hedge’s g = 0.62 – CI 0.24 - 0.57

• Mixed/Renegade – p=0.004 – Cohen’s d = 0.4 – CI 0.07-0.47

• Paragon/Mixed – p=n.s. – CI 0.01 - 0.28

• No association between playstyle and action (χ 2(2, N = 878) = .070, p = .965)

11

Trolley task 1

Paragon Mixed Renegade

No 77 13 14

Yes 689 122 92

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trolley scenario 1: pushing the lever

• Significant association between playstyle and decision (χ 2(2, N = 878) = 19.94, p < .001).

12

Trolley task 2

Paragon Mixed Renegade

No 537 81 49

Yes 229 54 57

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Trolley scenario 2: pushing a bystander

• Participant's in game alignment was related to their trolley task decisions and personality – Games present scenarios for moral reasoning

• Complex and emotionally engaging • Challenging to use in an experimental paradigm

• Limitations: – Only looked at one facet of ethical decisions Look at

principles next – Narrow game focus Investigate more diverse games

13

Conclusions

• Create games that encourage players to think about ethical dilemmas:

– Professional education (medical and business ethics)

– Civic education

– Future challenges (ethics of human enhancement or AI interaction)

14

Thinking forward

Games for ethical reflection:

Papers, Please This War of Mine

Thank you

Any questions?