Peer reviewed articles

Hey! Listen! Just Because It’s Violent Doesn’t Mean It’s Immoral

Fuaad M. Sofia and Marina A. Klimenko University of Florida

If analyzing and reflecting upon morally ambiguous situations allows for a potential, significant improvement in moral competence, then activities such as video games, which allow opportunities for such instances to occur, may have a similar, positive effect. The present study found some evidence to that. College students enrolled in an online class, who agreed to participate, were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group. Those in the experimental group were exposed to a clip of a moral dilemma from a popular video game, whereas those in the control group received no such exposure. In both the control and the experimental group, moral competence was measured using the moral competence test both before and after the exposure to the moral dilemma. Results showed that participants who indicated playing video games more frequently had a significantly greater increase in moral competence than those who indicated playing fewer or no video games.

Public Policy Relevance Statement This study is the first to provide evidence that video games containing moral dilemmas can improve moral competence. If confirmed by follow-up studies, these results may help in reducing the negative perception of violent video games held by the public; in addition, this will give video game developers greater creative freedom and ways to integrate moral lessons into entertainment.

Keywords: video games, moral competence, moral reasoning, MCT

The video game industry reported a $66bn revenue in 2013, with a predicted $78bn in 2017 (Nayak, 2013). This rise in popularity led to a dramatic increase in research on the effects video games have on the player, which so far has produced mixed findings (Breuer, Vogelgesang, Quandt, & Festl, 2015; Ferguson, 2015; Furuya-Kanamori & Doi, 2016, P. M. Markey, C. N. Markey, & French, 2015; Scharrer, 2004; 2005; Scharrer & Leone, 2006; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004, and Zheng & Zhang, 2016).

Video games, once pixelated adventures dressed in grayscale and voiced with simple blips and beeps, have evolved into the worlds of intense emotions, immersive storytelling, and dynamic interactive experiences, which at times confront players with mor- ally ambiguous situations as they progress from one level to the next. For example, one such video game, “Undertale,” includes the decision to either spare or kill every enemy in the game, which will result in different responses from in-game characters, as well as an entirely different ending. In “Fallout: New Vegas,” the player is completely free to choose whatever path he or she wishes to, but by performing certain actions, karma will either increase (aiding

individuals, sparing people, etc.) or decrease (pickpocketing, mur- dering people, etc.), which will cause new in-game characters to regard the player as welcomed or shunned. In “Infamous,” the player must make the choice between saving the love of his or her life or six doctors, with only one choice possible. In “The Last of Us,” the player must choose between saving his or her companion while either killing or sparing two doctors. Finally, in the “Mass Effect” series, the player must choose between sparing and killing his or her enemies with the understanding that sparing them may result in them returning later. Given the plethora of emotional and morally charged situations that the players must routinely confront in the course of many games, it is possible that, despite their violent content, they may also have some social and emotional benefits, for example, promoting higher moral reasoning. Thus, the aim of the current study was to begin filling this still existing gap in the video game literature by assessing the effect of a morally ambiguous excerpt from a popular video game, “Infamous: Second Son,” on the viewer’s moral competence.

Review of Literature

Moral Competence

Moral thought and action have been the focus of psychological research and discussions for decades. Arguably, the most influen- tial theory of moral development has been put forth by Kohlberg, which asserts that moral thought undergoes six distinct universal stages coinciding with Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. According to this theory, moral thought evolves from being con- cerned only with one’s own self-interests to considering fairness

This article was published Online First November 27, 2017. Fuaad M. Sofia and Marina A. Klimenko, Department of Psychology,

University of Florida. Special thanks to my coauthor Marina Klimenko, Georg Lind, my

family, and my dear friend Hohjin Im. Through hard work, feedback, dedication, and patience, this study came to be.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fuaad M. Sofia, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, 945 Center Drive, Gainesville FL 32603. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Psychology of Popular Media Culture © 2017 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 8, No. 3, 251–258 2160-4134/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000171

251

and equality, which is why Kohlberg’s morality is often regarded as “justice-oriented.” The “preconventional” or “pre-moral” level of moral orientation is viewed as being driven exclusively by the fear of punishment and preservation of self-interest, where the sense of justice is not yet present. The “conventional” level of moral orientation is the belief that justice entails adherence to authority, which is also why it is labeled “morality of conventional role-conformity.” The highest, “post-conventional” level, is achieved when universal human rights are placed above societal or cultural conventions and laws.

Although, Kohlberg’s moral stage theory continues to dominate moral psychology today, it is not without criticism. Lind (2008), for example, argued that post-conventional orientation of moral reasoning does not necessarily reflect high moral competence. According to his “dual-aspect theory of moral behavior and de- velopment,” moral orientation is guided by emotions and, thus, is the affective aspect in the dual theory of moral reasoning. Moral competence, on the other hand, reflects one’s rational thought and ability to apply moral values consistently across different morally ambiguous situations. Individuals who show such consistency are considered to have higher moral competence than those who do not. Lind (2008) further argued that while an individual’s moral orientation remains stable once it reaches its highest possible stage by adulthood, moral competence can be enhanced or regressed. Specifically, he argues that having an opportunity to reflect on moral issues by considering all perspectives, pros and cons, may improve an individual’s moral reasoning and competence. This idea is not new and has received extensive empirical support in the context of educational settings. Blatt and Kohlberg (1975), for example, were able to show that children who participated in a moral education program based on moral dilemmas had signifi- cantly improved their level of moral thinking. In a more recent study, Lind (2015) demonstrated, experimentally, that a greater amount of student participation and open discussions in a class- room had significantly increased students’ moral competence. The opposite effect has also been observed in educational settings that lack opportunities for student engagement. For example, Solum, Maluwa, Tveit, and Severinsson (2015) found that the authoritar- ian learning environment in one of the Malawian nursing schools was associated with lower levels of moral competence in students. Similarly, in the study by Bužgová and Sikorová (2013), Czech nursing students scored lower on a moral competence test (MCT) after being taught in an authoritarian learning environment. On the other hand, Auvinen, Suominen, Leino-Kilpi, and Helkama (2004) found that fourth-year nursing students showed overall higher levels of moral competence compared with first-year students, possibly owing to the implementation of real-world training and dealing with various real-life morally ambiguous situations.

As many video games now integrate moral dilemmas into their storylines, it is quite possible that they can improve a player’s moral reasoning in a somewhat similar fashion as the classroom discussions and activities where people, in both cases, are encour- aged to explore different viewpoints, make decisions, and experi- ence moral consequences. For example, video games may present the player with an ultimatum before he or she is allowed to progress through the game, asking to make a moral choice, for example, to kill or to spare an enemy. Alternatively, a player may be asked to carry out a task that conflicts with his or her own

personal beliefs but that task may be the only way to complete a certain quest or save a virtual romantic interest.

Research on Video Games and Aggression

Video games have become more graphic and violent over the years, and it is no surprise that the public has become increasingly concerned with their potential negative influences on player be- havior and emotional state and dismissive of any potential benefits. Given ample empirical and theoretical literature linking media violence and aggression, scientific investigations have focused primarily on searching for evidence for a causal connection be- tween video games and negative outcomes (Scharrer, 2004; 2005; Scharrer & Leone, 2006; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004; and Zheng & Zhang, 2016). However, despite the numerous research efforts, results have not been convincing, usually owing to various meth- odological issues (e.g., weak construct validity measures, failure to control for confounding variables, etc.) or owing to the failure to find any effect.

For example, in the experimental study by Uhlmann and Swan- son (2004), where two outcomes were measured, aggression and participants’ association of themselves with aggressive traits, only the latter was negatively affected by the violent video game play. In addition, the study found that that the association of oneself with aggressive traits was positively associated with the reported habits of playing violent video games. Although researchers concluded that this association supported a long-term negative effect of playing violent video games on the players’ aggressive views of themselves, the association was purely correlational, which leaves room for speculation that the causal direction comes from the players’ initial aggressive perception of themselves rather than from playing violent video games. A study by Funk, Buchman, Jenks, and Bechtoldt (2003) tested a theory that video games can promote aggression through desensitization to violence after re- peated exposure to violent content in video games. To this end, children between the ages of 5 and 12 years played either a violent or a nonviolent video game (appropriate for younger and older age groups) for 15 minutes and immediately afterward were presented with 10 moral vignettes describing common everyday situations. The children’s responses were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 3, from most aggressive to most empathic. In addition, before the experi- mental manipulation, children completed questionnaires measur- ing their history of playing video games, empathy, and their general attitudes toward violence. The results revealed that playing violent video games did not influence the children’s moral views, when measured with the vignettes, thus failing to confirm the immediate effect of desensitization to violence. However, past exposure to video game violence, empathy, and attitudes toward violence were related to less empathetic and more aggressive responses to the vignettes. This latter finding once again only suggests a correlation and not a causation. For example, just like the results of the study by Uhlmann and Swanson (2004), preex- isting individual characteristics such as low levels of empathy or a more positive attitude toward violence may be the cause rather than the effect.

Finally, Zheng and Zhang (2016) examined the priming effect of video games, which posits that playing violent video games acti- vates informational nodes associated with violence, which in turn leads to more aggressive thoughts and possibly to aggressive

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

252 SOFIA AND KLIMENKO

actions (Berkowitz, 1984). In their first study, children in urban China between the ages of 9 and 12 years played one violent and one nonviolent game for approximately 15 min and then rated their reactions to each game. Boys rated the violent game as more pleasant, exciting, interesting, and causing less fear compared with girls. In the second study using a different sample, children who played a violent video game for 15 min displayed a faster reaction time to violent words compared with those who played a nonvio- lent video game. However, the significant sex and game type interaction suggested that it was mostly the boys who were more likely to display aggressive thought activation and expressions of enjoyment during the violent video game priming. In addition, the authors found that participants with high aggression traits were more likely to be affected by the violent video game priming, compared with children with moderate and low aggression traits. The possibility that individual characteristics, such as aggressive personality, may be the confounding factor causing the change in a dependent variable such as aggression has been supported in a more recent longitudinal study of German youth by Breuer et al. (2015), who concluded that aggressive traits and not playing violent video games were the driving factors.

Furthermore, when studies use well-validated measures of ag- gression and control for personality and family characteristics, the association is either weak or nonexistent (Ferguson, 2015; Fergu- son, Miguel, Garza, & Jerabeck, 2012; Furuya-Kanamori & Doi, 2016; Sherry, 2001). For example, Ferguson et al. (2012) longi- tudinally assessed the link between playing violent video games, aggression, and dating violence in youth. The study included family violence, youth depression, delinquent behavior, antisocial personality characteristics, and family attachment. The results showed no evidence of the causal connection between violent video games and youth violence. In fact, bivariate correlations showed a negative correlation between dating violence and video games. However, family-related violence, youth concurrent de- pression, and aggressive scores were all predictors of aggression. Similarly, violent video games of either action or story orientation had no effect on aggression in the study by Ferguson et al. (2015) when tested using an ice water task, a more salient behavioral measure of aggression. In addition to individual characteristics of the player, features of video games other than violence can con- tribute to aggression, as in an experiment by Adachi and Wil- loughby (2011), where competitiveness and not video game vio- lence produced more aggressive behavior. Finally, Tear and Nielsen (2013) found no reduction of prosocial behavior after playing either violent or nonviolent video games.

Research on Video Games and Positive Outcomes

In addition to finding only a small to no effect between violent video games and aggression, studies are beginning to emerge, demonstrating a number of positive outcomes (Adachi, Hodson, Willoughby, & Zanette, 2014; Bennerstedt, Ivarsson, & Linderoth, 2012; BoyAn, Grizzard, & Bowman, 2015; Ferguson & Garza, 2011; Greitemeyer, Osswald, & Brauer, 2010; Grizzard, Tambo- rini, Lewis, Wang, & Prabhu, 2014; Hartmann & Brandon, 2010; and Shafer, 2012). Although this literature is still scant, there are reasons to expand the research on video games by focusing on both their negative and positive aspects (Bennerstedt, Ivarsson, & Lin- deroth, 2012). For example, even violent mass multiplayer online

role-playing games that offer incentives to team up within the game to fight enemies can promote communication, cooperation, planning, and problem-solving skills (Bennerstedt et al., 2012). There may be other positive outcomes. For example, Adachi et al. (2014) found that playing a violent video game reduced prejudice. Specifically, students in the experimental condition who were told they were playing a violent video game cooperatively with a student of opposing university reduced their prejudice against students of that opposing university. No such reduction was ob- served in the control condition.

In a study by Ferguson and Garza (2011), a significant interac- tion between parental involvement in their children’s video game play and violence exposure was found in the model predicting youth civic engagement. This suggests that children of parents who, perhaps, take more interest in their children’s gaming activ- ities and who feel more comfortable with the graphic nature of the games are more involved in their community. In addition, the study revealed that youth who engaged in more violent video games displayed more prosocial online behavior.

There is also some evidence that playing video games can increase empathy or prosocial behavior. For example, Greitemeyer et al. (2010) found that playing a prosocial game (vs. a neutral game) increased a player’s empathy. However, curiously, partici- pants in the antisocial video game group did not report having less empathy. While the failure to reject the null cannot serve as supporting evidence to the idea that violent video games can have a positive effect, or at the very least do not automatically reduce empathy or prosocial behavior, it can be argued that depending on the content of the video game, it can even have a positive effect. For example, Hartmann and Brandon (2010) showed, experimen- tally, that people reported more guilt when they engaged in un- justified virtual violence; this was especially true for more em- pathic individuals. In a similar experiment by Grizzard et al. (2014), participants in the experimental condition who were as- signed to play as terrorists and commit immoral acts displayed more guilt and increased sensitivity to moral transgressions after the game. Grizzard et al. (2014) explained this by suggesting that it may be due, in part, to the role that a player takes in the game, while internalizing and taking responsibility for both the decisions made and resulting outcomes as he or she progresses. Grizzard et al. (2014) added that players who display instances of guilt, as a result of this exposure, may then begin selecting more moral options to uphold the notion of fairness, as well as show greater emotional investment in the character they control.

Although an experiment by Shafer (2012) demonstrated that people engaged in moral disengagement, which is a cognitive strategy to free oneself of guilt for acting immoral, to make evil in-game choices, the study also underscored the fact that many players remained “morally aware” and chose moral decisions. A more direct link between the players’ own moral values and their moral choices in the video game Mass Effect was examined by Boyan et al. (2015), who surveyed 138 video gamers using the game’s fan community website. The game presented a unique opportunity to study moral aspects of video gamers’ behavior, as the game is known for its immersive storytelling. Additionally, the primary mechanics that drive the game’s narrative is done through moral decision-making—either to choose compassion and self- sacrifice, labeled as Paragon, or to be apathetic and cause harm, labeled as Renegade. The gamers were asked to rate their tendency

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

253EFFECT OF VIDEO GAMES ON MORAL COMPETENCY

to choose decisions as Paragon or Renegade. In addition, partici- pants filled out a questionnaire measuring their moral foundation (i.e., values). What they found was that the majority of the players chose to act morally, and the players’ own moral values predicted their moral choices, whether they would act more with compassion or harm.

Taken together, more literature is beginning to emerge that suggests that even violent video games can have a positive effect on the player’s social and emotional behavior and that the player’s moral decisions seem to be in line with their moral values. The question remains, however, whether it can improve the player’s moral reasoning. Furthermore, it is possible that if video games do have a positive effect on moral reasoning through exposure and frequent deliberation of moral issues, video games should have a cumulative effect on players’ moral reasoning. That is, the more they play such games, the better they should be at moral reasoning.

The goal of the current study was to test these predictions. Specifically, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1: Exposure to a video game excerpt with a moral dilemma will increase moral competence.

Hypothesis 2: Exposure to a video game excerpt with a moral dilemma will increase the moral competence of those who play more video games.

Method

Study Overview

The present study was part of a larger, institutional review board-approved, investigation of morality, which included 236 undergraduate students from a major university in the United States. The study used a convenience sampling method by relying on students who were enrolled in an online Developmental Psy- chology course and who were recruited in exchange for class extra credit.

All who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to a treatment and a control group. Both groups were tested on moral orientation and moral competence at the beginning and the end of the semester with the MCT instrument (Lind, 2015). As part of a larger investigation, participants also completed an empathy scale, (Davis, 1980) and engaged in a group discussion that involved recalling and reflecting upon a personally experienced moral di- lemma; neither of the variables was included in the current study.

Measures

The MCT is the only assessment of the moral competence with over 30 years of experience since its original publication and over 30 translations of the test available (Lind, 2015). It presents participants with two morally ambiguous dilemmas and their res- olutions, dubbed “Doctor’s Dilemma” and “Worker’s Dilemma.” Participants were asked to rate the degree of their agreement or disagreement with the protagonist’s resolution of each dilemma on a scale ranging from (�3), strongly disagree, to (�3), strongly agree. This is meant to elicit moral feelings in the respondents, who were then asked to assess the quality of six pro- and six counterarguments for each dilemma resolution, rating them on a scale from (�4), a strong disagreement with the moral argument,

to (�4), a strong agreement with the moral quality of the argu- ment. Each argument represents one of Kohlberg’s moral orienta- tion stages. The score of moral competence is derived by calcu- lating the percentage of participants’ individual total response variation in judging the moral quality of the arguments. In other words, an individual with a higher moral competence should demonstrate a high consistency in his or her assessment of the quality of the arguments (i.e., consistency in moral values) irre- spective of whether an argument is a pro or against the moral solution. The validation of the MCT instrument was theory-driven and cross-culturally validated. Specifically, the following assump- tions were supported across different cultures: (a) Moral compe- tence is a skill and, thus, cannot be faked upward (Emler et al., 1983; Lind, 2002; Wasel, 1994). (b) Similar to Kohlberg’s find- ings, individuals show preference for Stage 6 the most and Stage 1 the least (Lind, 1986, 2002, 2005; Schillinger, 2006). (c) Moral orientation and moral competence are two related and parallel aspects of moral reasoning (Piaget, 1981), and individuals who score higher on the moral orientation tend to have higher moral competence (Lind, 2002).

In addition, a study by Prehn et al. (2009) using a functional MRI technique revealed that completion of the MCT test activated brain regions traditionally associated with moral reasoning, thus confirming the validity of the instrument. Finally, the MCT scores have been shown to correlate with responsible and democratic behavior (Heidbrink, 1985), and the test has been successfully implemented in moral education (Lind, 2015).

Video Game Manipulation

At the end of the semester, participants in the treatment condi- tion viewed and reflected upon a 1-min clip of a scene from the rated T (for ages 13�) video game “Infamous Second Son,” in which the main character had to decide between killing the person who killed his brother or sparing his life. What makes this scene morally challenging is the fact that the individual who killed the main character’s brother had a young daughter, and the main character could hear her calling her father in the background.

Results

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and T Tests

Out of 335 students enrolled in the class (79% female and 21% male students), 286 agreed to participate. Owing to missing data, only 236 were included in the final analyses, and among whom, 20% were men and 80% women, which is roughly the same proportion of the original sex count. The final sample comprised, approximately, 7% freshman, 31% sophomore, 32% junior, and 30% senior students.

Thirty-six percent indicated that they never played video games, 38% played video games rarely, 10% percent played them once or twice per week, 4% played video games three or four times per week, 3% played video games more than four times per week, and 9% chose not to respond. An independent samples t test indicated that the control and experimental groups did not differ in their moral competence at the beginning of the study, t(261) � .660, ns.

To examine possible effects of sex on the moral competence scores, an independent samples t test was computed. No significant

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

254 SOFIA AND KLIMENKO

difference between male (MTime1 � 18.5, MTime2 � 20, SDTime1 � 12.3, SDTime2 � 11.1) and female (MTime1 � 15.8, MTime2 � 17.8, SDTime1 � 11.3, SDTime2 � 13.1) moral competence scores was found at Time 1 or 2. The means and standard deviation of the scores on the MCT are presented in Table 1.

The General Linear Model

To test the main hypotheses, differences in the moral compe- tence scores were analyzed with a general linear model (GLM), repeated measures. GLM was chosen owing to its suitability for incorporating categorical and interval predictors in the model. Moral competence at Time 1 and 2 was entered as the within- subjects factor and groups (two levels: experimental and control) as the between-subjects variable; sex and frequency of video game were entered as covariates. The interaction between time (MCT 1 and MCT 2 scores) and groups (experimental and control) was not significant, F(1, 226) � 5.48, MSE � 85.6, ns. This failed to

support the hypothesis that exposure to a video game excerpt with a moral dilemma would increase moral competence. There was, however, a significant interaction between time and frequency of video game play, F(1, 226) � .396, MSE � 85.6, p � .020, suggesting a systematic linear relationship between frequency of video game play and moral competence. The examination of the scatterplot with predicted values of moral competence at Time 2 and the frequency of video game scores revealed a positive asso- ciation. Specifically, playing more video games was associated with higher predicted scores on the MCT at Time 2 (see Figure 1). No other significant main or interaction effects were found.

Regression Analyses

To test for the interaction between frequency of video game and group conditions, ordinary least squares regression was performed including the measure of moral competence at Time 1 centered, sex, and the interaction term between frequency of video game

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of the Scores on the Moral Competence Test (MCT) at Time 1 (Pre-Manipulation) and Time 2 (Post-Manipulation)

Groups

Total sample

Never/Rarely play video game (subsample)

Play video game twice or more (subsample)

M SD M SD M SD

Control group MCT Time 1 14.9 10.7 14.9 10.6 15.0 11.5 MCT Time 2 17.7 12.7 17.3 12.8 19.7 12.2

Experimental group MCT Time 1 16.9 12.3 16.7 12.4 17.7 12.3 MCT Time 2 18.7 13.0 16.9 11.8 25.1 15.0

Figure 1. The scatterplot between Time 2 predicted scores and frequency of video game play.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

255EFFECT OF VIDEO GAMES ON MORAL COMPETENCY

play and groups as predictors. Collinearity diagnostics revealed no issues (highest variance inflation factor � 1.26). The model was significant, F(3, 231) � 17.3, p � .000, R2 � .18, RAdjusted

2 � .17. The analysis revealed that moral competence at Time 1 was significant, � � .40, p � .00; in addition, the interaction term involving frequency of video game play and group conditions was significant, � � .15, p � .02, indicating that moral competence was higher in the experimental condition for those who played video games more frequently.

Discussion

The overarching goal of the current investigation was to test the hypothesis that video games that include moral dilemmas can improve peoples’ moral competence. It was also hypothesized that the effect of viewing an in-game moral dilemma would be stronger if people played video games more frequently. Given that the interaction of time and group was not significant, the first hypoth- esis was not supported.

However, the second hypothesis was supported. Specifically, an interaction of time and frequency of video game play in the GLM model was significant, suggesting that those who played more video games had a higher increase in moral competence. Further- more, the ordinary least squares revealed a significant interaction of frequency of video game play and group conditions controlling for moral competence at Time 1. Taken together, these findings confirm the second prediction that subjects who played more video games would improve their moral competence after viewing and thinking about a morally ambiguous situation involving a video game character.

The finding that the video game dilemma had improved moral competence of the more frequent players can be explained in at least two ways. One possible explanation is that regular players may be more comfortable with experiencing virtual reality and, thus, more willing to tune in and connect with in-game characters on an emotional level without being repulsed by the strong lan- guage and graphic violence (Ferguson et al., 2016). But more importantly, this finding suggests that video games, even highly violent ones, can have a positive influence on the players’ moral reasoning, which is the opposite of what common sense leads the public to believe. A mechanism by which this can happen may be similar to Lind’s method of moral education, Konstanzer Methode der Dilemma-Diskussion, which has 25 years of implementation. Specifically, the method uses one moral dilemma discussion and is consistent of the following phases: a quiet reflection on the story, a clarification of the story’s dilemma, a preparation for the dis- cussion, a phase of appreciation for counterarguments, and a reflection. The process that the participants’ in the current study took part in during the manipulation phase was similar; they were first visually exposed to a moral dilemma, then were asked to reflect upon the scene by writing down about one paragraph expressing their feelings about the scene and making their own choice if they were the protagonist. This can also explain why individuals who did not play or played fewer video games did not experience a similar positive effect of moral competence improve- ment; they were unable or unwilling to connect with the presented story due to feeling uncomfortable or negatively about the video game and/or its violent content, thus failing to appreciate the dilemma and its various counterarguments.

The second explanation is that people who play video games more frequently are better at perspective-taking and connecting with in-game characters either owing to natural predispositions or as a result of playing video games more often. For example, Yee (2006) found that one of the motivations for playing video games is to immerse oneself into the virtual world, meaning that players may be naturally inclined to play a more interactive role within the game and be emotionally affected by both the stories and their own participation.

Future Directions

Over the years, video games have evolved into more dynamic and socially complex mediums. As the current study suggests, playing video games can no longer be viewed only as a source of entertainment but as a social and emotional experience. However, much remains unknown in terms of how the varying aspects of video games may affect a player’s social and moral behavior. For example, does the appearance and personality of the in-game characters or the context in which these characters are placed play any role in how moral situations are perceived? And if so, to what extent will this affect the players? An over exaggeration of reality or the differences in the consequences of immoral and moral choices between the real and virtual world may create a discon- nection between the player’s own moral principles and the moral decisions he or she makes as a character (Koo & Seider, 2010).

The physical appearance of the character may influence the player’s perception and behavior in the game as well (Švelch, 2010). For example, if a character is drawn in a villainous manner, or behaves and interacts in a way that clearly portrays evil or cruel intent, the player is not as inclined to internalize the situation and instead of acting according to his or her moral values, behaves and responds according to his or her perception of what the virtual character should act like (Staines, 2010).

It may also be the manner in which players interact with video games or with other players that influences their moral thoughts and behaviors. For example, in games like “Dark Souls 3,” “Grand Theft Auto 5,” and “Battlefield 1,” the decision of the player may be influenced by the decisions and behaviors of the other players they are playing with. Koo and Seider (2010) found that players might work toward an in-game objective and collectively choose immoral actions, such as making more money or killing more civilians, even if it contradicts their own sense of morality. On the other hand, online collaboration and overcoming difficult scenar- ios may promote a sense of comradeship, which might also indi- rectly affect moral competence (Reeves et al., 2007). Indeed, there is some empirical support to this effect. Velez, Greitemeyer, Whi- taker, Ewoldsen, and Bushman (2016) found that players who played violent video games with another human player showed reduced levels of aggression and violence, both toward their gam- ing partner and nonvideo game partner.

Furthermore, individual characteristics, such as personality traits, age, or sex of the player, may moderate the effect and should be considered in future studies. While the current study found no sex differences, the sample had disproportionately more female than male participants, which does not allow a drawing of any conclusions about potential sex differences. However, literature on empathy and moral reasoning suggests that sex may be a factor. For example, studies suggest that women tend to show higher

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

256 SOFIA AND KLIMENKO

levels of empathy than men (Rueckert & Naybar, 2008), which may, in turn, have a direct impact on the way women and men appraise moral situations and make decisions.

Finally, the current study did not consider the types of video games individuals played on a regular basis. With the explosion of the video game industry, video games have become more diverse within and across different genres; comparing the effects of violent video games containing moral dilemmas with those of prosocial video games may provide greater insight into human moral devel- opment.

References

Adachi, P. J., Hodson, G., Willoughby, T., & Zanette, S. (2014). Brothers and sisters in arms: Intergroup cooperation in a violent shooter game can reduce intergroup bias. Psychology of Violence, 5, 455–462. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0037407

Adachi, P. J., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game com- petition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1, 259.

Auvinen, J., Suominen, T., Leino-Kilpi, H., & Helkama, K. (2004). The development of moral judgment during nursing education in Finland. Nurse Education Today, 24, 538–546.

Bennerstedt, U., Ivarsson, J., & Linderoth, J. (2012). How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games. Interna- tional Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 43– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9136-6

Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti-and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive-neoassociation analysis. Psy- chological Bulletin, 95, 410.

Blatt, M. M., & Kohlberg, L. (1975). The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children’s level of moral judgment. Journal of Moral Education, 4, 129–161.

BoyAn, A., GrizzArd, M., & Bowman, N. (2015). A massively moral game? Mass Effect as a case study to understand the influence of players’ moral intuitions on adherence to hero or antihero play styles. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 7, 41–57.

Breuer, J., Vogelgesang, J., Quandt, T., & Festl, R. (2015). Violent video games and physical aggression: Evidence for a selection effect among adolescents. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4, 305–328. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000035

Bužgová, R., & Sikorová, L. (2013). Moral judgment competence of nursing students in the Czech Republic. Nurse Education Today, 33, 1201–1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.06.016

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differ- ences in empathy.

Emler, N., Renwick, S., & Malone, B. (1983). The relationship between moral reasoning and political orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1073.

Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic perfor- mance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 646–666. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1745691615592234

Ferguson, C. J., Barr, H., Figueroa, G., Foley, K., Gallimore, A., LaQuea, R., . . . Stevens, J. (2015). Digital poison? Three studies examining the influence of violent video games on youth. Computers in Human Be- havior, 50, 399–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.021

Ferguson, C. J., & Garza, A. (2011). Call of (civic) duty: Action games and civic behavior in a large sample of youth. Computers in Human Behav- ior, 27, 770–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.026

Ferguson, C. J., Trigani, B., Pilato, S., Miller, S., Foley, K., & Barr, H. (2016). Violent video games don’t increase hostility in teens, but they do

stress girls out. Psychiatric Quarterly, 87, 49–56. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s11126-015-9361-7

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Garza, A., & Jerabeck, J. M. (2012). A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and ag- gression: A 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents. Journal of Psychi- atric Research, 46, 141–146.

Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., Jenks, J., & Bechtoldt, H. (2003). Playing violent video games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 413–436.

Furuya-Kanamori, L., & Doi, S. A. (2016). Angry birds, angry children, and angry meta-analysts: A reanalysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 408–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635599

Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., & Brauer, M. (2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10, 796.

Grizzard, M., Tamborini, R., Lewis, R. J., Wang, L., & Prabhu, S. (2014). Being bad in a video game can make us more morally sensitive. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 499 –504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0658

Hartmann, T., Toz, E., & Brandon, M. (2010). Just a game? Unjustified virtual violence produces guilt in empathetic players. Media Psychology, 13, 339–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.524912

Heidbrink, H. (1985). Moral judgment competence and political learning. In G. Lind, H. A. Hartmann, & R. H. Wakehut (Eds.), Moral develop- ment and social environment. studies in the philosophy and psychology of moral judgment and education (pp. 259–271). Chicago, IL: Precedent Publishing.

Koo, G., & Seider, S. (2010). Video games for prosocial learning. In K. Schrier & D. Gibson (Eds.), Ethics and game design: Teaching values through play (pp. 16–33). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-61520-845-6.ch002

Lind, G. (1986). Cultural differences in moral judgment? A study of West and East European University Students. Behavior Science Research, 20, 208–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106939718602000109

Lind, G. (2002). Ist Moral lehrbar? Ergebnisse der modernen moralpsy- chologischen Forschung [Can ethics be taught? Research findings from modern moral psychology] (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Logos-Verlag.

Lind, G. (2005, August 18–22). The cross-cultural validity of the moral judgment test: Findings from 30 cross-cultural studies. Paper prepared for the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment com- petence: A dual-aspect model. In D. Fasko, Jr. & W. Willis (Eds.) Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral development and education (pp. 185–220). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Lind, G. (2015). Favorable learning environments for moral competence development—A multiple intervention study with nearly 3.000 students in a higher education context. International Journal of University Teach- ing and Faculty Development, 4, 173–192.

Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2015). Violent video games and real-world violence: Rhetoric versus data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4, 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000030

Nayak, M. (2013, June 10). FACTBOX—A look at the $66 billion video- games industry. Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/gameshow- e-idINDEE9590DW20130610

Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development. (Trans & Ed T. A. Brown & C. E. Kaegi). Oxford, England: Annual Reviews.

Prehn, K., & Heekeren, H. R. (2009). Moral judgment and the brain: a functional approach to the question of emotion and cognition in moral judgment integrating psychology, neuroscience and evolutionary biol- ogy. The moral brain (pp. 129–154). the Netherlands: Springer.

Reeves, B., Malone, T., Yee, N., Cheng, H., Abecassis, D., Cadwell, T., . . . Roy, S. (2007). Leadership in games and at work: Implications for the

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

257EFFECT OF VIDEO GAMES ON MORAL COMPETENCY

enterprise of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Palo Alto, CA: Seriosity, Inc.

Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162–167. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002

Scharrer, E. (2004). Virtual violence: Gender and aggression in video game advertisements. Mass Communication and Society, 7, 393–412. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0704_2

Scharrer, E. (2005). Hypermasculinity, aggression, and television violence: An experiment. Media Psychology, 7, 353–376. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/S1532785XMEP0704_3

Scharrer, E., & Leone, R. (2006). I know you are but what am I? Young people’s perceptions of varying types of video game influence. Mass Communication and Society, 9, 261–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327825mcs0903_1

Schillinger, M. (2006). Learning environment and moral development: How university education fosters moral judgment competence in Brazil and two German-speaking countries. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Shafer, D. M. (2012). Moral choice in video games: An exploratory study. Media Psychology Review, 5.

Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression. Human Communication Research, 27, 409–431.

Solum, E. M., Maluwa, V. M., Tveit, B., & Severinsson, E. (2015). Enhancing students’ moral competence in practice: Challenges experi- enced by Malawian nurse teachers. Nursing Ethics, 23, 685–697.

Staines, D. (2010). Videogames and moral pedagogy: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. In K. Schrier & D. Gibson (Eds.), Ethics and game design: Teaching values through play (pp. 35–51). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-845-6.ch003

Švelch, J. (2010). The good, the bad, and the player: The challenges to moral engagement in single-player avatar-based video games. In K. Schrier & D. Gibson (Eds.), Ethics and game design: Teaching values through play (pp. 52–68). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Tear, M. J., & Nielsen, M. (2013). Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 8, e68382.

Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41–52.

Velez, J. A., Greitemeyer, T., Whitaker, J. L., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Bush- man, B. J. (2016). Violent video games and reciprocity the attenuating effects of cooperative game play on subsequent aggression. Communi- cation Research, 43, 447– 467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650 214552519

Wasel, W. (1994). Simulation moralischer Urteilsfähigkeit. Moralentwick- lung: Eine kognitiv-strukturelle Veränderung oder ein affektives Phän- omen? [Simulation of moral judgment competence. Moral development: A cognitive-structural or an affective phenomenon?] Konstanz Un- veröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Fachbereich Psychologie.

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9, 772–775.

Zheng, J. K., & Zhang, Q. (2016). Priming effect of computer game violence on children’s aggression levels. Social Behavior and Person- ality, 44, 1747–1759. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.10.1747

Received June 11, 2017 Revision received September 21, 2017

Accepted October 9, 2017 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or on

e of

its al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

T hi

s ar

tic le

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

258 SOFIA AND KLIMENKO