“I'm Attached, And I'm a Good Guy/Gal!”: How Character Attachment Influences Pro- and Anti-Social Motivations to Play Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games

After a rather short wait, our research team of Nick Bowman (West Virginia University), and Daniel Schultheiss and Christina Schumann (Technological University of Ilmenau) are please to announce the publication of our article "I'm Attached, And I'm a Good Guy/Gal!”: How Character Attachment Influences Pro- and Anti-Social Motivations to Play Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games" in CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

The study abstract:
One's feelings of intimacy and connectedness with distal, fictional media characters are referred to as parasocial interactions. Video games have challenged this concept, as the distance between game players and characters is greatly reduced, if not completely removed, in virtual environments. Games encourage the internalization and psychological merging of a player's and a character's mind, a multidimensional concept known as character attachment (CA). Data from our study suggest that dimensions of CA are useful in understanding both pro- and anti-social gaming motivations. Pro-social gamers feel a greater sense of control over their characters, while anti-social gamers are more likely to suspend their disbelief of the game environment and not take responsibility for their virtual actions. Pro-social gaming was more prevalent in older gamers, and younger male game characters were motivated by anti-social reasons.

We blogged about this study in an earlier post(here), and you can also view our presentation slides from NCA New Orleans below:

"I’m attached, and I’m a good guy!": How character attachment influences (pro-soci`l and anti-social) usage motivations

View more presentations from West Virginia University - Department of Communication Studies

Top papers in Communication and Technology - ECA 2012

A few weeks ago, we announced that our social media research team of WVU faculty Nick Bowman and David Westerman and Doctoral candidate CJ Claus had a paper recognized as a top paper in Communication and Technology for the 2012 Eastern Communication Association meeting in Cambridge, MA. The full slate of top papers for this division has been announced:

Friday (27 April) 9:00-10:15 AM Somerset Room - Royal Sonesta Boston
Top Papers in Communication and Technology

• “Finding an Optimal Match: Social Support Groups in Second Life”
Sara Green-Hamann and John C. Sherblom, University of Maine
• “How Demanding is Social Media: Understanding Social Media Diets as a Function of Perceived Costs and Benefits – a Rational Actor Perspective”
Nicholas David Bowman, David Westerman, and CJ Claus, West Virginia University
• “Video Games: An Overview of Recent Research on Aggression and the Transition toward Considering Other Types of Effects”
Ashleigh Shelton and Kenneth A. Lachlan, University of Massachusetts, Boston
• “Persuasive Technology: Transition to a Rhetorical Perspective”
Raymond A. Lutzky, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Chair: Heather Stassen-Ferrara, Western New England University
Respondent: Rod Carveth, Goodwin College

Our earlier blog post on the first draft of the paper can be accessed here. We'll look to get more information from the other authors and post accordingly!

Motives Underlying Media Selection

Guest post by WVU Communication Studies M.A. student Zac Goldman.

Media scholars continue to be interested in the motivation behind the consumption and selection of media. Early researchers like Paul Lazarsfeld indicated that people sought out media to perform one of three functions: informing, transmitting, or correlating. Numerous authors since have suggested the importance of media to also be entertaining. The growing amount of research regarding entertainment as the motivating factor and use of media is generally examined from a macro-level perspective. A narrower focus of this perspective may potentially examine how entertainment, or any motivation factor, alters the effects of the media content.

One frequently used approach to examining uses and needs of media is the Uses and Gratifications Theory (U&G). From this perspective, a generally accepted notion was constructed in that gratifications come from social and psychological needs. Although the theory has been used extensively to examine the psychological needs it has produced little predictive utility. The low predictive utility of the theory can logically be traced through the theory’s construction as it encourages recursive thinking; which brings further questions to the practicality of the theory.

The predictability (or lack thereof) of U&G is troubling and encourages alternative considerations. Now more than ever people have become active media users, rather than passive media audiences; and theoretical perspectives should reflect this.

The limited but powerful effects model examines media effects by reevaluating many of the previous models while incorporating key constructs which include the gratifications of social and psychological needs. Media content produces a cognitive, affective, or behavioral script (CAB) which is then received by the user. The user then internalizes this script with the psychological and societal needs in which they are facing. Only after the users complete the internalization will they determine whether to act on the script and demonstrate an CAB effect. In other words, the media content gives the user a puppet, but it is still the user’s decision and behavior which pull the strings and demonstrate the “effect”.

This perspective does not inherently assume that media produces what many would classify as an “effect”. Certainly the typical behavioral-based effect is possible within this model but no assumption is made that a user will demonstrate such an effect. However, as some would argue that discrepancies in the definition of media effects exist, the conversation resorts back to a macro-level perspective. If the definition of media effects shifts from its primarily behavioral connotation, the argument could be made that by learning something (from the script) which was previously unknown, an effect not only exists but it is assumed. Admittedly, this notion of media effects seems to be unpopular throughout the field.

So what are the implications? Well the importance of the user is rapidly becoming more recognized and appreciated than ever before. Previous perspectives of the media model which postulate that stimulus leads directly to response are becoming a thing of the past. The understanding of the moderator is critical in determining the importance of media effects (if any) within our society. The usage and motivation behind media consumption is arguably the starting point in conducting such research. Uses and Gratifications play a prominent role in determining the psychological needs of the user; however these needs must continue to be developed with societal needs to aid in determining their predictive utility as a moderator between the content and effects.

While the content of the media arguably gives the user the “bullets,” it is up to the user whether or not to “pull the trigger” which inevitably results in the media effect.

How does the channel affect the symbols?

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Betsy Ditrinco, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

In Albert Bandura’s chapter on the Social Cognitive Theory, he describes how mass media and the human brain interact to develop an understanding of our culture. In defining three human functions (symbolizing capability, self-regulatory capability, and self-reflective capability), Bandura explains how humans process information derived from mass media. The symbolizing capability “provides humans with a powerful tool for comprehending their environment and creating and regulating environmental events that touch virtually every aspect” of our lives (p. 122). The self-regulatory capability is the function that controls our motivation, emotion, and behavior through evaluations of our own behavior. Finally, self-reflective capability is how we cognitively verify our accurate thoughts against our flawed thoughts.

When we consume different forms of media, we are constantly assigning meaning to symbols and developing an understanding of our culture. The question is if media channels affect the symbols that are sent. In the aftermath of 9/11, how did we interpret the symbols that a local TV >news reporter sent differently from the messages sent by radio personalities? I would argue that radio may offer more room for visual imagination and potentially a longer connection to the image. Instead of watching the anchor tell you a story from behind a desk, you are only listening to the radio host, potentially visualizing ground-zero the entire time. There are clearly countless variances that can affect the messages sent across different forms of media; what are some that come to mind for you? Can you argue the opposite side of the radio/television example? Along these lines, there are even differences within the same medium on different channels. There are some organizations that produce extreme liberal or conservative views. Depending on the channel (or blend of channels) an individual subscribes to, this can impact the way the person views the world and verifies his or her own way of thinking. In the early 1900’s, mass media created a fear based on this idea- limited channels, limited thoughts. Now we face the reality of inconsistent symbols with varying interpretations. I would argue this leads to broader thinking and stronger critique but could you argue any negative effects?

Social Cognitive Theory and Media Effects

(The following is a short post by WVU Communication Studies MA student Jennifer Seifert, in reflection of our earlier class on media violence research)

In an explanation of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura states that “symbolic modeling is central to full understanding of the effects of mass communication.” He argues that there are four major subfunctions that govern observational learning- attentional processes, retention processes, production processes, and motivational processes. Offering a simple explanation of each, the attentional process determines what is observed, the retention process determines what is remembered, the production process determines the plan of action, and the motivational process determines the cost/benefit of enacting a behavior.

It could be argued research centering on the effects of mass communication should measure outcomes or behaviors; however, this reflects a limited scope of the full effects of mass communication.  In the retention process, observers of mass communication transform the information they receive into "rules and conceptions of memory". Therefore, the effects of mass communication can precede the manifestation of behaviors.

Model of the Social Learning Process