M. Krcmar & A. Eden, Cognitive Load in Video Games
9
would emphasize instead that harming others was wrong, that we should not shoot at others, and indeed that looking human (e.g., video game characters) means that someone is human. Given that the perception of human essence was a significant determinant of both guilt and in-game aggression, we can see that even in a game setting the initial reaction to things that look human is to treat them as such. The present findings are consistent with broader empirical research and theorizing about emotional processing and reactions to video games. Rationalization, as we might call it colloquially, served to increase enjoyment according to the research. In order to play a violent video game, it is essential to engage System 2. Behaviors such as accruing points and selecting weapons rely on rational processing. Rational processing allows for winning the game and enjoying violent behavior (Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010). Conversely, suppression of System 2 makes it more difficult to engage in immoral behavior. Although we did not measure enjoyment, it seems possible that a cognitive load manipulation might also serve to decrease enjoyment. After all, System 2 is needed to play a game and presumably enjoy it. Enhancement of the intuitive System 1 might serve to dampen enjoyment of aggression in many players. Furthermore, the significant relationship between harm/care salience and guilt suggests that although players may be influenced by cognitive processes enacted through System 1 and System 2, individual differences in moral salience can influence game play responses as well.
Studies 3 and 4), which may naturally increase cognitive load during play. In any case, each of these should help in our understanding of how players process games. Second, we utilized only one game. Because we wanted to investigate the effect of cognitive load on in-game aggression, we chose to begin our exploration with only one game. We reasoned that with each game, in-game aggression could be operationalized differently, making it difficult to derive a reliable and valid dependent variable. However, using only one game offers the possibility that effects were game specific, a potential threat sometimes referred to as message effects. Thus, future research should attempt to replicate these findings using other games. Finally, we may have had a floor effect on the guilt variable, as the mean for the composite measure was low. However, it was in line with previous research using this scale (Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010). In conclusion, it appears that video game play is in fact processed with two distinct cognitive systems and future theoretical work should consider the importance of these two distinct forms of processing during video game play. Furthermore, future work should continue to examine video game play as it relates to moral reasoning both in and outside the game world and in relation to System 1 and System 2 processing. Evidence here, and in other related studies, continues to support the notion that video game play can be a morally complex experience and one central to understanding how humans process social information in virtual worlds.
Limitations and Future Research
Acknowledgments
Although the findings from this study are promising, the study itself was not without limitations. We would like to stress that our data are merely suggestive of the relationships presented, and clearly future research must investigate these links further. The main limitations are as follows: First, the cognitive load induction is a relatively weak manipulation, which may have led to the smaller effects seen in this study. We externally manipulated cognitive load, but game controls all require cognitive processing allocation, which may vary with participant skill. Thus, it would be inaccurate to claim that those in the low-load condition were in fact playing under low load. Instead, playing the game itself presented players with some load; the test group merely experienced additional load. In addition, there are other ways to manipulate cognitive load. For example, the secondary task paradigm, where players are asked to attend to a task in addition to the primary activity, may offer a stronger manipulation. Alternately, the game controller may be altered to increase complexity during play (Przybylski, Deci, Rigby, & Ryan, 2014,
Ó 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
The authors would like to thank Tilo Hartmann for extensive input into an earlier version of this paper that was presented at the 100th annual conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
References Bowman, N. D. (2016). Video gaming as co-production. In R. Lind (Ed.), Producing 2.0: The intersection of audiences and production in a digital world (Vol. 2, pp. 107–123). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. 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 & Virtual Worlds, 7(1), 41–57. doi: 10.1386/jgvw.7.1.41_1 Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. (2008). Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication, 53, 508–529. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000036 Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2(3), 215–234.
Journal of Media Psychology (2019), 31(1), 2–11