Unreal: Hostile Expectations From Social Gameplay: New Media & Society

new media & society
Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
Vol 11(4): 509531 [DOI: 10.1177/1461444809102958]
ARTICLE
Unreal: hostile
expectations from social
gameplay
MATTHEW S. EASTIN
University of Texas at Austin, USA
ROBERT P. GRIFFITHS
Ohio State University, USA
Abstract
This article situates the general aggression model within the
social structure of gameplay. Testing a mediated model of play,
group gaming is examined in order to demonstrate how certain
gameplay situations can promote hostile expectation bias or
the tendency to predict how others would think, feel and act
aggressively during social conflict. Demonstrating the casual
structure inherent within complex gameplay, this study presents
a needed step forward in the gaming literature. The mediated
model presented departs from the typically examined direct
effect model. Further, completing the model, this study suggests
that when state hostility is heightened, hostile expectation bias
increases.
Key words
aggression competition cooperative general aggression
model group hostile expectations media effects verbal
aggression video games
With approximately 10 million players playing an average of 25 hours

per week, online gaming is increasingly popular (Griffiths et al., 2003; itfacts.
biz, 2006; Yee, 2006). Online gaming typically elicits images of thousands of
509
Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at Fac of Hum. & Social Sciences on November 23, 2015
New Media & Society 11(4)
players within the same virtual world competing or cooperating in a neverending game better known as massively multi-user online games (MMOGs)
or massively multi-user online role-playing games (MMORPGs). However,
online gaming encompasses more than large MMOGs and MMORPGs
such as playing on a local area network (Ducheneaut et al., 2005; Woodstock,
2006). These situations allow players to game individually, against others or as
a team. Simply, gaming situations are becoming more complex and no longer
can be assumed. Interestingly, new technologies make gaming not only more
than individual gaming effects, but also one composed of interpersonal, group
and mass communication.
This research, grounded in the traditional media effects literature,
extends general models of aggression to include the influence that group
dynamics and motivation have on verbal aggression, aggressive cognition and
subsequent hostile expectations. Further, trait hostility, game experience and
gender are examined as influences to state hostility and verbal aggression. In
so doing, a complex, theoretically constructed mediating model is presented
and tested within the context of multi-user gameplay. By presenting both
direct and indirect effects, this model represents a departure from previous
analyses of these data (Eastin, 2007) and traditional gameplay research.
ONLINE GAMEPLAY
Research suggests that interpersonal connections serve as a primary
motivation to participation in multi-user environments (Griffiths et al.,
2003; Williams et al., 2006; Yee, 2006). Griffiths and colleagues (2003)
indicate that approximately 80 percent of gameplay is multiplayer, and that
those playing are gaming to satisfy their desire for competition (Griffiths
et al., 2003). Often, groups within multi-user environments are classified into
sizes such as small, medium and large (Williams, 2006), and by intra-group
relationships such as with unknown and known teammates or competitors.
Typically containing two to six players or small to medium in size, unknown
groups consist of players unfamiliar with each other. Known groups, defined
as clans (two to eight players) or guilds (primarily between six and 15 players),
contain familiar players and often play together (see Ducheneaut et al.,
2005 and Williams and Skoric, 2005 for a more complete review). Size and
familiarity break-outs are consistent with group dynamics research, suggesting
that groups are:
defined as a subset of members who are more closely identified with one
another than with the remaining members of the group and who exchange
something among themselves. (Tichy, 1973: 197)
Therefore, although potential exists for playing in environments consisting

of thousands of players, in actuality, it is likely that individuals will interact
510
Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay
more often within smaller groups. Recent research (Williams et al., 2006)
has indicated that within MMOGs (specifically, World of Warcraft), players
congregate toward subgroups consisting of others sharing similar game
goals. Although all online gaming has similarities, this study specifically has
extended the traditional single-player console situation to a linked-console
environment where the game begins and concludes as specified by the
players, rather than a continuously played environment which progresses
regardless of whether a specific player is logged into the game, as in
a MMOG.
Gameplay effects
Although the current study investigates linked-console environments, much
of the social gameplay literature exists within the more publicized play of
MMOGs and MMORPGs. Recent research regarding these environments
has shown that social gaming is played by a wide range of people and for a
long time each week typically more than 20 hours (Yee, 2006). Typical
research on MMOGs investigates who is playing, the length of play and time
displacement ramifications. More recently, Williams (2006) began to look at
gaming content in order to determine cultivation effects. One of the most
basic differences between console-linked games and MMOGs rests within
gameplay social interactions. For example, while a very large gaming guild
may encompass hundreds of players who desire a formal structure for the
resources and social networking that it affords (i.e. attending social needs),
factions of the large group may interact more closely together to participate
in subcomponents of the game (e.g. guild type: player versus player, raiding),
such as in the battle aspect of the environment (i.e. attending game goals)
(Williams et al., 2006). Similarly, Yee delineates that within linked games,
social interactions typically are limited to combat strategies, whereas MMOGs
are rich, collaborative, social interactions (2006: 305). It is here that the
current study can advance research regarding console-linked and MMOG
gameplay.
As noted, much of the MMOG literature (Yee, 2006) has been
descriptively based or virtual environment-focused. The current study
provides an alternative approach to strictly investigating the game; rather,
it uses the game as a vehicle for studying how humans engaged in certain
situations may be impacted and behave in future situations, whether it be in
real-life, console-linked or within an MMOG environment. While gaming
situations may differ due to content, point-of-view and other variables, the
opportunity that video games provide to manipulate situations yields universal
findings. Further, this study extends the research into and understanding
of these data (Eastin, 2007) by moving beyond simple direct models of
511
prediction to a more theoretically derived model which accounts for direct

and indirect effects on cognition and behavior.
Recent research regarding videogame content, and its effect on antisocial outcomes such as aggression, has increased. Meta-analyses (Anderson,
2004; Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Sherry, 2001) substantiate the positive
relationship between violent videogame play and aggressive outcomes.
This effect is compounded due to violence being incorporated into nearly
70 percent of all videogames (Smith et al., 2003; Williams and Clippinger
[2002] cite 80%). Through the years, investigators have utilized several
theories to explain human aggression, including arousal theory, excitation
transfer and social cognitive theory (Bensley and Van Eenwyk, 2001; Calvert
and Tan, 1994; Kirsh, 2003). From these theoretical frameworks, a more
comprehensive model on human aggression, known as the general model of
aggression, was derived by Anderson et al. (1995).
The general model of aggression merges the situational context of
exposure with the individuals person-attributes as a framework for
understanding violent media effects. Bushman and Anderson describe the
process as the activation and application of aggression-related knowledge
structures stored in memory (e.g. scripts, schemas) (2002: 1680). Although
a long-term effects model is proposed, the general models of aggression
is referred to often by its single-episode model (see Figure 1), which
demonstrates how the distinct inputs of situation (e.g. gaming content) and
person (e.g. gender, traits) influence internal states of cognition (i.e. state
hostility), affect and arousal. In terms of violent gameplay, the games content
and players person-attributes combine to prime aggressive cognition
Inputs
Person
Situation
Social
encounter
Routes
Present internal state
Outcomes
Appraisal &
decision
processes
Thoughtful
action
Impulsive
action
Figure 1 The single episode aggression model

Adapted from Anderson and Bushman (2002). Reprinted, with permission
from the Annual Review of Psychology. Volume 53, 2002 by Annual
Reviews www.annualreviews.org
512
(e.g. hostile thoughts, scripts and schemas), arousal and aggressive affect
again, the persons internal state. Since each gaming session is considered
to be a learning opportunity for real-world behavior, the processing of
aggressive reactions to confrontational situations becomes a more accessible
knowledge structure (defined connection), regardless of the medium. Over
time and repeated exposure, knowledge structures become increasingly
difficult to change and may be called upon in contexts within and outside the
gaming environment. In this way, the general models of aggression indicates
that the activation and application of aggression scripts are nothing more than
rehearsed knowledge structures.
Behaviors learned and strengthened repeatedly during gameplay become
accessible and used in real-life and vice-versa because these well-learned
scripts come to mind relatively easily and quickly and can be emitted fairly
automatically (Anderson and Dill, 2000: 774). The short-term, one-cycle
exposures have been shown to increase aggression through its impact on a
persons present internal state (Bushman and Anderson, 2002: 1680).
However, the general model of aggression is not without dissention.
Prior research has suggested that there are no long-term effects from violent
gameplay (Williams and Skoric, 2005). Williams and Skoric used Asherons
Call 2 (AC2), a game in which
players cannot attack other players except in a few specially marked areas
In fact, the player community is proactive in its help with others, with players
frequently taking a moment to help out those with less power or knowledge.
(2005: 222)
Although the game incorporates violent action (i.e. killing monsters), it does
not require violence to advance in the game. Because of this, Williams and
Skoric suggested that AC2 was more cooperative in nature, hence the increase
in prosocial feelings. Further, other researchers have indicated that generally,
MMOG-type games are more prosocial (Durkin and Barber, 2002; Pena and
Hancock, 2006), due to evidence showing that much of the conversational
content during these games is positively valenced and socioemotional in
nature, as noted by Yees description of linked consoles being combatoriented and MMOGs being collaborative environments (Yee, 2006).
The current research investigated situation and person variables that lead
to in-game behavior, hostile cognitions and subsequent hostile expectation
biases1 (i.e. aggressive personality), or the tendency to expect others to react
to potential conflicts with aggression (Bushman and Anderson, 2002: 1680).
Hostile expectation bias has been shown to derive from several factors,
such as sociometric status (Dodge et al., 1984; Keane et al., 1990; Villanueva
et al., 2000) and parental modeling (MacBrayer et al., 2003), as well as violent
videogame play (Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Anderson and Dill, 2000;
513
Bushman and Anderson, 2002; Eastin and Griffiths, 2006). Within the general
models of aggression framework, hostile expectation bias is an outcome
derived from the symbiotic relationship of a persons aggressive cognition
(Bushman and Anderson, 2002).
GENERAL MODELS OF AGGRESSION INPUTS TO AGGRESSIVE
COGNITION
Trait hostility
Trait hostility exists when a person possesses a hostile cognitive structure
that facilitates the processing of hostile social information and encourages
anger and aggression (Guyll and Madon, 2003: 682). Research by Dodge and
Somberg (1987) has shown that those with greater trait hostility exaggerate
indications of state hostility during threatening conditions. Additionally,
Anderson (1997) and others (Tamborini et al., 2004) found that those who
had higher trait hostility experienced greater state hostility after exposure to
violent content.
Game experience
According to the research, there is a positive relationship between the time
spent playing a violent game and exposure to relevant aggressive primes
hence a violent videogame player has a readily accessible and established
hostile response script. Evidence of this phenomenon may be found in
Tamborini et al. (2004), who indicated that prior gaming experience had an
impact on hostile thoughts post-violent gameplay. Additionally, Funk and
colleagues revealed that those who were more frequent gamers had lower
empathy scores and greater desensitization to vignettes (Funk et al., 2003),
which may be interpreted as greater hostility.
Although many projects have examined gaming components (see
Anderson, 2004; Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Sherry, 2001), few account
for situations such as group motivation, game type and in-game behavior.
Different gaming experiences could influence aggressive cognition and
subsequent aggression tendencies and behaviors in another way. The current
research introduces three potential factors that could influence the effects
from violent gameplay: group motivation, group size and the mediating role
of in-game verbal aggression.
Group motivation
In addition to the general positive relationship between violent game content
and aggression, research has shown that specific situational inputs such as
game environment (Tamborini et al., 2004), situation cues (Bartholow et al.,
2005) and game type (Eastin and Griffiths, 2005) also play important roles
514
in aggressive outcomes. Recently, Sheese and Graziano (2005) manipulated

gaming tasks (competition versus cooperation) in dyadic situations. Their
concept is similar to the current study, where group size was included in
addition to cooperative and competitive gameplay. Due to the inherent
difference in the desired outcome of each task situation, often these are
considered to be types of goal structures. For example, in a competitive
setting, the advancement toward one persons goal relates inversely to the
ability for anothers goal attainment. Conversely, in cooperative situations,
advancement toward a goal is shared by everyone in the group (Bonta, 1997).
Competition has been linked with aggression (Anderson and Morrow,
1995; Berkowitz, 1989; Bonta, 1997) through the Berkowitz reasoning
that aggression develops as a response to frustration, and competition is
inherently frustrating due to a person being blocked from a desired goal. In
terms of gameplay, one player attempting to obtain a goal (e.g. to win) has
a negative impact on the chances of the second player achieving the same
goal. Alternatively, cooperative gameplay allows all players to work together
toward the same goal. Using this logic, research consistently indicates that
competitive situations produce frustration, conflict, anger, aggression and
arguments, whereas agreement and affiliation are associated with cooperative
situations (Anderson and Morrow, 1995; Deutsch, 1993).
For the current study, group gameplay is considered to be cooperative
when success is based upon group, rather than individual, achievement.
Because the goal of winning can be achieved only through cooperative
play in this condition (e.g. protecting teammates, working in conjunction
to beat a common foe), cooperative play should demonstrate a weaker
relationship with state hostility (Deutsch, 1993; Sherif and Sherif, 1953),
compared to those who play in a competitive environment where everyone
sets out to impede others progress. Therefore, the current study predicts
that competitive gameplay will demonstrate greater hostility compared
to cooperative play when operating as an exogenous construct within a
mediated model of aggression. This distinction may help to further some
differences between competitively-based traditional gameplay environments
and the collaborative and social MMOG findings. Moreover, the causal
nature should demonstrate motivation as an important gameplay situation
beyond Eastins (2007) initial examination of these data.
Group size situation
Researchers have known that group size influences actual or perceived
competition (Bales and Borgatta, 1955; Benenson et al., 2000; Maccoby,
1986, 1990), and this is consistent across age groups (Benenson et al., 2000;
Maccoby, 1998). Here, researchers found that larger groups (i.e. with more
than two members) are more competitive than small groups (i.e. with two
515
members) (Bales and Borgatta, 1955; Benenson et al., 2000). That is, larger
groups inherently increase the potential for disagreements and antagonism,
as well as competition toward attaining a single goal (Maccoby, 1986, 1990;
Thorne and Luria, 1986).
Based upon previously cited research (Anderson and Morrow, 1995;
Berkowitz, 1990; Sheese and Graziano, 2005), competition primes aggressive
cognitions and promotes an aggressive outcome in the form of hostile
expectation bias. Also based upon previously cited research, group size is
expected to correlate positively with competition. Thus, this study introduced
three group size conditions (groups of two, four and six players). It is posited
that state hostility will be greatest for six-person groups, then four and
two-person groups.
Aggressive communication as a mediating construct
Viewed as an attack on anothers self-concept (Infante and Wigley, 1986;
Meyer et al., 2004), verbal aggression includes insults such as character
attacks, competence attacks, physical appearance attacks, personality attacks
and background attacks, teasing, ridicule, profanity and threats (Roberto
et al., 2003: 136; see also Rancer and Avtgis, 2006). From these behaviors,
researchers have connected aggressive communication to aggressive behavior
in adults (Infante et al., 1989, 1990; Roberto et al., 2006; Sabourin et al.,
1993) and children (Roberto, 1999). Consistent with this logic, the research
suggests that those who verbalize aggression would think and behave
subsequently more aggressively. The current research seeks to investigate the
effects of verbal aggression during violent gameplay.
As positioned, group size, competitive interactions and trait hostility
are thought to increase state hostility post-gameplay; however, these also
have been found to influence forms of verbal aggression. For example, in
a comparison of dyads to groups containing three, four, five, six and seven
people, Bales and Borgatta (1955) found that conflictual language was
more frequent in larger groups. Similar to the group size and aggressive
behavior literature, Bales and Borgatta (1955) suggested that due to the
greater anonymity afforded in larger competitive groups, the participants
displayed greater tension, disagreed more and displayed greater antagonism
toward others. These findings were supported recently by Benenson and
colleagues (2000), who reported that larger groups were more competitive
and subsequently produced a less positive atmosphere. Further, research
has shown that a person with natural trait hostility has hostile cognitions
and exhibits anti-social behavior (Anderson, 1997), one of which is verbal
aggression (Buss and Perry, 1992; Carnagey and Anderson, 2005). Due
to innate and established hostile response scripts, anti-social verbalizations
516
should be readily accessible and in line with factors such as game content
and motivation, as well as the surrounding environment. To this end, it has
been argued that group size, competition and trait hostility have a direct and
indirect effect on state hostility through the behavior of verbal aggression.
This conceptual extension within the framework of the general models of
aggression moves away from the previous examination (Eastin, 2007) toward
causal sequencing of gameplay effects.
From a gender perspective, the research indicates that males use verbal
aggression more than females to increase their social standing relative to
others (Coie and Dodge, 1998; Maccoby, 1998; Roy and Benenson, 2002).
More specifically, Benenson and others confirmed earlier research by Bales
and Borgatta, which suggested that males tend to be more verbally aggressive
when placed in a competitive situation. As such, gender will be treated as a
covariate within the proposed model (see Figure 2).
Although text-based communication has been incorporated into gaming
for some time, the inclusion of voice chat is relatively new. Live chat
provides new opportunities for players, allowing for more natural thought
expression during play, such as taunting or coordination of action. Although
chat is becoming common among gamers, communication effects are
relatively unknown (Pena and Hancock, 2006).
Gameplay researchers have used Bales Interaction Process Analysis (Bales,
1950; Rice and Love, 1987) to examine text-based computer-mediated
communication (Pena and Hancock, 2006). Bales Interaction Process
Analysis organizes the communication expressed by communication goals
such as expressing information and positive or negative emotions. Pena and
Hancock (2006) also used the cues filtered out approach (Kiesler et al.,
1984; Sproull and Kiesler, 1986) in order to examine the frequency of textbased communication between gameplayers. The cues filtered out perspective
predicts that the lack of social cues and greater anonymity provided through
online communication will increase depersonalization, consequently
increasing negative forms of communication (Pena and Hancock, 2006).
Here, players displayed significantly more positive text-based communicative
acts than negative, which was not predicted.
To extend this research, this article begins to connect the interpersonal
and small-group communication literatures within a voice-based mediated
context. More specifically, it will extend previous research by positioning
voice-based mediating communication as a mediating factor within the
general models of aggression.
Internal state to behavior
Experiencing violent media has been shown to prime aggressive cognitions
(Anderson and Dill, 2000; Calvert and Tan, 1994; Kirsh, 1998). In turn,
517
aggressive cognition has been shown to increase aggressive behavior

(Carnagey and Anderson, 2005) and personality (Anderson and Bushman,
2001) or, as in the current study, hostile expectation biases. Thus, consistent
with Anderson and Bushman (2002), the current study predicts that a single
gaming episode temporarily can create a hostile expectation bias as an
outcome of increased aggressive cognition.
Although each of the hypothesized relationships can be examined as
simple bivariate relationships or as a single direct effects model (Eastin,
2007), these relationships are thought to be causally linked within the single
episode model (see Figure 2). That is, the complexity of these variables
suggests a complex model of videogame effects, including direct and indirect
relationships. Personality inputs such as trait hostility and gaming experience
are correlated positively to increased state hostility. Situational variables such
as competitive group motivation, group size and the communicative act of
verbal aggression are correlated positively to state hostility. In addition to
these direct relationships with state hostility, trait-based aggressive tendencies,
group size and competition are thought to have an indirect influence
through the behavior of verbal aggression. An increased state hostility then
increases the susceptibility of enacting a hostile expectation bias, according
to the general models of aggression. The mediated effect departs from
earlier examinations of this data, where a single direct model was examined
(Eastin, 2007). Although Eastins model found no relationship between game
motivation and state hostility, this mediated model suggests that the null
Personal
Game experience
Situation
Trait hostility
Competitive
motivation
Group size
Verbal
aggression
Gender
State
hostility
Hostile
expectation
biases
Figure 2
Proposed path model based on the general models of aggression
518
findings are attributed to the mediating influence of verbal aggression. The

current model also extends Eastins research to include a behavioral-type
outcome, thus completing the short-term episode afforded by the general
models of aggression.
Due to the above rationales and prior research regarding the general
models of aggression, the current study tests the proposed model in Figure 2.
METHOD2
Sample
Data were gathered from 162 participants (48% male) from a large
midwestern university. The participants aged 1841 (M = 21.50, SD =.80)
were recruited from large Introduction to Communication classes. The
participants included 79 percent Caucasian, 12 percent African American,
6 percent Asian and 3 percent Latino students. Of these, 13 percent were
seniors, 19 percent juniors, 35 percent sophomores and 34 percent first-year
students.
Procedure
The study used a 3 x 2 (group size GS; group motivation GM)
experimental design. The participants played a first-person shooter (FPS)
game, Unreal Tournament 2004. They were randomly assigned to one
of six conditions (see Eastin [2007] for additional information on game
procedures). First, they were placed into one of three group sizes: a group
of two, four or six members. Second, the groups were randomly assigned
to have participants play either cooperatively or competitively. Overall, the
study composed of 25 groups of two, 13 groups of four and 10 groups of six.
Group motivation manipulation followed Anderson and Morrows (1995)
protocol. During cooperative play, the participants were instructed to play
with one, three or five other players against a same-size group. Within the
competitive group, the participants were told that they were playing against
one, three or five other players in the environment. The participants in the
cooperative condition knew that gaming success depended upon the result of
the team. In the competitive condition, players knew that success was defined
by individual achievement above others (Anderson and Morrow, 1995;
Bonta, 1997; Johnson and Johnson, 1983). These group goals were outlined
to the participants. All the participants were placed directly into separate
rooms before and during gameplay in order to simulate the online gaming
experience. All the participants were capable of speaking to and hearing their
teammates during the cooperative play or everyone during competitive play,
through free online software, TeamSpeak. Group size and motivation were
treated as group level independent exogenous variables. Thus group size was
519
coded where 1 = two-person groups, 2 = four-person groups and 3 = sixperson groups, while group motivation was coded thus: 1 = competitive play
and 2 = cooperative play.
The study comprised two distinct sessions. The first session provided
the participants with a consent form and an initial questionnaire requesting
general videogame use and trait aggression. The second session brought the
participants in for actual gameplay. During the second session, the gamers
were provided with 10 minutes for training in manipulating the controls and
environment. The environment was similar to the actual testing environment;
however, no violent interactions occurred during the training. Upon
completion of training, the multi-user environment server was started and
the participants placed into the game. All the participants played for one 20minute session. Upon the games completion, the participants were directed
to a post-test questionnaire and then briefed as to the nature of the study.
Variables
Trait hostility This was measured using the 29-item BussPerry Aggression
Questionnaire (Buss and Perry, 1992). The scale assesses trait hostility
through four subscales consisting of anger, hostility, physical aggression and
verbal aggression. The 29 items are measured on a seven point Likert-type
scale (where 1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me and 7 = extremely
characteristic of me; M = 3.10, SD =.82, =.91). A sample item includes:
Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.
Videogame experience Based on Novak et al.s (2000) new media experience
questionnaire, questions were altered to indicate videogame experience. Three
items assessed the level of gameplay, from how long each participant had
been gaming to the frequency that they played on a monthly and daily level.
Gaming duration ranged from 1= never to 7 = more than five years ago.
The monthly frequency of gameplay ranged from 1 = never to 6 = more
than 20 times in a month; and the daily frequency ranged from 1 = never
to 6 = more than three hours per day. Ultimately, the items were summed
and the average taken to provide a general videogame experience measure
(M = 3.62, SD = 1.15).
Verbal aggression Regardless of group assignment, the participants
communicated with each other through TeamSpeak. The current study
used individual utterances as the unit of analysis. All independent spoken
utterances during the 20 minutes of gameplay were coded (M = 36.96,
SD = 14.94). From these, following Infante et al. (1990), Pena and Hancock
(2006) and Rancer and Avtgis (2006), verbal aggression was defined as
any spoken utterance having hostile connotations and, more specifically,
expressions of negative affect verbally abusive utterances including character
and competence attacks, negative comparisons, profanity or references to
520
destruction or physical harm (M = 10.70, SD = 5.71). To understand the

amount of verbal aggression and to account better for group size differences
(i.e. opportunity to speak), a ratio score was created for each player by
dividing the number of verbally aggressive utterances expressed by the total
number of spoken utterances (M = .29, SD = .15). This ratio was used for all
analyses. Responses coding was conducted by two coders, who analyzed 10
percent of the audiofiles in the sample, then reliability was calculated (Scotts
= .85). A single coder coded the remaining 90 percent of the audiofiles.
State hostility This was measured using the Anderson et al. (1995) state
hostility measure, also known as the Current Mood Scale. The participants
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each mood
statement through 35 Likert-type items (ranging from a score of 5 = strongly
agree to 1 = strongly disagree; M = 2.41, SD = .79, =.96). Example
items included I feel furious and I feel angry. Of the 35 items, 11 needed
to be reverse-scored (e.g. I feel friendly).
Hostile expectation bias This was measured using the story completion
protocol (Bushman and Anderson, 2002; Eastin and Griffiths, 2005),
where each participant completes three ambiguous story stems (Bushman
and Anderson, 2002). Each story accompanied directions to list what the
participant expected the main character would do or say, think or feel next
based on the described scenario. The responses are split into three types
(and columns) of expectations referring to aggressive behaviors (what will
the character do or say next), aggressive thoughts (what will the character
think) and aggressive feelings (what will the character feel) (Bushman and
Anderson, 2002). The participants were given five minutes for each scenario
and asked to complete at least 20 responses for each story. Each column was
then content analyzed through Bushman and Andersons (2002) protocol.
Each coder content analyzed about 10 percent of the stories included in the
sample (N = 30), then reliability was calculated for each of the three areas.
From this, adequate reliability was achieved for aggressive behavior (example
comment: kick his ass; (Scotts = .91, M = 1.49, SD = 1.52), aggressive
thoughts (example comment, This guy sucks, he is never getting a tip; Scotts
= .88, M = 1.37, SD = 1.37), and aggressive feelings (example comment:
pissed off; Scotts = .94, M = 2.02, SD = 1.40) categories. Once reliability
was deemed adequate, the remaining sample was split between two coders.
Hostile expectation scores were constructed by dividing the total number
of hostile expectations expressed by the total number of hostile and nonhostile expressions. The number of aggressive responses for each of the three
categories was consistent with previous research (Bushman and Anderson,
2002). (Relative to previous research examining hostile expectation biases
from violent gameplay, the current study raw means for aggressive behavior
521
(M = 4.60), aggressive thoughts (M = 3.51) and aggressive feelings (M = 5.00)

were generally higher but fairly consistent with previous research (Bushman
and Anderson, 2002) measuring aggressive behavior (M = 4.50), aggressive
thoughts (M = 2.20) and aggressive feelings (M = 6.25) within the hostile
expectation bias protocol.) For all analyses, the three hostile expectation biases
were collapsed to create a composite hostile expectation bias score (M = 5.56,
SD = 1.63). In addition to looking at the composite measure, aggressive
behaviors, thoughts and feelings will be examined separately.
Gender Research suggests that aggressive cognition from violent
videogame play does not differ between men and women (Anderson and
Bushman, 2001; Carnagey and Anderson, 2004). However, because men
generally play (Gentile and Anderson, 2006) and prefer (ESA, 2005]; Lucas
and Sherry, 2004) more aggressive games than women, and have exhibited
higher aggressive behavior and tendencies including verbal aggression
(Carnagey and Anderson, 2005), the effects of gender were controlled for
verbal aggression and hostility expectations (with gender coded as 0 = female
and 1 = male).
Data analyses
A correlation matrix was used with LISREL 8.3 to estimate the model.
A path analysis was conducted using each of the variables described above.
Chi-square, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and
comparative fit index (CFI) were used to assess the fit of the model.
RESULTS
To understand the relationships among variables, a correlation matrix
is provided (see Table 1). Overall, the data fit the proposed model
(2(7) = 15.11, p<.05; CFI =.96; RMSEA =. 09; see Figure 3). From this
model, gender as a control did not produce a significant relationship with
verbal aggression ( =.04) or hostile expectations ( =.01). Trait hostility
( =.23) and gaming experience ( =.18) were significant predictors of state
hostility. In terms of the gaming situation, both motivation ( = .14) and
group size ( =.29) did predict significantly state hostility. Although data
trends were consistent with the proposed model, trait aggression ( =.11)
and group size ( =.12) were not related significantly to verbal aggression.
However, group motivation ( = .38) did significantly predict verbal
aggression. Verbal aggression ( =.17) was in turn a significant predictor of
state hostility. Finally, state hostility was a strong and significant predictor of
hostility expectation bias ( =.55). From these relationships, 18 percent of
the variance in verbal aggression, 26 percent of the variance in state hostility
and 32 percent of the variance in hostile expectation bias were predicted.
522
* p<.05, ** p<.01.
1.00
0.05
0.13
0.14*
0.11
0.12
0.04
0.36**
MOTIVATION
GROUP
SIZE
1.00
0.31**
0.00
0.08
0.07
0.23**
0.10
GROUP
Correlation matrix of study variables
Group motivation
Group size
State hostility
Trait hostility
Gender
Game experience
Hostile expectation biases
Verbal aggression
Table 1
1.00
0.27**
0.11
0.25**
0.56**
0.27**
HOSTILITY
STATE
1.00
0.23*
0.25**
0.08
0.06
HOSTILITY
TRAIT
1.00
0.63**
0.10
0.00
GENDER
1.00
0.32**
0.02
EXPERIENCE
GAME
1.00
0.13
BIASES
EXPECTATION
HOSTILE
1.00
AGGRESSION
VERBAL
523
Personal
Game experience
.18**
Situation
Trait hostility
Competitive
motivation
.11
Group size
.12
.38**
.29**
.23**
.14*
Verbal
aggression
R2 = .18**
.17*
.04
State
hostility
R2 = .26**
.01
Gender
.55**
Hostile
expectation
biases
R2 = .32**
Figure 3
Tested path model based on the general models of aggression
DISCUSSION
This study supports and furthers the literature by incorporating a multiperson gaming situation, which allowed group size and group motivation to
be manipulated, and includes the mediating influence of verbal aggression
expressed during gameplay. Demonstrating the casual structure inherent
in these variables (and the general models of aggression) situates this article
as a needed step forward in the gaming literature. The data indicate that
the situational inputs of group size and group motivation, as well as verbal
aggression, trait hostility and game experience, significantly increase state
hostility. Further, completing the single episode model, this study suggests
that when state hostility is heightened, hostile expectation bias increases,
meaning that as gameplay increases from two to six players in competitive
play, increases in verbal aggression and state hostility occur (which
subsequently increases hostile expectations). In this way, player behaviors
act as a mediating factor to the aggressive cognitions experienced from
play. Future models of gameplay not including mediating effects or causal
structures could overlook important features of the gaming experience
(Eastin, 2006, 2007; Eastin and Griffiths, 2006). For example, although not
including the behavioral outcome of expectation bias, Eastins (2007) early
direct model examination of these data suggests that game motivation had
524
an insignificant effect on state hostility.3 From the current examination, it is

clear that game motivation does influence state hostility, albeit through verbal
aggression.
This study enhances the videogame research framed within the general
models of aggression by explicating the influence that gaming motivation has
on verbal aggression. Consistent with Pena and Hancocks (2006) analysis
of text-based CMC between players, this study found that while verbal
aggression was prevalent, there were more non-aggressive verbal exchanges
than aggressive, regardless of the gaming situation. However, the current
study did find verbal aggression acts as a mediating factor between individual
and situational attributes and state hostility, adding a new dimension to the
group gaming situation input. Because aggressive utterances were made,
negative thoughts activated cognition as predicted. In this way, verbal
aggression becomes a more ingrained aggressive script toward an overall
aggressive personality. Although others may argue whether verbal aggression
is situated correctly in the culture of gameplay, this study supplements the
interpersonal literature linking aggressive communication to aggressive
behavior, and thus demonstrates communication avenues to state and
ultimately trait (personality) aggression. That said, as Eastin (2007) points to
in the initial analyses of these data, it is important to note that the current
analyses do not examine whom the verbal aggression is directed toward, if
anyone. Further, while the current coding of aggression does include various
types of aggression, the general coding scheme used does not distinguish
between verbalizations reflecting actual aggression and those that do not.
Finally, unlike some of the MMOG studies indicating the prosocial effects
of group gameplay, this research did not study the game specifically, neither
did it specifically study the FPS genre. The study utilized FPS as a conduit
for the way in which people contextualize the game. In this fashion, FPS and
the connectivity of the consoles provided an opportunity to manipulate goal
structure as well as violence to a general context, applicable to myriad social
yet violent situations.
CONCLUSION
Suggestions for future research
First, future research should extend the number of players participating in the
game. Perhaps surpassing a group size of six could yield results of less or more
hostility, and thus present a potential non-linear relationship between group
size and aggression outcomes. For example, for a large cooperative group it
could be argued that groups become too large to manage, thus players will
disassociate or lessen their commitment to other group members (Hackman
and Morris, 1978) and subsequently increase individual play which, according
525
to the current study, would increase state hostility. Speaking generally about
group dynamics, Deutsch and Rosenau stated:
[A]s size increased, communication difficulties increased and the group members
felt they had less influence on each other, that they were more inhibited in
expressing their views and that the group worked less cooperatively on the task.
(1963: 3; cf. Hackman and Vidmar, 1970)
Then again, as presented in the current study, perhaps as a group becomes

larger (e.g. 20-plus members), subgroups and cliques may form (Hare, 1952),
providing a manageable and positive smaller group playing situation. Previous
research (Goembiewski, 1962; Thomas and Fink, 1963) has shown that the
smaller the group is, the more satisfied members are with group discussion
and their role in it. In this situation, group sizes such as those examined in
the current study become even more relevant. For the competitive group, as
groups become larger, competition should increase due to the greater number
of opponents; however, it is possible that this does not hold a linear effect.
Consistent with flow logic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), if competition becomes
too intense, the player may actually withdraw from the environment due
to the challenge being too great for their skill level. This type of disconnect
could attenuate the effects from gameplay.
Limitations of the study
Although the current study does present a substantial advancement in the
videogame effects literature, there are limitations. For example, the level of
violent exposure was not controlled. Individual gaming technique could have
differed to a point where some players hid behind walls and posts in order
to take strategic hits against opponents. This gaming situation would have
differed from another gamer who took an ambush approach and ran into a
group of opponents, trying to kill as many of them as possible before being
killed. The gamer taking the war of attrition tactic would have experienced
higher levels of violence and violent cues.
Further, in the competitive situation, the individual player competed
against and spoke with up to five other players. In the cooperative situation,
the individual player competed against six other players and communicated
with their five teammates. Because the cooperative situation always had one
additional competitor than the competitive situation, it is possible that there
was more opportunity to be aggressive in the cooperative situation than the
competitive situation.
In conclusion, the incorporation of the multiplayer environment and
integration of communication as a mediating factor are considerable
advancements in the gaming literature and general models of aggression
model. As shown here, including others in the gaming experience
demonstrates the important role that multiplayer gaming has on aggressive
526
cognition. Depending upon the nature of group gameplay, playing with

others can have a significant impact on the level of state hostility experienced,
which has been shown to lead to hostile expectation biases. With the advent
and popularity of Xbox Live, local area network gaming and other such
high-bandwidth, networked gaming situations, the social setting of gaming
has increased the importance of future research and examination of potential
mediating variables.
Notes
1 There are several terms in the literature that are closely related to one another. Much
of the research refers to a hostile attribution bias: a persons tendency to think that
others harmful actions are intentional. Also relevant is the hostile perception bias,
which claims that a person perceives social interactions as aggressive. This study and
others utilizes the hostile expectation bias as an outcome.
2 With the exception of hostile expectation biases in-game behaviour and data analyses, all
the sampling and procedure information are identical to those reported in Eastin (2007).
3 Unlike the current analysis, previous analysis has assumed non-independence within
each group, which could influence the current findings. That said, the mediating
factor (mediating model) and behavior outcome presented in the current study were
not included in previous analyses, and do demonstrate the importance of direct and
indirect effects.
References
Anderson, C.A. (1997) Effects of Violent Movies and Trait Hostility on Hostile Feelings
and Aggressive Thoughts, Aggressive Behavior 23(3): 16178.
Anderson, C.A. (2004) An Update on the Effects of Violent Video Games, Journal of
Adolescence 27(1): 11322.
Anderson, C.A. and M. Morrow (1995) Competitive Aggression without Interaction:
Effects of Competitive Versus Cooperative Instructions on Behavior in Video Games,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(10): 102030.
Anderson, C.A. and K.E. Dill (2000) Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings
and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
78(4): 77290.
Anderson, C.A. and B.J. Bushman (2001) Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive
Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal and Prosocial
Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature, Psychological Science
12(5): 3539.
Anderson, C.A. and B.J. Bushman (2002) Human Aggression, Annual Review of
Psychology 53: 2751.
Anderson, C.A., W.E. Deuser and K. DeNeve (1995) Hot Temperatures, Hostile Affect,
Hostile Cognition and Arousal: Tests of a General Model of Affective Aggression,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(5): 43448.
Bales, R.F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups.
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R.F. and E.F. Borgatta (1955) Size of Group as a Factor in the Interaction Profile,
in A.P. Hare, E.F. Borgatta and R.F. Bales (eds.) Small Groups: Studies in Social
Interaction, pp. 495512. Toronto: Random House.
527
Bartholow, B., C.A. Anderson, C. Carnagey and A. Benjamin (2005) Interactive Effects
of Life Experience and Situational Cues on Aggression: the Weapons Priming Effect in
Hunters and Nonhunters, Journal of Experimental Psychology 41(1): 4860.
Benenson, J.F., C. Nicholson, A. Waite, R. Roy and A. Simpson (2000) Childrens
Evaluative Appraisal of Competition in Tetrads versus Dyads, Small Group Research
31(3): 63552.
Bensley, L. and J. Van Eenwyk (2001) Video Games and Real-life Aggression: Review
of Literature, Journal of Adolescent Health 29(4): 24457.
Berkowitz, L. (1989) FrustrationAggression Hypothesis: Examination and
Reformulation, Psychological Bulletin 106(1): 5973.
Berkowitz, L. (1990) On the Formation of Regulation of Anger and Aggression,
American Psychologist 45(4): 494503.
Bonta, B. (1997) Cooperation and Competition in Peaceful Societies, Psychological
Bulletin 121(2): 299320.
Bushman, B.J. and C.A. Anderson (2002) Violent Video Games and Hostile
Expectations: A Test of the General Aggression Model, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 28(12): 167986.
Buss, A. and M. Perry (1992) The Aggression Questionnaire, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 63(3): 4529.
Calvert, S. and S.L. Tan (1994) Impact of Virtual Reality on Young Adults Physiological
Arousal and Aggressive Thoughts: Interaction Versus Observation, Journal of Applied
Development Psychology 15(1): 12539.
Carnagey, N.L. and C.A. Anderson (2004) Violent Video Game Exposure and
Aggression: a Literature Review, Minerva Psichiatrica 45: 118.
Carnagey, N.L. and C.A. Anderson (2005) The Effects of Reward and Punishment in
Violent Video Games on Aggressive Affect, Cognition and Behavior, Psychological
Science 16(11): 8829.
Coie, J.D. and K.A. Dodge (1998) Aggression and Antisocial Behavior, in W. Damon
(ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol 3. Social, Emotional and Personality Development,
pp. 779862. New York: Wiley.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: the Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper
& Row.
Deutsch, M. (1993) The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. and N. Rosenau (1963) The Effects of Group Size and Group Task Upon
Productivity and Member Interaction, unpublished manuscript.
Dodge, K.A. and D.R. Somberg (1987) Hostile Attributional Biases among Aggressive
Boys are Exacerbated Under Conditions of Threats to Self, Child Development 58(1):
21324.
Dodge, K.A., R.R. Murphy and K. Buchsbaum (1984) The Assessment of Intentioncue Detection Skills in Children: Implications for Developmental Psychology, Child
Development 55(1): 16373.
Ducheneaut, N., N. Yee, E. Nickell and R. Moore (2005) Alone Together? Exploring
the Social Dynamics of Massively Multi-Player Online Games, URL (consulted 14
July 2005): http://www.chi2006.org
Durkin, K. and B. Barber (2002) Not So Doomed: Computer Gameplay and Positive
Adolescent Development, Journal of Applied Development Psychology 23(4): 37392.
Eastin, M.S. (2006) Video Game Violence and the Female Gameplayer: Self and
Opponent Gender Effects on Game Presence and Aggressive Thoughts, Human
Communication Research 32(3): 35172.
528
Eastin, M.S. (2007) The Influence of Competitive and Cooperative Group Gameplay on
State Hostility, Human Communication Research 33(4): 45066.
Eastin, M.S. and R.P. Griffiths (2005) Beyond Shooter Games: How Game
Environment, Game Type and Competitor Influence Presence, Arousal and
Aggression, paper presented at the International Communication Conference, New
York, May.
Eastin, M.S. and R.P. Griffiths (2006) Beyond the Shooter Game: Examining Presence
and Hostile Outcomes among Male Gameplayers, Communication Research 33(6):
44866.
ESA (2005) Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry, URL
(consulted 27 September 2005): http://www.theesa.com/
Funk, J.B., D. Buchman, J. Jenks and H. Bechtoldt (2003) Playing Violent Video Games,
Desensitization and Moral Evaluation in Children, Applied Development Psychology
24(4): 41336.
Gentile, D.A. and C.A. Anderson (2006) Video Games, in N.J. Salkind (ed.) Encyclopedia
of Human Development, Vol. 3, pp. 13037. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goembiewski, R.T. (1962) The Small Group: An Analysis of Research Concepts and
Operations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Griffiths, M., M. Davies and D. Chappell (2003) Breaking the Stereotype: The Case of
Online Gaming, CyberPsychology & Behavior 6(1): 8191.
Guyll, M. and S. Madon (2003) Trait Hostility: The Breadth and Specificity of Schema
Effects, Personality and Individual Differences 34(4): 68193.
Hackman, J.R. and N. Vidmar (1970) Effects of Size and Task Type on Group
Performance and Member Reactions, Sociometry 33(1): 3754.
Hackman, J.R. and C.G. Morris (1978) Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process
and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposal Integration, in L.
Berkowitz (ed.) Group Processes, pp. 156. New York: Academic Press.
Hare, A.P. (1952) Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized Groups, American
Sociological Review 17: 2617.
Infante, D.A. and C.J. Wigley (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and
Measure, Communication Monographs 53(1): 619.
Infante, D.A., T.A. Chandler and J.E. Rudd (1989) Test of an Argument Skill
Deficiency Model of Interspousal Violence, Communication Monographs 56(2): 16377.
Infante, D.A., T.C. Sabourin, J.E. Rudd and E.A. Shannon (1990) Verbal Aggression in
Violent and Nonviolent Marital Disputes, Communication Quarterly 38(4): 36171.
itfacts.biz (2006) MMORPG on ZDNet, URL (consulted 3 January 2006): http://
zdnet.search.com/search?q=mmorpg&cat=230
Johnson, D. and R. Johnson (1983) The Socialization and Achievement Crisis: Are
Cooperative Learning Experiences the Solution?, Applied Social Psychology Annual 4:
11964.
Keane, S.P., K.P. Brown and T.M. Crenshaw (1990) Childrens Intention-cue
Detection as a Function of Maternal Social Behavior: Pathways to Social Rejection,
Developmental Psychology 26: 10049.
Kiesler, S., J. Siegel and T.W. McGuire (1984) Social Psychological Aspects of
Computer-mediated Communication, American Psychologist 39(10): 112334.
Kirsh, S.J. (1998) Seeing the World through Mortal Kombat-colored Glasses: Violent
Video Games and the Development of a Short-term Hostile Attribution Bias,
Childhood 5(2): 17784.
Kirsh, S.J. (2003) The Effects of Violent Video Games on Adolescents: The Overlooked
Influence of Development, Aggression and Violent Behavior 8(4): 37789.
529
Lucas, K. and J.L. Sherry (2004) Sex Differences in Video Gameplay: A Communicationbased Explanation, Communication Research 31(5): 499523.
MacBrayer, E.K., R. Milich and M. Hundley (2003) Attributional Biases in Aggressive
Children and Their Mothers, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112(4): 698708.
Maccoby, E.E. (1986) Social Grouping in Childhood: Their Relationship to Prosocial
and Antisocial Behavior in Boys and Girls, in D. Owens, J. Block and M. RadkeYarrow (eds) Development of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior, pp. 26384. Toronto:
Academic Press.
Maccoby, E.E. (1990) Gender and Relationships, American Psychologist 45(4): 51320.
Maccoby, E.E. (1998) The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, G., A.J. Roberto, F.J. Boster and H.L. Roberto (2004) Assessing the Get
Real About Violence Curriculum: Process and Outcome Evaluation Results and
Implications, Health Communication 16(4): 45174.
Novak, T.P., D.L. Hoffman and Y. Yung (2000) Measuring the Customer Experience
in Online Environments: a Structural Modeling Approach, Marketing Science 19(1):
2242.
Pena, J. and J. Hancock (2006) An Analysis of Socioemotional and Task Communication
in Online Multiplayer Video Games, Communication Research 33(1): 92109.
Rancer, A.S. and T.A. Avtgis (2006) Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory,
Research and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rice, R.E. and G. Love (1987) Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional Content in a
Computer-mediated Communication Network, Communication Research 14(1): 85108.
Roberto, A.J. (1999) Applying the Argumentative Skill Deficiency Model of
Interpersonal Violence to Adolescent Boys, Communication Research Reports 16(4):
32532.
Roberto, A.J., G. Meyer, F.J. Boster and H.L. Roberto (2003) Adolescents Decisions
about Verbal and Physical Aggression: an Application of the Theory of Reasoned
Action, Human Communication Research 29(1): 13547.
Roberto, A.J., K. Carlyle and L. McClure (2006) Communication and Corporal
Punishment: The Relationship Between Parents Use of Verbal and Physical
Aggression, Communication Research Reports 23(1): 2733.
Roy, R. and J.F. Benenson (2002) Sex and Contextual Effects on Childrens Use of
Interference Competition, Developmental Psychology 38(2): 30612.
Sabourin, T.C., D.A. Infante and J.E. Rudd (1993) Verbal Aggression in Marriages:
a Comparison of Violent, Distressed and Nonviolent and Nondistressed Couples,
Human Communication Research 20(2): 24567.
Sheese, B. and W. Graziano (2005) Deciding to Defect: the Effects of Video-Game
Violence on Cooperative Behavior, Psychological Science 16(5): 2242.
Sherif, M. and C.W. Sherif (1953) Groups in Harmony and Tension. New York: Harper.
Sherry, J.L. (2001) The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-analysis,
Human Communication Research 27(3): 40931.
Smith, S.L., K. Lachlan and R. Tamborini (2003) Popular Video Games: Quantifying
the Presentation of Violence and its Context, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
47(1): 5876.
Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler (1986) Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in
Organizational Communication, Management Science 32(11): 1492512.
Tamborini, R., M.S. Eastin, P. Skalski, K. Lachlan, T.A. Fediuk and R. Brady (2004)
Violent Virtual Video Games and Hostile Thoughts, Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media 48(3): 33557.
530
Thomas, E.J. and C.F. Fink (1963) Effects of Group Size, Psychological Bulletin 60: 37184.
Thorne, B. and Z. Luria (1986) Sexuality and Gender in Childrens Daily Worlds, Social
Problems 33(3): 17690.
Tichy, N. (1973) An Analysis of Clique Formation and Structure in Organizations,
Administrative Science Quarterly 18(2): 194208.
Villanueva, L., R.A. Clemente and F.J. Garcia (2000) Theory of Mind and Peer
Rejection at School, Social Development 9(3): 27183.
Williams, D. (2006) Virtual Cultivation: Online Worlds, Offline Perceptions, Journal of
Communication 56(1): 6987.
Williams, D. and M. Skoric (2005) Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an
Online Game, Communication Monographs 72(2): 21733.
Williams, D., N. Ducheneaut, L. Xiong, N. Yee and E. Nickell (2006) From Tree
House to Barracks: The Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft, Games and Culture
1(4): 33861.
Williams, R.B. and C.A. Clippinger (2002) Aggression, Competition and Computer
Games: Computer and Human Opponents, Computers in Human Behavior 18(5):
495506.
Woodstock, B. (2006) What the Market Research Tells Us: Where MMOs Are
Going and How Are We Going to Get There, paper presented at the Austin Game
Conference, Austin, TX, 68 September.
Yee, N. (2006) The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of
Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical Environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 15: 30929.
MATTHEW S. EASTIN is an associate professor at the Department of Advertising, University of
Texas at Austin. His research focuses on new media behavior, and from this perspective, he has
investigated information processing as well as the social and psychological factors associated
with gameplay involvement, new media adoption, e-commerce, e-health and organizational use.
Address: Department of Advertising, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1200,
Austin, TX 78712, USA. [email: matt.eastin@mail.utexas.edu]
ROBERT P. GRIFFITHS is an elearning consultant for technology enhanced learning at Ohio
State University. His research centers around interactive media effects and organizational
technology use.
531

Unreal: Hostile Expectations From Social Gameplay: New Media & Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unreal: Hostile Expectations From Social Gameplay: New Media & Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

new media & society

Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications

With approximately 10 million players playing an average of 25 hours

New Media & Society 11(4)

Therefore, although potential exists for playing in environments consisting

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

New Media & Society 11(4)

prediction to a more theoretically derived model which accounts for direct

Present internal state

Figure 1 The single episode aggression model

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

New Media & Society 11(4)

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

in aggressive outcomes. Recently, Sheese and Graziano (2005) manipulated

New Media & Society 11(4)

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

New Media & Society 11(4)

aggressive cognition has been shown to increase aggressive behavior

Proposed path model based on the general models of aggression

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

findings are attributed to the mediating influence of verbal aggression. The

New Media & Society 11(4)

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

destruction or physical harm (M = 10.70, SD = 5.71). To understand the

New Media & Society 11(4)

(M = 4.60), aggressive thoughts (M = 3.51) and aggressive feelings (M = 5.00)

Correlation matrix of study variables

New Media & Society 11(4)

Tested path model based on the general models of aggression

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

an insignificant effect on state hostility.3 From the current examination, it is

New Media & Society 11(4)

Then again, as presented in the current study, perhaps as a group becomes

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

cognition. Depending upon the nature of group gameplay, playing with

New Media & Society 11(4)

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

New Media & Society 11(4)

Eastin: Unreal: hostile expectations from social gameplay

You might also like