The current research explored the influence of trait competitiveness and aggression on mood following gameplay. This was examined both within experimental (Study 2) and real-life gaming contexts (Study 4). Although trait aggression did not influence gaming experiences (i.e., flow) or outcomes in Study 2, it interacted with negative affect in Study 4. Specifically high trait aggression was related to higher negative affect following solo and social gameplay. The inconsistencies between studies could be as a result of differences in gameplay processes. That is, Study 2 was a highly controlled, solo gamplay session, in which participants played a pre-determined game, for a pre-determined time. The gameplay dynamics of participants in Study 4, however, could not be examined. The influence of variables such as external dynamics, type of game played, and mood prior to gameplay, for example, were not
193
controlled. It is possible that the differences in dynamics between studies could have influenced different gaming experiences, and associated outcomes. Specifically, the potential influence of external dynamics (e.g., context, the presence of others) in Study 4 may have resulted in enhanced negative outcomes compared to the controlled nature of Study 2.
Study 4 also found that trait competitiveness interacted with negative affect. Individuals low in competitiveness had higher negative mood following solo gameplay. This finding is interesting as it would be expected that higher rather than lower competitiveness would be more likely to be associated with negative affect. A possible explanation may involve aspects of gameplay performance. It is possible that variables such as success or failure in gameplay could influence the affective outcomes of gaming. In this case, individuals of lower competitiveness may not be driven to win to the same extent as those high in competitiveness. This could result in a lower success rate in gaming, influencing greater negative affect following gameplay. It is equally conceivable, however, that those high in competitiveness may feel more negative than those low in competitiveness in instances of game losses. The mechanisms behind these findings remain unclear, and this potential confound requires further control in future research. This is a particularly relevant issue as it would provide greater understanding of the factors which influence performance in gaming (e.g., game difficulty, competitiveness of others) and how these are associated with outcomes. This is particularly relevant for extending the theoretical understanding of flow and “group flow” in the context of gaming, as it could identify the influence of gamers’ previous experience and skill level on gameplay experiences and the associated outcomes. This would help extend the theoretical basis of the gaming effects literature, to accommodate the importance of considering the influence of gaming processes on the range of potential outcomes.
Although previous studies have acknowledged individual differences and personality influences on aggressive gaming outcomes (e.g., Bartholow et al., 2005; Krahé & Möller, 2004), there is little evidence of how they influence gaming experiences, and whether this differs as a product of gaming context. The current research provided initial evidence to suggesting that trait aggression and competitiveness influence negative affective outcomes, and that this is, to some extent, dependant on the nature
194
of the gaming context (solo or social). Negative affective outcomes, however, are distinct from aggressive ones, therefore it is unclear whether the Study 4 would have found evidence to suggest the influence of trait aggression and competitiveness on aggressive gaming outcomes. The literature, however, shows associations between negative affect and facets of aggression (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2010), suggesting negative affective outcomes may translate into aggressive ones. Further consideration of personality influences both in solo and social gaming contexts is required, to provide a better understanding of the potential range of influences on gaming outcomes. Competitiveness should also be further examined in relation to different types of games. Individuals high in competitiveness are likely to seek and derive enhanced enjoyment from games which facilitate opportunities for competition, particularly when playing socially. Sports games are of particular relevance for examining these processes as they tend to contain a substantial competitive content. Research of this nature should also examine the issue of performance in gameplay, and the associated differential outcomes following successful or unsuccessful gaming sessions. Acknowledging the influence of gameplay performance is a key component of the theoretical understanding of the range of gaming outcomes since it has implications for current models which examine the sole influence of game violence on aggressive outcomes, since these do not incorporate this variable as a moderator of alternative outcomes.
These findings provide new evidence about the influence of aggressive personality on real-life gaming experiences and outcomes. Although a substantial amount of research has examined the influence of aggressive personality on aggression outcomes from violent videogame exposure, no research to date, has examined the affective outcomes in the context of real-life gaming experiences. Further, it utilised an approach which accounted for a balance of positive and negative outcomes, to provide an alternative perspective to the majority of the existing literature. The current research provides a useful insight into the links between videogame-play and aggression. Whilst a substantial amount of previous research has apparently shown a “causal” link between exposure to violent game content and aggression-related outcomes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010), the current study provides an alternative perspective, and questions the simplicity of the proposed link. The results suggest that these associations are complex, and demonstrate that stable traits, such as aggressive personality, influence
195
the outcomes of gaming. This notion is supported by Eastin (2007) who suggested that the sophistications of gameplay require a more comprehensive model than that of the GAM, and should consider the influences of moderating variables (e.g., type of gameplay, social group size). Given the complexities and range of influences and moderators, this presents a challenge for researchers when producing models of the outcomes of gameplay. These issues will be re-visited later in this chapter.