“The Psychology of Fanboyism” plus 3 more |
- The Psychology of Fanboyism
- The Psychology Of Games: Psychological Reactance and BioWare Games
- Research Shows What You Say About Others Says A Lot About You
- Women Prefer Men Who Wear Red
| Posted: 03 Aug 2010 01:35 PM PDT
In order to understand what motivates "fanboys" and "fangirls," we investigate the behaviors behind video-game fanaticism with the help of esteemed psychologists, authors, and experts on the subject. All gamers eventually encounter one. The fanboy and fangirl, who you can find lurking on message boards or can hear shrieking over headsets on Xbox Live, are by no means a recent phenomenon-the first recorded use of the term "fanboy" dates back nearly a century to 1919. First used to describe passionate boxing fans-and later comic-book readers who prided themselves on knowing their cherished fictional universes inside and out-the word has since devolved as a description of immature and often obnoxious behavior in the world of video games. But what makes fanboys tick? Why do so many take such a militant stance over their video-game console of choice, especially when the differences between consoles such as the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360 are minute when it comes to the average gamer's concerns? The vast majority of major game releases are multiplatform titles, and they offer essentially the same experience regardless of your console of choice. So why do so many fanboys develop a strong attachment to one game platform while rejecting the other with equal passion? With the help of psychologists and authorities on the subject, we seek to learn what motivates fanboy behavior and why it has become a pejorative term.  Illustration by Andrew Yang We Didn't Start the FireThere is a phenomenon whereby an object becomes part of a person's 'extended self.' If an individual is really into gaming, for example, his or her console may become an important part of his or her identity." -Dr. Lars Perner, Professor of Consumer Psychology at the University of Southern California Video games did not spawn this type of zealous behavior; they're merely the latest, most visible host for this often vicious intellectual virus. Fanboy flame wars raged years before video-gaming ultranationalists took up arms in the Nintendo Entertainment System vs. Sega Genesis days-or even when the Intellivision stoked the fires of Atari 2600 loyalists. Of course, before video games, fanaticism of this kind often took the form of religious or sports debates. Patrick Hanlon, author of the award-winning advertising psychology book Primal Branding: Create Zealots for Your Company, Your Brand, and Your Future, suggests that this kind of behavior has been a part of humanity since cavemen argued over which type of spearhead was best suited for taking down mammoths. Furthermore, he says the closer the community around a debate like this gets, the harder it becomes to quit. "Whenever you bundle a group of people with similar beliefs and ideals together, it becomes harder for them to leave individually," says Hanlon, who has worked with Bungie on Halo's advertising campaigns. "If they stop, they lose the respect of the other members of the community. They feel like a member of a community there and nowhere else, and this exaggerated sense of belonging is the same as the communities that battle over Democrats vs. Republicans or Mac vs. PC." He adds that this perceived loss of camaraderie can cause people to remain part of a community against their best interests. "It's the same case with any kind of zealotry." It's easy to see why people get up in arms about religion-few things are more important to a person's sense of identity than their faith. It gets fuzzier, though, when linking that behavior to a person's allegiance to something like a video-game console. How can a 10-pound hunk of plastic and soldered silicon affect us in the same way as one's creed or political party? Perhaps even more important, why do we see this kind of fervor in the debate over video-game consoles and not other types of products? After all, you're not likely to find flame wars between consumers of Count Chocula and Cocoa Puffs. "Some types of products are 'low involvement.' They don't define one as an individual," says Laurence Minsky, a professor of advertising at Columbia College Chicago, a private arts and media institution. "They tend not to cost much, so the impact of purchasing is small. In other words: If the purchase is a mistake, no big deal. Other products, where the implications of purchase are greater due to price, need for research, and [their] ability to broadcast one's personality and beliefs, tend to be 'high involvement'." "High involvement" is where video-game consoles fit in. Not only do they constitute a highly emotional purchasing decision, but their very nature expands their role in the lives of players. "Consoles are so responsive and interactive, the technology blurs the line between animate and inanimate objects," says Dr. Nando Pelusi, a psychologist and expert in cognitive behavioral therapy. The beginning of fanboy habits seems to stem directly from the very joy of gaming itself. "Electronics engage you emotionally," Hanlon says. "They start the dopamine drip."  Illustration by Andrew Yang The Seven Chief VirtuesElectronics engage you emotionally. They start the dopamine drip." -Dr. Nando Pelusi, Psychologist and Expert on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy While the high-involvement theory explains some of the strong emotions exhibited by fanboys, it doesn't account for how gamers go about selecting which console is worthy of their loyalties. It's unlikely that something as simple as the $50 annual fee to access Xbox Live Gold membership-which is often brought up in "PS3 vs. Xbox 360" debates since Sony does not currently charge consumers for their PlayStation Network-would be enough to indoctrinate gamers so thoroughly that we have things like the Sony Defense Force, a website that claims it's on "a mission to give honest news about all things PlayStation" but often mercilessly rips anything to do with Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii to shreds. "Console fanboyism stems from gamers wanting their system of preference to be popular so it gets the most developer support," says Rob Foor, who runs Sony Defense Force. He singles out Sony when explaining the various reasons why gamers can become fanboys. "What factors make a console fanboy get behind a specific console? Games, price, loyalty, nostalgia, functionality, and friends. For example, a gamer could own a Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 but still favor a PS3. Maybe they are used to the controller layout; maybe they love Sony's exclusive games; maybe their friends own a PS3 and they want to play online together; maybe they grew up with the original PlayStation and are comfortable with Sony branded systems; or maybe they just 'trust' Sony more than Microsoft or Nintendo." When it comes to the argument that fanboyism derives from the fact that video-game consoles are expensive, making them "high-involvement" purchases, Foor believes the theory is too simplistic. "While I believe the high cost of entry into the console game space is a factor that leads to fanboyism, it is not the only factor nor does it tell the whole story." In Primal Branding, Hanlon describes his theory on why consumers become so attached to certain brands while remaining apathetic to others, even if they're similar. He describes them as the creation of a belief system and gives seven characteristics of these strong brands: origin story, creed, icons, rituals, pagans (or "nonbelievers"), sacred words, and a leader. In essence, it's the formula for making people feel as though they are part of a team when they purchase a product, and it's not hard to see this lists' relation to the most popular gaming corporations. Many hardcore gamers wear their allegiance on their sleeve, too. Most know the leaders of the three console manufacturers by face and name; Blizzard fans gather together ritually for BlizzCon as part of the company's massively successful means of binding together their community with games like World of Warcraft; and Nintendo has maintained a fervently loyal following that appears to get stronger with each new generation of gamers. Out of all of the console manufacturers, Nintendo also seems to have the most virtues Hanlon describes in his book. Nintendo's huge fan base embodies this; its devotees hold a commanding lead over Sony and Microsoft fans in ill-advised tattoos. Most of the major video-game companies today, however, have strong communities, so these virtues don't fully explain why a gamer chooses one console over another for their undying loyalty. Instead, Pelusi suggests that in the face of multiple enticing choices, "chance and peers are the main ways we get imprinted with the one that feels right." "There is a significant effect of word-of-mouth," agrees Lars Perner, Ph.D., a professor of consumer psychology at the University of Southern California. "If a brand gains a loyal following, reviews and mentions by others will tend to be more credible than paid advertising." Out-of-Control EmotionsIt may seem like a large divide exists between being "imprinted" with an attachment to a particular game console and spewing hate speech on message boards. But the reality is that we often see instances where a deep personal connection to a video-game platform can lead to odious behavior. One explanation as to why some gamers react to attacks or criticisms directed toward their favorite console-in a manner that suggests they are personally offended-is the idea that they view the console as an extension of themselves. "There is a phenomenon whereby an object becomes part of a person's 'extended self'," says Perner. "If an individual is really into gaming, for example, his or her console may become an important part of his or her identity." The belief structure of the brand essentially becomes part of their identity. As with religion and political affiliation, it's this sense of identity that causes fanboys to lash out defensively when they feel the ideology comes under attack. "Commitment and passion often lead to irrationality," notes Pelusi. "Commitment also leads to defending your homestead with zeal." Aside from a commitment to a sense of personal identity, it's also a commitment to a hefty price tag. "There's more thought given to the purchase decision," says Minsky, "more opportunity for buyer's remorse after the purchase, and therefore, a greater need for the purchaser to be reassured he or she made the right choice; in other words, these purchases matter financially and emotionally." While many of the instances of video-game fanboyism we see today begin as something harmless, it can rapidly deteriorate into behavior that's malicious. While these experts have shown us a better understanding of the root of this particular form of fanaticism, we also know that since this phenomenon is nearly as old as humankind itself, it's doubtful that we'll ever be free from the wrath of fanboys. This fanaticism is ingrained in human behavior. The best we can do to counter the most negative examples of this mentality is to try to understand and discourage it, because unfortunately, it's something we'll most likely have to put up with as long as video games exist.Five Filters featured article: "Peace Envoy" Blair Gets an Easy Ride in the Independent. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| The Psychology Of Games: Psychological Reactance and BioWare Games Posted: 03 Aug 2010 05:51 AM PDT [Psychologist and gamer Jamie Madigan looks at the psychological underpinnings of one of BioWare's trademark RPG elements, defining 'psychological reactance' and pointing out how it's used in titles like Mass Effect.] Earlier this year I was playing through BioWare's Dragon Age: Origins and found myself on the twin points of one of the company's signature dilemmas: with which of the non-player characters should I pursue a romantic interest? Should I woo the crabby but sexy Morrigan or should I court the more pure hearted and worldly Lelliana? Or hey, maybe I should put the "role play" in "role playing game" and succumb to the roguish (literally) Zevran's advances? Oh, I can't commit! BioWare has been presenting me with this same basic choice since Baldur's Gate (Viconia, before you ask) and I always end up doing the same thing: I string everyone along as far as I can until I'm absolutely forced to make a choice. So why is this? Why do I invest so much mental and emotional energy into this pointless choice between make-believe people in a video game and why am I so reluctant to commit? Well, part of the reason is that humans hate to lose choices. Or, more to the point, we hate to lose options. Psychologist Jack Brehm coined the term "psychological reactance" to explain the concept that we really hate to lose options or freedoms once we think we have them. A child will want the toy they showed no interest in moments earlier just because her sibling is playing with it now. When shoppers in Florida were told that a certain kind of laundry detergent was banned, they rushed to not only horde the soapy goods, but they began organizing caravans to import them from neighboring states. And some members of one message board community I regularly visit reacted to having a particular nasty curse word automatically replaced by the word "tapir." They found progressively more insidious ways of circumventing the ban and by adopting "tapir" as a well known code word for the very thing it was supposed to replace, resulting in more name calling than before. Psychological Reactance In Practice Behavioral economist Dan Ariely provided a neat example of psychological reactance in his book, Predictably Irrational, and I think it's directly relevant to my inability to let go of romance options in Dragon Age. Ariely and his colleague created a little computer game where participants could choose between three doors --red, blue, and green. Players had only 100 mouse clicks to "spend" in the game by clicking to navigate between doors and then clicking in the rooms on the other side of each door. Clicking once inside a room yielded a random amount of money within a certain range. The red room, for example, could pay between 3 and 9 cents for each one of the player's limited clicks, but the blue room may pay between 8 and 16 cents per click. Only the players didn't know the ranges; they had to experiment to determine the optimal way to play the game and maximize their payout. But here's the trick: If a player ignored a certain room for 12 turns (i.e., clicks), the door to that room would shrink and eventually disappear --gone was that option! But players could "reset" the door by clicking on it just once before it disappeared (an act that cost 2 clicks without generating any money). So what did people tend to do? Even after discovering which room yielded the highest payout --in real money-- they STILL tended to go back and waste clicks on lower paying doors just to keep those options open even thought they didn't intend to actually exercise them. This was totally irrational, but psychological reactance made them reluctant to lose those options. Choices, Choices I think the same thing is at play when we wring our hands over closing the door to one of BioWare's trademark NPC romances, especially after the point where we have nothing to gain by stringing the other players along. I'm not sure that the wizards (and doctors --Canadian ones at that!) at BioWare call it "psychological reactance" in their design documents, but I bet they've figured out that this approach adds a lot of drama and tension to the game, which we react to well in the end. This kind of thing is so common in character progression as to be mundane (do I spend my talent points upgrading weapons or stealth abilities?) but game designers can certainly aim to do the same thing by giving us irrevocable choices in narrative choices. Making choices that kill the player have little tension, because you can always load a saved game. But forcing a player to make a choice that will result in losing a party member will cause real consternation. Remember the fates of Ashley Williams and Kaiden Alenko in another BioWare joint by the name of Mass Effect? The tension could be highlighted even more when we have to allocate (some might say "waste") limited resources to keeping options open as long as possible. Or force a player to choose between upgrading his armor rating or getting a chance to complete an entire side quest. By leveraging psychological reactance, designers can inject a lot of hand wringing into the experience that will be remembered for a long time. References: Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins [Jamie Madigan, Ph.D. is a psychologist and gamer who explores why players and developers do what they do by studying the overlap between psychology and video games at The Psychology of Games website. He can be reached at jamie@psychologyofgames.com.] Five Filters featured article: "Peace Envoy" Blair Gets an Easy Ride in the Independent. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Research Shows What You Say About Others Says A Lot About You Posted: 03 Aug 2010 12:08 PM PDT Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 2010, 13:35 CDT How positively you see others is linked to how happy, kind-hearted and emotionally stable you are, according to new research by a Wake Forest University psychology professor. "Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality," says Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest and lead author of the study, about his findings. By asking study participants to each rate positive and negative characteristics of just three people, the researchers were able to find out important information about the rater's well-being, mental health, social attitudes and how they were judged by others. The study appears in the July issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Peter Harms at the University of Nebraska and Simine Vazire of Washington University in St. Louis co-authored the study. The researchers found a person's tendency to describe others in positive terms is an important indicator of the positivity of the person's own personality traits. They discovered particularly strong associations between positively judging others and how enthusiastic, happy, kind-hearted, courteous, emotionally stable and capable the person describes oneself and is described by others. "Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits," Wood says. The study also found that how positively you see other people shows how satisfied you are with your own life, and how much you are liked by others. In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and antisocial behavior. "A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively," Wood says. "The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders." Given that negative perceptions of others may underlie several personality disorders, finding techniques to get people to see others more positively could promote the cessation of behavior patterns associated with several different personality disorders simultaneously, Wood says. This research suggests that when you ask someone to rate the personality of a particular coworker or acquaintance, you may learn as much about the rater providing the personality description as the person they are describing. The level of negativity the rater uses in describing the other person may indeed indicate that the other person has negative characteristics, but may also be a tip off that the rater is unhappy, disagreeable, neurotic—or has other negative personality traits. Raters in the study consisted of friends rating one another, college freshmen rating others they knew in their dormitories, and fraternity and sorority members rating others in their organization. In all samples, participants rated real people and the positivity of their ratings were found to be associated with the participant's own characteristics. By evaluating the raters and how they evaluated their peers again one year later, Wood found compelling evidence that how positively we tend to perceive others in our social environment is a highly stable trait that does not change substantially over time. --- On the Net: Five Filters featured article: "Peace Envoy" Blair Gets an Easy Ride in the Independent. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Posted: 02 Aug 2010 09:57 PM PDT Women Prefer Men Who Wear Red A team of researchers "'found that women view men in red as higher in status, more likely to make money and more likely to climb the social ladder. And it's this high-status judgment that leads to the attraction.' Red appears to signal rank in virtually all cultures." Discovery News 08/02/10 Five Filters featured article: "Peace Envoy" Blair Gets an Easy Ride in the Independent. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Psychology To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment