Posted: 15 Sep 2010 11:47 PM PDT

[Continuing his series for Gamasutra, psychologist and gamer Jamie Madigan looks at how a few simple psychological manipulations could tip players in online games in the right direction.]

How can developers of multiplayer games get their players to behave, cooperate, play their role, and not be such incredible jerks? I have an idea. Psychology is involved. You probably guessed this.

One of my favorite little experiments in psychology was done by John Bargh, Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows who were interested in how stereotypes were triggered.

In one experiment, they had participants unscramble sentences that made heavy use of words like Florida, old, bingo, wrinkle, ancient and the like. A control group did the same thing, but with words not reminiscent of the elderly. That wasn't the real experiment, though.

The important part of the experiment actually happened after the participants left the lab. Another experimenter sat in the hallway outside and discretely used a stopwatch to time how long it took participants to walk from one end of the hall to the other. Those who had been working with words related to old people actually walked significantly slower (you know, like an old guy) than those who had worked with other words.

Bargh, Chen, and Burrows also did another experiment where some people unscrambled sentences with words related to rudeness (bold, bother, brazen) and some worked with words indicating politeness (patiently, courteous, unobtrusively). All subjects then walked in on a scene where they had to interrupt a conversation to get some needed information. Those in the "polite" condition waited 9.3 minutes on average. Those in the "rude" condition jumped in after just 5.5 minutes on average.

These are examples of what psychologists called "priming," which is basically getting people in a particular state of mind or getting them to think about what you want them to. It's a staple of advertising and surprisingly easy to do. I've been thinking for a while that game developers should take better advantage of it.

What if, for example, certain words of phrases were thrown around on loading screens between levels or in the matchmaking lobby for a multiplayer shooter? Would simply showing words like "sportsmanship" or "communication" or "fairness" prime people to behave themselves during games? If you didn't want to be that transparent, you could include little stories, vignettes, or even comics or movies that included those words or illustrations of them. Or maybe you could use real data, like the number of heals provided by players in the previous game or awards for best defense.

In his book, Predictably Irrational, behavioral economist Dan Ariely suggests some even better ways of making this kind of thing work. He describes some experiments that he, Nina Mazar, and On Amir did where they asked students at MIT to solve as many math problems as they could in a fixed time.

Everyone was entered into a lottery where the winner would receive $10 for each correctly solved problem, so there was incentive to answer lots of problems. Some subjects were given a chance to cheat at the task by self-reporting the number of problems solved, and some couldn't cheat because a research assistant graded their answers.

But let's back up a bit. Some subjects in the "cheating is possible" condition were asked two write down the Ten Commandments before starting the math problems, and others were not asked to write anything. Relative to those who didn't have the opportunity to cheat, those who did and who did not write down the Ten Commandments supposedly answered 33% more questions --a clear indication of cheating since that's way more than could be expected by chance alone.

But what about those who had the chance to cheat but were asked to write things like "Thou shalt not lie" and "Thou shalt not steal?" Dude, they didn't cheat at all. They answered exactly as many questions on average as the people who didn't even have a chance to cheat. In a follow-up study, the same researchers replicated these results by omitting the Ten Commandments and having students acknowledge understanding that their actions were "subject to the MIT honor code" Which, ironically, was a lie; there was no such official code.

It seems that the Ten Commandments or a reference to an honor code was enough to prime people for behaving themselves, but I think the study also tapped what's called "the consistency bias." This is where we tend to behave in ways that are consistent with our stated intentions, especially if stated publicly.

So what does this mean for gamers? Again, I'm thinking of loading screens and between rounds of multiplayer and matchmaking lobbies. What if you presented subjects players with simple yes/no questions like these?

Will you change classes if your team has too many of the class you wanted to play?
Will you stick around to the end of the match even if it looks like you're going to lose?
Are you going to curse and be rude in this next match?
Will you hang back and play defense if your team needs it?
Will you fortify your team's defenses if needed?
Will you give other people a chance to drive the damn tank once in a while? Please? Pretty please? You always just drive it off a cliff, anyway. C'mon, what do you say?

If, while waiting for the match to start, each player could answer those questions, what do you think would happen? Would they be primed in good ways? Would they want to behave consistently? Would having their answers shown to other players have an effect?

Personally, I think this could work. It's at least worth experimenting with. C'mon, someone out there try it and let us know how it goes.

References:

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Bargh, J., Chen, M. & Barrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2)

[Jamie Madigan, examines the overlap of psychology and video games at psychologyofgames.com and for GamePro magazine. He can be reached at jamie@psychologyofgames.com]

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

Budweiser, Balsamic Vinegar, and How Expectations Affect Our Views [Psychology]

Posted: 16 Sep 2010 07:21 AM PDT

Budweiser, Balsamic Vinegar, and How Expectations Affect Our Views Would you willingly mix balsamic vinegar with your Budweiser? Actually, yes, you would, in certain conditions, explains Professor of Behavioral Economics Dan Ariely in his book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Photo by seeks2dream.

The Muddy Charles is one of MIT's two pubs and the place of Ariely's experiment. Students that dropped by were offered two small free samples of beer, one labeled A and the other labeled B. Beer A was regular Budweiser whereas Beer B was a special mix called "MIT Brew", two drops of balsamic vinegar for each ounce of beer. After tasting the samples, participants were offered a free large glass of the beer of their choice.

Most of the participants that knew nothing about the vinegar before tasting the beers chose Beer B, the vinegary beer. But those that were offered more information before the tasting (Beer A was a commercial brew, Beer B had a few drops of balsamic vinegar in it) would wrinkle their nose at the vinegary brew and request Beer A instead. They believed beforehand that Beer B was going to be bad and after tasting it, they actually found it bad.

Budweiser, Balsamic Vinegar, and How Expectations Affect Our Views Now what happens if the presence of vinegar is revealed after tasting the samples instead of before? Can initial sensory perceptions be reshaped with new knowledge or is it too late to change the perceptions once they are established? Photo by jules:stonesoup.

It turned out that the participants to this new version of the experiment liked Beer B as much as those that knew nothing about the vinegar. Moveover, when asked whether they would like to make the "MIT Brew" themselves, they were willing to add the right amount of vinegar to their beer. Like the first group, they tasted the vinegary brew blind without any pre-conceived expectations and they actually liked the taste of it so they didn't mind giving it another try.

What happens is that our brain is always refining and distorting sensory information in order to construct a simpler picture of the world. If our brain has tried to represent everything as accurately as possible, we would be completely paralysed by information. Moreover, it cannot start from scratch at every new situation. Instead, it must build on what it has seen before so we can interact with our environment more decisively and make better sense of our complicated surroundings.

So next time you make a decision, be realistic—it's 100 percent biased.

Catherine Granger is a software engineer living in northern California. She created the Manage Your Cellar online wine inventory tool for collectors, edits the Purple Liquid blog, and notes that she very rarely writes about beer.

The author of this post can be contacted at tips@lifehacker.com

Psychology text 'How Pleasure Works' gets to the root of our likes and dislikes

Posted: 15 Sep 2010 05:58 PM PDT

It doesn't take a Yale psychology professor to figure out why I loved Paul Bloom's new book, How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We like What We Like. Bloom (a Yale psychology professor) argues that we don't always derive pleasure from our senses—we don't always prefer the fattiest hamburger or the biggest boobs. We derive pleasure, Bloom says, from essences. That's why we prefer the real Cezanne to the identical knockoff, why we won't try on Hitler's sweater and why we cling so tightly to that broken plastic locket our grandma gave us on her deathbed.

The senses, it turns out, are often terrible at determining what makes us happy. "If you grind up a product called 'Canned Turkey & Chicken Formulate for Puppies/Active Dogs' in a food processor," Bloom writes, "and garnish it with parsley, people cannot reliably distinguish it from duck liver mousse, pork liver pate, liverwurst or Spam."

See, it's not about what our senses prefer; it's about what we think our senses prefer. "The problem with human flesh," according to Bloom, "is not that it tastes bad in some objective sense. By all accounts, if you like pork, you would be perfectly comfortable eating a person, so long as you didn't know what you were eating."

Bloom discusses fascinating topics (undercover violinists, feces-shaped chocolate fudge, duplication machines), quotes my favorite writers (A.J. Jacobs, Steven Johnson, Yasmina Reza), and ties everything together with a counterintuitive, well-supported thesis. In doing so, he's created the most pleasurable psychology book of the year.

Psychology

Thursday, September 16, 2010

“The Psychology Of Games: Priming, Consistency, Cheating, and Being a Jerk” plus 2 more

“The Psychology Of Games: Priming, Consistency, Cheating, and Being a Jerk” plus 2 more

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts