4. Fortnite and Wishful Identification

Question 1

what is the fortnite social paradox

Answer 1

effects of violent mmog games on children’s basic psychological needs and prosocial behaviour (Prosocial behaviour was more common after cooperative video game play)

Question 2

What was the quuestion?

Answer 2

playing video games collaboratively may boost prosocial behaviour → as such games promote feelings of competence and connectedness

Question 3

Primary methodology:

Answer 3

• violent game or neutral game
• engage in two types of prosocial tasks

Question 4

what were the findings?

Answer 4

• Co-play = more likely to give to charity AND spend more time helping another person
  
  • Even more so when they played the violent game !!

Question 5

why??????

Answer 5

Psychological needs satisfaction → violent collaborative play linked more to feelings of competence, relatedness, enjoyment, positive

BUT
is it the violence? or are these games just more fun, require more critical thinking, more teamwork needed?

Question 6

Limitations

Answer 6

• The social context and the psychological experience influenced the participants’ prosocial behavior more than the formal content of the game.
• 9-12 (small age group)
• unbalanced representation of sex
• Longitudinal assessments would be also informative as to whether violent cooperative video game play increases prosocial behavior in the long term
• not generalizable (israeli children)

Question 7

Self-determinism Theory (SDT)

Answer 7

People have 3 fundamental psychological needs which are defined as competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Satisfaction of these three needs is vital for the individual’s intrinsic motivation.

Question 8

wishful identification study question

Answer 8

violent video games = esp. likely to increase aggression when players identify with violent game characters

Question 9

Primary methodology:

Answer 9

• Low education played realistic or fantasy violent or non
• Winner blasts loser with loud noise (louder = more aggressive)

Question 10

Main findings and implications:

Answer 10

• Most aggressive = played game and wishful identification
  
  • Closer to the concept of vicarious learning
• Identifying with characters = more aggressive
• consistent with social learning theory, social-cognitive theory, and developmental theory

Question 11

Limitations

Answer 11

• Did not compare lower educated boys with other groups to determine lower SES more likely to identify with character bc play more games
• M age = 15
• Only tested boys

Question 12

most susceptible group?

Answer 12

11-17, low education