Social Reasoning in Virtual Worlds Versus Real Worlds

• In Event: Massively Multiplayer Online Games, Teenage Guys, and Learning: Experiments in an After-School Game-Based Casual Learning Lab

Abstract

Objectives
This paper examines whether players of World of Warcraft (WoW) maintain the same values in the game as they do in the real world. Our study seeks to better understand how adolescents think about ethical concerns in terms of competing priorities.
Theoretical Framework
Virtual worlds provide opportunities to engage in civically minded activities. As Jenkins et al. (2006) argue, the participatory culture created by videogames offers out-of-school opportunities for civic learning. WoW and other social games are “miniature communities” that place players in community-based settings where they can gain civic gaming experiences (Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2009). WoW players encounter countless ethical dilemmas during gameplay. In this study, we focused on moral dilemmas as outlined by Colby & Kohlberg (1987), which evoke competing priorities relating to authority, promises, personal rights, and relationships.
Methods
Participants were presented with two dilemmas and asked to respond to a series of questions. Scenario A, the out-of-game scenario, was derived from a standardized dilemma used in studies of developmental ethics (Kohlberg, 1976; Colby et al., 1987). Scenario B, the in-game scenario, was structurally similar to the first but set in the context of the game. Order was counterbalanced to mitigate ordering effects. The questionnaire form, adapted from the standardized work on developmental ethics (Kohlberg, 1976; Colby et al., 1987) for each scenario was based on the “Defining Issues Test” or DIT2 measure (Rest, 1979; Rest, Navaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 1999). Each item on the questionnaire asked participants to rank the importance of one of several competing interests on a standard 5-point Likert scale and to give a short written explanation of their ranking. Questions for each scenario were parallel, allowing for comparison of relative rankings and rationale across the two contexts.
Results
Paired t-test comparisons revealed significant differences for the important rankings for authority and for personal rights. Respecting the wishes of an authoritative figure was significantly more important to participants in the game context (M = 4.14, SD = 1.17) compared to the real world (M = 2.36, SD = 1.01), with t(14) = 4.69, p = <.001. Likewise, the issue of one’s own personal rights was significantly less important to participants in the context of the game (M = 2.64, SD = 1.28) than in the real world (M= 4.21, SD = 1.21), with t(14) = 2.96, p = .01. Our qualitative findings corroborate the quantitative measures.
Significance of the Work
These findings suggest a pattern in which individuals are more willing to suspend personal rights and follow a designated authority in a game context. The is evocative of Jenkins’ (2006) work on participatory cultures and Levy’s (1997) theory of collective intelligence in that the suspension of individual rights in exchange for participation in the group, guided by the authority of an individual or goal or the group itself, is a prerequisite to collective social movements. Such findings make sense: MMOs are based on a mechanic in which players join groups and agree to play by certain rules regardless of immediate personal advantage.

Authors

• Amanda Kay Ochsner, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Sarah N.M. Chu, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Yoonsin Oh, University of Wisconsin - Madison