NEED FOR AFFILIATION UNDER THREAT IN
THE CONTEXT OF HORROR VIDEO GAMES
By
Joshua Kim
A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Media and Information––Master of Arts
2021
ABSTRACT
NEED FOR AFFILIATION UNDER
THREAT IN THE CONTEXT OF HORROR
VIDEO GAMES
By
Joshua Kim
Research suggests that people favor playing violent video games cooperatively with
others. However, little is known about the reason behind people’s desire to play
cooperatively. Previous research has demonstrated that perceived threat to the avatar can
increase the need for affiliation (Velez et al., unpublished data). The current study replicates
and extends previous research by using a horror game, Phasmophobia. 559 American adults
above 18 who have previous experience with video games were assigned to watch one of
the four video clips of horror game play, taking the role of an avatar. The current research
tested the hypothesis that direct violence to the avatar will result in higher level of threat
relative to the avatar being in a threatening situation. The results suggest that perceived
threat to the avatar increased participants’ need for affiliation. Also, participants who
experienced direct violence to the avatar reported more threat than those whose avatars were
in a threatening situation. Additionally, participants who thought their avatar was playing in
a group reported higher levels of needs for affiliation. Finally, higher levels of need for
affiliation increased participants’ desire to play video games with others but it did not
predict an increased desire to play alone.
Copyright by
JOSHUA KIM
2021
This thesis is dedicated to Mom and Dad who
always gave me full support, and Dr. Dave
Ewoldsen and Dr. John Velez who have guided
me throughout the study. Thank you for always
believing in me.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................vii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 2
Affiliation Motivation in the Context of Video Games ............................................................. 4
CURRENT RESEARCH............................................................................................................... 6
METHOD ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Design and Participants.............................................................................................................. 8
Procedure and Manipulation ...................................................................................................... 9
Measure .................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 14
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 20
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 23
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 25
APPENDIX A: Previous game playing behavior .................................................................... 26
APPENDIX B: Trait Need for Affiliation ............................................................................... 34
APPENDIX C: Arousal ........................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX D: Threat ............................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX E: State Need for Affiliation ............................................................................... 50
APPENDIX F: Instructions for Phasmophobia ....................................................................... 58
APPENDIX G: Demographics................................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX H: Links to game clips ........................................................................................ 61
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 62
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stepwise Regression for Effect of Threat on State Need for Affiliation (Hypothesis 1)
...................................................................................................................................................18
Table 2: Mean Scores for Interaction between Play and Threat (Hypothesis 3) ...................... 18
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Serial Mediation model to predict cooperative video game play ............................ 19
Figure 2: A Serial Mediation model to predict playing video games alone......................................... 19
Figure 3: Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale .................................................................................. 41
Figure 4: Lists of ghosts and evidence........................................................................................................ 59
vii
INTRODUCTION
Extensive research demonstrates that playing violent video games increases aggressive
thoughts, cognitions, and behaviors while decreasing prosocial behavior (Anderson &
Bushman, 2001). Also, research suggests that exposure to violent video games increases
physiological arousal such as heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance (Anderson et al.,
2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2001). However, most studies of violent video games have
focused on single players regardless of how games are played these days (Velez & Ewoldsen,
2013). In contrast to the early research on violent video games, research suggests that
nowadays players not only prefer to play multiplayer video games to any other style of play in
video games but also play cooperatively with other players (Velez & Ewoldsen, 2013; Velez
et al., 2014), particularly against a common opponent (Ewoldsen et al., 2012; Kutner &
Olson, 2008). An increasing number of studies have begun to underscore the social aspects of
video games which have become a source of enjoyment and motivation for players (Cole &
Griffiths, 2007; Peña & Hancock, 2006; Velez & Ewoldsen, 2013). For example, players form
positive relationships during cooperative video game play (Kutner & Olson, 2008; Olson,
2010). As a result, social video game play has set a new standard of how players enjoy
playing video games these days. However, little is known about why players like to play
cooperatively despite the detrimental effects of violent video games. Specifically, it seems
contradictory that people would want to play violent video games with other people, if the
playing the games increases arousal and hostility. Therefore, the proposed study questions
why people would want to play violent video games cooperatively even though playing
violent games increases aggression-related affect and hostility.
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
The General Aggression Model proposes that two types of input variables can influence
aggression: personal and situational variables (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Personal
variables include anything the individual brings to the situation (i.e., gender, genetic
predisposition, personality traits, attitudes, beliefs, values). Situational variables include all
external factors that can influence aggression (i.e., violent video games, alcohol, provocation,
hot temperatures, frustration, and aggressive cues). In the model, personal and situational
factors influence one’s internal state, such as aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and
physiological arousal levels. These internal states are all interconnected. If people feel angry
and have aggressive thoughts, or are physiologically aroused, it is likely they will behave in
an aggressive manner. Additionally, the model states violent video games not only have short-
term effects, but also have long-term effects due to repetitive exposure.
The GAM addresses extensive evidence of the predictability of increased aggression
and other related aspects caused by violent video game play. For instance, violent video game
play increases aggressive thoughts (Anderson & Dill, 2000). People who had played violent
video games were more likely to display a hostile expectation bias, which is the tendency to
interpret others’ harmful actions as intentional rather than accidental (Bushman & Anderson,
2002). Also, playing violent video games increases aggressive affect such as state hostility
and anxiety levels (Anderson & Ford, 1986). Individuals with high trait-level hostility showed
greater increases in stress level than those who are low in trait hostility (Lynch, 1999).
Research has confirmed a positive relationship between stress and playing violent video
games by analyzing players’ voice stress (Hasan et al., 2013; Hasan, 2017). Lastly, playing
violent video games increases aggressive behavior. A longitudinal study of effects of violent
2
video games on aggression in adolescents demonstrated that children who played more
violent video games in the early days of school became more aggressive later (Anderson et
al., 2007). Meta analyses concluded that playing violent video games substantially increases
physiological arousal and aggression-related affects, thoughts, and behaviors (Anderson et al.,
2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2001). In addition, exposure to violent video games is negatively
associated with prosocial behavior (Anderson et al., 2010).
Past research on the negative effects of violent video games utilizing the GAM has
typically focused on single players who are isolated during game play (Anderson et al., 2010).
Isolated players can solely focus and engage with the violent content of violent video games
which leads to the learning and activation of aggressive scripts (Velez et al., 2016). However,
this overlooks the social context of video games. Research suggests that social interactions
and the relationships that occur during cooperative video game play appear to serve a greater
role in shaping players’ subsequent behaviors than the content of violent video games
(Jerabeck & Ferguson, 2013; Velez et al., 2016). For example, Velez (2015) suggests that
players’ behaviors during social video game play can affect expectations of reciprocal
behaviors between teammates which impacts subsequent behaviors. In other words, playing
video games with a helpful teammate can reinforce the expectations of in-group members to
reciprocate prosocial behavior and lead to subsequent prosocial behavior among team
members (Velez, 2015). Moreover, cooperative social interactions during the play of violent
video games can increase players’ prosocial behaviors and decrease aggression compared to
people played the violent video game alone (Velez et al., 2016). Likewise, playing a violent
video game cooperatively can decrease players’ subsequent aggressive behaviors to levels
similar to people who are not exposed to violent video games (Velez et al., 2016). These
3
attenuating effects of cooperative video game play on violent video game player’s
subsequent aggressive and prosocial behavior may be the result of increase in reciprocity
expectations or trust norm (Velez et al., 2016).
These findings indicate that cooperative video game play reduces the detrimental
effects of violent video games on aggressive thoughts (Schmierbach, 2010; Velez, Mahood,
Ewoldsen, & Moyer-Guse, 2014), feelings (Eastin, 2007), and behaviors (Velez et al., 2016)
while increasing prosocial behaviors (Ewoldsen et al., 2012; Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013;
Greitemeyer et al., 2012; Velez et al., 2014; Velez et al., 2016). Thus, violent video game
play in a social context underscores the dynamic social interactions among players. However,
a major question is yet to be asked why players would prefer to play cooperatively in the first
place given the research suggesting violent video games increase arousal which should lead to
hostility during game play.
Affiliation Motivation in the Context of Video Games
It has been known that playing violent video games increase physiological arousal (Anderson
& Bushman, 2001). Then, why do aroused players favor playing violent video games
cooperatively with others? Research suggests that arousal leads to anxiety and subsequently a
drive-like motivation for affiliation (Byrne, 1961; Y. Teichman, 1973). Specifically, arousal is
positively correlated to the desire to affiliate with others when followed by both ego-threat and
physical threat (Y. Teichman et al., 1982; Fay & Maner, 2015). Furthermore, Taylor (2006)
proposed and tested a biobehavioral model that states oxytocin, a type of hormone, is released in
threatening or stressful situations and concurrently prompts affiliative behavior. Especially,
affiliation need was higher among threatened individuals (Taylor et al., 1992). Moreover,
4
research suggests that fear, an emotional response to “concrete and sudden danger of
imminent physical threat†(Lazarus, 1991, p.234), goes along with physiological arousal such
as increased heart rate or increased respiratory rate (Kreibig et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2018).
Therefore, these findings suggest that people may prefer playing violent video games
cooperatively because anxiety, fear, or threat can drive people’s fundamental motivation to
affiliate with others. According to self-determination theory (SDT), one of the most prevalent
theories of human motivation, humans are fundamentally driven to fulfill one of the three
basic psychological needs – need for affiliation, a motive to be connected to others (Ryan &
Deci, 2017).
A recent research conducted by Velez et al. (unpublished data) examined players’
affiliation motivations in the context of a violent video game. In the study, participants viewed
either first or third-person game play. They were asked to imagine they were the players of the
game while watching a 5-minute video of game play. The video clips included three different
game play situations: under threat (the avatar being killed); no threat (the avatar gambling);
provoking threat (the avatar kills other avatars). The findings suggest that participants who
took the role of the avatar in a violent video game were aroused and displayed affiliation needs
during the exposure to the video game clips. Importantly, participants felt as if they were in
the video game and identified with the avatar.
This proposed study replicates and expands the previous research from Velez et al
(unpublished data) on the need for affiliation based on threat in the context of video games. In
contrast to the use of shooter/role-playing game (RPG) in the prior study, the current research
used a different genre of video games, Phasmophobia, a horror/adventure game. One goal of
this study was to test whether mediated fear or fright generated in horror games plays a similar
5
role as the perception of threat in violent video games. Fear is defined as “a multidimensional
reaction composed of immediate emotional and subsequent cognitive responses to a perceived
threat†(Lynch & Martins, 2015, p.299). Horror games also generate suspense, which is
produced by various elements such as darkness and lack of clues where threat will appear and
heightened by the uncertainty of future threats (Lin et al., 2018). If so, it seems reasonable that
both horror games and violent video games will produce similar increases in threat and then
motivations to affiliate despite the difference in genres. Demonstrating the same processes
occur across these different genres would increase the generalizability of this line of research.
Moreover, the current study examines the need for affiliation not only when the avatar
explores alone but also when the avatar is with other teammates. Based on the previous
finding that threat increases players’ affiliation motivations, it seems reasonable that playing a
horror game alone will produce high need for affiliation in contrast to playing cooperatively
with others will decrease affiliation motivation. The findings of this question can help explain
whether higher need for affiliation predicts players’ preferences in playing violent video
games cooperatively with others in the future relatively to solo and competitive game play.
CURRENT RESEARCH
Recent research conducted by Velez et al (unpublished data) suggests that cooperative game
play addresses the need for affiliation motivated by threat that is experienced when playing a
violent video game. Because mediated violence during video game play has shown the same
activation pattern of a brain part as engagement in actual violence (Mathiak & Weber, 2006)
and game avatar reflects the player’s behavior (Peña, 2011), the player should experience
threat when the avatar is threatened (Velez et al, unpublished data). Based on the findings, the
6
proposed study explores players’ affiliation motivation in the context of a horror game as fear
or fright produced by horror games is closely associated with the perception of threat.
Particularly, the current research aims to determine if a player (taking the role of an avatar)
demonstrates the need for affiliation when the avatar is alone but also when the avatar is with
others. Additionally, the current study asks players how they want to play violent video games
in the future, guided by the need for affiliation. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Perception of threat to the avatar increases need for affiliation
Phasmophobia is a four-player online cooperative game in which players team up as
paranormal investigators and explore haunted locations filled with paranormal activities.
Within the game, it is most likely that players not only face threat but also (the avatar) could
eventually die from the ghost’s attack. The ghost starts off intimidating (i.e., turning off lights)
players and slowly progresses to ultimately become corporeal, seeking to kill a player. The
killing of an avatar can prevent players from winning the game. Considering the game is
configured in a way that the ghost is invincible, and players are consistently vulnerable to the
ghost, I thereby hypothesize: H2: Direct violence to the avatar will result in higher level of
threat relative to the avatar being in a threatening situation
Finally, based on H1 and H2, current research examines if participants would
experience lower levels of need for affiliation when the avatar is playing with others in a
group than playing alone. I thereby hypothesize:
H3: Being under threat when taking a role of an avatar with others will decrease need for
affiliation in comparison to playing alone
Lastly, current research assumes that threatened players are inherently motivated to
play violent video games cooperatively with others and people would experience perceptions
7
of threat while playing a violent video game. Also, physiological arousal such as threat,
anxiety, or fear addresses the need for affiliation. If so, it seems reasonable that threat or fear
generated by the horror game used in this study will increase a player’s affiliation motivation.
The proposed study questions if higher need for affiliation predict desire to play cooperatively
in the future relatively to play alone or competitively. Therefore, this study proposes a
research question:
RQ1: How would people with higher levels of need for affiliation want to play violent video
games? With others or alone?
METHOD
Design and Participants
This study uses a 2 (Game condition: Solo vs. Cooperative) × 2 (Perceived threat vs. Direct
violence) between-subjects design to test players’ desire for affiliation under threat. 559
American adults above 18 who have prior experience with video games are randomly sampled
to participate in the study. Participants are asked to imagine they were players of the game and
watch four video clips of 5-6-minute, first-person video game play of Phasmophobia. The
researcher played and recorded all the video game clips that appeared in the current study. The
videos were edited so that they are as consistent as possible in all four conditions. In exchange
for their participation, participants are paid per their agreement with Dynata as an appreciation
for being involved in the study. Participation in this study is voluntary and participants may
refuse to take the survey or quit at any time without penalty (data will be deleted from the
analysis). There was an attention check within the questionnaire to validate the data provided
by the participants. Data provided in this study is confidential and any information regarding
8
participants was not collected. The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board
for the university.
Procedure and Manipulation
Participants were asked to participate in an online survey where they completed the informed
consent, indicated by an agreement to complete the questionnaire. The survey was accessed
and completed on Qualtrics. Then, participants completed a pre-test questionnaire measuring
their video game habits and trait need for affiliation. The items within each scale were
randomly ordered. After completing the scales, participants were randomly assigned to watch
one of the four gameplay videos. Participants were given instructions for which type of
gameplay they were given and that the content may be gory and graphic.
The video game used in the study is Phasmophobia, a first-person, multiplayer horror
game. A horror game which falls into the category of violent video games was used to
increase generalizability. Phasmophobia provide players immersion with realistic graphics
and interactive sounds. In this game, players (the avatar) take the role of urban ghost hunters,
who actively seek out for paranormal activities in different abandoned facilities such as
homes, schools, and hospitals. The objective of the game is to discover which type of ghost
the players have encountered, collect evidence, and eventually get paid at the end of each
mission.
In the Solo – Low Threat condition, participants were told that they will be watching a
single-player video game play of Phasmophobia. They viewed the character’s perspective and
took the role of the character. Participants were informed that they may encounter the ghost,
but it will not harm them. In the Solo – High Threat condition, participants were told that they
will be watching a single-player video game play of Phasmophobia. They viewed the
9
character’s perspective and took the role of the character. Participants were informed that the
avatar will be very careful when seeking and gathering evidence because the ghost is very
active and aggressive. Importantly, they were warned that there is a high chance of the avatar
dying. This condition was manipulated so that participants will watch their avatar die.
In the Group – Low Threat condition, participants were told that they will be watching
a multiplayer video game play of Phasmophobia. They were informed that the character will
be playing with a group and participants will view the game play from one of the character’s
perspective and take the role of that character. Participants were told that they may encounter
the ghost, but it will not attack them. In the Group – High Threat condition, participants were
told that they will be watching a multiplayer video game play of Phasmophobia. They were
told that the avatar will be playing with others as a group, and they will be viewing one of the
character’s perspective and take the role of that character. Participants were informed that the
ghost is aggressive and there is a high chance of the avatar dying.
The manipulation of four videos were assessed by asking participants to complete
questionnaire about perceived threat to the avatar and the self, self-reported arousal, Inclusion
of Other in the Self (IOS), State Need for Affiliation and game play behavior and preference.
Measure
At the beginning of the survey, participants completed a questionnaire about their game
playing behavior (see APPENDIX A). Sample questions include asking participants to answer
the numbers of hours per week he or she plays video games, their game skills, and basic
demographic questions. Also, questions including participants’ reasons for playing video
games and their preference in game play (solo vs. group) will provide information regarding
the social context within the game play.
10
Trait Need for Affiliation. Participants are asked to answer a series of pre-game
questions that measures players’ affiliation motivation (nAff) (Hill, 1987). The scale is
consisted of 21 items, and it examines players’ trait need for affiliation (nAff) in four
dimensions: emotional support, positive stimulation, social comparison, and attention (see
APPENDIX B). Emotional support (α =
.92) included one of the following examples: “I usually have the greatest need to have other
people around me when I feel upset about somethingâ€. Positive stimulation (α = .89) included
one of the following items: “I seem to get satisfaction from being with others more than a lot
of other people doâ€. One of the items from social comparison (α = .87) scale include “I find
that I often look to certain other people to see how I compare to othersâ€. Lastly, attention (α =
.94) includes one of the following questions: “I like to be around people when I can be the
center of attentionâ€. All 21 items were on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at All True,†5 =
“Completely Trueâ€).
State Need for Affiliation. Participants were asked to answer the identical set of
questions from Trait Need for Affiliation after the exposure to game play videos. State Need
for Affiliation was measured during the game play. All questions start by stating “If I was
playing that video game†to examine the change in need for affiliation (α = .98).
Interpersonal Orientation Scale (IOS). One diagram was used to assess participants’
connectedness to the avatar (See Figure 1 below). IOS provides an understanding of
participants’ role-played behavior (Aron et al., 1992). The diagram includes seven pairs of
circles that range from just touching to almost entirely overlapping. One circle is labeled
“self†and the other circle is labeled “video game characterâ€. Participants were asked to
choose one of the seven pairs to answer the question “which pair best represents the
11
relationship between the “self†and the “video game character†in a 7-point scale (1 = no
overlap, 7 = most overlap).
Solo vs. Group Play Preference. Participants completed a set of five items about how
they want to play a video game after the exposure to the game play videos (i.e., I would like to
play the video game with others in person). All five items were on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at
All True,†5 = “Completely Trueâ€).
Threat. To measure threat, one 7-point Likert Scale consisting of five items was used
to assess participants’ perceived threat to the avatar (α = .86). Also, a 11-point semantic
differential scale from the previous research was used to measure participants’ perceived
threat to the self (Velez et al., unpublished data) (α = .95). The scale included the following
items: I feel fearful, afraid, scared, tense, frightened, anxious, and uncomfortable.
Arousal. A total of 18 items were used as a measure of self-reported arousal after
watching video game clips. The items were taken and modified from the Perceived Arousal
Scale (Anderson et al., 1995) and were measured on a 9-point semantic differential scale.
Among these, five items were measured to assess arousal. They include the following
adjectives: Excited, frenzied, jittery, wide awake, and aroused (α = .82). Five measured items
were recoded so that right polar adjectives defined arousal.
Attention Check. Participants answered one question that asked: “In the short video
clip, what location did the video game character go?â€. If they did not pick “A log cabin/
farmhouse†they were immediately removed from the survey. Other incorrect answers
included: “A skyscraperâ€, “An apartmentâ€, “A modern mansionâ€.
Manipulation Check. To assess the success of the experimental manipulation,
participants answered two multiple choice questions (“In the video clip you watched, with
12
whom did you play with?â€, “How threatening was the video clip of gameplay you watched?â€).
Each question included two answers (“Nobody, I played soloâ€, “I played with others as a
groupâ€; “Nothing happened – I survived the gameâ€, “I was killed at the endâ€) that match with
which random video participants watched. If participants failed to match the video they
watched and the correct answers, they were immediately removed from the survey.
To assess whether manipulation of threat was successful or not, participants answered
an 18-item Perceived Arousal Scale. The questionnaire asked participants to rate their feelings
by checking close to the adjective (i.e., excited or calm; jittery or dull) which they believe
describe their reactions while thinking about the scenarios of the game.
13
RESULTS
Stepwise regression was used to test Hypothesis 1 that perceived threat to the avatar increased
state need for affiliation. Trait need for affiliation was entered in the first step as a control to
ensure that effects were due to changes in participants’ state need for affiliation (see Table 1
for results of the stepwise regression). Trait need for affiliation was a significant predictor of
state need for affiliation, R2 = .68, F(1, 524) = 1,091.17, p < .001. The second step added
perceived threat to the avatar. Perceived threat to the avatar was a significant predictor of
state need for affiliation, ∆R2 = .01, F(1, 523) =16.19, p < .001. The results of this analysis
support Hypothesis 1. Perceived threat to the avatar predicted state need for affiliation after
controlling for trait need for affiliation.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that participants would experience higher levels of perceived
threat toward the avatar when game play involved direct violence compared to the possibility of
violence. This hypothesis was tested using a 2 (high threat vs. low threat) X 2 (playing alone
vs. playing together) analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was a significant main effect of
threat such that participants in the high threat condition perceived more threat to the avatar (M
= 4.78, SD = .75) than participants in the low threat condition (M = 3.92, SD = .97), F(1, 522)
= 81.81, p < .001, eta2 =.16. The main effect of play condition was not significant. Participants
who were in the condition where they played alone did not report more threat (M = 4.12, SD =
.94) than participants who played in the group condition (M = 4.31, SD = 1.04), F(1, 522) =
.28, p > .55, eta2 = .001. Finally, the interaction between threat condition and play condition
was not significant, F(1, 522) = .41, p > .50, eta2 = .001.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that participants would experience lower levels of state need for
affiliation when they thought they were playing with a group than playing alone. This
14
hypothesis was tested using a 2 (high threat vs. low threat) X 2 (playing alone vs. playing
together) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Trait need for affiliation was entered as a
covariate to ensure that any effects were due to changes in state need for affiliation. Trait need
for affiliation was a significant covariate, F(1,554) = 1,234.87, p > .001, eta2 = .69. Contrary
to predictions, the main effect for playing alone vs. in a group was marginally significant such
that participants who thought they were playing in a group experienced higher levels of
affiliation (M = 2.65, SD = 1.14) than those who thought they were playing alone (M = 2.49,
SD = 1.13), F(1, 554) = 3.04, p = .08, eta2 = .005. The main effect of threat was not significant,
F(1,554) =1.00, p > .30, eta2 = .002. The interaction between play and threat was marginally
significant, F(1, 554) = 3.21, p = .07, eta2 = .006. The means for the interaction can be found
in Table 2.
Finally, the research question asked whether people would want to play video games
together or alone if the threat that was experienced while playing a video game increased
people’s need for affiliation. This research question was answered by conducting two serial
mediations using the PROCESS Macro for SPSS (Model 6; Hayes, 2017).
The first model tested whether perceived threat to the avatar lead to perceived threat to
the self which increased need for affiliation which finally predicted the desire to play video
games with others (see Figure 1). Four measures were used in the mediation models:
perceived threat to the avatar, perceived threat to self, state need for affiliation and desire to
play with others. The perceived threat to the avatar subscale consisted of 6 items (α = .79), the
perceived threat to self, consisted of 6 items (α = .95), State Need for Affiliation subscale
consisted of 21 items (α = .98), and desire to play with others subscale consisted of 5 items (α
= .90). Trait need for affiliation and players baseline desire to play with others were entered as
15
covariates. To test whether threat resulted in an increased need for affiliation and then an
increased desire to play with others, the first step of the mediation model testing whether
perceived threat to the avatar predicted perceived threat to the self was significant, b = .78,
95% CI [.55, 1.02]. In the second step of the mediation model, perceived threat to self was a
significant predictor of state need for affiliation, b = .07, 95% CI [.06, .09]. In the final step of
the serial mediation model, state need for affiliation significantly predicted the desire to play
video games with others, b = .59, 95% CI [.49, .69]. These findings indicate that perceived
threat to the avatar did predict an increase desire to play video games with others, mediated by
perceived threat to the self and then state need for affiliation. The direct path from perceived
threat to the avatar to the desire to play video games with others was not significant, b = -.01,
95% CI [-.07, .05]. This later finding indicates the effect of perceived threat to the avatar on
desire to play video games with others was completely mediated by perceived threat to the self
and state need for affiliation.
The second model tested whether perceived threat to the avatar lead to perceived threat
to the self which increased need for affiliation which finally predicted the desire to play video
games alone (see Figure 2). Desire to play alone was measured by a single item (The question
asked participants’ preferences for playing the video game alone, not including online with
others). Trait need for affiliation and players baseline desire to play alone were entered as
covariates. To test whether threat resulted in an increased need for affiliation and then an
increased desire to play with others, the first step of the mediation model testing whether
perceived threat to the avatar predicted perceived threat to the self was significant, b = .83,
95% CI [.59, 1.07]. In the second step of the mediation model, perceived threat to self was a
significant predictor of state need for affiliation, b = .08, 95% CI [.06, .10]. In the next step of
16
the model, state need for affiliation did not predict the desire to play video games alone, b =
.08, 95% CI [-.12, .07]. These findings indicate that perceived threat to the avatar did not
predict an increase desire to play video games alone, mediated by perceived threat to the self
and state need for affiliation. The direct path from perceived threat to the avatar to the desire
to play video games alone was also not significant, b =
-.01, 95% CI [-.14, .12]. Together, these findings from this mediation model suggest that state
need for affiliation that was activated by perceived threat to the self did not increase players’
desire to play video games alone.
17
Table 1: Stepwise Regression for Effect of Threat on State Need for Affiliation (Hypothesis 1)
State Need for Affiliation
Predictor Β ∆R2
Step 1 .67***
Trait Need for Affiliation .94***
Step 2 .01***
Trait Need for Affiliation .90***
Threat to NPC .12***
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2: Mean Scores for Interaction between Play and Threat (Hypothesis 3)
Play Low Threat High Threat
Solo 2.27 2.52
Group 2.83 2.75
18
Figure 1: A Serial Mediation model to predict cooperative video game play
.07
State Need for
Threat to Self
Affiliation
.78 .03 .59
Threat to n.s.
Play with
Avatar Others
Figure 2: A Serial Mediation model to predict playing video games alone
.08
State Need for
Threat to Self
Affiliation
n.s.
.83
Threat to n.s.
Play Alone
Avatar
19
DISCUSSION
As in previous research, the current study examined why people favor playing violent video
games with others even though violent video games increases aggressive-related affects and
physiological arousal (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Recent research has shown that
cooperative video game play can decrease the adverse effects of violent video games on
aggressive cognition, aggressive behaviors, and state hostility (Velez et al., 2014; Velez,
2015). Also, research on violent video games suggests that how players play the video game
(alone vs. together and competitively vs. cooperatively) serves a more critical role than the
content of the game. For example, research suggests that players prefer to play video games
cooperatively with other players (Velez & Ewoldsen, 2013) and they form positive
relationships by doing so (Kutner & Olson, 2008; Olson, 2010). However, little is known
about the motivations for cooperative game play despite the negative effects of violent video
games.
The current study replicated previous research suggesting that players who took the role
of an avatar in a violent video game displayed an increased need for affiliation (Velez et al.,
unpublished data). However, previous findings are limited to one video game genre,
shooter/role- playing game. The current study expands previous research by demonstrating
that the same processes would occur in a horror video game as well. Consistent with previous
findings, Hypothesis 1 suggests that perceived threat influenced need for affiliation. When
participants were watching the game play videos, their perceptions of threat to the avatar
increased which subsequently led to an increase to affiliation motivation. This increased need
for affiliation could be the reason behind players’ predilection for cooperative game play
thereby mitigating the detrimental effects of violent video games.
20
The current study also found that killing of the avatar led participants to experience
higher level of perceived threat to the avatar compared to those in the low threat condition
where no physical harm of the avatar occurred. This finding is consistent with the previous
research that direct violence to the avatar, compared to the possibility of violence led to higher
levels of perceived threat toward the avatar. Another current result, however, found that
participants who watched their avatar play the game alone did not report higher level of
perceived threat to the avatar than those who watched their avatar play with others in a group.
The current study found some interesting results regarding participants’ need for
affiliation and the manipulation of how participants watched their avatar play the game (Solo
vs. Group). Hypothesis 3 predicted that participants would experience lower levels of need for
affiliation when they thought they were playing cooperatively with others than playing alone.
Contrary to predictions, participants displayed marginally significant higher need for
affiliation when they watched their avatar play in a group than those who watched their avatar
play alone. One of the interpretations of these findings may involve the nature of the
manipulation. In other words, perhaps the manipulation was not successful in the Group
condition. Even though participants in this condition were informed that their avatar will be
playing the game with others as a group, all members of the group did not physically interact
among each other. In other words, other avatars were merely there. Phasmophobia is a puzzle-
solving, cooperative, horror video game, but systemic interactions among players are not
implemented within the game. Although in-game voice communication is allowed, the current
study did not utilize it to prevent confusion and any unwanted voice data.
Moreover, the current study sought to answer the question of how participants would
desire to play a violent video game under threat in the future. One of the findings suggest that
21
perceived threat to the avatar lead players to play video games with others guided by need for
affiliation. The other finding suggests that perceived threat to the avatar predicted perceived
threat to the player which also led to players’ desire to affiliate with others. However, need for
affiliation did not lead to an increase in participants’ desire to play video games alone.
These results are extending previous research suggesting that violent video game play
increases perceived threat to the avatar and the self. The current study demonstrated the same
results but by using a different genre, horror game. Moreover, congruent with the findings
from previous research, the current results demonstrated that perception of threat within the
game increases need for affiliation in the context of a horror video game. Critically, this
experiment builds on previous research that need for affiliation, caused by threat,
subsequently increased participants’ desires to play with others. Previous research questions
included regarding why people prefer to play violent video games cooperatively with others.
The current research suggests that people like to play violent video games with others because
guided by affiliation motivations they desire to play cooperatively with others thereby
mitigating the detrimental effects of violent video games. Moreover, a horror game like
Phasmophobia is designed to produce threat continuously. This also means that participants
may feel as if something is going to jump at the avatar at ay time. Thus, there is always a
persistent level of threat in all conditions, making participants to anticipatory threat. This
interpretation of perceptions of threat is different from that of previous study. For example, in
the non-violent conditions of the previous study demonstrated avatars gambling which
included no threat. In the violent conditions, threat occurs after a certain period with no
violence and for an extended duration. This means that the avatar is reacting to immediate
threat instead of reacting to anticipated threat. Future research should examine how
22
nature of threat or the vibe of a video game genre differs the interpretations of the relationship
between perceptions of threat and the need for affiliation.
LIMITATIONS
Previous research has shown that perceived threat to the avatar increases need for affiliation.
However, it is limited to one genre of video game: shooter/ role-playing game (RPG). The
current study extends the prior research by using a horror game thereby increasing
generalizability. Moreover, this experiment predicted need for affiliation under threat not only
when the avatar is alone but also with others which eventually led participants’ desires to play
violent video games with others. However, the mentioned genres are merely two of other
numerous genres. Future research should explore other genres such as Real-time strategy
(RTS), Action-adventure, Massively Multiplayer Online RPG, and others.
Another limitation is that participants did not physically play the video game. Previous
research suggests that video game play is more interactive and engaging than watching a
video clip (Lin et al., 2018). Future research should extend the current findings by
determining whether the results are consistent when participants actually play a violent or
horror video game. Additionally, previous research suggests that third-person point of view
(POV) provides a more involving gaming experience (Lynch & Martins, 2015). As this study
used a first-person point of view horror game, future experiment should determine whether
POV alters players’ need for affiliation under threat in the context of not only violent and
horror video games but also other video game genres. However, it should be noted that Velez
et al. (unpublished data) found no effect of first vs. third person point of view on threat or
need for affiliation.
23
CONCLUSION
The present study extends the earlier work by Velez et al., (unpublished data). Demonstrating
that violent video games increase people’s perceptions of threat which subsequently leads to
an increase in players’ need for affiliation not only in a single player setting but also in a
cooperative situation. Together, these findings suggest that one possible effect of people
playing violent video games with others should be the desire to play cooperatively which
decreases negative effects of violent video games. Future research should implement a real
video game play performed by participants and examine the other reasons behind players’
desires to play violent video games cooperatively with others.
24
APPENDICES
25
APPENDIX A: Previous game playing behavior
Sex: Male Female
Age:
Year in College:
How long have you been playing video games (in years)?
Have you played video games for 1 hour or more within the last 7 days?
o Yes
o No
Q. How many hours do you spend with each of the following items on an average day? (round to
the nearest hour)
Video Games (e.g., PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, etc.):
Weekday
Weekend
Rate your overall ability level as a gamer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rookie Expert
Q. The following questions ask you about how you actually play video games. The following
questions ask how you play games, but not how you would prefer to play video games.
26
I play video games alone (not including online with others).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always
I play video games alone (but with others watching).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always
I play video games with others (in person).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always
27
I play video games with others (online).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always
I play video games with others (online while also playing with others in person).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Always
Q. The following questions ask your preferences for how you like to play video games. These
questions are not about how you actually play games, but rather, how you would like to play video
games. These are your preferences, so there are no right or wrong answers.
28
I prefer to play video games alone (not including online with others).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
I prefer to play video games alone (but with others watching).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
29
I prefer to play video games with others (in person).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
I prefer to play video games with others (online).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
30
I prefer to play video games with others (online while also playing with others in person).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o All of the Time
Q. The following questions ask about your actual video game play behavior.
When playing video games with others, I play competitively (playing against someone else;
trying to defeat someone).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o All of the Time
When playing video games with others, I play cooperatively (playing with someone to
accomplish a shared goal).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o All of the Time
31
When playing video games with others, I play cooperatively competitive (playing with someone
else to defeat others).
o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o All of the Time
Page Break
Q. Please indicate how much you prefer to do the following.
When playing video games with others, I prefer to play competitively (playing against someone
else; trying to defeat someone).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
32
When playing video games with others, I prefer to play cooperatively (playing with
someone to accomplish a shared goal).
o Very Strongly Avoid (1)
o Strongly Avoid (2)
o Avoid (3)
o Indifferent (4)
o Prefer (5)
o Strongly Prefer (6)
o Very Strongly Prefer (7)
When playing video games with others, I prefer to play cooperatively competitive (playing with
someone else to defeat others).
o Very Strongly Avoid
o Strongly Avoid
o Avoid
o Indifferent
o Prefer
o Strongly Prefer
o Very Strongly Prefer
End of Block: Pre_Test
33
APPENDIX B: Trait Need for Affiliation
Q95 Please indicate how true each statement is for you:
NFA1 One of my greatest sources of comfort when things get rough is being with other people.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA2 I prefer to participate in activities alongside other people rather than by myself because I like to
see how I am doing on the activity.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA4 It seems like whenever something bad or disturbing happens to me I often just want to be
with a close, reliable friend.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
34
NFA5 I mainly like people who seem strongly drawn to me and who seem infatuated with me.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA7 When I am not certain about how well I am doing at something, I usually like to be around
others so I can compare myself to them.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA8 I like to be around people when I can be the center of attention.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
35
NFA9 When I have not done very well on something that is very important to me, I can get to
feeling better simply by being around other people.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA10 Just being around others and finding out about them is one of the most interesting things I
can think of doing.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA11 I seem to get satisfaction from being with others more than a lot of other people do.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
36
NFA12 If I am uncertain about what is expected of me, such as on a task or in a social situation, I
usually like to be able to look to certain others for cues.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA13 I feel like I have really accomplished something valuable when lam able to get close to
someone.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA15 During times when I have to go through something painful, I usually find that having
someone with me makes it less painful.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
37
NFA16 I often have a strong need to be around people who are impressed with what I am like and
what I do.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA17 If I feel unhappy or kind of depressed, I usually try to be around other people to make me
feel better.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA18 I find that I often look to certain other people to see how I compare to others.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
38
NFA19 I mainly like to be around others who think I am an important, exciting person.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA21 I often have a strong desire to get people I am around to notice me and appreciate what I am
like.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA23 I usually have the greatest need to have other people around me when I feel upset
about something.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
39
NFA24 I think being close to others, listening to them, and relating to them on a one to- one level is
one of my favorite and most satisfying pastimes.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA25 I would find it very satisfying to be able to form new friendships with whomever I liked.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
NFA26 One of the most enjoyable things I can think of that I like to do is just watching people and
seeing what they are like.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
40
Figure 3 – Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale
Instructions: Please circle the picture below that best describes your relationship.
41
APPENDIX C: Arousal
Each line contains an adjective pair which you will use to rate your feelings. Some of the pairs
may seem unusual, but you’ll probably feel more one way while thinking about the above
scenario than another. So, for each pair, place a check close to the adjective which you believe
describes your reaction while thinking about the scenario. The more appropriate the adjective
seems, the closer you should put your check mark to it.
42
Happy Unhappy
Annoyed Pleased
Satisfied Unsatisfied
Melancholic Contented
Hopeful Despairing
Bored Relaxed
Relaxed Stimulated
Excited Calm
Sluggish Frenzied
Jittery Dull
Wide
Sleepy
awake
Aroused Unaroused
Controlled Controlling
43
Influential Influenced
Cared for In Control
Important Awed
Submissive Dominant
Autonomous Guided
44
APPENDIX D: Threat
Please indicate how true each of the following statements are while thinking about the video game
you just watched.
Q91 The game’s player is at high risk for being harmed.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
Q92 It is likely that the video game player will be harmed.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
45
Q93 There is a high chance that the video game player will be harmed.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
Q94 If the video game player was attacked, it would end the player’s life.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
46
Q100 If the video game player was attacked, the player would not be able to recover
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neither Agree nor Disagree
o Somewhat Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
Page Break
47
Q116 Indicate how true each of the following statements are:
Q118 I feel fearful.
10 11
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9)
(10) (11)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o o o o o o o o o o this
Feeling
Feeling
Q186 I feel afraid.
10 11
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9)
(10) (11)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o o o o o o o o o o this
Feeling
Feeling
Q187 I feel scared.
10 11
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9)
(10) (11)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o o o o o o o o o o this
Feeling
Feeling
48
Q188 I feel tense
10 11
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9)
(10) (11)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o o o o o o o o o o this
Feeling
Feeling
Q189 I feel frightened
10 11
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9)
(10) (11)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o o o o o o o o o o this
Feeling
Feeling
Q191 I feel anxious
10
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9) 11 (11)
(10)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o this
Feeling
Feeling
Q192 I feel uncomfortable
10
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9) 11 (11)
(10)
Great
None
Deal of
of this o o this
Feeling
Feeling
49
APPENDIX E: State Need for Affiliation
Q177 Please indicate how true each statement is for you while thinking about playing the
video game you just saw:
Q178 If I was playing that video game, I think if things got rough one of my greatest sources of
comfort would be being with other people.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
Q179 If I was playing that video game, I would prefer to participate in an activity (or activities)
alongside other people rather than by myself because I would like to see how I am doing on the
activity.
o Not at All True
o Slightly True
o Somewhat True
o Mostly True
o Completely True
Q180 If I was playing that video game, I think I would want to be with a close, reliable friend.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
50
Q181 If I was playing that video game, I think I would mainly like people who seem strongly
drawn to me and who seem infatuated with me.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q182 If I was playing that video game, I think I would want to be around others so I can compare
myself to them.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q183 If I was playing that video game, I think I would like to be around people when I can be the
center of attention.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
51
Q184 If I was playing that video game and I did not know if I was doing very well on something that
was very important to me, I could get to that feeling simply by being around other people.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q185 If I was playing that video game, just being around others and finding out about them would be
one of the most interesting things I could think of doing.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q186 If I was playing that video game, I think I would get more satisfaction from being with
others compared to a lot of other people.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
52
Q187 If I was playing that video game, I think I would feel like I was uncertain about what is expected
of me, such as on a task or in a social situation, I usually like to be able to look to certain others for cues.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q188 If I was playing that video game, I think I would I feel like I had really accomplished
something valuable when/if I was able to get close to someone.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q189 If I was playing that video game, I think If I had to go through something painful, I would find
that having someone with me makes it less painful.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
53
Q190 If I was playing that video game, I think I would have a strong need to be around people who
were impressed with what I am like and what I do.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q191 If I was playing that video game and I felt unhappy or kind of depressed, I would try to be
around other people to make me feel better.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q192 If I was playing that video game, I would look to certain other people to see how I
compare to others.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
54
Q193 If I was playing that video game, I would like to be around others who thought I was an
important, exciting person.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q194 If I was playing that video game, I think I would have a strong desire to get people I am
around to notice me and appreciate what I am like.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
55
Q195 If I was playing that video game, I think I would have the greatest need to have other people
around me when I felt upset about something.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q196 If I was playing that video game, I think being close to others, listening to them, and
relating to them on a one-to-one level would be one of my favorite and most satisfying pastimes.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
Q197 If I was playing that video game, I would find it very satisfying to be able to form new
friendships with whomever I liked.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
56
Q198 If I was playing that video game, one of the most enjoyable things I could think of that I would
like to do is just watch people and seeing what they are like.
o Not at All True (1)
o Slightly True (2)
o Somewhat True (3)
o Mostly True (4)
o Completely True (5)
57
APPENDIX F: Instructions for Phasmophobia
Each player takes control of one member of a group of 4 players, in the role of ghost hunters
who are hired to handle unidentified ghosts in different places such as homes, schools,
prisons, and hospitals. The main objective of the game is to enter and explore haunted
locations to gather evidence and search for paranormal activities to finalize the ghost’s
presence and classification. The game features 12 different kinds of ghosts: Spirit, Wraith,
Phantom, Poltergeist, Banshee, Jinn, Mare, Revenant, Shade, Demon, Yurei, and Oni. Each
ghost behaves differently in which comprises of the ghost interacting with objects in the
environment or with players. Ghost activities include flickering lights, using its unique power
(i.e., manipulating/activating objects), whispering, and others. For example, Poltergeist can
manipulate multiple objects around players. Mare tend to cut off the lights more frequently as
it grows more aggressive in the dark.
The goal of the game is not to defeat the ghost. However, the more correct evidence
the players gather, the more bounty they get paid (the currency is used to purchase ghost
hunting equipment). Players can use different equipment to help their mission such as
thermometers, EMF readers, video cameras, crucifixes, UV flashlights, and many others.
These tools have different purposes such as communication, investigation, protection, and
clue gathering. Each ghost has a unique combination of three pieces of evidence that
identifies the type of the ghost in presence. Each player can record and track found evidence
via Journal within the game to determine the ghost. There are six pieces of evidence in the
game that are used to identify the ghost. Look below:
58
Figure 4 - Lists of ghosts and evidence
During the exploration, players will not only encounter ghost activities but also
confront the ghost physically. In Phasmophobia, the Hunt is a phase when the ghost becomes
corporeal and begin seeking a player to kill. During the Hunt, lights will flicker, including
Flashlights, UV lights, and other light sources in the map/location. Also, all exit doors will
close and become locked.
59
APPENDIX G: Demographics
Please indicate the following:
a.) Your Age
b.) Your Gender
o Male
o Female
c.) Number of years spent in College
d.) Which do you most identify with?
o White/Caucasian
o African American
o Asian
o Native American
o Pacific Islander
o Other
Do you consider yourself Hispanic?
o Yes
o No
60
APPENDIX H: Links to game clips
https://youtu.be/n3yeqwEAyek - Solo Low Threat
https://youtu.be/b4gpxnfWWMg - Solo High Threat
https://youtu.be/_Kp5nn5D3LE – Group Low Threat
https://youtu.be/x2VDuxMHjwQ - Group High Threat
61
REFERENCES
62
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological science,
12(5), 353-359.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect,
hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434-448.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and
behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of personality and social psychology,
78(4), 772.
Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986). Affect of the game player: Short-term effects of
highly and mildly aggressive video games. Personality and social psychology bulletin,
12(4), 390- 402.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on
children and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A.,
... & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and
prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological bulletin, 136(2), 151.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4),
596-612.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A
test of the general aggression model. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28(12),
1679- 1686.
Byrne, D. (1961). Anxiety and the experimental arousal of affiliation need. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 660.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of
audiences with media characters. Mass communication & society, 4(3), 245-264.
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online
role- playing gamers. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 10(4), 575-583.
63
Eastin, M. S. (2007). The influence of competitive and cooperative group game play on
state hostility. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 450-466.
Ewoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J. (2012).
Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent
cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 277-280.
Fay, A. J., & Maner, J. K. (2015). Embodied effects are moderated by situational cues:
Warmth, threat, and the desire for affiliation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2),
291-305.
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Garza, A., & Jerabeck, J. M. (2012). A longitudinal test of
video game violence influences on dating and aggression: A 3-year longitudinal study of
adolescents. Journal of psychiatric research, 46(2), 141-146.
Greitemeyer, T., & Cox, C. (2013). There’s no “I†in team: Effects of cooperative video
games on cooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 224-
228.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on
prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(2), 211.
Greitemeyer, T., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Osswald, S. (2012). How to ameliorate negative
effects of violent video games on cooperation: Play it cooperatively in a team. Computers
in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1465-1470.
Hasan, Y. (2017). Violent video games increase voice stress: An experimental study.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6(1), 74.
Hasan, Y., Bègue, L., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). Violent video games stress people out and
make them more aggressive. Aggressive behavior, 39(1), 64-70.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: people who need people… but in different
ways. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(5), 1008.
Jerabeck, J. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2013). The influence of solitary and cooperative violent
video game play on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(6),
2573-2578.
Kreibig, S. D., Wilhelm, F. H., Roth, W. T., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Cardiovascular,
electrodermal, and respiratory response patterns to fearâ€and sadnessâ€inducing
films. Psychophysiology, 44(5), 787-806.
Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent
64
video games and what parents can do. Simon and Schuster.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Lee, S., & Lang, A. (2009). Discrete emotion and motivation: Relative activation in the
appetitive and aversive motivational systems as a function of anger, sadness, fear, and joy
during televised information campaigns. Media Psychology, 12(2), 148-170.
Lynch, T., & Martins, N. (2015). Nothing to fear? An analysis of college students’ fear
experiences with video games. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2), 298-
317.
Lin, J. H. T., Wu, D. Y., & Tao, C. C. (2018). So scary, yet so fun: The role of self-
efficacy in enjoyment of a virtual reality horror game. New media & society, 20(9),
3223-3242.
Lynch, P. J. (1999). Hostility, Type A behavior, and stress hormones at rest and after
playing violent video games in teenagers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61(1), 113.
Mathiak, K., & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural behavior: fMRI
during violent video games. Human brain mapping, 27(12), 948-956.
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of
normal development. Review of general Psychology, 14(2), 180-187.
Peña, J. F. (2011). Integrating the influence of perceiving and operating avatars under
the automaticity model of priming effects. Communication Theory, 21(2), 150-168.
Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task
communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication research, 33(1),
92-109.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications
Schmierbach, M. (2010). “Killing spreeâ€: Exploring the connection between competitive
game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research, 37(2), 256-274.
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence:
Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(3),
266-281.
Taylor, S. E. (2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress.
Current directions in psychological science, 15(6), 273-277.
Taylor, S. E., Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., & Reed, G. M. (1992). Social comparison
and affiliation under threat. Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood, 213-
227.
65
Teichman, Y. (1973). Emotional arousal and affiliation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 9(6), 591-605.
Teichman, Y., Teichman, M., Morad, M., & Melnick, C. (1982). The motivations
underlying affiliative behavior in an ego-threat situation. Series in Clinical &
Community Psychology: Stress & Anxiety.
Lynch, T., & Martins, N. (2015). Nothing to fear? An analysis of college students’ fear
experiences with video games. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2),
298-317.
Velez, J. A. (2015). Extending the theory of Bounded Generalized Reciprocity: An
explanation of the social benefits of cooperative video game play. Computers in Human
Behavior, 48, 481-491.
Velez, J. A., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2013). Helping behaviors during video game play.
Journal of Media Psychology.
Velez, J. A., Greitemeyer, T., Whitaker, J. L., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Bushman, B. J. (2016).
Violent video games and reciprocity: The attenuating effects of cooperative game play
on subsequent aggression. Communication Research, 43(4), 447-467.
Velez, J. A., Mahood, C., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Moyer-Gusé, E. (2014). Ingroup versus
outgroup conflict in the context of violent video game play: The effect of cooperation on
increased helping and decreased aggression. Communication Research, 41(5), 607-626.
66