Nice article, Dr. Moore! =)

I believe the contextual change in behavior is explained by the self-monitoring theory. Those who are interested in psychology can start by looking it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-monitoring

In case you don’t want to read scientific explanations, here is a more journalistic one:

The basic premise is that people can he either high self monitors, or low self monitors. The high ones adapt to the situation and value status and appearance. They tend to make decisions (including purchasing and dating ones) based primarily on that. People of this type have separate groups of friends for different activities.

Low ones value substance and ideas over status and appearance. They have less friends, but all of their friends can share in all of their activities. They are likely be behave the same and dress the same in different social situations such as family, work, school, and leisure.

This division is heavily exploited in marketing, with high self monitors being sold to via emphasis on style, popularity and so on. Think Apple commercials or the type of beer commercials where drinking a certain brand will make beautiful women appear. Low self monitors are advertised to via listing specs and explaining why something is actually better than something else. You may notice the same product being advertised completely differently to these two groups.

So how would the low monitor type likely portray themself in an RPG?

I am not really qualified to give scientific answers, and I’m sure that someone with a degree in psychology would correct me, but if I was to venture a guess, I’d say they would probably be inclined to play themselves. Naturally it’s impossible to transfer oneself entirely into a game like Oblivion, but the most dominant personality traits would likely remain unchanged. To give a very basic example, if in real life a person is afraid of physical confrontation (even if they’d never admit to it) they would be more prone to playing as a magic user, rogue, or a ranged combatant, as opposed to a mele type of fighter.

Interesting. It’s most likely suppertime in London, but I’m interested to read Dr. Moore’s comments as well.

Typing through mouthfulls of supper ( so excuse me speaking with my mouth full) I’d have to say that Alaric has touched on another interesting area here. Lack of space and instructions by the boss to not overload the servers persuaded me to stick just to personality. So I think one thing we need to factor in here is the ‘sense of exploration , fun and opportunities’ games offer players. I would be the first one to avoid physical frustration in real life – not because I’m all coward but because I’d be scared what I’d do if I committed to such action. Yet in rpg games I tend to go for the fighter/brawler – simply because I can do so without worrying about inflicting real physical harm on anyone. When I asked a 9 year old why they like to shoot guns in games the simply answer was ’cause I can and no one really gets hurt’. So I think kids can work out quite quickly too that games allow you to do stuff you wouldn’t normally do in real life. How many of us would jump out if a helicopter in real life? Fight a dragon? (I’d run for sure!) etc. Games encourage us to explore and they appeal perfectly to our sense if curiosity. With these things in mind I personally feel it’s too simplistic a view to say person A always does this in situation x. Right onto my pudding……(ps: excuse any typos as I’m doing this on my iPhone!)

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that I am a narcissist, which can clearly be seen in my gaming habits. Continuing the reference to Red Dead Redemption, when I immersed myself into the character of John Marston I frequently made decisions based on what would win me the most honor points. I made similar decisions on Fable 2/3. In games where I can choose between good and evil, I frequently choose the more noble path.

I imagine this stems from my strong sense of morality, but my desire for approval most definitely plays a part. Your thoughts on “split personality” gaming are interesting though, because I will take in-game opportunities to deviate from my real-world actions. Again, with RDR, I would frequently subdue criminals with my lasso, but if I was having a bad day, my in-game persona would be more apt to bring justice in the form of a bullet. While gaming, I act in ways that are not typical of how I act in real life, but usually my actions will still reflect urges that I have throughout the day (e.g. violence, anger/rage, impatience).

Alaric’s thoughts are interesting as well. I tend to be a high self monitor, whereas my wife is a low self monitor. However, when I game I gravitate towards games that offer mechanics that target both high and low self monitors. If the game lends itself only to one type or the other, I’ll usually toss it aside.

The last thing I’ve noticed is that I’m passive-aggressive in real-life, but I relish the opportunities to be aggressive-agressive while gaming, but only when warranted.

Dr. Moore, would you say that while gamers may exhibit split personalities, they tend to act on real-world urges in-game? Maybe we’re all just trying to balance out our personalities by using gaming to release the stress caused by restraining everyday urges.

Hi Matthew – you make some interesting observations and points as well. I think we use our basic morality compass into the gaming world with us – but that demands of the game can stretch out morality. For example in red dead redemption I would not normally shoot enemies in the back in the story version – however throw me into a gang match and I’ll do whatever needs to be done for my gang to win. So in essence I very much think our environments can override our personalities. I also think our mood can diminish the effects of our traits too. Bad day at work then watch out other online gamers – on a more positive day I might select coop mode. I think we might overplay/ over estimate the power/ role of our personality in life. To gave a static personality which has the final say in our lives would be risky for many of us and fly in the face of our social survival.

I would be interested to know if the test in question actually allowed for or tested for multiple “personalities” within the same game. To take Oblivion as an example, if a player went through it one time as a noble hero, going so far as to get the relics of the crusader, and the next time as an assassin with no scruples, and a third time as a world-saving, profit-minded rogue, how would that fit in the discussion? This would work with games like The Sith Lords, where your character’s moral outlook has tangible in-game effects. If I went through as a noble Jedi one time, a corrupt Sith the next time, and a pragmatic Grey Jedi the third time, how does the correlate to personalities out of game? Or does a specific out of game personality thrive in replaying games with different character choices, while other out of game personalities do the same thing over and over again?

Interesting question – but you more or less support my point by saying you might play differently everytime you play it through again. Because if we we merely reflecting our personalities then we could really only play it one way! What is interesting is to see if people play an rpg type if game through to completion just once – different to those who choose to play it through multiple times with different characters? For example I made myself play through dragon age as a Mage – a class I wouldn’t normally pick. I didn’t go back to play it through with a different character. And thats not because I didn’t enjoy it. So would the choice to play a game through again or not suggest bigger personality differences than the choice of characters we favour?

What if we typically don’t finish games? In the last several years the only two games I’ve played to completion are Fallout 3 and Red Dead Redemption. I consistently go for the same class in RPG games as well, the warrior. Although now I find myself playing as a female characters.

I wonder if award/trophy/achievement completionists complicate the equation even further.

Yes – again I think there is going to be greater personality differences in serial game completers vs non completers. I think game choice might be more dependent on personality than game play – so those gamers who like reward systems will go for those kinds of games – whereas others might like the game because it offers other challenges or it looks pretty or they like driving fast cars etc. Do people play differently when you play alone online than whenyou are amongst a party if friends? There was an interesting study investigating how aggressive females played when they we able to in a game. All girls played the game in isolation against an online opponent. One group was told they would meet their opponent dace to face after the game. A second group of females was told they would not meet their online opponents after the game and a third group were given no instructions. The study reported that the girls showed different levels of in-game aggression according to which group they were in. It was the girls in the ‘not going to
Meet opponent’ that showed the highest level of aggressive acts. The ‘going to meet opponent’ group showed the least. The study suggested that gamers played according to the potential later environment. Girls who thought they might meet their opponents admitted they had ‘toned down’ their in game actions ‘in case they got face to face reprisals later’. There were no personality differences between the girls in the three groups. So the girls didn’t play due Tibetans personality per se but were mindful of how they would be perceived and what later risks that might elicit. I’ll have to try and see if I can track down the link now….

Psychology is not an exact science, although to be fair it does a great job, all things considered, at predicting behavior. Still, it is impossible to view any situation in terms of just one aspect of psychology. Our personalities don’t lock us into rigid behavioral patterns. If one is a low self monitor it doesn’t mean that he or she is altogether incapable of behaving differently in different situations. If you take such a person and give them a goal of playing a certain game a certain way, they are not going to break down. In fact they will probably play just fine. Same for all other modules that in combination form the self.

What we can do is give a somewhat accurate prediction of the overall pattern that one’s personality will guide one’s behavior into. Advertising is a definitive proof of that.

I think Psychology isnt exact because people arn’t exact

I cant find an online versio of this article but its a good read and overview of many of the concepts we’ve been discussing:

Lightdale. J & Prentice, D. (1994) Rethinking Sex Differences in Aggression: Aggressive Behavior in the Absence of Social Roles, Personality Social Psychology Bulletin February, vol. 20 no. 1 34-44

I think you are right that completion and non-completion (and multiple completion) would also tell us a lot.

I’d also be interested in gendered considerations to this question as well. What kinds of players are willing to create characters of a different gender? And are they doing so just to look at eye candy, or because it has some kind of implication to their other choices (female spellcasters versus male barbarians, to highlight two cliches).

Obviously, you can’t do it all with one survey. But it’s grist for the mill.

Jason – I’ve got one psychology intern doing that as we speak ! She is looking at hoaxes choose to depict ourselves visually in rpg’s and how that relates to players actual personalties – so watch this space

The most pertinent question of course is – is there such a thing as ‘personslity’ ?

The answer to that question lies in the AVault ‘reply-all’ emails. And that answer is ‘yes’.

Phew – there was me doubting we did