Need to talk about morality
Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications Moral Minds in Gaming: A Quantitative Case Study of Moral Decisions in Detroit: Become Human Elisabeth Holl and André Melzer Online First Publication, December 15, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000323 CITATION Holl, E., & Melzer, A. (2021, December 15). Moral Minds in Gaming: A Quantitative Case Study of Moral Decisions in Detroit: Become Human. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000323 Original Article Moral Minds in Gaming A Quantitative Case Study of Moral Decisions in Detroit: Become Human Elisabeth Holl and André Melzer Media and Experimental Laboratory, Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg Abstract: Games including meaningful narratives and moral decisions have become increasingly popular. This case study examines (a) the prevalence of morality and moral foundations, (b) player decisions when encountering moral options, and (c) the influence of contextual factors (i.e., time pressure, played avatar, and humanness of nonplayable characters) on moral decision-making in the popular video game Detroit: Become Human. Based on extensive coding of available world statistics we identified 73.21% morally relevant (vs. morally irrelevant) decisions in the game with a high prevalence for harm- and authority-related situations. Although players had an overall tendency to engage in moral behavior, they were more likely to act “good” when under time pressure and if nonhuman characters were involved. Our findings are discussed with regard to common theories of morality. Results support the notion that prior theoretical assumptions may be successfully mapped onto top-selling video games. Keywords: video games, morality, decision-making, probability distributions, Detroit: Become Human In recent years technological advances in the gaming indus- try as well as an increasing demand by players have led to a growing number of gaming titles that feature complex narratives, deep characters, and dilemmatic moral decision- making. Although meaningful and moral sequences already existed in earlier games (e.g., Black & White or Fable), “deeper” forms of entertainment and moral gameplay have become increasingly popular (Consalvo et al., 2019; Weaver & Lewis, 2012). Concordant entertainment research has suggested extending the conceptualization of entertainment beyond “just fun” and to additionally include moving, thought-provoking, sad, or meaningful experiences, so- called eudaimonic entertainment (Wirth et al., 2012). Video games may be especially suited to provide eudaimonia as they offer greater opportunities for interactivity, identifica- tion, and emotional engagement (Oliver et al., 2015). How- ever, reports on quantifiable prevalence of morality and decision-making in games are scarce (e.g., 54% of moral vs. 46% strategic reasoning in Fallout 3: Krcmar & Cingel, 2016; 59% of players choosing a “good” character: Lange, 2014). Furthermore, past gaming research has mainly focused on virtual violence and its related effects (Anderson et al., 2010; Ferguson, 2007). To date, only few studies have tried to disentangle the relationship between virtual violence and its underlying morality (e.g., Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010; Krcmar & Eden, 2017). Interestingly, recent advances claimed that in certain contexts, violent content can even serve as a reflective space promoting moral deliberations (Bowman et al., 2020; Katsarov et al., 2017). Although we believe that immorality and violence are related constructs often intertwined in research, they should not be mistakenly viewed as congruent: immorality can be nonviolent (e.g., lying/stealing) and violence can be moral (e.g., self- defense). Examining morality as an overarching construct could therefore contribute new insights into the heated debate over violent video games. In summary, the increasing popularity of moral games in both research and the gaming community, as well as the limited quantitative analyses beyond violence-oriented games, motivated this project. The current case study investigates the prevalence of morality within the top-selling video game Detroit: Become Human (DBH). Instead of examining a comparatively small sample in an experimental setting, present analyses are based on large-scale worldwide statistics of in-game deci- sions provided by the PlayStation Network (PSN). Decision- making is defined as deliberately changing the narration of the game in a meaningful way, as reflected by nodes forking into story-shaping paths (Ryan, 2001). Special focus is placed on the occurrence of morality in gen- eral and of specific moral topics in line with moral founda- tions theory (MFT; Haidt & Joseph, 2004). Even more, we examine moral decision-making and its dependence on contextual factors. In summary, the current study �2021 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Media Psychology (2021) https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000323 Th is d oc um en t i s c op yr ig ht ed b y th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . Th is a rti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . focuses on the most frequently discussed theories and already established research foci of (virtual) morality (e.g., MFT) in order to apply them to the case of DBH. This com- bination of relevant psychological models together with specific and unique game play elements helps to uncover the psychological processes involved in play (Grizzard & Francemone, 2018). Moral Foundations Theory and Other Contextual Factors MFT (Haidt & Joseph, 2004) proposes that morality is a manifold construct and comprises five basic built-in moral modules: harm/care, which is related to suffering, empathy and compassion; fairness/reciprocity, which describes situa- tions dealing with honesty and justice; ingroup/loyalty, which refers to situations where your in-group is threatened; authority/respect, which relates to settings of hierarchy viola- tion; and purity/sanctity, which is related to disgust, bodily contamination, or sexually deviant behavior (Clifford et al., 2015; Haidt & Joseph, 2007). Later, liberty/oppression, that is, freedom of choice, was added as a sixth foundation (Iyer et al., 2012). MFT has been verified for media interac- tions as well (cf. MIMEmodel; Tamborini, 2013) and several studies proved that salience for certain moral foundations relates to in-game behavior (e.g., Boyan et al., 2015; Joeckel et al., 2012, 2013). Players’ inherent moral intuitions guide their in-game choices. However, the game context can also increase the salience for moral foundations temporarily (Tamborini et al., 2018). For example, Krcmar and Cingel (2016) found predominantly harm-/care-related decision- making in players’ think-aloud deliberations. The virtues, triggers, exemplary vignettes, and gaming references of each foundation are displayed in Table 1. Consalvo (2008) argued that investigating player actions while neglecting underlying rules and multiple contexts is insufficient. The context or framing provided by the game and its mechanics may influence in-game choices in many ways (Melzer & Holl, 2021). Regarding the theoretically dis- cussed determinants of morality and in relation to the specific characteristics of the game DBH, the following three factors are of particular interest: the influence of time pressure, the played avatar, and the humanness of non- playable characters (NPCs). Hartmann (2012) discussed the role of cognitive capacities in moral decision-making. Fittingly, the gameDBH features both decisions with unlim- ited time for consideration and decisions posing a time con- straint. Furthermore, the game features three different playable avatars and it has been shown theoretically and empirically that avatars can model self-presence, identifica- tion, and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Ratan et al., 2020). Lastly, the concept of dehumanization has been applied to moral engagement in video games (e.g., Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010), which is reflected in DBH by featuring both human and android NPCs, who have enhanced super- human capabilities but are less-than-human machines lacking basic rights (Dehnert & Leach, 2021). Time Pressure In DBH, several decisions must be made under realistic temporal conditions (e.g., allowing players only a limited Table 1. Examples of moral foundation sets Foundation Relevant virtues from Haidt & Joseph (2007) Possible triggers from Graham et al. (2013) Vignette examples from Clifford et al. (2015) Gaming examples from Krcmar and Cingel (2016) Gaming examples in DBH Harm/care Caring, kindness Suffering, distress, neediness, baby seals, cute cartoon characters A woman intentionally driving over a squirrel Killing a cruel overseer that threatens his daughter Leaving a fish dying next to the aquarium (Connor) Fairness/reciprocity Fairness, justice, honesty, trustworthiness Cheating, deception, broken vending machines A student cheating in an exam Killing an in-game character for unjustified reasons Steal chocolate from a supermarket (Kara) Ingroup/loyalty Loyalty, patriotism, self-sacrifice Threat/challenge to group, sports teams, nations An employee joking about their company Betraying or lying to an ally Leave the revolution group forever (Markus) Authority/respect Obedience, deference Signs of high vs. low rank, bosses, professionals A daughter disobeying a curfew Immoral behavior against a rude child Spill a drink in your boss’s face (Connor) Purity/sanctity Temperance, chastity, piety, cleanliness Waste, diseased people, deviant sexuality Having sex with a frozen chicken Sleeping with an in- game prostitute Allow Alice to see an android corpse (Kara) Liberty/oppression (Not included) (Not included) Forcing a partner to switch to one’s own political party (Not included) Leaving an android polar bear trapped in a cage (Kara) Note. DBH = Detroit: Become Human. Journal of Media Psychology (2021) �2021 Hogrefe Publishing 2 E. Holl & A. Melzer, Moral Minds in Gaming Th is d oc um en t i s c op yr ig ht ed b y th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . Th is a rti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . timeframe to respond), whereas other decisions can be made without time constraints. Studies unrelated to virtual- ity found mixed results regarding the effect of time (pres- sure) or cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior (e.g., Greene et al., 2001; Suter & Hertwig, 2011; Tinghög et al., 2016). In their replication of the bystander effect in a virtual environment, Kozlov and Johansen (2010) found decreased