there's no “i” in team: effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior

European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 224–228 (2013)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1940

Research article

There’s no “I” in team: Effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior†

TOBIAS GREITEMEYER1* AND CHRISTOPHER COX2

1Institute of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria; 2School of Psychology, Brighton, UK

Abstract

The present research tests the idea that playing a team-player video game in which players work together as teammates andassist each other in achieving a common goal increases cooperative behavior toward a new partner. In fact, relative to asingle-player mode, cooperatively playing a video game increased cooperation in a mixed-motive decision dilemma task.Because the players were exposed to the same video game content in both experimental conditions, the effect on cooperativebehavior can only be accounted for by the different way the game was played. Mediation analyses revealed that cooperativeteam play promoted feelings of cohesion, which activated trust (i.e., the expectation of reciprocal cooperation), which in turnincreased cooperative behavior. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Multiplayer video games in which players work together asteammates and assist each other in achieving a common goalare becoming more and more popular (Griffiths, Davies &Chappell, 2004). A recent estimate indicates that 76% of teengamers play video games with people who are either in thesame room or connected through the internet (Lenhart et al.,2008). Cooperative video game play is characterized by goalsthat are positively linked in that one player only attains her/hisgoals when other players also attain their goals. The presentresearch addresses whether playing a video game coopera-tively in a team (relative to single play) increases subsequentcooperative behavior in a mixed-motive social dilemma.

The aim of cooperative multiplayer video games is that playershelp other players to attain a common goal. According to the normof reciprocity, individuals reciprocate previous helpful behavior;that is, they help those who have helped them (Gouldner, 1960).In fact, empirical studies have shown that when given the oppor-tunity, participants are more cooperative toward partners whowere previously cooperative than toward non-cooperative partners(Gallucci & Perugini, 2000). This norm is so strong that peoplereturn favors even when the initial favor giver would not knowof their behavior (Burger, Sanchez, Imberi &Grande, 2009).Withregard to cooperative video game play, Ewoldsen, Eno, Okdie,Velez, Guadagno and DeCoster (2012) found that individualswho had played a violent video game cooperatively weresubsequentlymore cooperative toward each other than individualswho had played the same video game but competitively.

There are reasons to assume that the effects of cooperativebehavior during video game play on subsequent cooperativebehavior even generalize across different persons. The norm of

*Correspondence to: Tobias Greitemeyer, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52,Innsbruck, Austria.E-mail: [email protected]†This research was supported in part by grant P23809 from the Austrian ScienceFund to the first author.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

reciprocity that is established by the interaction with one personappears to guide behaviors toward other persons as well(Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991). That is, reciprocity isassumed to be normal behavior and thus affects cooperativebehavior not only toward the initial partner but also towardnew interaction partners. Evidence for this reasoning comesfrom recent research showing that playing a cooperativeteam-player (relative to a single-player) violent video gameincreases cooperative behavior toward a person who wasnot the video game partner (Greitemeyer, Traut-Mattausch &Osswald, 2012). In this research, participants played a violentvideo game cooperatively in a team or the same video gamebut on their own. In a control condition, other participants playeda neutral video game on their own. Afterwards, cooperativebehavior toward a new person was assessed. It was found thatparticipants in the single-player violent video game conditionwere less cooperative than both participants in the team-playerviolent video game condition and the single-player neutral videogame condition. Moreover, the latter two conditions did notsignificantly differ. That is, this research suggests that the negativeeffects of violent video game play on cooperative behavior can beameliorated by playing it cooperatively in a team.

However, it is important to point out that this research onlyreveals how negative effects of violent video game can becounteracted. Cooperative behavior in the team-player violentvideo game condition was increased relative to the single-player violent video game condition, but was not increasedrelative to the single-player neutral video game condition.Because no team-player neutral video game condition wasincluded in the experimental design, it remains unknownwhether—when compared with a single-player neutral videogame condition—cooperative team play even increasescooperation. This issue was addressed in the present research.Concretely, participants played a neutral video game coopera-tively in a team or played the same video game on their own.

Received 13 August 2012, Accepted 25 February 2013

Video games and cooperation 225

Afterwards, cooperative behavior toward a new interactionpartner was assessed. It was predicted that participants whohad played a neutral video game cooperatively in a teamwould be subsequently more cooperative than those partici-pants who had played the video game but on their own. Sucha finding would suggest that cooperative video game play doesnot only counteract negative effects of violent video game playbut may also produce positive outcomes.

Why should cooperative video game play be associatedwith increased subsequent cooperative behavior? Theoreticalperspectives, such as interdependence theory (Kelley &Thibaut, 1978), as well as empirical findings suggest thatexpectations about a partner’s cooperation (i.e., trust) are themost crucial determinant of cooperative behavior in mixed-motive situations (De Bruin & Van Lange, 1999; Van Lange& Kuhlman, 1994): If one expects a high degree of coopera-tion from a partner, one is also willing to cooperate. Trust, inturn, has been shown to be elicited by feelings of cohesion(Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003). Finally, cooperativegoal structures are associated with increased feelings ofcohesion (Deutsch, 1973).

Taken together, it is proposed that cooperatively playingvideo games in a team increases feelings of cohesion, trust,and subsequent cooperative behavior. Moreover, we assumethat feelings of cohesion mediate the effect of cooperativevideo game play on trust, and trust mediates the effect of coop-erative video game play on subsequent cooperative behavior.Note that we do not claim that feelings of cohesion and trustare the only possible underlying variables. It is of courseconceivable that other constructs also account for the effectof cooperative video game play on subsequent cooperative be-havior. We will return to this issue in the Discussion section.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

Participants either played a neutral video game cooperativelywith a partner or the same video game alone. Thus, becausethe content of the video game was the same across experimen-tal conditions, any effects on subsequent cooperative behaviorcan only be accounted for by the different way the game wasplayed. Afterwards, participants played a mixed-motive socialdilemma with a new partner. We assessed feelings of cohesiontoward this new partner as well as trust expectations andcooperative behavior. It was expected that (i) cooperativevideo game play (relative to single play) would increasecooperative behavior and (ii) that this effect was seriallymediated via increased feelings of cohesion and trust.

METHOD

Participants, Procedure, and Materials

Participants were 52 students at a British university (33women, 19 men). Four participants, who were unfamiliarwith one another, arrived at the laboratory, were told thatwe were interested in their perceptions of video games andwere paired off in one of two rooms. Each pair was randomly


assigned to one of two video game conditions (team playervs. single player), with the restriction that about twice asmany participants were assigned to the team-player condi-tion than to the single-player condition (because the groupwas treated as the unit of analysis in the team-player condi-tion, see the succeeding paragraphs). There were 34 partici-pants in the team-player condition and 18 participants inthe single-player condition.

In both the team-player condition and the single-playercondition, Mario Kart: Double Dash!! was used, which isa racing game. In the cooperative mode, one player con-trols the kart while the other controls the use of itemsused to slow down the other competitors or gain anadvantage over them. The two players may switch rolesat any time by simultaneously pressing a button on theirrespective controllers. In the single mode, the playercontrols both the kart and the items. Note that in bothexperimental conditions, two participants were in thesame room. However, whereas they played cooperativelytogether in the team-player condition, all participantsplayed on their own in the single-player condition (usingtwo different computers and screens).

After 15minutes of video game play, participants wereseparated, and their perceptions of the video game wereassessed. As a manipulation check, participants indicatedhow cooperative the content of the video game was. Theywere also asked how violent the content of the video gamewas and how difficult they perceived the game to be, andresponded to three questions measuring their liking of thevideo game (a = .78). All items were assessed on a scale from1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Then, participants played a one-shot version of a two-person give-some dilemma (adopted from Van Lange, 1999).Participants learned that they were paired with one of thetwo participants who had played in the other room. Theywere given five chips, which each had a value of 50 pence tothe participant and a value of £1 to the new partner. They weretold that their partner also received five chips and would facethe same decision. To assess feelings of cohesion, participantsindicated how much of a bond they feel they have with thepartner (1 = no bond at all to 5 = a strong bond). To assesstrust, participants were asked to indicate how many chips theyexpect their partner will give them (Cohen, Wildshut & Insko,2010). Participants then had to decide how many chips theywould give to the partner. It was stressed that the otherparticipant would not learn their identity. The number of chipsleft for the other participant was used as a measure ofcooperative behavior. Finally, participants were thanked andpaid, probed for suspicion, and fully debriefed. None of theparticipants indicated any suspicion of a relationship betweenplaying the video game and the decision-making task.

RESULTS

Because of nonindependence in the team-player violent videogame, the group was treated as the unit of analysis in thisexperimental condition (using the average of the two partici-pants’ responses).

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 224–228 (2013)

2We also examined whether cooperative video game play increased coopera-tive behavior via the activation of fairness concerns (Cohen et al., 2010).Participants in the cooperative team-player video game condition (M= 3.57,SD= 0.88) tended to have greater concern for fairness than did those in the

Video game Cohesion Trust

Cooperation

β = .11

β = .24

β = .64*

Video game Cohesion Trust

β = .65* β = .51*

β = .36*β* = .03

Figure 1. Mediation of the effect of video game condition on trustby cohesion (top) and mediation of the effect of video game conditionon cooperation by trust (bottom). Video game condition was coded:1 = single player; 2 = team player. *p< .05

226 Tobias Greitemeyer and Christopher Cox

Video Game Ratings

The manipulation was successful. The content of the team-player video game (M = 4.24, standard deviation [SD] = 0.44)was perceived as being more cooperative than the contentof the single-player video game (M = 2.33, SD = 0.91),t(24.79) = 7.97, p< .001, d=2.67.1 In contrast, liking of thevideo game (team-player video game: M=2.84, SD= 0.66;single-player video game: M=2.67, SD=0.51), perceiveddifficulty (team-player video game: M=1.77, SD= 0.53;single-player video game: M=1.56, SD=0.93), and perceivedviolent content (team-player video game: M=1.74, SD=0.69;single-player video game: M=1.91, SD=0.87) were relativelysimilar, all t’s< 1. Note also that the video game employedwas not perceived to be violent in content. Ratings of violentcontent were significantly lower than the scale mid-point (3),t(33) = 8.83, p< .001.

Cooperative Behavior

Playing a video game cooperatively promoted cooperativebehavior, t(33) = 3.26, p< .01, d = 1.12. Participants who hadplayed the team-player video game (M= 4.15, SD= 0.72) leftmore chips than did those who had played the single-playervideo game (M = 2.94, SD = 1.35). This effect remainedsignificant, b= .47, p< .01, when controlling for liking ofthe video game, perceived difficulty, and perceived violentcontent, whereas none of the other predictors received a signif-icant regression weight; all b’s< .16, and all p’s> .31. Fi-nally, sex of participants did not significantly affectcooperative behavior (p = .22) nor did it significantly interactwith experimental condition (p= .17).

Cohesion

Participants in the team-player video game condition (M=3.59,SD = 1.29) experienced more cohesion than did those inthe single-player video game condition (M = 1.67, SD = 1.03),t(33) = 4.89, p< .001, d = 1.65.

Trust

Participants in the team-player video game condition (M=3.62,SD=0.89) reported more trust than did those in the single-playervideo game condition (M = 2.72, SD = 1.41), t(33) = 2.23,p< .05, d = 0.68.

Mediation Analysis

In the following, a two-step mediation analysis is reported. It isproposed that cooperative game play increases feelings ofcohesion, which activates trust, and which then evokes cooper-ative behavior (Figure 1). First, when video game conditionand feelings of cohesion were simultaneously used as predic-tors for trust, feelings of cohesion received a significant regres-sion weight, b= .51, p< .05, whereas video game conditiondid not, b= .03, p = .87. Second, we tested whether feelings

1Because variances were significantly different between experimental condi-tions, a t-test was reported for which equal variances are not assumed.


of cohesion would affect cooperative behavior through itsinfluence on trust by regressing cooperative behavior on videogame condition, feelings of cohesion, and trust. In fact,whereas trust received a significant regression weight,b= .64, p< .001, video game condition, b= .11, p = .40, andfeelings of cohesion, b= .24, p = .09, did not. To test the sig-nificance of the overall indirect effect of video game conditionon cooperative behavior via feelings of cohesion and trust, abootstrapping analysis (with 1000 iterations) that models themediators as operating in serial was used (Hayes, 2012). Thisanalysis revealed that the indirect effect was significantly dif-ferent from zero (95% confidence interval = 0.20, 2.93).2

DISCUSSION

The present findings provide encouraging evidence for theidea that cooperatively playing a neutral video game increasessubsequent cooperative behavior in a mixed-motive decisiondilemma. Because the same video game was played, one canbe relatively certain that indeed the different way the gamewas played (cooperatively vs. single play) underlies the find-ing that cooperative behavior is increased after cooperativeneutral video game play. Moreover, the effect of video gamecondition on cooperative behavior was not affected by likingof the video game, perceived difficulty, and perceived antiso-cial content, and thus, it is unlikely that these video game di-mensions account for the effect of cooperative video gameplay on cooperative behavior. Importantly, the partner in thedecision dilemma was not the partner from the video game.

single-player video game condition (M= 2.97, SD= 1.16), t(33) = 1.72,p= .09, d= 0.58. However, when controlling for fairness concerns, video gamecondition still received a significant regression weight, b= .52, p< .01,whereas fairness concerns did not, b=�.10, p= .52.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 224–228 (2013)

Video games and cooperation 227

That is, the effects of cooperative video game play generalizenot only across different situations but also across differentpersons.

Previous research has shown that participants who hadcooperatively played a violent video game in a team weremore cooperative than participants who had played the samevideo game in a single-player mode, but were not less willingto cooperate than participants who had played a neutral videogame on their own (Greitemeyer et al., 2012). It thus appearsthat cooperative video game play ameliorates the negativeeffects of violent video games and even increases cooperativebehavior if the video game is neutral in content. In sum,playing a violent video game cooperatively in a team doesnot harm social interactions (at least, in terms of cooperation),but playing a neutral video game cooperatively in a team evenbenefits social interactions.

These findings parallel research into the effects of playingvideo games with violent, neutral, or prosocial content onsocial outcomes. On the one hand, playing violent (relativeto neutral) video games increases aggression and aggression-related variables and decreases helping behavior and empathy(for a meta-analysis, Anderson et al., 2010). On the otherhand, playing prosocial (relative to neutral) video gamesdecreases aggression and aggression-related variables andincreases helping behavior and empathy (for an overview,Greitemeyer, 2011). Taken together, it appears that both thecontent (what video game is played) and the context (theway the video game is played) are important determinants ofwhether video games positively or negatively affect socialoutcomes.

Before concluding, some limitations of the presentresearch, as well as potential avenues for future research,should be acknowledged. First, we employed only one videogame. Thus, our findings might be due to specific features ofthe particular games used. Second, in our previous research(Greitemeyer et al., 2012), we found that cooperative videogame play ameliorated the negative effects of violent videogames on cooperative behavior, whereas the present researchshowed that cooperative behavior was increased if the videogame was neutral in content. What is missing, however, is astudy in which both video game content (violent vs. neutral)and context (cooperative team-play vs. single-play) aremanipulated at the same time. Such a study should revealtwo main effects in that cooperative behavior is increased afterplaying (i) a neutral (relative to a violent) video game and (ii)cooperatively in a team (vs. single play). More importantly,this study would show whether the positive effect of coopera-tive video game play is similar in magnitude for both violentand neutral video games or is larger for one than for the other.

Third, actual video game performance was notassessed. It may be that those playing the video gamecooperatively in a team were more successful than those inthe alone condition, which may account for the effect on latercooperative behavior. Note, however, that there were nosignificant differences in perceived difficulty and videogame liking across video game conditions. Moreover, theeffect of video game condition on cooperative behaviorremained significant when controlling for perceived difficultyand video game liking. Of course, perceived difficultyand video game liking are not the same as actual game


performance, but they should be correlated. Nevertheless,future work that directly assesses actual game performancewould be informative in this regard.

Fourth, the present study provides initial evidencethat feelings of cohesion and trust underlie the effect ofvideo game condition on cooperative behavior. Moreover,although fairness concerns were increased after cooperativevideo game play, this variable did not mediate the effectof video game condition on cooperative behavior (seeFootnote 2). However, it may well be that other variablesaccount for increased cooperative behavior after cooperativevideo game play. For instance, the experience of sympatheticemotions and concern for others, namely empathy, hasbeen shown to be associated with cooperative behavior insocial dilemmas (Batson & Ahmad, 2001; Batson & Moran,1999; Van Lange, 2008). Empathy has been shown to beincreased after playing video games cooperatively in a team(Greitemeyer, in press). Previous research has also reported thatdifferences in empathy account for increased helping behaviorafter listening to music with prosocial lyrics (Greitemeyer,2009). Correspondingly, empathy may also directly mediatethe effect of cooperative video game play on cooperativebehavior. Alternatively, empathy may operate as a distaldeterminant of cooperative behavior in that empathy mayincrease trust, which in turn is the proximal determinantof behavior.

Fifth, the effects of cooperative video game play may notbe limited to subsequent cooperative behavior. For instance,prosocial behavior has been shown to be an antagonist ofaggressive behavior (Eron & Huesmann, 1984). In addition,cooperative instructions decrease in-game killing of gamecharacters (Anderson & Morrow, 1995). Thus, it may be thatcooperatively playing in a team decreases subsequent aggres-sive behavior not only toward the video game partner but alsotoward individuals who did not take part in the previous videogame play.

Finally, it is important to note that the effects of cooperativevideo game play on immediate, subsequent behavior wereexamined. Thus, longitudinal investigations would be desirablethat examine whether cooperative video game play increasescooperative behavior in the long-term. It is noteworthy thatthe effect of cooperative video game play on cooperativebehavior materialized even though participants played thegame for only 15minutes. In real life, when video gameplayers repeatedly play cooperatively, cooperative behaviormay be even increased to a greater extent.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A., & Morrow, M. (1995). Competitive aggression withoutinteraction: Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on ag-gressive behavior in video games. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 21, 1020–1030.

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J.,Sakamoto, A. et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression,empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries.Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173.

Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’sdilemma II: What if the target of empathy has defected? European Journalof Social Psychology, 31, 25–36.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 224–228 (2013)

228 Tobias Greitemeyer and Christopher Cox

Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’sdilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909–924.

Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of anintragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20–35.

Burger, J. M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J. E., & Grande, L. R. (2009). The norm ofreciprocity as an internalized social norm: returning favors even when noone finds out. Social Influence, 4, 11–17.

Cohen, T. R., Wildshut, T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). How communicationincreases interpersonal cooperation in mixed-motive situations. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 46, 39–50.

De Bruin, E. N. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). Impression formation andcooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 305–328.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructiveprocesses. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eron, L. D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1984). The relation of prosocial behavior tothe development of aggression and psychopathology. Aggressive Behavior,10, 201–211.

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 orcompetitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology,Behavior and Social Networking, 15, 277–280.

Gallucci, M., & Perugini, M. (2000). An experimental test of a game-theoretical model of reciprocity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,13, 367–389.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Greitemeyer, T. (2009). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocialbehavior: Further evidence and a mediating mechanism. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1500–1511.


Greitemeyer, T. (2011). Effects of prosocial media on social behavior: Whenand why does media exposure affect helping and aggression. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 20, 251–255.

Greitemeyer, T. (in press). Playing video games cooperatively increasesempathic concern. Social Psychology. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000154

Greitemeyer, T., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Osswald, S. (2012). How toameliorate negative effects of violent video games on cooperation: Play itcooperatively in a team. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1465–1470.

Griffiths, M., Davies, M., & Chappell, D. (2004). Demographic factors and playingvariables in online computer games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 479–487.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). An analytical primer and computational tool for observedvariable moderation, mediation, and conditional process modeling.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Identifying the

pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learningenvironments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior,19, 335–353.

Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J.(2008). Teens, video games, and civics (Report No. 202-415-4500).Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality inoutcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Does empathy trigger only altruistic motivation?How about selflessness and justice? Emotion, 8, 766–774.

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientationsand impressions of a partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of themight versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 126–141.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 224–228 (2013)

there's no “i” in team: effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior

Documents