↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Empathy and Morality of Violent Video Game Characters on Gamers’ Aggression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Influence of Empathy and Morality of Violent Video Game Characters on Gamers’ Aggression
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuemei Gao, Lei Weng, Yuhong Zhou, Hongling Yu

Abstract

According to the General Aggression Model, situational factors (such as the game characters) and personal factors both affect a gamer's acquisition of aggressive behavior. Previous studies have found not only that the surface features of game characters, such as appearance and clothing, but also that their inherent characteristics, such as morality and identity, can influence a gamer's attitude and behavior. Research has also shown that empathy, as a personal factor, can protect gamers from the impact of media violence. However, past research has focused primarily on single factors affecting the player rather than more comprehensive investigations. This study investigates the influence of the game character's moral features and levels of empathy on the gamer's aggression. The participants were 120 Chinese university students (61 females and 59 males) with ages ranging from 17 to 27 years. Participants first completed a series of questionnaires: a user experience questionnaire, a video game questionnaire, the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, and a modified version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. All participants then had 5 min of practice playing a violent video game. They were then divided into three groups: a high empathy group, a low empathy group, and a no empathy group. After the practice, participants in the high and low empathy groups read empathy materials relating to the game characters; participants in the no empathy group began formal gameplay. All participants played the game for 20 min. Finally, participants were required to complete the Scale of Hostility Status questionnaire, the Implicit Aggression Test, and the Competitive Reaction Time Test. The results show that empathy and the morality of game characters both influence aggression, but empathy affected aggression differently in the participants playing justified roles (i.e., killing others for a moral reason in the game) compared to those playing unjustified roles (i.e., killing others for immoral reasons in the game). In the high empathy condition, the implicit aggression of justified players was significantly higher than those playing unjustified roles. However, high empathy does not always play a protective role, and its effect is restricted by the features of the game characters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 24%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 26%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Arts and Humanities 7 7%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2020.
All research outputs
#5,043,621
of 24,969,131 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,165
of 33,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,223
of 331,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#184
of 557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,969,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.