1 / 18

Go with the Flow: Solo vs social gaming experiences and associated affective outcomes

Dr Linda K Kaye @ LindaKKaye Edge Hill University Linda.Kaye@edgehill.ac.uk. Go with the Flow: Solo vs social gaming experiences and associated affective outcomes. Overview. Background (what I read) Aims (what I wanted to find out) Methodology (what I did) Results (what I found)

heulwen-evans
Download Presentation

Go with the Flow: Solo vs social gaming experiences and associated affective outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dr Linda K Kaye @LindaKKaye Edge Hill University Linda.Kaye@edgehill.ac.uk Go with the Flow: Solo vs social gaming experiences and associated affective outcomes

  2. Overview Background (what I read) Aims (what I wanted to find out) Methodology (what I did) Results (what I found) Discussion (what I reckon)

  3. Background • Playing games socially with others is appealing. • social interaction • social connectedness with friends (Griffiths, 1997; Kaye & Bryce, under review). • Related to positive experiences and can be a key motivation for playing (Chappell, Eatough, Davies, & Griffiths, 2006; Griffiths, Davies, & Chappell, 2004). • Increasingly popular: • 64% of gamers play with others(ESA, 2010). • 55% of social gamers are female (ISG, 2010).

  4. Background: Solo v Social • Playing socially enhances gaming experiences: • arousal • positive affect • engagement (Gajadhar et al., 2008, 2009; Madryk et al., 2006; Ravaja et al., 2006). • Can also promote experiences of “group flow”, particularly in cooperative-based gaming. Achieved through collective competence, collaboration and knowledge of others’ skills (Kaye & Bryce, under review). • Unclear how group flow may be distinct from individual flow experienced in solo gaming contexts (Kaye, Bryce, & Pollard, under review).

  5. Background: Cooperative v Competitive • Also unclear how flow in social gaming may be different between cooperative and competitive gameplay. • The importance of teamwork and cooperation is essential in achieving game objectives in collaborative play (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) • However, competitive gaming is likely to be different. • Differential outcomes between cooperative and competitive gaming tasks (Anderson & Morrow, 1995; Eastin, 2007) • Physiological arousal (Lim & Reeves, 2010) • Unclear of how subjective experiences may be different

  6. Background: Online v Offline • Most research is experimental, comparing differential outcomes of computers versus human opponents (Easton, 2006; Lim & Lee, 2009; Lim & Reeves, 2010; Williams & Clippinger, 2002): • Physiological arousal • Flow • Enjoyment • Positive Affect (Gajadharet al., 2008; Guadagno et al., 2007; Mandryk et al., 2006; Weibel et al., 2008). • Little evidence “beyond the laboratory”

  7. Aims 1. To examine the extent to which flow experiences and mood outcomes differ between: a. Solo versus social gaming contexts. b. Online versus offline social gaming contexts. c. Competitive versus cooperative social gaming contexts 2. To examine the influence of trait aggression and trait competitiveness on mood outcomes.

  8. Methodology FLOW IN GAMEPLAY MOOD AFTER GAMEPLAY Solo gaming experience Positive Mood CONTEXT Online Offline Negative Mood Social gaming experience TYPE OF PLAY Cooperative Competitive

  9. Methodology Participants Gamers (N = 302) recruited from Games courses at UCLan, and from relevant gaming websites Materials Flow = Flow State Scale- 2 (Jackson & Eklund, 2002; Jackson & Marsh, 1996) Mood = PANAS(Watson et al., 1988)

  10. Results (Solo versus Social) t (259) = 2.16, p <.05 Mean Gaming Context

  11. Reflections? • Playing games with others enhances positive feelings • Supports previous studies • Flow is equivalent between solo and social • Different type of flow operating?

  12. Results (Flow and Mood) ** p < .01 * p < .05

  13. Reflections? • Flow in gameplay is related to positive feelings after playing • Supports previous studies, and extends to examine these links in social gaming

  14. Results (Contexts and Types) Mean Gaming Context Type of gameplay

  15. Reflections? • No differences regardless of context or type of gameplay • Lack of distinction between cooperative and competitive in some instances?

  16. Discussion • Retrospective • Positive bias • Group size in social gaming • But, provides more “true-to-life” account of gaming

  17. Final thoughts? • Little research on offline social contexts and gaming processes on outcomes. • This study examined different gameplay contexts and types for experiences of flow and mood outcomes • No differences in flow, but higher Positive Affect after playing in socially compared to solo • Group flow • Suggests the importance of examining the social dimensions and contexts of gaming

  18. If you’re interested…… Kaye, L. K., & Bryce, J. (in prep). “Go with the flow”: The experiences and affective outcomes of solo versus social gameplay. Kaye, L. K. & Bryce, J (forthcoming, 2012). Putting the fun factor into gaming: The influence of social context on experiences of playing videogames. International Journal of Internet Science, 6 (2) Kaye, L. K., Bryce, J., & Pollard, P. (in prep). “I need a Wii”: Motivations and experiences of playing videogames.

More Related