To be, or not to be (moral)

Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D.

Sven Jöckel, Dr. phil.Leyla Dogruel

??

Joeckel, S., Dogruel, L, & Bowman, N. D. (2011, November). Adolescents, Morality and Interactive Entertainment: The influence of moral salience on actions and entertainment experience in interactive media. Top five papers in Mass Communication, National Communication Association, New Orleans.

“Gut or Game”

• Series of studies in German and the US examining how morals guide (interactive) behaviors

• Four data collections age (2) x culture (2) • Pattern of data suggest that morals do guide

in-game decisions (“gut”) but only when cued; otherwise, behaviors are random (“game”)

• Focus on adolescents (12- and 13-year-olds)

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 2

How do these make you feel?

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 3

Moral Foundations Theory

• Model of intuitive morality• Argues for a “first draft” of morality, edited by

experience• Experiences differ between cultures*

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 4

AuthorityLoyaltyPurity

Harm/CareFairness

Moral Foundations Theory

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 5

AuthorityLoyaltyPurity

Harm/CareFairness

Tabular rasa approach

“quandary ethics” Focus on actions

and scenarios Cognitive (moral)

reasoning Morality

constantly monitored

Intuitive vs. Rational Morality

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 6

Intuitive Morality Innate moral

foundations “evolutionary

ethics” Focus on culture

and character Moral

dumbfounding Morality

considered on encounter

Rational Morality

Morality and Technology

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 7

As we become increasingly mediated, we wonder how folks respond to said mediation.

How might moral salience guide decisions in mediated environments?

Increased salience should decrease likelihood of committing a violation, but what about

decreased salience? And how does this influence enjoyment of a

mediated environment (i.e. video game)?

How does this process influence enjoyment?

Three Studies

• Digital Natives and Decision-Making• Digital Immigrants and Decision-Making• Morality, Nationality, and Media Preference

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 8

Four samples

•US •Children (n = 91, M = 12.84, 46% )♀•Elderly (n = 62, M = 68.02, 79% )♀

•Germany•Children (n = 94, M = 13.11, 55% )♀•Elderly (n = 54, M = 66.54, 57% )♀

Neverwinter Nights, modified

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 9

Digital Natives

• Digital Natives = born into technology • Adjusted to social mores of Internet, gaming• Morality is “under (social) construction”

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 10

Germany US

Salience % Violation Salience % Violation

Harm/ care 4.44 (.98) 30% 4.47 (.99) 64%

Fairness/ reciprocity 4.37 (.95) 12% 4.36 (.91) 24%

Authority/ respect 3.89 (.96) 57% 4.27 (.95) 63%

In-group/ loyalty 3.88 (.85) 38% 4.33 (.94) 48%

Purity/ sanctity 3.61 (.92) 54% 3.97 (.99) 40%

Impact of Morality on Decisions

The linear relationship (H1) The binary relationship (H2)

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 11

OR

Logistic (Linear) Regression

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 12

Digital Natives Digital Immigrants

German Adolescents

American Adolescents

American Elderly

GermanElderly

Harm/ Care Ns Ns Ns (exp)B = 3.13 ((*))

Fairness/ Reciprocity

Ns Ns Ns Ns

Authority/ Respect

Ns Ns Ns (exp)B = 0.56((*))

In-group/ Loyalty

Ns Ns Ns Ns

Purity/ Sanctity Ns (exp)B = 1.36((*))

Ns Ns

*** = p <.001; ** = p <.01, * = p <.05 (*) = p <.1, ((*)) = p <. 2 , (ns) = p > .2

Binary Relationship (H2)

• Expect to see fewest violations in the most important moral module

• Three requirements for support a) Significantly less violations for salient modules

than for not salient modules b) Non-random distributions of violations for

salient modules c) Random distribution of violations in non-salient

modules

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 13

What determines module salience?

• Most salient moral module was determined as one which participants scored highest

• Least salient moral module was determined as one which participants scored lowest

• No set „cut-off“ number; se we looked for significance difference between the two

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 14

Relative module importance

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 15

A) Sig. ∆ High vs. Low

B) Non-random(highest salience)

C) Random (lowest salience)

Digital Natives

German Adolescents

Yes (.002) Yes (21%) Yes (47%)

US Adolescents

No (.118) No (54%) Yes (41%)

Digital Immigrants

German Elderly

Yes (<.001) Yes (24%) No (77%)

US Elderly Yes (<.001) Yes (12%) Yes* (39%)

Conclusions

• Main findings:– If morality was high, no violation “gut”– If morality was low, violation was random “game”– Support for binary relationship, not linear one

• What does it mean for digital media?– “Game” reaction is default, until “gut” is primed– Moral orientations learned in RL seem to drive

decisions in the virtual world…– …not all children have sophisticated moral codes that

have been developed!

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 16

Conclusions and Future Directions

– What we need to investigate in the future– Effects of moral decisions on enjoyment in

interactive media (didn’t really find in here)– What are the content and experience triggers that

make morality a salient concern? – Presence might serve as a “moral override” (still

investigating…where is Raney?)

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 17

Questions?

• Contact Nick BowmanDepartment of Communication StudiesWest Virginia University 108 Armstrong HallMorgantown, WV 26506nick@ndbowman.info

04/08/23 (c) ND Bowman, 2011 18