Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

The social implications of casual online gaming: Examining the effects

of competitive setting and performance outcome on player
perceptions
Rory McGloin a, *, Kyle S. Hull b, John L. Christensen a
a
Department of Communication, University of Connecticut, 337 Mansfield Rd., Unit 1259, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA
b
Communication Department Aquinas College, 1607 Robinson Rd. S.E., Grand Rapids, MI, 49506, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The theory of bounded generalized reciprocity has recently been applied to the study of video games,
Received 17 November 2015 particularly those that offer cooperative and competitive settings. Emphasizing casual online gameplay,
Received in revised form this study investigates how individuals respond to manipulated performance feedback in either a
3 February 2016
competitive or cooperative game play setting. An interaction between competitive setting and perfor-
Accepted 6 February 2016
Available online 12 February 2016
mance feedback was detected on measures of interpersonal liking and perceived competence. Specif-
ically, perceptions of partners and competitors were relatively favorable in the cooperation/success and
competition/failure conditions, respectively. On the other hand, participants rated their partners and
Keywords:
Video games
competitors less favorably during cooperative failure and competitive success, possibly reflecting a
Casual games unique self-serving bias. The results also suggest that individuals in a cooperative setting experience
Bounded generalized reciprocity greater enjoyment than those in a competitive setting. The effectiveness of the two manipulations in this
Competition study may also have important implications for the design of serious or educational games, which often
Cooperation have the goal of strategically motivating players in an attempt to promote desired outcomes.
Performance feedback © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Klimmt, 2003).

Casual games have become one of the most popular genres of
video and computer games on the market, according to the NDP
group's recent retail report (ESA, 2015). This popularity is often
attributed to some key characteristics. First, their ubiquity is
enabled by the ease with which users can access these games
through a variety of mobile and wireless devices. Second, casual
games are typically easy to learn (Juul, 2010) and offer relatively
short levels/challenges (compared to traditional console games),
allowing users to engage without a substantial time commitment
(Slutsky, 2011). Third, many casual social games afford a level of
convenience insofar as they can be played asynchronously, mean-
ing they do not require players to be in the same session at the same
time. Finally, casual games provide an informal venue for social
competition, allowing for personal and social comparisons to occur
(Sherry, Lucas, Greenberg, & Lachlan, 2006; Vorderer, Hartmann, &
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rory.mcgloin@uconn.edu (R. McGloin), kyle.hull@aquinas.edu
(K.S. Hull), john.christenesen@uconn.edu (J.L. Christensen).
As a result of these affordances, casual games provide users easy
access to a unique blend of competition and social interaction
(Whitbourne, Ellenberg, & Akimoto, 2013), producing scenarios in
which user experience is influenced both by their overall perfor-
mance and the manner in which they relate with others. Therefore,
an individual's performance may be directly affected by the other
players involved, creating a scenario in which reciprocity toward a
teammate is often based solely upon their performance. However,
researchers have only begun to investigate the affect that these
interactions are having on users and their attitudes both toward the
game itself and the other users they are interacting with.
Recent research has found support for applying the theory of
bounded generalized reciprocity (BGR; Yamagishi, Jin, & Kiyonari,
1999) as a means of explaining the relationship between/within
in-group and out-group players, specifically regarding post-game
observations and behaviors toward other players (Velez, 2015;
Velez, Greitemeyer, Whitaker, Ewoldsen, & Bushman, 2014). BGR
predicts that in-group members are expected to reciprocate posi-
tive behaviors towards one another in an effort to protect and
further one's self-interests (Velez, 2015; Yamagishi et al., 1999).
However, research in this area has just begun to emerge, and those

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.022
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
174 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
that have tested BGR in this context have not taken into account
player performance (e.g. in-game success, points accumulated, and
levels achieved) and its potential influence on how others are
perceived.
The vast majority of casual gaming experiences include at least
one performance metric output (e.g., score, points, time) that help
gamers make sense of their abilities relative to other players. Pre-
vious literature has suggested that such performance feedback may
be the most valued piece of information in games because it serves
as a marker for an individual's relative success or failure (Velez,
2012). Therefore, it stands to reason that user performance may
also influence how they perceive other players involved in the
gaming experience. For example, an individual who participates in
a competitive setting and fails may feel differently toward another
player as compared to an individual who cooperates on the same
task and succeeds (Wolosin, Sherman, & Till, 1973). Thus, an in-
dividual's perception of the game, self, and other, may be relative to
the specific social characteristics of the game play setting itself,
such as, whether or not they were participating in a competitive or
cooperative setting (e.g., Eastin, 2007; Ewoldsen et al., 2012;
Schmierbach, Xu, Oeldorf-Hirsch, & Dardis, 2012), in conjunction
with performance. Therefore, in addition to providing an oppor-
tunity for social comparison through performance feedback, games
also provide a forum for users to make and potentially express
interpersonal judgments about the other users they are playing
with.
Furthermore, the level of enjoyment experienced as a result of
gameplay may be influenced by these characteristics, such as:
performance (Jin, 2012; Schmierbach, Chung, Wu, & Kim, 2014),
how they participate with others (Schmierbach et al., 2012), or
potentially, a combination of these factors. This study sets out to
test the theory of bounded generalized reciprocity by examining
the potential for a unique interaction between performance feed-
back and game play settings in social gaming. To test this rela-
tionship, the current study employs a 2 X 2 experimental design in
which participants are first placed in either a competitive or
cooperative game play setting. Following their gameplay, partici-
pant performance feedback (success vs. failure) was manipulated.
2. Literature review
2.1. Bounded generalized reciprocity theory and casual game
settings
As technology continues to advance, the development of unique
interpersonal connections initiated purely through computer-
mediated interaction is becoming progressively common
(Guitton, 2011, 2015). The theory of bounded generalized reci-
procity has recently been applied to the study of video games,
particularly those that offer social interactions focused on cooper-
ative and competitive gameplay settings. Applying BGR, Velez
(2015) found that the nature of a social relationship created by a
video game encounter seems to be directly influenced by whether
the interaction was cooperative or competitive. BGR accurately
predicted that a cooperative interpersonal setting would lead to a
more positive social interaction and more favorable post-game
behaviors toward the other players during a subsequent pris-
oner's dilemma game. Earlier studies by Ewoldsen et al. (2012) and
Velez (2012) found similar results, as cooperative game players
donated more money to each other than to an opposing out-group
player. Therefore, given the recent support for bounded generalized
reciprocity theory, an in-game cooperative setting should increase
expected positive reciprocity amongst players.
However, as noted earlier, users do not play games only for so-
cial reasons, they also play to compare abilities, which is why
performance feedback is considered a vital element of gameplay
experience (Velez, 2012). Previous studies that have applied BGR to
predict in-group vs. out-group post game reciprocity have yet to
examine the potential moderating influence of game performance.
Considering that both group setting (competitive/cooperative) and
performance feedback (success/failure) are often the most explic-
itly presented elements of a game play experience, we predict that
these two variables will have a combined affect on the way in which
an individual perceives partners/competitors. Although a wide
variety of interpersonal perceptions have been implicated in
traditional in-group/out-group interactions, the present research
focuses on the two core dimensions of interpersonal perception,
which are also particularly relevant to the context of performance-
oriented social video games: perceived competence and liking of
the other player (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2006; Wojciszke, Abele, &
Baryla, 2009).
2.2. Social competition, performance, and perceptions of others in
casual games
As discussed earlier, online casual gaming offers users the ability
to compete and/or cooperate with an unlimited range of other
players, thus allowing for a vast array of social comparisons.
Vorderer et al. (2003) discuss the interplay of these factors under
the label “social competition” and define the concept as a process
through which a player/team seeks to maximize rewards for the
self/team while simultaneously disadvantaging others. Previous
research has found that competence and liking are closely related
constructs (Singh, Ho, Tan, & Bell, 2007), which should influence
one another in gaming scenarios. Yet, there are key differences
between competitive and cooperative scenarios and these differ-
ences may impact a users perceptio of liking and competence held
toward a partner or competitor in different ways.
2.2.1. Competence
Competence can generally be defined as the degree to which
one can complete tasks proficiently based on their specialized
skills, expertise, and/or intelligence (McCroskey & Teven, 1999).
Within gaming contexts, competence is communicated through
task performance. Competence needs are often fulfilled through
challenges that provide a commonly valued outcome metric (e.g.,
time, score), so that abilities can be compared between individuals
(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) suggested that
receiving positive performance feedback directly increases per-
ceptions of self-competence. Casual games often provide some
form of performance-based feedback, which allows for an assess-
ment of competence and provides a detailed understanding of the
individual's current skills. Given the ubiquitous nature of perfor-
mance feedback across gaming challenges, players should rely on
these cues to formulate perceptions of self-competence.
Perceived competence of another is often relative to individual
performance (Festinger, 1954; Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006), but may
also be influenced by the gameplay setting (e.g., cooperative game
vs. competitive game). For example, if two people are cooperating on
a task and together they fail to meet their mutual goal, it is likely that
each will pass blame onto the other to satisfy self-interests. In the
context of social gaming, this failure is likely to result in the
perception that one's partner is incompetent. This notion is
congruent with BGR insofar as previous research has demonstrated
that “playing a video game with an unhelpful teammate can
disconfirm reciprocity expectations of in-group members and lead to
decreases in pro-social behaviors between teammates” (Velez, 2015,
p. 488). In contrast, if two people are competing against each other,
the losing party is likely to perceive the winner as highly competent
because doing so is in one's own best interest. To protect one's own
 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181 175

ego, the loss can be easily rationalized by convincing oneself that the had won. However, in a competitive setting in which the partici-
winner must have been extraordinarily good at the game if they pant loses, he or she should rate the winning competitor as highly
were able to pull off a win against such a capable competitor (i.e. self) likable because doing so is a strategy that serves to protect one's
(Alicke, LoSchiavo, Zerbst, & Zhang, 1997). Showing deference to the own self-interest given the expectation of reciprocity.
winner means that he or she might possibly reciprocate, which
H2. Game play setting and performance feedback should interact
would enhance one's own feelings of competence. This reasoning is
to predict participant liking of the other player. Participant failure/
in line with BGR in that expectations of pro-social reciprocity should
success should decrease/increase liking for a partner in the coop-
guide perceptions of one's competitor e despite the fact that he or
erative condition. Conversely, participant failure/success should
she is a member of the out-group. Based on this logic, a crossover
increase/decrease liking felt toward a competitor in the competi-
interaction between game play setting and performance feedback is
tive condition.
expected. Specifically, we predict:
H1. Game play setting and performance feedback will interact to
predict participant perceptions of the other player's competence. 2.3. Predicting enjoyment as a result of performance and gameplay
Participant failure/success should decrease/increase perceived setting
competence of a partner in the cooperative condition, respectively.
Conversely, participant failure/success should increase/decrease Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfeld (2004) argue that the experi-
perceived competence of a competitor in the competitive condi- ence of enjoyment is a goal at the heart of users’ media selection and
tion, respectively. consumption. Enjoyment is generally understood to be a pleasur-
able experience or attitude, which stems from affective, behavioral,
and cognitive systems (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). Previous research has
2.2.2. Liking
shown that gaming performance both directly and indirectly con-
Liking is considered a positive affective state experienced in
tributes to feelings of enjoyment (Grodal, 2000; Klimmt, Hartmann,
relation to another (Berridge, 2003). Historically, research suggests
& Frey, 2007; Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Tamborini et al., 2010). In most
that we like individuals who express liking towards us (Gouldner,
cases, players that perform well tend to like games more (Jin, 2012),
1960). As a result, interpersonal attraction or liking as it is framed
which may be due to an increase in self-efficacy concerning the
in this study, is considered a reciprocal process, a norm amongst in-
gaming context (Trepte & Reinecke, 2011). A study by Bowman,
dividuals to reciprocate positively towards those who have expressed
Weber, Tamborini, and Sherry (2013) found that game perfor-
affection towards them (Gouldner, 1960; Montoya & Insko, 2008).
mance mediates the effect of skill on enjoyment, substantiating that
Thus, the norm of reciprocity as it relates to liking is often concep-
performance is key for understanding enjoyment. Yet in some
tualized as a social exchange and represents an opportunity for two
studies, the finding has not always been evident. For example,
parties to gain some reward or future incentive (Emerson, 1976).
Schmierbach et al. (2014) found that competence has a positive
Previous research has uncovered direct perceptual and behav-
impact on game enjoyment, but the effect became statistically non-
ioral effects resulting from in-game cooperation that are consistent
significant after including a challenge-skill variable (the degree to
with BGR theory, which suggest that in-group bias can result from a
which one was challenged but overcame) as a partial mediator.
cooperative gameplay setting. For example, co-play is known to
On the other hand, research has also identified an influence of
elicit elevated perceptions of relatedness (Tamborini, Bowman,
the social gameplay setting on enjoyment, but like performance,
Eden, Grizzard, & Organ, 2010) and in-game cooperation evokes
the effects are inconsistent. For example, a study by Roskos-
enduring positive feelings toward partners (Velez, Mahood,
Ewoldsen, Rhodes, and Eno (2008) found that multiplayer gaming
Ewoldsen, & Moyer-Guse, 2014). Similarly, Waddell and Peng
is preferred over individual gaming and that those engaged in
(2014) found that cooperation led players to trust their partners
multiplayer gaming would rather engage with others cooperatively.
more during a subsequent prisoner's dilemma task. Greitemeyer
However, relatedness can be achieved through multiple configu-
and Cox (2013) also found cooperative play to increase trust and
rations of social interaction (cooperation/competition) and results
cohesion between players. Therefore, based on BGR theory, in-
have not always supported a relationship between cooperation and
dividuals should perceive a cooperative partner more favorably
increased enjoyment. For example, Vorderer et al. (2003) suggested
than a competitor; however, these previous studies do not take
that competition is a uniquely salient game play element that
personal or team performance into account.
should act to engage the user more than non-competitive forms of
In certain mediated settings, such as online causal games, the
play, subsequently resulting in increased enjoyment. In addition to
performance or competency of others may play an important role
this, other researchers have found no significant differences be-
in how they are assessed (i.e. liking), especially when limited
tween individual and multiplayer based modes of play
additional cues are available to base an interpersonal assessment
(Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013).
upon (Walther, 1996). For example, when a player completes a
Given the inconsistent results surrounding the effects of per-
challenge they are provided with a feedback message or score that
formance and gameplay setting on game enjoyment, we propose
evaluates their performance, which also serves as an indicator of
the following research question:
their competency on the given challenge. These messages or scores
should evoke an emotional reaction within the self and affect RQ1. Will the interaction between performance and game play
perceptions of others because of the social value associated with setting be related to user enjoyment?
the relative success/failure of the performance (Buck, 2014; Juul,
2010). Fry (1976) found that individuals change their perception
of those who succeed, such that they perceive successful others as 3. Method
more powerful and hold more esteem and social interest for them.
The opposite effect was found for those who fail. Based on this 3.1. Participants
research and BGR theory, our predictions for perceived liking are
analogous to the proposed interaction on perceived competence Participants (N ¼ 333) were sampled from an introductory
described earlier. Specifically, if two people are cooperating and communication course at a large northeastern university within
they fail, liking for the other player will be lower than if the team the United States. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 27
176 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181

(M ¼ 19.54, SD ¼ 1.34) and were predominantly Caucasian (76%).

The majority of participants were female (55%).

3.2. Procedure

This study utilized a 2 X 2 experimental design in which the

game play setting (cooperation/competition) and performance
feedback (success/failure) were manipulated. Participants who
agreed to participate reported their sex and prior video game
experience information, which was followed by random assign-
ment to either a cooperative or competitive game play scenario. To
enhance validity and experimental control, we chose to utilize a
deception-based paradigm. Although participants were told that
they were either competing against or cooperating with another
person, they in fact played the game independently. A cover story
led participants to believe they were playing an asynchronous,
turn-based game in which the other player (either a competitor or a
teammate) had recently completed the task and that it was now the
participant's turn to play. Participants in the cooperative setting Fig. 1. Performance feedback provided to players in the success condition following
were delivered the following prompt: “You are part of a COOPER- gameplay.
ATIVE effort, so try and score as high as you possibly can so that you
and your partner can SUCCEED! Your mutual goal is to get a com-
bined score that is 60% or higher”. Alternatively, participants in the
competitive setting were delivered a different prompt: “This is a
COMPETITION, so try and score as high as you possibly can so that
you BEAT the other player! This player's final score was 60%”.
Participants were then presented with a customized, flash-
based casual game that was embedded directly into the survey. In
this game, players were presented with a clickable, interactive map
of the United States. The game consisted of 15 rounds of play. In
each round, the player was presented with the name of a landmark
and asked to identify its exact geographic location by using their
mouse to click on the map as quickly as possible. We chose colleges
and universities as landmarks, programming their locations into
the game map based on their exact latitudinal/longitudinal co-
ordinates. To bolster difficulty, schools whose name did not
explicitly identify their location were used (i.e., Brigham Young,
Pepperdine, Xavier). Participants were informed that successful
game performance was dependent upon two factors e selection
speed and geographic accuracy.
Upon completion of the game, participants were randomly Fig. 2. Performance feedback provided to players in the failure condition following
presented with a manipulated performance feedback message. In gameplay.
the success condition, participants were told that they scored 31
percentage points above their goal of 60%. In the failure condition,
Insko (2008). This scale included four items that were measured
participants were told that they scored 31 percentage points below
using a seven point semantic differential scale, which was
their goal of 60% (See Figs. 1 and 2 for stimuli). Finally, participants
composed of the following anchors: pleasant, warm, friendly, and
completed a post gameplay instrument containing manipulations
negative (reverse coded). The scale was reliable (a ¼ .73).
checks and the following measures.

3.3. Measures 3.3.4. Enjoyment

3.3.1. Prior video game experience
Participants reported how often they played video games using
a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily).
3.3.2. Perceived competence of other
Perception of the other player's competence was measured with
three items taken from Pfeffer, Fong, Cialdini, and Portnoy (2006).
“Talented,” “competent”, and “intelligent” represented the positive
end of the seven point semantic differential. The scale was reliable
(a ¼ .92).
3.3.3. Perceived liking of other
Perceived liking of the other player was measured using a
slightly modified version of a scale developed by Montoya and
Enjoyment of the game was measured using a previously vali-
dated enjoyment scale (McGloin, Farrar, & Krcmar, 2013). The scale
consisted of 5 items measured on a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) and was reliable (a ¼ .91). This scale
included items such as: “I liked this game”, “This game was fun”, “I
would like to play this game again”, “I wish I could have played the
game longer”, “I would recommend this game to a friend”.
3.3.5. Perceived game performance
A three-item scale was used to measure individual's perceived
game performance. The scale utilized a 7-point scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) and was reliable (a ¼ .92). The scale
included the following items: “I performed well”, “My performance
was poor (reverse coded)”, and “Others would be impressed with
my performance”.
 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
3.4. Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS Statistics 22.0
(IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Prior to hypothesis testing,
randomization checks were conducted. Chi-square analysis was
used to examine whether males and females were balanced across
the four experimental conditions. A two-way ANOVA was con-
ducted to examine whether the four groups were equivalent in
terms of participants’ prior video game experience. Two t-tests
were then conducted to check the effectiveness of the experimental
manipulations (i.e., cooperation/competition and success/failure).
The hypothesized interactions were tested using MANOVA with sex
and prior video game experience entered as covariates. Significant
interaction effects were further explored using ANOVA with simple
effects follow-up tests to examine between-group differences.
Sidak correction was applied to account for familywise error. Alpha
was set to .05.
4. Results
4.1. Randomization and manipulation checks
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions,
cooperation/success (n ¼ 74), competition/success (n ¼ 92), coop-
eration/failure (n ¼ 95), and competition/failure (n ¼ 72). A 2  4
Chi-square analysis revealed that the random assignment was
successful, such that, the distribution of males and females in each
condition did not significantly deviate from what was expected to
occur (c2 (3, N ¼ 333) ¼ 1.08, p > .05, f ¼ .06). A two-way ANOVA
was conducted to test whether the four conditions were balanced
in terms of prior video game experience. The interaction was non-
significant, demonstrating the success of the randomization pro-
cedure, F(1, 327) ¼ .32, p ¼ .58, h2p ¼ .00.
Using the perceived game performance measure as a dependent
variable, an independent samples t-test confirmed the effective-
ness of the performance feedback manipulation. Participants who
received a success feedback message (M ¼ 6.38, SD ¼ 1.27) reported
that their performance was significantly better (t(323) ¼ 28.30,
p < .001; d ¼ 3.24) than those participants who were in the failure
feedback message condition (M ¼ 1.82, SD ¼ 1.53). It was also ex-
pected that those individuals who were placed in a competitive
game setting would perceive the game to be more competitive than
individuals who were placed in a cooperative game setting. Despite
the lack of actual interpersonal interaction, the results of an inde-
pendent samples t-test confirmed that the manipulation of game
play setting was successful (t(330) ¼ 6.46, p < .001; d ¼ .70) as
participants in the competition condition experienced significantly
higher levels of competitiveness (M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ 1.93) compared to
those participants in the cooperative game play condition
(M ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 1.80). Therefore, both of the experimental ma-
nipulations were successful.
4.2. Primary analyses
Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that a significant interaction
would exist between game play condition and performance feed-
back on the perceived competence (H1) and perceived likeability
(H2) of the other player. The results of a MANOVA demonstrated
that there was a significant interaction effect on both perceived
competence and perceived likeability, Wilks’ l ¼ .842, F(2,
318) ¼ 29.78, p <.001, h2p ¼ .16. The covariates of sex and prior video
game experience did not significantly predict either of the depen-
dent variables (p > .05). Additionally, there was no main effect of
game play condition on either of the dependent variables (p > .05).
The main effect of performance condition was not significant on
177
perceived competence (p > .05), however, it was significant on
perceived likeability (p < .05, h2p ¼ .02.). Given the significant
interaction that was identified on both dependent variables, the
main effects will not be interpreted and the predicted interaction
can be analyzed.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the interaction would significantly
influence perceptions of the other player's competence. The results
of a two-way ANOVA supported this prediction, F(1, 319) ¼ 59.72,
p < .001, h2p ¼ .16. Simple effects indicated that participants
randomly assigned to the cooperative condition perceived the other
player to be significantly less competent (p < .001) when the team
failed (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.04) compared to when the team succeeded
(M ¼ 4.88, SD ¼ 1.12). Conversely, among participants assigned to
the competitive condition, perceived competence was significantly
higher (p < .001) when the participant failed (M ¼ 4.78, SD ¼ .91)
compared to when the participant succeeded (M ¼ 4.03, SD ¼ 1.08).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the previously described interaction
between manipulations would have a significant influence on the
participant's perceived liking of the other player. The results of a
two-way ANOVA supported this prediction, F(1, 325) ¼ 9.95, p < .01,
h2p ¼ .03. Simple effects indicated that, within the cooperative
condition, the other player was perceived to be significantly less
likable (p < .001) when the team failed (M ¼ 4.47, SD ¼ 1.08)
compared to when the team succeeded (M ¼ 5.08, SD ¼ 1.17).
Conversely, within the competitive condition, the other player was
perceived to be more likable when the participant failed (M ¼ 4.68,
SD ¼ 1.00) compared to when the participant succeeded (M ¼ 4.60,
SD ¼ .98), although this difference was not statistically significant
(p ¼ .22).
Finally, research question 1 explored the interaction between
game play setting and performance outcome on perceived enjoy-
ment. Sex and prior video game experience did not significantly
predict the dependent variable (p > .05). A two-way ANOVA
revealed that the interaction was not significant, F(1, 325) ¼ .198,
p ¼ .66, partial h2p ¼ .001. In light of the non-significant interaction
and given the mixed results of previous research for enjoyment, it is
important to consider the main effects to better understand why
the interaction failed. The main effect of manipulated performance
feedback on enjoyment was not significant F(1, 325) ¼ 3.65,
p ¼ .057, h2p ¼ .011, but participants did report enjoying the game
more when succeeding (M ¼ 4.38, SD ¼ 1.53) than when failing
(M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ 1.69). However, the main effect of gameplay setting
on enjoyment was significant F(1, 325) ¼ 6.65, p < .05, h2p ¼ .02.
Individuals in the cooperative setting reported significantly greater
enjoyment (M ¼ 4.45, SD ¼ 1.60) than their counterparts in the
competitive setting (M ¼ 4.02, SD ¼ 1.61).
5. Discussion
This study extends the application of bounded generalized
reciprocity in two specific ways. First, this study applied BGR to an
asynchronous gaming scenario in which participants were placed
in a cooperative or competitive setting, yet never actually inter-
acted with another person. This was a unique application of the
BGR theory and the results of this study replicated previous find-
ings, supporting the phenomenon of in-group favoritism predicted
by BGR. However, the role of reciprocal in-group favoritism was
most influential under one condition e when their team was
perceived as being successful. This finding extends the future
application of BGR as it suggests that performance should also be
considered as an important factor in the reciprocation process. The
second goal of this study was to examine the influence of perfor-
mance on the relationship between group setting and perceptions
of the other player, specifically regarding competence and liking.
The results of this study found support for a significant interaction
178 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
between gameplay setting and performance on both of these out-
comes. These findings have both theoretical implications for BGR
and practical implications for person perception as it relates to
social game play, each discussed below.
5.1. Theoretical implications
First, as recently discovered by Velez (2015), BGR can be tested
and supported in novel settings that move beyond traditional
experimental designs based on the minimal group paradigm. As
Velez (2015) reported, video games provide both a social grouping
and a social interaction that can have strong implications on sub-
sequent behaviors towards other players due to interdependence.
In this study, we found support for this claim and provide addi-
tional evidence that this effect is not limited to face-to-face inter-
action. Further, this study is the first to demonstrate that this effect
can occur even when participants are led to believe that they are
playing against another human but, in fact, another player does not
exist. The deception-based paradigm utilized in this study can
therefore be viewed as a strength insofar as it evokes a more
stringent test of BGR theory. The fact that the hypothesized effects
emerged in this very unique context underscores the strength of
BGR as a guiding framework. Even when there is no explicit social
interaction, people behave in ways that mimic face-to-face in-
teractions as characterized by BGR.
In addition to this unique extension of the theory and its
application, the results of this study also identified the impor-
tance of performance when applying BGR to social video game
research questions. Specifically, the results of this study demon-
strated that there is an interaction effect between game play
setting (competitive vs. cooperative) and performance (failure vs.
success), which in turn had a significant influence on perceptions
of another game player's competence and likeability. When the
participant succeeded, the pattern of results is in line with what
might be described as a typical in-group favoritism effect. In-
group members (i.e., teammates) were assigned ratings that
were more favorable and positive than those assigned to out-
group members (i.e., competitors). But interestingly, this pattern
flipped when the participant failed. In this case, out-group
members were rated as more favorable and positive than in-
group members. This pattern reversal is consistent with BGR,
which posits that the in-group favoritism effect should disappear
when an expectation of reciprocity exists between in-group and
out-group members.
In this study, the expectation of reciprocity was elicited by the
performance feedback manipulation. Therefore, in the context of
online casual games, this finding suggests that reciprocal actions
towards others are not only predicted by in- or out-group associ-
ations, but also by an individual's performance. As such, we
recommend that future applications of BGR take into account
performance outcomes as it may shed additional light on the nu-
ances of interpersonal interaction that occur in social gaming
contexts. Moreover, we believe that the moderating effect of per-
formance on social perceptions and behavior does not necessarily
have to be limited to video game contexts. Moving forward, the
integration of performance into BGR theorizing could possibly
extend to other contexts that involve cooperation and/or compe-
tition (e.g., organized sports; corporate operations). It would be
extremely valuable to gain a deeper understanding of how pro-
social and anti-social behavior is influenced by the interplay of
competition, cooperation, success, and failure in these unique and
socially meaningful contexts.
Finally, the interaction did not hold true for game enjoyment.
However, a post-hoc analysis showed that enjoyment was higher
among those assigned to the cooperative setting compared to those
engaging in competitive play. Competition is inherently linked with
threat; therefore, cooperating with another should reduce per-
ceptions of threat and increase enjoyment because one is less
susceptible to individual loss or blame of failure.
On the other hand, our finding regarding enjoyment runs
counter to recent video game research conducted by Schmierbach
et al. (2012) who reported higher mean enjoyment scores among
competing players compared to cooperating players. A possible
explanation for the different pattern of results is related to the
operationalization of the cooperative game setting in that study.
The findings of Schmierbach et al. (2012) are based on the game
play of Madden ’08, an American football simulator. It is difficult to
balance in-game participation for cooperative players given that
whoever occupies the quarterback role controls the majority of the
in-game decision-making. Thus, games such as this may not be
ideal stimuli for accurately looking at the effects of a cooperative
setting. However, the game used in the current study avoided
these issues by enabling players to offer equal contributions within
the cooperative condition. Therefore, we believe the balance of
player input improves the overall reliability of our stimulus game,
which further substantiates the strength of our findings relative to
previous research. The results of this study suggest that in casual
games that offer balanced play opportunities, cooperation be-
tween two players should offer more opportunity for reciprocal
benefits and thus lead to increased favoritism. Paired with the
inherent human need for group membership, and millennials’
preference for cooperative working conditions (Myers &
Sadaghiani, 2010), we suggest that cooperation should be
considered to increase the level of enjoyment, because playing
with someone fosters greater relatedness than competing alone
against another.
5.1.1. Implications on person perception post game play
The interaction between the successful manipulation of per-
formance outcome and game play setting proved to be useful in
understanding interpersonal perceptual effects in an online casual
game setting. Ratings of the other player (partner or competitor)
were favorable under two circumstances; when the participant
succeeded at a cooperative task and when the participant failed at a
competitive task. In contrast, ratings of the other player were
relatively unfavorable when the participant failed at a cooperative
task and succeeded at a competitive task.
Individuals, especially Americans, are highly motivated to
cast themselves in a positive light whenever possible (Heine,
Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). Individuals have a need
to be perceived as successful by others and want to perceive
themselves as skilled, especially with respect to personally
salient tasks. Therefore, receiving feedback about one's superior
status should lead to strong feelings of competence, self-esteem,
and pride. Looking down upon one's competitor likely maxi-
mizes feelings of self-worth and ability. A previous study by
Rigby and Ryan (2011) also identified this relationship, such that,
video game task mastery results in the perception of self-
confidence, which was also in line with other past findings
(Reeve & Deci, 1996).
On the other hand, the results of the current study found that
perceived failure in a competitive setting leads to the admiration of
others in the form of elevated levels of perceived competence and
liking. This finding is supported by previous research from Fes-
tinger who suggested that the perception of self is inherently linked
with the surrounding milieu, such that as self-perception of self-
competence shrinks, the perception of other-competence often
inflates, otherwise a state of dissonance may result (Festinger,
1954). Similarly, Alicke et al. (1997) found that when one is
beaten in an intellectual task, an individual may inflate the
 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
perception of another in an exaggerated way (they must be a
genius) for the protection of self.
The interaction between perceived performance and game play
setting also had a significant impact on perceptions of others.
Specifically, perceptions of the other player were relatively favor-
able in the cooperation/success condition, which is not surprising
because, when a team wins, all members can share in the success.
In fact, feelings of relatedness to a competent in-group member
may serve to protect or even heighten one's own favorable social
status (Cialdini et al., 1976). On the other hand, this study found that
participants rated their partners less favorably when the team
failed to meet its goal, possibly reflecting a unique self-serving bias.
The implication of this finding seems to suggest that it is easier to
pass blame onto a teammate following a loss if there is a relatively
weak interpersonal tie between the teammates. Wolosin et al.
(1973) discovered a similar finding, reporting that players in a
cooperative scenario who failed were significantly more likely to
blame their partners for the failure. This result is further supported
by the human tendency to attribute personal failure to external
factors that cannot be controlled (Wortman, Costanzo, & Witt,
1973). This finding has important implications for anyone
involved in team or group activities as it suggests that interpersonal
relationships may be strained as a result of a failed team effort. This
finding also has implications for future research to determine if
these findings remain consistent in other contexts, such as team
sports or group activities.
5.2. Limitations and future directions
In previous applications, such as the studies noted above, the
theory of bounded generalized reciprocity has used monetary do-
nations to others as a measure of positive behavior towards
another. However, the theory is intended to encompass all tangible
or intangible favors that may be exchanged in a group setting
(Velez, Greitemeyer, et al., 2014; Velez, Mahood, et al., 2014;
Yamagishi et al., 1999; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000). In this study,
we examined perceptual favors, including positive evaluations of
another's competence and the individual's liking of the other
player.
It is also important to acknowledge that the performance
feedback messages were designed specifically for this study and are
not taken directly from an existing game. Recall that participants in
the success condition were told that they exceeded their target
score by 31% whereas participants in the failure condition were told
they missed their mark by an equal deficit. The distance above and
below the target score was held constant in an attempt to mirror
performance feedback manipulations commonly used in
deception-oriented psychological research (see Kluger & DeNisi,
1996 for a review). Although this strategy enhances internal val-
idity, we recognize that it does so at the expense of external val-
idity. It therefore remains unclear to what degree the observed
effects would be attenuated (or exacerbated) due to a decrease (or
increase) in the distance between one's desired and actual score.
Future research could address this limitation by adding additional
performance feedback conditions with the goal of maximizing
granularity (i.e., 20%, 30%, and 40% above and below the target
score). Despite these limitations, we observed evidence of suc-
cessful manipulations and the findings associated with these ma-
nipulations were in line with our predictions.
Just as with the performance feedback messages, the gaming
challenge itself was designed for this experiment. Although the
game was effective in placing participants into an interpersonally
competitive mindset resulting in relevant perceptual outcomes, the
game itself may not be generally entertaining enough to elicit
higher levels of enjoyment that might compare to other, more
179
interactive games. Our flash based game allowed for relatively
limited interactivity, simply requiring the participant to point and
click every few seconds. A post-hoc t-test revealed that there was
no difference in experienced enjoyment between participants who
played games a lot versus those who did not play very often or at
all. Nonetheless, a more engaging and interactive game may have
allowed for a better test of our enjoyment research question. Future
research should examine the pattern of results found in this study
when applied to other gaming genres.
We also recognize that the specific game used in this study was
largely knowledge-based, requiring the player to have at least some
basic familiarity with US geography and universities. This is in
contrast to many casual games that do not require overt knowledge
for success, but instead rely solely upon hand-eye coordination
and/or reaction time. Generalizability of the findings to other game
genres is therefore limited to some degree. It remains unknown
whether the inclusion of a knowledge element impacted our
findings and, if so, how. It is quite plausible that knowledge-based
social games could affect perceptions of competence and liking in
ways that differ from games that do not require prior knowledge. It
could be argued that intelligence and educational attainment are
much stronger indicators of “success” compared to hand-eye co-
ordination. The implicit social hierarchy is incredibly complex and
multidimensional, largely based on what each individual perceives
as a salient interpersonal event (Floyd & Afifi, 2011). This further
exacerbates the issue of what “skill” is actually valuable enough to
result in significantly altered perceptions. Based on our results, the
current skills engaged (e.g., knowledge and speed) were enough to
initiate considerations of the perceived social hierarchy. In an
attempt to gain insight in this area and address concerns of
generalizability, future research should test the potential moder-
ating effect of game genre, including knowledge and trivia-based
casual social games such as Trivia Crack.
This study was limited to a single point of measurement. It
would be valuable to understand how enjoyment and interpersonal
perceptions change over repeated interactions within casual online
games. More specifically, at what point do certain effects plateau or
even begin to change direction? Researchers should consider
examining the developmental trajectory of casual gaming friend-
ships, making comparisons between dyads of differing relational
strength (e.g., players that have been matched randomly; those
who have played together many times before).
Future research might also consider extending upon these
findings by investigating the nuanced ways in which people decide
whether to continue playing with a specific player versus termi-
nating a relationship and moving on to another player deemed a
better match. The results of the current study tell us that people
look down upon the other player in success/competition and fail-
ure/cooperation contexts e but how many rounds of play does it
take before declines in liking and perceived competence lead to an
unwillingness to play with this person again?
Finally, it is important to recognize that this study utilized a
convenience sample of undergraduate students and thus the
generalizability of these findings to the larger population of causal
game players may be limited. These participants generally consti-
tute the most competent and experienced Internet and social me-
dia users. Therefore, expansion into less technologically savvy
demographic groupings could lead to differing results.
6. Conclusion
The casual gaming industry has been capturing the attention of
new users, investors, designers, and advertisers over the past
several years (Slutsky, 2011). Therefore, despite their name, casual
games likely possess the ability to seriously affect users and their
180 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
perceptions of self and others. The findings of this study suggest
that both perceived game performance and competitive game play
setting are important factors in how a user perceives and reacts to
the gameplay and other players. Therefore, the results of this study
also help to shed new light onto the implications that games may be
having on how individuals perceive one another in online game
settings.
References
Alicke, M. D., LoSchiavo, F. M., Zerbst, J., & Zhang, S. (1997). The person who out-
performs me is a genius: maintaining perceived competence in upward social
comparison. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 73(4), 781e789.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.781.
Berridge, K. C. (2003). Pleasures of the brain. Brain and Cognition, 52(1), 106e128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00014-9.
Bowman, N. D., Weber, R., Tamborini, R., & Sherry, J. (2013). Facilitating game play:
how others affect performance at and enjoyment of video games. Media Psy-
chology, 16(1), 39e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.742360.
Buck, R. (2014). Emotion: A biosocial synthesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cialdini, R., Borden, R., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. (1976).
Basking in reflected glory: three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34(3), 366e375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.34.3.366.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, T. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627e668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing.
Eastin, M. S. (2007). The influence of competitive and cooperative group game play
on state hostility. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 450e466. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.2007.00307.x.
Emerson. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335e362.
Entertainment Software Association. (2015). ESA essential facts 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-
2015.pdf.
Ewoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J.
(2012). Effects of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on
subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15(5), 277e280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0308.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions of social
cognition: warmth and competence. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 11(2), 77e83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.
Floyd, K., & Afifi, T. D. (2011). Biological and physiological perspectives on inter-
personal communication. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The sage handbook
of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 87e130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fry, P. S. (1976). Success, failure, and self-other orientations. The Journal of Psy-
chology, 93(1), 43e49.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161e178. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
2092623.
Greitemeyer, T., & Cox, C. (2013). There's no “I” in team: effects of cooperative video
games on cooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3),
224e228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1940.
Grodal, T. (2000). The pleasures of control. In D. Zillmann, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media
entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 197e213). London, UK:
Routledge.
Guitton, M. J. (2011). Immersive role of non-required social actions in virtual set-
tings: the example of trade role-play in the second life Gorean community.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 5(1), 209e220.
Guitton, M. J. (2015). Swimming with mermaids: communication and social density
in the second life merfolk community. Computers in Human Behavior, 48,
226e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.004.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal
need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766e794. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766.
Jin, S. A. (2012). Toward integrative models of flow: effects of performance, skill,
challenge, playfulness, and presence on flow in video games. Journal of
Broadcast & Electronic Media, 56(2), 169e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08838151.2012.678516.
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klimmt, C., & Hartmann, T. (2006). Effectance, self-efficacy, and the motivation to
play video games. In P. Vorderer, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 132e145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Frey, A. (2007). Effectance and enjoyment as de-
terminants of video game enjoyment. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6),
845e848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9942.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254e284. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct and
its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90e103. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/03637759909376464.
McGloin, R., Farrar, K., & Krcmar, M. (2013). Video games, immersion, and cognitive
aggression: does the controller matter? Media Psychology, 16(1), 65e87. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.752428.
Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the
reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 477e498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.431.
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: a communica-
tion perspective on millenials' organizational relationships and performance.
Journal of Business Psychology, 25(2), 225e238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-010-9172-7.
Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude:
Implications for media effects research. Media Psychology, 14(4), 288e310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00316.x.
Pfeffer, J., Fong, C. T., Cialdini, R. B., & Portnoy, R. R. (2006). Overcoming the self-
promotion dilemma: interpersonal attraction and extra help as a conse-
quence of who sings one's praises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(10), 1362e1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290337.
Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of competitive situation that affect intrinsic
motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 24e33. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296221003.
Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Guled to games: How video games draw us in and
hold us spellbound. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishing.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Rhodes, N., & Eno, C. A. (2008, May). Helping behavior in
the context of video game play. In Presented at the annual meeting of the in-
ternational communication association (ICA), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Schmierbach, M., Chung, M. Y., Wu, M., & Kim, K. (2014). No one likes to lose: the
effect of game difficulty on competency, flow, and enjoyment. Media Psychology,
26(3), 105e110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000120.
Schmierbach, M., Xu, Q., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Dardis, F. E. (2012). Electronic friend
or virtual foe: exploring the role of competitive and cooperative multiplayer
video game modes in fostering enjoyment. Media Psychology, 15(3), 356e371.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.702603.
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and
gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer, &
J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences
(pp. 213e224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singh, R., Ho, L. J., Tan, H. L., & Bell, P. A. (2007). Attitudes, personal evaluations, and
interpersonal attraction: on the direct, indirect, and reverse-causal effects.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 19e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
014466606X104417.
Slutsky, I. (2011). Nothing casual about this game obsession. Advertising Age, 82(2).
Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/digital/angry-birds-success-shows-
casual-games/148091/. SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining
media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communica-
tion, 60(4), 758e777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513x.
Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2011). The pleasures of success: game-related efficacy
experiences as a mediator between player performance and game enjoyment.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 555e557. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0358.
Velez, J. A. (2012). “New high score!” the effects of video game performance
feedback on well-being and enjoyment. In Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the national communication association. Orlando, FL.
Velez, J. A. (2015). Extending the theory of bounded generalized reciprocity: an
explanation of the social benefits of cooperative video game play. Computers in
Human Behavior, 48, 481e491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.015.
Velez, J. A., Greitemeyer, T., Whitaker, J. L., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Bushman, B. J. (2014).
Violent video games and reciprocity: the attenuating effects of cooperative
game play on subsequent aggression. Communication Research, 1e21. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650214552519.
Velez, J. A., Mahood, C., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Moyer-Guse, E. (2014). Ingroup versus
outgroup conflict in the context of violent video game play: the effect of
cooperation on increased helping and decreased aggression. Communication
Research, 41(5), 607e626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650212456202.
Vorderer, P., Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2003). Explaining the enjoyment of playing
video games: the role of competition. In Proceedings of the 2003 international
conference of entertainment computing. Pittsburgh, PA.
Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: at the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388e408. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00321.x.
Waddell, J. C., & Peng, W. (2014). Does it matter which whom you slay? the effects of
competition, cooperation and relationship type among video game players.
Computers in Human Behavior, 38(3), 331e338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2014.06.017.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interper-
sonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3e43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Whitbourne, S. K., Ellenberg, S., & Akimoto, K. (2013). Reasons for playing casual
video games and perceived benefits among adults 10 to 80 years old.
 R. McGloin et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 59 (2016) 173e181
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(12), 892e897. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0705.
Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal
attitudes: liking depends on communion, respect demands agency. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 973e990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.595.
Wolosin, R. J., Sherman, S. J., & Till, A. (1973). Effects of cooperation and competition
on responsibility attribution after success and failure. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 9, 220e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90011-5.
Wortman, C. B., Costanzo, P. R., & Witt, T. R. (1973). Effect of anticipated perfor-
mance on the attributions of causality to self and other. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 27(3), 372e381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034949.
Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Kiyonari, T. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup
boasting and ingroup favoritism. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161e197.
Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (2000). The group as the container of generalized
reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(2), 116e132. Retrieved from http://
jstor.org/stable/2695887.
181
Dr. McGloin's research is focused on the effects of media interactions. In particular, he
is interested in the process by which individuals interact with a mediated environment
and the subsequent affect those interactions have on their perceptions of certain
outcomes; such as, perceived realism, immersion, enjoyment, and trustworthiness.
Dr. Hull is an assistant professor in the Communication Department at Aquinas College.
His research interests include person-perception, nonverbal communication, and the
interpersonal dynamics of competitive and persuasive interactions.
Dr. Christensen is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the
University of Connecticut. His research interests include the production and evaluation
of interactive movies, video games, and virtual reality applications that provide in-
dividuals with experience making healthy, contextualized choices in virtual worlds
simulating real-life social interaction.