Moral decisions in video games and players' intergroup attitudes

Abstract

Past studies have argued that being bad in video games could encourage prosocial outcomes due to heightened moral sensitivity and guilt among players. However, the relationship between immoral choices, guilt, and intergroup attitudes have not been tested empirically. The current study examined players’ decisions to either uphold or violate the six moral domains under the moral foundations theory (MFT) in a purpose-made game and their post-game attitudes toward immigrants. A 3 × 2 (non-player characters’ nationality: citizens only vs. mix of citizens and foreigners vs. foreigners only) × (content type: moral vs. neutral) experimental design was used (N = 300). Results of the study indicated that participants in the mix of citizens and foreigners condition experienced significantly lower post-attitudes, compared to those in the citizens only condition. In terms of game decisions, participants who violated more moral domains experienced higher levels of guilt after the game. The interactions between authority/subversion decision and trait module were found to be a positive predictor of guilt. However, guilt did not predict post-experiment attitudes. Participants’ trait moral foundations also did not predict their decisions to uphold or violate those relevant domains in the game. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.