You are on page 1of 36

The College of Wooster

Personality and the Transformation of Motivation in the Context of P&P Games

By

Ian McCandliss

Presented in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements of Independent Study Thesis

Research

Supervised by

Michael Casey

Department of Psychology

2013-2014
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !2

Table of Contents
Abstract........3

Introduction......4

Pencil and Paper Games: Operationalization...............4

Theories of Roleplaying......7

Personality: Present Research and Why it Matters................13

Motivation and Social roles: Moderated by Personality............15

Pencil and Paper Games: Prior Research/Application...............17

The Present Study..............20

Methods..... 22

Participants.....22

Materials....22

Procedures..23

Results....24

Discussion..26

References .........31

Appendix A: Informed consent..........35

Appendix B: Character Profiles.....36

Appendix C: Personality questionnaire for survey and experiment..............51

Appendix D: Experimental motivation questionnaire prior to experiment...................53

Appendix E: Experimental motivation questionnaire post experiment.........................................54

Appendix F: Survey motivation questionnaire..............................................................................55


PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !3

Appendix G: Survey motivation questionnaire.............................................................................56

Abstract

This study sought to understand the interaction between personality and motivation

within the context of Pencil and Paper Roleplaying games. Based upon the theories of Edwards

(2001), the Five factor model of personality (McRae & Costa, 1999) and the effects of social

pressures on behavior (Asch, 1955) it was hypothesized that certain personality traits would lead

to either an increase or a decrease in certain motivational areas related to P&P roleplaying.

These areas were overall motivation, gamist motivation and narrativist motivation. To test this,

data were triangulated from an experiment concerning the transformation of motivations in P&P

gaming, and a survey concerning personality and motivations within the context of P&P games.

The experimental data were analyzed in a one-way ANOVA and the survey data were analyzed

with correlations.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !4

Introduction

Dungeons and Dragons, a popular pencil and paper fantasy roleplaying game, was

originally created in 1974 by Gary Gygax and Dave Anderson. In this game, a group of players

gather around a table and engage in a highly structured roleplaying session. In these sessions,

players utilize a fictional persona (Jung, 1966) who acts as their avatar in the imaginary game

world. Through a series of complex rules, fictitious abilities and unusual dice rolls, the players

seek to overcome challenges and obstacles set out by the game master or dungeon master. For

decades, this game has engaged young and old alike as groups of people come together to form a

unique and imaginative world, largely without the aid of advanced computing technology. While

this leisure activity has waxed and waned over the years, it still boasts an eager following.

Dungeons and Dragons has been studied by those interested in theology (Perlini-Pfister, 2012),

character immersion (Tychsen, McIlwain, Brolund & Hitchens, 2007), clinical therapy

(Blackmon, 1994) and personality research (Douse & McManus, 1993). Given the potentially

broad applications of Pencil and Paper roleplaying games (P&Ps) in addition to their longevity,

this paper seeks to examine what motivates people to play Pencil and Paper games (P&Ps) based

on personality factors such as the NEO-PI-R. This study will also seek to understand and

elaborate on the interaction between social pressures and motivations, and their potential

interactions with certain personality traits.

Pencil and Paper Games: Operationalization

While pencil and paper roleplaying games may have been somewhat examined, it is

important to operationalize what a P&P game is within the context of the present study. It would

be simple to state that a pencil and paper game is any tabletop game that requires the use of
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !5

pencil and paper to record certain aspects of it, but going by that definition, virtually anything

could be considered a pencil and paper roleplaying game. Perhaps the definition could be

narrowed to only games that involve the player taking on a new persona for this game. Again,

this definition falls apart as even games such as Monopoly can create and utilize the persona of a

wealthy billionaire who, unlike the actual player, has no problem with brutally eliminating

friends or loved ones from the competition. In theory, virtually any board game could be

considered a roleplaying game so long as a person actively seeks to utilize a persona different

from their everyday personality within the context of the game. Perhaps in the context of this

study, a P&P roleplaying game might best be defined as any structured rule-based game, wherein

the players actively take on a fictional persona, with the primary goal of play being the creation

and maintenance of a narrative story involving these personas (Krier, 1979). Perhaps the most

unique aspect of Pencil and Paper games is that they mimic life, as they do not have a predefined

end-point. Rather the game ends when the players believe that they have experienced all there

was to experience in the fictional world with their fictional personas and that they must move

on, similar to real life (Krier, 1979).

While there are many forms of P&P, the gaming format examined in this paper involves a

group of between three and seven players arranged around a table. Each player has created a

fictional character that will act out his or her strategies in the game world (MacKay, 2001). One

of the people around the table is the Dungeon Master or Game Master (GM). While the players

may only control the actions and behaviors of their own character, the GM has the authority and

the ability to control the actions of characters that are not controlled by the players (the so called,

Non-player characters or NPCs) (Gygax & Arneson, 1974). Furthermore, the GM is charged

with describing the game world to the players, designing challenges for the players characters to
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !6

overcome, and adjudicating the results of dice rolls, which are meant to represent random events.

Ideally, the game would begin with the GM describing a fictional scenario that the players must

navigate and overcome through a combination of their characters abilities and dice rolls. If the

players roll well enough, then their characters can succeed at the task at hand (though more dice

rolls with complex numerical factors may be added depending on certain events in the fictional

world).

Say for example the party begins in a tavern (a standard starting point) and are informed by

an NPC that a tribe of goblins hiding out in a local cave system has kidnapped his family. The

group of players would then travel to the cave and enter it, facing enemy goblins. The players

would roll dice to determine the turn order for combat. They would then roll dice to attack the

enemy goblins (adding in the bonuses that they allotted to their characters during character

creation). If the attack roll is higher than the enemies armor class (a number representing the

targets ability to avoid damage) then the attack hits. The player then rolls dice to determine how

much damage the enemy takes. If the damage the enemy takes exceeds their hit point total (a

number representing how much damage they can take and still fight) then they are considered

dead. If it does not exceed that number, then the damage is simply subtracted from the enemies

total hit points (Gygax & Arneson, 1974). The player may also move and perform small actions

such as drawing out items, opening doors etc. all within the confines of the descriptions given by

the GM. Aside from combat, players may also engage in a wide variety of activities, such as

solving puzzles, escaping traps, performing before an audience of NPCs or even crafting items

to help them in future encounters. Similar to combat, players roll dice and add relevant skill

modifiers (based on the task at hand) to determine how well they performed a given task, as well
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !7

as how long it took them to achieve that goal. As in combat, the GM adjudicates and interprets

the results of the dice rolls.

Throughout this scenario it is important that players continue to act out their characters and

perform actions that are in line with their characters moral alignments, personal goals, and

mental capabilities. To an extent, roleplaying is a highly structured improvised performance not

unlike what is performed with stage actors, but performed in such a way that it is done before a

small group of friends with the intent of entertaining each other as opposed to a broad audience

(MacKay, 2001).

Pencil and Paper Games: Theories of Roleplaying

There exist multiple models of RPG theory but the most popular and comprehensive to

date is the Forge Theory or the Big Model (Boss, 2008). Ron Edwards, a pioneer in the

study of roleplaying games who sought to understand the mechanics of roleplaying games,

developed forge Theory. The theory stemmed from Edwards earlier GNS (Gamist, Narrativist,

Simulationist) theory. While GNS was later supplanted with Forge theory, it is significant and

substantive enough that it bears reviewing here. GNS theory holds that each person in a

roleplaying game session has one of three mutually exclusive agendas in a roleplaying game

(Edwards, 2001), which are as follows:

1. Gamism: The persons agenda is to overcome predefined victory conditions and win

the game. For this person, the goal is to achieve victory regardless of character immersion or

storytelling.

2. Narrativism: the persons agenda is to take on a narrative role, roleplaying as a

fictional character, making choices, resolving and mediating conflicts as that character.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !8

3. Simulationism: the persons agenda is to engage in a fictional simulation, either based

upon real world events or fictionalized alternate worlds (such as Tolkiens Middle Earth or

George Lucas Star Wars universe).

GNS would later be integrated into Forge theory as different forms of creative agendas.

Specifically, Forge theory details how roleplaying games are a culmination of five nested levels

(Boss, 2008). These levels are as follows:

1. Social contract: the level at which social agreements are made about the game, and

how RPGs are primarily social activities. Within the context of Forge theory, everything begins

with player interactions and social dynamics. Without this level, there is no shared consensus

about the game world, and no interaction amongst the players.

2. Exploration: players activity of discovering novel elements in the game, and how it is

a shared consensus between the GM and the players. This is essentially the fictional world and

all its elements generated by the GM in which the players can interact. It includes fictional

characters, the existence of magic, the presence or absence of fictional deities, and even whether

or not technology is primitive or advanced. Without this level, players would have no idea what

they were experiencing and would be unable to interact with the fictional world that their avatars

inhabit.

3. Creative agenda: each person at the table may have a different reason for being there.

Some might wish to tell/create a story while others may want to increase the strength of their

characters. The people at the table must allow for a sharing of agendas, engaging in spoken or

unspoken negotiations with each other (allowing some people to engage in power playing

while others engage in role-playing. Failure to resolve differences in creative agendas can

cause friction within the group and may require mediation to resolve. However, the ultimate
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !9

goal of this level is generally achieving the greatest satisfaction on behalf of all persons at the

table.

4. Techniques: the game systems rules and how the game is played. These rules are

both those prescribed by the official guidebooks of the game being played (such as Pathfinder or

Shadowrun) as well as house rules, which are held by the particular roleplaying group. These

rules may be both clearly spoken such as your result is doubled if you role a twenty to if you

have to argue to get the extra experience points, then you dont get them etc. Without the

techniques section, players and GMs may be unable to adjudicate the results of certain dice-rolls

or actions on the part of the PCs.

5. Ephemera: sum total of the four earlier levels. How they all combine and interact in

both explicit and implicit social constructs, resulting in a roleplaying experience. This portion is

not as well defined in the literature and is difficult to fully comprehend, but for the sake of this

paper it will be simply defined as the summation and interaction of the prior four levels of the

Forge Theory.

GNS and Forge Theory are key features of this study as they provide the theoretical

framework necessary to proceed. In particular, the creative agenda is a major theme in this study

as it is most likely that the individuals creative agenda is their primary motivation for engaging

in a roleplaying game in the first place. While there may be other factors which motivate a

person to engage in a roleplaying game (such as maintaining social bonds (Tyschen et al., 2006)

this study seeks to isolate the aspects of motivation which are specific to P&P gaming as

opposed to more general motivational factors.

While there are many theories concerning culture and roleplaying games, as well as scant

literature concerning the personality of the typical P&P gamer (Curran, 2011) a key question
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !10

remains unanswered. Is it possible to evaluate objectively what motivates people to play P&Ps?

This is a difficult question to answer, as it is multifaceted and may even be extrapolated to what

motivates people to do any kind of leisure activity? Studies such as Barnett (2006) have looked

broadly at personality and motivation for leisure activities, finding strong evidence for

personality playing a role in motivations for certain kinds of leisure activities. Other studies such

as Jeng and Teng (2008) have looked more narrowly at personality and the motivation for online

roleplaying games, finding the following: people higher on openness are more motivated by

novel discoveries in the game world; people higher on conscientiousness are more motivated by

escapism. People higher on extraversion are more highly motivated by intergroup/teamwork

interactions. People higher on agreeableness are more motivated by their ability to help others

(getting strong enough to help others) and people higher on neuroticism are less motivated by

team play. These results are relevant to this study as they help form a strong theoretical basis for

the hypothesis discussed later herein.

Initially, it may appear that the motivations for online roleplaying games and pen and

paper games may be similar, in which case we could expect that the study of Yee (2006).

However, this study argues that to apply the same measure of survey data found in the Yee

(2006) study would be unrepresentative of the typical P&P gamers motivations. There are a few

obvious differences such as one is played online utilizing advanced computer graphics with

multiple people (Tychsen, Hitchents, Brolund & Kavakli 2006), while the other is a small insular

group of friends or acquaintances who seek to tell act out a story together (MacKay, 2001).

Many computer-based roleplaying games possesses only a limited means in allowing your

character to define them. Typically in an online game, players are provided with only a few, if

any options to define their character. These options largely involve either clicking a button and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES 11
!

choosing a good or evil option, or choosing to give an acquired item to one or the other

person, if that option is even provided. In a P&P game, players are constantly roleplaying their

character and seeking to understand their characters cognitions and motivations within the game

(MacKay, 2001).

Furthermore, characters in P&Ps can be characterized by literally any action the player

can think of, such as shuffling cards, speaking with an accent, or even having bouts of

narcolepsy, almost none of which are assessable in a standard online game. Massively Multi-

player Online Roleplaying games (aka MMORPGs or simply MMOs) also have very little in

the way of players altering the environment (Tyschen, 2006). This makes sense in the context of

the game, as players are but one of many people trying to accomplish the same task for the

NPCs of the world. It is frequently impossible for players to alter the game world in any

significant way, as this is a world for many others who are supposed to accomplish the same

challenges. In a P&P game however, the world is more specialized and designed with the players

sitting at the table in mind (Krier, 1979). So long as the GM desires it, any choice that the

players make can have long reaching consequences and alter the world that they inhabit with

tangible gameplay and story- significant ways.

There is however a psychological phenomenon that has been applied to videogames that

could theoretically influence P&P games as well. This concept is known as flow Spawned

from humanist psychology; this theory is fairly popular and describes a mental state that crosses

many human endeavors, from mountain climbing to baking to videogames (Cowley, Charles,

Black, & Hickey, 2008). At its core, flow is a mental state wherein an individual becomes so

absorbed in a task that it occupies all of their conscious cognitive thought processes

(Ciskszentmihalyi, 1997). Often while in a state of flow, individuals will lose track of time, so
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !12

preoccupied are they with the task at hand that many concerns such as the passage of time are

almost entirely forgotten. To achieve a state of flow, an individual requires both the skill to

achieve a task and a task that is just difficult enough that it strains the individuals abilities,

without overextending them, thus causing them to become frustrated at their inability to do the

task. However, the task cannot be too easy as this may cause the individual to become bored,

particularly when having a much higher skill level than what is required for the task

(Ciskszentmihalyi, 1997).

In many ways, P&P games operate on similar principals of flow though on a much

more concrete level. In the real world, flow is often achieved by having a sufficient skill set to

complete a task that it is just challenging enough to extend a persons abilities. In the context of

a P&P game, what is stretched is the abilities of the character and to an extent, the imagination of

the player. While players can formulate creative solutions that will instantly resolve many

encounters, being consistently more creative than a GM (who has had time to prepare for such

easy solutions) is not the most reliable way to resolve encounters. Instead, players must rely

on the abilities of their characters and their own knowledge about when and how to use these

abilities. The GM must then carefully calibrate a challenge or encounter so that the party has

physical capabilities that are able to overcome it, without making the challenge too difficult or

frustrating on the part of the players. This calculation is aided by ratings of certain pre-created

enemies or obstacles that are calibrated to be impossible for characters at low levels, challenging

at mid levels, and easy at high levels.

It bears reminding that the present research on flow shows that it only occurs at the level

of the individual. That is, only individuals can experience a cognitive state themselves. This is

again, fairly obvious as one cannot experience the cognitions of another. While it is possible that
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !13

individuals within a group may experience flow, the group as a whole does not experience this

state, and it is even possible that some people at the table will experience flow while others will

not. But is it possible that by some people at the table being more motivated to succeed others at

the table will also be influenced by them? Can one person in a state of flow elicit a similar

cognitive state in a person they are actively interacting with? It has been demonstrated that

within the brain there exist mirror neurons that allow us to experience empathy and to mimic the

actions of others (Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta & Lenzi, 2003). So if one person enters a

cognitive state of flow, could there be a similar activation of mirror neurons that will allow

another person to experience flow as well? This and other factors of motivation will be discussed

further in this study.

Personality: Present Research and Why it Matters

Personality is a nebulous term that many psychologists have used overtime with varied

definitions and successes. While there are many theories concerning what personality is, how it

is defined, and how it affects us (Engler, 2008) this study will primarily use the trait-theory of

personality. That is, personality will refer to a series of traits or characteristics that are relatively

stable over time within an individual (Engler, 2008). These traits will influence the individuals

behaviors, cognitions, thoughts and feelings, and that the behaviors resulting from these traits

can be observed and quantified. The Five-factor model of personality is based off of this trait

theory (Costa & McCrae, 1997) and so far has demonstrated great support of this theory with its

internal and external reliability.

The Five-factor theory of personality is a trait theory, which follows from several

assumptions about personality. According to McCrae and Costa (1999) the assumptions of this

theory are as follows; knowability (i.e. that personality is knowable) it can be objectively
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !14

observed, and is the domain of scientific inquiry rather than humanistic or existential study.

Another assumption is understandability and that people are capable of understanding

themselves and others. McCrae and Costa (1999) acknowledge that this is an unpopular

assumption given that many perspectives in psychology have noted unconscious drives,

cognitive biases and overall irrational behavior that may interfere with an individuals

understanding, or reported understanding of themselves. However if people are unable to rate

their personality and understand themselves, then this makes self-report data concerning

personality unreliable (Costa & McRae, 1997). Thirdly, the five factor theory of personality

assumes variability or that people differ from each other in psychologically significant ways.

This is a fairly simple and accepted assumption that there are consistent differences in behavior

between individuals. Finally the five-factor theory assumes proactivity or that at least some

causal factors for a persons behavior and actions is inherent to the person themselves. While

many aspects of our lives may be outside of our control, we all possess an inherent personality

that causes us to react in similar ways across multiple situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

With these assumptions in place, the model of personality proposed by McCrae and Costa

(1999) holds that personality can be quantified into five distinct personality traits or factors. The

five factors can be remembered by the simple acronym O.C.E.A.N. and are as follows (Atkinson,

Atkinson, Smith, Bem & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000):

O- Openness to new experience represents creative and intellectual curiosity and is often

associated with respect or enjoyment of art. People higher on openness tend to be more willing

to engage in new or novel activities versus steady routine activities.

C- Conscientiousness refers to organization and following through on goals. People are

higher on conscientiousness are more likely to work on projects until they have reached
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !15

completion, keep to schedules and possess an overall more organized living or workspace than

people lower on conscientiousness.

E- Extraversion refers to how outgoing someone is, with people higher on extraversion

being more sociable and gregarious, while people lower on extraversion are less sociable and

more reticent.

A-Agreeableness refers to how amicable and empathetic a person is, with people higher

on agreeableness exhibiting more empathy and caring for other people.

N-Neuroticism refers to a persons lack of resistance to anxiety. The more neurotic a

person is, the less resistant they are to anxiety inducing situations. The less neurotic someone is,

the more adversity they can undergo without succumbing to anxiety. While personality has a

strong impact on all of our behaviors, perhaps more interesting is the possibility that personality

can alter why we perform the actions that we do or, our intrinsic motivations.

Motivation and Social Roles: Moderated by Personality

Another significant aspect of this study is the interaction between individuals within the

context of a P&P game. It has been demonstrated that in a group setting, there is a strong

tendency for uniformity across individuals. One example of this conformity would be an

individual withholding their dissenting opinions for the sake of group unity. In fact according to

Staw (1989) this same tendency to withhold opinions and maintain group unity can extend

towards creative endeavors as well. The study found that in a standard workplace environment

there was a strong tendency in group meetings for people to withhold their opinions, increasing

their uniformity and efficiency but also significantly decreasing their creativity and creative

output. Given the results of this study, it is highly possible that within the context of a P&P

game, the social pressures exhibited by other group members may alter the creative agendas of
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !16

individual group members. In particular, the GM has a place of authority at the table and there is

evidence to show that authority figures can significantly alter a persons behavior with only

slight verbal cues. Analysis performed on the iconic Milgram study, perfectly rational people

with their own individual goals, desires and morals were capable of and even willing to,

administer harm to another person simply by being told that what they were doing was alright by

an authority figure (Blass, 1999). While the comparison between endorsing torture and exclusion

of creative agendas is harsh, the principal is generally the same. Instructions by an authority

figure or even someone a person cares for can significantly alter the behavior of an individual,

perhaps even going so far as to affect their motivations for why they do something (Yovetich &

Rusbult, 1994).

This is further supported by the studies performed by Zimbardo in his historic study

wherein he sought to simulate the conditions of a real-world prison. Expounded upon in his

2007 book The Lucifer Effect, the study demonstrated how an authority figure (Dr. Zimbardo)

through inaction and few simple instructions permitted the guards in his prison experiment to

abuse their power over the prisoners in the study (Zimbardo, 2007). Following this train of

logic, it is possible that the creative agenda established by the Game Master may supersede that

of the players, altering their motivations in the context of the roleplaying game, at least

temporarily.

Also germane to this research are such psychological phenomena as the Bystander Effect

and other such studies on group conformity. Garcia, Weaver and Moskowitz (2002) performed a

meta-analysis of multiple studies on the bystander effect. In general, the effect occurs when a

group of people sees something that is potentially dangerous or unusual and yet to maintain
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !17

social order sand group continuity, none of them say or do anything that would violate the

groups unspoken rule of silence.

While the iconic social experiment known as the Asch study may be seen as relevant

here there is a noted discrepancy in the literature concerning it. According to Friend, Rafferty

and Bramel (1990), the Asch study was misrepresented by subsequent research articles, which

generally ignored the discussion section of the original and instead focused more on the

quantitative data alone. In fact, the original analysis of the study argued for greater individuality

(Asch, 1955). In spite of these criticisms, there is strong evidence from a number of subsequent

follow up studies such as Scheff (1988), which support the idea of social conformity through a

combination of emotional factors, chief amongst them being shame and fear of breaking the

social norm. However, there is a possible alternative to this, that individual differences may

strongly account for whether or not a person bends to social pressures exhibited by group

members. Perhaps it is personality traits that moderate whether or not a person succumbs to

conformity (Bond & Smith, 1996).

This study also bears strong resemblance to the experiment performed in Festinger (1962)

on cognitive dissonance. In this study the experimenters were able to create conditions wherein

the participants motivation and beliefs for performing a mundane task were transformed to make

the task seem more enjoyable than it actually was. In a similar way, this study also seeks to

transform intrinsic motivations and beliefs of its participants but through means of slight social

pressures rather than through deception.

Pencil and Paper Games: Prior Research/Application

Most P&P research can be condensed into several broad categories. Firstly, personality

research which has played a significant role in the understanding of P&P games, however most
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !18

of these studies have only sought to compare P&P gamers to control groups (Curran, 2011).

Much of the information obtained about P&P games stems from anthropological studies, which

seek to catalogue behaviors, tendencies and beliefs held by roleplaying gamers, without

experimentally analyzing them. For example, books such as those by Fine (2002) look broadly

at the phenomena of roleplaying and the shared social environments that arise through it. While

the information and theories in this book are interesting, they are difficult to test as their findings

are not generally experimentally based, leading to a third set of roleplaying studies that are

sociologically based.

Psychological research in itself, has not led to many groundbreaking findings within the

context of P&P gaming. For example, Dous and McManus (1993) sought to understand the

personality profile of the typical fantasy gamer. However, the study utilized older personality

scales (which have since fallen into disuse) such as the Bem-Sex-Role Inventory, and the

Eyesenk-Personality Inventory (as well as empathy and decision making questionnaires). While

it is difficult to compare these data to newer tests such as the Big-5 inventory, based on these

tests, the authors claimed that on average, people who engaged in fantasy roleplaying games

(FRPGs) were significantly less androgynous and less feminine, but higher on masculinity.

Furthermore, they claimed that such people were also significantly more introverted and

displayed significantly less empathy than controls. To an extent, the study substantiated the

stereotype that players of FRPGs are shy, reclusive, well educated and tend to be more prone to

anxiety, which in some ways similar to neuroticism.

However, by way of contrast, Curran (2011) performed a literature review on numerous

other studies that had examined the personality and stereotypes of fantasy roleplaying gamers. It

concluded that in general, the studies have looked at demographic and personality information,
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !19

and noted that there were still many aspects of roleplaying games that had not been empirically

explored by the scientific community. It also noted that the majority of the studies reviewed

(amongst them being Dous & McManus, 1993) demonstrated how on average, there is very little

difference between people who engage in pencil and paper roleplaying games and control

participants. Given that it is a literature review, it is fair to say that with so many studies finding

only minimal differences between P&P gamers and controls, it is more likely that the typical

P&P gamer is much more similar to a typical person than the stereotypical view presented in

Dous and McManus (1993).

Alternatively, there have been some rather interesting psychological studies such as

Tychsen et al. (2007). This study sought to understand the link between personality and character

immersion. Utilizing studies into both P&P games as well as computer roleplaying games, the

study found that personality actually had no impact on players enjoyment of roleplaying a

character with an existing backstory. While this may be a less than stellar finding it provided

evidence that satisfaction in roleplaying activities is not necessarily derived from the formulation

of a new persona, but rather the act of roleplaying itself. The study found that the more a person

was engaged in the act of playing the character, the more enjoyment they derived from the

experience. However, it is difficult to determine if this may have been true had a different

personality questionnaire been used (such as the Big-Five inventory) as the study utilized a

personality inventory known as EPAQ (an older personality test which includes some, but not all

of the variables presented in the Big-5 inventory, which has incremental validity over it).

Furthermore, the study leaves a number of other factors out of its design that may affect a

players enjoyment or satisfaction of a roleplaying game. For example, the aspects of a pencil

and paper gaming experience aside from the roleplaying aspect, such as social interactions with
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !20

peers, existing friendships between the players, or the style of game system used, the difficulty of

the gameplay, and the motivations the players characters had, all of which may impact the

players enjoyment of play.

The Present Study

The primary goal of the present study was to examine individual differences of

personality and motivation within the context of P&P games. While prior studies have looked at

demographic information (Curran, 2011) this study sought to improve upon these past studies by

examining the relationship between personality and motivation within the context of a P&P

roleplaying game. This information has been briefly examined in anecdotal studies conducted by

RPG theorists such as Edwards (Boss, 2008) but has yet to be experimentally evaluated in any

significant way. This study allows for a more in-depth analysis of P&P games than has been done

to date, as motivations are rarely examined in P&P games, often being secondary in importance

to the enjoyment of the players and the social interactions at the table.

According to Forge Theory, players are motivated to engage in a roleplaying game with a

narrativist, gamist or simulationist agenda as Boss (2008) described in the RPG theory section.

To that end, this study utilizes the theories of Edwards (2001) in line with Forge theory and GNS

theory, aiming to determine if there is a significant correlation between certain personality traits

and roleplaying agendas. There are however a few aspects of these theories that needed to be

modified or which could not be taken into account within the confines of this study. Firstly,

while GNS theory holds that the gamist, narrativist and simulationist agendas are mutually

exclusive, for the purpose of examining the results of this study, these motivational agendas were

measured as if they were personality traits. That is to say, they were measured utilizing several

questions of a 5-point likert scale, similar to that found on the Big-5 Inventory. This not only
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !21

makes more sense (as it is a fallacy to say that an individual is motivated by only one thing in

any given pursuit) but also allowed for a more concise and valid analysis of the data. It should

be noted however that while the agendas will be quantified in a manner similar to trait surveys

(such as the Big-5 inventory) that these are not stable personality traits, and that they are subject

to change over time.

Secondly, while it would have been an interesting study to evaluate the various

simulationist desires (science fiction, high fantasy, urban noir, etc.) doing so would be a time

consuming and difficult process requiring knowledge of numerous game systems in addition to a

large conglomeration of players who actively wanted to play in one setting over the other. For

this reason the simulationist agenda will not be tested in this study. The gamist and narrativist

perspectives however are reasonable to utilize in this study and are able to be analyzed more

concretely than the simulationist agenda or overall satisfaction. While it would be inappropriate

to state that all people who play roleplaying games are one of the three, it is highly likely that

there are different proportions of motivation for each agenda, similar to how there are varying

levels of personality traits in an individual. As such, players will be assessed not only by their

scores of the Big-5 personality inventory, but also by how much they rate their motivation for

playing the game as gamist (desiring to win and be victorious) over narrativist (the desire to role-

play and act out a character). To perform this study, multiple hypotheses are required, mapping

each relevant factor of the Big Five personality inventory (Costa & McRae, 2008) to enjoyment

and motivation in the context of a P&P game. The hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: People higher on openness will be more motivated by new experiences and

so are expected to have a much higher narrativist agenda than people lower on openness. As

such, people lower on openness will be less likely to take on the perspective of a new person and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !22

will be more motivated by a gamist agenda.

Hypothesis 2: People higher on agreeableness will be more likely to be motivated by the

predominant gaming mindset at the table. That is, when there are more people with a gamist or

narrativist point of view at the table, people higher on agreeableness will tend towards the

viewpoint that is expressed more predominantly. Conversely, people lower on agreeableness will

be less inclined towards one agenda or another based on the surrounding agendas, and instead

will be more prone towards their own personality traits influencing their gaming agendas.

Hypothesis 3: People who are higher on extraversion will seek more stimulation and

challenges than people lower on extraversion (Green, 1984) and therefore are predicted to score

more highly on both the narrativist and gamist scales than people lower on extraversion (who

should score lower on both narrativist and gamist scales).

Hypothesis 4: People higher on neuroticism will have more anxiety then people lower on

neuroticism in situations that are more similar to real life. As such, people higher on neuroticism

are predicted to avoid the narrativist perspective (which involves a large amount of social

interaction and taking on a different role) and instead focus on a more gamist agenda.

Methods

Subjects

Eighty anonymous subjects were gathered online via mTurk so as to complete a survey

concerning personality and roleplaying motivation. Nine college age subjects who were familiar

with P&P games were also gathered so as to engage in the experimental condition.

Materials

The pathfinder beginner box was used so as to create a uniform roleplaying experience

for all participants. The players utilized the character sheets and dice that came along with the
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !23

box (see appendix B). The mTurk survey system was also used so as to collect a large sum of

data about role-players quickly and anonymously. The Big Five inventory (see appendix C) was

also utilized to assess both the experimental subjects and the survey subjects prior to completion

of the motivation scales developed for this test (see appendices D-F).

Procedures

This study featured triangulated methodologies. The first was the collection of survey

data via the website mTURK (Crump, McDonnell & Gureckis, 2013). In this aspect of the study,

subjects were asked whether or not they had or had not played P&P games before. If they had

played them before, then they were allowed to continue taking the survey that sought to quantify

what aspects of a roleplaying game motivated them to continue playing it. If they have not

played P&Ps before then they were not allowed to take the survey and would have to exit out of

the study. The subjects were then asked to fill out the 44-item version of the Big Five personality

inventory (Rammstedt & John, 2007).

In addition, the study also utilized in-depth data gathered before and after a roleplaying

game session. This was done utilizing a between groups measurement. While studying people

who have never played P&Ps would be interesting, ultimately the study sought to analyze the

personality and motivations of existing P&P gamers, rather than novices. An informed consent

was given prior to the experiment (see appendix A) and a debriefing form was given after the

experiment (see appendix G). Each person filled out a Big Five personality inventory prior to

the study as well as a questionnaire meant to quantify their roleplaying agenda. At the end of the

session, the subjects filled out the second portion of the survey meant to quantify their

roleplaying agenda. The subjects were assigned to one of three conditions that reflected

stereotypical ways a roleplaying game could be played, roleplaying heavy, mechanics heavy, or
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !24

balanced (aka control group). Subjects in the role-play condition were told that they would be

expected to role-play over the course of the game, and were also provided with the descriptions

and personalities of their characters. In the mechanics heavy group, subjects were told that they

must focus on the rules prior to the start of the game, and were educated on their characters

mechanical strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the control group was simply told that they would

be engaging in a pencil and paper gaming session and were not given any direction as to which

way the game was supposed to be played. The control group was given both the characters

mechanical abilities and their backstory though they were not told to look at any one part by the

GM and allowed to peruse or ignore the supplied material at their leisure.

Players were assigned characters based on the work of Tychsen et al. (2007), which found

that assigning players characters with an existing backstory did not significantly impact their

enjoyment of play. Players randomly selected their character by picking the names of the

corresponding characters out of a box. The experimental data were analyzed in several one-way

ANOVAs as well as a correlation between the personality factors and the particiapants

motivations. A correlation was run on the survey data.

Results

Experimental Data

There was a positive correlation between overall roleplaying motivation and narrativist

motivation, r(9)=.668, p<.05. There was also a positive correlation between narrativist

motivation and gamist motivation, r(9)=.896, p<.001 this implies that they may have been

measuring approximately the same thing. However gamist motivation was not significantly

correlated with overall roleplaying motivation in the experimental data, r(9)=.474, p>.05,

meaning there are some aspects in each of the scales which differ from each other.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !25

A one way between subjects ANOVA investigating the experimental conditions found

that there was no main effect for overall roleplaying motivation in the different treatment

conditions, F(2,8)=.600, p=.579 (See Table 1). The one-way ANOVA examining narrativist

motivation also did not show a significant difference between groups, F(2,8)=.036, p=.565.

Lastly, the one-way ANOVA exploring the effects of the gamist motivation did not show

significant differences across the groups, F(2,8)=.206, p=.819.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of experimental subjects motivations and treatment conditions


Standar
d Standar
Motivation Condition N Mean
deviati d error
on

Control 3 4.00 1.00 .577


Overall
Roleplaying Gamist 3 4.67 .577 .333
Motivation
Narrativist 3 4.33 .577 .333
Control 3 3.78 1.07 .619
Narrativist
Gamist 3 3.56 1.07 .619
Motivation
Narrativist 3 3.67 .882 .509

Control 3 4.33 .577 .333


Gamist
Gamist 3 4.11 .385 .222
Motivation
Narrativist 3 4.00 .882 .509

Survey Data

In the survey data, openness was not significantly correlated with overall roleplaying

motivation, r(80)=.29, p>.05 or any of the other motivations (p>.05) and thus did not support the

first hypothesis. While not statistically significant, the relationship between agreeableness and

overall roleplaying motivation, r(80)=.200, p=.076, and agreeableness and narrativist motivation,
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !26

r(80)=.200, p=.061, were approaching significance. There was also no significant correlation

between extraversion and overall roleplaying motivation in the mTurk survey portion of the

study, r(80)=.151, p>.05.

The survey data showed that there was a significant negative correlation between overall

motivation and neuroticism, r(80)=-.243, p<.05, gamist motivation and neuroticism r(80)=-.291,

p<.01, and narrativist motivation and neuroticism, r(80)=-.328, p<.01. This suggests that the

higher a person is on neuroticism the less motivated they are to engage in P&P games.

Conscientiousness by contrast had a significant positive correlation with overall motivation,

r(80)=.256, p<.01. This suggests that people who are more conscientious are more likely to be

motivated in P&P games.

The survey data also demonstrated a significant correlation between overall roleplaying

motivation and gamist motivation, r(80)=.469, p<.001, as well as a significant correlation

between overall roleplaying motivation and narrativist motivation, r(80)=.347, p<.01 and a

significant relationship between gamist motivation and narrativist motivation, r(80)=.405, p<.01.

This is similar to the findings in the experimental condition that the scales may not have been

significantly different from each other, but that there were still some differences between gamist

motivation and overall motivation.

Discussion

The first hypothesis that people higher on openness would also be higher on narrativist

motivation was not supported. However, this goes against the work of Tyschen et al. (2007) who

found that people higher on openness have a greater discovery motivation (something akin to

either a simulationist or narrativist motivation). It is possible that while a simulationist


PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !27

motivation was not examined in this study it could still be significantly influenced by a persons

openness to experience.

The second hypothesis was also unsupported as there was no significant statistical effect

for the varying conditions influencing a persons roleplaying motivations. However, it should be

noted that in the survey study it was found that agreeableness approached, but did not reach

significance for both overall and narrativist motivations. It is possible that people who are more

agreeable are more likely to want to aid fictional NPCs and advance the story more so than

people lower on agreeableness (Tyschen et al. 2007), and this result may have been shown had

there been a more discriminating questionnaire for roleplaying motivation.

The third hypothesis concerning higher extraversion correlating well with all roleplaying

motivations was also unsupported. There was no significant correlation between extraversion,

overall roleplaying motivation, gamist motivation, or narrativist motivation. This is in stark

contrast to the research that states that people higher on extraversion should be more motivated

to obtain experiences so as to obtain a more optimal level of arousal (Geen, 1984). It could be

that extraversion does not affect these particular factors however and may affect other aspects of

a roleplaying game not observed in this study such as social interactions with other players and

with the game master. This would be line with the work of McCrae and Costa (1999) wherein

people higher on extraversion tended to seek out more social interactions than people lower on

extraversion.

The fourth and final hypothesis, which stated that people higher on neuroticism would be

more motivated by gamist motivations than narrativist motivations, was supported by the survey

data. It revealed that there was a moderate negative correlation between all the motivational

scales and neuroticism. This was unexpected, but it suggests that people who are higher on
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !28

neuroticism are less motivated overall to engage in P&P games, both for the story and the chance

to win. This is in line with the meta-analysis performed by Judge and Ilies (2003) that showed a

consistent negative correlation between neuroticism and overall motivation (not necessarily

roleplaying motivation per se). It is possible that people who are more neurotic become more

anxious in tense situations (even imagined tense situations such as in P&P games or other

activities that require intrinsic motivation to complete) and so are less likely to want to attempt or

complete them (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Of course this cannot be proven as correlation does not

equal causation, but it opens up an interesting avenue of study into whether or not higher levels

of neuroticism lead to reduced motivation to engage in intrinsically motivating activities such as

roleplaying games.

There were also aspects of the experiment that were not measured quantitatively, but that

were observed qualitatively. An interesting finding was that in the course of the gamist

experiment session, one of the players came up with a new solution to resolve a combat

encounter. In this session the player advised shooting the stalactites in the cave ceiling so as to

hit the enemy below. When he broached the possibility of using this unexpected and creative

solution to the group the other members quickly dissuaded him saying that he should just do the

normal attack and saying that such a thing was more reliable. This is telling, as he was able

to arrive at a novel solution that was quickly dismissed by the group in favor of a more uniform

practice. When questioned after the session it was mentioned that the player who had sought to

perform the creative action had only been playing for a short amount of time (about a month),

while the other group members had been playing for significantly longer (2+years). As a result

of this, future studies might try to look at the motivations of P&P gamers as a factor of how
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !29

much experience they have within the context of a P&P game. This could lead to interesting

areas of study concerning the effects of experience on creativity (Simonton, 1975).

While not measured quantitatively, the subjects were asked about their subjective flow

experiences. While some were keenly aware of the passage of time, others forgot about it, as

they were too engrossed in the game to notice it, a key aspect of the flow state of cognition

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This implies that social activities such as roleplaying games may be

capable of eliciting a state of flow in the participants. In fact, roleplaying games may provide an

optimal means of studying flow given that the GM must carefully balance and actively think

about whether the challenges they are presenting are too challenging or not challenging enough

(Gygax & Arneson, 1974). Particularly those with prior engagements were more keenly aware of

what time it was, perhaps implying that flow may be interrupted or prevented by anxiety or other

pressing issues. It should be noted however that these were subjective measures taken post

experiment and the subjects may have censored themselves or come to certain conclusions about

what they believed should have been enjoyable, as opposed to a true reflection of their cognitions

while in the game. Further research may be needed to objectively determine a flow state and

whether or not P&P games may be an optimal venue for testing flow.

A primary limitation of this study was the small sample size in the experimental groups.

While there could be a significant effect of personality on motivation in the experimental

condition, as well as a transformation of motivations through simple directions provided by an

authority figure, such an effect was not observed, most likely a result of the small sample size. It

is possible that the treatment conditions given in the experiment may not have been strong

enough to elicit a transformation of motivation in the course of a single P&P gaming session and
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !30

that numerous repeated sessions might be required to elicit a significant transformation of

motivation.

Another possible limitation was that the questionnaires concerning the motivations for

roleplaying may not have been significantly different from one another. The high correlation

demonstrates that the questionnaires on motivation may not sufficiently differ from each other

and may have been testing the same variable such that there was no significant difference

between the gamist, narrativist and overall roleplaying motivation.

While this experiment may not have been ideal, this study offers insight into how future

iterations of this and similar studies may be performed. Firstly, more than half a year is required

to perform this study as large periods of time are needed to acquire subjects and organize

schedules to appropriately engage in many sessions of a roleplaying game. Along with greater

time, more subjects may be gathered, organized and analyzed thus resulting in greater statistical

power. Future studies may look more at the training of nave subjects and determine if their

initial expectations of what a roleplaying experience is like differs from their motivations post-

training. The type of game system used may also be significant, given the anecdotal evidence of

systems mattering significantly (Edwards, 2001). Questionnaires may also be significantly

refined to ensure that the variables measured are most assuredly gamist and narrativist

motivations as opposed to measuring only overall roleplaying motivation. Finally, stronger

treatments in the experimental condition may be emphasized (possibly through use of alternative

game systems) or through stronger overt instructions from the GM. Roleplaying games are a

diverse phenomenon that has persisted for over half a century and will persist into the future.

They warrant further study given their diverse applications in simulating human behavior and

cognitions.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !31
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !32

References

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.

Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S., (2000).

Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology (13 ed.). Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.

Blackmon, W. D. (1994). Dungeons and Dragons: the use of a fantasy game in the

psychotherapeutic treatment of a young adult. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48,

624-624.

Barnett, L. A. (2006). Accounting for leisure preferences from within: The relative contributions

of gender, race or ethnicity, personality, affective style, and motivational orientation.

Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 445-450.

Blass, T. (Ed.). (1999). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm.

(pp.35-50) Psychology Press.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's

(1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin, 119(1), 111.

Boss, E.C., Key Concepts in Forge Theory, Playground Worlds. Creating and Evaluating

Experiences of Role-Playing, M Montola & J Stenros (Eds.), Ropecon ry, Jyvskyl,

2008.

Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M. C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003). Neural

mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic

areas. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 100(9), 5497-5502.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the

NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.


PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !33

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: the

revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment,

68(1), 86-94.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The

SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, 2, 179-198.

Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in

video games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6, 20-25.

Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical

Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS one, 8, 1-18.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.

(pp. 17-50). New York: Basic Books.

Curran, N. (2011). Stereotypes and individual differences in role-playing games. International

Journal,(2), 44-55.

Douse, N. A., & McManus, I. C. (1993). The personality of fantasy game players. British

Journal of Psychology, 84(4), 505-509.

Edwards, R. (2001, October 14). Gns and other matters of roleplaying, chapter 2. Retrieved

from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

Engler, B. (2008). Personality theories: An introduction. (pp. 262-312). Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Festinger, L. (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. (Vol. 2, pp. 32-84). Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Fine, G. A. (2002). Shared fantasy: Role playing games as social worlds. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !34

Friend, R., Rafferty, Y., & Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch

conformitystudy. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(1), 29-44.

Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: the

implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843.

Geen, R. G. (1984). Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts: Effects on arousal

and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1303-1308.

Gygax, G., & Arneson, D. (1974). Dungeons & Dragons (Vol. 19). Lake Geneva, WI: Tactical

Studies Rules.

Jeng, S. P., & Teng, C. I. (2008). Personality and motivations for playing online games. Social

Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 36, 1053-1060.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 102-138.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-

analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.

Jung, C. (1966). Two essays on analytical psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 139-162). London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD.

Krier, B. A. (1979). Dungeons and dragons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(4), 858-860.

MacKay, D. (2001). The fantasyrole-playing game: A new performing art. (1st ed., Vol. 1).

Chicago: McFarland & Company Inc.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of

personality: Theory and Research, 2, 139-153.

Perlini-Pfister, F. (2012). Dungeons & Dragons. Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual

Worlds, 2, 275-281.
PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !35

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item

short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41(1), 203-212.

Scheff, T. J. (1988). Shame and conformity: The deference-emotion system. American

Sociological Review, 53(3), 395-406.

Simonton, D. K. (1975). Age and Literary Creativity A Cross-Cultural and Transhistorical

Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 259-277

Staw, C. J. N. B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and

organizations. Adv Experimental social psychology, 22(1), 175-180.

Tychsen, A., Hitchens, M., Brolund, T., & Kavakli, M. (2006). Live action role-playing games

control, communication, storytelling, and MMORPG similarities. Games and Culture,

1(3), 252-275.

Tychsen, A., McIlwain, D., Brolund, T., & Hitchens, M. Ed. Baba, A. (2007). Player-character

dynamics in multi-player role playing games. In Situated play conference proceedings

(pp. 40-48). Tokyo, Japan: The University of Tokyo.

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6),

772-775.

Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships:

Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

30(2), 138-164.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. (pp.

320-400). New York: Random house.


PERSONALITY AND MOTIVATION IN P&P GAMES !36

(Appendices Omitted due to file constraints)

You might also like