This article explores the role of interplayer moral conversation in multiplayer games with three subquestions: how to design and use games for morality research, how advances in moral theory can inform game-based research into morals, and how game-based research can inform moral theory. A long tradition has investigated morals using games such as Ultimatum and Dictator; however, this research often omits interplayer moral dialogue. Further, when moral foundations theory is accounted for, analysis of these games seems to investigate a narrow range of moral reasoning. In this methodological critique, we draw upon data from gameplay of a simulation of climate change debate and find a wide range of moral foundations through analysis of dialogue. Our analysis suggests that in-game player dialogue is a source of rich moral deliberation and potential for using simulation games as grounds for discovering new moral foundations.
AguiarF.Brañas-GarzaP.EspinosaM. P.MillerL. M. (2007). Personal identity in the dictator game. Jena Economic Research Papers.
2.
AmbecS.SprumontY. (2002). Sharing a river. Journal of Economic Theory, 107, 453–462.
3.
AxelrodR. (1980) More effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 379–403.
4.
BealS.GhintranA.RemilaE.SolalP. (2013). The river sharing problem: A survey. International Game Theory Review, 15, 1340016doi:10.1142/S0219198913400161
5.
BogostI. (2008). The rhetoric of video games. In SchrierK. (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 117–140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CamererC.ThalerR. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.
7.
CostikyanG. (2010). Diplomacy, the prisoners’ dilemma, and the mechanics of ethics, in chapter 1: Quick takes on ethics and games: Voices from industry and academia. In SchrierK. (Ed.), Designing games for ethics: Models, techniques, and frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
8.
DalbertC.UmlauftS. (2009). The role of the justice motive in economic decision making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 172–180. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2008.07.006
9.
DrayA.PerezP.Le PageC.D’AquinoP.WhiteI. (2007). Who wants to terminate the game? The role of vested interests and metaplayers in the ATOLLGAME experience. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 494–511.
10.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.
11.
FennewaldT. J. (2015). Beyond collaboration and competition: A case study of moral foundations in The Farmers, a cooperative game with independent goals(Doctoral Dissertation). Indiana University.
12.
FennewaldT. J.Kievit-KylarB. (2013). Integrating climate change mechanics into a common pool resource game. Simulation & Gaming, 44, 427–451.
13.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in experimental social psychology, 47, 55–130. Academic Press.
14.
GüthW.SchmittbergerR.SchwarzeB. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 3, 367–388.
15.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Vintage.
16.
Hennig-SchmidtH.LiZ. Y.YangC. (2004). Why people reject advantageous offers-non-monotone strategies in ultimatum bargaining, Bonn graduate school of economics (Discussion Paper). University of Bonn (No. 22, p. 2005).
17.
HenrichJ.BoydR.BowlesS.CamererC.FehrE.GintisH.…TracerD. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–815.
18.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
HollandD.LachicotteW.Jr.SkinnerD.CainC. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
21.
HuizingaJ.HullR. F. C. (1949). Homo ludens. A study of the play-element in culture [Translated by HullR. F. C.]. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
22.
NowakM. A.PageK. M.SigmundK. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289, 1773–1775.
23.
OstromE.WalkerJ.GardnerR. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86, 404–417.
SicartM. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
26.
StahlI. (1972). Bargaining theory. Stockholm, Sweden: Economic Research Institute.
27.
ThalerR. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 195–206.
28.
WorthamS. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29.
ZagalJ. P. (2011). Ethical reasoning and reflection as supported by single-player videogames. In SchrierK.GibsonD. (Eds.), Designing games for ethics: Models, techniques and frameworks (pp. 19–35). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
