Extraversion Personality and Computer Game Play

Extraversion Personality and Computer Game PlayXiaowen Fang, Miaoqi Zhu, and Susy Chan

School of Computing, College of Computing and Digital Media, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA

Abstract

This study explored the relationship between one of the personality traits, extraversion, and computergame play. Some interesting observations about extraversion scores and what game players played weremade during an online survey on enjoyment of computer game play. On the basis of these observations,an exploratory study was designed and conducted to further explore in-depth information that mighthelp interpret the preliminary observations. Results from both the online survey and the exploratorystudy were analyzed and synthesized. A hypothesis was proposed and substantiated by both empiricalobservations and theory. The findings of this study will likely provide researchers with insights intodesigning games for special purposes, such as education and training. C© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTIONThe popularity of digital (computer and video) gameshas reached phenomenal proportions. According tostatistics provided by Entertainment Software Associ-ation (2011), consumers spent $25.1 billion on videogames, hardware, and accessories in 2010, and 72% ofAmerican households play computer or video games.Computer games have become a major form of enter-tainment. In addition, digital games are used increas-ingly for therapeutic, educational, and work-relatedpurposes (e.g., Griffiths, 2003; Robillard, Bouchard,Fournier, & Renaud, 2003). Researchers in educa-tion have also found positive effects of computergames in various educational contexts, such as class-room instructions in primary schools, e-learning, andsimulation-based training of professionals (Fu, Su, &Yu, 2009; Jackson et al., 2012; Schollmeyer, 2006; Sitz-mann, 2011; Tuzun, Yilmaz-Soylu, Karakus, Inal, &

Correspondence to: Xiaowen Fang, School of Computing,College of Computing and Digital Media, DePaul University,243 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA. Tel:+312-362-5206; e-mail: [email protected]

Received: 10 May 2012; revised 2 November 2012; accepted 11November 2012

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20591

Kizilkaya, 2009). Given the prominence of computergames for education and entertainment, researchersneed to acquire a better understanding about com-puter game players and their play experience. How-ever, as Bateman and Boon (2006) stated in the prefaceof their book, “a certain mystery still surrounds gamedesign, and although much has been written on thesubject, the formal study of game design practices ina definite sense is still in its infancy.” Formal scientificresearch on game design is vital to educational gamesto make them effective. This research was intended tofill in this research gap.

Fang, Chan, and Nair (2009) proposed a conceptualframework of computer game play based on mediaenjoyment, personality theories, and the technologyacceptance model. This framework suggests that en-joyment derived from game play is the result of a fitbetween characteristics of the player and elements ofgaming technology. The better the player-technologyfit, the more enjoyment. Social influence will moderatethe effects of player-technology fit. On the basis of thisframework, enjoyment and perceived ease of use aretwo determinants of user intention to play computergames. In accordance with the conceptual frameworkof Fang et al. (2009), this study investigates the re-lationship between the personality trait, extraversion,and players’ choice of games. The key research ques-tions are, (1) What types of people play what games?

498 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 24 (5) 498–514 (2014) c© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Fang, Zhu, and Chan Extraversion Personality and Computer Game Play

(2) Does the personality trait extraversion matter inplayers’ choice of games? We expect that findings ofthese important questions will help game designersimprove interaction designs in computer games, espe-cially those for special purposes, such as education andtraining.

2. BACKGROUND LITERATUREMuch of the psychological research on games has fo-cused on negative effects of violent video games, al-though some recent studies have begun to investigateindividual differences among game players. In this sec-tion, we first review prior research on how computergames have been applied in education and the currentresearch gap. Then we look into research on personal-ity and computer game play. Finally, we examine theBig Five personality model and its personality traits.

2.1. Computer Games and Education

In 2006, Schollmeyer coined the term serious games.He queried the deans of heads of leading computerscience departments in the United States about whatinformation technology would help people learn best:the answer was computer games that provide individu-alized instruction, encouraging questions, and imme-diate feedback. Over the years, computer games havebeen successfully applied in many educational contexts.For example,

� In traditional classroom instructions. Jacksonet al. (2012) found that video game playingwas positively linked to creativity of 12-year-old children. In another study conducted byTuzun et al. (2009), the findings suggested thatstudents in a primary school made significantlearning gains on geography by participating inthe game-based learning environment.

� In simulation-based training of professionals.Sitzmann (2011) carried out a meta-analysisto examine the instructional effectiveness ofcomputer-based simulation games. She indi-cated that simulation games are more effectivethan other instructional methods.

� In e-learning. Fu et al. (2009) argued that com-puter games can improve effectiveness of learn-ing, and they developed an instrument EGame-Flow to measure the effectiveness of e-learninggames.

With mounting research evidence that suggests com-puter games can help improve learning effectiveness,there is no doubt that researchers must take computergames more “seriously” and conduct more studies tounderstand how to improve game design. This projectstrives to take a first step in this direction.

2.2. Personality and Computer GamePlay

Previous research has consistently shown that expo-sure to violent video games is significantly linked toincreases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition,aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal and to de-creases in helping behavior (Anderson & Dill, 2000).Anderson and Dill (2000) also suggest that the posi-tive relationship between violent video game play andaggressive behavior and delinquency is stronger for in-dividuals who are characteristically aggressive and formen. Furthermore, a few other studies show that per-sonality is linked to gaming behaviors. Fetchenhauerand Huang (2004) indicate that the justice sensitivitycould be used to predict decisions in a number of gamesusing theoretical paradigms (dictator games, ultima-tum games, and a combination of these two games).Douse and McManus (1993) suggest that players of afantasy Play-By-Mail game (players mail in their or-ders and receive results through mails) in their studywere less feminine, less androgynous, and more in-troverted than matched controls. The fantasy gameplayers showed lower scores on the scale of empathicconcern and were more likely to describe themselvesas “scientific” and to include “playing with comput-ers” and “reading” among their leisure interests thanplayers in the control group. In a more recent study,Whang and Chang (2004) explored the lifestyles of on-line game players. On the basis of an online survey, theyclassified lifestyles of game players into three groups:single-oriented players, community-oriented players,and off-real-world players. Players in each group dis-play distinct differences in their values and game activ-ities, as well as in their antisocial behavior tendencies.This study further suggests that differences in gameplayers’ lifestyles reflect not only their personality butalso their socioeconomic status within the virtual worldconstructed through game activities.

Bateman and Boon (2006) applied Myers-BriggsType Indicator (Briggs, 1989) to games and conducteda survey to investigate game player types. The sur-vey had two components: a 32-question Myers-Briggs

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 499

Extraversion Personality and Computer Game Play Fang, Zhu, and Chan

personality test and a short questionnaire to determineelements such as game purchasing and playing habits.About 400 participants took part in the study. Bate-man and Boon (2006) identified the following fourplay styles based on cluster analysis results:

� Type 1: Conqueror play involves winning andbeating the game.

� Type 2: Manager play revolves around strategicor tactical challenges.

� Type 3: Wanderer play involves players search-ing for a fun experience.

� Type 4: Participant play.

Within each of these four types, players were furthercategorized into two subtypes: hardcore and casualplayers.

Bartle (2009) recognizes four types of game play-ers who play games in the virtual world: (1) Achieverslike acting on the virtual world. Their aim is usually tosucceed in the context of the virtual world. (2) Explor-ers like interacting with the virtual world. They act inorder to find out things about the virtual world andhow it works. (3) Socializers like interacting with otherplayers. They like talking, being part of a group, andhelping others. (4) Killers like acting on other players;sometimes, this is to gain a big bad reputation, butother times it’s to gain a good reputation.

More recently, Fang and Zhao (2009, 2010) havefound the following: (1) Sensation seeking has a sig-nificant and positive effect on enjoyment of com-puter game play through enhanced engagement dur-ing game play for action/adventure/shooting/fighting,role-playing, and sport/racing games. (2) Sensationseeking has a significant and positive effect on enjoy-ment of computer game play through enhanced cogni-tion values for family entertainment/simulation games.(3) Self-forgetfulness has a significant and positive ef-fect on enjoyment of computer game play through en-hanced engagement during game play for role playinggames.

Despite some of the groundbreaking work in priorstudies, few research has systematically examined whata role player’s personality plays in choosing games toplay. This article reports the first attempt to addressthis research question.

2.3. The Big-Five Personality Model

Personality can be defined as a stable set of tenden-cies and characteristics that determine the commonal-

ities and differences in people’s psychological behavior(thoughts, feelings, and actions) that have continuityin time. Personality is one of the most elusive areasof psychology, difficult to understand, and difficult totest. Nevertheless, psychologists have developed severaltheories to explain personality based on two principles:core of personality and periphery of personality. Coreof personality addresses the inherent attributes of hu-man beings that do not change over the course of living.They are used to explain the similarities among people.Periphery of personality, however, focuses on learnedattributes. It helps to identify the differences amongpeople.

Over the years, researchers have attempted to mea-sure personality in different ways. Among them, the BigFive factor personality model (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Peabody & Gold-berg, 1989; Thurstone, 1934; Tupes & Christal, 1961)has gained acceptance because it establishes a commontaxonomy (Goldberg, 1990). It contains the followingfive dimensions (or traits) of personality:

� Extraversion: the first factor. It has been thelargest one in the model that subsumes the mostnumber of subtraits and frequently appears asthe most prominent factor in factor analyses. Itcontrasts traits such as talkativeness, liveliness,and outgoingness versus shyness, quietness, andpassivity.

� Agreeableness: the second factor. It contraststraits such as kindness and gentleness withrudeness and harshness.

� Conscientiousness: the third factor. It includestraits such as organization, discipline, and thor-oughness versus sloppiness, laziness, and unre-liability.

� Emotional stability (versus neuroticism): thefourth factor. This factor contains traits suchas relaxedness, versus moodiness, anxiety, andtouchiness.

� Intellect or imagination: the fifth factor. It hastraits such as philosophicalness, complexity,and creativity versus shallowness and conven-tionality. This factor also has another name,openness to experience.

The Big Five model has been researched and validatedby many different psychologists and is at the core ofmany personality questionnaires. According to McCraeand Costa (1985), the extraversion factor can be fur-ther refined into six facets: warmth, gregariousness,

500 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm


assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positiveemotions. One of the prominent personality invento-ries measuring the Big Five model is IPIP (Goldberget al., 2006) inventory available at http://ipip.ori.org/.This inventory measures all facets of all five personal-ity traits and has been tested and validated. Since itsinception in 1999, IPIP has been used in more than60 studies and translated in more than 20 languages.The IPIP inventory presents each item as a statement.Each respondent is asked to rate to what extent he orshe agrees with this statement based on a 5-point Likertscale. The average score of all the items for a personalitytrait is used to measure this trait.

In this study, we applied the Big Five personalitymodel in gaming and focused only on the largest trait–extraversion–for the following reasons: (1) few researchhas been done on the effects of personality traits oncomputer game play, and (2) little is known about howdifferent personality traits interact with one anotherduring computer game play. To reduce the complexityof the problem to a manageable level, it was necessaryto investigate one personality trait at a time. The ex-traversion score, as measured in this study, ranged from1 to 5. A low score indicated that one was introverted,reserved, and quiet while a high score indicated thatone was sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. Thisstudy tried to approach this problem by first collect-ing observational data through an online survey andprobing more in-depth information through separateinterviews. The online survey was aimed at findingout what games were played by players with differentpersonalities. The following interviews were designedto explore the differences among the games played bypeople with different personalities.

3. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS3.1. Method

An online survey was conducted to explore the relation-ships between personality traits and enjoyment of com-puter game play. The survey questionnaire containedthree types of questions: questions about player’s de-mographics and gaming experience, questions aboutpersonality traits, and questions about enjoyment ofplaying a particular computer game.

Game enjoyment was measured by an 11-item in-strument proposed by Fang, Chan, Brzezinski, and Nair(2010). Personality traits were measured using the 50-

TABLE 1. Demographic Information of Participants

Variables

Gender Male (%) 85.2Female (%) 14.8

Culture American (%) 85.6Korean (%) 10.3Chinese (%) 4.1

Age Mean (years) 25.7SD (years) 6.99

How long have you beenplaying computer/videogames?

Mean (years) 14.8

SD 8.94How many hours on average

do you play?Mean (hours) 2.81

SD (hours) 2.126How often do you play

computer/video games?Daily (%) 41.3

Weekly (%) 40.7Monthly (%) 9.0Seldom (%) 9.0

item IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006) inventory available athttp://ipip.ori.org/.

Each survey participant was first asked to answerquestions about his or her demographics and gamingexperience, such as how often and how long he or shehas played computer games. Then the participant an-swered 50 questions about his or her personality. Uponfinishing the personality questions, the participant wasinstructed to choose one or more games that he or sheregularly played and to assess his or her play experi-ence by answering questions about game enjoyment.If more than one game was selected, the participantevaluated his or her play experience with each gameseparately in sequence. All the personality and enjoy-ment questions were randomized for each participantto avoid order effect. Participants were not allowed toskip any questions.

The survey was conducted in four universities inthree different countries: United States, Korea, andChina. In total, 1,096 computer game players re-sponded to the survey. Table 1 presents the descriptivestatistics of participants’ demographic information.

3.2. Validation of Survey Instrument

A factor analysis was conducted to establish the dis-criminant and construct validity. Only items highlyloaded (loadings > 0.5) on one of the following



TABLE 2. Cronbach’s Alpha Values

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha

Extraversion (Personality) 0.893Agreeableness (Personality) 0.788Conscientiousness (Personality) 0.779Emotional Stability (Personality) 0.876Intellect (Personality) 0.786Affect (Enjoyment) 0.731Behavior (Enjoyment) 0.823Cognition (Enjoyment) 0.730

constructs were retained in the analysis: extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,intellect, affect, behavior, and cognition. The first fiveconstructs are the Big Five personality factors, and thelast three are factors of game enjoyment. The retainedquestion items for measuring personality were listedin Appendix 1 and those measuring game enjoymentwere included in Appendix 2.

Reliability analysis was performed. Cronbach’s alphavalues were calculated to check the internal consistencyof the items. Table 2 shows Cronbach’s alpha values ofall eight constructs. All of these alpha values were above0.7 and satisfactory.

Therefore, the survey instrument was valid andreliable.

3.3. Multiple Comparison Analysis

After establishing the validity and internal reliabilityof the survey instrument, we now focus on examiningthe relationship between extraversion personality traitand computer game play. IBM SPSS PASW 18 softwarewas used to analyze the data. Among all of the sur-vey respondents, the mean extraversion score was 3.2and the standard deviation was 0.80. The extraversionscores ranged from 1 to 5.

Since little is known about the relationship betweenplayer personality and computer game play, we had touse an unconventional analysis to discover such possi-ble linkages. The underlying assumption of this anal-ysis was that the survey respondents had chosen thecomputer games they enjoyed. The main objective ofthis analysis was to find out what games were playedby players with different extraversion personalities. Todo so, we conducted a post hoc Duncan multiple com-parison analysis by treating the personality scores asa dependent variable and game titles as a treatment(independent variable). The Duncan multiple com-

parison analysis is typically used to detect the differ-ences among treatment groups if a main effect is found.This unconventional analysis will reveal how differentgames differ from one another in terms of extraversionof the players, assuming that games are different. Thisunconventional analysis yielded a table with game titlesgrouped by average extraversion scores. This table al-lows the researchers to focus on the extraversion, gametitles, and differences among them.

The following procedure was used in this analysis:(1) All responses were grouped by game titles. Differ-ent editions of the same game title were assigned thesame title with the assumption that these different edi-tions should have similar characteristics and could becategorized as the same kind of game. For example,Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, and Call of Duty 3 wereassigned the same title CallofDuty. (2) Game titles thatwere assessed by at least 10 different game players wereselected for this analysis. This step ensured the min-imum sample size of game titles to be analyzed. (3)In this analysis, extraversion scores were treated as adependent variable to help researchers identify gamedifferences that may have been caused by extraversion.Table 3 presents the multiple comparison results.

Table 3 clearly shows that players of different gametitles have different extraversion scores (range from 1 to5, with 5 as maximal score), which fall into three clus-ters. It indicates that the personality trait extraversionmay be related to players’ choice of games. To furtherunderstand the true differences among different gametitles, the game falling only in Cluster 1 (SidMeier-sCivilization) and the ones falling only in Cluster 3(LegoStarWar, CallofDuty, MaddenNFL, FinalFantasy,and SimCity) were compared.

In Cluster 1, Sid Meier’s Civilization is a turn-based,single-player strategy game. It does not involve muchsocial interactions with other characters or players. Asshown in Table 3, players of this game title had lowerextraversion scores than those of other game titles.

The five game titles falling only in Cluster 3(LegoStarWar, CallofDuty, MaddenNFL, FinalFantasy,and SimCity) involve working with a party of people,a team, or other characters. Social interactions withother characters/players were inevitable in these games.Players of all these game titles had higher extraversionscores than those of other games.

A correlation analysis reveals that no significant cor-relations were found between the extraversion scoresand scores of enjoyment-related constructs: affect, be-havior, and cognition. The correlation analysis suggests



TABLE 3. Multiple Comparisons of Extraversion Scores among Different Game Titles

Subset

Genre N 1 1 2 3

SidMeiersCivilization 15 2.566667Sims 23 2.800000 2.800000Rainbow 13 2.969231 2.969231 2.969231ResidentEvil 22 3.009091 3.009091 3.009091NeedforSpeed 33 3.033333 3.033333 3.033333SuperSmashBros 29 3.041379 3.041379 3.041379Civilization 14 3.064286 3.064286 3.064286ElderScrollsIVOblivion 29 3.089655 3.089655 3.089655WorldofWarcraft 97 3.120619 3.120619Diablo 44 3.134091 3.134091Fallout 20 3.140000 3.140000Quake 14 3.142857 3.142857DevilMayCry 22 3.159091 3.159091Crysis 11 3.172727 3.172727LegendofZeldaTwilight 20 3.175000 3.175000GrandTheftAuto 54 3.196296 3.196296WarcraftIII 44 3.204545 3.204545Halo 66 3.204545 3.204545CounterStrike 30 3.243333 3.243333SuperMario 34 3.244118 3.244118Bioshock 23 3.260870 3.260870Battlefield 28 3.264286 3.264286Doom 23 3.265217 3.265217FIFA 40 3.275000 3.275000StarCraft 62 3.277419 3.277419GuitarHero 24 3.291667 3.291667HalfLife 41 3.302439 3.302439AssasinsCreed 40 3.310000 3.310000MarioKart 15 3.313333 3.313333CommandandConquer 25 3.360000 3.360000LegoStarWars 14 3.385714CallofDuty 115 3.396522MaddenNFL 38 3.397368FinalFantasy 28 3.425000SimCity 13 3.438462

Note: The score was out of 5 (maximal score) and p value < .05.

that the differences presented in Table 3 were not re-lated to or confounded by enjoyment of game players.

The above observations seem to suggest that com-puter game players prefer to play games whose socialenvironments are compatible with players’ extraver-sion trait. In other words, computer game players whohave a high score of extraversion will likely play agame that requires extensive social interactions. Thosewho have a low score of extraversion will likely playa game that does not require such interactions or re-quires minimal social interactions. However, the dif-

ferences among the games were analyzed subjectively.More objective and in-depth information about howgame players view the games in the different clusterswill be needed to substantiate these propositions.

4. AN EXPLORATORY STUDYTo further confirm the observations made in the on-line survey about the interactions between extraversiontrait and game preferences, an exploratory study wassubsequently conducted to collect in-depth qualitative



data from game players. The primary objective of thisexploratory study was to explore the differences amongthe games played by players with different extraversionscores.

4.1. Method

Semistructured interviews were used as the primarydata collection method.

To maximize the opportunity of obtaining usefulinformation about the potential impact of extraver-sion on game preferences, games played by intervieweesneed to meet two basic criteria: (1) They are popularand have been played by many people so that enoughparticipants could be recruited. (2) The games mustbe diversified: Some of them will likely be preferred byextravert players, and others may be liked only by intro-vert players based on preliminary observations madein the online survey. The following process was used tochoose the computer games for the interviews:

� A quick survey was conducted in a game designclass (with about 30 students) to solicit the pop-ular games they have played recently. This sur-vey produced a list of popular computer games.

� The extraversion scores presented in Table 3were used to choose games that exhibit greaterdifference. To ensure the size of difference, onlygames in either Cluster 1 (less extravert) or Clus-ter 3 (more extravert) were considered. This stepproduced a list of games that are likely differentin terms of players’ extraversion score.

� The overlapped games between the above twolists made the final list. As a result, five gameswere selected: (1) less extravert games: SidMeriers Civilization and The Sims 3; (2) moreextravert games: Call of Duty: Modern War-fare2, Madden NFL 10, and SimCity.

Experienced game players were recruited as intervie-wees by the following screening process: (1) The an-nouncement about the study was broadcasted throughmailing lists and classes (50-plus classes, on average 30students in each class) to students studying computergame design in a Midwest U.S. university. (2) Uponreceiving a response, the researcher asked the player toconfirm that he or she had played at least one gamefrom the less extravert group and at least another gamefrom the more extravert group. Only qualified play-ers were considered for the interviews. (3) The selectedplayer was asked to complete a personality survey based

on the IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006) inventory. (4) An in-terview appointment was then scheduled. As the resultof this process, 11 qualified game players participatedin the interviews. On average, each interview lasted forabout half an hour, and the interviewee was paid a $20gift certificate at the end. The demographic informa-tion of interviewees was presented in Table 4.

Figure 1 shows the interview guide for this study.

4.2. Interview Analysis

The goals of the exploratory study were as follows: (1) toseek in-depth information to help interpret prelimi-nary observations based on the online survey, and (2)to explore possible interactions between extraversionand game preferences. To achieve these goals, the inter-view analysis was set to identify information that wouldhelp interpret the differences (about players’ person-alities and selected computer games) observed in theonline survey and information, suggesting possible in-teractions between personality and game preference.

As shown in Table 5, the extraversion scores of the in-terviewees range from 2.5 to 4.0 in a scale of 1 to 5 witha mean of 3.05 and a standard deviation of 0.435. Allthe interviews were recorded and later transcribed intotexts. The research team then analyzed the transcriptsfollowing these two steps: (1) Two members from theteam read through all the transcripts. Themes and key-words were identified and extensively discussed in aseries of group meetings. Special attention was paid tothe facets of personality trait “extraversion”: warmth,gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seek-ing, and positive emotions. Any cues that might explainthe preliminary observations made in the online surveywere identified and discussed. (2) Once a list of themesand keywords was finalized, the team re-examined thetranscripts and categorized comments using this list.As a result, four themes were recognized during thisanalysis: single player versus multiplayer, playing withfamiliar friends versus strangers, control, and purposeof playing games.

4.2.1. Single-Player versus MultiplayerGames

In the analysis of interview transcripts, it was first notedthat the participating game players made clear distinc-tions between single-player and multiplayer games.Table 5 summarizes interviewees’ comments aboutsingle-player and multiplayer games.



TABLE 4. Demographic Information of Interviewees

Interviewee Gender Age/RangeGame PlayExperience Major of Study Education Level

ExtraversionScore

#1 Male 28 <5 hr/week Game Development Graduate 3.1#2 Male 24 >40 hr/week Game Development Graduate 2.5#3 Female 19 20 to 30 hr/week Digital Cinema with an

Animation minorUndergraduate 2.6

#4 Male 20 to 25 20 to 30 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 3.7#5 Male 26 5 to 10 hr/week Information Systems Graduate 2.7#6 Male 20 to 25 20 to 30 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 2.9#7 Female <20 20 to 25 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 3.2#8 Male 20 to 25 10 to 15 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 3.0#9 Male 20 to 25 20 to 25 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 2.9#10 Male >25 10 to 15 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 4.0#11 Male 20 to 25 20 to 25 hr/week Game Design Undergraduate 2.9

Figure 1 Interview guide.

The comments in Table 4 suggest that computergame players are conscious about the differences be-tween single-player and multiplayer games and in-deed treat them as two types. It is then logical toassume that some game players prefer single-playergames and others prefer multiplayer ones. The research

team looked into the interview transcripts and fur-ther investigated player preferences of single-player ver-sus multiplayer games. Table 6 presents the commentsmade by three players with different extraversion scoresabout their preferences between single-player and mul-tiplayer games.



TABLE 5. Comments about Differences between Single-Player and Multiplayer Games

Interviewee Original Comments

#1 (SimCity): “You don’t interact with otherpeople, you are just playing the gamethere, and there was no multiplayerthere.”

#2 “Civilization can be categorized intoextraversion, because they havemultiplayers, so you can, you will havesome social interactions between eachgroup or between other people. So well,it is kind of related to extraversion. “

#3 “Definitely I will put civilization in thecollaborator-friendly, multiplayer friendlycategory.”

#4 “Sims is not in the collaborator-friendlycategory.”

#5 “Modern Warfare is kind of going bothways. But in general, I would put it intomultiplayer friendly probably.”

#6 “Multiplayer friendly means I can play withfriends easily, and it encourages that. It isimportant for me to play a game.”

#7 “Call of Duty and Madden will bemultiplayer; and the other three (Sims,SimCity, and Civilization) must be singleplayer.”

#8 “Uh huh . . . for The Sims, I play it by myself,but Call of Duty, I usually play with myfriends.”

#9 (Civilization): “Oh, this game, the biggestdifference is that the other one is that youplay it with other people; this one is youknow, single-play experience for mostpart. I mean there is an online experiencetoo: multiplayer too. I have not had achance to go to that.”

#10 “Madden NFL and Modern Warfare 2 in onegroup, those can be grouped into thesocial one that played by multiple people;the other one is linked by game, youknow, because they focus on single-playerexperience.”

#11 (SimCity): “But it is more like a simulationgame, which is not as good formultiplayers.”

On the basis of Table 6, an interesting observationcould be made from these three game players: gameplayers with a lower extraversion score prefer single-player games and those with a higher extraversion scoretend to prefer multiplayer games. This observation will

be further discussed along with other observations inthe Discussion section.

4.2.2. Playing with Familiar Friends versusStrangers

Among players who play multiplayer games, it was ob-served that some of them prefer to play with familiarfriends and others prefer to play with any people andstrangers. Table 7 lists the comments by different inter-viewees about their experiences of playing with friendsand strangers.

Table 7 seems to suggest that game players with lowerextraversion scores prefer to play with familiar friendsmore than those with higher extraversion scores.

4.2.3. Control

One of the preliminary observations made in the on-line survey indicates that the two games, The Sims andSimCity, were liked by players with opposite person-alities (introvert vs. extravert) although these gameswere produced by the same company and their storieswere compatible if not identical. The research teamdid not understand the reasons for this observation.When analyzing interview transcripts, we focused onthe differences between the two games, The Sims andSimCity. Table 8 presents the comments about the dif-ferences between The Sims and SimCity.

From Table 8, the following was observed: (1) Thetwo games, The Sims and SimCity, are different in whatplayers can control. In The Sims, a player can only con-trol one character, while in SimCity, a player controlsthe entire city. (2) The desire to take charge seems tovary by extraversion scores. The player with an ex-traversion score of 2.9 didn’t like to be the leader in agroup. The one with an extraversion score of 4.0 (seeTable 6) was comfortable to take charge in a group.

4.2.4. Purpose of Playing Games

During the interviews, participants quite often men-tioned how much they liked a game and why theywanted to play it again. Such views of game players mayhave profound implications for defining enjoyment ofgame play. Table 9 summarizes the comments collectedduring interviews about why one plays a game.

The comments in Table 9 suggest that the sense ofaccomplishment, such as learning new knowledge orskills, is critical to the enjoyment of game play.



TABLE 6. Comments about Preferences between Single-Player and Multiplayer Games

Interviewee(Extraversion Score) Comments

#5 (2.7) “Oh, yeah. Because I just played it as a single player. I have not played . . . I never tried multiplayer.Because it is expensive to buy. “

“Oh, multiplayer. Because it is expensive that I cannot own the game, that is one reason; and Idon’t have a good or powerful PC to play it on. Yeah, definitely if I am given the option. . . .Yeah, I have tried it on the Xbox version, but I didn’t like it. Because playing with multiplayers isnot much comfortable. Certainly, I have not tried it out, but single play was like I can finish it in10 to 12 hours. It is a very small game, single player, so that is pretty much about it.”

“For most of the single-player game, I may feel bored after a long time, but for Civilization, Iwon’t.”

“For Sims 3, I would also play for single player. Like what I have said, I did not get into The Sims 3too much, when it the most and first comes out, it was interesting to make all those newpeople, I kind of getting tired of it.”

#4 (3.7) “I think more multiplayers, because one reason is that you get to play with friends, and play in ateam. It is a lot more fun to play with other people when you are with your friends. Youknow . . . ”

“If it is a single-player game, you know, like it has campaign, I will play the campaign ones, butafter that, it is like OK, I am done with the game. For online, you just keep playing it until youget bored of the game. That is usually not long for a single-player game.”

“Addicting, because I guess, after you feel a sense of accomplishment, you know, you want tofeel that again, you want to do something else, you know, like in the Madden football, it maybe the computer, then I will be like: OK, I feel pretty good; then you will start the computer andplay with someone online, it is a whole different taste, but that taste is addicting to me, justbeing able to find it by playing it with different people, you know . . . ”

“I usually play with others; I am more a fan of multiple-player games than single-player.”“Because you know, it is more fun to work with a group than individual. I mean at least, so when

you are in the party together, working together. It is better. Plus, when you do well online, youknow all your friends can see. They will be like “Hi, you are pretty good.” But when you play byyourself or single player, it is like you know, I beat the game, oh cool! So do I, we all beat thegame. It is just like, whatever. Again back to the satisfaction, well, I am good, other people cansee that I am good, and I spent some time in the game.”

#10 (4.0) (NFL): “Competition, socializing, networking, everything comes in, everything is like right there.”(NFL): “With friends, it is probably like competition, like joking around type of thing; so it is fun to

play with friends, like rubric friends, goes head by head.”(Call of Duty): “It depends. It depends on the games. Like Call of Duty, if it is multiplay game, I

would enjoy playing with other people. Call of Duty, either online or with friends, it is morefun.”

Note: The scale of extraversion ranges from 1 (least extravert) to 5 (most extravert).

4.3. Discussions and Hypotheses

Several observations were made during interview anal-yses. Following discussions of the details and impli-cations of these observations, hypotheses are derivedbased on findings from the preliminary observationsand the exploratory study.

It is noted that game players treat single-player andmultiplayer games as two different types of games, andthat game players with a lower extraversion score prefersingle-player games while those with a higher extraver-sion score tend to prefer multiplayer games. First, this

observation helps categorize the games analyzed in thepreliminary observation phase (see Table 3) along thedimension of number of players involved in a game.For example, The Sims, was repeatedly referred to as asingle-player game, while Call of Duty was mostly con-sidered as a multiplayer game during the interviews.These two games are different because they involveddifferent number of players. Second, this observationprovides critical evidence to interpret the findings fromthe preliminary observation phase. In the online sur-vey, it was found that low extraversion scores were



TABLE 7. Comments about Playing with Familiar Friends versus Strangers


#5 (2.7) “Because playing with multiplayers is not much comfortable.”#6 (2.9) “The same for game playing. I hate being the leader, I hate being the guy whom everyone sees

that you have to, you need to do this, you need to do that. It is just me; I don’t like being aleader.”

“Yeah, I play it with friends.”“I know them in person. Yeah, I know them in the game lab. They come, so we start playing. “

#9 (2.9) “Uh huh, I live in a room, so I usually have around seven friends in my room at one time. I mean ifI want to play online, I could, which I usually did a lot in the weekends with other people. But Iplay randomly in the world without knowing who they are, or play against friends in anotherroom or find them in my room.”

“Well, so playing with anybody else not nearby is difficult, so most likely, we are going to playagainst each other. But if you play with someone in the room, it is a little more competitivesometimes.”

#11 (2.9) “Random players do not produce ideal enjoyable experience, sometime try to isolate them.”“Because Call of Duty always has little kids; some people do this, because they don’t want to hear

kids aloud. So it is hard to judge. You know sometimes I would play, we are like in the team,and we are friends. There is another person like a kid, so I told my friends ‘let us do party-only,so we don’t have to hear this person.’ You know. “

#8 (3.0) “I have to play with people I know, which is more enjoyable.”“I tried to figure out where I am? You know, what I am supposed to do? Where is everybody

coming from? It is like the most disgusting part of it, I mean you play the game, and you still donot have any idea where those guys come from, it depends what kind of modes you are playingin, but you still feel like that you cannot do anything to stop people standing in the back. Youknow it is stressful in that way. I guess if I play it more, I would start knowing more where thoseguys come from, what they expect for and stuff like that. You know, stressful, hectic, and veryunforgiving.”

#7 (3.2) “If you play with a whole bunch of people whom you don’t know of, and they suck, it is kind ofhard to have strategy. But if you play with your friends and stuff, you can have a little Frank overhere, and do this, that kind of strategy.”

#4 (3.7) “You know, there are a couple of people I met online, whom I have fallen in the relationship with.You know, you play the games with them.”

#10 (4.0) “I think I would say sometimes I am the leader, sometimes I will be watching the rules. So eitherworks, so either leader or role player. If a person is experienced in that game playing, know therules about the game. So they are really good in the game, I pretty much will follow them. Theyare confident, and they know what they are doing, so everyone else is probably gonna let themtake the lead.”

associated with single-player games such as The Simsand high extraversion scores were related to multiplayergames such as Call of Duty. The observation made fromthe interviews corroborates and reinforces this notion.This phenomenon is easy to understand. Multiplayergames present an environment that encourages socialinteractions among players while single-player gamesallow players to play in a solitude environment. Ex-travert players prefer multiplayer games because theylike to socialize with others, while introvert playersprefer single-player games because they are more com-fortable playing alone.

The second observation made during the interviewswas that game players with lower extraversion scoresprefer to play with familiar friends more than thosewith higher extraversion scores. One facet of extraver-sion is gregariousness, the social aspect. It is under-standable that an extravert would feel more comfort-able interacting with people whom he or she doesn’tknow than an introvert person. This observation is con-sistent with the notion that a game player would seeka game environment that suits his or her personality.

During the interviews, participants pointed out thatgame players can exercise different levels of control



TABLE 8. Comments about Control


#6 (2.9) “The same for game playing. I hate being the leader, I hate being the guy whom everyone seesthat you have to, you need to do this, and you need to do that. It is just me; I don’t like being aleader.”

#8 (3.0) (The Sims and SimCity): “There is the same aspect, the God aspect in both of them for sure. Youknow, one contact is controlling those little people’s life; one aspect is to build the whole city.You would not think about all . . . , you are just like, Ah, I created here.”

(The Sims) “ . . . really has nothing to do with controlling people’s lives. Actually what I wascurious about is the building of the dream house kind of scenario, so you know, I would like tosay, I would leave aside those little people’s lives, I will like give myself millions of dollars orsomething to build my awesome house, design my own one, then I would sit those people in itand watch them running. It may be my original motivation to play it, I am not exactly interestedin the game aspect, it is more about using the tools. So I guess that is similar with SimCity, butcontrolling those little people’s lives is interesting too, sometimes just to make a family and seehow it turns out or, a lot of time, you will try to make the best kind of little person, after thefirst generation, you will get bored easily in The Sims.”

#1 (3.1) “In The Sims, you basically have power to control people, control people’s life, make decisionsabout them; it is kind of playing like the God, but in a very controlled way.”

(SimCity): “You are the owner of something, some areas . . . and you have relationship with thecitizens.”

(SimCity): “But you are . . . huh . . . directing the world like managing the old city. You can evencreate storms and call aliens and stuff, so basically, you have all the power.”

(SimCity): “From what the game allows you to, you can do almost anything there; you can destroythe city, to click it if you want.”

#4 (3.7) “See what I am saying? Civilization, you control the whole civilization; SimCity, you control theSims and you control the town; Call of Duty, you control your soldier; in Madden, you control aplayer.”

#10 (4.0) (The Sims): “The Sims, it is more like a, more like a . . . something based on the life played, the realworld. Instead of you control, because you cannot control everything that you do, but you cancontrol whatever the character in the game does. You can have a big house, a fancy car, justthat fast, they can have that. So it is almost like a fantasy game.”

“Uh huh, it is more related to The Sims. Because when you are playing, you control more of freemode type of games, so you have to roll around and do whatever you want.”

in the two games, The Sims and SimCity. In TheSims, a player can only control one character, while inSimCity, a player controls the entire city. One facet ofextraversion is assertiveness. A person with this typeof personality is often sure of himself or herself andoften prefers to be a leader, rather than a follower.This observation supports one of the findings in theonline survey: The Sims was highly correlated withlow extraversion scores, while SimCity was highlycorrelated with high extraversion scores becauseextraverts tend to be more assertive than introverts.

It was also observed that a person with a higherextraversion score had a stronger desire to be aleader during game play than a person with a lowerextraversion score. This observation reflects the effectsof assertiveness, one facet of extraversion. Extravert

players are more willing to be leaders than introvertplayers. It again suggests that a game player enjoys agame environment more when it is compatible withhis or her personality.

The last observation from the interviews indicatesthat the sense of accomplishment, such as learningnew knowledge or skills, is critical to the enjoymentof game play. In 2010, Fang et al. developed aninstrument to measure enjoyment of computer gameplay based on the tripartite model proposed by Nabiand Krcmar (2004). One of the dimensions in thistripartite model is cognition, which is concernedabout the judgment of game characters’ actions (suchas the value of game characters’ actions and the senseof accomplishment). This observation provides anadditional piece of evidence about the importance



TABLE 9. Comments about Why One Plays a Game

Interviewee # Comments

#1 “It is from the game a good learning experience; one from the managerial side of The Sims, youplay as the God honor and city owner, you learn how to use resources in an efficient way, andlearn how to make people happy based on your decisions. You want to learn how to have abetter life or how to go from having nothing to becoming someone powerful and rich. Sobasically, it is about improving your life.”

(The Sims): “Oh, what it would be if I do this or that. That is kind of experience.”(SimCity): “Yeah, everybody who wants to learn a little bit of management.”

#4 “Madden is a game that you pick up, all of sudden, you are really good. You got to learn differentplaybooks, play styles, different teams.”

“I feel awesome, I feel very good, because you spent so much time playing that, that will be thesingle-player campaign, I play hard on the difficulty, you die numerous times, you fail, fail . . .but then after you complete it, it is a great feel.”

“Like Civilization, you know, but once you create something, and defeat somebody, you can feelreally accomplished; and I would say for SimCity, once you get started to get your city going;and Call of Duty, I mean maybe at large scale, but after you defeat somebody or kill somebody,then you will feel superior, then you can unlock your weapons or doing stuff like that. So thewhole thing is really rewarding, I think that is why it is so addicting, because you are gettingthose rewards, you know.”

#5 “Because I like strategy game. Because you know, those are like . . . something like. I could say Ican learn a lot from playing those games, like making decisions, like once stepping out thetime. You know, the game is kind of like that. “

of the cognition dimension. It strongly supports theinstrument developed by Fang et al. (2010).

The mounting evidences suggest that computergame players will likely enjoy a game that provides asocial environment compatible with their extraversionpersonality.

Lazzaro (2009) identifies four fun keys in a researchconducted at XEODesign: (1) Fiero (emotion oftriumph over adversity) from the hard fun of challengeand mastery. Players focusing on the game’s challenge,strategic thinking, and problem solving favor this funkey. (2) Curiosity from the easy fun of explorationand role-play. Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity.(3) Relaxation from serious fun. Many players enjoythe visceral, behavior, and cognitive experiences thatgames create. (4) Amusement from people fun. Playersalso use games as mechanisms for social experiences.

One of the four player types proposed by Bartle(2009) is socializers, who like talking, being part of agroup, and helping others.

On the basis of media enjoyment theories, person-ality theories, and the technology acceptance model,Fang, Chan, and Nair (2009) propose a conceptualmodel of computer game play as depicted in Figure 2.

The prior research on computer game play stronglysuggests that social experiences are an important

element in the play experience, and personality traitsmay impact on play experience. In this research, thepreliminary observations made in the online surveyand the exploratory study provide compelling evidencesuggesting that the personality trait extraversion mayhave significant impact on game player’s behaviorand choice of games. Therefore, we hypothesizethat extraversion, as the largest personality factor inthe Big Five personality model that relates to socialinteractions, will affect players’ choice of games.

Hypothesis: Computer game players will choosegames whose social environments are compatible withplayers’ extraversion trait.

Ha: Computer game players who have a high score ofextraversion will likely enjoy a game that requiresmore social interactions more than those who aremore introvert.

Hb: Computer game players who have a low score ofextraversion will likely enjoy a game that requiresless social interactions than those who are moreextravert.

On the basis of a series of field studies, Csikszent-mihalyi (1993) creates the flow theory, an understand-ing of the process by which certain behaviors make lifemore enjoyable. One element of flow state is the balance



Figure 2 A conceptual framework of computer gameplay.

between challenge and skill. When user skills are prop-erly matched with the challenges presented in a task,a flow experience will be possible. In computer gameplay, if we consider a player’s extraversion as one skill tointeract with other players/characters, a match betweenthe challenge (need for extraversion) presented in agame and his or her skill (extraversion) will likely leadto flow experience and consequently enjoyment. Al-though computer games present a virtual world to play-ers, social experiences will likely stimulate players’ per-sonality traits during the play. Extraversion is expectedto play a critical role in the social interactions of a game.

Using exploratory studies to collect informationthat can be used to derive hypotheses is very commonin behavioral research. For example, researchers ininformation systems often use case studies as thefirst step to form hypotheses. This research is anexploratory study. Although it is premature to drawany definitive conclusions about extraversion andcomputer game play, the empirical evidence gatheredin this study strongly strengthened the process offormulating the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, acontrolled experiment could be set up as follows: (1)Two computer games with different levels of socialinteractions will be chosen as the experiment systems.(2) All participants will be divided into two groupsbased on their extraversion scores. To ensure the

size of the difference in extraversion, people whoseextraversion scores fall in the middle range will beexcluded. (3) All participants will be asked to playboth types of games. Their enjoyment of each gamewill be measured in the end of the experiment.

5. CONCLUSIONSIn this research, preliminary observations were madein an online survey, and a subsequent exploratory studywas conducted to further investigate the relationshipbetween the personality trait, extraversion, and gameplayers’ choice of games. These investigations providedcompelling evidence, suggesting that extraversion mayhave significant impact on a game player’s behaviorduring game play and his or her choice of games toplay. On the basis of findings from these investigationsand prior research, hypotheses were formulated aboutextraversion and game play. These hypotheses inviteresearchers to design experiments to test them andto further study the relationship between personalitytraits and game play in future research.

As computer games become a popular form of en-tertainment, research on how to apply games in educa-tion and training has gained momentum. For example,the studies on a popular game called Second Life hasranged from collaborative learning to virtual campusin the last few years (De Lucia, Francese, Passero, &Tortora, 2009; deNoyelles & Kyeong-Ju Seo, 2012; Sut-cliffe & Alrayes, 2012; Thomas & Hollander, 2010).A thorough understanding of the relations betweenpersonality and computer game enjoyment will helpdesign more enjoyable game experience and thus helpcreate more effective education/training applications.This study is a first step toward this endeavor.

As future steps, we will continue (1) to refine thepersonality instrument to measure finer personalitytraits, (2) to collect more data to build a larger and morerepresentative sample, and (3) to design experimentsto test the hypotheses proposed in this research.



APPENDIX 1Question Items Measuring Personality

ID Content Factor

PE0001 Am the life of the party Surgency or ExtraversionPE0002 Fell little concern for others AgreeablenessPE0003 Am always prepared ConscientiousnessPE0004 Get stressed out easily Emotional StabilityPE0005 Have a rich vocabulary Intellect or ImaginationPE0006 Don’t talk a lot Surgency or ExtraversionPE0007 Am interested in people AgreeablenessPE0008 Leave my belongings around ConscientiousnessPE0009 Am relaxed most of the time Emotional StabilityPE0010 Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas Intellect or ImaginationPE0011 Feel comfortable around people Surgency or ExtraversionPE0014 Worry about things Emotional StabilityPE0015 Have a vivid imagination Intellect or ImaginationPE0016 Keep in the background Surgency or ExtraversionPE0017 Sympathize with others’ feelings AgreeablenessPE0018 Make a mess of things ConscientiousnessPE0019 Seldom feel blue Emotional StabilityPE0021 Start conversations Surgency or ExtraversionPE0022 Am not interested in other people’s problems AgreeablenessPE0023 Get chores done right away ConscientiousnessPE0024 Am easily disturbed Emotional StabilityPE0025 Have excellent ideas Intellect or ImaginationPE0026 Have little to say Surgency or ExtraversionPE0027 Have a soft heart AgreeablenessPE0028 Often forget to put things back in their proper place ConscientiousnessPE0029 Get upset easily Emotional StabilityPE0031 Talk to a lot of different people at parties Surgency or ExtraversionPE0032 Am not really interested in others AgreeablenessPE0033 Am quick to understand things Intellect or ImaginationPE0034 Don’t like to draw attention to myself Surgency or ExtraversionPE0035 Take time out for others AgreeablenessPE0037 Have frequent mood swings Emotional StabilityPE0038 Use difficult words Intellect or ImaginationPE0039 Don’t mind being the center of attention Surgency or ExtraversionPE0040 Feel others’ emotions AgreeablenessPE0041 Follow a schedule ConscientiousnessPE0042 Get irritated easily Emotional StabilityPE0044 Am quiet around strangers Surgency or ExtraversionPE0045 Make people feel at ease AgreeablenessPE0047 Often feel blue Emotional StabilityPE0048 Like order ConscientiousnessPE0049 Change my mood a lot Emotional StabilityPE0050 Am full of ideas Intellect or Imagination



APPENDIX 2Question Items Measuring Enjoyment

ID Content Category

GEA0001 I feel unhappy when playing this game AffectGEA0002 I feel worried when playing this game AffectGEA0003 I feel happy when playing this game AffectGEA0004 I feel exhausted when playing this game AffectGEA0005 I feel miserable when playing this game AffectGEB0001 I talk to myself when playing this game BehaviorGEB0002 I make loud comments even if nobody is around when

playing this gameBehavior

GEB0003 I swear when playing this game BehaviorGEC0001 Playing this game or interacting with its character(s) makes

me more intelligentCognition

GEC0002 The activities in this game or the actions of its character(s)are respectable

Cognition

GEC0003 The activities in this game or the actions of its character(s)are decent

Cognition

References

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games andaggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the lab-oratory and in life. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78(4), 772–790.

Bartle, R. A. (2009). Understanding the limits of theory.In C. Bateman (Ed.), Beyond game design: Nine stepstoward creating better videogames. Boston, MA: CourseTechnology.

Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st century game de-sign. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.

Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurementfor personality constructs. In D. M. Buss & N. Can-tor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends andemerging directions (pp. 246–260). New York, NY:Springer.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psy-chology for the third millennium. New York: HarperCollins.

De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G.(2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual cam-pus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Computers& Education, 52, 220–233.

deNoyelles, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Inspiringequal contribution and opportunity in a 3d multi-uservirtual environment: Bringing together men gamersand women non-gamers in Second Life. Computers &Education, 58, 21–29.

Digman, J., & Takemoto-Chock, N. (1981, April). Fac-tors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis,

comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149.

Douse, N. A., & McManus, I. C. (1993). The personalityof fantasy game players. British Journal of Psychology,84, 505–509.

Entertainment Software Association. (2011). In-dustry facts. Retrieved September 2011, fromhttp://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

Fang, X., Chan, S., Brzezinski, J., & Nair, C. (2010). De-velopment of an instrument to measure enjoyment ofcomputer game play. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(9), 868–886.

Fang, X., Chan, S., & Nair, C. (2009). An online surveysystem on computer game enjoyment and personal-ity. Proceedings of HCI International 2009, July 19–24,2009, San Diego, California.

Fang, X., & Zhao, F. (2009). Sensation seeking, self forget-fulness, and computer game enjoyment. Proceedings ofHCI International 2009, July 19–24, 2009, San Diego,California.

Fang, X., & Zhao, F. (2010). Personality and enjoymentof computer game play. Computers in Industry, 61,342–349.

Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitiv-ity and distributive decisions in experimental games.Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015–1029.

Fu, F. L., Su, R. C., & Yu, S. C. (2009). EGameFlow:A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learninggames. Computers & Education, 52, 101–112.



Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description ofpersonality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R.,Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006).The International Personality Item Pool and the futureof public-domain personality measures. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 40, 84–96.

Griffiths, M. D. (2003). The therapeutic use of videogamesin childhood and adolescence. Clinical Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 8, 547–554.

Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E.,von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technol-ogy use and creativity: Findings from the Children andTechnology Project. Computers in Human Behavior,28, 370–376.

Lazzaro, N. (2009). Understanding emotions. In C.Bateman (Ed.), Beyond game design: Nine steps to-ward creating better videogames. Boston, MA: CourseTechnology.

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1985). Comparison of EPI andpsychoticism scales with measures of the Five Factormodel of personality. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 6, 587–597.

Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing me-dia enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass mediaeffects research. Communication Theory, 4(14), 288–310.

Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. (1989, September). Somedeterminants of factor structures from personality-traitdescriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 57(3), 552–567.

Robillard, G., Bouchard, S., Fournier, T., & Renaud, P.(2003). Anxiety and presence during VR immersion: Acomparative study of the reactions of phobic and non-phobic participants in therapeutic virtual environmentsderived from computer games. CyberPsychology & Be-havior, 6, 467–476.

Schollmeyer, J. (2006). Games get serious. Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists, 62(4), 34–39.

Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examinationof the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64,489–528.

Sutcliffe, A., & Alrayes, A. (2012). Investigating user ex-perience in Second Life for collaborative learning. In-ternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70,508–525.

Thomas, D., & Hollander, J. B. (2010). The city atplay: Second Life and the virtual urban planningstudio. Learning, Media and Technology, 35, 227–242.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent person-ality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Tech.Rep. No. 61–97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. AirForce.

Tuzun, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., &Kizilkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer gameson primary school students’ achievement and motiva-tion in geography learning. Computers & Education,52, 68–77.

Whang, L. S., & Chang, C. (2004). Lifestyles of virtualworld residents: Living in the online game “lineage”.Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(5), 592–600.


Documents

Extraversion Personality and Computer Game Play