Testosterone and Videogames
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
What is the role of testosterone in videogame play? And how has it affected the way videogames are made?
The chemical testosterone is often considered a “sex hormone”, because of its role in sexual development in men, but in fact this steroid has behavioural effects on men and women that are substantially the same. Although men secrete about fifty times as much testosterone as women, women are substantially more sensitive to the hormone with the net result that similar behavioural effects can be detected among people of either gender. What's more, these effects can be found in essentially all the vertebrate species – fish, amphibians, lizards, mammals and birds.
Testosterone is an “action hormone”, that prompts quick responses and resolute persistence, not to mention stubbornness. Studies by various researchers, including John Archer, Andrew and Rogers, and James McBride Dabbs, have shown that animals and people who are high in testosterone can sustain a narrow focus for longer, and are thus persistent at the tasks they pursue. Conversely, low-testosterone people have been shown to be generally more friendly, more intellectual and more compassionate than their high-testosterone counterparts. As a result, low-testosterone people tend to do better in school, have higher paid (and higher status) jobs, have closer relationships with their families, and sustain happier marriages.
Another significant effect of testosterone is developmental: the higher dosages of testosterone result in greater brain volume in men but at the cost of a smaller corpus callosum, an area of the brain which co-ordinates information between the two hemispheres. (Note, however, that a larger brain does not make one smarter – despite what the Saturday morning cartoons might suggest). Researchers have observed that, typically, the female brain is far better at thinking in terms of networks (social or otherwise), although it should be noted that there is a great deal of variation among individuals. This change in brain development is a genuine gender distinction, and results from the effects of the higher levels of testosterone on developing boys.
A convenient way of summarising the effects of testosterone on behaviour is to suggest that high testosterone is correlated with dominance behaviours. This can mean many different things, including assertion, vanity, aggression, charisma, and high sex drive, but note that these behaviours can happen in people irrespective of their testosterone levels. It is not that testosterone causes dominance behaviour, just that it encourages it. High levels of testosterone are correlated with both roguish behaviour and heroism – Dabbs describes many examples of heroic behaviour among people with above-average testosterone, including fire-fighters and soldiers who acted to save the lives of others without any thought for their own safety.
In the context of play, testosterone has an effect in any competitive situation. Just before a tennis match, a professional player's testosterone will increase – and it will surge if they win a tournament. If they lose, their testosterone will fall. These changes in testosterone level are not restricted to physical sports, either – the testosterone levels of chess players also fall when they lose a game. Whenever an individual is emotionally invested in an outcome – when their pride is at stake, if you will, a drop in testosterone is likely in defeat or failure, and a spike in victory.
A recent study lead by David Geary at the University of Missouri in Columbia explored testosterone in the context of videogame play, specifically multiplayer Unreal Tournament 2004. Fourteen groups of three male players (who had not met each other before) were matched against each other after having practices together for about six hours. To add an incentive to win, the teams that were victorious earned a reward of $45, three times what the losers were paid for their participation.
The study found an unexpected effect: while winning players did experience a testosterone spike when they were victorious (and especially among players who had most contributed to the win), when the teams played against each other the highest scoring player tended to produce less testosterone than their defeated team mates. Similar results were found in a study by John Wagner of competitive domino players on the island of Dominica. When playing with people in their own village, winners testosterone levels fell and stayed low, whereas loser's testosterone fell then rebounded. Only when playing against people from other villages did testosterone reliable rise.
Testosterone can thus be seen as a driving force towards winning – rising in preparation for a challenge, and falling in defeat. But in a friendly contest between colleagues, the stakes are lower and testosterone has a significantly reduced role. One can assume that all forms of non-competitive play are less affected by testosterone, and indeed studies of pathological gamblers did not find a correlation with testosterone levels.
The results of the BrainHex survey, which is currently going on at BrainHex.com, reveals an interesting split in the play patterns of male and female players that may also relate to testosterone. Six of the seven play styles in this model have roughly the same distribution among men and women, and appear in the same order. Only one play style is significantly different by gender: Conqueror. This adversarial, victory-focussed style of play is the most popular among male players surveyed so far, being the highest rated in over a quarter of male respondents. But among female players in the survey, it ranks fourth (after Mastermind, Seeker and Achiever) with just one in eight female players preferring this play style above all others. (See the full numbers in the piece on BrainHex Class and Gender).
There is a significant gender skew in the respondents to the survey thus for, with just 11% female people in the sample: if a projection is made of how the audience would be comprised if it were made up of an equal number of male and female players, Conqueror would be third in the list, corresponding to one in five people. Seeker would be above it with just a few percent more respondents, and Mastermind at the top, corresponding to about one in four people. Exploration and problem-solving could well be more popular than striving for victory, although regardless of this all three play styles together still only represent two thirds of the players in the audience as a whole.
There are at least two distinct ways of looking at this data. Firstly, one could look at the industry's predilection for first person shooters and other competitive action games – all of which embody testosterone's focus on acting-over-thinking, and a persistent drive towards eventual victory – as more than adequately servicing the needs of testosterone in the audience for games. This naturally involves more male than female players (and it would be interesting to see if the female players who test as Conqueror in BrainHex would have above-average testosterone levels).
Alternatively, you could look at the popularity of Mastermind and Seeker among both men and women and accuse the industry of biasing its output heavily towards testosterone-style play, irrespective of the commercial reality of the marketplace. It is presumably no coincidence that the vast majority of people who work in the videogames industry are male, and thus far only Nintendo among the major platform holders has been able to push beyond thinking primarily in terms of Conqueror as the supreme element in videogame play.
There is a major unanswered question here. Is the market inundated with action games because testosterone-driven play is more addictive and satisfying than other kinds of play (and thus this is the most reliable audience to court) or is the prevalence of the 3D shooter merely the evidence that the industry has allowed itself to be biased towards making the games it wants to play, rather than exploring what the audience might want to play, as I have frequently accused?
The phenomenal success of games such as The Sims, Nintendogs, Brain Training and Wii Fit (all of which have sold more than twice as many units as the most successful first person shooter) suggests the latter, but it must be noted that among male respondents in the BrainHex survey 51% have Conqueror as either their first or their second highest ranked class, and even among female respondents 32% have Conqueror as the first or second highest. (Note that Mastermind appears as one of the top two classes for 40% of male and 50% of female, and Seeker appears as one of the top two classes for 34% of male and 45% of female respondents in the current sample).
What is happening in the videogames industry at the moment, principally via the work of Nintendo and casual games developers such as PopCap and Big Fish, is the realisation that there are other audiences out there just waiting to be tapped. What's more, these wider audiences for games can be reached via games that are a lot less expensive to develop than Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, which cost around $30 million to develop and courted an audience of around 10 million players. Animal Crossing – which is proving to be a very popular franchise among the Mastermind players in the survey – sold as many units on less than a tenth of the development budget.
There will always be a thriving market for violent action games that demand quick thinking, swift reflexes and cut-throat tactics – undoubtedly teenage boys, adult men and some small percentage of women will continue to play and enjoy these kinds of games. But it's time for the industry to recognise that these games are not the most successful genres in production, and in fact that most of the games that go into the FPS marketplace fail miserably. Halo and Call of Duty, the flagship franchises for testosterone play, soak up the vast majority of the audience for 3D shooters accounting for roughly 50% of the sales of FPS games. In the last three years, the next highest selling FPS that wasn't in either franchise sold less than a third as many copies, while at least 2 in 3 first person shooters released over the same period failed to make back their development costs.
Does it really make sense for most developers to be making games to compete against vast numbers of better funded, better marketed 3D shooters with vanishing hope of commercial success? Or is this just testosterone dictating that the fight against incredible odds is a challenge that must be accepted? If games developers and publishers are wrapped up in some bizarre dominance struggle centred around shooting games it would mean that testosterone isn't just responsible for one of the more popular forms of play, it's also partly responsible for blocking the creation of videogames for a wider audience.
Jedeman: just in case you don't read Only a Game, I thought I'd cc this note that I left there to pre-empt your obvious criticism. :)
"By the way, I've been accused (not unjustly) of being obsessed about ranting against the industry's obsession with 3D shooters. This latest piece is an attempt to draw a line under that. No promises in this regard, but I will endeavour to try and find new topics of conversation concerning games after my annual break for the Wheel next month."
Posted by: Chris | Thursday, 08 October 2009 at 11:44
Hmm. I didn't expect to come out as the average male on the Brainhex, but I still didn't expect Conquerer and Mastermind to be my second and third lowest statistics, and to be ruled by a massive majority in 'Socialiser'..
I'm a fairly hardcore UT2004 lover, and garnerner of many fine headshots in any available realistic FPS.
I'm not sure I have much faith in the test, given my rampant intolerance for most players and my dislike of most 'social' games. I simply love co-operative organisation, leadership teaching and guiding others - which while social is not my guiding force in a game.
The role of paternal or maternal social figure seems an important distinction, as does a leader - not to mention the 'visceral' appeal of games, another aspect the questions seemed to avoid.
I'm sure respondents wouldn't object to a larger and more detailed test in future.
But forgive me for the tangent, I know this is utterly offtopic. I can attest the the lowered testosterone during moments of victory over friends in casual competition. At times, such victories make me feel humble, apologetic, guilty - or at the least caring and encouraging, soft rather than prideful and victorious.
The pleasure taken, on the other hand, in a hardwon FPS victory against a stranger on the net is almost sexual in its violence, passion and intensity.
A good call, but not one that makes much of a point - The industry is hopelessly shortsighted, I consider this an inevitability for a young industry initially run by antisocial system-minds, and now raped by closeminded moneymen.
It is now entering the 'arthouse' stage, pretentious and flightly but very interesting - and is producing some beautiful work. Indie is getting popular while mainstream is becoming too obviously repetitive and formulaic.
Things change. Ranting probably won't speed them up much. Sit back and watch a new artform mature before your very eyes.
Posted by: Jakkar | Thursday, 08 October 2009 at 17:03
You may be getting a lot of Conquerors because those are the people interested enough in games to take the test. I bet there are a lot of Daredevils and Socializers out there who haven't had games appeal to them - so they are not the people finding the BrainHex quiz. Be interesting to see if you get the same distribution from a random sample (rather than a self-selected group).
Posted by: Nathanael | Friday, 09 October 2009 at 01:17
Nathanael: I definitely suspect some bias of this kind in the sampling, both for Conqueror and Mastermind. (Which only makes it more interesting that Seeker is so well represented). Sadly, I lack the means to generate a random sample on the scale required for this survey, so I may have to accept this limitation in this case.
Jakkar: thanks for your comment! The BrainHex model is hypothetical and serves as the framework for the current survey, but the model doesn't need to hold for the data we're gathering to be useful as the statistical analysis is independent of the model. It will be interesting to see how much of the model holds up in the statistical analysis phase!
A few people have complained about coming out socialiser for a number of reasons; in your case, with a love of leadership and team dynamics, it might not be a mistest, it may just be that the results screen doesn't reflect your style of socialisation in its wording. Being annoyed by strangers (especially online!) is definitely not a contra-indication to socialiser. :)
Rest assured, each model we produce is followed by another which is more refined. There are many things overlooked in BrainHex that I hope to take account of in the future.
"It is now entering the 'arthouse' stage, pretentious and flightly but very interesting - and is producing some beautiful work. Indie is getting popular while mainstream is becoming too obviously repetitive and formulaic."
While I agree that we are finally developing an art house scene (something that I have tried to encourage for many years), I'm not sure I would agree that "indie is getting popular" in market terms... Regardless of the big titles being "too obviously repetitive and formulaic" they still rack up the big sales, while there are very few successful indie studios remaining. I am hopeful that this will improve, but there will probably always be a giant sales mismatch between word-of-mouth fuelled indie titles on the one hand and heavily marketed flagship titles on the other.
Thanks for sharing your experiences of testosterone in online play! Very interesting.
Posted by: Chris | Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 10:11
I think I just figured out what a 'casual' game is. It's a non-conqueror game.
Posted by: Alrenous | Thursday, 21 January 2010 at 09:21
Alrenous: I wondered about this myself, I must say. :)
Posted by: Chris | Thursday, 21 January 2010 at 10:42
Alrenous, I think you might be right. When I took the test I was reluctant to answer that I'm a hardcode gamer since I don't play many conqueror games (or MMOs anymore). I didn't feel comfortable answering casual though when I'd just answered that I game daily hehe.
I'm curious whether listing the three games at the start introduces a bias as the games chosen will likely be what comes to mind when answering the questions. In my case I listed two adventure games and one roleplaying game and my result was mastermind-seeker. I wonder if I'd get the same result on a different day.
Posted by: Laura | Sunday, 07 March 2010 at 05:11
Laura: it's an interesting question about whether asking people to think of their favourite games at the start biases how they think in the test...
As to whether you'd get different results on different days, yes, I'd expect a slight variance. But since the data gathered is statistically analysed over tens of thousands of entries, these minor deviations on an individual level become less significant.
But I have to say, if you enjoy adventure games and RPGs, Mastermind-Seeker is a good fit! :)
Posted by: Chris | Tuesday, 09 March 2010 at 07:15
I love learning about testosterone (especially bioidentical testosterone which is way better, just FYI) and find your article very interesting. I have another perspective however...
I live in Seattle and know a lot of computer programmers. What if these guys are making these games because they themselves have low testosterone and are using the games as a way to increase their testosterone. Maybe?
If they make the game then they may know how to win better than others at playing the game with the net result of increasing their testosterone and potentially causing a bizarre shooter game creation addiction. Perhaps?
Well, I'm not saying that computer programmers have less testosterone but exercise, which they may be lacking, is known to increase testosterone levels.
Posted by: Barry the Bioidentical Testosterone Guy | Thursday, 29 July 2010 at 21:21
Barry: this comments looks dangerously like spam, but since you raised an interesting point I've let it stand. :)
It's a reasonable hypothesis that programmers have lower testosterone than, say, construction workers, but this doesn't necessarily place this group in the lowest position testosterone-wise, nor does it mean they are less affected or unaffected by the chemical.
Also, because the upper market games are worked upon by a large number of males, there is likely to be a lens effect with respect to content, whereby higher testosterone individuals have greater influence. (At the moment, this claim is conjecture of course).
Finally, the testosterone levels of the marketing departments - which is a profession associated with high testosterone - may be a bigger factor, since marketing outranks programming in almost all commercial developments.
I hope to conduct spit tests with a variety of videogame players sometime in the next few years that might bring an interesting new perspective to this issue. :)
Posted by: Chris | Wednesday, 04 August 2010 at 07:43