Gender brain differences and games
For Males, Video Game Rewards Are All in the Mind – washingtonpost.com
New research from Stanford scientists shows that the part of the brain associated with reward and addiction was more activated in males than in females when both genders played a game whose object was to acquire more territory.
There were relatively few areas of criticism of my book A Theory of Fun. One of them, however, was that it was sexist, in large part because I suggested that many of the core characteristics of most games were things that cognitively biased them towards systematizing minds (to use Simon Baron-Cohen’s term) — which statistically, biases them towards males.
As I said in the book, there’s enough evidence at this point about different cognition styles, and of different genres and play styles appealing to different demographics, that it seems silly to argue whether it happens, and more valuable to argue how and why.
The article at ScienceDaily is a more balanced and detailed look at the process they took, including a description of the game, which sounds kind of interesting. In particular, it’s good to see the researchers came at this whole thing from the territory angle; many games focus on territory even when they do not seem to.
These cognitive biases are one of the reasons why I worry about the core of games being inherently mathematical; to what degree are games by their nature biased towards systematizing brains? And what sorts of games push against this bias?
27 Responses to “Gender brain differences and games”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Gender brain differences and gamesPosted on February 13, 2008 by Raph
Raph –
Could you elaborate? Most things wind up being “mathematical” one way or another. People are built to systematize and categorize the world.
You sound very male. 😉
Things wind up mathematical only if that is your preferred mode of interacting with them. It’s a cognitive and analytical strategy.
Guess the gender, Raph!
Things don’t necessarily end up being “mathematical”—that’s a kind of data analysis strategy that frequently ends up losing quite a lot. This includes how other react to the data being analyzed in the first place.
Example: While Raph technically knows that he has a 50/50 chance (I’m not transsexual, so count that particular variable out of the picture) of correctly guessing my gender, the factor of my writing style, itself which can appeal to the subconscious or Raph’s knowledge in regards to how a female or male might respond to this question, or write in a certain style, affects the chances in a manner which cannot be as easily interpreted on a mathematical level.
Summary: While all things truly do come down to a mathematical level, it is not necessarily the right way to approach all problems—particularly those that deal with neurology.
I feel that we should take assertions of gender differences in cognition with a huge grain of salt, since much bunk has been published in the Venus and Mars genre. Even when the generalisations are based on some truth, they tend to paint individuals with a very broad brush.
Nevertheless, as one who finds little interest in first-person-shooter type games, and would rather spend her time in virtual worlds socialising and building, I do find this particular study interesting. Of course, if further research shows consistent differences, it will raise questions of where these differences come from.
Games that focuses on emergence and creation, rather than mastery of the system. So in Spore the creation of a creature is creative, even reflecting your own personality. I’m sure that once you’re playing the game to make actual progess, abstracting the underlying system is required – as usual. Online social activities or emergent community building activities created by players in a game like Habbo also pushes against this bias. Making mazes out of furnature in your appartment in Habbo, starting a vampire club in Club Marian – that kind of thing.
To answer your question with a question – to what extent are games influenced by the fact that they are written by people who are themselves highly orientated towards systematizing and categorisation – to whit, developers?
Our whole higher education is geared towards breaking things down, analysing process flows, systems analysis… and since people are by nature attracted to games written by people with similar mindsets, are we locked in a self-perpetuating and maybe even self-reinforcing cycle that goes all the way back to text puzzle games like knightmare and zork?
The average dev – and I cast myself amongst my own stereotype here – was the kid who sat in the corner playing complex games like AD&D or Warhammer, with rulebooks so thick you could flatten a small child accidentally whilst looking up your hit dice. We are by nature bent towards systemisation and categorisation – so how much are the games we make bent towards our own world view?
As to games that push against the convention – you made one of them! To date, I have played no game that has a higher % female population than SWG did. Maybe that opinion is skewed somewhat by being part of the now legendary Helios – a guild of crafters, dancers, and men it hawtpants – but crafting and, in particular, entertaining (why hasn’t that been in any other games?! I wants poplock!) seem to be much more popular with the female side of the gaming population than, say, being a swordsman.
Again, maybe this is a factor of design – games developers are predominantly male (that’s a whole ‘nother debate), so inevitably the games that are produced will be inherently geared towards men. Geeky men.
In Spore I believe player created creatures are shared on a central server and populated into everyone’s game universe. I think this combined with creatures being a reflection of their creator’s personality is going to make for some interesting gameplay. I can already picture hordes of monster like races made by male teenagers terrorizing everyone at certain stages of the game.
Max wrote:
Charlie Epps might disagree with you. 🙂 “We all use math every day; to predict weather, to tell time, to handle money. Math is more than formulas or equations; it’s logic, it’s rationality, it’s using your mind to solve the biggest mysteries we know.”
(See Northeastern University’s Numb3rs blog for some mathematical insights.)
Saying things like this is unpopular in most western cultures. The meaning of ‘equality’ has become synonymous with ‘uniformity’. Rather than embracing diversity, we enforce conformity. ‘Tolerance’ has been twisted on its head.
Differences are good, even not liking certain behaviors is perfectly acceptable, because its far more honest than feigned acceptance imposed by societal pressure. The key element is that none of it justifies disparate treatment.
That being said, You will find differences in opportunities when looking at very narrow segments. Someone with aptitude for certain skills can and should excel in fields where their competence is an asset! Another individual lacking those same qualities could be destructive to the process, framework, and culture of the same field. Is it fair to subject the qualified people in this example to potential loss of livelihood (or just plain enjoyment/entertainment) in the name of ‘equality’? This applies just as much to personality styles in informal ‘interest based’ communities. This includes workplaces…well, just about anyplace in our culture;when; shopping for groceries is interest based. We go there because it is routinized (aisle layout, appearance) and semi-formalized. There is only expected to be one financial transaction process involved, and lots of unspoken (but not always practiced) rules about navigating in the shared space with other fellow interestees (new word?!).
This is where my philosophy of multiple gameplay styles and interests sharing a common setting comes from. Tempered with the understanding that some spaces will be shared (and naturally volatile), while others need buffers and controls for ‘escaping’ to sanity. The contrast is important, but people want to experience conformity or diversity on their own schedules. Freedom ‘of’ whatever includes having the ability to create spaces where there is freedom ‘from’ whatever, just for a little while.
So more directly on point (hopefully more W&R classes will help my focus :9), Yes there are differences in statistical differences between genders/ethnic groups/social classes. No, they are not more significant than differences seen in age, appearance, world region, socio-political view, or just about any other statistic or behavioral segmentation. Better to let the purveyors of ideas set boundaries that recipients then decide are comfortable or not. In other words: player content, interactive feedback, and affirmation of community. How many studies on participant reciprocity are valid here?
Juxtaposing this is the fact that those placing capital at risk should expect some fair legal protections. Likewise, those putting forth less tangible elements such as time, skill-training, data mining (or heart and vision), etc will be just as disinclined to remain a participant in a chaotic, unstructured environment.
Ah-hah. So, in other words, men are imperialist swine! 😉
But, seriously, I’d be terribly curious as to how co-operation, competition, and other forms of socialization affected the observed gender disparity. There are a lot of grandmas out there playing Bridge.
Loving this thread!
Make of this what you will…
In my early days of playing Starcraft online, I was handily pwn’d by a 57 year old grandma, it was over before I could even get started.
Granted, Starcraft isn’t targeted at this audience, but what if it were? How many of the fairer sex, with a natural ability to multi-task and probably decent keyboarding skills, (how many WPM can a secretary usually pump out, 100 – 120 or more? girls of that generation guided into typing classes? etc.) would be very good at it if they tried?
The one thing that was unique about this grandma, is when I asked for help to shake off my n00b ineptness, she was exceedingly patient and helpful.
I think all these shifts in perceptions are just because the technology is now accessible to a much, MUCH larger audience. Todays mass market could be tomorrows casual gamer, and todays casual gamer, tomorrows core.
The casual game is less intimidating, but who is to say that once that initial entry barrier is made a little less intimidating through casual games, that these new casual gamers won’t go looking for more?
Anyway.
Response to reward is what this test showed? So the rat got more cheese in the maze if it was male?
I am not sure I like this metric of addiction as a factor of success. It’s like gambling. If it is entertainment, fine. When it turns into addiction, it is destructive.
I assume the study is concluding that because men were (triggered to be) more addicted, they were also more entertained?
Is addiction entertaining?
Did the study measure… say, the brains response to pumpkin pie? (any pie for that matter.) Was the brain chemistry/function associated with satisfaction measured?
Something about that study is leaving me quite unsatisfied. heh 😉
Hey, Raph, speaking of A Theory of Fun, did something happen to Paraglyph Press? The book seems to be out of stock everywhere, and there’s nothing left of Paraglyph’s web site but error pages.
This makes me wonder, would it be possible to actually design a game that replies less on systematizing and more on socializing or perhaps, ‘gossiping’ aspect? A game that female may find quite addictive, yet male do not. It’d be interesting to see.
btw, I loved your book! Simple and enlightening.
Did the study measure… say, the brains response to pumpkin pie? (any pie for that matter.) Was the brain chemistry/function associated with satisfaction measured?
That’s unnecessary, since previous studies have covered this ground. Here, I’ll make it easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesocorticolimbic_pathway
Have you played Animal Crossing? The Sims? Harvest Moon?
These are all games my wife enjoys. I find them somewhat boring. I do like the parts that involve expanding or improving my territory. ^_^
*raises hand* oooh, ooooooooh, I’ll help with the research on that! :9
“…Is addiction entertaining?” Not to non-addicts.
Try substituting the term ‘stimulus strength’ for a given scalar (eg., numbers of retries for a given response type and shortened time to retry or increased frequency for any set or domain of responses given a stimulus). Then vary the stimulus types. Plot all of that on a nice cluster graph. A theory of fun has to account for the bewildering variety of stimuli over populations over periods of time.
OTW, there is no answer to that. You are asking a cognitive question and that requires a window into the motives that doesn’t exist or can only be inferred. This is one where behaviorists have distinct advantages over cognitivists as far as strict scientific measurement goes. Can you really prove a ‘how’ and ‘why’? Is it the case that the choice of the game extemporizes the gender of the player? Is it true of race or ethnic or linguistic background? What role does the recent past play where that past is shared by a given population of test subjects? Statistics say yes but they are just a snapshot and the question is the most important part of the test. The answer is just data.
I hate that they used the word addictive, since that has so many meanings. I think the key take away is that this research indicates that, in this game, males found the activity more rewarding/interesting than the females. The men therefor had more motivation to perform well than the women, hence the correlation between brain activity in a certain area in the brain known for reward evaluations and performance in the game.
It’s funny to note that my father used to tell me that the difference between success and failure is how bad you want it.
So do the men simply want to excel in the game more than the women? (greater emotional investment => greater emotional reward) Or are men biologically inclined to be more rewarded from this type of game than women? In other words, it is a biological or a social/philosophical effect?
Also, isn’t it better to look at this from more of a enconomic perspective instead of simply trotting out the word addiction? Isn’t it more appropriate to say that I (a man) play more video games than my female friends because I am recieving higher compsenation. Anyone remember those supply and demand charts in Economics 101? One could say that you could take equilibrium to mean reward (cost), at the intersection of supply and demand. Then it becomes are question of which side moves, supply or demand. Do the genders have different social supply or social demand curves?
Do I like games more than most women (that I know) because I have/recieve a more effecient reward (cost) from those games compared to women? Is the demand constant between women and men. Does the game give the same supply to women and man?
It seems to me that supply is constant (a game is what it is). And (to wrap up hastily, I’ve gone on long enough) that the only variable left is demand. If I’ve been careful so far, then the conclusion is that the sexes have different demand curves. The sexes have different levels of “want” when it comes to games. What that says about how games are made (nature vs nurture for games :P) I’m unsure, because litterally thinking this out as I write it. Besides I think it’ll be a good discussion.
I think the key take away is that this research indicates that, in this game, males found the activity more rewarding/interesting than the females.
The key takeaway was that the game triggered a chemical reaction in males more strongly than it did in females. That’s an objective distinction, freer from gendered stereotyping in that there was no self-reporting.
the only variable left is demand. If I’ve been careful so far, then the conclusion is that the sexes have different demand curves.
And why do they have different demand curves? Because their mesocorticalimbic system is being triggered at different amounts. The why is unknown and requires another study to determine whether or not territoriality is a causative, but that they have different “demand curves” was already the conclusion of the study.
In economics, this means you hand it off to the business major.
I hope this business major took a few classes in cultural studies, sociology, and a few other critical areas, a number of these are not static truths and contain a degree of learned behaviors. I’ll let people with important sounding titles weigh in on what they think that degree is.
Something my first fiance told me for which I’ve been forever grateful:
I’m not sure about mesocorticalimbic triggering, but IME, the truth of her statement is self-evident.
The music analogy is one should study the ADSR curve carefully as applied and realize what it means to slowly but steadily create an irritant-free play zone with subtly increasing stimulus force. If you work a restaurant gig as a soloist, you know how this works. It is the art of seduction where the goal is to direct their attention toward each other and otherwise, just be the fire in the corner. I wonder if gameDevs know how to do that for MO instead of MMO.
I’ve yet to read the original study, but the shocking thing about this study is the nature of news coverage it has received. Everywhere generalises the study to mean “men gain more from video games”.
The study, however, seems to have set out to investigate territoriality, not game motivation (according to the sciencedaily coverage). The atoms of the game itself where all highly spacial in nature, a field which similar studies have already defined men to have a greater average aptitude for.
My own experiences and investigations amongst my game playing female friends is that the nature of games played and enjoyed does differ. Raw ‘score’ is considered less important, with compulsions to progress being desired. However the most important difference here does seem to me to be a purely social issue. Until perhaps recently, with the dawn of casual internet games, games were something that was perceived and promoted as an exclusively male domain. The lack of female designers resulted in games being further biased towards a male audience, yet often relatively minor changes could have mitigated this.
Define ‘progress’?
For all games, to further understand and encounter the design atoms in use.
Within linear or simple branching games: To reach a point of plot exposition, to successfully reach the next event arena as intended by the designer, to fulfil some required or expected implied sub-goal (e.g. to collect XP to level up, or to take out certain opponents before reaching a certain location).
The meaning of ‘progress’ (in addition to atom learning) is far harder to define when referring to non-linear or freeform games. To a degree, many of these seem to have been made with assumed player progress desires by the developers, biasing the game systems.
I don’t see how the experiment, as described in the article, supports the conclusion. There was no control. You would need the men and women to also play a different game that was similar but didn’t have the territorial aspect, and show that the male/female divide was different in this case. You need to isolate the territory variable if you want to base your conclusion on it.
As Corey said, the study as described allows for way too many variables. That’s just sloppy science.
Assumptions of desires is a big problem. Developers haven’t seemed to be very good at this. Perhaps moving to a model of observe and adapt would work better. Also, consider more social progression models. Stop tying everything to metaphors of wealth and status symbols, this just feeds the elitist/envious dichotomy.
Circles have 360 degrees, lines are long or short. We need games more like circles.
No, no, no.
If printing it sells advertising space, its called ‘news’ :9.