Moral decision‐making in video games: A focus group study on player perceptions
Abstract
peer reviewed
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The magic circle is porous because players bring their sense of morality inside the circle.
“Krcmar and Cingel claim that the magic circle [24] (i.e., games represent a space separate from real life and the rules of the real world do not apply to the virtual world, thus players' in-game decisions will not have real life consequences) is porous because players bring their sense of morality inside the circle.”
From “I Don’t Want To Shoot The Android”: Players Translate Real-Life Moral Intuitions to In-Game Decisions in Detroit: Become Human (2022) · cites this paper as [24]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 51 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Holl, E., Bernard, S., & Melzer, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Luxembourg (LU)
- Venue
- Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-04-14
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 278-287
- ISSN
- 2578-1863 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016684502
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 7.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion)
- Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- ethical decision-making, video games, player perceptions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
