ORIGINAL ARTICLE Moral License in Video Games: When Being Right Can Mean Doing Wrong Morgan E. Ellithorpe, MA, 1 Carlos Cruz, MA, 1 John A. Velez, PhD, 2 David R. Ewoldsen, PhD, 1 and Adam K. Bogert, BA 1 Abstract Research on video game violence has found largely consistent evidence that violence in video games tends to be associated with an increase in antisocial behavior. However, this body of work has mostly ignored one prominent feature of many violent games: moral decision making. It is possible that the influence of video game violence could change when moral decisions are brought into the context. One way video games change behavior is through changes in players’ self-perceptions, a process called identity simulation. In addition, a perspective called moral license predicts that these effects should not necessarily be consistent across behaviors, in that people should try to balance selfishness with keeping the moral high ground across many behaviors. Therefore, moral choices (or immoral choices) in a video game may predict less moral (or more moral) behaviors right after the game. However, later behavior may revert yet again, creating a cycle of pro- and antisocial behaviors. The present experiment asks participants to make moral choices in a video game, and then measures their behavior on two subsequent tasks. Results indicate that taking what participants perceive to be the more moral mind-set in the video game predicts more antisocial behavior on the first task, but more pro-social behavior on the next task. These results support identity simulation and moral license processes in a video game and moral behavior context, and indicate that there may be greater complexity in video game violence effects than previously understood. Introduction R esearch on video games has largely focused on video game violence. 1–4 Scholars have proposed various ex- planations of how in-game behavior influences actual be- havior, including social learning, 5,6 norm activation, 7 and contrast effects. 8 Recent work has examined the influence of video games on self-perception—a process termed ‘‘identity simulation.’’ 9–11 This study examines how adoption of moral frameworks through identity simulation impacts subsequent behavior. Importantly, it offers alternative interpretations to previous research on video game violence, including moral license as an essential issue in video game effects research. Identity simulation The identity simulation perspective suggests that a game player can adopt the traits’ and attitudes of the controlled character. 12 Therefore, players can experience changes in self-concept, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors as a result of playing games through different characters. 9–11 Players embrace the characters’ decisions and behaviors as their own. This not only has implications for immediate outcomes, but also for future gameplay, as players ‘‘try on’’ different personalities. Moral decisions Video games often allow players to make moral decisions within the narrative. 13–15 Two common moral approaches are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology advocates individuals should be treated as ends as opposed to means. 16 Utilitarianism proposes decisions should be made based on the greatest good for the greatest number. 16 If during the process of making an ethical decision players experience identity simulation, 10,11 they may feel as if the characters’ moral decisions are their own, just as players of shooting and racing games have reported stronger associations with those topics after game play. 17 Thus, moral decisions made in video games could influence players’ views of them- selves and their morality, and this self-perception could impact real moral behaviors. Deontology and utilitarianism. Importantly, deontology and utilitarianism may not be equally appealing. The co- nundrum of harming one to save many (utilitarianism) has 1 Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2 College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY,BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume X, Number X, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0599 1