Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior Reports

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-in-human-behavior-reports

Moral distress in The Last of Us: Moral agency, character realism, and
navigating fixed gaming narratives
Karoline A. Anderson
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Ave, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Moral agency describes one’s comprehensive moral attitude developed through continuous evaluations of social
Morality and contextual information. However, in fixed-narrative games like The Last of Us (TLOU), player moral agency is
Moral agency compromised by excessive violence, restraints in player control, and moral dilemmas. Researchers suggest that
Video games
video game players use moral disengagement and rationalization strategies to reduce emotional and moral
Character realism
Player-character interactivity
distress arising from virtual participation in morally reprehensible activity. However, the realism of TLOU
Mentalizing characters, the ubiquity of its violence, and the inability of its players to make in-game moral decisions may
prove these coping mechanisms ineffectual, while suggesting the possibility of heretofore unexplored alterna­
tives. In the present study, nine interview subjects explicate, through the evolution of the player-character
relationship, the versatility of moral agency in games. The findings suggest that players expanded their moral
agency and regained moral control through mentalizing or mind-reading character perspectives, thus reducing
players’ emotional distress, and increasing empathy and prosocial beliefs. This process was facilitated by TLOU’s
character realism and the simulation of social practice within player-character interactivity.

Deontological and utilitarian moral perspectives illustrate how during gameplay or strategic moral decision-making to satisfy the
people interpret moral behaviors and practice moral agency to guide player’s salient beliefs (Joeckel et al., 2012). However, these strategies
everyday decisions (Mulvey et al., 2020). From a deontological imply that the game permits some decision-making or fantastical
perspective, moral virtues like "do no harm" are contingent on moral perspective-taking.
problem solving, while utilitarian principles rationalize possible out­ In The Last of Us (TLOU), a two-part series of action-adventure games
comes to determine the action causing the least cumulative harm published by Sony Computer Entertainment, players perform violent
(Gawronski & Beer, 2017; Kahane et al., 2015). acts such as murdering the protagonist, Joel, with a golf club and
However, how do video game players interpret excessive violence in executing a pregnant woman and her family—entirely without player
gaming, and how do players maintain enjoyment when games violate consent. The player, who has no narrative decision-making power, is
salient moral codes? Players often confront moral dilemmas in gameplay forced to perpetrate through their avatar this violence that culminates in
that compel deontological and utilitarian judgments manipulated by the the "grand question" as framed by study participant, Sophia: Should Joel
game’s design, narrative elements, and player’s degree of leverage sacrifice a young girl, Elly, to find a cure for an infectious disease wiping
(Krcmar & Cingel, 2016; Krcmar & Eden, 2019). In nonlinear, out humankind? However, TLOU precludes players from making moral
open-world games like World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto, players decisions, forcing them to take part in narratives of escalating violence
exercise moral agency through the personalization of avatars or the amongst the three playable characters, Joel, Elly, and Abby, and
ability to make narrative judgments (Bessière et al., 2007; Bowman shoulder the moral burden of the characters’ choices.
et al., 2012; Joeckel et al., 2012). However, in titles that feature linear or Within the fictional video game world, how might such powerless­
storytelling gameplay, restraints in player control of unfolding narra­ ness in the face of moral quandaries affect the player? Theoretical
tives or character attributes compromise player moral agency, activating evaluations propose that the fixed narratives and character realism of
other coping mechanisms to sustain enjoyment. Hartmann and Vorderer TLOU may intensify players’ emotional arousal and challenge their
(2010) suggest that such a mechanism might be player moral disen­ moral values (Green, 2016; Murray, 2019). However, researchers have
gagement which allows them to distinguish between fantasy and reality yet to explore how players cope with moral transgressions or use moral

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100163
Received 26 October 2021; Received in revised form 4 December 2021; Accepted 15 December 2021
Available online 16 December 2021
2451-9588/© 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

agency to reconcile moral ambiguity in story-driven games with pre­ technology of actors’ performances (Kennedy, 2021). By capturing the
determined narratives, like those in TLOU. The ubiquity of immoral behavioral mannerisms of real actors, the game offers players commu­
actions in which the player is forced to partake and the fixity of char­ nicative cues, expressions, and movements to immerse them in simu­
acters and narratives in TLOU might prevent players from disengaging lated social interactivity (Aristidou et al., 2015; Holtgraves et al., 2007;
or mediating salient morals as previous research suggests (Hartmann, Ma et al., 2006; Sapiński et al., 2019). Thereby, player perceptions of
2011; Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010; Joeckel et al., 2012; Klimmt et al., interactive stimuli emitted by TLOU characters may induce a deeper
2006). The lack of research on this issue is surprising considering that sensation of social interaction and, as a result, players may experience
TLOU is one of the most notoriously controversial narrative-driven difficulty detaching from the TLOU world and, subsequently, an
games in the recent decade, sparking passionate online debates, death inability to initiate the coping mechanisms outlined by previous
threats, and hostile player partisanship (Coles, 2020; Epps, 2020; Park, research, the aforementioned disengagement and performance ration­
2021; Tassi, 2020). alization strategies.
The present study intends to explore that gap through nine in-depth However, while TLOU’s deep player-character interactivity might
player interviews, arguing that players regain narrative control through make those moral coping strategies inaccessible to players of games like
cognitive moral agency expansion. Players’ broadening of moral agency TLOU, the set of conditions offered by the game also opens up the
is facilitated by mentalizing, a cognitive practice through which they possibility of considering anew how players perceive character moral
predict character mindsets, motives, and emotions. By mentalizing, transgressions and adapt their moral agency to cope with moral distress.
players create an adaptive moral framework to cope with moral distress Eden et al. (2018) theorize that gaming interactivity, the physical pro­
that bridges players’ moral beliefs and the moral decisions of the char­ cess of gaming and interacting with characters, incites behavioral
acters. While past research on player coping mechanisms has focused on communication patterns and responses eliciting socialization. More­
player ability to morally disengage from the game and rationalize in- over, player participation in the act of gameplay, unraveling character
game immorality as pure fantasy or fiction, the present study focuses narratives, draws them closer to the characters’ experiences and emo­
on a game in which such strategies are impossible. TLOU humanizes its tions (Green, 2016; Jansz, 2018). In other words, players may think of
characters with unprecedented realism and, thus, heightens player- and treat characters as actual social beings—then cross a threshold to
character interactivity and player proximity to the game world to such identify with them. Cohen (2001) refers to empathizing and adopting
levels that alternative coping strategies must be considered. character traits as identification, stating that "identification requires that
we forget ourselves and become the other" (p. 247). Individuals inter­
Literature review nalize characters’ emotions and experiences through identification,
empathizing with characters’ needs and goals. Similarly, Klimmt et al.
Morality and coping with moral distress in video games (2009; 2010) note that video game players not only observe characters’
evolving identities during gameplay but temporarily subsume charac­
Games with limited player decision-making, extreme violence, or ters’ qualities through identification, a process by which
moral transgressions may intensify player emotional distress (Grizzard player-character interactivity stimulates player awareness of in-game
& Francemone, 2018) and necessitate player coping mechanisms to contextual information such as character experiences or feelings (Sha­
reduce stress and fatigue. Tamborini et al. (2018) observed that visual piro et al., 2006), aiding in generating empathy towards characters
stimuli incorporated into gaming narratives altered player affectivity (Raney, 2004, 2011), and even engendering liking of previously disliked
when making moral decisions and increased player moral intuition, characters through perspective reevaluation (Krakowiak & Oliver,
suggesting that player sensitivity to game design stimuli compounds 2012). To this effect, TLOU players are not only exempt from making
moral sensitivity. Consequently, increased involvement in gameplay moral decisions, but also subject—through character realism and prox­
precipitated by factors such as prolonged duration of play, realistic imity to character identities and narratives—to the development of
stimuli, and player-player socialization may escalate player cognitive coping mechanisms analogous to social interaction and the cognitive
and emotional exertion (Hartmann et al., 2010; Krcmar & Eden, 2019). evaluation of socially determined moral values.
Previous research on coping with such moral distress in video games
coalesces around three main approaches: moral disengagement, “gut or Moral agency engagement
game” moral preferentialism, and rationalization of games’ fictional or
performance elements. Hartmann and Vorderer (2010) theorize that Past research has evaluated player moral agency through moral
players use moral disengagement strategies to maintain the illusion and decision-making, but not through players’ internal construction of moral
enjoyment of gameplay, despite games’ perpetual violence. Disengage­ agency. In this study, the lens of moral agency will be trained upon
ment is bolstered by video game design that regulates stimuli to dehu­ TLOU players’ cognitive management of moral distress brought on by
manize game characters, facilitating fictionalization and reducing the game characters’ realism and inherent player-character
players’ negative affect towards violent acts (Hartmann & Vorderer, interactivity.
2010; Klimmt et al., 2008). Meanwhile, Joeckel et al. (2012) argue that, Pasupathi and Wainryb (2010) define moral agency as narratives
during gameplay, players make "gut or game" decisions in which players derived from “people’s understanding and experience of themselves
prioritized salient moral values and dismissed moral dilemmas deemed (and others) as agents whose morally relevant actions are based in goals
less consequential in order to play more successfully (Hodge et al., and beliefs” (p. 55). Critically, moral agents strengthen their moral
2019). The third approach involves rationalization through which reasoning through participation in social interaction and discursive
players may view game morality through the lens of fantasy to distin­ practices that create new meanings from social contexts and relation­
guish illusion from reality and emphasize performance and attainment ships (Recchia et al., 2014). However, cognitive restraints such as low
of high scores and minimize moral engagement (Klimmt et al., 2006). self-awareness or a priori models of social convention may limit the
expansion of moral agency due to the inability to adapt to new social
Character realism and player-character interactivity contexts affecting future moral decision-making (Niemi & Graham,
2018; Pasupathi & Wainryb, 2010; Watson et al., 2008). Subsequently,
However, TLOU gameplay may substantially increase players’ levels stunted social agency growth may limit future social practice (Pasupathi
of involvement and proximity to game characters through the intensi­ & Wainryb, 2019) due to rigid moral principles perpetuating stigma­
fication of character realism and player-character interactivity. TLOU tizing beliefs and reducing acknowledgment of social factors (Black,
distinguishes itself from other games with its award-winning game 2016; Thomson & Jones, 2017). In essence, the development of moral
design and character realism, enhanced through motion capture agency is built upon moral decision-making and reflexive evaluation of

2
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

new social information derived from interpersonal interaction and social character and narrative choices (Murray, 2019; Sipocz, 2018; Trumbore,
exposure, yet contingent on individual regulatory and evaluative skills. 2021). In the estimated 40 to 50 h of gameplay (Glennon, 2020), players
switch between playing Joel, Elly, and Abby. All three characters’
The practice of mentalizing morally questionable acts are unavoidable during gameplay, triggering
players’ heated debates about the characters’ justifications and motives.
In other words, moral agency development is accomplished in a
process strikingly similar to that of mentalizing. Derived from theory of Research sample and design
mind (ToM), mentalizing is the cognitive practice of “reading” the mind
of others by considering, then predicting, their mindsets, perspectives, The study analyzed data from nine in-depth audio interviews con­
or emotions—thereby evaluating social interactions, setting interac­ ducted through Zoom, approximately 40-80 min in length. The partici­
tional expectations, and developing functional social relationships pants, six men and three women, ages 19–37, completed The Last of Us
(Byom & Mutlu, 2013). Within ToM, there are two distinct methods of Parts 1 and 2 and were recruited from the online forum, Reddit, in the
mentalizing: theory theory (TT) and simulation theory (ST). While TT spring of 2021 (see Appendix). Participants were recruited from Reddit
argues that individuals use external concepts, such as social rules, to due to the high concentration of TLOU discussions within this domain,
frame the mindsets of others and make social predictions (Arkway, including positive and negative perceptions. The participants in the
2000), ST argues that they use internal mechanisms, including personal present study held positive views of the game but were critical of certain
experiences, feelings, and contextual information to infer others’ feel­ aspects, such as excessive violence. Of the nine participants (also
ings, motivations, or future actions (Goldman, 2006, 2009; Stich & referred to as "players"), seven identified as gamers; however, all nine
Nichols, 1993). participants had exposure to or experience gaming throughout their
Regardless of the method, the practice of mentalizing is essential to lives. All nine players signed an informed consent document and were
predicting and interpreting social interactions, such as searching for notified by the researcher of their right to withdraw from the study
shared meaning and evaluating expectations or interactional goals without judgment. Consequent to the online fervor of TLOU, the study
(Deschrijver & Palmer, 2020; Nordby, 2016). Sociomoral theorists also uses pseudonyms and limits disclosure of participants’ personal infor­
note that social predictions through mentalizing aid in establishing so­ mation to protect their identities and respect their anonymity.
cial rules and predicate social morality (Baird & Sokol, 2004). Further, The interview assisted in drawing out intimate details of the partic­
emotional triggering may induce mentalizing to predict social inter­ ipants’ lives and meaning-making processes (Johnson & Rowlands,
activity and stabilize interactions (LeBar, 2001), thus awareness of 2012). During the interviews, the participants offered richly detailed
others’ emotions through facial expressions is key to mentalizing descriptions of their experiences gaming, perceptions of gaming and
(Goldman & Sripada, 2005). Therefore, the realism of TLOU character TLOU, and the impacts of TLOU on perceptions of the self, others, or the
expressions and behaviors, as well as player need to predict and inter­ gaming experience. The interview data was gathered in two parts to
pret social practice stimulated by player-character interactivity may establish rapport between the researcher and participant and expound
cause TLOU players to impulsively mentalize characters. However, as a upon the participants’ accounts (Gubrium & Holstein, 2012). The first
higher-order cognitive function, mentalizing may require more cogni­ half of the interview established basic knowledge of the players’ iden­
tive energy and increase cognitive stress (Mitchell & Phillips, 2015). tities and opinions of gaming and the gaming community. The second
Consequently, it is uncertain if the intuitive mentalizing of TLOU char­ part explored the TLOU world and sought more profound reflections
acters will mediate, for players, distress or cognitive fatigue arising from juxtaposing the players’ lived experiences and emotions with the TLOU
moral violations within TLOU. characters and narratives. The interview posed questions like, "What
aspects of the game do you relate to?" and "Has TLOU changed how you
Present study think of yourself or others?"

Ultimately, the conditions of TLOU gameplay increase player Data analysis

involvement and proximity, and necessitate an adaptive, cognitive
coping mechanism to manage moral distress that is not currently elab­ The transcribed audio data were coded using NVivo software and
orated upon in research. Considering the limits of player control over evaluated through thematic analysis. Thematic analysis aided in
TLOU narratives, players are restricted to cognitive evaluations alone to recognizing prominent themes and patterns unfolding from participants’
overcome moral distress and shape moral agency. However, the present dialogues (Braun & Clarke, 2012). After an initial reading of the tran­
study argues that moral agency construction will be facilitated by scriptions, the thematic coding system was developed, including sig­
mentalizing, due to the simulation of social interaction arising from nificant themes within the study’s conceptual framework. During the
increased player-character interactivity. Mentalizing may act as a final analysis, new themes arose alongside predetermined themes
mechanism to derive new social information and develop or adapt (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). Overall, 13 prominent themes emerged
player moral agency, reducing the emotional tension of moral trans­ including, realism, emotion, morality, and critiques of TLOU characters
gressions and broadening contextual and moral perspectives. To better and narratives (see Appendix). In comparing and contrasting the
understand this process, the study asks the following questions: themes, three broader categories surfaced in which subordinate themes
interacted with one another, including reflections on morality, character
1. How do moral ambiguities and fixed narratives in TLOU affect player realism, and player-character interactivity.
moral agency?
2. How is player-character interactivity established in TLOU gameplay? Findings
3. How might players use mentalizing to cope with moral or emotional
distress? Player perceptions of morality and character realism in TLOU
engrossed them further into the TLOU world and exploration of char­
Methodology acter perspectives through the practice of mentalizing. Ultimately,
increasing player-character proximity expanded player moral agency by
The game: The Last of Us assimilating new contextual knowledge, generating empathy and pro­
social beliefs. Therefore, players regained moral control in TLOU
The study concept emerged from the public controversy of the two- through moral agency expansion and adaptability of their moral beliefs.
part TLOU series, culminating in online disputes of game developers’ Three superordinate themes elaborate on this process, including

3
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

reflections on morality, character realism, and player-character enjoyment and appreciation. And [in TLOU], that line is very
interactivity. perforated …. I’ve watched other people playing it … and seeing
those human reactions to the game is really interesting and enjoyable
to me …. I get to see my girlfriend play it for the first time on the
Reflections on morality couch next to me and see how she thinks and feels about it and talk
about those emotional feats …. This is a game that’s so rough, so
The participants discussed moral themes in TLOU, including brutal at times, but it’s still something people want to share with
forgiveness, guilt, obsession, and revenge. However, TLOU’s "grand friends and family. Something you wouldn’t think you’d want to
question" was the participants’ most prominent moral focus. Notably, share, but again, it’s that emotional investment that is second-to-
Sophia discusses the emotional affliction culminating from the grand none. (Theo, 32, M)
question of morality within TLOU:

It is very bleak, and when you’re [playing], you’re [thinking], "Why Character realism
am I doing this?" …. I feel like I don’t want to do this anymore
because it leads to nothing, but more despair …. [However] the Players frequently described TLOU as art, highlighting the pro­
outcome is very profound [and] in the end you have this question fundity of character mannerisms and emotional expressions. TLOU
about whether you prioritize one person over many people. It’s a added depth to characters through nuances in human behavior and
never-ending philosophical question. (Sophia, 37, F) narrative cut scenes. Thus, participants perceived that they played with
The game’s brutality profoundly affected players’ emotions and their the characters and as the characters, increasing player-character prox­
regulation of negative affect during and after gameplay. Players imity. Emily elaborates on how characters’ behaviors elicited emotional
frequently noted that the game’s moral ambiguities took an emotional responses from players:
toll, causing feelings of despair and depression. Ian (21, M) describes It puts you on edge and into those emotions …. Abby felt a bit slower,
TLOU as “unflinchingly depressing. It’s really sad, it’s really dark, and stronger, when you’re physically attacking people. Whereas Ellie felt
it’s really overwhelming at times.” Adrian illustrates the effect of the like you’re going to get knocked out at any given time, but [she’s] a
emotional stress of the game that led to empathetic connections with the bit faster. And that’s one aspect of the game being great­
characters: —incorporating the gameplay to support the narrative, they really
It was traumatizing. I took a week off to process the whole thing…I bring out the emotions and keep you on edge…it shocked your
don’t cry for anything. But when it comes to video games, when a emotions more. (Emily, 30s, F)
person who is fictional dies, I cry. I don’t know why I cry, but I The reproduction of nonverbal behaviors signals rapport and mimics
connect so well with fictional characters instead of people in the real interpersonal interaction cues (Ekman, 2017; Harrigan et al., 1985),
world. I understand the game. So it made the most impact. This game manifesting a social environment within the TLOU world. To this effect,
made me feel very empty, a feeling of emptiness which I never heard perceiving characters’ emotional cues simulated player-character social
from again. (Adrian, 21, M) interaction and elicited emotional bonding. Colin recalls:
Further, players referenced powerful negative affectivity, suggesting The characters are very easy to empathize with and very easy to
that the moral distress of playing TLOU escalated players’ emotional relate with. I find myself relating to Ellie in little things like man­
dysregulation. Emily elaborates: nerisms and…how she interacts with people …. I feel like Ellie is
[In TLOU part one] there is little doubt that what you’re doing is written as a benchmark for people [in how she] reacts to things.
good. The good and bad people, their actions can be understood …. (Colin, 19, M)
Part two is very challenging, very difficult to play. It’s brutal. The Further, the realism of characters’ mannerisms mirrored regular
emotional roller coaster it puts you through and challenging your social practices, creating a shared, intersubjective experience. Colin
views of your actions …. Weeks later, you’re still trying to work it out discusses the social intertwining of the player and characters:
in your brain. (Emily, 30s, F)
These [characters] are real people, having horrible experiences but
All nine participants reflected a need to understand the characters’ also having great experiences together. Ironically, [the player is] a
perspectives driving them towards violence regardless of the game’s human being with human experiences [who is] playing a game
emotional coercions. To counter emotional distress, players reconciled where people have human experiences …. [We’re] playing a game
moral issues by identifying shared emotions with the characters, thereby that reflects human experience …. I think that draws me in and
integrating player-character contextual knowledge. Theo describes makes you reflect on humanity…and about the humanity of others
emotional constraints in moral decision-making in comparing the love around you. (Colin, 19, M)
for his children with Joel’s fatherly love for Elly:
Overall, players’ proximity to characters transformed the experience
The second game takes [morality] a step further, and you realize at of playing TLOU distinctly from other games. Players discussed TLOU as
the very end that there was a selfish aspect to Joel’s decision to save if embodying the characters and internalizing characters’ realities.
Elly at the expense of humanity. But [Joel] says that if he had the Theo remarks:
chance to do it all again, he would. And that understanding of giving
your child a life …. and just being allowed to live that life, that’s In playing a game, you’re functioning in a hyper-reality …. And
what being a parent is, and that’s what real love is. (Theo, 32, M) [TLOU] touched on the elements of humanity that I don’t think other
games have done …. I want to see the people that I’m playing as or
Despite the game’s brutality, participants were eager to share TLOU playing alongside as real—something I am going to remember,
with close friends and family, creating an intersubjective emotional something that’s going to live with me … [TLOU is] a game that
experience through TLOU. Theo illustrates the balance of emotional doesn’t just turn off when you turn off the TV, it’s something that
tension playing TLOU and the desire to manifest the transpiration and lives in you. (Theo, 32, M)
reconciliation of powerful emotions with others:
Moreover, Mia elaborates:
I don’t know that I can say that I enjoyed the second game. I don’t
think there’s a game better, but it’s a very clear line between

4
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

You really become these characters. I experienced a little post- relationship with her parents to Joel and Elly’s father-daughter
partum depression after playing the game, just because you’re no relationship:
longer a part of this world and these characters’ lives. The rela­
Another big thing about this game is forgiveness … All the decisions
tionship you build with these characters, there’s a lot of depth there.
that [Joel’s] made have been out of love and wanting to give this
Even with other games I’ve played, you don’t feel an attachment
daughter figure this life he imagined for her, even if it wasn’t
because it’s not as emotional. [In TLOU] there is a huge examination
something Elly wanted, and it deprived her of that choice. I can
of [characters’] feelings and intentions. (Mia, 36, F)
relate to that …. especially being a child of immigrants, my parents
imagine what the American dream was for them, and I have to
remember that “this is their version of happiness, this is what they
Player-character interactivity want for me” …. I have to stop and remember that they’re well-
intentioned, and it’s out of love. (Mia, 36, F)
Participants configured more profound interpretations of the game’s
underlying messages and character mindsets to reduce emotional ten­ Remarkably, players’ relatedness to the characters also stimulated
sion. Grizzard and Francemone (2018) note that moral tension in video self-reflection, resulting in changes in moral perspective and prosocial
games elicits emotional responses. Therein, participants deeply beliefs. Ian discusses the effect of coming to terms with the resemblance
analyzed characters’ motives and moral decisions as a moral and of himself in TLOU characters:
emotional coping mechanism. Additionally, the findings evidence that I honestly really did identify with these characters and relate to these
mentalizing prompted players’ empathetic responses. Specifically, par­ characters a lot. I related to Ellie [in that], when we meet her, we
ticipants synchronized the act of mentalizing with their personal expe­ realize that she doesn’t have either parent in her life. I grew up
riences and, in doing so, evolved characters from fixed-narrative without a parent, so I could relate to her in that sense …. But I think
representations to flexible identities conceptualized by participants’ the biggest thing for me is this series kind of just made me less…
unique feelings and experiences. reactionary. (Ian, 21, M)
Players’ in-depth evaluations of characters enhanced the proximity
of the player-character relationship through empathy. Although many Ian also revealed he had previously held discriminatory beliefs to­
participants initially believed Abby was the protagonist, this conception wards individuals within the LGBTQ + community. Discussing his shift
evolved during gameplay, resulting in players’ relatedness with Abby in perspective following his identification with the TLOU characters, Ian
and her story. Mia elaborates on this shift: remarks:

When you first play Abby—I was like, “I’m just gonna jump off a I still kick myself to this day that those [discriminatory] thoughts had
fucking cliff, because I want Abby to die!” I was so mad. But towards crossed my mind. But one of the reasons I love TLOU [is] because it
the end, the game forces you to reexamine your positions …. I guess helped me get out of that mindset…and I feel like I’m a better person
that’s the point of [TLOU], you’re playing this character, so you’re for it overall. (Ian, 21, M)
forced to empathize with them, and you’re forced to become them.
Additional participants expressed similar sentiments to Ian, relating
(Mia, 36, F)
to and empathizing with TLOU characters, resulting in reconfigurations
Notably, players’ moral evaluations of the characters coincided with of their moral perspectives. James explains:
emotional regulation. Therein, players’ intuitive mentalizing guided
I don’t have many friends who are of a different race than I am ….
them through the emotional turbulence of TLOU gameplay to rationalize
I’m a very liberal person—it’s just the nature of where I live and the
the characters’ moral judgments and wrongdoings. As a result, the
people I spend time with. However, the game has really helped me
players concocted a moral narrative integrating character actions and
empathize with people …. I empathize with all of [the TLOU]
viewpoints within an expanded moral framework. Theo argues:
characters and the emotions they go through. It’s made me want to
For people that were willing and had the guiding line of under­ be a better person to other people whom I might encounter in my life.
standing that people come from something—that people aren’t just (James, 34, M)
bad or good, that there’s always a backstory, there’s always context
Lastly, Adrian illustrates how playing TLOU culminated in new ap­
…. that was key to the game [and] understanding who people are
proaches to social practice and more prosocial engagement. He
and that people are human. (Theo, 32, M)
describes:
In manifesting new moral perspectives, players used personal con­
[TLOU] has certainly changed how I think of myself and how I
texts to frame the moral choices and mindsets of the characters. By
approach other people, how I empathize with other people. I mostly
breaking down characters’ motives and rationales, the players created a
did not empathize with [before] …. I don’t really connect with other
narrative space to merge their life experiences. First, Theo discusses his
people well. [But] this game has actually given me the incentive to
reconciliation with Abby’s brutal murdering of Joel, facilitated through
think otherwise …. If I see someone I do not know…like a stranger
a memorable personal experience:
asking for help. Sometimes, I would just walk away …. But after this
While [Joel’s death] was still brutal and still heart-wrenching, I was game, I think that I should actually help people. (Adrian, 21, M)
never mad at [Abby]. And that was interesting. I think part of the
reason why I came into it with that understanding is because of a
Discussion
trauma that I had experienced already. In terms of a divorce that I
went through a couple of years ago …. And going through that really
RQ1: How do moral ambiguities and fixed narratives in TLOU affect
forced me to understand and kind of analyze this piece of my life …
players’ moral agency?
maybe forgiveness is too strong a term, but empathizing and
knowing why hurt people hurt people. That really put a different lens
The moral transgressions of TLOU characters had profound and
on the game for me. And there are so many points throughout the
lasting emotional impacts on the players. Their inability to make in-
game that really resonated with difficult things that I had dealt with
game moral decisions forced them to “solve,” through moral
in the course of my divorce. (Theo, 32, M)
perspective-taking, the dilemmas presented within TLOU, thereby
Mia also integrated the theme of forgiveness while relating her testing their emotional endurance through ongoing gameplay. With its

5
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

moral and emotional depth and gameplay totaling 40-50 h (Glennon, obstacles motivated participants to seek intersubjective emotional ex­
2020), TLOU is emotionally demanding in a way not encountered by periences with others.
past studies of morality in video games (Hartmann et al., 2010; Joeckel
et al., 2012; Weaver & Lewis, 2012). To deal with their distress, players RQ3: How might players use mentalizing to cope with moral or emotional
required coping strategies that could both regulate high emotional strain distress?
and afford them cognitive effectuation of moral control as they
increased their proximity to character behavioral and emotional states Player-character interactivity provoked players’ mentalizing of
by simulating social interaction rather than increasing disengagement, TLOU characters. Amongst mentalizing theories, theory theory and
thereby rendering useless coping mechanisms such as moral disen­ simulation theory differ in their conception of how individuals frame
gagement (Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010), gut or game preferentializa­ mentalization. While theory theory argues the use of normative social
tion practices (Joeckel et al., 2012), and other rationalization strategies practices as guidelines of mentalizing, simulation theory holds that the
(Hartmann, 2011). Instead, study participants developed empathetic replication of internal knowledge and contexts is used as a predication
narratives about the characters to regain moral control. One such tool of others’ mindsets (Arkway, 2000; Goldman, 2006). Participant
narrative included the reconstruction of playable characters’ cycles of use of personal experiences, contexts, and emotions as measures to
revenge and violence to unravel the morally complex process of evaluate and predict character mindsets more closely parallels the
forgiveness. theoretical dimensions of simulation theory. Moral theorists speculate
Resultantly, players used their moral agency as a cognitive control that moral agency develops through the awareness and integration of
mechanism to overcome emotional and moral distress within fixed new social contexts (Pasupathi & Wainryb, 2010; Watson et al., 2008),
TLOU narratives. As mentioned, moral agency development occurs and neuroscience research proposes that mentalizing demonstrates
through the continuous processing of social information, broadening more maturely developed moral judgment skills (Harenski et al., 2012).
moral perspectives to predict sociomoral activity (Pasupathi & Wainryb, Therefore, this finding suggests that mentalizing using internal contexts
2010, 2019). Participants actively used social information derived from may be a better predictor of moral development aided by the generation
TLOU characters to create more flexible and adaptive moral agencies of empathy and reduction of emotional arousal. It further implies that
that could accommodate unexpected moral and emotional distress. In one’s method of mentalization is salient to their overall moral devel­
other words, despite lacking narrative control within the game, partic­ opment and potential of moral expansion. This necessitates further
ipants retook control by adopting a flexible moral agency narrative, research to better explicate how methods of mentalizing coordinate with
recomposing the game’s surface moral perspectives. Instead of com­ moral decision-making and the generation of moral beliefs.
partmentalizing characters’ behaviors and actions within concrete social This particular form of mentalizing, described by ST, allowed par­
principles, players integrated these contexts within their moral frame­ ticipants a higher degree of emotional regulation. By mentalizing the
work or value system, increasing the breadth in which they relate to characters, participants decreased negative language use and demon­
others. Therefore, even in the absence of in-game decision-making, strated emotional stabilization and positive or empathetic perceptions of
participants regulated TLOU gameplay through moral analyses inter­ themselves or the game, suggesting that mentalizing may act as an
twined with their own experiences and rationales, increasing the emotional coping mechanism for TLOU players to reconcile themselves
breadth of their moral agency by integrating new sociomoral informa­ to committing immoral acts that induce emotional arousal. Tohme et al.
tion, empathetic development, and prosocial beliefs. (2021) analyzed the mentalizing abilities of adults completing
emotionally demanding tasks and found that adults with higher men­
RQ2: How does player-character interactivity affect the player’s talizing skills used more mature defenses in reaction to emotional
experience? arousal, including sublimation and altruism, and had higher correlations
to self-authenticity, defined by demonstrations of self-reflection or
The simulation of social interaction and player-character inter­ agency. Similarly, the present study’s participants reduced emotional
activity in TLOU motivated participants to consciously reevaluate the tension by mentalizing and reconciling characters’ moral offenses and
characters’ moral offenses. Media and literary research suggest that assimilating new moral information. The inclusion of new moral con­
individuals analyze character actions and emotions, developing texts additionally led to increased adaptability in moral or empathetic
empathy for them (Raney, 2004, 2011) and even temporarily subsuming perspectives or generation of prosocial beliefs. Therefore, while men­
their traits (Cohen, 2001, 2006; Klimmt et al., 2009, 2010). The par­ talizing increased the humanness of TLOU characters, it also expanded
ticipants’ discussions showed deep emotional connectivity to the char­ players’ sociomoral conceptions, such as engaging dialectical thinking,
acters and the sensation of playing TLOU alongside the characters or reducing discriminatory thought-processes, and helping others in need.
embodying them, even after completing the game. This finding parallels As a result, players lessened the emotional impact of TLOU through
Klimmt et al. (2009; 2010) and Cohen’s (2001, 2006) predictions of mentalizing, generating more positive and flexible social beliefs and
character identification. However, rather than a definitive subsuming of self-regulation responses.
character identity traits suggested by identification, participants related
to characters through a simulation of social interaction and even Conclusion
imprinted their experiential contexts onto their perceptions of charac­
ters’ mindsets, aligning with Eden et al.’s (2018) prediction of Participants expanded their moral agency and reduced emotional
player-character socialization rather than the disconnection of self tension by empathizing with characters and adapting new moral or
outlined by identification. Players discussed character embodiment and prosocial beliefs. The realism of TLOU characters provoked emotional
emotional connectivity, and used personal experiences to relate to the arousal and increased player-character proximity. Consequently, players
characters, increasing player-character proximity and empathy through resolved emotional and moral conflicts through mentalizing and inte­
social interactivity. grating player-character contextual knowledge, resulting in empathetic
Furthermore, socio-emotional dexterity exercised through TLOU engagement as a means to reconcile moral dilemmas.
player-character interactivity may have helped players develop social
awareness and socio-emotional regulation skills. After playing TLOU, Limitations
participants were eager to share the game with others, empathize with
family and friends, or enact prosocial beliefs, suggesting that player- This study faces two primary limitations. First, the sample size may
character interactivity stimulated external social practices. In short, be too small to infer player interpretations of morality in TLOU broadly.
despite the brutality of TLOU, the processing of its moral and emotional The present study interviewed players who expressed fondness or

6
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

appreciation of the TLOU series. However, public reception of TLOU agency expansion in social environments and management of social
suggests that many players strongly dislike the game (Epps, 2020), unpredictability. Specifically, players’ mentalizing coordinated with
indicating that these players did not engage the adaptive coping increased breadth of moral agency, substantiated by personal contexts
mechanism of this study’s participants, potentially due to differing ex­ and knowledge, rather than reliance on normative principles or moral or
pectations of video gaming, responses to character realism, or ap­ social conduct. Using one’s internal lens to evaluate individual social
proaches to moral evaluation. The researcher was unsuccessful in circumstances suggests more significant empathy development than
recruiting TLOU players who held negative opinions of the series, social rules or constructs as comparative mechanisms. Markedly, the
potentially due to online criticisms or stereotyping of these players game’s restrictions prompted players’ moral evaluations, using men­
(Trumbore, 2021). In the future, the researcher hopes to expand the talizing as a coping strategy. This suggests that mentalizing contextual
study, engaging more diverse TLOU playing experiences to better information during a moral dilemma may produce more empathetic
articulate the impact of TLOU and on player moral agency and moral responses; however, mentalizing may also expend more cognitive en­
evaluation processes. ergy and, therefore, not be an easily accessible coping mechanism for all
Second, additional quantitative data may better describe or validate persons. Therefore, the findings present implications for the configura­
the causal relationship between TLOU gameplay and player moral tion of social conditions and proximity of socio-emotional relationships
agency, clarifying the mediating properties of participants’ cognitions that stimulate individuals’ interpretations of social dynamics and stra­
and coping strategies. Although research has used quantitative methods tegies to regulate emotional distress through mentalizing practices.
to understand morality in video gaming (Grizzard et al., 2014; Hodge
et al., 2019; Tamborini et al., 2018), the present study suggests that Funding
TLOU’s encompassing gameplay and design is unique from other games
by provoking intense emotional reactions and hindering coping strate­ This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
gies suggested by past research, necessitating additional studies. agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Implications Declaration of competing interest

The findings present implications for individual processes of moral None.

Appendix

Sample and analysis details.

Table 1
Sample demographics

Pseudonym Age Gender

Adrian 21 M
Colin 19 M
Emily 30s F
Ian 21 M
James 34 M
Lucas 26 M
Mia 36 F
Sophia 37 F
Theo 32 M

Table 2
Initial 13 coded themes

Coded themes

1. Antisocial
2. Art or media
3. Change (player)
4. Characters
5. Emotion
6. Morality or moral perspective
7. Othering
8. Personal or self
9. Prosocial
10. Realism
11. Society
12. Socio-political
13. Story or narrative

7
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

References Harrigan, J. A., Oxman, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Rapport expressed through
nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9(2), 95–110.
Hartmann, T. (2011). Users’ experiential and rational processing of virtual violence. In
Aristidou, A., Charalambous, P., & Chrysanthou, Y. (2015). Emotion analysis and
S. Malliet, & K. Poels (Eds.), Vice city virtue: Moral issues in digital gameplay (pp.
classification: Understanding the performers’ emotions using the LMA entities.
135–150). Acco.
Computer Graphics Forum, 34(6), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12598
Hartmann, T., Toz, E., & Brandon, M. (2010). Just a game? Unjustified virtual violence
Arkway, A. (2000). The simulation theory, the theory theory and folk psychological
produces guilt in empathetic players. Media Psychology, 13(4), 339–363. https://doi.
explanation. Philosophical Studies, 98(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
org/10.1080/15213269.2010.524912
1018331121169
Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2010). It’s okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement
Baird, J. A., & Sokol, B. W. (2004). Connections between theory of mind and sociomoral
in violent video games. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/
development. Jossey-Bass.
10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01459.x
Bessière, K., Seay, A. F., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The ideal elf: Identity exploration in World
Hodge, S. E., Taylor, J., & McAlaney, J. (2019). (A)morally demanding game? An
of Warcraft. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(4), 530–535. https://doi.org/
exploration of moral decision-making in a purpose-made video game. Media and
10.1089/cpb.2007.9994
Communication, 7(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i4.2294
Black, J. E. (2016). An introduction to the moral agency scale: Individual differences in
Holtgraves, T. M., Ross, S. J., Weywadt, C. R., & Han, T. L. (2007). Perceiving artificial
moral agency and their relationship to related moral constructs, free will, and blame
social agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2163–2174. https://doi.org/
attribution. Social Psychology, 47(6), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/
10.1016/j.chb.2006.02.017
a000284
Jansz, J. (2018). Playing out identities and emotions. In V. Frissen, S. Lammes, M. De
Bowman, N. D., Schultheiss, D., & Schumann, C. (2012). “I’m attached, and I’m a good
Lange, J. De Mul, & J. Raessens (Eds.), Playful identities: The ludification of digital
guy/gal!”: How character attachment influences pro- and anti-social motivations to
media cultures (pp. 267–280). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/
play massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
9789048523030-017.
and Social Networking, 15(3), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0311
Joeckel, S., Bowman, N. D., & Dogruel, L. (2012). Gut or game? The influence of moral
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in
intuitions on decisions in video games. Media Psychology, 15(4), 460–485. https://
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.727218
10.1037/13620-004. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative,
Johnson, J., & Rowlands, T. (2012). The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth
neuropsychological, and biological.
interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.),
Byom, L., & Mutlu, B. (2013). Theory of mind: Mechanisms, methods, and new
The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 99–114).
directions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(413). https://doi.org/10.3389/
SAGE Publications. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cityuhk/detail.action?
fnhum.2013.00413, 2013-August-08.
docID=1995627.
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’
as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807–815.
judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019
greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of
cognition.2014.10.005
audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264.
Kennedy, V. P. (2021). The Last of Us Part 2 is the most awarded game in history. Screen
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
Rant. Retrieved November 23 2021 from https://screenrant.com/last-of-us-2-most-a
Cohen, J. (2006). Audience identification with media characters. Psychology of
warded-game/.
Entertainment, 13, 183–197.
Klimmt, C., Hefner, D., & Vorderer, P. (2009). The video game experience as "true"
Coles, A. (2020). The rampant body-shaming of Abby in the Last of Us Part 2 shows gamers
identification: A theory of enjoyable alterations of players’ self-perception.
still can’t accept a realistic female lead. The Independent UK. Retrieved November 23
Communication Theory, 19(4), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2021 from https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/last-of-us-2-abby-gaming-naught
2885.2009.01347.x
y-dog-a9609616.html.
Klimmt, C., Hefner, D., Vorderer, P., Roth, C., & Blake, C. (2010). Identification with
Deschrijver, E., & Palmer, C. (2020). Reframing social cognition: Relational versus
video game characters as automatic shift of self-perceptions. Media Psychology, 13
representational mentalizing. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 941–969. https://doi.
(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.524911
org/10.1037/bul0000302
Klimmt, C., Schmid-Petri, H., Nosper, A., Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2006). How
Eden, A., Ewoldsen, D. R., Lee, J., & Beyea, D. (2018). Behavioral demands as behavioral
players manage moral concerns to make video game violence enjoyable.
affordances in video games. In N. D. Bowman (Ed.), Video games: A medium that
Communications, 31, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.020
demands our attention (1 ed., pp. 92–107). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
Klimmt, C., Schmid, H., Nosper, A., Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2008). Moral
9781351235266-6.
management’: Dealing with moral concerns to maintain enjoyment of violent video
Ekman, P. (2017). Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions.
games. In A. Jahn-Sudmann, & R. Stockmann (Eds.), Computer games as sociocultural
Psychological Science, 3(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.
phenomenon (pp. 108–128). Palgrave Macmillan.
tb00253.x
Krakowiak, K. M., & Oliver, M. B. (2012). When good characters do bad things:
Epps, R. (2020). Why fans are mad about the Last of Us: Part 2, explained. The Gamer.
Examining the effect of moral ambiguity on enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 62
Retrieved November 23 2021 from https://www.thegamer.com/why-fans-mad-hat
(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01618.x
e-about-last-of-us-part-ii-explained-controversy/.
Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2016). Moral foundations theory and moral reasoning in
Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments "utilitarian"
video gameplay: Using real-life morality in a game context. Journal of Broadcasting &
or "deontological"? Society for Neuroscience, 12(6), 626–632. https://doi.org/
Electronic Media, 60(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127246
10.1080/17470919.2016.1248787
Krcmar, M., & Eden, A. (2019). Rational versus intuitive processing: The impact of
Glennon, J. (2020). Here’s exactly how long it takes to beat the Last of Us Part 2. Inverse.
cognitive load and moral salience on in-game aggression and feelings of guilt.
Retrieved December 1 2020 from https://www.inverse.com/gaming/last-of-us-2-h
Journal of Media Psychology, 31(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/
ow-long-chapters-hours.
a000215
Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of
LeBar, M. (2001). Simulation, theory, and emotion. Philosophical Psychology, 14(4),
mindreading. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
423–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080120088094
0195138929.001.0001
Ma, Y., Paterson, H. M., & Pollick, F. E. (2006). A motion capture library for the study of
Goldman, A. (2009). Simulation theory and cognitive neuroscience. In Stich: And his
identity, gender, and emotion perception from biological motion. Behavior Research
critics (pp. 137–151). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308709.
Methods, 38(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192758
ch8.
Mitchell, R. L. C., & Phillips, L. H. (2015). The overlapping relationship between emotion
Goldman, A. I., & Sripada, C. S. (2005). Simulationist models of face-based emotion
perception and theory of mind. Neuropsychologia, 70, 1–10. https://doi.org/
recognition. Cognition, 94(3), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.018
cognition.2004.01.005
Mulvey, K. L., Gönültaş, S., & Richardson, C. B. (2020). Who is to blame? Children’s and
Green, A. M. (2016). The reconstruction of morality and the evolution of naturalism in
adults’ moral judgments regarding victim and transgressor negligence. Cognitive
The Last of Us. Games and Culture, 11(7–8), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Science, 44(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12833
1555412015579489
Murray, S. (2019). The last of us: Masculinity. In M. T. Payne, & N. B. Huntemann (Eds.),
Grizzard, M., & Francemone, C. J. (2018). Research on the emotions caused by video
How to play video games (pp. 101–109). NYU Press.
games demands integration. In N. D. Bowman (Ed.), Video games: A medium that
Niemi, L., & Graham, J. (2018). Acknowledging and managing deep constraints on moral
demands our attention (1 ed., pp. 60–73). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
agency and the self. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41. https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781351235266-4.
S0140525X17001182. e55-e55.
Grizzard, M., Tamborini, R., Lewis, R. J., Wang, L., & Prabhu, S. (2014). Being bad in a
Nordby, H. (2016). Social simulation theory: A framework to explain nurses’
video game can make us morally sensitive. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
understanding of patients’ experiences of ill-health. Nursing Inquiry, 23(3), 232–243.
Networking, 17(8), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0658
https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12134
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2012). Narrative practice and the transformation of
Park, G. (2021). Here’s why Abby uses a golf club in ‘The Last of Us Part 2’. The Washington
interview subjectivity. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. Marvasti, &
Post. Retrieved November 23 2021 from https://www.washingtonpost.com
K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the
/video-games/2021/03/03/golf-club-the-last-of-us/.
craft (pp. 27–44). SAGE Publications. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cityuhk
Pasupathi, M., & Wainryb, C. (2010). Developing moral agency through narrative.
/detail.action?docID=1995627.
Human Development, 53(2), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1159/000288208
Harenski, C. L., Harenski, K. A., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2012). Neural development
of mentalizing in moral judgment from adolescence to adulthood. Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.002

8
K.A. Anderson Computers in Human Behavior Reports 5 (2022) 100163

Pasupathi, M., & Wainryb, C. (2019). When I hurt others, and when I get hurt: Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Prabhu, S., Hahn, L., Klebig, B., Grall, C., & Novotny, E.
Integrating victim and perpetrator experiences of harm into a sense of moral agency. (2018). The effect of moral intuitions on decisions in video gameplay: The impact of
Social Development, 28(4), 820–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12334 chronic and temporary intuition accessibility. New Media & Society, 20(2), 564–580.
Raney, A. A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory: Reconsidering character liking, moral https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816664356
evaluations, and enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 348–369. https://doi. Tassi, P. (2020). The Last Us Part 2’s Laura Bailey getting death threats over Abby role.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00319.x Forbes. Retrieved November 23 2021 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/pa
Raney, A. A. (2011). The role of morality in emotional reactions to an enjoyment of ultassi/2020/07/05/the-last-us-part-2s-laura-bailey-getting-death-threats-over-a
media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology, 23(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/ bby-role/?sh=768fdf903f27.
10.1027/1864-1105/a000027 Thomson, K., & Jones, J. (2017). Precarious professionals: (In)Secure identities and
Recchia, H. E., Wainryb, C., Bourne, S., & Pasupathi, M. (2014). The construction of moral agency in neocolonial context. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(4), 747–770.
moral agency in mother-child conversations about helping and hurting across https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3218-3
childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/ Tohme, P., Grey, I., & Abi-Habib, R. (2021). The mental states task (MST): Correlates and
10.1037/a0033492 new perspectives on mentalizing in a Lebanese student sample. Journal of Personality
Sapiński, T., Kamińska, D., Pelikant, A., & Anbarjafari, G. (2019). Emotion recognition Assessment, 103(4), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1769114
from skeletal movements. Entropy, 21(7), 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21070646 Trumbore, D. (2021). The Last of Us: Part 2’: One year later and the worst takes still remain.
Shapiro, M. A., Peña-Herborn, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). Realism, imagination, and Collider. Retrieved December 2 2021 from https://collider.com/last-of-us-2-contro
narrative video games. In P. Vorderer, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: versy-explained/.
Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 326–343). Routledge. https://doi.org/ Watson, G. W., Freeman, R. E., & Parmar, B. (2008). Connected moral agency in
10.4324/9780203873700-29. organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/
Sipocz, D. (2018). Affliction or affection: The inclusion of a same-sex relationship in The 10.1007/s10551-007-9497-y
Last of Us. In T. Harper, M. B. Adams, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Queerness in play (pp. Weaver, A. J., & Lewis, N. (2012). Mirrored morality: An exploration of moral choice in
81–96). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- video games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(11), 61–614.
90542-6_5. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0235
Stich, S., & Nichols, S. (1993). Folk psychology: Simulation or tacit theory? Philosophical
Issues, 3(3), 225–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522947