Rage quitting can be defined as the act of quitting a game when you are losing, about to lose or feel that you will lose. While online games often have a punishment system for rage quitting, it is still a common occurrence. Rage quitting is frustrating to gamers as it results in difficult team experiences, the loss of rewards, and the loss of time; these frustrations are communicated by gamers on forums and community pages.

In order to minimise rage quitting, it is important to understand why it happens. As this topic has been selected by my Patrons, I have two main goals for this article:

To create the most informative resource on the internet for why people rage quit. To provide helpful advice to gamers and game developers on how to minimise rage quitting.

Please note that while I am primarily writing about online rage quitting, I will try to relate this information to offline rage quitting to maximise the number of people who find this helpful. As always, there will be a summary at the bottom if you do not wish to read everything. Thank you and please enjoy!

Contents

“You’re Not Getting My Points!”

One of the first steps in understanding why people rage quit is to understand why people hate losing. To do this, psychology must meet economics.

When we play video games, a loss often comes with repercussions such as losing progress or in-game currency. It is frustrating to die in Dark Souls and lose a large pool of souls. Losing at an online fighting game and seeing ‘RANK DOWN’ is like a gut punch to us. We are losing what we worked hard to achieve.

When comparing the joy of winning and the devastation of losing, we feel the effects of losing twice as hard as the joy of winning (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). In fact, we may become anxious at the thought of losing again as we do not wish to relive the torrent of frustration and negative emotions (Rick, 2011). This results in what is known as loss aversion.

Loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) refers to our desire to avoid losing wherever possible. When it comes to video games, we risk losing something of value in the game (e.g. points) and risk the deterioration of our mental state. Rage quitting is the perfect loss aversion measure: it prevents us losing any of our in-game currency, and it prevents us from feeling frustrated at the loss of said currency.

Someone who has rage quit once may continue to do so through negative reinforcement (Skinner, 1938). To summarise negative reinforcement, something bad will not happen if someone continues to do something. If someone continues to rage quit when they’re about to lose, they never have to lose their points or mourn the loss of their points. There is also emerging evidence of a genetic basis to loss aversion (Voigt et al., 2015), so people may be genetically predisposed to rage quitting to protect their in-game points.

Loss aversion is by far the most common explanation used for behaviours such as rage quitting. However, after spending the majority of my life in gaming communities, I don’t think this explanation alone can account for rage quitting. I would like to offer three more explanations that will be helpful to gamers and game developers alike.

“You Don’t Deserve My Points, Scrub”

Have you ever met someone who thought they were great at something, yet turned out to be not so great? Welcome to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect refers to people of a lower skill vastly overestimating their skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). This effect has been found for a large number of fields, including: intelligence, grammar, humour, test performance, chess performance, poker performance, and even believing you know more than a qualified doctor about vaccinations (Kruger & Dunning; Dunning et al., 2004; Sinkavich, 1995; Chabris & Simons, 2010; Motta et al., 2018). Those who experience the Dunning-Kruger Effect are also more likely to remember their successes rather than their failures (Helzer & Dunning, 2012). So how do we relate people believing they are great to rage quitting at video games?

Let’s use the hypothetical example of Jack. Jack believes he’s wonderful at Tekken because he beats all of his friends when they play. Convinced that he is great at the game, Jack begins to play Tekken online.

When playing online, Jack loses more than he wins. People are blocking the moves that his friends can’t block and he is struggling against certain characters. Jack begins to grow frustrated as the losses keep coming, something he didn’t predict as he thought he was great at Tekken.

Jack’s frustration can be described as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort of holding two contradictory beliefs about something (Festinger, 1957). In Jack’s scenario, the contradiction is ‘I think I’m great at Tekken, but I keep losing’. Jack has two main choices to deal with this dissonance: re-evaluate how good he is at Tekken, or continue to believe he’s great at Tekken and blame his losses on something else.

When dealing with cognitive dissonance, we tend to choose the path of least resistance and strengthen the belief that we already have (Jermias, 2001; Festinger et al., 2011). Instead of Jack accepting that he still has a lot of improvements to make, he will blame other factors to maintain his belief that he’s a great Tekken player. When it comes to gaming, there is typically a wealth of things to blame rather than yourself. These can include: overpowered characters, playing as a better character, playing ‘cheap’/’lame’, spamming moves, overusing system mechanics et cetera.

Jack decides that he is still a great Tekken player, but online scrubs have to rely on cheap, braindead, overpowered characters because they have no skill. Jack believes that he earned his points fairly through being good at the game, so he is happy to rage quit and deny people his points because he is simply better than them.

Let’s move away from Jack and look at some examples of rage quitting in the real world. Rage quits can sometimes be accompanied by the rage quitter sending abusive messages. I have highlighted three examples here, here and here, with an example of these shown below. Please be wary of their strong language and threats of violence.

Two things stand out in these messages. The first is the rage quitter’s insistence that they are more skilled than the person they were about to lose to. The second is the insistence that their opponent would have won through ‘illegitimate’ means such as spamming an attack. These are real-life examples of people trying to reduce cognitive dissonance by insisting that they are a good player, they were just matched up against a skill-less scrub.

So far, I have mainly discussed how rage quitting can happen in the context of one-versus-one games. However, rage quitting is also a common and frustrating occurrence in team-based multiplayer games. Let’s discuss why this happens.

“You Guys Suck, Later!”

When we play games in groups, we may be subject to what is known as diffusion of responsibility: we feel less responsible for a group outcome than a solo outcome (Darley & Latané, 1968). Not only do we feel less responsible, but being in a group encourages us to take more risks than if we were playing solo (Mynatt & Sherman, 1975). This study also showed that even if a person did take a silly risk, they didn’t feel they were at fault for the negative consequences that occurred afterwards.

If a group is victorious, we see a different outcome. Multiple studies have shown that if someone is part of a successful group, they see themselves as instrumental to the group’s success and believe they contributed more to the group’s success than others (Leary & Forsyth, 1987; Forsyth et al., 2002).

If we lose, it’s someone else’s fault. If we win, we’re the MVP.

Let’s go back to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Lower-skilled individuals may believe that they are much better at the game than they actually are. They are also biased towards remembering their victories more than their defeats. This can result in very inflated egos at lower skill levels who do not feel they are at fault at all – they were paired with amateurs.

Sadly, no studies have been conducted on rage quitting or how it relates to skill. However, an observation based on data may help support this idea. In online team-based games, people may try to avoid rage quit punishments by simply minimising the game – this is known as being away from keyboard (AFK). In games such as League of Legends, rage quitting and AFKing are considered one and the same. While Riot Games do not publicise their rage quitting statistics, they do publish their AFK data.

Using statistics provided by League of Graphs (2018), I have mapped out the relationship between AFK percentage and skill ranking in League of Legends. You will notice that as skill ranking increases, AFK percentage decreases.

Unfortunately, actual AFKs (such as hardware malfunctions) may also be included in this data. However, it is still an interesting observation in a field that has received no research attention.

If we want to learn more about rage quitting using published video game research, we will need to expand our search options. To learn more about rage quitting in video games, we need to look at why people rage at video games.

“I Can’t Take Another Loss Today”

Perhaps the most explored topic in video game research is the relationship between violence and video games. One hypothesis researchers tested was that people are drawn to violent video games specifically due to their violent content. Do we play violent video games because we secretly want to go on violent rampages?

The answer is no. In research conducted by Przybylski et al. (2009), it was found that the ‘violent’ part of ‘violent video games’ is inconsequential to why we play them. Instead, we play violent video games because their challenges are designed in a way that makes us feel competent and satisfied with our skills. When games make us feel competent, they improve our mood and reduce our stress levels (Ryan et al., 2006; Reinecke, 2009).

Another hypothesis was tested in this field: do violent video games make us aggressive due to their violent content? Again, this isn’t the case. In Przybylski et al.’s (2014) research, video games were found to make us angry if they undermined our competence; this happened irrespective of whether the game was violent or not. ‘YOU DIED’ angers us because it makes us feel incompetent and useless. So how does this relate to rage quitting?

It is tempting to think of rage quitters as people who are low in skill and large in ego. However, as noted by game developers (Maher, 2016), you’d be surprised at how often bad behaviour is simply a one-off event from people who are typically well-behaved. These people know that rage quitting is bad, but something causes them to snap and do it anyway.

The key to understanding these people lies in self-regulation theory (Vohs & Baumeister, 2016). Think of someone who has to smile and be polite to a customer who is insulting them and demanding to speak to the manager. Self-regulation theory argues that the ability to do this is limited: the longer we do it and the more exhausted we are, the more likely we are to ‘snap’. In previous research, examples of these snaps are: being less kind, cheating more, refusing to help someone, and being more aggressive (DeWall et al., 2008; Mead et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2012; Stucke & Baumeister, 2006). We know we’re not being kind or following rules, we’re just too fatigued and broken to care.

Playing video games when you’re experiencing burnout can be a double-edged sword. While they can be satisfying and stress-reducing, ‘YOU DIED’ or ‘YOU LOSE’ can undermine our competence and cause us to snap, thus encouraging bad behaviour that we wouldn’t normally engage in. For the purposes of this article, I will divide burnout into ‘internal burnout’ and ‘external burnout’.

Internal burnout refers to video games themselves as being exhausting. Games that induce rage quitting are likely to be challenging: we constantly have to scan our environments, remain vigilant, and engage in intense hand-eye co-ordination. For example, intense matches of Super Smash Brothers Melee and StarCraft 2 can result in around 250 to 600 actions per minute respectively (Wynne, 2015; Wong, 2014). Even if we’re having a good day, playing games for a long amount of time can exhaust us and frustrate us.

If we’re not having a good day, this could be considered external burnout. We may sit down to play a video game after a morning of rush hour traffic, eight hours of intense work while being underappreciated, then an evening of rush hour traffic. If we’ve spent our day exhausted, frustrated and undermined, we may not have the mental fortitude to sit through a taunting ‘YOU LOSE’ screen. This encourages us to rage quit despite knowing that we shouldn’t rage quit, we just can’t deal with being undermined again today.

We have now reviewed four explanations for why someone may rage quit. Let’s turn these explanations into helpful advice for both gamers and game developers.

Advice for Gamers

Take a Break

Taking a break may be the most difficult piece of advice to follow if we’re desperate to defeat a boss or end on a victory. However, research shows that there are two effective ways to take a break to improve our performance.

The first way is to watch or do something that makes us laugh. For example, taking a ten minute break to watch a funny video not only improves our mood, but leads to greater task persistence (Cheng & Wang, 2015). This persistence is good for minimising rage quitting as people will feel more competent and feel that they can achieve the task at hand. The second way is to simply chill out or take a nap. If we are well-rested, we are less likely to snap and more likely to exercise self-control (Baumeister et al., 1994), meaning less rage quitting.

So recline your chair, open Netflix, have a giggle, and you’ll be beating that boss in no time.

Losing Is Winning

Last week, I lost multiple Tekken matches as I was struggling against one move. This frustrated me so much that I went into training mode, recorded the move and figured out how to beat it. This move hasn’t frustrated me since.

This is known as productive failure (Kapur, 2010; 2012). When we fail at something, this failure teaches us the limits of our knowledge and what we need to improve upon (DeCaro & Rittle-Johnson, 2012). This makes us much more receptive to new knowledge that can help address this gap (Schwartz & Martin, 2004). When comparing students who did and did not engage in productive failure, the students who failed first and then learned from it performed better than students who were simply told how to do something correctly (Kapur, 2014).

To maximise our skill and success, it is important for loss to motivate us so that we can engage in productive failure. Think of how many comeback stories you have seen and how satisfying they are. This is because the person failed, worked hard to improve the areas where they failed in, and came back stronger than ever.

If you want to be the strongest you that you can be, you need to accept losses and learn from them.

Remember Who You Are

According to self-categorisation theory (Turner & Oakes, 1986), our behaviours and beliefs may not always be consistent. Instead, our beliefs, desires and behaviours may be dictated by the social identity we are assuming at the time (McGarty, 1999). When we are playing Tekken, we are first and foremost a Tekken player, and succeeding at Tekken is of utmost importance to us.

Assuming this identity can make us become very invested in the game and our performance. As seen above, we get angry if our competence at the game is questioned. However, when we focus on this identity, we are selling ourselves short.

One phrase that is likely to annoy people is ‘It’s just a game’. I’d like to take an alternative approach to this. While it is fine for a game to be important to you, do not forget your other identities such as ‘intelligent college student’, ‘loving father’ or ‘generous friend’. There are many, many more things that make you special than your performance at a game, please try to remember this when you feel that a game is making you feel incompetent.

Advice for Game Developers

Priming

In my article on how to improve online gaming behaviour, I talked about something called priming. Priming refers to trying to influence someone’s behaviour by presenting them with information beforehand. Priming is a cheap and easy method of encouraging better behaviour as messages can be placed in loading screens of games. I will give a few examples of messages that can minimise rage quitting and why they would be effective.

“To be a winner, one must neither be arrogant after winning, nor become self-deprecating after a loss” – Daigo Umehara, Professional Street Fighter Player

This excerpt from The Will to Keep Winning (Umehara, 2016) would be helpful for a number of reasons. Encouraging humility when you’re playing well speaks to those who might suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect – being humble and introspective is a key part of the winning mindset. Conversely, encouraging people not to beat themselves up after a loss speaks to those poor, burned out souls who may have spent the day being degraded at work. It is important for this advice to come from someone such as Daigo Umehara, a man who is paid to travel the world playing video games – the dream of many gamers. Instead of being lectured by a loading screen, this is advice from someone who is successful in the gaming world because of this advice. If you want to live the life of someone such as Daigo, you’d be wise to listen to his advice.

Having problems against a character? Try asking for advice on our community page or official subreddit.

Messages such as this raise awareness of the community surrounding a game. While I have shared examples of people threatening violence because of a video game, it’s important to remember that gaming communities have lots of helpful people.

Introducing people to the community surrounding a game also has an additional benefit. If we talk to other gamers and practice with people we’ve met online, this increases our chances of making online friends. Research shows that online friends are a valuable resource for talking about problems that we are too embarrassed or scared to talk about offline (Cole & Griffiths, 2007). Introducing people to the community not only allows us to get better at a game, but also introduces us to new friends that are good for our mental health.

Alternatively, if a game has a practice feature (such as fighting games), loading screens can raise awareness of features such as recording moves to figure out how to beat them. This can encourage people to engage in productive failure, something that is important for a winning mindset.

Rage quitting leads to gathering points that you haven’t earned fairly. Don’t be a cheater!

This message would be helpful for games such as fighting games where players can keep the points they were about to lose if they rage quit. The wording of this message is important for one key reason – people hate being called a cheater. In a study by Bryan et al. (2013), the difference between priming people with ‘please don’t cheat’ and ‘please don’t be a cheater’ was explored. Participants were less likely to cheat if they were told not to be a cheater, suggesting that people work hard to maintain a good self-image if their integrity and morals are questioned.

Summary

Losing or dying in a game often has consequences such as loss of progress and/or in-game currency. This is distressing to us as we are losing something that we worked hard to obtain. To minimise losing what we have and avoid the distress of losing, we may engage in loss aversive measures such as rage quitting. If we rage quit before losing, we protect our points and protect ourselves from the distress of losing.

Lower-skilled individuals are likely to overestimate how good they are at a game – this is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. These people may experience psychological discomfort (known as cognitive dissonance) if they frequently lose, leading them to question how good they are at the game. As it is easier to reduce cognitive dissonance by strengthening your current beliefs, these people will maintain that they are great at the game while everyone else is a no-skill, spamming scrub. This provides justification for rage quitting as these supposed no-skill, spamming scrubs do not deserve the points of the rage quitter.

In team-based online games, people feel less responsible for team losses and more responsible for team victories. Combined with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, this results in inflated egos. If their team is losing, they do not feel at all responsible and feel they have been paired with amateurs, encouraging them to abandon the game. Data from League of Legends shows that as skill ranking in the game increases, rage quitting (measured via AFK data) decreases.

A surprising amount of bad behaviour online comes from well-behaved people who are having a bad day. If people are exhausted physically and emotionally, this leads to them engaging in bad behaviour that they wouldn’t otherwise engage in. Even if someone knows that rage quitting is bad, they may do so anyway if they are burned out and do not have the mental fortitude to sit through a taunting ‘YOU LOSE’ screen.

Advice for gamers on how to minimise rage quitting includes: taking a fun or relaxing break to re-energise yourself; realising the value of losing as an educational tool that helps you improve at the game; and remembering the wonderful things that make you who you are – you are more than winning or losing at a game.

Advice for game developers on how to minimise rage quitting involves writing messages in loading screens to help influence players’ behaviour (‘priming’). These messages can include: raising awareness of a healthy winning mindset via players who are paid to play the game around the world; raising awareness of community pages as a source of support and friendship; and raising awareness of rage quitters as cheaters and questioning the moral integrity of players.

Thank you all very much for reading! This hard work would not be possible without the support of my wonderful Patrons. I would particularly like to thank my Platinum Patrons: Matt Demers, Albert S Calderon, Kyle T, Andrew Shirvis, redKheld, DigitalPsyche, Brent Halen, Colton Ballou, Dimelo ‘Derp’ Waterson, Hagbard Celine, Senpai, Aprou, Austin Enright, Dr Shane Tilton, SK120 and Teodoro Elizondo. Thank you!

Spread the love

















References

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self regulation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001-1005.

Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. J. (2010). The invisible gorilla, and other ways our intuitions deceive us. New York, NY: Crown.

Cheng, D., & Wang, L. (2015). Examining the energizing effects of humor: The influence of humor on persistence behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 759-772.

Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social Interactions in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 575-583.

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383.

DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(4), 552–568.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: Helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1653–1662.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (2011). When Prophecy Fails. Wales, GB: Pinter & Martin.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Forsyth, D. R., Zyzniewski, L. E., & Giammanco, C. A. (2002). Responsibility diffusion in cooperative collectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 54-65.

Helzer, E. G., & Dunning, D. (2012). Why and when peer prediction is superior to self-prediction: The weight given to future aspirations versus past achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 38-53.

Jermias, J. (2001). Cognitive dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2), 141-160.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(4), 263-291.

Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008-1022.

Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672.

Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77(6), 1121.

League of Graphs. (2018). AFK stats. Retrieved 13th November, 2018 from https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/afk-stats.

Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 167-188.

Maher, B. (2016). Can a video game company tame toxic behaviour? Nature, 531, 568-571.

McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Guildford, Surrey: Sage Publications.



Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 594–597.

Motta, M., Callaghan, T., & Sylvester, S. (2018). Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 274-281.

Mynatt, C., & Sherman, S. J. (1975). Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: A direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 1111-1118.

Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 441-457.

Przybylski, A. K., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). The motivating role of violence in video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 243-259.

Reinecke, L. (2009). Games and recovery: The use of video and computer games to recuperate from stress and strain. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21, 126–142.

Rick, S. (2011). Losses, gains, and brains: neuroeconomics can help to answer open questions about loss aversion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 453-463.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 344–360.

Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.

Sinkavich, F. J. (1995). Performance and metamemory: Do students know what they don’t know? Instructional Psychology, 22, 77-87.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Stucke, T. S., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Ego depletion and aggressive behavior: Is the inhibition of aggression a limited resource?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 1-13.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237-252.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.

Umehara, D. (2016). The Will to Keep Winning. Tokyo, Japan: Shogakukan Inc.

Voigt, G., Montag, C., Markett, S., & Reuter, M. (2015). On the genetics of loss aversion: An interaction effect of BDNF Val66Met and DRD2/ANKK1 Taq1a. Behavioral Neuroscience, 129(6), 801-811.

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Wong, K. (2014). StarCraft 2 and the quest for the highest APM. Retrieved 11th November, 2018 from https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/24/starcraft-2-and-the-quest-for-the-highest-apm/.

Wynne, J. (2015). Here’s how impossibly dast you need to move to be the best at Smash Bros. Retrieved 11th November, 2018 from https://dotesports.com/general/news/smash-bros-armada-ppmd-controller-2275.

Xu, H., Bègue, L., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Too fatigued to care: Ego depletion, guilt, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1183-1186.