Moba Oyunlarda Oynarkitlenin Bilgi Paylaşma Eğilimleri- League of Legends

Öz

Araştırma, çok oyunculu çevrimiçi savaş oyunu (MOBA-Multi Player Online Battle Arena) League of Legends'i oynayanların oyun içi bilgi paylaşma motivasyonlarını test etmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu çerçevede 'bilgi paylaşımı'; kişisel beklentiler, öz-yeterlik, diğerkamlık, güven, karşılıklılık, özdeşleşme, ortak vizyon, sosyal ağ bağları ve topluluk düzeyinde beklenen getiriler olmak üzere dokuz ayrı kategoride ele alınmıştır. Araştırmada olası eğilimler ve beklentilerin bilgi paylaşmaya yönelik tutum ile ilişkisi Gerekçeli Eylem Kuramı çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucuna göre oyuncuların bilgi paylaşmaya yönelik olumlu tutuma sahip oldukları ve bu tutumun toplumsal düzeydeki beklenti getirileriyle ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bilgi paylaşımının gruba ait olma, grupla özdeşleşme ve kişisel beklentiler yoluyla değil, gruba yönelik karşılık beklentisi ile toplumsal boyutta oluştuğu gözlenmiştir. Buna göre, oyuncuların toplumsal düzeydeki beklentileri gönüllü bile olsa, karşılıklılık ilişkisine dayalı olarak gerçekleşmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital oyun
• Bilgi paylaşma
• Gerekçeli eylem kuramı
• Oynar kitle

Knowledge Sharing Motivations of Game Players in MOBA Games: League of Legends

Öz

The research was carried out to test the in-game knowledge sharing motivation of those who played the multiplayer online war game (MOBA-Multi Player Online Battle Arena) League of Legends. In this framework, 'knowledge sharing'; personal expectations, self-efficacy, altruism, trust, reciprocity, identification, shared vision, social network ties, and expected returns at the community level are discussed in nine separate categories. In the study, the relationship of possible trends and expectations with the attitude towards knowledge sharing was examined within the framework of the Justified Action Theory. According to the results of the study, the players have a positive attitude towards sharing knowledge and it has been determined that this attitude is related to the expectation returns at the social level. It has been observed that the sharing of knowledge is formed in the social dimension, not through belonging to the group, identification with the group and personal expectations, but with the expectation of return for the group. Accordingly, the expectations of the actors at the social level are realized on the basis of reciprocity, even if it is voluntary.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital game
• Knowledge sharing
• Reasoned Action Theory
• Game player

Kaynakça

1. Biocca, F. & Delaney, B. (1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. Communication in the age of virtual reality, Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 57-124.
2. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
3. Bock, G. W. & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15 (2): 14-21.
4. Casimir, G. & Ng, N. K. & Cheng, C. L. P. (2012). Using IT to share knowledge and the TRA. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16 (3): 461-479.
5. Chen, I. Y. & Chen, N. S. (2009). Examining the factors influencing participants’ knowledge sharing behavior in virtual learning communities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1): 134-148.
6. Chen, C. J. & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information Management, 47 (4): 226-236.
7. Chiu, C. M. & Hsu, M. H. & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42 (3): 1872-1888.
8. Chou, C. & Tsai, M.-J. (2007). Gender differences in Taiwan high school students’ computer game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23: 812-824.

9. Chua, A. (2003). Knowledge Sharing: A Game People Play. Aslib Proceedings, 55 (3): 117-129.
10. Constant, D. & Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5 (4): 400-421.
11. Cropanzano, Russell & Mitchell, Marie S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 31 (6): 874-900.
12. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335-362.
13. Fang, Y. H. & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2): 235246.
14. Fernback, J. & B. Thompson (1995). "Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?". Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity. The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
15. Fishbein M. & I. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
16. Foa, U. G. & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
17. Foa, U. G. & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. Ed. K. J. Gergen & M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis. New York: Plenum.
18. Fotios Spyridonis & Damon Daylamani-Zad (2018). Efficient In-Game Communication. Collaborative Online Multiplayer Games Conference: 10th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games).
19. Freeman, J. (2004). Implications for the measurement of presence from convergent evidence on the structure of presence. The Information Systems Division at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
20. Halloran J. & G. Fitzpatrick & Y. Rogers & P. Marshall (2004). “Does it matter if you don’t know who’s talking?: multiplayer gaming with voiceover IP,” CHI ’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems SE - CHI EA ’04: 1215-1218.
21. Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macromotives. The justice motive in social behavior. Ed. M. J. Learner & S. C. Lerner, New York: Plenum: 261-284.
22. Hsu, C.-L. & Lu, H.-P. (2003). Why do people play online games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information and Management, 41: 853-868.
23. Hung, S. Y. & Lai, H. M. & Chang, W. W. (2011). Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D employees’ acceptance of electronic knowledge repository. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30 (2): 213-230.
24. Jennett, C. & Cox, A. L. & Cairns, P. & Dhoparee, S. & Epps, A. & Tijs, T. et al. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66 (9): 641-661.
25. Kankanhalli, A. & Tan, B. C. & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 20: 113-143.
26. Lin, M. J. J. & Hung, S. W. & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (4): 929-939.
27. Lucas, K. & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31 (5): 499-523.
28. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Lee, K. M. & Peng, W. (2006). What do we know about social and psychological effects of games?: A comprehensive review of current literature. Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences. Ed. P. Vorderer & J. Bryant..Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 325-345.
30. Lindlof, T. & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
31. Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. B. (2000). Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. The Third International Workshop on Presence, Delft, The Netherlands. Retrieved March 22, 2009 from: http://www.matthewlombard.com/P2000.htm
32. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242-266.
33. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies, 3 (1).
34. McDermott, R. & O'Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1): 76-85.
35. Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, June: 45-51.
36. Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socio-emotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14 (1): 85-105.
37. Schrader, S. (1990). Zwischenbetrieblicher Informationstransfer. Eine Empirische Analyse Kooperativen Verhaltens, Berlin: Dunker & Humbolt.
38. Siitonen, Marko (2007). Social Interaction in Online Multiplayer Communities. Jyväskylä Studies In Humanities, 74: 26-142.
39. Smyth, J. M. (2007). Beyond self-Selection in video game play–An experimental examination of the consequences of massively multiplayer online role-playing game play. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 10 (5): 717-721.
40. Tamborini, R. & Skalski, P. (2006). The role of presence in the experience of electronic games. Playing video games: Motives, responses, and Consequences. Ed. .Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 225-240.
41. Tyler, T.R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: an identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior. Ed. B.M. Staw & R. Sutton, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 21: 201-246.
42. Yongsi, Chen & Khe Foon, Hew (2018). Online Knowledge-Sharing Motivators of Top Contributors in 30 Q & A Sites. New Media for Educational Change, Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook. Ed. L. Deng vd.
43. Wallace, Patricia (2017). The Psychology of the Internet. European Journal of Communication, 32 (2), April 19: 183-184.
44. Walther, Joseph B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1): 3-43.
45. Wang, W. T. & Wei, Z. H. (2011). Knowledge sharing in wiki communities: An empirical study. Online Information Review, 35 (5): 799-820.
46. Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9: 155-173.
47. Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1): 35-57.
48. Weiss, L. (1999). Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professional service. Organization Development Journal, 17 (4): 61-72.
49. Wirth, W. & Bocking, S. & Hartmann, T. & Klimmt, C. & Schramm, H. & Vorderer, P. (2007). Presence as a process: Towards a unified theoretical model of formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9: 493-525.
50. Wu, J.-H. & Wang, S.-C. & Tsai (2010). Falling in love with online games: The uses and gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26: 1862-1871.