Computer Games - 1
Running Head: Computer Games
Effects of Computer/Video Games, and Beyond
Kwan Min Lee*
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281
1-213-740-3935
Wei Peng
Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Namkee Park
Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Oklahoma
395 W. Lindsey St., Room 3015
Norman, OK 73019
* Corresponding Author
Computer Games - 2
In 1958, William A. Higinbotham, an engineer at the Brookhaven National Laboratory,
created the world’s first computer game, a rudimentary two-player tennis game, to entertain
visitors to his lab (Poole, 2000, p. 15). Since then, the computer/video game (from now on
computer game) industry has become one of the most aggressively growing business sectors in
the United States and in the world. In 2001, U.S. sales of computer games and related hardware
increased 43 percent to $9.4 billion, surpassing movie box-office revenue of $8.3 billion in the
same year (Takahasi, 2002). Global sales in the game industry were over $25 billion as early as
2002 and are expected to exceed $46 billion by 2009 (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2006). In the
United States, it is estimated that 67 percent of American heads of households play computer
games (Entertainment Software Association [ESA], 2007). Already in 2000, game playing was
regarded as the most entertaining media activity, relegating television watching to the second
place (Interactive Digital Software Association [IDSA], 2000). Obviously, games are emerging
as one of the most dominant forms of entertainment. This trend will go further, thanks to the
increasing penetration of high speech Internet connection and the declining prices of computers,
video-game consoles, and mobile entertainment devices.
The growing popularity of computer games and some tragic incidents such as the
Columbine High School massacre have sparked various academic studies on social and
psychological effects of playing computer games. In the current chapter, we try to provide an
extensive review of the computer game literature with a special focus on studies published
during the last decade. The current review will cover a wide range of research traditions (from
effect studies to uses and gratifications studies) and game genres (from entertainment to serious
games). More specifically, we will provide a comprehensive review of the following four
research traditions in the game literature—negative effects of violent games; game addiction;
Computer Games - 3
positive effects of serious games; uses and gratifications of computer games in general. After the
review, we will bring forward some unanswered questions in the current literature and lay out
some agenda for future research.
Negative Effects of Violent Games
As a logical extension of the previous research in media violence, the study of negative
effects of violence in computer games has been remarkably accumulated in the last two decades.
The debate with respect to the effects of violent games on game users’ aggression, however, has
been hardly resolved. One stream of research argues that violent games cause or at least correlate
with game users’ aggression, especially for kids and adolescents, whereas the other line of
research insists no significant association between violent games and aggression. This section
reviews the two opposing views on the relationship between playing violent games and
aggression.
Significant Effects of Computer Game Violence on Aggression
Among various theoretical efforts to explain the ways in which violent computer games
affect people’s aggression, the General Aggression Model (GAM: Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
is to date the most comprehensive theoretical framework. Integrating several earlier models of
human aggression such as social learning theory and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1973),
cognitive neoassociationist model (Berkowitz, 1984), social information processing model
(Dodge & Crick, 1990), affective aggression model (Geen, 1990), script theory (Huesmann,
1986), and excitation transfer model (Zillmann, 1983), the GAM claims that aggression is
principally geared by the activation and application of aggression-related knowledge structures
stored in memory (e.g., scripts or schemas). According to this model, in the case of short term
effects, playing a violent game primes aggressive conditions such as aggressive scripts and
Computer Games - 4
perceptual schemata, which in turn increase arousal and create an aggressive affective state
(Bushman & Anderson, 2002). In the case of long term effects, the model explains that hostile
knowledge structures can be developed by repeated exposure to violent games, which ultimately
create an aggressive personality (Bushman & Anderson, 2002; see Anderson, Gentile, and
Buckley [2007] Chapter 3, for a fuller explanation of the model).
Employing the GAM, a vast amount of research has examined violent games’ effects on
aggression. The research has mainly focused on the negative effects of violent games on
aggressive affects, behaviors, thoughts, physical arousal, and pro-social activities. Based on three
experiments, one correlational study, and one meta-analysis, Anderson et al. (2004) found that
playing violent computer games led to increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect,
aggressive cognition, physiological arousal, and decreases in pro-social behavior. Similar
findings abound. Carnagey and Anderson (2005) discovered that rewarding violent behaviors in
computer games increased hostile emotion, aggressive thinking, and aggressive behaviors. In a
similar fashion, Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh (2004) investigated and supported the
significant effects of violent games on adolescents’ hostility, aggressive behavior, and school
performance. Anderson and Murphy (2003) especially examined the impacts of exposure to
violent computer games on young women, and found that even brief exposure to a violent game
increased aggressive behavior. In addition, they suggested that the effects of violent games on
aggression might be greater when game characters played by game users are of the same gender.
Bartholow and Anderson (2002) investigated sex differences in the effects of violent games on
aggressive behavior and found greater effects for men than for women. A similar result was
found in a German context. Krahé and Möller (2004) uncovered that there were significant
Computer Games - 5
gender differences in usage and attraction to violent games, which ultimately influenced the
acceptance of norms condoning physical aggression.
Some studies have focused on the desensitization effect of violent games. Desensitization,
which refers to the attenuation or elimination of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses
to a stimulus (Rule & Ferguson, 1986), is a strong mechanism that helps reduce psychological
and/or physiological reactivity to real violence. In an experiment that measured heart rate (HR)
and galvanic skin response (GSR), Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman (2007) found that
participants who played a violent game had lower HR and GSR while viewing filmed real
violence compared to participants who played a non-violent game, indicating a physiological
desensitization to violence. Funk, Baldacci, Pasold, and Baumgardner (2004) claimed with a
more moderate tone that exposure to computer game violence was associated with lower
empathy and stronger pro-violence attitudes, yet they could not identify strong relationships
between exposure to real-life violence and measures of desensitization. Deselms and Altman
(2003) found the desensitization effect only for men with a sample of college students.
There have been a series of attempts to synthesize the existing literature, although they
discovered somewhat contrasting findings (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Griffiths, 2000;
Sherry, 2001). Anderson (2004) updated the effects of playing violent computer games with a
meta-analysis based on 46 studies, and argued that more studies of violent games corroborate
significant, though not large, effects of computer game violence on aggression. According to the
study, the effect sizes of exposure to violent games on aggressive behavior, cognition, affect,
pro-social behavior, and physical arousal were, both in experimental and correlational studies,
about 0.20 in absolute value, confirming his and others’ previous studies.
The Opposing View
Computer Games - 6
The claim of the significant effects of violent games on aggression does not come without
criticisms. These criticisms are mainly centered on methodological issues. Some studies (e.g.,
Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004) listed the following as the main problems of the existing studies
on computer game violence. First, the definitions of aggression are not clear-cut. For instance, in
the worst case, the terms, “aggression” and “violence” are used interchangeably, making it
almost impossible to distinguish independent and dependent variables from each other. Second,
there are few standardized, reliable, and valid measures of aggression and exposure to violent
games. Many studies that examined the negative effect of violent games have been conducted in
isolation. In other words, studies employed either different types of games or different amount of
game exposure time for experiments. Moreover, in many experimental studies participants
played the game in a single-player mode in isolation contrary to reality in which users routinely
play games with their friends or other associates (Olson, 2004). As a consequence of the lack of
appropriate measures and realistic study settings, a general synthesis of existing studies is hard to
achieve. Third, the causal relationship between violent games and aggression in real life is not as
straightforward as experimental conditions. It means that 1) it is not easy to take into account all
possible mediating variables such as gender, age, personality, and so forth, and 2) a relationship
of the opposite direction—aggressive people seek out violent computer games, or a two-way
relationship—reinforcing or reciprocal, is also plausible. Fourth, many studies have been
conducted with small, non-random, or non-representative samples. Accordingly, the statistical
effect size from these studies is relatively too small for physical aggression, and moderate at best
for aggressive thinking (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). Finally, as Anderson (2004)
lamented, there is still a paucity of longitudinal studies which could confirm the effect of violent
games on a long-term basis. Given that the study of computer games is relatively an emerging
Computer Games - 7
field compared to the established research tradition of TV violence, deficiency of serious
longitudinal studies is understandable. Yet, without longitudinal studies, it is hard to not only
prove the effect of violent games but also triangulate the existing findings (Williams & Skoric,
2005). In addition to these methodological problems, some argue that, regardless of increase in
the number and availability of violent computer games, violence crime has been decreasing in
reality (Olson, 2004) and thus the claim that violent games cause aggression is simply
misleading.
Not surprisingly, the above arguments are strongly backed up by the game industry such
as Entertainment Software Association (ESA) although these claims are derived originally from
academics. Recently, some empirical studies support these claims on the null effect of violent
games on aggression. For example, Williams and Skoric (2005) conducted a one-month
longitudinal study of a violent “massively multi-player online role-playing game” (MMORPG),
and found no strong effect associated with aggression caused by the game. Baldaro et al. (2004)
evaluated the short-term effect of playing a violent computer game on physiological and
psychological indicators with a sample of 22 male participants. They discovered that participants
who played a violent computer game exhibited higher anxiety and increased systolic blood
pressure yet no greater hostility compared to participants who played a non-violent computer
game. In addition, a study conducted by Huesmann and Taylor (2006) failed to document a
meaningful long-term effect, even though they were able to demonstrate short-term increases in
aggression.
Possible Reconciliation
Recognizing the conflicting views on the effects of violent computer games, one study
suggests an integrated model with respect to the direction of the relationship between violent
Computer Games - 8
games and aggression. Slater, Henry, Swaim, and Anderson (2003) claimed that game users’
aggressive tendencies may lead the users to seek out violent games and exposure to violent
games and in turn may reinforce and exacerbate such aggressive tendencies. This so-called
“downward spiral model” thus emphasizes a reciprocal relationship between violent games and
game users’ aggressive tendencies, at the same time focusing on the cumulative characteristic of
the association between the two variables. Given that the downward spiral model is based on the
assumption that aggressive users seek out violent games in order to satisfy their felt needs, it is
theoretically rooted in the uses and gratifications approach (Palmgreen, 1984) and selective
exposure theory (Zillmann & Bryant, 1985). Again, however, for the model to be proven as an
alternative (or complementary) explanation to the existing literature, more studies are needed.
Game Addiction
Another important negative effect of computer games that has been increasingly
discussed in recent years is game addiction. It has been claimed that game addiction may lead to
not only social problems such as social isolation or escape from real life but also heath problems
including seizures or even death. The issue has been fiercely discussed to the extent whether or
not the American Medical Association (AMA) has to classify game addiction as a key mental
illness. In fact, some medical problems or physical disorders due to game overuse have been
reported, including epileptic seizures (e.g., Funatsuka, Fujita, Shirakawa, Oguni, & Osawa,
2001), musculoskeletal disorders, or increased metabolic rate (e.g., Brady & Matthews, 2006). In
South Korea, where hundreds of private hospitals and psychiatric clinics are helping game
addicts with special treatments, it was also reported that 10 people died in 2005 from game
addiction-related causes such as disruptive blood circulation (Faiola, 2006). Moreover, the
number of game addicts is far from being negligible. In a commercial survey conducted with
Computer Games - 9
1,178 U.S. children and teenagers (ages 8 to 18) in January 2007 by Harris Interactive, it was
reported that 8.5% of game users could be classified as addicts (Harris Interactive, 2007). As a
response to the increasing trend of game addiction, the AMA, at an annual committee meeting in
June 2007, determined that its psychiatric group would examine the issue over the next five years
and decide the inclusion of game addiction as an illness. If game addiction is added as a mental
illness, it is possible for game addicts to have medications or treatments for healing excessive
gaming. Of course, some opposed the AMA’s consideration of the inclusion, arguing that game
addiction or overuse is simply an individual (bad) habit, rather than a medical problem (Los
Angeles Times, 2007). Nevertheless, the fact that game addiction is publicly discussed as a
possible medical problem demonstrates that it brings a number of detrimental outcomes whether
they are individual or societal problems.
In parallel with the increased interest in game addiction, there have been a few attempts
to explain why people are addicted to games. Based on a survey with 1,993 Korean game users,
Choi and Kim (2004) suggested a theoretical model for game addiction by integrating the
concepts of customer loyalty, flow, personal interaction, and social interaction. According to the
model, people are likely to continue to play games when they have optimal experiences while
playing games. Optimal experiences, according to the model, can be achieved by effective
interaction with the game system and/or pleasant social interaction with other users. Similarly,
Wan and Chiou (2006) applied the flow theory and the humanistic needs model as a way to
explain psychological motives of game addiction. The results of their study, however, indicated
that the flow state was not a key psychological mechanism of game users’ addiction. Also, the
study discovered that game addicts’ compulsive game use was not derived from the pursuit of
satisfaction of their need-gratification but from the relief of dissatisfaction.
Computer Games - 10
Game addiction or overuse is particularly associated with MMORPGs (Massively
Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) since such games are highly social and provide
interactive real time applications (AMA, 2007) similar to the factors associated with Internet
addiction (Olson, 2004). For instance, MMORPG users spend many more hours devoted to the
games compared to other users who play other types of games, and find the aspects of the game
world more pleasant and satisfying than those of the real world (Ng & Wiemer-Hastings, 2005).
The problem of the heavy use of MMORPGs would be that such users are likely to be socially
marginalized while experiencing high levels of emotional loneliness and maladaptations to real
life social interactions (AMA, 2007). In addition to the increasing use of MMORPGs, the recent
launch of Nintendo’s Wii and enhanced competition among game console companies are also
likely to fuel the addictive nature of games as a way to lock-in users to their console.
Meanwhile, a recent study based on a survey of 7,069 game users (Grüsser, Thalemann,
& Griffiths, 2007) investigated the relationship between game addiction and aggression. It found
that excessive gaming explained only 1.8% variance of aggression. In addition, with respect to
gender difference, Griffiths and Hunt (1998) in a survey with 387 adolescents (12-16 years old)
found that males were more likely to be classified as game addicts than females. They also
discovered that the earlier children began playing games, the more likely they became addicts.
To sum up, the study of game addiction is still in an early stage despite the heated
discussion about its effects on game users’ abnormal behaviors and social disorders. As the
AMA (2007) properly pointed out, more research is needed to verify game addiction as a mental
illness.
Positive Effects of Serious Games
Computer Games - 11
Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games are designed to entertain. However, the features
of games that afford entertainment can also be utilized for other purposes, such as education.
Educational theories inform us that teaching is more effective if students are intrinsically
motivated in the learning process, receive continuous feedback, and apply new ideas in a variety
of relevant context. This is exactly what game features can offer. Game playing is usually fun
and challenging, which motivates students to actively participate. Games also provide a
simulated environment where students can apply what they have just learned in different
contexts. Therefore, games have great potential to be an effective educational tool. In fact, games
with purposes beyond entertainment are called “serious games,” including but not limited to
games for learning, games for health, and games for policy and social change. Serious games are
designed intentionally to achieve these positive effects. In this section, we review the effects of
serious games that are used to teach knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Some COTS games are
originally designed to entertain, but some unintended positive effects are also found associated
with these games. In addition, some COTS games are reapplied by educators for purposes other
than entertainment. We will also discuss the positive effects of these COTS games.
Games for Learning
Using the gaming format in teaching is not uncommon even one thousand years ago. The
use of digital games in education started in the early 1980s. The early generation of games for
learning was limited by the technology capacity and only minimal graphics and interactivity
were implemented. In the past decade, due to the technology advancement, many educational
games were developed to deliver knowledge of different subject matters, such as economics
(Lengwiler, 2004), business and management (Chua, 2005; Hoogeweegen, van Liere, Vervest,
van der Meijden, & de Lepper, 2006), language (Kovalik & Kovalik, 2002), mathematics (van
Computer Games - 12
Eck & Dempsey, 2002), biology (Clark & Smith, 2004), geography (Mayer, Mautone, &
Prothero, 2002), medical education (Mann et al., 2002), and military training (Coleman, 2001).
All these games demonstrate that the game-based instruction is effective. However, an early
literature review on the effectiveness of using electronic games for education shows that 56% of
the studies found no difference between game-based instruction and conventional instruction,
32% found differences favoring simulations/games, 7% favored simulations/games but raised
questions about their experimental design, and the remaining 5% found differences favoring
conventional instruction (Randel, Morris, & Wetzel, 1992). Poor graphics and low interactivity
afforded by early generation games might explain the low rate of effectiveness. A more recent
meta-analysis shows that digital games and interactive simulations have advantages over
traditional teaching methods for cognitive gain outcomes (Vogel et al., 2006). In addition,
games-based instruction seems to be more effective when the subject matter demands active
participation and applying the knowledge in specific contexts, such as physics or mathematics
(Randel et al., 1992).
Empirical studies have shown that serious games for learning are effective teaching tools.
But why can games, as a particular medium, achieve the educational effects? Researchers believe
that games embody a number of innate features that facilitate the learning process. First, games
are effective because learning takes place within a meaningful context. The game rules in those
contexts are usually principles intended to be taught to the players. For instance, for games that
teach economics, the game rules follow the economic principles and players need to apply those
principles in order to proceed in the games. The game playing experience is thus an experience
of applying theoretical principles. This is exactly what situated learning and experiential learning
is about. However, if a game is not engaging, the learning effect might not be substantial. The
Computer Games - 13
second game feature that promotes effectiveness is the element of fun that motivates players to
start to play a game and to continue playing the game even though they need to repeatedly apply
the same rules or principles. Players can get frustrated if they get stuck in the game after multiple
trials in vain. They can also get bored if they can easily go through the whole game without even
trying hard. Most games are thus designed in a way that players will be provided with
challenging goals. At the same time, plenty of “just-in-time” information will be available to
assist the players. This third game feature matches the learning principle of scaffolding and it is
enabled by the interactive feature of games that provides immediate feedback to the players and
constantly requires input from the players. Computer games also enable the development of
different learning styles, since the speed and the level of difficulty can be adjusted according to
the players (Jenkins, 2002).
Besides the games that are intentionally designed to educate, some researchers believe
that incidental learning might occur in the process of playing COTS games. Gee (2003)
summarizes 36 principles in COTS games that actually can teach us about learning and literacy.
In fact, there are many examples of COTS games being used in the classroom, including
Civilization, CSI, Age of Empire II, The Sims 2, Age of Mythology, and Sim City 4 (Delwiche,
2006; van Eck, 2006). Empirical studies demonstrate that COTS games are effective in
improving strategizing (Jenkins, 2002) and high-level problem solving skills (Greenfield,
Brannon, & Lohr, 1994), and enhancing inductive reasoning (Honebein, Carr, & Duffy, 1993).
As a number of cognitive skills such as proactive and recursive thinking, systematic organization
of information, interpretation of visual information, and general search heuristics are generally
required for players to successfully finish games, those cognitive skills will be naturally
improved in the process of game playing (Pillay, 2003). In addition, COTS games are
Computer Games - 14
particularly effective in improving spatial, mental rotation and visualization skills, and eye-hand
coordination (de Lisi & Wolford, 2002).
Games for Health
Computer games have been used for various health-related purposes, particularly for risk
prevention, health education, behavioral intervention, and disease self-management. For disease
or risk prevention, games have been designed to promote a healthier lifestyle by delivering
relevant health information, shifting unhealthy attitudes, and enabling healthy behavior rehearsal.
These games are set in a variety of health domains, including promoting healthy nutrition (Peng,
in press), safe sexual behavior (Thomas, Cahill, & Santilli, 1997), anti-smoking (Lieberman,
2001), injury prevention (Goodman, Bradley, Paras, Williamson, & Bizzochi, 2006), and early
treatments for heart attack (Silverman et al., 2001).
Computer games have been developed to improve self-management skills for coping with
certain chronic diseases, such as asthma (Homer et al., 2000; Lieberman, 2001), diabetes (Brown
et al., 1997; Lieberman, 2001), cancer (Cole, Kato, Marin-Bowling, Dahl, & Pollock, 2006). All
the games used in the above studies targeted children with upper mentioned health problems.
Electronic games are believed to be a more advantageous channel to reach children because
playing electronic games has become one of the most popular leisure activities of the youth, and
thus integrating games into their medical regimen is very likely to be acceptable. In addition,
these games provide a fun and engaging environment for behavior rehearsal and repetitive skill
practice without taking risk in real life, which is otherwise hard to achieve using traditional
approaches. Evaluation studies of these games generally show that players like the games and are
willing to use such games to learn more about their health-related issues. However, outcome
measures in most of those studies include only attitudinal variables, such as self-efficacy,
Computer Games - 15
perceived benefit, and behavior intention. Unfortunately, no actual behavior measures were used
in the above studies. It is true that attitudinal variables are mediators for behavior changes which
will ultimately lead to positive health outcomes. Yet, without empirical evidence that these
games can actually influence health-related behavioral outcomes, it is difficult to convince health
providers and policymakers to invest heavily on serious games for health. In fact, Huss et al.
(2003) found that an asthma education game did not help kids improve health-related outcomes.
Computer games are also used as a distraction tool to reduce the discomfort caused by
medical treatment. COTS games as well as specially designed games can be used for this
purpose. Prior research demonstrates that games are effective in reducing pain and anxiety before
surgery (Patel et al., 2006; Rassin, Gutman, & Silner, 2004). Computer games can also serve as
effective therapeutic tools (Pope & Bogart, 1996).
The primary reason that games can be an effective channel for health intervention and
health education is that they provide a simulated and interactive environment where players can
engage in behavioral rehearsal. The simulated environment serves as a safe test-bed for them to
practice self-management skills such as taking insulin, checking blood pressure, or checking
peak flow. Players can observe detrimental effects of their own mismanagement of a disease
without engaging themselves in real danger. For instance, players can observe severe
consequences to their game characters if they fail to use inhaler and learn a lesson. In addition,
game players’ successes in a simulated environment can increase their self-efficacy for managing
their health problems. In addition, the element of fun can motivate players to practice the same
skills without getting bored. For many disease self-management processes, the knowledge and
skills needed are finite, yet repetitive practice and habit formation are critical. This is exactly
Computer Games - 16
what the game format can offer. A well-designed game can be played dozens and even hundreds
of times without making players feel bored.
Games for Social Change
Games for education focus on knowledge transfer, and games for health focus on
behavioral changes. There are other types of serious games that focus on changing attitudes
about political or religious agenda, or simply increasing awareness of social issues. As early as in
1980, a game called Energy Czar, an energy crisis simulation game was created. The 2004
presidential election in the Unites States also generated a number of political games. For
example, Howard Dean for Iowa was created to educate Dean supporters on various grassroots
outreach programs. Another noteworthy political game is PeachMaker, in which players can take
the role of either the Israeli Prime Minister or the Palestinian President to deal with a variety of
events, including diplomatic negotiations, suicide bombers, and interaction with eight other
political leaders, so as to reach a peaceful agreement for both sides. By affording perspectives
from both sides, this game provides a unique opportunity to inform people of the issues in the
region and helps to influence people’s attitude towards the other side. Darfur is dying is a social
issue awareness game to inform people of the crisis in Darfur which made approximately 3
million people leave their home and become refugees. In this game, players take the role of a
Darfurian to experience the threats they face every day from the militias. This game has been
played by millions of people and is reported to be the most significant source to inform young
people of this international crisis. So far, more than dozens of serious games for social change
have been made and played. Unfortunately, however, no empirical study has been conducted to
evaluate how effective theses games are.
Computer Games - 17
Uses and Gratifications of Games in General
The aforementioned discussions answer the question of what effects (negative and
positive) computer games have on the players, yet questions such as what kind of people play
games, how frequently people play games, and why people play games remain unanswered. Uses
and gratifications is a good approach to investigate these questions. According to the uses and
gratifications paradigm (for a general review, see Rubin, 2002), game players are not passive
recipients of messages and are not powerless under the influence of games. Rather, players with
different demographic and social backgrounds purposely choose a game to satisfy their unique
needs or desires. In this section, we summarize computer game studies based on the uses and
gratifications research paradigm (especially with regard to differences in gender, age, and
personality).
Gender
According to Entertainment Software Association (2007), 38% of game players are
females. Empirical evidence consistently shows a similar pattern of gender differences. Males
tend to play games more often, both at home and in arcades (Phillips, Rolls, Rouse, & Griffiths,
1995). Girls seldom go to arcades, and when they do, more often than not, they are with boys and
simply watch how boys play the game (Kiesler, Sproull, & Eccles, 1983). Besides the differences
in frequency of game playing, boys also prefer more realistic violent games (Buchman & Funk,
1996). There are a number of explanations for the above gender differences. One possible
explanation is that females may feel less comfortable than males with the violent themes that are
found in many computer games, and are less comfortable in the arcade atmosphere where such
games are played (Kiesler et al., 1983). Another factor might be that these games are generally
produced by males and for males. Game contents are predominated by simulations of male
Computer Games - 18
activities, such as flying fighter aircrafts, driving racing cars, fighting, and doing masculine
sports such as football. Even fantasy and strategy games are male-oriented. Female characters
appear a lot less frequently. A third explanation is the differences of cognitive abilities of
females and males such as the visual and spatial skills. Game playing demands good eye-hand
coordination and spatial skills in which males are much better than females.
Age
Computer games were once played only among children and adolescents. The recent data
show that games are now being played by more and more adults. Children and adolescents not
only play games alone or with friends, but also with parents and family. However, very few
studies examine the game playing patterns among different age groups. A relatively outdated
study shows that younger subjects were more comfortable with computer games and liked
playing those games more. In contrast, older subjects were more afraid of computers, were not
aware of the variety of computer games, and did not like playing computer games very much
(McClure, 1985). As the Gameboy generation gets old, the major population for computer games
has been changed also. Currently, the average age of game players is 33 as of 2007 (ESA, 2007)
indicating that playing games has become one of the major media use activities for adult
population too.
Personality
Personality predicts the frequency of game playing (McClure & Mears, 1984), the
enjoyment of games (Holbrook, Chestnut, Oliva, & Greenleaf, 1984), and game addiction
(Griffiths & Dancaster, 1995). Frequent game players are more likely to be young males who
like competitive activities, science fictions, and challenges (McClure & Mears, 1984). Holbrook
et al. (1984) argued that both enjoyment and performance depended on how the personality of
Computer Games - 19
the player interacted with the game being played. One particular personality relevant in the
gaming context is one’s tendency towards visualization as opposed to verbalization. Specifically,
visualizers are more likely to enjoy and perform well on visual games while verbalizaers are
more likely to enjoy and perform well on verbal games. As to the relationship of personality and
addiction, Griffiths and Dancaster (1995) demonstrated that Type A personality subjects had a
greater increase of arousal than Type B personality subjects while playing games and thus were
more likely to become addicted to computer games. A recent study found that people of high
physical aggression personality tend to play the game in a more violent way (Peng, Liu, & Mou,
in press).
Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research
This chapter reviews the existing literature on the negative and positive effects of
computer games. It shows that playing violent entertainment games has negative effects to some
extent, though not as strongly as people usually imagine. In general, the previous literature
suggests that violent entertainment games can result in aggressive affects, thoughts, and
behaviors. Even non-violent games can have negative impacts on players; MMORPGs can make
players be seriously addicted to the games and cause some social, financial, and health problems.
Playing games (especially educational games), however, can be beneficial. For instance,
computer games can improve motivation, retention, spatial skills, and cognitive skills of players.
Computer games can even be used to train soldiers or corporate employees. In addition,
computer games can be utilized to help some special groups such as people with health problems.
Since kids usually play games with friends and family, computer games might help children to
develop social skills as well. Computer games can also be used to promote social causes or
increase social awareness as we have seen during presidential elections or international crises. In
Computer Games - 20
addition to the studies of games which are based on the media effect research paradigm, game
studies based on the uses and gratifications research paradigm were also reviewed. Gender is a
very strong predictor for the frequency of game playing. Males and females differ with respect to
their preferences of games and their playing patterns. Another important variable is personality.
Player’s personality influences his or her enjoyment of a game, potential to become addicted to a
game, and preference for a particular genre of a game, and how they play the game. Age is also
an important factor. Yet, research on this variable is somewhat limited.
As a final remark, we discuss some limitations in the current literature and possible ways
to overcome the limitations. First, there is a lack of unique theories on computer games. Current
studies mostly borrow theories from the domain of television. However, playing games and
watching television are fundamentally different activities in that the former is active and the
latter is passive. Therefore, a new set of theories focusing on the interactive nature of game
playing is needed. As Sherry (2001) suggested, new theories should be able to explain how and
why people are engaged in computer games, and what kind of gratifications players pursue from
their game playing. The uses and gratifications approach is a good start to overcome the
limitation. New theories on computer games, however, should go beyond the uses and
gratifications approach and need to clarify the underlying mechanism of the game engagement
and the origin of biological and psychological reasons for diverse individual motivations to play
games.
Second, the current literature heavily focuses on the consequences of game playing and
as a result fails to explain the nature of game playing as an entertainment experience. We believe
that theoretical understanding of the nature of game experience can solve the controversies about
the negative effects of game violence and game addiction (see Lee and Peng [2006] for a similar
Computer Games - 21
claim). A possible approach to understand the nature of gaming experience is to introduce the
concept of presence (see Lee [2004] for a detailed explication of the concept). As many scholars
argue, feelings of presence lie at the heart of media experience (Lombard & Ditton, 1997).
Consequently, subjective and objective measures of presence during game playing can give us
many insights on the nature of game experience and the underlying mechanisms of how game
playing affects game players’ attitudes, cognition, and behaviors. A recent study (Lee, Jin, Park,
& Kang, 2005) clearly shows the benefits of measuring presence in computer game research.
Finally, the effects of new game interfaces (e.g., Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation Eyetoy,
DDR [Dance Dance Revolution] Pad), devices (e.g., mobile game devices, PlayStation Portable,
Nintendo DS), and technologies (e.g., haptic technologies, 3D graphics) have hardly been
examined in the current literature. More than other traditional media experiences, computer
gaming experiences are critically affected by technological factors. For example, for the same
game, game players might have qualitatively different experiences depending on particular
interfaces (e.g., game pad vs. keyboard), devices (e.g., PSP vs. PS2), and technologies (14 inch
screen vs. 21 inch screen) that they used while playing the game. Technological factors will also
significantly alter possible effects of game playing. For example, violent games played on a
small screen with bad audio quality have minimal effects on game players’ physiological arousal
(Ballard & West, 1996) and aggressive thoughts (Anderson & Dill, 2000) than the same game
played on a large screen with high fidelity audio. The existing game literature predominantly
focuses on the effects of game content factors (e.g., violence, education). With rapid
development of game technologies, however, equal attention should be paid to the effects of
game technology factors.
Computer Games - 22
References
American Medical Association (2007). Featured report: Emotional and behavioral effects of
computer games and Internet overuse. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/category/17694.html
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent computer games. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 113-122.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent computer games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial
behavior: A meta-analytical review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353359.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
27-51.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior
in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C.
(2004). Violent computer games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and
behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199-249.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent computer game effects on children
and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. R. (2003). Violent computer games and aggressive behavior in
young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 423-429.
Computer Games - 23
Baldaro, B., Tuozzi, G., Codispoti, M., Montebarocci, O., Barbagli, F., Trombini, E., & Rossi, N.
(2004). Aggressive and non-violent videogames: Short-term psychological and cardiovascular
effects on habitual players. Stress and Health, 20, 203-208.
Ballard, M. E., & West, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat (tm): The effects of violent videogame play on
males' hostility and cardiovascular responding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 717730.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Examining the effects of violent computer games on
aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
283-290.
Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: A
cognitive-neoassociation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 410-427.
Brady, S. S., & Matthews, K. A. (2006). Effects of media violence on health-related outcomes
among young men. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 341-347.
Brown, S. J., Lieberman, D. A., Gemeny, B. A., Fan, Y. C., Wilson, D. M., & Pasta, D. J. (1997).
Educational computer game for juvenile diabetes: Results of a controlled trial. Medical
Informatics, 22, 77-89.
Buchman, D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the ’90s: Children report time
commitment and game preference. Children Today, 31, 12-15.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent computer games and hostile expectations: A test
of the General Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.
Computer Games - 24
Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent
computer games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882889.
Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of computer game violence
on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 489-496.
Choi, D., & Kim, J. (2004). Why people continue to play online games: In search of critical design
factors to increase customer loyalty to online contents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 11-24.
Chua, A. Y. K. (2005). The design and implementation of a simulation game for teaching
knowledge management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 56, 1207-1216.
Clark, S., & Smith, G. B. (2004). Outbreak!: Teaching clinical and diagnostic microbiology
methodologies with an interactive online game. Journal of College Science Teaching,
34, 30-33.
Cole, S. W., Kato, P. M., Marin-Bowling, V. M., Dahl, G. V., & Pollock, B. H. (2006). Clinical
trial of Re-Mission: A computer game for young people with cancer. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 9, 665-666.
Coleman, D. S. (2001). PC gaming and simulation supports training. Proceedings of United States
Naval Institute, 127, 73-75.
de Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children's mental rotation accuracy with computer
game playing. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 272-282.
Computer Games - 25
Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom.
Educational Technology & Society, 9, 160-172.
Deselms, J., & Altman, J. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1553-1563.
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in
children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22.
Entertainment Software Association. (2007). Top ten industry facts. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from
http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php
Faiola, A. (2006, May 27). When escape seems just a mouse-click away. Washington Post. Retrieved
July 22, 2007, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601960_pf.html
Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Funatsuka, M., Fujita, M., Shirakawa, S., Oguni, H., & Osawa, M. (2001). Study on photo-pattern
sensitivity in patients with electronic screen game-induced seizures (ESGS): Effects of spatial
resolution, brightness, and pattern movement. Epilespsia, 42, 1185-1197.
Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life,
computer games, television, movies, and the Internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 23-29.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What computer games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Geen, R. G. (1990). Human aggression. Pacific Grove, CA: McGraw Hill.
Computer Games - 26
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent computer
game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 5-22.
Goodman, D., Bradley, N. L., Paras, B., Williamson, I. J., & Bizzochi, J. (2006). Video gaming
promotes concussion knowledge acquisition in youth hockey players. Journal of
Adolescence, 29, 351-360.
Greenfield, P. M., Brannon, G., & Lohr, D. (1994). Two-dimensional representation of movement
through three-dimensional space: The role of computer game expertise. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 1, 87-103.
Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Computer game violence and aggression: Comments on “Computer game
playing and its relations with aggressive and prosocial behavior” by O. Wiegman and E. G. M.
van Schie. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 147-149 (Part 1).
Griffiths, M. D., & Dancaster, I. (1995). The effect of Type A personality on physiological arousal
while playing computer games. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 543-548.
Griffiths, M. D., & Hunt, N. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents. Psychological
Reports, 82, 475-480.
Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Excessive computer game playing:
Evidence for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 290-292.
Harris Interactive (2007, April 2). Computer game addiction: Is it real? Retrieved July 22, 2007, from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1196
Computer Games - 27
Holbrook, M. B., Chestnut, R. W., Oliva, T. A., & Greenleaf, E. A. (1984). Play as a consumption
experience: The roles of emotions, performance, and personality in the enjoyment of games.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 728-739.
Homer, C., Susskind, O., Alpert, H. R., Owusu, C., Schneider, L., Rappaport, L. A., et al. (2000).
An evaluation of an innovative multimedia educational software program for asthma
management: Report of a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 106, 210-215.
Honebein, P. C., Carr, A., & Duffy, T. (1993). The effects of modeling to aid problem solving in
computer-based learning environments. In M. R. Simonson & K. Abu-Omar (Eds.), Annual
proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the national convention of
the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 373-406). Bloomington,
IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Hoogeweegen, M. R., van Liere, D. W., Vervest, P. H. M., van der Meijden, L. H., & de Lepper,
I. (2006). Strategizing for mass customization by playing the business networking game.
Decision Support Systems, 42, 1402-1412.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media
violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-139.
Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2006). The role of media violence in violent behavior. Annual
Review of Public Health, 27, 393-415.
Huss, K., Winkelstein, M., Nanda, J., Naumann, P. L., Sloand, E. D., & Huss, R. W. (2003).
Computer game for inner-city children does not improve asthma outcomes. Journal of
Pediatric Health Care, 17, 72-78.
Computer Games - 28
Interactive Digital Software Association (2000). Fast facts about the consumer [Press release]. No
location: Author. Retrieved September 05, 2006, from http://www.idsa.com
Jenkins, H. (2002). Game theory. Technology Review, 29, 1–3.
Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1983). Second class citizens. Psychology Today, 17, 41-48.
Kovalik, D. L., & Kovalik, L. M. (2002). Language learning simulation: A Piagetian perspective.
Simulation & Gaming, 33, 345.
Krahé, B., & Möller, I. (2004). Playing violent electronic games, hostile attributional style, and
aggression-related norms in German adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 53-69.
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27-50.
Lee, K. M., & Peng, W. (2006). What do we know about social and psychological effects of
computer games? A comprehensive review of the current literature. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant
(Eds.), Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 327-345).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, K. M., Jin, S., Park, N., & Kang, S. (2005 May). Effects of narrative on feelings of presence in
computer-game playing. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International
Communication Association (ICA), New York: NY.
Lengwiler, Y. (2004). A monetary policy simulation game. Journal of Economic Education, 35, 175183.
Lieberman, D. A. (2001). Management of chronic pediatric diseases with interactive health
games: Theory and research findings. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 24, 2638.
Computer Games - 29
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3). Retrieved September 22, 2006, from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
Los Angeles Times (2007, June 25). AMA may identify excessive computer game play as addiction.
Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-figames25jun25,1,3023782.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
Mann, B. D., Eidelson, B. M., Fukuchi, S. G., Nissman, S. A., Robertson, S., & Jardines, L. (2002).
The development of an interactive game-based tool for learning surgical management
algorithms via computer. American Journal of Surgery, 183, 305-308.
Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a
multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171-185.
McClure, R. F. (1985). Age and video game playing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 285-286.
McClure, R. F., & Mears, F. G. (1984). Video game players: Personality characteristics and
demographic variables. Psychological Reports, 55, 271-276.
Ng, B. D., & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2005). Addiction to the Internet and online gaming.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 110-113.
Office of the Surgeon General (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. US
Department of Health and Human Services.
Olson, C. K. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence data: Why do they conflict?
Academic Psychiatry, 28, 144-150.
Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. Communication Yearbook,
8, 20-55.
Computer Games - 30
Patel, A., Schieble, T., Davidson, M., Tran, M. C. J., Schoenberg, C., Delphin, E., et al. (2006).
Distraction with a hand-held computer game reduces pediatric preoperative anxiety.
Pediatric Anesthesia, 16, 1019-1027.
Peng, W. (in press). Is a computer game an effective medium for health promotion? Design and
evaluation of the RightWay Cafe game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health
Communication.
Peng, W., Liu, M., & Mou, Y. (in press). Do aggressive people play violent computer games in a
more aggressive way? Individual difference and idiosyncratic game playing experience.
CyberPsychology & Behavior.
Philips, C. A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing in
schoolchildren: A study of incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 687-691.
Pillay, H. (2003). An investigation of cognitive processes engaged in by recreational computer game
players: Implications for skills of the future. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
34, 336-349.
Poole, S. (2000). Trigger happy: Videogames and the entertainment revolution. New York: Arcade
Publishing.
Pope, A. T., & Bogart, E. H. (1996). Extended attention span training system: Computer game
neurotherapy for attention deficit disorder. Child Study Journal, 26, 39-50.
PriceWaterHouseCoopers (2006). Global entertainment and media outlook: 2006-2010. Retrieved
May 23, 2007, from http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9793
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., & Wetzel, C. D. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational
purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261-276.
Computer Games - 31
Rassin, M. Gutman, Y. & Silner, D. (2004). Developing a computer game to prepare children for
surgery. AORN Journal, 80, 1099-1102.
Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effect. In J. Bryant, & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525-548). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.
Rule, B. K., & Ferguson, T. J. (1986). The effects of media violence on attitude, emotions, and
cognitions. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 29-50.
Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent computer games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human
Communication Research, 27, 409-431.
Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S., Branas, C., Ivins, D., Weaver, R., et al. (2001).
Modeling emotion and behavior in animated personas to facilitate human behavior change:
The case of the HEART-SENSE game. Health Care Management Science, 4, 213-228.
Slater, M. D., Henry, K. L., Swaim, R. C., & Anderson, L. L. (2003). Violent media content and
aggressiveness in adolescents: A downward spiral model. Communication Research, 30, 713736.
Thomas, R., Cahill, J., & Santilli, L. (1997). Using an interactive computer game to increase skill
and self-efficacy regarding safer sex negotiation: Field test results. Health Education &
Behavior, 24, 71-86.
van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless.
EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 17-30.
Computer Games - 32
van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the
transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Etr&DEducational Technology Research and Development, 50, 23-41.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006).
Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 34, 229-243.
Wan, C-S., & Chiou, W-B. (2006). Psychological motives and online games addiction: A test of flow
theory and humanistic needs theory for Taiwanese adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
9, 317-324.
Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression on an online game.
Communication Monographs, 72, 217-233.
Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression:
Theoretical and empirical reviews. Vol. 1 (pp. 75-102). New York: Academic Press.