The Video Game Debate 2

Revisiting the Physical, Social, and Psychological Effects of Video Games

Rachel Kowert, Thorsten Quandt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000224283
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Ethics & Moral Philosophy

This student-friendly book provides an accessible overview of the primary debates about the effects of video games. It expands on the original The Video Game Debate to address the new technologies that have emerged within the field of game studies over the last few years.

Debates about the negative effects of video game play have been evident since their introduction in the 1970s, but the advent of online and mobile gaming has revived these concerns, reinvigorating old debates and generating brand new ones. The Video Game Debate 2 draws from the latest research findings from the top scholars of digital games research to address these concerns. The book explores key developments such as virtual and augmented reality, the use of micro-transactions, the integration of loot boxes, and the growth of mobile gaming and games for change (serious games). Furthermore, several new chapters explore contemporary debates around e-sports, gamification, sex and gender discrimination in games, and the use of games in therapy.

This book offers students and scholars of games studies and digital media, as well as policymakers, the essential information they need to participate in the debate.

1
Revisiting Old Debates

Rachel Thorsten KowertQuandt

Over the last few years, new technologies have been developed and popularized within in the field of game studies. This chapter will provide a (brief) overview of video games, including a summary of the findings and debates of the original Video Game Debate volume. This chapter will also reintroduce working definitions of key terms and video games’ current position within Western society. In this sense, it will serve both as a connection piece to the previous volume and as a concise overview for readers who are unaware of the discussions covered in the previous book. This chapter will conclude by introducing the debates to be covered within this new volume, including mobile gaming, eSports, gamification, games for change, sex and gender discrimination in games, and games in therapy.

Introduction

Video games are the dominant form of media in the 21st century. Their accessibility and popularity have grown exponentially over the last several decades. Historically, debates about the impact of video games on our physical, mental, and psychological well-being focused on the impact of video game content. Questions around violent video game play, the physical effects of engaging in a predominantly sedentary activity, and video game addiction have typically dominated these discussions. Answering these and other related questions was the focus of the first iteration of The Video Game Debate (Kowert & Quandt, 2016). In it, we tackled the most pressing questions regarding video game effects as voiced from scholars, clinicians, policy makers, and parents.

Since the original publication of The Video Game Debate, the discourse around video game effects has started to shift away from how the content of games are impacting us and towards how the structure, design, and gaming culture are impacting us. The Video Game Debate 2 addresses this shift in discourse to address how game design, gaming cultures, novel uses of digital games, and new technologies are impacting our physical, social, and psychological well-being.

However, before we dive in to the new debates within the field, we would like to review the various changes in the field of game studies relating to the debates discussed in the previous volume, including a reintroduction of working definitions of key terms; a discussion about the similarities and differences between video games, online video games, mobile video games, and traditional media; the rise and current state of the video game industry; and video games’ current position within Western society. In this sense, it will serve as both a connection piece to the previous volume as well as an overview for those readers who are unfamiliar with the discussion in the previous book. This section will focus on the primary debates tackled in the first volume, including violent video games, video game addiction, and video games and well-being.

Violent Video Games, Aggression, and Violent Crime

Debates about the relationship between violent video games, aggression, and violent crime continue. In February 2020, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a revision to its 2015 resolution on violent crime and video games. In it, they note that violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors. However, just like in the 2015 release, they conclude that there is not enough evidence to conclude whether or not violent video games directly contribute to aggressive and violent outcomes.

Despite the official stance of the APA (2020), delving deeper into the research literature paints a clearer picture. For example, a recently published pre-registered report by Przybylski and Weinstein (2019) concluded that “violent video game engagement, on balance, is not associated with observable variability in adolescents’ aggressive behavior” (p. 14). There have also been many studies (not noted by the APA in its resolution) that have found a decrease in violent crime and/or aggression in response to playing violent video games (Ferguson, 2015; Markey, Markey, & French, 2015). Scholars have also noted the importance of context when assessing links between violent video games and aggression and/or violent outcomes. As previously noted by several scholars, when one matches video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life, violent video game effects on aggression essential vanish (Ferguson, Miguel, Garza, & Jerabeck, 2011; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2019; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010). Because most video game experiments only have players play for short periods of time, and violent games tend to be more complex than the types of games that are often used as the control condition (such as mobile puzzle games), cutting off play time before the participants have even learned how to play may be creating the post-test increase in aggression (which is actually mislabeled frustration) than the violent content of the game. Knowing this, it is perhaps unsurprising that if players are allowed additional time to learn to play the game, or if researchers provide violent and nonviolent games of equal complexity, the effects disappear (Ferguson et al., 2011; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2019; Przybylski et al., 2010).

Video Game Addiction

In September 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced it would include Gaming Disorder (GD) in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). This decision reinvigorated discussions about the prevalence, etiology, and impact of GD. Today, there remain active debates about how GD should be conceptualized and assessed (Griffiths et al., 2016; Kardefelt-Winther, 2014; Petry et al., 2014). The WHO announcement prompted backlash from the scientific community, which voiced significant concerns about the content of GD as proposed by the ICD-11 due to the low quality research to operationally define and monitor the proposed topic (including a lack of evidence demonstrating the impact of GD on the mental well-being of players), the operational definition of GD relying too heavily upon substance use and gambling disorder criteria, and a lack of consensus on symptomology and assessment of problematic gaming (Aarseth et al., 2017). Mental health professionals have also raised concern that the disordered use of gaming may not be a distinct, unique disorder at all but rather a maladaptive coping strategy for managing other underlying conditions (Boccamazzo, 2019; Kowert, 2019; Schneider, King, & Delfabbro, 2017) Today, there are many critical questions about GD that remained unanswered – specifically, the etiology of GD symptomology and the relationship between GD symptomology and mental health.

However, new developments have indicated that GD may be more of an episodic than chronic condition. Przybylski and Weinstein (2019) found that daily-life, episodic psychological need frustrations (the inability to achieve a sense of autonomy, competence, and control in everyday life) predicted GD symptomology and psychosocial functioning among adolescents. The researchers also found that dysregulated gaming accounted for an insignificant share of variability in psychosocial functioning (measured by a broad assessment of social and emotional functioning) as compared to the role played by basic psychological needs. This suggests that everyday stress and pre-existing psychological challenges significantly fuel behaviors associated with GD symptomology. Although this is the only known study to examine the role of psychological need frustration, the findings are notable as the researchers conclude that knowing the extent to which an adolescent’s video-game play has “no practically useful incremental information” (p. 1265).

This research highlights the possibility that disordered use of video games might actually be a management or coping tool for depression and anxiety. These compensation theories (originally developed for research on excessive use of the internet; see Davis, 2001) highlight the motivational role of pre-existing conditions (such as depression and anxiety) in video game involvement (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Hsu, Wen, & Wu, 2009; Kowert, 2016). From this perspective, a pre-existing condition within the player, such as depression or anxiety, drives engagement within gaming spaces.

Video Games and Well-Being

There remains a general concern about the impact of video game play on players’ well-being, that is, if prolonged video game play undermines physical, social, and mental health (Domahidi, Breuer, Kowert, Festl, & Quandt, 2016; Griffiths et al., 2016; Kardefelt-Winther, 2014; Kaye, Kowert, & Quinn, 2017; Kowert, Vogelgesang, Festl, & Quandt, 2015).

There has been research pinpointing disordered and/or addicted play to increased depression and anxiety (Kim et al., 2016; Scharkow, Festl, & Quandt, 2014) as well as to other poorer mental health outcomes such as lower self-esteem (Stetina, Kothgassner, Lehenbauer, & Kryspin-Exner, 2011) and life satisfaction (Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2012). In 2016, Kim and colleagues found individuals who were classified into a risk group for Internet Gaming Disorder (they met five or more of the nine criteria as outlined by the DSM) scored higher on measures of depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity, and hostility, among others.

However, more recently the role of social identity and community has been taken into consideration as a potential “buffer” for these negative outcomes. Kaye and colleagues 2017 found that being a member of the gaming community (as indicated by identifying as adopting the “gamer” social identity) was positively related to self-esteem and social competence. This highlights how identifying with the gaming community can bolster players’ sense of well-being, indicating the social value afforded through online forms of digital gaming.

Moving Forward

The impetus to publish The Video Game Debate 2 was to not only discuss some of the topics that did not receive attention in the first volume (such as gamification and games for change) but also to address the new debates that have arisen within the field of game studies: virtual and augmented reality, the popularization of e-sports, and lootboxes, to name a few.

The remainder of this volume will tackle these new active debates within the field of game studies across eight chapters. This will begin with two chapters related to developments in game design: gamification, loot boxes, and games for change. Each of these chapters will discuss how game design can impact player thoughts and behaviors. This will be followed by three chapters focusing on gamer cultures: discrimination in games, Twitch and participatory cultures, and the growth of e-sports. Although some of these facets of gamer culture are not necessarily new, each of these topics has grown to become established fields of study in their own right. As toxic gamer cultures continue unabated, participatory cultures grow in popularity, and e-sports become a multimillion dollar industry, studying their impact is more important than ever. The volume concludes with three chapters discussing novel uses of digital games and new technologies. Because games and learning is a growing area of interest within the field of education, mental health professionals have now started incorporating digital games into therapeutic practice. The use of games in therapeutic settings will be explored, including how the structure of games themselves may be particularly efficacious for certain kinds of psychological intervention. This will be followed by a discussion of virtual and augmented reality, again in the context of therapeutic intervention. Whilst discussions of virtual reality often focus on aspects of playful immersion, there have been many breakthroughs in the use of this technology for educational and therapeutic practice. The volume will conclude with an overview on mobile gaming. From modest beginnings to the saturated market we see today, mobile gaming is arguably the biggest subset of video games currently on the market today. This chapter explores the growth of mobile gaming as well as its potential impact on players and player behavior.

As games continue to shift and evolve, so will our understanding of their uses and effects. This volume will collate what we know about games, gaming, and their effects to provide a greater understanding of how digital games impact our everyday lives today.

References

Aarseth, E., Bean, A. M., Boonen, H., Carras, M. C., Coulson, M., Das, D., … van Rooij, A. (2017). Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(3), 267–270.

American Psychological Association. (2020). APA Resolution on Violent Video Games. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-v...