The Multiple Dimensions of Video Game Effects

Video games are at the center of a debate over what is helpful or harmful to children and adolescents, and there is research to substantiate both sides. The existing research suggests that there are at least 5 dimensions on which video games can affect players: the amount of play, the content of play, the game context, the structure of the game, and the mechanics of game play. This article describes each of these 5 dimensions with support from the scientific literature, arguing that this approach can allow people to get beyond the typical ‘‘good–bad’’ dichotomous thinking to have a more nuanced understanding of video game effects and to provide testable hypotheses for future research. KEYWORDS—video games; media effects; dimensional approach In the past 30 years, digital electronic games (hereafter called video games) have gone from novelty entertainment to one of the largest industries in terms of both money (posting more than $21 billion in sales in 2008 and growing 19% despite the poor global economy) and audience reached, with 92% of American children playing video games (Gentile & Walsh, 2002) and the ‘‘average’’ gamer being 35 years old (ESA, 2008). As with any new medium, video games have come under fire from critics about potential harms, and also have been praised for potential benefits. Not surprisingly, the rhetoric this ‘‘debate’’ engenders generates more heat than illumination. Two examples demonstrate this. One of the most vocal critics has been a now-disbarred lawyer, Jack Thompson, who routinely assumed that most high-profile violent crimes, such as school shootings, stemmed in part from violent game play. In a public letter to the mother of the CEO of a video game company, he wrote, . . . the recent plethora of cop killings is caused in part by your darling son’s entrepreneurial energy. There are three policemen dead in Alabama because of Grand Theft Auto. I was on 60 Minutes about it. I hope [your son] has provided you with a flat screen TV to see the grief of the bereaved families that fills the screen. (Cavalli, 2008) On the opposite side, the video game industry has also sometimes misrepresented the issues. The president of the Entertainment Software Association said in a televised 2004 interview, Every researcher who’s come to this without a preconceived notion trying to prove that video games are harmful has looked at the literature and said that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that violent video games are harmful. (Palmer, 2004) Educators have long recognized the potential of software and games to teach. The 1980s saw a push to get computers into the classroom, and schools adopted early educational games such as Oregon Trail to help teach schoolchildren about geography and pioneer life. Indeed, games do many things that are excellent pedagogy (Gee, 2003, 2005; Gentile & Gentile, 2008). They are motivating, provide immediate feedback, can adapt themselves to the level of the learner, provide repetition to the point of automaticity, encourage distributed learning, can teach for transfer, and use other excellent teaching techniques. Ironically, both sides are usually correct about the effects games can have. They tend, however, to select different research literatures to make their points. The problem for parents, educators, game producers, policymakers, and researchers is that the polarizing rhetoric is damaging and ultimately misses the point. Video games are neither ‘‘good’’ nor ‘‘bad.’’ The existing research suggests that there are at least five dimensions on which video games can affect players: the amount of play, the content of play, the game context, the structure of the game, and the mechanics of game play. Although future studies may demonstrate additional dimensions, these five appear able Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas A. Gentile, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011; e-mail: [email protected]. a 2011 The Author Child Development Perspectives a 2011 The Society for Research in Child Development Volume 5, Number 2, 2011, Pages 75–81 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES