Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 3 Measuring Interactivity in Video Games Video games
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Weber, René Behr, Katharina-Maria DeMartino, Cynthia H. |
| Copyright Year | 2015 |
| Abstract | Video games have become a remarkably popular form of new media, and their use is impacting multiple fields of study within the communication discipline. For instance, research programs in health, instructional, feminist/gender, interpersonal, and intercultural communication have all examined video games. Interactivity is the hallmark of video games. Consequently, interactivity is a common concept in the video game literature. While video game interactivity (VGI) is still an under-specified concept, previous research suggests that interactivity has the potential to moderate both positive and negative effects of video games, and therefore it is crucial for understanding general video game effects. We developed a theoretical model of video game interactivity and tested a multidimensional scale to assess video game interactivity across five independent studies. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as item analyses revealed a reliable and valid metric consisting of six dimensions of video game interactivity. VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 3 Measuring Interactivity in Video Games Video games are a popular form of new media, and their use is impacting multiple fields of study within the communication discipline. Health (Warburton et al., 2007), instructional (Greenfield, Brannon, & Lohr, 2002), feminist (Dill & Thill, 2007), interpersonal (Peña & Hancock, 2006), and intercultural (Anderson et al., 2008) communication research programs have all investigated video games. Interactivity is a hallmark of the medium. It is a key explanation for their increasing popularity and it has been claimed that the interactive nature of video games considerably moderates their effects (Bailey, Wise, & Bolls, 2009; Grodal, 2000; Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007; Jin, 2009; Shibuya, Sakamoto, Ihori, & Yukawa, 2008). But there are still theoretical and methodological questions that remain unanswered. Theoretically, there are two contradictory schools of thought. On one hand, it has been argued that interactivity attenuates various game effects because it demands a proportion of the player's mental capacity (Klimmt, Steinhof, & Daschmann, 2008; Kureshi & Sood, 2009; Lee & Faber, 2007; Yoo & Peña, 2010). If playing an interactive game demands more mental resources, fewer resources remain for other cognitive processes (Lang, 2000, 2006). Alternatively, interactivity might intensify game effects as players receive constant and immediate feedback on their behavior and its consequences (Carnagey & Anderson, 2004). This might lead to greater enjoyment and to an increased motivation for playing (Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006). It might also facilitate the formation of a favorable attitude toward a game related behavior pattern and thus impact the extent to which a specific behavior will be learned and performed in the future (Bandura, 2009). It has been difficult to support or refute conclusively either theoretical stance because of the methodological problems involved in studying video game interactivity (VGI) and its effects. VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 4 It is difficult to experimentally manipulate video game interactivity without user/player related confounds (Klimmt, Vorderer, & Ritterfeld, 2007; Vorderer, 2000). Users of interactive media can individualize the process of media consumption. In experimental designs, the researchers' ability to control and systematically manipulate interactively generated game content is limited because different users/players may generate very different content (cf. Weber, Behr, Tamborini, Ritterfeld, & Mathiak, 2009). Consequently, few studies investigated the impact of video game interactivity on game effects; and those have mixed results (Calvert & Tan, 1994; deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010; Graybill, Strawniak, Hunter, & O'Leary, 1987; Klimmt, Steinhof & Daschmann, 2008; Kureshi & Sood, 2009; Lee & Faber, 2007; Peng, 2008; Polman, de Castro, & van Aken, 2008; Silvern & Williamson, 1987; Yoo & Peña, 2010). Difficulties in manipulating interactivity might be an explanation for the inconclusive findings: Most studies compared playing a video game with watching a recording of another's game playing. Unfortunately, playing and watching a recording will force a perfect match of the sequence of events, actions, and non-actions (Polman, deCastro, & van Aken, 2008). Different players normally generate different content. It is methodologically dubious to assume that onlookers might have played the same way as their matched player. Moreover, controlling for individual differences (e.g. demographics) between players and onlookers (Ritterfeld, Shen, Wang, Nocera, & Ling Wong, 2009) remains problematic because participants apply different psychological processing mechanisms when using interactive versus non-interactive media content (Sohn & Lee, 2005; Vorderer, 2000; Vorderer, Bryant, Pieper, & Weber, 2006). Alternately, researchers have compared the playing of several different games to study how divergent content can impact video game outcomes (e.g. Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007). This is problematic as well, since a number of VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 5 confounding variables are unintentionally manipulated across games, such as difficulty, enjoyment, frustration, boredom, novelty etc. How can these methodological problems be ameliorated when studying the impact of video game interactivity on game effects? Comparing non-equivalent interactive versus noninteractive groups in experiments could be avoided by conceptualizing interactivity as continuous rather than dichotomous (Downes & McMillan, 2000; Leiner & Quiring, 2008; McMillan & Hwang, 2002; Steuer, 1992). With a quantitative concept of video game interactivity (VGI), more or less interactive games could be selected or even designed as stimuli in experimental settings. Further, user perceptions of VGI could be measured and controlled for in experimental settings and surveys. The goal of this paper is to develop a reliable and valid scale for VGI. A sound video game interactivity scale would enable researchers to measure and incorporate user perceptions of interactivity levels as a mediating variable in the test of video game effects hypotheses and to evaluate—or even create—games with varying degrees of interactivity. The paper is organized as follows. First, we review theoretical concepts of interactivity in general and of video game interactivity in particular. Subsequently, we derive seven dimensions of interactivity from the previous literature. Using theoretical conceptualizations of video game interactivity and the seven dimensions of interactivity as a starting point, we develop a reliable scale of video game interactivity (VGI-scale). We test the scale's discriminant and predictive validity in six independent samples with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and establish construct validity by correlating the VGI-scale with theoretically related and validated measures of media enjoyment (Krcmar & Renfro, 2005) and flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 6 1975; Sherry, 2004; Sherry, Rosaen, Bowman, & Huh, 2006). Finally, we discuss the final scale as well as future implications for the application of this research. Conceptualizing Video Game Interactivity Various definitions have been applied to media interactivity in general (Bucy & Tao, 2007). Many previous approaches have defined interactivity either as (1) characteristics of the medium (Durlak, 1987; Jensen, 1998; Lee, Park, & Jin, 2006; Sundar, 2004), (2) characteristics of the communication process (Kiosus, 2002; Rafaeli, 1988; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997), or (3) the user's perception (Leiner & Quiring, 2008; Liu & Shrum, 2002; McMillian & Hwang, 2002; Wu, 1999). Technology-oriented approaches (e.g. Durlak, 1987; Jensen, 1998) focus on media attributes that make “an individual's participation in communication settings possible and efficient” (Lee, Park, & Jin, 2006, p. 261). Sundar (2004) recommended a technology-oriented approach for two reasons. First, perceived interactivity depends on people's skills to use media. Highly skilled people tend to use media fully and rate it as quite interactive, whereas less skilled people may rate it as less interactive. As a result, high-end virtual reality systems that require advanced skills are likely to be rated lower in interactivity than more usable everyday applications such as e-mail. Second, perceived interactivity can hardly specify or ascertain which technological elements promote the perception of interactivity in a system, which may cause trouble in identifying what kind of interactivity evokes the variation of users' attitude, cognition, or behavior. Interactivity as a process-related characteristic refers to the communication settings of a mediated environment. Issues include whether the communication process is linear or non-linear, what kind of participant relationships are being developed (human to machine, human to human VIDEO GAME INTERACTIVITY 7 via machine, machine to machine), to what extent the roles of sender and receiver are exchangeable, and to what extent messages are reciprocally dependent (Kiousis, 2002; Rafaeli, 1988; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). The third approach focuses on the question how users perceive interactivity (Leiner & Quiring, 2008; Liu & Shrum, 2002; McMillan & Hwang, 2002; Newhagen, Corders, & Levy, 1995; Sohn & Lee, 2005; Wu, 1999). Perceptions can be more influential than objective media characteristics because a user's behavior is predominantly guided by subjective perceptions (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Hence, perceived interactivity appears to play an important role in shaping actual interactivity's influence on interacting participants (Wu, 2005). However, Lee, Park, and Jin (2006) note that perceived interactivity is more or less subject to logistical factors such as turn-taking possibility, feedback mechanisms, and the quantity and quality of user choices available in the system. We argue tha |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.medianeuroscience.org/sites/default/files/touchpro/Weber_Behr_DeMartino.VideoGameInteractivity.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
