SNHU Children’s Competitive Video Game Playing And Prosocial Behavior

Description

Select and read one peer-reviewed article (attached). Ideally, this should be one on your topic that you may ultimately use in your final project. Highlight at least one threat to internal or external validity or reliability. Explore why this threat is problematic and how it could be remedied. Comment on the articles discussed by your classmates (below). Consider which validity threats are most common. Which are the most difficult to deal with?

To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document (attached).

Please also respond to the following two students discussion posts in regards to this same topic. Please respond with a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs.


Student One:

The article

Critters in the Cube Farm: Perceived Psychological and Organizational Effects of Pets in the Workplace

surveyed 31 companies that allowed pets in the work place to see if the 193 employees of those companies perceived psychological and organizational effects of the pets. The results from this 2001 studies showed that the most frequent report from this survey was employees thought pets (both cats and dogs) relieved stress.

There is one external validity threat this study touched on in the discussion of the paper: there were more small companies that took part in this study than large companies. This may be because small companies are more likely to take part in research studies or because small companies are more likely to allow pets. More examination may be needed to see how evenly distributed the pet allowance is in big workplaces. If it is found that pet allowance is mainly a small business thing, this may not be a problem. Another external validity threat the paper did not discuss is anyone who wants to take part in a pet-centric research study is (most likely) positively affected by pets anyway. If someone agrees to take part in a research study about pets, one would assume they like pets and, If they do, it could also be assumed they will report that they feel pets reduce their stress when they are around them. To try to reduce this threat, another research study could be conducted using the same idea but also collect information from a group who do not work with pets.

I think this last type of validity threat (dealing with people who want to be researched on the topic that is being researched) is common and hard to tackle. It must be hard for researchers to find participants who fit in to their hypothesis but aren’t over excited about the topic. Researchers want to find participants who

want

to take part in the research (because of course that is the ethical piece of research), but also don’t want to skew their data because of participants’ interests either.

References

Wells, M., & Perrine, R. (2001). Critters in the cube farm: Perceived psychological and organizational effects of pets in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 81-87. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.6.1.81


Student Two:

The article form Barber and Cucalon suggest that Sleep Treatment Education Program (STEP) has some beneficial aspects to improving sleep patterns. However, in reliability, one area that they failed to address concerns the reason for awaking during sleep (2017). They suggest that examples of healthy sleep hygiene practices consist of limiting the amount of tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine consumption prior to sleep. The counter to this is of a personal source. My wife and I consume approximately the same amount of liquids and foods prior to sleep. Additionally, we ensure we eat around three hours or more prior to sleep as to guarantee our sleep pattern stays the same. Even though we consume the same items prior to sleep, she wakes up once or twice a night simply to use the restroom. We use our phones the same amount prior to sleep yet I experience far greater sleep quality than she does. Barber and Cucalon do not address the reason for awakenings for these factors.

The instrument used for the study appears to be reliable, even with some people reporting not using the device or having technical issues, that they address within the study. The main concern is the validity of the reported results. Thus, if the results suggest that someone slept greater yet used technology versus someone who woke more times and did not, then the validity of the results are not ideally accurate for the study. Simply knowing when someone was awake does not suggest this is a direct result of technology use prior to sleeping. This is an issue of internal validity according to Rosnow and Rosenthal, because it suggests a statement about one variable is the direct result of an outcome and this is broad for this case (2013). To remedy this threat, they must include some margin of error to awakenings that were not a direct result of technology usage. I am likely wrong but I feel biased selection can be a common threat to validity because the participants, as the name implies, must participate in the study with some incentive such as $50. Then, they should be unaware of the purpose of the study and not have emotions or opinions sway the outcome. Some of the difficult threats to overcome might include maturation and attrition because you may lose some of the participants or over time, they might change answers based on maturity (Rosnow, & Rosenthal, 2013).

References

Barber, L. K., & Cucalon, M. S. (2017). Modifying the Sleep Treatment Education Program for Students to include technology use (STEPS-TECH): Intervention effects on objective and subjective sleep outcomes. Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 33(5), 684–690. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=126685972&site=eds-live&scope=site


Rosnow, L. & Rosenthal, R. (2013). Beginning Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer (7th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Discussion Rubric: Graduate
Your active participation in the discussion forums is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions are designed to help you make meaningful
connections between the course content and the larger concepts and goals of the course. These discussions offer you the opportunity to express your own
thoughts, ask questions for clarification, and gain insight from your classmates’ responses and instructor’s guidance.
Requirements for Discussion Board Assignments
Students are required to post one initial post and to follow up with at least two response posts for each discussion board assignment.
For your initial post (1), you must do the following:
 Compose a post of one to two paragraphs.
 In Module One, complete the initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time.
 In Modules Two through Ten, complete the initial post by Thursday at
11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
 Take into consideration material such as course content and other
discussion boards from the current module and previous modules, when
appropriate.
 Reference scholarly or peer-reviewed sources to support your discussion
points, as appropriate (using proper citation methods for your discipline).
Critical Elements
Comprehension
Exemplary
Develops an initial post with an
organized, clear point of view or
idea using rich and significant
detail (100%)
Timeliness
Engagement
Critical Thinking
Provides relevant and
meaningful response posts with
clarifying explanation and detail
(100%)
Draws insightful conclusions that
are thoroughly defended with
evidence and examples (100%)
Proficient
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea using
appropriate detail (90%)
Submits initial post on time
(100%)
Provides relevant response posts
with some explanation and
detail (90%)
Draws informed conclusions that
are justified with evidence (90%)
For your response posts (2), you must do the following:
 Reply to at least two different classmates outside of your own initial post
thread.
 In Module One, complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time.
 In Modules Two through Ten, complete the response posts by Sunday at
11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
 Demonstrate more depth and thought than simply stating “I agree” or
“You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in each discussion prompt.
Needs Improvement
Develops an initial post with a
point of view or idea but with
some gaps in organization and
detail (70%)
Submits initial post one day late
(70%)
Provides somewhat relevant
response posts with some
explanation and detail (70%)
Not Evident
Does not develop an initial post
with an organized point of view
or idea (0%)
Value
20
Submits initial post two or more
days late (0%)
Provides response posts that are
generic with little explanation or
detail (0%)
10
Draws logical conclusions (70%)
Does not draw logical
conclusions (0%)
30
20
Writing
(Mechanics)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation
methods where applicable with
no errors in citations (100%)
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations (90%)
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations (70%)
Initial post and responses are not
understandable and do not use
proper citation methods where
applicable (0%)
Total
20
100%
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
2019, Vol. 8, No. 1, 76 – 87
© 2017 American Psychological Association
2160-4134/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000159
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Gaining a Competitive Edge: Longitudinal Associations Between
Children’s Competitive Video Game Playing, Conduct Problems, Peer
Relations, and Prosocial Behavior
Adam Lobel
Rutger C. M. E. Engels
University of Geneva
Trimbos Instituut, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Lisanne L. Stone
Isabela Granic
Pro Persona, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Radboud University
Playful competition is an important hallmark of healthy child development. Playful competition facilitates moral learning, rewards perspective-taking skills, and challenges children to healthily regulate
unpleasant emotions such as frustration, anger, and jealousy. Despite this, research on the effects of
competitive video gaming has focused on antisocial outcomes, such as declines in prosocial behavior.
Moreover, methodological shortcomings such as experimental studies using designs with poor generalizability, and a lack of longitudinal studies, leave open the influence of competitive gaming on social
development among preadolescent children. This longitudinal study therefore investigated the relation
between competitive gaming and changes in children’s social development across 3 measures: conduct
problems, peer relations, and prosocial behavior. At 2 timepoints, 1 year apart, 184 Dutch children
(8.31–12.68 years old) reported their gaming frequency and listed their favorite games to play, and their
parents reported their children’s psychosocial health. Children’s nominations were coded as including or
not including a competitive video game. Children who nominated a competitive game at the first time
point were more likely to show a decrease in conduct problems and an improvement in peer relations.
No interactions were observed between competitive gaming and gaming frequency. These results
encourage future research to investigate the social benefits of playful competitive gaming among peers,
and for future studies to take other variables such as violent content, cooperative play, and real world
competitive play into account.
Public Policy Relevance Statement
Video games have become a cultural fixture and a staple of child development. This research
describes the potential benefits which may come with children playing competitive video games,
particularly for boys.
Keywords: gaming, competitive play, child development, prosocial behavior, peer relations
capacities of their own bodies and objects in their immediate
environment (Piaget, 1962). Sensorimotor play remains popular
throughout childhood; it is seen in hand– eye coordination games,
such as catch, and in forms of pretend play, such as when children
play by building. In pretend play, children’s imaginations allow
them to fantasize about nonexistent entities, construct narratives
for inanimate objects, and assume the roles of adults and
professionals. Because these behaviors help children develop
perspective-taking skills, and learn how to cooperate with others
(Fein, 1981; Lillard et al., 2013), pretend play is important for
children’s socialization (Denzin, 1975). At the same time that
children enact pretend play with others, they also begin to engage
in games with rules. Due to their fixed structure, these rule-based
games align with children’s interest in better understanding the
world (Whitebread, Basilio, Kuvalja, & Verma, 2012) while also
enabling children to playfully compete with peers.
Recognized as a child’s right by the United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA), play is essential for social development
(Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2008; UNGA, 1959). Play comes in
many forms, each with developmental benefits. As infants, children engage in sensorimotor play, toying with and discovering the
This article was published Online First August 24, 2017.
Adam Lobel, Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva; Rutger C. M. E. Engels, Trimbos Instituut, Netherlands institute of
Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Lisanne L. Stone,
Overwaal, Centre for Anxiety Disorders, Pro Persona, Nijmegen, the
Netherlands; Isabela Granic, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adam
Lobel, Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Chemin
des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail: adam@adamlobel.com
76
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
Competitive play is crucial for social development. Playful
competition is a hallmark of play in primates and mammals, whose
young almost invariably engage in rough-and-tumble play (Power,
2000). In humans, rough-and-tumble play emerges early in child
development, and often persists through adolescence and into early
adulthood. Because of its intimate nature, and the necessity for
mutual trust between players, this form of play facilitates emotion
recognition and cultivates bonding between children and their
peers and family members (Jarvis, 2010). But, as children’s working memory and executive function skills improve, competitive
play in games with rules also emerges. These are games generally
predicated on clear win- and loss-states, and they prescribe specific
actions that may or may not be performed during play. Common
examples are board games such as Checkers, Chess, and Monopoly, and physical games such as Hide and Seek and sports. Much
like rough-and-tumble play, playing competitive games with rules
also provides a valuable context for social development. For example, because it encourages players to predict their opponent’s
strategies, competitive play may promote perspective-taking and
the development of children’s theory of mind (Goodie, Doshi, &
Young, 2012). Moreover, competitive play is highly relevant for
both children’s moral development and peer relationships. Competitive play forces children to cooperate and take turns, abiding by
the game’s rules and finding a common ethical ground. The
pressure of competition may also elicit unpleasant emotional experiences, such as frustration, disappointment, and embarrassment.
Sharing and working through these experiences with peers may
promote bonding and prepare children to regulate these emotions
with more facility outside of play contexts (Erikson, 1993; Russ,
2003; Wagner et al., 2014).
Modern Video Gaming and Competitive Play
Here, we apply this developmental lens to one of the most
common “playgrounds” where children today are commonly
found, video games. Indeed, video games have become a virtually
universal aspect of child development, with over 90% of children
and adolescents dedicating at least an hour per week to gaming
(Lenhart et al., 2008). As modern video games have become
increasingly social in nature (Olson, 2010). The impact of competitive video game play on social development seems particularly
relevant. Today’s video games can be played alone, in person with
small groups, or online with up to hundreds of people simultaneously. Video games therefore seem to represent a modern playground, inviting children to play in a myriad of ways. Reflecting
the increased prevalence of gaming as a form of social play, nine
of the 10 best-selling video games in the United States in 2016
extensively featured multiplayer functionality (NPD Group, as
cited by Tassi in Forbes, 2017), with competitive game modes
being central to the game’s design in eight of these releases (e.g.,
Battlefield 1, Overwatch, and Fifa 17).
Competitive Gaming and Social Competencies
Despite a body of literature supporting the socioemotional benefits of competitive play, research into the effects of competitive
video game play has predominantly focused on the potentially
deleterious effects of competition. Under a dichotomy of
cooperative-versus-competitive gaming (Ewoldsen et al., 2012;
77
Greitemeyer, Traut-Mattausch, & Osswald, 2012; Schmierbach,
2010; Velez, Mahood, Ewoldsen, & Moyer-Gusé, 2014), competitive gaming has been widely studied as an antecedent to increased
aggression and decreases in prosocial behavior. These hypotheses
have their theoretical underpinnings in the General Learning
Model (Buckley & Anderson, 2006; originally formulated as the
General Aggression Model in Bushman & Anderson, 2002), a
model developed within the more widely researched violent gaming field (see: Ferguson & Konijn, 2015). Under the General
Learning Model, gaming fosters scripts about how to manage real
world interactions. Under this model, violent video game playing
biases players into more likely perceiving aggressive intentions in
others, and to also perceive aggressive behaviors as a more viable
solution to conflict. Importantly, however, not all competitive
video games are violent in nature; for example, although many
first-person shooter titles feature competitive game modes, racing
and sports games center around competition without being violent
(Adachi & Willoughby, 2016). Thus, when applied to competitive
gaming research, the General Learning Model predicts that competitive video game playing biases players into perceiving more
social situations as adversarial and as calling for aggressive behavior.
However, research on the deleterious effects of competitive
gaming has almost exclusively been conducted among adolescents
or adults, and in short-term, lab-based settings (for a longitudinal
study among adolescents and adults, see Adachi & Willoughby,
2016). This raises a several issues. First, findings regarding adolescents and adults may not generalize to children. This is because
children are very much in the process of developing the cognitive
and socioemotional skills needed to create and maintain relationships (Bigelow, 1977; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995). Second, the
observed effects of competitive gaming in lab-based studies may
only operate in the short-term. Longitudinal designs are needed to
demonstrate the potential lasting influences of competitive gaming. Third, the assignment procedures in lab-based studies precluded participants from playing competitively against their
known peers. Competitive play against strangers—and against
individuals that one may never meet in person—may have different consequences than competitive play against friends. For example, competition among friends seems more prone to instilling
a playful spirit, and may also be based on feelings of mutual trust
and respect. Competitive play among friends may also lack the
sense of finality that play against random strangers might; when
playing with friends, losses and victories can be contextualized
within a history of competitive play where each player’s skills and
tactics develop.
There are therefore several gaps in the literature. Given the lack
of research conducted on competitive gaming among children,
longitudinally, and in naturalized environments, the developmental
impact of competitive gaming in children remains largely unclear.
Similarly, the relative focus on competitive gaming as an antisocial
activity leaves open whether competitive gaming among peers
could foster healthy relationships. This study therefore employed a
longitudinal design to investigate the potential influence of competitive gaming on children’s conduct problems, peer relationships, and prosocial behavior.
As an example of traditional competitive games with rules,
sports provide an ideal point of comparison for illustrating these
potential benefits. Sports are widely considered a valuable domain
LOBEL, ENGELS, STONE, AND GRANIC
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
78
for moral development (Bailey, 2006; Fraser-Thomas, Côte, &
Deakin, 2005; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981), and numerous sportbased interventions have been implemented in order to manifest
psychosocial improvements (Gould & Carson, 2008; Hellison,
1998; Romance, Weiss, & Bockoven, 1986). A recent review
indicated that among children and adolescents, playing sports was
associated with psychosocial benefits, and that such associations
were more pronounced in team-based sports (Eime, Young, Harvey, Charity, & Payne, 2013). This is due to several features. First,
sports and other games with rules emphasize notions of fair play.
Competitive play is known to heighten affective arousal, riling up
children to become potentially more (physically) aggressive (Ensor, Hart, Jacobs, & Hughes, 2011). Second, children’s emotion
regulation skills are challenged when experiencing the heightened
emotional arousal that accompanies winning or losing a game. In
victory, children must learn how to experience pride without
overly bragging, and in defeat, they must learn how to overcome
disappointment without unfairly disparaging their play partner.
Sport and competitive play therefore help instantiate the importance of moral behavior, and encourage children to exercise their
perspective-taking skills and to be gracious to their peers even in
emotionally charged instances (Denzin, 1975).
It is important to determine whether competitive gaming can
afford similar benefits. Competitive gaming seems a particularly
important domain to investigate in this regard for several reasons.
First, the last years have seen children migrate from outdoor
activities and sports to video game play (Hofferth, 2010). Second,
perhaps more so than sports and other traditional games with rules,
competitive gaming is a potential hotbed for aggressive interactions. Derogatory banter and “rage quitting” (when a player angrily
and abruptly quits a game; Linderoth, Björk, & Olsson, 2012)
commonly occur in competitive games. These behaviors are socially alienating; indeed online games often give rise to selfpolicing communities which reject players who are notorious for
being a poor sport (Williams, Caplan, & Xiong, 2007). Because
preadolescent children typically play (competitive) video games
with their friends, children may be learning how to work through
these aggressive urges, maintain composure, and respond in a
normative, playful manner. In sum, competitive gaming may foster
an environment that is ideal for teaching children to suppress
antisocial urges and to resolve social conflicts.
The Present Study
This study was designed to address the gaps of past research by
(a) using a longitudinal design, to (b) investigate competitive
gaming and the development of social competencies among (c)
preadolescent children. Children between the ages of 8 and 11
were interviewed twice, one year apart. Children described their
gaming behavior and nominated their favorite video games, and
parents were asked to report on children’s social competencies. We
hypothesized that children who played competitive video games
would show improvements in conduct problems, peer relationships, and prosocial behavior. For exploratory analyses, we investigated a potential dosage effect whereby those children who
played competitive video games with greater frequency may show
additional benefits.
Method
Participants
Data were collected during home visits one year apart (days
between visits: range: 194 – 462, M ⫽ 347.65). For recruitment, we
invited participants in Stone and colleagues (2013) to participate in
a three-wave longitudinal study; the present study used data collected in its second and third waves. We left out the first wave of
data from our analyses because there was an insufficient degree of
variation in the sample with regards to children playing competitive video games; whereas over 50 children reported preference for
a competitive video gaming in the study’s second and third waves,
only 26 children did so at Year 1 of the longitudinal study. This
may largely be attributed to the age of study’s sample, a quarter of
which was younger than eight years old, and none of which was 12
years or older at the study’s first wave.1 For hypothesis testing, we
segmented out nongamer children because our hypotheses specifically concerned differences in gaming behavior. In these tests,
therefore, competitive gamers were compared against other gamers
from our sample (see Planned Analyses, below).
The study’s procedures were approved by the Behavioral Science Institute’s Ethical Review Board under the Radboud University, and informed-consent forms were collected at all timepoints.
Descriptive statistics for the sample at Year 2 and Year 3 (Y2 and
Y3, respectively) are reported in Table 1. Ten participants from Y2
(n ⫽ 184; male ⫽ 48.9%) declined to participate at Y3 (n ⫽ 174;
male ⫽ 47.78%). Data from 10 parent reports were missing at Y2
because their data were not properly saved by the recording
software, and three parents failed to complete their online questionnaires at Y3.
Procedure
Children provided self-reports during a private, face-to-face
interview with an experimenter. Data were collected by the first
author and a team of senior Bachelor’s students enrolled in the
Radboud University’s Pedagogical Sciences program. Mandatory
for their studies, these students were formally trained for conducting interviews with children; under supervision of the first author
and prior to data collection, students were further trained in the
study’s protocols and interview procedure. During each interview,
the experimenter hand-recorded the participant’s responses. To
ensure that these data were properly transferred to a digital dataset,
hand-written data were twice annotated to a computer. Parents
provided their survey responses via an online questionnaire. Families were rewarded a 30 and 50 Euro voucher check (per child) for
their participation at Y2 and Y3, respectively.
Measures
Social competency measures. Three social competencies
were measured by parent’s reports on subscales of the Dutch
version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ
(Goodman, 1997); Dutch version (van Widenfelt, Goedhart, Treffers, & Goodman, 2003)). The SDQ uses a 3-point Likert scale
1
The characteristics of the sample at Year 1 are described in Lobel and
colleagues (2014).
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
79
Table 1
Child and Parent Demographics at Y2 and Y3
Children
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sex
Y2
Y3
Age
Y2
Y3
Parents
n
Male
Female
n
Male
Female
184
174
90 (48.9%)
83 (47.7%)
94 (51.1%)
91 (52.3%)
174
174
24 (13.8%)
19 (11%)
150 (86.2%)
153 (89%)
Range
M
SD
Range
M
SD
8.31–12.68
9.30–13.53
10.23
11.16
1.14
1.14
30.68–52.42
31.7–53.58
42.83
43.72
3.76
3.68
(0 –2 Not true to Very true). Of the SDQ’s five subscales, the three
social competency subscales used were: (a) conduct problems, (b)
peer problems, and (c) prosocial behavior. Consistent with Stone
and colleagues (2013) reliability was calculated using ␻; this
reliability index has repeatedly been shown to yield more accurate
estimates than ␣, particularly so when data are skewed, as is the
case with the SDQ (Stone et al., 2015; Zinbarg, Revelle, Yovel, &
Li, 2005). All subscales showed acceptable to good reliability at
Y2 and Y3: (a) conduct problems (sample: Often fights with other
children or bullies them; Y2: M ⫽ 0.84, SD ⫽ 1.46, ␻Y2 ⫽ .89; Y3:
M ⫽ 0.78, SD ⫽ 1.22, ␻Y3 ⫽ .81); (b) peer problems (sample:
Rather solitary, tends to play alone; Y2: M ⫽ 0.97; SD ⫽ 1.27,
␻Y2 ⫽ .68; Y3: M ⫽ 0.92; SD ⫽ 1.33, ␻Y3 ⫽ .78); and (c) prosocial
behavior (sample: Shares readily with other children; Y2: M ⫽ 6.9;
SD ⫽ 1.31, ␻Y2 ⫽ .78; Y3: M ⫽ 6.82; SD ⫽ 1.49, ␻Y3 ⫽ .86).
Gaming frequency. Gaming frequency was measured with
child reports for the number of hours they had played video games
during the past week. Given the potential difficulty of children
recalling their gaming hours across an entire week, this measure
was scaffolded by an additional measure of gaming frequency: In
interviews, children looked over a calendar with the experimenter
and indicated for each day over the past full week whether or not
they had played a video game in the morning, afternoon, and
evening. Parents separately reported via an online questionnaire
regarding the number of hours their child played on average per
week. Moderate correlations were observed across the three frequency measures at each time point (Y2: r ⱖ .44, p ⬍ .001; Y3: r ⱖ
.56, p ⬍ .001). “Video games” were explicitly described to parents
and children as any game that can be played on an electronic
device, and several example games were listed.
We specifically used child reports of gaming frequency. This
was done so that our analyses would rely on different reporters for
the predictor and predicted variables; again, the social competency
outcome variables were reported by parents. This cross-reporter
analysis avoids the potential single source bias that is introduced
by relying on a single reporter (Burk & Laursen, 2010; Lobel,
Granic, Stone, & Engels, 2014). Both parent and children’s reported hours of gaming were Windorized with a cut-off at 3 SD
above the mean; at Y2, two outliers were present based on both
child and reports, and at Y3 four outliers were present in child
reports and two in the parent report (Y2: M ⫽ 5.92, SD ⫽ 5.9; Y3:
M ⫽ 5.59, SD ⫽ 5.46).
Competitive gaming. Similar to previous studies (Anderson
& Dill, 2000; Prot et al., 2014), children were asked to report their
favorite video game(s) from the past several weeks. Competitive
gaming was therefore computed as a dichotomous variable; children who listed a competitive video game among their favorite
games were assigned a 1, and those who did not were assigned a
0. Children listed over 140 games as favorites2, with Minecraft
being the sample’s most popular game (n ⫽ 46) and Fifa the most
popular competitive game (n ⫽ 21). As in Adachi and Willoughby
(2015), games were deemed competitive if their design was predominantly built around competition. Games were assigned jointly
in consultation between the study’s first and final author (see
Appendix for full listing and coding). Competitive games came
from a diverse array of genres, such as puzzle games (e.g., Ruzzle,
n ⫽ 1), strategy games (e.g., Clash of Clans, n ⫽ 12), sports games
(e.g., games from the Fifa series, n ⫽ 21), racing games (e.g.,
games from the Mario Kart series, n ⫽ 16), and (violent) firstperson shooter games (e.g., games from the Call of Duty series,
n ⫽ 8). In all such games, the primary form of interaction involves
players trying to perform better than their opponents, whereas
popular noncompetitive games were Minecraft (n ⫽ 46)—a game
where players (cooperatively) build structures—Flappy Bird (n ⫽
18) and Subway Surfer (n ⫽ 15)—reaction time (RT) games
playable by only one player at a time—and games from the Mario
Brothers series (n ⫽ 17)— bright, fantastical games about collecting items while avoiding physical contact with enemies and environmental hazards. Sixty-one children identified a competitive
game among their favorite games at Y2 (31.4%). To check the
validity of this coding scheme, children were also asked to report
how often their gaming sessions involves them “playing against
others; that the game is competitive” (5-point Likert scale, Never
to Every time or almost every time). Children who identified a
competitive game among their favorite games reported playing
competitively more often (competitive M ⫽ 3.07, SD ⫽ 1.28
noncompetitive M ⫽ 2.47, SD ⫽ 1.18; t(177) ⫽ 2.83, p ⫽ .002).
Planned Analyses
All analyses were performed in Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS; Version 23). As stated above, we segmented out nongamer children we intended to determine whether
gaming competitively could be beneficial or detrimental compared
2
This figure collapses games within the same series as referring to one
game. For example, Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and Call of Duty: Ghost are
counted as the same title.
LOBEL, ENGELS, STONE, AND GRANIC
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
80
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, t ⫽ ⫺2.55, p ⫽ .012). Contrary to expectations,
competitive gaming was not associated with changes in prosocial
behavior (␤ ⫽ ⫺.09, t ⫽ ⫺1.27, p ⫽ .205). Outside the purview
of our hypotheses, we also observed a positive association between
gaming frequency and prosocial behavior (␤ ⫽ .13, t ⫽ 1.99, p ⫽
.049). Violent gaming was not associated with changes in any of
the social competencies (␤ range: ⫺.07 to .06; t range: ⫺.833 to
.82; p range: 0.406 to .645). Finally, no interaction effects were
observed (conduct: ␤ ⫽ ⫺.01, t ⫽ ⫺0.15, p ⫽ .881; peer: ␤ ⫽
.066, t ⫽ 0.77, p ⫽ .442; prosocial: ␤ ⫽ .059, t ⫽ 0.12, p ⫽ .902),
suggesting no dosage effect of competitive gaming.5
with gaming in noncompetitive ways. Children who regularly
played video games were defined as children who played for more
than one hour per week (98.27% of children at Y2, n ⫽ 171).3 For
preliminary analyses, independent t tests and a chi-square test
were used to determine whether there were gender differences on
all variables at both timepoints.
Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate our
hypotheses. Competitive gaming among children who regularly
played video games was tested as a main predictor of changes in
three separate social competencies, conduct problems, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. As a follow-up, we next explored
whether the amount of competitive gaming may have a dose effect.
These subsequent models therefore added an interaction term to
each of the previous models. This interaction term was derived
from centering children’s gaming frequency and multiplying this
value by the competitive gaming variable. Age, gaming frequency,
and violent gaming4 were included as direct predictors as control
variables. As a backup check, all models were also run using
parental reports of children’s gaming frequency.
When running these models on the boys in the sample, competitive gaming showed the same relationship to changes in social
competencies; among girls, however, no associations were observed (see Table 4). Violent gaming did not predict changes in
social competencies for boys nor girls. Also, among boys, gaming
at Y2 was not associated with an increase in prosocial behavior.
Results
Discussion
Preliminary Analyses
No age differences were observed between competitive gamers
and the remainder of the sample (Y2: t(166) ⫽ ⫺.32, p ⫽ .750; Y3:
t(155) ⫽ ⫺.48, p ⫽ .632). Likewise, no differences were observed
in the time between visits, t(158) ⫽ ⫺1.19, p ⫽ .236. Gender
differences were observed at both time points for social competencies, gaming frequency, and for competitive gaming (see Table
2). Regarding social competencies, boys showed less prosocial
behavior than girls at both timepoints, t(160) ⫽ ⫺2.33, p ⫽ .02;
Y3: t(151.12 ⫽ ⫺2.41, p ⫽ .017), and at Y3, boys showed more
peer problems, t(157) ⫽ 1.98, p ⫽ .050. (Despite the emergence of
a gender difference in peer problems at Y3, paired-samples t tests
indicated that peer problems remained constant among boys and
girls from Y2 to Y3; boys t(76) ⫽ ⫺.655, p ⫽ .514, girls t(75) ⫽
1.35, p ⫽ .181.) Boys also reported gaming more hours per week
at both Y2, t(165.13) ⫽ 3.64, p ⬍ .001 and Y3, t(138.69) ⫽ 4.81,
p ⬍ .001. As a result of these gender differences, we added gender
as a control variable.
Boys were also more likely to nominate a competitive game,
with 52.8% of boys compared with 16.5% of girls listing a competitive game among their favorites (␹2(1) ⫽ 24.09, p ⬍ .001).
Because of this disparity, and the fact that so few girls nominated
a competitive game, we chose to additionally run our main analyses separately among boys and girls.
Gaming, Competitive Gaming, and Social
Competencies
Two regression models were run for each of the three social
competencies: one model with the dichotomous competitive gaming variable as main predictor, and a second which added the
interaction between competitive gaming and gaming frequency.
Table 3 contains the correlations between the predictor and predicted variables used in the first models. In line with our predictions, competitive gaming was associated with decreases in conduct (␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, t ⫽ ⫺2.66, p ⫽ .009) and peer problems
Gender-Specific Outcomes
This study investigated the relationship between playing competitive video games and changes in children’s social competencies. Children who reported playing a competitive video game
showed improvements over one year in conduct problems and peer
relationships. No associations were observed between competitive
gaming and changes in prosocial behavior. Gaming frequency did
not moderate any of these findings. The observed main effects of
competitive gaming support the notion that, like more traditional
forms of competitive play, competitive gaming may provide a
context for the development of adaptive social competencies.
Changes in prosocial behavior were not associated with competitive gaming. This is in line with neither past findings that
competitive gaming negatively predicts prosocial behavior
(Ewoldsen et al., 2012) nor our hypotheses to the contrary. Past
research describes competitive gaming as a domain that promotes
antisocial cognitions and behaviors (Schmierbach, 2010). In this
light, competitive gaming encourages children to view relationships as being adversarial, and helping behaviors as being costly.
However, as our null findings indicate, competitive gaming is
likely more complex. For one, competitive gaming requires a
certain fundamental level of cooperation; players must collectively
abide by the rules of the game. Second, competitive gaming
sometimes allows for cooperation and prosocial goals (Adachi &
Willoughby, 2013). Team-based competitive play requires coop3
The observed pattern of results remained the same when only including
children who played for more than two (89.65%, n ⫽ 156) or more than
three hours (77.58%, n ⫽ 135) per week.
4
Violent gaming was computed as a dichotomous variable using the
same approach as in Lobel, Engels, Stone, Burk, and Granic (2017). As
described in Lobel et al. (2017), there was some debate whether Minecraft
be considered a violent game. In the reported analyses, Minecraft was not
classified as a violent video game; however, the pattern of results was
identical when Minecraft was coded as a violent video game.
5
With one exception, these patterns of results were identical when using
parent reports for children’s gaming frequency. The only divergent finding
was that parental reports of children’s gaming hours per week was not
associated with changes in children’s prosocial behavior (␤ ⫽ ⫺.01,
t ⫽ ⫺0.22, p ⫽ .825).
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
81
Table 2
Gender Differences in Gaming Frequency and Social Competencies at Y2 and Y3
Y2
Boys
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Conduct problems
Peer problems
Prosocial behavior
Gaming frequency
Y3
Girls
Boys
Girls
M
SD
M
SD
t
p
M
SD
M
SD
t
p
1.08
1.06
6.65
7.62
1.56
1.25
1.41
5.84
0.68
0.91
7.13
4.71
1.41
1.30
1.17
4.60
1.72
0.74
⫺2.33
3.64
.089
.460
.021
⬍.001
0.96
1.12
6.51
7.76
1.24
1.39
1.66
5.95
0.58
0.71
7.08
3.98
1.24
1.27
1.31
3.81
1.96
1.98
⫺2.41
4.81
.052
.050
.017
⬍.001
eration despite players pursuing competitive, arguably antisocial
goals. This allows for prosocial behaviors amid competition, for
example, in games that specifically enable players to heal or
protect their teammates. Similarly, competitive games may vary
greatly in terms of violent content. The competitive games that
were popular among children in this study were generally nonviolent. This may account for the discrepancy between our findings
and past research, although we also observed that violent gaming
was unrelated to changes in social competencies. Future studies
should investigate the conditions under which competitive games
may positively or negatively influence prosocial behavior in the
long-term; cooperation and violent content may be relevant mediators.
No dosage effects were observed as the frequency of competitive gaming seemed unrelated to changes in social competencies.
This may also speak to the complex nature of competition. For
example, the relationship between competitive gaming and social
competencies may be nonlinear such that competitive play may be
beneficial in small doses, whereas high levels of competitive
gaming may be detrimental. Competitive gaming may therefore be
best in moderation; a little amount may provide valuable contexts
for moral development and bonding, but excessive competition
may foster an unhealthy lens through which children perceive their
social environment.
The relative psychosocial impact of violence and competition in
gaming remain a source of debate in the literature. In one series of
lab experiments, competitive video games were compared with
competitive video games high in violence, and playing the latter
led to greater levels of aggressive cognition, affect, and behavior
(Anderson & Carnagey, 2009). On the other hand, studies conducted by Adachi and colleagues have indicated the opposite
(Adachi, 2015); when systematically controlling for violent content, competitive games led to more aggressive outcomes than
noncompetitive games (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). The present
study adds to the complexity of these outcomes. First, violent
gaming in this study was not associated with increases in aggressive or antisocial tendencies. Moreover, competitive gaming was
associated with positive outcomes.
Table 3
Correlations Between Social Competency, Gender, Age, and Gaming Measures at Y2 and Y3
Y2
Y2
Peer
r
Prosocial
r
Gender
r
Age
r
Frequency
r
Violent
r
Competitive
r
⫺.13
⫺.06
.18ⴱ




.04
.09
⫺.01
.19ⴱ



.21ⴱⴱ
.06
⫺.09
⫺.27ⴱⴱ
.04


.07
.11
⫺.12
⫺.48ⴱⴱ
.03
.19ⴱ

.15
⫺.08
⫺.20ⴱ
⫺.38ⴱⴱ
.03
.05
.41ⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱ






⫺.11
⫺.11





Y2
Conduct
r
Peer
r
Prosocial
r
Frequency
r
Conduct
Peer
Prosocial
Gender
Age
Frequency
Violent (0, 1)
Competitive (0, 1)
.61ⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱ
⫺.12
⫺.16
.04
.16ⴱ
.00
⫺.21
.30ⴱⴱ
.54ⴱⴱ
⫺.19ⴱ
⫺.16ⴱ
.07
.15
⫺.00
⫺.15
⫺.05
⫺.24ⴱⴱ
.68ⴱⴱ
.19ⴱ
.05
.07
⫺.12
⫺.22ⴱⴱ
.23ⴱⴱ
.15
⫺.21ⴱⴱ
⫺.40ⴱⴱ
⫺.09
.39ⴱⴱ
.23ⴱⴱ
.17ⴱ
Conduct
Peer
Prosocial
Gender
Age
Frequency
Violent (0, 1)
Y3
Note. Gender coded as boys ⫽ 1; girls ⫽ 2. Correlations do not control for gender.

p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.
LOBEL, ENGELS, STONE, AND GRANIC
82
Table 4
Gender-Specific Outcomes for the Associations Between Competitive Gaming and Changes in Social Competencies
Boys
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Conduct
Peer
Prosocial
Girls
Competitive ⫻ Frequency
Competitive
Competitive ⫻ Frequency
Competitive

t
p

t
p

t
p

t
p
⫺.29
⫺.28
⫺.05
⫺2.49
⫺2.46
⫺0.58
.015
.016
.566
.15
.16
⫺.03
1.04
1.17
⫺0.23
.301
.248
.818
⫺.04
⫺.12
⫺.08
⫺0.45
0.05
⫺0.73
.654
.961
.470
⫺.07
⫺.04
⫺.08
⫺0.74
⫺0.36
0.59
.461
.718
.557
One explanation for this discrepancy could lie in the measures
used in these studies. Utilizing the SDQ, the present study measured conduct problems, which may reflect a broader array of
psychological processes than simply aggressive tendencies. Only
one item on the SDQ’s conduct problems scale concerns interpersonal aggression (“fights with other children or bullies them”),
whereas the others may be more broadly related to children’s
ability to control impulsive urges or to obey social rules (e.g.,
“generally obedient . . . ” and “often has temper tantrums”).
Another explanation could be due to study design. The experimental designs like those used by Anderson and Carnagey (2009) and
Adachi and Willoughby (2011), may lack ecological validity. As
raised in the introduction, competitive gaming in the lab may miss
the social function that competitive gaming has when voluntarily
played in one’s home. In the latter, competition can be framed
within a broader context of self-improvement and comradery with
fellow players.
Our sample’s age may also be highly relevant. First, to our
knowledge, no longitudinal studies have been conducted regarding
the effects of competitive gaming among preadolescent children.
Second, given their age, children in this study were likely restricted by their parents in the video games they could play.
Preadolescent children do not typically have money to buy their
own games, and parents may have the final say in what games their
children play. This allows parents to socialize their children, with
some perhaps allowing or even preferring that their children game
with others.
Parental influence is also important to consider with regards to
gender. Compared with girls, boys generally showed greater deficiencies in their social competencies. Boys also spent more time
gaming than girls, and were far more likely to play competitively
than girls. These gender differences in social development are
commonly observed (Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005).
Moreover, boys seem to generally prefer competitive play more
than girls (Lever, 1976; Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Greenberg,
Sherry, Lachlan, Lucas, & Holmstrom, 2010; Olson, 2010). This
could indicate that competitive play is of particular relevance for
male social development. For example, boys are more likely to
become aggressive during competitive play (Ensor et al., 2011),
which may indicate that competitive play is a better testing ground
for them to develop their emotion regulation skills. Likewise,
parents may be socializing their children along gender stereotypical lines, giving girls more cooperative games, and boys more
competitive ones.
In line with past research, while about half of the boys in this
sample played at least one competitive video game, only a small
minority of girls did (Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Olson, 2010).
Whereas nearly 50% of boy gamers listed a competitive game
among their favorites, just 13, compared with 66 girl gamers, listed
a competitive game. As a result, it is difficult to interpret the null
finding among girls that competitive gaming was unrelated to
changes in social competencies. Notably, competitive gaming was
associated with improvements in conduct and peer problems both
among boys and across our entire sample (when controlling for
gender). Paradoxically, despite improvements in peer problems
among competitive boy gamers, however, boys showed more peer
problems than girls at this study’s final measurement point. Although difficult to interpret, this may indicate a greater need to
buffer male children’s ability to relate to their peers. Given the
observed findings and boys’ proclivity toward video games, it is
possible that competitive gaming helps meet this demand.
Although competitive gaming may be uniquely beneficial to
boys, it is also possible that competitive video games are disproportionately designed for male audiences. For example, the most
popular competitive game in our sample was a soccer video game
(Fifa); in the Netherlands, soccer is a predominantly male sport. It
may therefore be important for studies to identify the competitive
games favored by girls and to investigate their potential influence
on girls’ social competencies. Similarly, it may be worthwhile for
game designers to develop competitive games that target female
audiences.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study had a number of limitations. First, our competitive
gaming variable allowed some ambiguity. We chose to determine
competitive gaming based on children’s nominations, a method
used similarly in other studies (Adachi & Willoughby, 2016). This
is a more naturalistic and likely less subjective method than using
a Likert scale. However, children were able to nominate more than
one video game among their favorites. Thus, although all children
who nominated a competitive video game were considered competitive gamers, some of these children were likely more inclined
to play competitively than others. Similarly, for our moderation
analyses, the frequency gaming variable was assessed for total
gaming in the past week. The interaction term was therefore
potentially less valid among participants who played a combination of competitive and noncompetitive games, compared with
those who solely or predominantly played competitively. Finally,
our competitive gaming variable precluded the possibility that
children may have devised ways of creating competition around
games that are not competitive by design. For example, children
could compete with friends by taking turns to see who could more
quickly complete levels in games designed for just one player.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
Second, this study did not directly investigate the potential
means by which competitive games may influence social competencies. Future work should consider a more process-oriented
approach by involving relevant mediators. We have already described the potential relevance of cooperative play and violent
content. Trait aggression may also influence the extent to which
competitive gaming leads to aggressive outcomes, and competitiveness and self-esteem may influence how invested players are
when playing competitively (Ferguson et al., 2008; Konijn, Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007). Emotion regulation processes during
competitive play would also be worthwhile investigating. We have
argued that competitive gaming provides a hotbed for emotionally
charged exchanges between peers, and that these exchanges challenge children to develop adaptive emotion regulation strategies.
This introduces a variety of variables such as trust between play
partners, the subjective experience of self-focused and otherfocused frustration, jealousy, schadenfreude, and pride. Investigating the processes at work during competitive play, and focusing on
how children resolve unpleasant emotions during play, may lend
insight into the conditions under which competitive gaming may
be beneficial (or detrimental) for the development of a child’s
social competencies.
Third, this study did not investigate the extent to which children
may engage in competitive play outside of video game play. We
have argued that competitive gaming mirrors more traditional
competitive games in that both stimulate moral thinking and the
need to healthily regulate negative expressions such as aggression,
bragging, and disparagement. We did not investigate the likely
possibility that children who preferred competitive gaming also
enjoyed competitive games in other domains (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015). It is therefore possible that competitive play
outside of gaming (partly) drove the observed results. On the other
hand, it is also likely that some children who were not inclined to
play competitive video games did experience significant amounts
of competitive play either through (organized) sports or other
games with rules. Sports are particularly popular among children
in the Netherlands, where cultural values and government programs encourage the participation of 85% of 4- to 12-year-olds in
sports at least on hour per week (Netherlands Youth Institute,
2012). It is therefore likely that most children who were not
competitive gamers engaged in sports. Notably, despite this possibility, competitive gaming was related to improvements in conduct problems and peer problems. Future studies in this field are
encouraged to assess whether children engage in competitive play
that does not involve video games.
Conclusions
Competitive video games seem to be a relevant domain for
children’s moral development and emotion regulation skills. Children who played a competitive video game also showed improvements in their conduct problems and peer relationships, regardless
of gender, and regardless of their gaming frequency. Gaming and
competitive gaming have been generally cast as threats to healthy
child development; our findings do not corroborate this. It remains
difficult to pinpoint the aspects of competitive video games that
may be at play here, as even competitive video games allow a
diverse range of social interactions, and the rationale for children
83
playing them may be varied. Future studies should therefore investigate the different processes at work during competitive play
which are afforded by both the game and the player.
References
Adachi, P. J. C. (2015). Demolishing the competition: The association
between competitive video game play and aggression among adolescents
and young adults (Doctoral thesis). Brock University Library, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game
competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic
has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1, 259 –274. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024908
Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2013). Do video games promote
positive youth development? Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 155–
165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558412464522
Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2015). From the couch to the sports
field: The longitudinal associations between sports video game play,
self-esteem, and involvement in sports. Psychology of Popular Media
Culture, 4, 329 –341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000042
Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2016). The longitudinal association
between competitive video game play and aggression among adolescents
and young adults. Child Development, 87, 1877–1892. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/cdev.12556
Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports
video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content?
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 731–739.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772
Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of
benefits and outcomes. The Journal of School Health, 76, 397– 401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x
Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitivedevelopmental study. Child Development, 48, 246 –253. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/1128905
Buckley, K. E., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). A theoretical model of the
effects and consequences of playing video games. In Playing video
games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 363–378). Mahwah,
NJ: LEA.
Burk, W. J., & Laursen, B. (2010). Mother and adolescent reports of
associations between child behavior problems and mother-child relationship qualities: Separating shared variance from individual variance.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 657– 667. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10802-010-9396-z
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and
hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679 –1686. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/014616702237649
Denzin, N. K. (1975). Play, games and interaction: The contexts of childhood socialization. The Sociological Quarterly, 16, 458 – 478. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1975.tb00963.x
Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R.
(2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of
participation in sport for children and adolescents: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. The International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 98. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-98
Ensor, R., Hart, M., Jacobs, L., & Hughes, C. (2011). Gender differences
in children’s problem behaviours in competitive play with friends.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 176 –187. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02016.x
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
84
LOBEL, ENGELS, STONE, AND GRANIC
Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and society. New York, NY: WW Norton
& Company.
Ewoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E.,
& DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 277–280. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0308
Fein, G. G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child
Development, 52, 1095–1118.
Ferguson, C. J., & Konijn, E. (2015). She said/he said: A peaceful debate
on video game violence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4,
397– 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000064
Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S. M., Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., &
Smith, S. M. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal
relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence
motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311–332. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0093854807311719
Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs:
An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19 – 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898042
000334890
Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, R. S. (2008). Play and child
development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Goodie, A. S., Doshi, P., & Young, D. L. (2012). Levels of theory-of-mind
reasoning in competitive games. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 95–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.717
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied
Disciplines, 38, 581–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997
.tb01545.x
Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport:
Current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 1, 58 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509840
701834573
Greenberg, B. S., Sherry, J., Lachlan, K., Lucas, K., & Holmstrom, A.
(2010). Orientations to video games among gender and age groups.
Simulation & Gaming, 41, 238 –259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1046878108319930
Greitemeyer, T., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Osswald, S. (2012). How to
ameliorate negative effects of violent video games on cooperation: Play
it cooperatively in a team. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1465–
1470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.009
Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11, 910 –931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00301.x
Hellison, D. (1998). Teaching responsibility in school physical education.
In Education for life: Proceedings of the 1998 AIESEP conference. New
York, NY: Adelphi University.
Hofferth, S. L. (2010). Home media and children’s achievement and
behavior. Child Development, 81, 1598 –1619. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01494.x
Jarvis, P. (2010). ‘Born to play’: The biocultural roots of rough and tumble
play, and its impact upon young children’s learning and development. In
P. Broadhead, J. Howard, & E. Wood (Eds.), Play and learning in the
early years: From research to practice (pp. 61–77). New York, NY.
Kleiber, D. A., & Roberts, G. G. (1981). The effects of sport experience in
the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 114 –122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsp.3.2
.114
Konijn, E. A., Bijvank, M. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). I wish I were a
warrior: The role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video
games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43,
1038 –1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1038
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak,
J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/
Teens-Video-Games-and-Civics.aspx
Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social
Problems, 23, 478 – 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/799857
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., &
Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s
development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029321
Linderoth, J., Björk, S., & Olsson, C. (2012). Should I stay or should I go?
Boundary maintaining mechanisms in Left 4 Dead 2. Proceedings of
2012 Nordic DiGRA, Tampere, Finland.
Lobel, A., Engels, R. C., Stone, L. L., Burk, W. J., & Granic, I. (2017).
Video gaming and children’s psychosocial wellbeing: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 884 – 897. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0646-z
Lobel, A., Granic, I., Stone, L. L., & Engels, R. C. (2014). Associations
between children’s video game playing and psychosocial health: Information from both parent and child reports. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 17, 639 – 643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber
.2014.0128
Netherlands Youth Institute. (2012). Being young in the Netherlands.
Retrieved from http://www.nji.nl/nl/Download-NJi/Publicatie-NJi/Being_
Young_in_the_Netherlands_2012.pdf
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations:
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306 –347. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the
context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14,
180 –187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018984
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation (Vol. 24). New York, NY:
Norton.
Power, T. G. (2000). Play and exploration in children and animals.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prot, S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Swing, E., Lim,
K. M., . . . Lam, B. C. (2014). Long-term relations among prosocialmedia use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 25,
358 –368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613503854
Romance, T. J., Weiss, M. R., & Bockoven, J. (1986). A program to
promote moral development through elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 126 –136. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.5.2.126
Russ, S. W. (2003). Play in child development and psychotherapy: Toward
empirically supported practice. London, England: Routledge.
Schmierbach, M. (2010). “Killing spree”: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication
Research, 37, 256 –274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356394
Stone, L. L., Janssens, J. M., Vermulst, A. A., Van Der Maten, M., Engels,
R. C., & Otten, R. (2015). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire:
Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher version in children
aged 4 –7. BMC Psychology, 3, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40359-0150061-8
Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Ringlever, L., Hiemstra, M., Engels, R. C.,
Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. (2013). The parent version of the
strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 44 –50.
Tassi, P. (2017). The best-selling games of 2016 reveal a few surprises.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/
2017/01/23/the-best-selling-games-of-2016-reveal-a-few-surprises/
#17fefa86608e
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (1959). Convention on the
rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1386, Retrieved
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
from http://www.humanium.org/en/childrens-rights-history/referenceson-child-rights/declaration-rights-child/
van Widenfelt, B. M., Goedhart, A. W., Treffers, P. D., & Goodman, R.
(2003). Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 281–289. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3
Velez, J. A., Mahood, C., Ewoldsen, D. R., & Moyer-Gusé, E. (2014).
Ingroup versus outgroup conflict in the context of violent video game
play the effect of cooperation on increased helping and decreased
aggression. Communication Research, 41, 607– 626. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0093650212456202
Wagner, U., Galli, L., Schott, B. H., Wold, A., van der Schalk, J., Manstead, A. S., . . . Walter, H. (2014). Beautiful friendship: Social sharing
of emotions improves subjective feelings and activates the neural reward
circuitry. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 801– 808.
https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/10/6/801/1732379
85
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The
importance of play: A report on the value of children’s play with a series
of policy recommendations. Brussels, Belgium: Toys Industries for
Europe.
Williams, D., Caplan, S., & Xiong, L. (2007). Can you hear me now? The
impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human Communication Research, 33, 427– 449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007
.00306.x
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational
and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations gender
moderation and bidirectional associations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421– 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431605279841
Zinbarg, R., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s ␣,
Revelle’s ␤, and McDonald’s ␻ H: Their relations with each other and
two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrica, 70, 123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
Appendix
Coding and Frequency of Video Games Listed as Children’s Favorites at Y2
Game title
Competitive (0 no; 1 yes)
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
8
4
1
12
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2,048
007 Legends
101 games
4 foto’s 1 woord
Ace Combat 6
Angry Birds (series)
Asphalt 8
Assassin’s Creed (series)
Auto rijden
Bakery story
Balance Resurrection
Battle Quest
Battlefield 4
Beach buggy
Benji Bananas
Bikerace
Blitz Brigade
Blocky Roads (series)
Borderlands 2
Bridge Free
Call of Duty (series)
Candy Crush (series)
Castleville
Clash of Clans
Clumsy Ninja
De Blobz
De gelaarse kat
De Wegen Naar Rome
Disney Infinity
Donkey Kong
Dragonville (misc.)
Draw something
Dream League
Droomvelden
Eden
Elf Yourself
(Appendix continues)
LOBEL, ENGELS, STONE, AND GRANIC
86
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Game title
Competitive (0 no; 1 yes)
n
Escape
Euro truck simulator 2
Farming Simulator, 2013
Fifa (series)
Fire Emblem
Flappy Bird/Flappy Fish
Flow Free
Friv (website)
Frizzle Fraz
Funny hotel
Galaxy Life
Go Vacation
Good Game Empire
GoSuperModel
Gran Turismo 6
Grand Theft Auto (series)
Grooming games (misc.)
Habo Hotel
Happy jump
Hayday
Hello Kitty
Hill Climb Racing
Howrse.nl
Hyves games
Injustice
Jak & Daxter
Just Dance
Keukespelletjes
Kogama.com
Land maken (misc.)
Laura’s Passie
Legends Truck
Lego (misc./series)
Little Pet Sop
Lubbo Hotel/ Habo Hotel
Magic Piano
Mario & Sonic Olympic Games (series)
Mario Kart (series)
Mario Party (series)
Minecraft
Minigolf
Minion Rush
Modern Combat
Momio chatten
Monsters live
Moviestar Planet
My Horse
My Talking Tom
MyBoo
Need for Speed Rivals
Ontwijk de blokjes
Pet Hotel
Pet rescue
Petparty
Pikmin
Pokemon (series)
Pou
Raad de kleur
Rabbids
Race2
Real Racing 3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
21
1
18
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
13
15
1
1
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
5
2
5
2
3
16
3
46
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
9
1
1
1
1
(Appendix continues)
GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE
87
Appendix (continued)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Game title
Ringwerpen
Roblox
Royal Story
Ruzzle
Settlers of Catan
Sherwood
Sim City
Skylanders (series)
Sneeuw scooter
Speeleiland
Spel.nl/Speletjes.nl (websites; misc.)
Splashy fish
Spore Helden
Spy Spel
Squla
Star Wars
Stormy castle
Sub Wars: Steeldriver
Subway Surfer
Super Heros kaart
Super Mario Bros. (series)
Super Smash Bros.
Survival Craft
Tap Pet Hotel
Temple Run
Terramonsters
The Sims (series)
Thrill Rush
Top Eleven
Topmodel.biz
Transformice
Trekkenspel
TV Show King Party
Unit 13
Vliegen Vangen
Wheelspin
Where is my water 2
Wie ben ik
Wii Party
Wii Sport (series)
World of Tanks
Zombie Buikrace
Competitive (0 no; 1 yes)
n
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
15
1
17
1
2
1
1
1
11
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
9
1
1
Received November 1, 2016
Revision received June 16, 2017
Accepted June 16, 2017 䡲

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.