Gaming For Good

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
Gaming for good: Video games and

enhancing prosocial behaviour.
[Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D.]
Holli-Anne Passmore
n J. Graham (Ed.), Video games: Parents' perceptions, role of social media and effects on behavior
(pp. 141-166). Nova.
Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
T he Effect of Online Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression

Yin Zhao
T he effect s of playing cooperat ive and compet it ive video games on t eamwork and t eam performance
John Leddo
Moral posit ioning in video games and it s relat ion wit h disposit ional t rait s: T he emergence of a social d…
Giuseppe Riva
Chapter
GAMING FOR GOOD: VIDEO GAMES AND

ENHANCING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Holli-Anne Passmore∗ and Mark D. Holder

Department of Psychology, IKBSAS,
University of British Columbia,
Kelowna, BC, Canada
ABSTRACT
The number of publications pertaining to video gaming and its
effects on subsequent behavior has more than tripled from the past to the
current decade. This surge of research parallels the ubiquitousness of
video game play in everyday life, and the increasing concern of parents,
educators, and the public regarding possible deleterious effects of
gaming. Numerous studies have now investigated this concern. Recently,
research has also begun to explore the possible benefits of gaming, in
particular, increasing prosocial behaviour. This chapter presents a
comprehensive review of the research literature examining the effects of
video game playing on prosocial behaviour.
Within this literature, a variety of theoretical perspectives and
research methodologies have been adopted. For example, many
researchers invoke the General Learning Model to explain the
mechanisms by which video games may influence behaviour. Other
researchers refer to frameworks involving moral education, character
education, and care-ethics in their examination of the relationship
between gaming and prosocial development. Diverse parameters have
been explored in these studies. For example, different studies have
 
Email: PassmoreH@alumni.ubc.ca.
2
Holli-Anne Passmore and Mark D. Holder
assessed both the immediate and delayed impacts of gaming, and
investigated the effects of different durations of video game playing.
Additionally, based on each study’s operational definitions of “aggressive
behaviour” and “prosocial behaviour”, a variety of behaviours have been
assessed and different measures have been employed. For instance,
studies have used self-report measures of empathy, the character strengths
of generosity and kindness, and the level of civic engagement, as well as
used word-completion and story completion tasks and tit-for-tat social
situation games such as “Prisoners' Dilemma”. These studies have
examined both changes in aggressive and prosocial behaviours.
“Video games” collectively span a wide spectrum of content,
contexts, and player engagement modalities. Therefore, researchers have
focused on different aspects of the video games and on different aspects
of the context or structure within which the games are played.
Competitive versus cooperative games have been studied, as have
antisocial versus prosocial games; additionally, combinations of these
facets (e.g., games that use violent or antisocial methods to achieve
prosocial goals) have been studied. The effects of solo game playing
versus co-playing with another research participant have also been
studied.
A cross-section of the variety of perspectives, methodologies,
findings and foci of research within the study of video game playing and
prosocial behaviour is included in this literature review. Despite the wide
array of research approaches and questions, gaps exist within the video
game—prosocial behaviour literature. This is not surprising, given that
this is a relatively new domain of research. We conclude the chapter,
therefore, by proposing future research questions and directions with
which to address this gap in our knowledge.
GAMING FOR GOOD: VIDEO GAMES

AND ENHANCING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Typical impressions regarding video games, the effects of playing video

games, and of gamers themselves, are largely negative. These impressions are
oversimplified at best, and simply wrong, at worst. One reason for this
negative impression, is the portrayal of gamers by the mainstream media as
lonely individuals who play video games secluded in their basements
(Gamespot, 2013). This is a gross misportrayal. In reality, most video game
playing occurs within a social context—either with friends or family in the
same room, or interacting with other players via a range of massively
3
Gaming for Good
multiplayer on-line (MMO) games (Entertainment Software Association
[ESA], 2013).
Also contributing to the negative impressions surrounding gaming and
gamers is that the media is quick to create headlines out of tenuous links
between tragic events and video game playing. For example, both print and
televised media reports of the horrific shootings on the Virginia Tech campus
in 2013 blamed video games as the impetus for the shootings. However, a
police search of the perpetrator's dorm room found no evidence that he played
video games, and his university roommate stated that he had never seen the
perpetrator play video games (Benedetti, 2013). Conversely, the media is
largely silent on the many prosocial, cooperative acts of generosity that large
groups of gamers perform. For example, in 2013, approximately 500 gamers
from all over the country brought their laptops to Portland, Oregon to
participate in a gaming party weekend. These gamers also brought 37,500
pounds of food which they donated to the Union Gospel Mission, a local
charity that helps people in need. Only one, small, local news station reported
on the event (Steelman, 2013). This was not a rare occurrence of gamer
generosity; there are many regular “gaming for good” charity events (Manuel,
2012), but positive news stories about playing video games and gamers receive
little, if any, media attention.
Contributing to the negative impression of gaming and gamers, is that the
vast majority of research examining the effects of playing video games has
focused on the negative effects of playing violent video games (e.g., Anderson
et al., 2010; Barlett, Anderson, & Swing, 2009; Griffiths, 1999; Sherry, 2001).
This is unrepresentative on two levels: firstly, by its sole focus on negative
effects (analogous to traditional psychology's focus on ill-being), and secondly,
by its focus mainly on violent video games.
However, the perspective of positive psychology, which examines well-
being, is beginning to be seen in video game research. Researchers have begun
to study the positive effects, and the wide range of possible benefits, of playing
video games (e.g., Allaire et al., 2013; Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014;
Johnson, Jones, Scholes, & Carras, 2013; Khoo, 2012). Additionally,
nonviolent, and even explicitly prosocial, video games are now the focus of
studies (e.g.,Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2011;
Rosenberg, Baughman, & Bailenson, 2013; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile,
2012). Moreover, as researchers develop a more sophisticated understanding
of the negative and positive effects of video games, it is becoming evident that
video games cannot be neatly assigned to mutually exclusive categories of
“violent” and “nonviolent” or “prosocial” and “antisocial” (Ferguson & Garza,
4
2011; Gentile et al., 2009; Tear & Nielsen, 2013). Many games combine
elements of each of these categories, such as games in which players engage in
violent acts for prosocial reasons or to achieve prosocial “good for all” goals.
Likewise, video games are not always easily dichotomized into “competitive”
or “cooperative” games (Eastin, 2007; Wadley, Gibbs, Hew, & Graham, 2003).
Many competitive games contain cooperative elements within them, such as
when players form “guilds” that work as cohesive units in competing against
evil forces.
Our intent in this chapter is not to negate the decades of high-quality
research which has demonstrated negative effects of playing violent video
games. We acknowledge the importance of these findings, particularly in light
of the ubiquitousness of video game play in every day life and the increasing
amount of violent content found in different forms of entertainment media
today (e.g., television, movies, internet sites), and in many popular video
games.
Rather, our purpose here is to highlight the positive effects of playing
video games by presenting a selection of the extant research in this area. We
seek to broaden readers' perspectives of what constitutes a “video game” and
to deepen readers' understanding of the variety of content found in video
games (i.e., nonviolent, prosocial, neutral, violent, or mixed), the context
within which these games are played (e.g., cooperative, competitive, first-
person, third-person, solo, in a group), and how content and context can,
singly and via an interaction, moderate or differentially effect prosocial
behaviour subsequent to playing the video game. We also seek to explore the
various methodologies employed in researching the beneficial effects of
playing video games, as well as the theories of mechanisms by which these
effects may occur. As with any new research field, gaps exist within the
prosocial gaming literature. Therefore, we will conclude the chapter by
outlining future research questions and directions.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A “VIDEO GAME”?

Although first-person action games, electronic role-playing games,
participation in a virtual reality world, electronic puzzle-based or arcade
“pinball” type games, and interactive novels each have their own defining
features as games, they share two properties: all are interactive activities
wherein the players' actions influence the outcome or scenarios of the game;
5
Gaming for Good
and, all are, of course, mediated via a computer interface. Like Koo & Seider
(2010), “we are less interested in drawing lines around what constitutes a
'video game' than we are in considering the possibilities that video games and
video game-like experiences offer to prosocial learning” (p. 17). Therefore, for
the purposes of this chapter, we consider all of the above examples to fall
within the domain of video games. As David Cage, creator of Beyond (an
interactive drama action-adventure video game), said, “A video game can be
so many different things. … Let's open this medium to whoever has different
ideas” (quoted in Williams, 2013).
PROSOCIAL GAMES RESULT IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR:

CONVERGENT EVIDENCE
Akin to the broad spectrum of video games that exists, a broad spectrum
of ideas exists regarding how to define and measure prosocial, beneficial
effects of playing video games. The use of diverse methodologies (e.g.,
correlational, experimental, longitudinal), operational definitions (ranging
from a reduction in aggressive behaviours and thoughts to an increase in
prosocial behaviours and thoughts), and measures (e.g., self-report measures
of mood and empathy, behavioural measures of generosity and cooperation,
and word-completion and story-completion measures to assess access to
cognitive schemas), have led to a sizable body of literature illuminating the
many prosocial effects that can result from playing video games. Moreover,
these effects have been studied using numerous video games (see Appendix for
a list and brief description of all video games used in studies highlighted in
this chapter).
Indeed, many studies, using different age groups from various countries,
have identified the beneficial effects of playing prosocial video games. In this
section, we highlight a representative sampling of these studies. Participants in
these studies range in age from 9 to 61 years, and come from countries with
markedly different cultures—the United States, Germany, Singapore, and
Japan.
For example, Gentile et al. (2009) surveyed 727 Singaporean 7th and 8th
grade children. Reflective of the population of Singapore, a mix of ethnicities
were represented, including Chinese, Malay, and Indian. Participants were
asked to list “their three favourite video games, estimate the number the
number of hours per week spent playing each game, rate how often players
6
help others in the game, and how often players hurt or kill others in the game”
(p. 755). Participants also completed several self-report measures assessing
different aspects of prosocial behaviour such as helping behaviour, cooperation
and sharing, empathic attitudes, and emotional awareness. Self-report
measures of aggressive tendencies were also administered, examining levels of
aggressive cognitions and approval of aggression. Hostile attribution bias was
measured via six story-completion tasks in which the child chose an
explanation for a character's actions described in various ambiguous
provocative situations. Even after controlling for total amount of time gaming,
violent game exposure, sex, and age, prosocial game exposure was positively
related to all of the prosocial behaviours and traits measured. Furthermore,
exposure to prosocial video games was negatively related to all measures of
aggressive behaviour, thus suggesting a dual effect of enhancing prosocial
behaviour while reducing aggressive or antisocial behaviour.
To help identify the causal relation, Gentile et al. (2009) conducted an
experiment. Undergraduates from a college in the United States (N = 161)
were randomly assigned to play either a neutral (Pure Pinball or Super
Monkey Ball Deluxe), prosocial (Super Mario Sunshine or Chibi Robo), or
violent (Ty2 or Crash Twinsanity) video game for 20 minutes. Participants then
assigned to their partner 11 puzzles, which, if completed within 10 minutes,
would win their partner a $10 gift certificate. Participants had a choice of 30
puzzles to choose from, which ranged in difficulty from easy to hard. The
number of easy and the number of difficult puzzles that participants chose for
their partners to complete were used as an assessment of helping (prosocial) or
hurting (aggressive) behaviour. Participants who had played a prosocial video
game were significantly more helpful than were participants who had played
either a neutral or violent video game. Moreover, choosing easy puzzles to
help one's partner was positively related to the amount of prosocial content in
the assigned game.
In a related study (Greitemeyer, Agthe, Turner, and Gschwendtner, 2012),
before playing either a neutral (Pinball), prosocial (Firefighters: Saving Lives),
or violent (Mortal Kombat) video game, participants (66 undergraduates from
a university in Germany) wrote an essay that another participant would
evaluate and comment on. In turn, participants reviewed and commented on
their (nonexistent) partner's essay. All of the “feedback” that the actual
participants received was negative, and concluded with a written comment on
the bottom that the essay was boring. After participants played the video game
they had been randomly assigned for 15 minutes, they were told that the study
was over. However, participants were then asked if they would take part in an
7
Gaming for Good
unrelated study involving the effects of aversive learning on memory in which
the person who had evaluated their essay was participating. Participants were
told that this individual, who had given the participant such a bad evaluation
on their essay, would be paid according to how well he or she did in the
memory tasks. It was explained that the participant's task was to choose the
level of aversive noise that this (in reality, non-existent) individual would hear
when they made an error. Higher volumes of aversive noise chosen by
participants indicated higher levels of retaliation and aggression. Consistent
with results reported by Gentile et al. (2009), compared to participants who
had played either the neutral or the violent video game, participants who had
played the prosocial video game chose significantly lower levels of aversive
noise, thereby indicating lower levels of aggressive behaviour. Moreover, these
results remained significant even after controlling for levels of trait altruism,
aggression, arousal, and mood.
The effects of playing a prosocial video game on positive mood have also
been studied. For example, Whitaker and Bushman (2012) examined not only
the effects of playing video games on prosocial behaviour, but also the effects
on positive mood. In this experiment, 116 undergraduates were randomly
assigned to play either a neutral (Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports Resort),
relaxing (Endless Ocean, the fishing mini-game in The Legend of Zelda,
Twilight Princess), or violent (Resident Evil 4, No More Heroes) video game.
After playing, participants completed a self-report measure of positive affect.
Participants were then told that the study was over, but were asked if they
could stay to help the researcher prepare for another study by sharpening some
pencils. Compared to participants who had played either the neutral or the
violent video game, participants who had played the relaxing video game
reported greater positive affect and displayed greater helping behaviour, as
measured by the number of pencils they sharpened to help the researcher.
Additionally, there was a mediation effect of positive mood, whereby the
resulting positive mood produced from playing a relaxing video game
significantly increased the amount of help that the participants exhibited after
they thought the study was over.
To test whether playing prosocial video games would yield similar
beneficial effects in a younger sample, Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile (2012)
examined the differential effects of playing either a neutral (Pure Pinball,
Super Monkey Ball Deluxe), prosocial (Chibi Robo), or violent (Ty2, Crash
Twinsanity) video game in 191 children ranging in age from 9 to 14 years.
Each child played a randomly assigned video game for 30 minutes, after which
each child chose 11 puzzles for an ostensible partner to complete. Participants
8
were informed that if their partner completed 10 of the 11 puzzles, within 10
minutes, then their partner would receive a $10 gift certificate. Hurting
(aggressive) or helping (prosocial) behaviour was thus assessed by how
difficult or easy participants made it for their “partners” to complete the
puzzles and win the gift certificate—that is, by how many difficult puzzles and
how many easy puzzles the participant chose for their partner to complete. As
in Whitaker & Bushman's (2012) study, those who had played the prosocial
video game chose significantly less difficult puzzles for their partner to
complete than did those who had played either the neutral or the violent video
game.
This pattern of increased helping behaviour after playing a prosocial video
game has been consistently demonstrated. For example, Greitemeyer and
Osswald (2010) conducted a series of four experiments. In Experiment 1, after
playing 8 minutes of either a neutral (Tetris), prosocial (Lemmings), or violent
video game (Lamers), participants (N = 54) who had played the prosocial
video game were more helpful in assisting the researcher pick up a collection
of dropped pencils than were participants who had played either the neutral or
violent video game. A different measure of helping behaviour was used in
Experiment 2 (N = 40) (i.e., participant agreement to assist in further studies
and the amount of time the participant agreed to devote to this). All of the
participants who had played the prosocial video game agreed to help in further
studies, whereas only 68% of those who had played the neutral game agreed to
help. Moreover, of the participants who were willing to help, participants who
had played the prosocial game agreed to devote significantly more time than
did participants who had played the neutral game.
In Experiment 3 (N = 36), Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) added a
second prosocial game (City Crisis) to determine the generalizability of their
findings to other prosocial games. They also utilized a complex prosocial
behaviour with associated high costs as an indicator of prosocial behaviour
(i.e., intervening on behalf of a passive individual who was being harassed by
an aggressive abuser). This abusive interaction was, of course, staged, but
participants believed it to be authentic. Again, playing a prosocial video game
facilitated helping behaviour; significantly more participants intervened who
had played either of the two prosocial games than did those who had played
the neutral video game.
In addition to the effects on mood and behaviour, the effects that playing
prosocial video games have on thoughts and accessibility to either prosocial or
aggressive cognitions have also been studied. The results of several studies
support a relationship between playing prosocial video games and an increase
9
Gaming for Good
in subsequent prosocial thoughts. When behaviour was also studied as a
dependent variable in these studies, an increase in prosocial thoughts led to an
increase in prosocial behaviour.
The fourth experiment (N = 37) in Greitemeyer and Osswald's (2010)
series, replicated the results from Experiment 1 by again utilizing the helping
behaviour measure of picking up dropped pencils, in addition to examining the
extent to which playing a prosocial video game would increase prosocial
thoughts. After playing either the neutral or prosocial video game, participants
wrote down what they had been thinking about while playing the game. These
lists of thoughts were rated and coded as either prosocial or neutral (no
aggressive thoughts had been listed). Participants who had played the
prosocial video game reported significantly more prosocial thoughts than did
participants who had played the neutral video game. Furthermore, there was a
significant mediation effect of the accessibility of prosocial thoughts
(measured by the number of prosocial thoughts listed) on the positive
relationship between playing a prosocial (compared to neutral) video game and
subsequent helping behaviour (measured by the number of dropped pencils
that participants picked up). These results extended previous findings
concerning affect as a mediator of the relationship between playing a prosocial
video game and subsequent prosocial behaviour (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012).
Greitemeyer and Osswald (2011) have also used a lexical decision task as
a measure of accessibility to prosocial social thoughts. After playing a neutral
(Tetris) or prosocial (Lemmings) video game for 10 minutes, participants (N =
47 adults ranging in age from 17 to 61 years) engaged in a lexical decision
task which involved deciding if a string of letters displayed on the screen in
front of them was a word or not. In cases in which the letters spelled a word,
half of the words were prosocial (e.g, help) and half were neutral (e.g., run).
Reaction times to specific categories of words are one measure of the
accessibility of thoughts pertaining to that category—the faster the reaction
time, the more accessible that category of thoughts is to the participant
engaged in the lexical decision task. Reaction times to neutral target words and
non-words did not significantly differ between the two groups. However,
compared to participants who had played the neutral video game, participants
who had played the prosocial video game responded significantly faster to
prosocial target words.
Evidence for a relationship between playing prosocial video games and a
subsequent decrease in accessibility to aggressive cognitions has also been
demonstrated. In one study (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009), 48
undergraduates completed three ambiguous story stems after playing either a
10
neutral (Tetris) or prosocial (Lemmings) video game for 10 minutes.
Paralleling the results of studies measuring access to prosocial cognitions after
playing a prosocial video game, participants who had played the prosocial
video game expected fewer aggressive responses from the characters in the
stories, and were less likely to expect the characters to say, do, think, or feel
something aggressive than were participants who had played the neutral video
game. Similar results were found for undergraduates who engaged in a word-
completion task after playing either a neutral or prosocial video game.
Compared to participants who had played a neutral video game, participants
who had played a prosocial game had lower antisocial word completion
scores.
Parallel to studies which demonstrated that an increase in prosocial
thoughts leads to an increase in prosocial behaviour, a decrease in accessibility
to aggressive thoughts has been demonstrated to lead to a decrease in
aggressive behaviour. For example, in a follow-up study to their aversive noise
experiment described previously, Greitemeyer et al. (2012) measured not only
the level of aggressive behaviour subsequent to playing either a neutral (Tetris)
or prosocial (Lemmings) video game, but also access to aggressive cognitions.
Prior to playing the video game, participants answered four questions from a
visual analogy task. Participants were given only 90 seconds to answer these
questions in order to induce self-doubt about their performance. Participants
then played their randomly assigned video game for 12 minutes, after which
they received (false) negative feedback pertaining to their “abysmal”
performance on the prior visual analogy task. State hostility was then
measured using a validated self-report instrument, and a word-completion task
was administered to assess accessibility of aggressive thoughts. Items (e.g.,
HA_E) could be completed to spell either an aggressive word (e.g., HATE) or
a neutral word (e.g., HAVE). Greitemeyer et al. then used the aversive noise
measure of aggression; participants were given the opportunity to choose the
level of aversive noise that the individual who had given them the negative
feedback would receive in a subsequent (purportedly, unrelated) experiment.
Results were consistent with Greitemeyer et al.'s (2012) previous findings
and with Whitaker and Bushman's (2012) findings: playing a prosocial video
game (compared to playing a neutral video game) resulted in participants
exhibiting lower levels of aggression. Compared to participants who had
played the neutral video game, not only did participants who had played the
prosocial video game choose lower levels of aversive noise to be delivered,
these participants also reported lower levels of state hostility, and
demonstrated lower accessibility to aggressive cognitions as measured by their
11
Gaming for Good
word-completion responses. Furthermore, a mediation effect of both affect and
cognition on the relationship between playing prosocial video games and
lowered aggressive behaviour was found, thus replicating previous findings
(Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010; Whitaker & Bushman, 2012).
Studies we have highlighted have examined prosocial effects exhibited
shortly after playing prosocial video games. Results of two studies, both
conducted in Japan, suggest that these prosocial effects are enduring. Ihori,
Sakamoto, Shibuya, & Yukawa (2007) conducted two surveys of 5th grade
elementary schoolchildren (N = 780 across the two surveys) from eight public
schools (four urban and four rural). The follow-up survey was administered
three months after the initial survey was completed. Children were asked to
report on their video game playing habits (e.g., how many hours in a day did
they play video games), and to rate the frequency with which they saw video
game scenes of violence and prosociality. The children also ranked their
preference of video games from lists which included games from genres such
as violent, realistic sports, puzzle-based, and music-based, and completed a
self-report measure assessing frequency of their aggressive and prosocial
behaviour for the last month. Sample items included “I punched or kicked
others” and “I was kind to other people” (p. 171).
Ihori et al. (2007) used a cross-lagged effect structural equation model
analysis to examine causal relationships between type of video game play and
prosocial effects over the three-month period. Results suggested that, for both
boys and girls, increased exposure to prosocial video game scenes resulted in a
subsequent increase of prosocial behaviour. Ihori et al. also noted a possible
circular or feedback effect, in that frequent prosocial behaviour was also
linked to a greater exposure to prosocial video game scenes.
This bidirectional relationship between exposure to elements of
prosociality and prosocial behaviour was also found in a longitudinal study of
780 Japanese fifth graders (Gentile et el. 2009). Similar to Ihori et al.'s (2007)
study, Gentile et al. assessed children's gaming habits and prosocial behaviours
twice, with a 3- to 4-month time span between assessments. In both the initial
and follow-up surveys, participants rated the frequency with which they had
played video games with prosocial scenes during the past month. Prosocial
scenes were defined as either “scenes is which characters help troubled
persons” or “scenes where friendships or affections between parents and
children are shown” (p. 757). Prosocial behaviour was measured as a function
of how often the child had done each of four helpful behaviors in the past
month. A structural equation modeling analysis revealed a significant, causal
path from the amount of prosocial game play at Time 1 to the amount of
12
prosocial behaviour at Time 2 (3- to 4- months later). Similar to Ihori et al.'s
conclusion, Gentile et al. noted that, “[t]his pattern of findings supports an
upward spiral of prosocial gaming and behaviour (p. 757).
THE THREE CS: CONTENT, CONTEXT, AND

COOPERATION
The studies we have reviewed thus far have, for the most part, compared
the effects of playing a prosocial video game to playing either a neutral or
violent video game. However, prosocial effects are not limited to playing
prosocial games.
Interestingly, prosocial effects have also been found in response to playing
relaxing or neutral games. For example, Whitaker and Bushman (2012)
examined the prosocial effects of playing either a neutral (Super Mario
Galaxy, Wii Sports Resort), relaxing (Endless Ocean, the fishing mini-game in
The Legend of Zelda, Twilight Princess), or violent video game (Resident Evil
4, No More Heroes). Undergraduates (N = 150) were randomly assigned to
play one of the games for 20 minutes. Subsequent to playing the game,
participants were paired with a “partner” (in reality, participants were
competing against the computer) in a competitive reaction time task. Prior to
each trial, participants set the level of an aversive noise that their “partner”
would hear if their partner lost the trial; additionally, participants chose an
amount of money that their partner would be awarded if their partner won the
trial. Both prosocial behavior (i.e., the amount of monetary reward) and a
reduction of aggressive behavior (i.e., the level of punishing noise) were
measured. Compared to participants who played either the violent or neutral
video game, participants who played the relaxing video game exhibited the
least amount of aggressive behaviour. Moreover, participants who played
either the neutral or relaxing video game were more generous in their
monetary rewards than were participants who played the violent video game.
Beneficial and prosocial effects after playing neutral video games were
also reported by Sestir and Bartholow (2010). They compared the effects of
playing neutral, visual puzzle video games (Zuma, The Next Tetris) to the
effects of playing violent video games (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament) and a
no-game control condition (N = 111). Not only did participants who had
played 30 minutes of a neutral video game generate significantly more
prosocial responses on both a word-completion and a story-completion task
13
Gaming for Good
than did participants who had played the violent video game, but the neutral-
game participants also generated significantly more prosocial responses on
both tasks than did participants in the no-game control condition. Furthermore,
neutral-game participants displayed fewer aggressive responses on the story-
completion task than did either the no-game participants or the violent-game
participants. This was an important and novel finding, demonstrating that
playing neutral video games, with no overtly prosocial content, can suppress
aggressive cognitions in addition to elevating access to prosocial cognitions.
“Content is King” (meaning that content dictates effects) has been an
adage long applied to the effects of playing video games. This has led to
strongly held beliefs that violent video games will, assuredly, yield violent
effects. If one extends this line of thinking, then neutral games will, assuredly,
yield neutral effects. However, the results of both Whitaker and Bushman's
(2012) and Sestir and Bartholow's (2010) studies indicate that content does not
necessarily preordain outcome. The effects of playing any particular video
game cannot conclusively be determined based solely on its content. Since
prosocial effects can arise from playing neutral video games, the question to
ask then, is, “can prosocial effects arise from playing violent video games?”.
In 2013, Ryan Robitaille tweeted “if content is king, then CONTEXT IS
GOD”. Although we have (ironically) taken this quote out of the design and
marketing context it was originally quipped in, with regard to possible
beneficial effects of playing video games, the importance of context is just as
instrumental as content. Depending on the social context within which the
video game is played (e.g., solo, cooperative, or competitive), beneficial and
prosocial effects have been found even in response to playing violent video
games. Cooperative game play has emerged as a pivotal moderator of the
effects of playing video games.
In addition to noting context outside of the video game, the context within
the video game is also an important consideration when examining the effects
on players subsequent to game play. As noted in our introduction, a clear
demarcation cannot necessarily be made between what is a “violent” and what
it is a “prosocial” video game. Prosocial scenes and themes, wherein
characters help troubled persons and/or cooperate to achieve a common good,
occur within video games that may be categorized as “violent”. Hence, for
many games, a more appropriate question with regard to violent and prosocial
content may be one of “degree” rather than of “kind” or “genre” of game.
Researchers such as Ihori et al. (2007) and Gentile et al. (2009) have taken this
into consideration. In their studies, which evidenced longitudinal prosocial
effects of exposure to prosocial content in video games, results were based on
14
the frequency of prosocial scenes within a variety of video games rather than
on a predefined category of “prosocial” game.
Jerabeck and Ferguson (2013) also utilized this approach when they
examined the influence of violent video game play on beneficial behaviour.
Seeking to examine the “interaction of content and context, specifically violent
(antisocial and prosocial) content played cooperatively as a team” (p. 2575),
100 undergraduates were randomly assigned to play one of three games either
cooperatively (paired with another participant) or solo. Games used were a
violent antisocial game (Borderlands), a violent prosocial game (Lego Star
Wars III), and a nonviolent, puzzle game (Portal II). Participants played their
respective games for 45 minutes, and then engaged in a task designed
(unbeknown to the participants) to measure aggressive behaviour. Participants
were asked to select one of four hot sauces for another participant to taste as a
(purportedly) unrelated taste-test study. The hot sauces ranged in intensity
from mild to extremely hot. This measure of aggression was designed to be
particularly salient, in that participants knew, and had met, who the recipient of
their choice of hot sauce would be. Regardless of the video game played—
nonviolent, violent social, or violent antisocial—participants who had engaged
in cooperative video game play displayed significantly lower aggressive
behaviour (as measured by intensity of hot sauce chosen for another to
consume) than did participants who had engaged in solo video game play.
In addition to the beneficial effect of lowering subsequent aggressive
behaviour, cooperative game play of violent video games has been
demonstrated to increase subsequent prosocial behaviour. For example, in two
experiments (Greitemeyer, Traut-Mattausch, & Osswald, 2012) German
undergraduates (Ns = 32, 70), who had played a violent video game (Far Cry
in Study 1, FlatOut in Study 2) cooperatively, displayed more prosocial
behaviour than did those who had played the same violent video game solo.
Prosocial behaviour was measured the same way in both studies—via a give-
some social dilemma. After playing the video game (either cooperatively or
alone), participants were informed that they were being paired with another
participant from the same study who had been playing the video game in the
room next door. Each participant was given four chips that were redeemable
for 1 Euro each if the participant themselves redeemed the chip, but were
worth 2 Euros if their partner redeemed the chips. Thus, if both participants
chose to leave all of their chips for their partner to redeem, each participant
was able earn 8 Euros. Across both studies, participants who had engaged in
cooperative video game play displayed greater cooperate behaviour by
choosing to leave more chips for their partner to redeem.
15
Gaming for Good
For Study 2, after engaging in the give-some social dilemma task,
participants were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5, their feelings of
cohesion—how much of a bond they felt with their “Euro chip” partner—and
to what extent they trusted their “Euro chip” partner. Compared to participants
who had played the violent video game alone, participants who had played the
violent video game cooperatively reported significantly higher levels of
cohesion and higher levels of trust with their subsequent give-some “Euro
chip” partner. Mediational anlayses on these data examined possible pathways
of causal effect leading to the positive relationship between cooperative play
of violent video games and subsequent prosocial cooperative behaviour
outside of the video game itself. Results identified a causal pathway whereby
cooperative game play increased feelings of closeness and cohesion, which
activated trust norms, which in turn evoked an increase in cooperative
behaviour.
Cooperative game play is not just of concern to psychologists studying the
effects of playing video games. The opportunity to engage in cooperative play
is important to gamers themselves; in a survey conducted by El-Nasr et al.
(2010), 77% of gamers indicated a preference for playing video games that
had a cooperative player mode. The game industry is aware of this, and has
begun to develop and produce top-rated video games—in particular violent
video games—that can be played not only in competitive or single player
modes, but also in cooperative player mode. Games such as Resident Evil 5,
Left4Dead, Halo, and the immensely popular multi-player online game
(MOG), World of Warcraft (El Nasr et al.; Ewoldsen et al., 2012, Lim & Lee,
2009) are just a few examples. Six patterns of cooperative design within video
games have been discerned (Rocha, Mascarenhas, & Prada, 2008): 1)
complementarity—players can assume different character roles to complement
other players' activities; 2) synergies between abilities—a game character has
the capacity to assist or alter another character's abilities; 3) abilities (such as
healing) that cannot be used on one's own character, but can be used on others
characters; 4) shared goals—patterns of play that require players to cooperate
in order to advance the game; 5) special rules that further facilitate, encourage,
and enhance cooperative play between gamers; and 6) synergies between goals
—patterns within the game synchronize goals, thus, forcing players to
cooperate. By employing these cooperative game play modes, researchers such
as Ewoldsen et al. (2012) have replicated and extended Greitemeyer et al.'s
(2012) results demonstrating that prosocial effects can result from playing
violent video games cooperatively.
16
Ewoldsen et al (2012) randomly assigned 119 experienced Halo (a violent
video game) players to play the game for 15 minutes in one of three social
contexts: direct competition (participants' task was to kill their opponent more
times than they were killed), indirect competition (participants' task was to
beat their opponent by advancing further through the game's single-player
mode than their opponent did), or cooperative (participants' task was to
advance as far as possible in the game by working together with their partner
in the game's cooperative campaign mode which allows players to
cooperatively battle computer-controlled enemies). All participants were in
separate rooms, competing or cooperating with the other players solely
through the game.
After playing the violent video game, participants were again paired with
their video game partner (or opponent, depending on the video game
condition) to complete a series of 10 give-some social dilemma trials. In each
trial, each participant was given four dimes which they could either keep or
give to their partner. Dimes given away doubled in value for the partner.
Decisions as to how many dimes to keep and and how many dimes to give
away were made privately, only being revealed after each player had made
their decision for that round. This measure of prosocial behaviour assessed the
extent to which each participant engaged in a tit-for-tat strategy, a pattern of
behaviour indicative of future, long-term cooperative behaviour. Participants
who had played the video game cooperatively used the tit-for-tat strategy
significantly more than did participants who had played the video game in
either of the competition modes. Moreover, participants who had played the
violent video game cooperatively used the tit-for-tat strategy more than a
fourth group of participants who had not played the violent video game until
after they had engaged in the 10 trials of the give-some social dilemma task.
Given the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the tit-for-tat strategy for
maintaining long-term patterns of cooperative behaviour (Axelrod, 1984), we
join Ewoldsen et al. in noting the importance of their study's results with
regard to implications for prosocial effects of cooperative playing of video
games of any genre. This is particularly so when coupled with findings such as
Greitemeyer et al.'s (2012) which suggest that cooperative game play increases
feelings of community and trust, character strengths which are highly valued
and indicative of a wide variety of prosocial behaviours.
17
Gaming for Good
HARNESSING THE PROSOCIAL “SIDE EFFECTS”
OF PLAYING VIDEO GAMES
As the research reviewed in this chapter highlights, the list of prosocial

“side effects” of playing commercial video games designed for entertainment
purposes is steadily growing. Innovative thinkers are now realizing the
educational opportunities that are inherent within these “side effects”. The
“intersection of gaming and education” (American University, 2013) has
opened the doors to a plethora of possibilities for using popular video games in
unique ways within learning environments. Opening the doors even wider, are
games specifically designed to help players develop a variety of skills, such as
those related to social interactions, leadership, and civic engagement, within
diverse emotionally and cognitively engaging situations.
World of Warcraft and Civilization, two multi-player online games,
illustrate the beneficial teaching experiences and opportunities that may be
contained within massively popular video games (Bers 2010, Durga & Squire,
2009; Khoo, 2012). Khoo (2012) described the learning process that occurs
within the virtual world of video games as an “inverted” process. She
explained how in traditional models of learning, individuals learn about a topic
or concept before embodying and putting these concepts into practice through
interactions with others. Conversely, when individuals play video games, they
“engage with the virtual worlds by learning 'to be', through immersion in their
characters. This learning 'to be' is facilitated through the player's interactions
with other players who make up the online community in the game” (Khoo, p.
420). Players in games such as World of Warcraft participate in the game as
members of online communities or “guilds”; although coming from all over
the world, interaction occurs within the same virtual space. Ongoing online
discussion forums within guilds are integral to the gaming experience.
To illustrate this inverted model of learning, Khoo (2012) provided several
examples of how the moral dilemmas that players encounter within World of
Warcraft facilitate the development of moral reasoning. For example, in one
gaming scenario, plague-infested grain had been distributed to the villages in a
particular kingdom. The Prince made the heartrending decision that all the
villagers must be killed in order to stop the spread of the plague and save the
rest of his kingdom. This story line spawned a great deal of earnest and
thoughtful debate on this multifaceted moral dilemma. Merits of, and
justifications for, the Prince's actions were pondered and debated. Questions
18
were posed such as “was [the prince] acting on utilitarian principles (doing the
greatest good for the greatest number)?”.
Character and moral values are also developed during World of Warcraft
play by more direct experiential means. Players can act as officers and
managers of guilds. By assuming such civic roles, players gain experience in
mediating and resolving disagreements and conflicts that occur within the
game, and that extend outside of the game via the guild discussion forums
(Khoo, 2012; Kahne, Middaugh, & Evans, 2009). Valuable lessons in
leadership, governance, team building, organizational processes, social skills,
and character education, can be learned via participation in the game and
game-based discussions (Bers 2010; Khoo, 2012). For instance, choices must
continuously be made within the game, and subsequently justified in public
discussion forums, to serve one's self or others. One such choice involves
using the game feature “Need, Greed, or Pass” with regard to loot acquired
through raids. Khoo described how the guild expects more advanced players to
“Pass” on loot so that other less experienced and less equipped players can
gain by using the “Need” choice. Moreover, sanctions are swiftly instituted
against players who use the game's “Greed” feature to make selfish choices.
Players recognize the ethical skills they acquire through their participation
in online role-playing games. Empathy, an often difficult skill and character
strength to teach and develop in children and adolescents, may be greatly
enhanced by “playing a few alts”. This game feature allows you to, as one
World of Warcraft player noted, “see literally what wearing another's shoes
provides” (Nordlinger, as cited in Poisso, 2010).
Another enormously popular multi-player online video game is
Civilization. Civilization, an historical simulation game, is an exemplar of how
popular video games can be adapted as teaching tools within an educational
environment (Bers, 2010; Durga & Squire, 2009). Bers suggested that teachers
can easily integrate Civilization into social studies, history, and government
lessons. Doing so can not only help to deliver curriculum material in a lively
and engaging manner, it can also help to contextualize the game's scenarios for
players who may not always be aware of the actual sociocultural and political
background scenarios which the game is based on. Furthermore, Bers noted
that integration of Civilization into educational lessons can help students to
understand the similarities and differences between video game virtual-world
civic processes and real-life civic processes, thereby helping students to
become more critical video game consumers while also carrying game lessons
forward into real life.
19
Gaming for Good
Longitudinal research has demonstrated that, compared to conventional
teaching methods, playing Civilization in a classroom context can help
students learn historical names, places, and dates more effectively (Durga &
Squire, 2009). Use of the game deeply enhanced student engagement with
history and social studies lessons—students used the game as a tool to explore
alternate historical processes and events and to test hypotheses regarding
current consequences of such alternate events. For example, Durga and Squire
described how some students created simulated alternate contexts that
examined possible conditions under which Native Americans could have held
off European colonists. Advanced players developed models that allowed
history to be viewed from different perspectives, and models that generated
discussions on contemporary issues. Such detailed and integrative game
modifications required the students to learn, understand, develop, and apply
knowledge of historical and contemporary factors, such as rates of cultural
expansion and how economic interdependence and organized religion have
played (and continue to play) decisive roles in the conquests and colonization
of civilizations. It is noteworthy that most of this knowledge was learned
through active playing and strategizing within the game itself, and not via
teacher lectures or instruction.
Video games are being developed which are designed specifically for
teaching a diverse array of prosocial strengths, including empathy and civic
engagement. For example, to facilitate empathy and social perspective taking,
as part of the Social Aspects of Immersive Learning (SAIL) project, Harvard
researchers developed a video game that enables players to take on different
character's roles—in essence, a virtual experience of walking a mile in
someone else's shoes (Schwartz, 2013). After experiencing situations as the
opposing character in this game, participants were more likely to compromise
in negotiations within the game compared to players who were provided with
written information about the characters' perspectives.
Research teams from the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery (WID)'s
Games+Learning+Society (GLS) group and the University of Wisconsin-
Madison's Center for Investigating Healthy Minds are collaborating in the
development of video games designed to teach middle-school-aged children
prosocial behaviours such as recognizing others' emotions (an important aspect
of empathy) (Spoon, 2013). In Crystals of Kaydor, players assume the role of a
robot stranded on a foreign planet. To advance through the game, players must
correctly gauge the emotions of the local aliens in a variety of social situations.
Researchers will perform MRI scans on players of the video game before and
20
after a two-week period of game play in order to gauge changes in brain
circuits underlying social skills.
Recognizing emotions by identifying facial expressions is an important
social skill that children with Austim Spectrum Disorders (ASD) experience
great difficulty with. Researchers at the University of Victoria 's Brain and
Cognition Lab and at the Yale Child Study Centre are developing video games
designed to improve facial expression recognition abilities in children with
ASD (University of Victoria, n.d.). Adults with Asperger's also struggle with
these, and other, social skills. To address this, virtual world communities, such
as Brigadoon, have been constructed where people with Asperger's can
practice and enhance their social skills (Loftus, 2013). Brigadoon is a small,
private community within the larger, public virtual world, Second Life.
“Dooners”, as inhabitants of Brigadoon have dubbed themselves, can interact
with other Dooners at public meeting spaces and social events—situations that
most would typically avoid in real-life. Being an active member of the
Brigadoon community assists individuals with Asperger's in adapting to new
situations and expanding beyond their natural preference for repetition and
familiarity.
Video games that aim to increase prosocial civic engagement are helping
extend social skills beyond individual social interactions. Civic Seed, for
example, is being designed by researchers at Tufts University (2014) to better
prepare college students for community service. Civic Seed incorporates
information and resources pertaining to local community service groups.
Intertwined with the content are multi-level tasks that enable students to gain
experience in activities such as organizational collaboration. Versions of Civic
Seed that can be adapted for any institution and community are under
development.
Advocacy groups have begun to identify and realize the potential that
video games hold for galvanizing prosocial change. For example, human-
rights activist and New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof, partnered with
the non-profit group, Games for Change, mobile gaming company, Zynga, and
numerous major corporations as funding investors, to create Half the Sky
Movement: The Game, a Facebook video game spin-off from his book “Half
the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide”,
(Kristof & WuDunn, 2009). Half the Sky Movement: The Game familiarizes
people with real-world issues and problems that women and girls face across
the globe. This game raises not only awareness of social ills, it also raises
funds to help combat these social injustices. One way that the game raises
funds is through “hope bonds”. Rather than waiting for their game “energy” to
21
Gaming for Good
be restored after completing a quest, players can purchase an energy boost by
buying hope bonds. The real-world money paid by players within this virtual-
world is donated to a variety of charitable organizations working on behalf of
women and children worldwide (Coffee, 2013; Half the Sky Movement: The
Game, 2012).
Fundraising for real-world organizations has been taking place within
virtual world video games for several years. For example, since 2005, the
American Cancer Society (ACS) has held an annual Relay for Life fundraising
event in Second Life, thereby tapping into the social consciences and goodwill
of the more than15 million gamers who are citizens of the Second Life virtual
world (American Cancer Society, 2014). The ACS has raised over $2 million
in virtual-world fundraising events. Moreover, the ACS has established a
virtual office in Second Life, where volunteers reach out to Second Life
citizens who are seeking information and support in dealing with cancer in the
real-world. Indeed, several large non-profit social change organizations (e.g.,
Amnesty International, Live and Learn in Kenya International), have
established offices in Second Life from which they organize and host a variety
of awareness and fund raising events that impact real-world citizens around
the globe (Couturier, 2013).
MECHANISMS AND PATHWAYS: HOW VIDEO GAME PLAY

CAUSES BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
The research summarized in this chapter indicates that playing video
games can promote prosocial behaviours. A variety of theoretical perspectives
have been proposed to explain the mechanisms by which video games
influence behaviour. In this section, we present a brief overview of the most
commonly proposed mechanisms and pathways by which playing video games
are thought to evoke prosocial behaviours and effects.
The General Learning Model predicts that video games can evoke both
short-term and long-term effects via associations activated by a game's content
(Buckley & Anderson, 2006). Prosocial games, wherein prosocial acts are
necessary to advance in the video game, provide models of, and give
directions for, prosocial behaviour. Immediate reinforcement for prosocial
behaviour is provided by the game, resulting in a feedback loop of continued
prosocial behaviour. This loop primes, and rehearses, prosocial cognitive
scripts that are subsequently activated outside of the video game. Gentile et al.
22
(2009) suggested that the General Learning Model explains the increased
prosocial behaviour demonstrated in studies where responses are tested shortly
after playing prosocial video games (e.g., Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010). The
General Learning Model also predicts that repeatedly playing video games
with prosocial content will result in long-term, prosocial changes to behaviour
and traits through permanent changes in expectation schemata, attitudes, and
affective traits such as empathy. Providing support for this prediction of the
General Learning Model are longitudinal studies (e.g., Gentile et al., 2009;
Ihori et al., 2007) that evidence a positive relationship between prosocial
behaviours and/or traits and long-term play of video games with high prosocial
content.
Drawing upon theories of moral education, character education, and care-
ethics, Koo and Seider (2010) invoked the umbrella term “prosocial learning”
to present pathways by which video games can evoke prosocial behaviours.
Proponents of moral education adhere to a Kohlbergian (Kohlberg, 1981,
1984) perspective which claims that moral actions can be developed through
reflecting on situations that invoke deep moral reasoning. Character education
theorists advocate that morality and virtue are habits of behaviour formed
through modeling, direct instruction, and practice (Ryan & Bohlin, 1999). An
alternative to the character education approach is provided by care-ethics
theorists (Noddings, 2002; Nussbaum, 2001) who position powerful literature
as a primary means to foster virtue and empathy. Care-ethics proponents
believe that immersing oneself in stories and novels enables individuals to
identify with, and understand, others' viewpoints in a deeper, more impactful
manner than instructional lectures or discussions can. Video games appear to
facilitate prosocial behaviour by each of these pathways.
With regard to the moral education pathway, Koo and Seider (2010)
provided examples of how educators can use scenes and rules from highly
violent video games, such as Grand Theft Auto IV, as the basis of discussions
centered on moral reflection and reasoning. Olson (2010) noted how, in focus
group interviews of youths, a common theme emerged among the boys
regarding the prosocial moral lessons that could be gleaned from the story
lines of violent video games. The character education pathway of prosocial
modeling, direct instruction, and practice is used when gamers play explicitly
prosocial video games, such as City Crisis (e.g., Greitemeyer & Osswald,
2010), Chibi Robo (Saleem et al., 2012), or Half the Sky Movement: The Game
(Coffee, 2013). Furthermore, video games that are not explicitly prosocial, yet
still provide exposure to valuable character lessons and practice in exercising
teambuilding and leadership skills, (e.g., World of Warcraft) also appear to
23
Gaming for Good
take gamers along the character education pathway to prosocial behaviour
(Barnett & Coulson, 2010; Bers, 2010; Khoo, 2012, Yee, 2006). Some video
games appear to take gamers down all three pathways of prosocial learning.
For example, in addition to utilizing the character education pathway of
prosocial learning, World of Warcraft also appears to utilize the moral
education and care-ethics pathways. We described earlier how Khoo (2012)
used World of Warcraft to illustrate how the moral dilemmas which players
may encounter in video games can help develop and facilitate moral reasoning
(i.e., the moral education pathway). Poisso (2010) recounted how World of
Warcraft players can gain empathy by immersing themselves in the intricate
and ongoing sagas and chapters of the game's story by playing the game as
more than one character (or alt), thus experiencing the story line from different
viewpoints—i.e., the care-ethics pathway (see also Jenkins, Clinton,
Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006).
Theories of the adaptive and developmental functions of play may explain
the positive, prosocial benefits of video game play (Granic et al., 2014), thus
positioning gaming as part of normal, healthy development (Olson, 2010).
Developmental psychologists such as Erikson (1977), Piaget (1962), and
Gottman (1986) put forth that play, in general, and make-believe play in
particular, allows individuals (especially children) to experiment with social
roles and behaviours in a safe environment. Interactive play with others
provides opportunities for individuals to explore emotional themes such as
power, aggression, nurturance and growth. These experiences can help to
resolve real-life emotional conflicts and foster emotional mastery. Video
games provide unique opportunities to explore and experiment with a variety
of behaviours, and to experience a variety of emotional and cognitive themes,
within a multitude of diverse “safe” situations and spaces (Granic et al., 2014).
Virtual communities, such as Brigadoon within Second Life (Loftus, 2013),
and games such as Civilization (Bers, 2010), exemplify this mechanism by
which video game play can help foster prosocial development and behaviour.
Modifiable, multi-player games also provide safe “possibility spaces” (Squire
2008) within which boundaries can be tested and pushed, and acceptable limits
of behaviour can be safely discovered (Barnett & Coulson, 2010; Chen, 2005;
Kafai, Fields, & Giang, 2009; Küchlich, 2008; Searle & Kafai, 2009).
In addition to adaptive and developmental functions of play, Granic et al.
(2014) proposed an additional mechanism by which playing video games may
elicit beneficial effects. They suggested that because video games provide
players with specific and immediate feedback regarding their actions and
efforts within the game, video game play contributes to players acquiring an
24
incremental theory of intelligence and skill. An incremental theory of
intelligence postulates that intelligence (and skill) can be cultivated through
effort and practice; this is in contrast to an entity theory of intelligence, which
postulates that intelligence (and skill) is an innate, fixed trait with no room for
improvement. Compared to individuals who hold an entity theory of
intelligence, individuals who endorse an incremental theory of intelligence
tend to persist longer in challenging activities (Dweck & Molden, 2005).
Moreover, as Granic et al. noted, individuals who hold an incremental theory
of intelligence view failure to achieve a desired goal as merely an indication
that they need to bolster their efforts and remain engaged in the activity. Such
a view of “failure” is predictive of better academic performance (Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). To date, no studies have directly tested this
theory regarding video game play leading to the acquisition of an incremental
(versus entity) theory of intelligence and, in turn, increased persistence at real-
world activities. However, Ventura, Shute, and Zhao (2013) demonstrated a
positive relationship between extent of regular video game play and
persistence at solving an anagram puzzle outside of the gaming context.
INTO THE FUTURE

A growing literature indicates that playing video games can provide a
wide range of positive effects and benefits. As we have highlighted, playing
prosocial video games can promote aspects of prosocial behaviours including
increasing positive affect, generosity, helping behaviour, and accessibility to
prosocial thoughts, in addition to decreasing aggressive behaviour, hostile
attribution bias, and accessibility to aggressive thoughts. Longitudinal research
has supported these findings and demonstrated a positive feedback loop of
prosocial gaming and prosocial behaviour. Even playing neutral video games
can result in beneficial behaviours. Additionally, we have summarized research
showing how valuable experience in moral reasoning, team building, and
leadership can be gained from multi-player online games.
Researchers are just beginning to appreciate the intricacies of the
relationship between video game playing and prosocial behaviour. Findings
regarding the prosocial benefits of playing violent video games cooperatively,
are one such example. Continued research examining moderators and
mediators of the relationship between video game playing and prosocial
behaviour is recommended. For example, given that personalizing one's avatar
25
Gaming for Good
results in greater identification (Trepte & Reineck2, 2012) and can influence a
player's behaviour even after the game is complete (Fischer, Kastenmuller, &
Greitemeyer, 2010; Fox & Bailenson, 2009; Suh, Kim, & Suh, 2011), research
examining avatar-gamer similarity as a moderator of the relationship between
prosocial gaming and post-game prosocial behaviour is warranted. Research
examining the physical characteristics of avatars has demonstrated a
differential effect on the height and attractiveness of a gamer's avatar and
subsequent off-line behaviour in a negotiation exercise (Yee, Bailenson, &
Ducheneaut, 2009). Therefore, a viable extension of this research would be to
examine the interaction between the physical characteristics of video game
characters and avatars and the prosocial content of the video game on post-
game prosocial behaviour.
Granic et al., (2014) suggested that future research should explore the
relationship between playing video games and subsequent acquisition of
theories of intelligence and increased persistence. They described several
interesting future research directions including experimental studies to assess
possible causal effects of video game play on the enhancement of real-world
creativity, and studies which utilize temporally sensitive measures to
strengthen our understanding of the relationships between positive mood and
regular video game play. Other researchers have noted the need to further
examine cross-cultural differences in the effects of playing prosocial video
games (Koo & Seider, 2010). Additionally, although an astounding number
and variety of video games are currently available, there are relatively few
games based on positive constructs such as “hope”, “love”, “sacrifice”,
“truth”, or “justice” (Rusch and Weise, 2008).
Both Johnson et al. (2013) and Ceranoglu (2010) have called for future
research exploring the benefits of using video games within therapeutic
settings. Although some research has already been conducted in this area (see
Ceranoglu, 2010 for a review; Hull, 2009), more extensive research is
required. We suggest that developing and testing video games based on
validated positive psychology interventions would be fruitful. These
interventions have been developed to enhance well-being (for reviews see
Bolier et al., 2013; Magyar-Moe,2009; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), and include
include activities such as counting your blessings, practicing kindness,
expressing gratitude, and engaging in philanthropic activities. Video games
based on these well-being interventions would allow players to control avatars
that can engage in behaviours empirically shown to increase positive well-
being when performed by actual people. Post-game well-being could then be
measured to assess the effectiveness of such video games. If successful, these
26
games would have benefits beyond the immediate advantages to the individual
player. Researchers could use positive psychology-based video games as an
efficient way to enhance well-being in order to study biological markers of
happiness. Additionally, the games could be used in studies examining
individual differences (e.g., in virtues, character strengths, self-concordant
motivation) to determine whether naturally occurring behaviours, strengths,
and inclinations mediate the efficacy of prosocial gaming. Furthermore, for
clinicians and counselors, positive psychology-based video games, if effective,
could provide a means to “jump start” positive affect to allow patients to have
the motivation and sufficient positive affect to adhere to treatment plans.
The bulk of research studies examining the effects of video game play
have, thus far, used console- or computer-based video games. Yet, 36% of
gamers play video games on their smartphones, and 25% of gamers play video
games on their wireless devices (ESA, 2013). These games include “app” type
games, such as Angry Birds or Bejeweled II. Russoniello, O'Brien, and Parks
(2009) demonstrated that playing app games that require a only short-term
commitment, are highly accessible, and have minimal interfaces, can improve
mood, promote relaxation, and help to buffer anxiety. The penetration of video
games into our every day lives via these app-type games is almost certain to
grow. Therefore, further research examining the prosocial effects of playing
app-type video games on mobile devices is vital.
We hope that this chapter has led to a greater understanding of the
numerous beneficial, prosocial effects that playing video games can have. We
encourage collaboration between researchers and game developers to continue
investigating this complex phenomenon, and to work together to explore the
vast potential that gaming has for good.
APPENDIX
VIDEO GAME DESCRIPTIONS

Angry Birds: In the game, players use a slingshot to launch birds at pigs
stationed on or within various structures, with the intent of destroying all
the pigs on the playing field. This game is played on mobile devices such
as smartphones. (Russoniello et al., 2009)
27
Gaming for Good
Bejeweled II: A puzzle game in which players swap gems to match jewels.
This game is played on mobile devices such as smartphones. (Russoniello
et al., 2009)
Borderlands: A first-person shooter game in which players play as bounty
hunters killing on contract. (Jerabeck & Ferguson, 2013)
Chibi Robo: The goal of this game is to make your family happy by cleaning
up, helping them out in their chores, and everyday tasks. As the player
cleans up throughout the house, they earn Happy Points that improve their
robot’s ranking. (Gentile et al., 2009; Saleem et al., 2012)
City Crisis: The goal of the game is to save lives and to promote the security
of a city. The player acts as a helicopter pilot who has to rescue citizens
from burning houses, support the police by chasing burglars, and so on.
(Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010)
Civilization: This is a turn-based strategy game series in which you attempt to
build an empire to stand the test of time. It begins in 4000 BC and the
players attempt to expand and develop their empires through the ages from
the ancient era until modern and near-future times. Players can become
Ruler of the World by establishing and leading a civilization from the
dawn of man into the space age. Players can also wage war, conduct
diplomacy, discover new technologies, go head-to-head with some of
history's greatest leaders, and build the most powerful empire the world
has ever known. (Bers 2010, Durga & Squire, 2009; Khoo, 2012)
Crash Twinsanity: In this game the player has to make his or her way across
different stages, enemies, puzzles, and obstacles with Dr. Cortex (a
computer-controlled character). The player has to fight and defeat
numerous enemies along the way. (Gentile et al., 2009; Saleem et al.,
2012)
Endless Ocean, the fishing mini-game in The Legend of Zelda: This game
places the player in the role of a scuba diver exploring the Manaurai sea in
search of sea life and sunken treasure. (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
Far Cry: A first-person shooter game; the main character is a lone mercenary.
(Greitemeyer et al., 2012)
Firefighters: Saving Lives: The player saves game characters from burning
houses. (Greitemeyer et al., 2012)
FlatOut: The player performs demolition derby deathmatches. (Greitemeyer et
al., 2012)
Grand Theft Auto IV: This game is played from a third-person perspective in
an open world environment, allowing the player to interact with the game
world at their leisure. The single-player story follows Niko Bellic, a
28
veteran of an unnamed war in Eastern Europe who comes to the United
States in search of someone important, but quickly becomes entangled in a
world of gangs, crime, and corruption. An online multiplayer mode is
included with the game, allowing up to 16 players to engage in both co-
operative and competitive gameplay in a recreation of the single-player
setting. (Koo & Seider, 2010)
Halo: A first-person shooter game set in a military science fiction scenario.
(Ewoldsen et al., 2012)
Lamers: This game is the aggressive version of Lemmings: All beings must be
killed, and the goal is that no one reaches the exit. (Greitemeyer &
Osswald, 2010)
Lego Star Wars III: Players fight bad guys and save the universe. (Jerabeck &
Ferguson, 2013)
Lemmings: Players must guide groups of small beings through different
worlds. The goal is to take care of the beings and to save them by leading
them to the exit. (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009, 2010; Greitemeyer et al.,
2012)
Mortal Kombat: A third-person fighting game. (Greitemeyer et al., 2012;
Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2011)
No More Heroes: An action video game in which gameplay is open-ended,
with the condition that the player must kill the top ten assassins to make
the storyline progress. (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
Pinball: The goal of the game is to keep the ball on the pinball table by using
the right and left triggers. (Greitemeyer et al., 2012)
Portal II: An adventure game involving the solving of puzzles with-out violent
content. (Jerabeck & Ferguson, 2013)
Pure Pinball: The goal of the game is to keep the ball on the pinball table by
using the right and left triggers. (Gentile et al., 2009; Saleem et al., 2012)
Quake 3: A first-person shooter game, where players run through a futuristic
gladiator arena and must kill multiple enemies with a variety of weapons
to succeed. (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010)
Resident Evil 4: A survival horror video game. The player controls the
protagonist from a third-person, over-the-shoulder perspective in a
mission to rescue the daughter of the President of the United States. The
gameplay focuses on action and shootouts involving crowds of enemies in
large open areas. (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
Super Mario Galaxy: To save Princess Peach and the universe, Mario travels
from galaxy to galaxy in order to collect Power Stars, which are earned by
completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies. Each galaxy contains a
29
Gaming for Good
number of planets and other space matter for the player to explore.
(Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
Super Mario Sunshine: Someone has polluted the island by leaving dirt marks
and sludge everywhere. The player has to completely clean the area within
each stage to progress to the next level. (Gentile et al., 2009)
Super Monkey Ball Deluxe: The goal of the game is to advance through the
different mazes by reaching the goal in the allocated time. The player must
roll the monkey ball toward the goal, without allowing it to fall, within the
time limit to advance to the next level. (Gentile et al., 2009; Saleem et al.,
2012)
Tetris: A puzzle game where falling geometrical figures must be correctly
positioned. (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009, 2010, 2011; Greitemeyer et
al., 2012)
The Next Tetris: A visual puzzle game, in which players must manipulate
objects into various patterns within a time limit in order to succeed (Sestir
& Bartholow, 2010)
Twilight Princess: An action-adventure game focusing on combat, exploration,
and item collection. (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
Ty2: The objective of this game is to get through the different stages and levels
and get to Boss Cass before he takes over a country. On the way, the
player (as Ty) has to fight with Cass’s armed henchmen and robots that try
to stop Ty. (Gentile et al., 2009; Saleem et al., 2012)
Unreal Tournament: A first-person shooter game, where players run through a
futuristic gladiator arena and must kill multiple enemies with a variety of
weapons to succeed. (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010)
Wii Sports Resort: A collection of sports games in which players mimic the
actions performed in real life sports. (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012)
World of Warcraft: A massively multiplayer online role playing game. Players
control a character avatar within a game world in third- or first-person
view, exploring the landscape, fighting various monsters, completing
quests, and interacting with non-player characters or other players. As
characters become more developed, they gain various talents and skills,
requiring the player to further define the abilities of that character.
Characters can choose from a variety of professions. Much of the play
involves completion of quests. While a character can be played on its own,
players can group with others to tackle more challenging content. Most
end-game challenges are designed in a way that they can only be
overcome while in a group. In this way, character classes are used in
30
specific roles within a group. (Bers 2010, Durga & Squire, 2009; Khoo,
2012)
Zuma: A visual puzzle game, in which players must manipulate objects into
various patterns within a time limit in order to succeed (Sestir &
Bartholow, 2010)
REFERENCES
Allaire, J. C., Collins McLaughlin, A., Trujillo, A., Whitlock, L. A., LaPorte,
L., & Gandy, M. (2013). Successful aging through digital games:
Socioemotional differences between older adult gamers and non-gamers.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1302-1306.
American Cancer Society (2014). American Cancer Society: Relay for life of
Second Life. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/involved/participate/
relayforlife/second-life
American University. (2013, October 28). The intersection of gaming,
education. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2013/10/131028162406.htm
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J.,
Sakamoto, A., ...Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on
aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western
countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects—
confirmed suspected, and speculative: A review of the evidence.
Simulation & Gaming, 40, 377-403.
Barnett, J., & Coulson, M. (2010). Virtually real: A psychological perspective
on massively multiplayer online games. Review of General Psychology,
14, 167-179.
Benedetti, W. (2013). Were video games to blame for massacre? Pundits
rushed to judge industry, gamers in the wake of shooting. NBC News.
Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18220228/ns/technology_
and_science-games/t/were-video-games-blame-massacre/
Bers, M. U. (2010). Let the games begin: Civic playing on high-tech consoles.
Review of General Psychology, 14, 147-153.
Blackwell. L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit
theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent
31
Gaming for Good
transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,
78, 246-263.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E.
(2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized
controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-
13-119.
Buckley, K. E., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). A theoretical model of the effects
and consequences of playing video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant
(Eds.), Playing Video Games - Motives, Responses, and Consequences
(pp. 363-378). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Ceranoglu, T. A. (2010). Video games in psychotherapy. Review of General
Psychology, 14, 141-146.
Coffee, P. (2013, March 5).Can 'Advocacy Gaming' inspire social change?
PRNewser: Media Bistro. Retrieved from http://www.mediabistro.com/
prnewser/can-advocacy-gaming-inspire-social-change_b59113
Couturier, T. (2013. June 12). Real life charities in Second Life. The Second
Life Enquirer. Retrieved from http://www.slenquirer.com/2013/06/real-
life-charities-in-second-life-tea.html
Durga, S., & Squire, K. D. (2009). Productive gaming: The case for
historiographic play. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on
effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 200-234). Hershey, PA:
Informatio Science References.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on
competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122-140). New York:
Gifford Press.
Eastin, M. S. (2007). The influence of competitive and cooperative group
game play on state hostility. Human Communication Research, 33, 450-
466.
El-Nasr, M., Aghabeigi, B., Milam, D., Efani, M., Lameman, B., Maygoli, H.,
& Mah, S. (2010). Understanding and evaluating cooperative games.
Proceedings of the CHI 2010: Games and Players, Atlanta, GA (pp 253-
262).
Entertainment Software Association (ESA) (2013). Essential facts about the
computer and video game industry. Retrieved from
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf
Erickson, E. H. (1977). Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualization of
experience. New York: Norton.
32
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, 1-4.
Ferguson, C. J., & Garza, A. (2011). Call of (civic) duty: Action games and
civic behavior in large sample of youth. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 770-775.
Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2010). Media violence and
the self: The impact of personalized gaming characters in aggressive video
games on aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual self-modeling: The effects of
vicarious reinforcement and identification on exercise behaviours. Media
Gamespot (2013, July 24). Mainstream media portrayals of gamerss – PAX
Australia 2013 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=9ZMZq3KuvRc
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L.
K., … Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on
prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational,
longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35, 752-763.
Gottman, J. M. (1986). The world of coordinated play: Same- and cross-sex
friendship in young children. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing
video games. American Psychologist, 69, 66-78.
Greitemeyer, T., Agthe, M., Turner, R., & Gschwendtner, C. (2012). Acting
prosocially reduces retaliation: Effects of prosocial games on aggressive
behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 235-242.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2009). Prosocial video games reduce
aggressive cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
896-900.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 211-
221.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2011). Playing prosocial video games
increases the accessibility of prosocial thoughts. Journal of Social
33
Gaming for Good
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.
Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review of the
literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 203-212.
Half the Sky Movement: The Game. (2012, January 1). Half the Sky
Movement: The Game Facebook page. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/HalftheGame/info
Hull, K. (2009). Computer/videogames as a play therapy tool in reducing
emotional disturbances in children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Liberty University, Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/
doctoral/263/
Ihori, N., Sakamoto, A., Shibuya, A., & Yukawa, S. (2007). Effect of video
games on children's aggressive behavior and pro-social behavior: A panel
study with elementary school students. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007
Conference: Situated Play, Tokyo, Japan (pp. 170-177).
Jerabeck, J. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2013). The influence of solitary and
cooperative violent video game play on aggressive and prosocial behavior.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2573-2578.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, J. A., & Weigel, M. (2006).
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for
the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, D., Jones, C., Scholes, L., & Carras, M. (2013). Videogames and
well-being. Youmg and Well Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne,
downloaded from youngandwellcrc.org.au
Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., & Giang, M. T. (2009). Transgressive gender play:
Profiles and portraits of girl players in a tween virtual world. In Breaking
new ground: Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association
(DiGRA), West London, United Kingdom: Brunel University.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2009). The civic potential of video
games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kohlberg, K. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and
the idea of justice. New York: HaperCollins.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and
validity of moral stages. New York: HaperCollins.
Khoo, A. (2012). Video games as moral educators? Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 32, 416-429.
34
Koo, G., & Seider, S. (2010). Video games for prosocial learning. In K.
Schrier & D. Gibson (Eds.), Ethics and game design: Teaching values
through play (pp. 16-33). Hersey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Kristof, N. D., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the sky: Turning oppression into
opportunity for women worldwide. Toronto, ON: Random House.
Küchlich, J. (2008). Forbidden pleasures: Cheating in computer games. In M.
Swalwell & J. Wilson (Eds.), The pleasure of computer gaming (pp. 52-
71). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Lim, S., & Lee, J-E., R. (2009). When playing together feels different: Effects
of task types and social contexts on physiological arousal in multiplayer
online gaming contexts. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 59-61.
Loftus, T. (2013). Virtual world teaches real world skills: Game helps people
with Asperger's practice socializing. NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7012645/ns/health-mental_health
Magyar-Moe, J. L. (2009). Therapist's guide to positive psychological
interventions. New York: Elsevier.
Manuel, R. (2012, September 14). Gamers giving back: charities focused on
video games. G4TV. Retrieved from http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/
post/727967/gamers-giving-back-charities-focused-on-video-games/
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to
character education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children's motivations for video game play in the context
of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14, 180-187.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation (Vol. 24). New York, NY: Norton.
Poisso, L. (2010, January 12). Fifteen minutes of fame: Philosophically
speaking. WoW Insider. Retrieved from http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/01/
12/15-minutes-of-fame-philosophically-speaking/
Robitaille, R. (2013, October 29). Communicating ideas - “if content is king,
then CONTEXT IS GOD”. Retrieved from the tableau public website
https://www.tableausoftware.com/public/blog/2013/10/communicating-
ideas-if-content-king-then-context-god-2198#comments
Rocha, J. B., Mascarenhas, S., & Prada, R. (2008). Game mechanics for
cooperative games. In N. Zagalo & R. Prada (Eds.) ZON Digital Games
2008 (pp. 73-80). Portgual: Instituto de Ciências Sociais
Rosenberg, R. S., Baughman, S. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2013). Virtual
superheroes: Using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial
behavior. PloS One, 81, e55003. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055003.
35
Gaming for Good
Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1999). Building character in schools: Practical ways
to bring moral instruction to life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rusch, D., & Weise, M. (2008). Games about love and trust? Harnessing the
power of metaphors for experience design. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM
SIGGRAPH Sandbox symposium on video games. Los Angeles, CA (pp.
89-97).
Saleem, M., Anderson, C. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Effects of prosocial,
neutral, and violent video games on children's helpful and hurtful
behaviors. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 281-287.
Schwartz, K. (2013, May 9). How do you teach empathy? Harvard pilots game
simulation. Mind/Shift: How we will learn. Retrieved from
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/05/how-do-you-teach-empathy-
harvard-pilots-game-simulation/
Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Boy's play in the fourth space: Freedom
of movements in a tween virtual world. In Breaking new ground:
Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA), West
London, United Kingdom: Brunel University.
Sestir, M. A., & Bartholow, B .D. (2010). Violent and nonviolent video games
produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 934-942.
Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-
analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409-431.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating
depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-
friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467-487.
Spoon, M. (2013, September 7). WID collaboration builds video games aimed
at teaching pro-social skills. WID Featured Science, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://wid.wisc.edu/featured-science/
wid-collaboration-builds-video-games-aimed-at-teaching-pro-social-skills/
Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning
for the interactive age. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games:
Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 167-198). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Steelman, T. (2013, November 29). Gamers collect 37,500 pounds of food for
homeless shelter, local news ignores them. Addicting Info. Retrieved from
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/29/pdxlan-gamers-37000-lbs-food-
homeless/
Suh, K-S., Kim, H., & Suh, E .K. (2011). What if your avatar looks like you?
Dual-congruity perspectives for avatar use. MIS Quarterly, 35, 711-A4.
36
Tear, M. J., & Nielsen, M. (2013). Failure to demonstrate that violent video
games diminishes prosocial behavior. PloS One, 8: e68382. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0068382
Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2010). Avatar creation and video game enjoyment:
Effects of life satisfaction, game competitiveness, identification with the
avatar. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and
Applications, 22, 171-184.
Tufts University. (2014, January 27). Video games: New way to prepare
students for community service. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140127100953.htm
University of Victoria (n.d.). Let's Face It!. Retrieved from
http://web.uvic.ca/~letsface/letsfaceit/
Ventura, M., Shute, V., & Zhao, W. (2013). The relationship between video
game use and a performance-based measure of persistence. Computers &
Education, 60, 52–58.
Wadley, G., Gibbs, M., Hew, K. & Graham, C. (2003). Computer supported
cooperative play, “Third Places” and online videogames. In S. Viller & P.
Wyeth (Eds), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australian Conference on
Computer Human Interaction (OzChi 03), Brisbane, AU (pp. 238-241).
Whitaker, J. L., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). “Remain calm. Be Kind.” Effects of
relaxing video games on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 88-92.
Williams, M. (2013). Beyond creator says no one can define what a video
game is: Quantic Dream's David Cage wants us to have a more open game
industry with less labels. US Gamer. Retrieved from
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/beyond-creator-no-one-can-define-what-
a-video-game-is
Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of
users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 309-329.
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus effect:
Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and
offline behavior. Communication Research, 36, 285-312.
Natia D.

Gaming For Good

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaming For Good

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaming For Good

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Gaming for good: Video games and

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he Effect of Online Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression

GAMING FOR GOOD: VIDEO GAMES AND

Holli-Anne Passmore∗ and Mark D. Holder

GAMING FOR GOOD: VIDEO GAMES

Typical impressions regarding video games, the effects of playing video

WHAT CONSTITUTES A “VIDEO GAME”?

PROSOCIAL GAMES RESULT IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR:

THE THREE CS: CONTENT, CONTEXT, AND

As the research reviewed in this chapter highlights, the list of prosocial

MECHANISMS AND PATHWAYS: HOW VIDEO GAME PLAY

INTO THE FUTURE

VIDEO GAME DESCRIPTIONS

You might also like