Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Review
Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review
Elizabeth A. Boyle a,⇑, Thomas M. Connolly b, Thomas Hainey b, James M. Boyle c
a
School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Health, Education and Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, High St., Paisley Campus, Paisley PA1 2BE, Scotland, United Kingdom
School of Computing, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Paisley PA1 2BE, Scotland, United Kingdom
c
School of Psychological Sciences and Health, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 31 December 2011
Keywords:
Engagement
Enjoyment
Entertainment
Computer games
Flow
Motives
a b s t r a c t
Since their introduction over 40 years ago, digital entertainment games have become one of the most
popular leisure activities globally. While digital games clearly provide highly engaging activities, the nature of this engagement is not well understood. The current study aims to advance our understanding by
reporting a systematic review of recent literature addressing engagement in computer games. The papers
in the review comprise a sub-sample of papers relating to engagement in digital games that was selected
from a broader literature search carried out on the outcomes and impacts of playing computer games. A
diverse range of studies was identified that examined varied aspects of engagement in games including
subjective experiences while playing games, the physiological concomitants of these experiences,
motives for playing games, game usage and time spent playing games and the impact of playing on life
satisfaction. A narrative review was carried out to capture these diverse aspects of engagement and to
develop a more coherent understanding of engagement in computer games.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Data collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.
Search terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.
Databases searched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3.
The searchable database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Selection criteria for inclusion of papers in the current review of engagement in games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Main literature search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Papers selected for current review using our inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Categorisation of papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Research designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.
Subjective feelings of enjoyment experienced while playing games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.
Physiological responses to playing games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7.
Motives/reasons for playing games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.
Game usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.
Game market and player loyalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10.
Impact of game-playing on life satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. Supplementary material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 848 3783; fax: +44 141 848 3780.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.A. Boyle).
0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
772
772
772
772
772
772
772
773
773
773
773
773
773
773
774
775
776
777
777
777
779
779
779
779
772
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
1. Introduction
Since the introduction of the computer games Pong and Space
Invaders into the UK during the 1970s, digital games have had a
transformational impact on how we spend our leisure time. Games
provide engaging and enjoyable activities and the digital games
market has expanded to become the fastest growing leisure market
even during a worldwide recession (Chatfield, 2010). While the appeal of digital games is self-evident in terms of sales of games,
numbers of people playing games and time spent playing games,
it has been deceptively difficult to explain (Nabi & Kremar,
2004). Vorderer, Klimmt, and Ritterfield (2004) suggested that research has neglected to consider the nature of media enjoyment,
Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) claimed that understanding game
usability has had priority over understanding game enjoyment,
while Yannakis and Hallam (2007) argued that our knowledge of
how to develop enjoyable computer games is ‘‘fundamentally
incomplete’’.
Existing theoretical frameworks developed in the literature on
motivation, communication and media may help to structure our
understanding of engagement in games. These theoretical perspectives broadly address two different topics relevant to engagement,
the subjective experiences and enjoyment of games and motives
for playing games. The most influential construct used to explain
subjective experience while playing games is flow theory
(Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). Csíkszentmihályi originally developed
the notion of flow to describe the rewarding, subjective, emotional
state of optimal pleasure that arises when an individual is absorbed in either work or leisure activities that are perceived as
valuable. Csíkszentmihályi characterised flow as a complex construct with eight different components. Central to flow is the idea
that there should be an optimal match between the skills an individual possesses and the challenges presented by an activity. In
addition the experience should be intrinsically rewarding, immersive, involve a high degree of concentration and a sense of personal
control, have clear goals and provide direct and immediate feedback. Sherry (2004) applied flow theory to explain the engagement
that players experience in playing games.
Self determination (SD) theory is an influential account of human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) which proposes that human
behaviours are determined by very general human needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness. Competence refers to the need
to take part in activities which allow us to feel capable and effective, autonomy refers to the need to experience freedom in the
activities we choose and relatedness refers to the need to feel a
sense of connection to other people. Self determination theory
has been applied to many different human behaviours and could
potentially explain engagement in digital entertainment games.
Uses and gratifications (U&G) theory is another needs based motivational theory which claims that people have specific needs for
entertainment and they will use a range of media to meet these
needs. U&G theory was originally developed within the domain
of media and mass communication to explain why people watch
television and listen to music (Schramm, Lyle, & Parker, 1961)
but has been extended to explain why people play computer
games (Lucas & Sherry, 2004).
Another theory relevant to explaining why people play games is
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). This theory
was developed to explain determinants of technology acceptance
in the area of work and training. TAM proposes perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as two key factors in this. While
ease of use of a system may be a contributing factor to explaining
engagement in entertainment games, perceived usefulness may be
less important in determining the acceptance of games for leisure
purposes.
While much of the early research on computer games focused on
the negative impacts of playing digital games, more recently there
has also been interest in positive outcomes of playing games. Durkin
and Barber (2002), for example, found that adolescents who play
games had more favourable outcomes with respect to family closeness, school engagement, involvement in other leisure activities,
positive mental health, substance use, self-concept, friendship network and obedience to parents. The engagement provided by games
can be viewed as one of these positive outcomes. It is recognised
that there is a dearth of empirical evidence concerning the impact
of games (Connolly, Stansfield, & Hainey, 2008) and the current review aims to add to our understanding of the nature of engagement
in digital entertainment games by reporting the results of a literature review of selected papers which address this topic.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data collection
In 2011 a literature search was carried out with the aim of
developing a searchable database of papers relevant to the impacts
and outcomes of computer games. The time period covered in this
search was 1961 to 2011.
2.1.1. Search terms
Search terms used in the main literature search were derived
from a previous search carried out on the evaluation of computer
games (Connolly et al., 2008) and addressed the variety of digital
games that might be played:
(‘‘computer games’’ OR ‘‘video games’’ OR ‘‘serious games’’ OR
‘‘simulation games’’ OR ‘‘games-based learning’’ OR ‘‘MMOG’’
OR ‘‘MMORPG’’ OR ‘‘MUD’’ OR ‘‘online games’’).
Additional search terms used for the impacts and outcomes of
computer games reflected our interest in broadly defined outcomes and impacts of playing games, as well as the more specific
impact of games in learning or engaging or motivating players:
(‘‘evaluation’’ OR ‘‘impacts’’ OR ‘‘outcomes’’ OR ‘‘effects’’ OR
‘‘learning’’ OR ‘‘education’’ OR ‘‘skills’’ OR ‘‘behaviour’’ OR ‘‘attitude’’ OR ‘‘engagement’’ OR ‘‘motivation’’ OR ‘‘affect’’).
2.1.2. Databases searched
The databases searched included those identified as relevant
to education, information technology and social science: ACM,
ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), BioMed
Central, Cambridge Journals Online, ChildData, Index to Theses,
Oxford University Press (journals), ScienceDirect, EBSCO (consisting of Psychology and Behavioural Science, PsycINFO, SocINDEX,
Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, CINAHL),
ERIC, IngentaConnect, Infotrac (Expanded Academic ASAP) and
Emerald.
2.1.3. The searchable database
The searchable database is available to the public and can be
found at http://icte.uws.ac.uk/search.aspx.
2.2. Selection criteria for inclusion of papers in the current review of
engagement in games
This searchable database was used to select papers for the current review of papers relating to engagement in digital entertainment games. To narrow down the selection of papers for
inclusion in the current review, the database was further searched
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
Table 1
Numbers of papers focusing on each aspect of engagement by study design.
Study design
Aspect of engagement
RCT
Subjective experience
Physiological
responses
Motives for playing
Game usage
Games market and
loyalty to game
Impact of game on life
satisfaction
Total
2
2
Quasiexperimental
Survey
Qualitative
Total
9
7
1
1
13
7
2
14
7
3
2
18
7
3
1
6
19
31
7
3
55
using only the terms ‘‘engagement’’, ‘‘motivation’’, ‘‘affect’’ and
‘‘attitude’’. These entries were narrowed down further by focusing
on papers which (a) included empirical evidence relating to
engagement in digital entertainment games; (b) discussed engagement in digital entertainment games but not learning or serious
games; (c) focused on positive aspects of engagement; (d) dated
from January 2001 to October 2011 (because interest in engagement flourished during this time period); (e) were published in refereed academic journals; and (f) included an abstract. Using these
six conditions 55 papers met the criteria for inclusion in the current review.
2.3. Data analysis
Papers were coded in terms of: name of authors and date published; the main aims of study; the sample, including details of the
participants, their mean age, age range and gender split; the research design and method and major findings. The design of each
study was coded according to whether it used a randomised control trial (RCT), a quasi-experimental design, a survey or a qualitative design. Coding of the papers along these dimensions is shown
in Appendix A.
3. Results
3.1. Main literature search
19,776 papers were identified by the search terms used in the
main literature search. The majority of these papers were speculative or discussion papers, considering the potential impact of
games or papers describing how specific games were designed.
3.2. Papers selected for current review using our inclusion criteria
Fifty-five papers met the inclusion criteria for the current review on engagement in digital entertainment games. These papers
were very diverse in scope and addressed a range of different aspects of engagement in games, utilised a range of theoretical models and adopted a variety of methodological approaches. To capture
the heterogeneity of topics and approaches a narrative synthesis
was adopted.
3.3. Categorisation of papers
Scrutiny of the papers suggested that it was useful to organise
them into categories depending on the main focus of the paper.
The categories used are shown in Table 1 along with the number
of papers in each of these categories. The categories were derived
773
from consideration of different stages in the engagement process.
Subjective experience is core to engagement and looks at the moment-to-moment experiences of players while they play the
games. Related to this, a group of papers looked at the physiological correlates of emotions experienced in playing games. Motives
for playing games are more enduring appraisals of players’ reasons
for playing games. Some of these papers looked at motives for
playing specific games; others focused on motives typical of different kinds of player. Several papers examined game usage including
time spent playing games and intentions to play games as well as
the market for games. The last group looked at the impact of playing games on life satisfaction and well-being. Papers were spread
fairly evenly across the different topics with papers on motives
the most frequent (18) followed by papers examining subjective
experiences while playing games (13). There were several papers
on games usage, impact of games on life satisfaction and physiological responses with fewer on the games market and player
loyalty.
3.4. Research designs
Table 1 also shows the different designs which were used in the
studies identified in the review with respect to the main focus of
the papers. Overall, surveys (30) were the most frequently used designs followed by quasi-experiments (19), with qualitative studies
(3) and RCTs (2) much less frequently reported. In theory, the design of choice in evaluating engagement in a game would be similar to assessments of other interventions, a randomised controlled
trial (RCT) (Connolly et al., 2008). In an RCT players would be randomly allocated to a game or control condition, measures of
engagement administered before and after taking part in the intervention and pre to post differences between the two groups assessed. However, entertainment games frequently offer new
leisure experiences for which there is no obvious non-game-based
condition to act as a control. It is likely that this is one reason for
the relative dearth of RCTs. Table 1 shows that there were differences between the designs used to study different aspects of
engagement games. The quasi-experiment was the design used
most frequently in studies of subjective experiences and physiological responses in games, while surveys were the most popular
designs in studies of motives, game usage and market and impact
on quality of life.
3.5. Subjective feelings of enjoyment experienced while playing games
Several papers in the current review addressed the pleasurable,
subjective experiences which are central to media enjoyment
(Vorderer et al., 2004). The only papers which reported RCTs were
Russell and Newton (2008) and Jennett et al. (2008). Russell and
Newton compared mood and enjoyment of physical activity in a
cycle only, game only and game plus cycle condition. They found
that incorporating a game element into an exercise cycle led to improved mood compared to a sedentary activity (game only control
condition), but there was no additional effect of the game plus
exercise over exercise alone. This suggests that exercise games
have the potential to elicit affective benefits, but careful consideration needs to be given to how these games are implemented and
the circumstances under which these benefits are most likely to
occur.
Jennett et al. compared performance on a real-life ‘‘tangram’’
task before and after taking part in either a game (Half-life) or a
non-immersive square-clicking task. While they found the predicted differences in immersion between the game and non-game
conditions, they also found that players actually found the non
immersive control condition quite immersive! This illustrates the
difficulties of selecting an appropriate control condition.
774
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
Jennett’s study was an in-depth analysis designed to clarify the
nature of immersion and develop better subjective and objective
measures of immersion. A validation study of their immersion
experience questionnaire confirmed five factors: cognitive involvement, emotional involvement, real world dissociation, challenge
and control. Jennett et al. also experimentally tested two objective
measures of immersion. The first measure using the ‘‘tangram’’
task focused on the ‘‘dissociation from the real world’’ component
of immersion and found that participation in an immersive game
impaired subsequent performance on the real world ‘‘tangram’’
task. The second measure predicted that players’ eye movements
would significantly increase over time in a non-immersive task,
but decrease over time in an immersive task as their attention became focused on visual features relevant to the game. Jennett et al.
found that both methods had potential as objective measures of
immersion.
Jennett et al. also looked at the role of negative emotions in
immersion in games. They examined the impact of the pace of a
game on immersion, predicting that faster paced games might be
more immersive, although they might also lead to higher levels
of anxiety. While they found that state anxiety and negative affect
were higher for faster paced games, these differences were not significant. Although these findings about pace and immersion were
inconclusive, they did suggest that negative emotions should be
studied in understanding the immersive appeal of games.
Other studies of subjective experience in games compared
enjoyment, presence, immersion and arousal in different games
or different conditions of the same game. Weibel, Wissmath,
Habegger, Steiner, and Groner (2008) found that playing against
a human-controlled opponent in the online game Neverwinter
Nights elicited stronger feelings of presence, flow and enjoyment
than playing against a computer-controlled opponent. They also
found strong positive correlations between presence, flow and
enjoyment with regression analysis confirming Hoffman and
Novak’s (1996) prediction that presence precedes flow with flow
mediating the relationship between presence and enjoyment.
However Aymerich-Franch (2010) found that body participation
does not always lead to an enhanced sense of being in the game.
They compared presence and emotions for participants in two different game conditions, interacting either through body movement
or a joystick. They found that body participation did not impact on
the sense of presence or on self reported valence (positive or negative) or arousal (excitement or boring) dimensions of emotion
compared with a joystick condition, although presence was linked
to both dimension of emotion.
Rapid advances in the technology used in games, such as increased interactivity, animation and download speed, provide
increasingly realistic experiences for players. Ivory and Kalyanaraman (2007) suggested that the increased realism of these technologically more advanced games may enhance players’ feelings of
presence while playing games. They compared engagement in both
violent and non-violent games which were more or less technologically advanced. They found a significant main effect of technological advancement, indicating that technologically more advanced
games did lead to higher levels of presence, involvement and physiological (skin conductance) and self-reported measures of arousal
for both violent and non-violent games. This result would appear
to justify the development of increasingly realistic games while
also suggesting that non-violent games can be just as engaging
as violent games. Nacke, Grimshaw, and Lindley (2009) found that
the presence or absence of sound and music in a game impacted on
measures of subjective experience including immersion, tension,
competence, flow, negative affect, positive affect and challenge,
but did not have an impact on tonic psychophysiological measures.
A number of papers focused on specific features of games
thought to increase enjoyment. Klimmt, Rizzo, Vorderer, Koch,
and Ficher (2009) found that suspense added to player enjoyment
of a game: a suspenseful version of a game was more enjoyable
than a non suspenseful version, although in their study spatial
presence had no impact on enjoyment. Klimmt, Hartman, and Frey
(2007) found that reducing player effectance in a game by reducing
the immediate feedback provided to players about their actions in
the game reduced players’ enjoyment of the game, while reducing
player control by increasing the speed of the game did not reduce
player enjoyment. Schneider, Lang, Shin, and Bradley (2004) investigated the impact of introducing a storyline into a first person
shooter game and found that players felt a greater sense of presence, showed increases in physiological arousal and greater identification with characters when a game was structured round a story
than an equivalent game without a story, but there were no differences in self-reported arousal or dominance.
Chumbley and Griffiths (2006) and Qin, Rau, and Salvendy
(2010) looked at how changing features of a game could change
emotions and presence in the game respectively. Chumbley and
Griffiths found that increasing the ratio of negative to positive reinforcement provided to players increased their frustration and decreased excitement, while increasing positive reinforcement
increased the chances of players returning to play. Qin et al. found
that player immersion was higher when the difficulty of the game
between levels was changed in a down and up direction than with
up and down or continuous change.
In developing their Game Engagement Questionnaire, Brockmyer,
Fox, Curtiss, McBroom, and Burkhart (2009, p. 624) argued that
‘‘definitional agreement regarding how to label subjective experience during video game-playing has not yet been achieved’’. They
adopted an eclectic and inclusive definition of engagement in
developing the questionnaire including items on flow, immersion,
presence and adsorption. Rasch analysis provided support for the
reliability and functionality of the questionnaire and the questionnaire predicted engagement in video games.
3.6. Physiological responses to playing games
The search terms in the main literature search did not include
specific terms for physiological impacts of games, but several papers identified in the search reported a range of physiological outcomes of playing games. These papers are relevant because they
describe physiological correlates of emotional responses while
playing a game. All 7 of these studies used quasi-experimental designs either to compare physiological responses to different kinds
of games or events in games. Baldaro et al. (2004) compared the
short-term effects of playing violent or non-violent computer
games on physiological (heart rate and arterial pressure) and psychological variables (state and trait anxiety) in young adults before,
during and after playing a violent game (Unreal tournament) or a
non-violent game (Puzzle bobble). The results revealed increased
systolic blood pressure during game-play and an increase in state
anxiety following game-play only for those playing violent games.
This indicated that physiological and emotional changes take place
while playing games and these differ for violent and non violent
games.van Reekum et al. (2004) used an action adventure computer game, Xquest, to study the impact of different game events
on changes in a range of physiological measures including cardiac
activity, skin conductance, skin temperature and muscle activity
and emotion self-report. Goal conduciveness (whether the event
was congruent with the desired game goal or not) was found to
have an impact on the physiological measures but intrinsic pleasantness (subjective appraisals of emotional events as pleasurable
or not) had little impact on physiological responses. While this
seems to suggest that physiological responses do not reflect our
intuitions that we much prefer pleasant to unpleasant events,
van Reekum et al. argued that congruence of emotions was more
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
relevant to game players than their intrinsic pleasantness in this
situation.
Neuropsychologists are interested in identifying the regions of
the brain where the enjoyable subjective experiences felt while
playing games are located. Since previous research has shown that
activation in the prefrontal cortex (trans-cranial direct current
stimulation or tDCS) was negatively linked to the subjective feeling
of presence, Beeli, Casutt, Baumgartner, and Jäncke (2008) examined how the feelings of presence felt during a virtual roller coaster
simulation could be modulated by decreasing activity in the dorsalateral pre-frontal cortex (dlPFC). The researchers argued that, since
the dlPFC is also involved in the inhibition of impulsive behaviour,
lowered activation within the dlPFC should also be accompanied by
higher impulsiveness. Participants were randomly assigned to cathodal, anodal or sham trans-cranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
and measures of electro-myogram (EMG), skin conductance, impulsivity and presence were recorded. Cathodal tDCS led to increased
skin conductance and increased numbers of false alarms (i.e. increased impulsivity) relative to the other two groups, but there
were no differences between the three groups in emg or subjective
measures of presence. This study demonstrated that the relationship between physiological stimulation and measures of subjective
experience is not always straightforward.
Salminen and Ravaja (2008) examined brain wave activity (EEG
responses) linked to two emotional events, wounding and killing
an opponent, while playing a first-person shooting game (James
Bond 007: NightFire). They found increases in theta wave activity
in response to both violent game events compared with the preevent baseline, suggesting that this kind of brain activity is linked
to the emotional responses experienced during violent events. In a
previous study they had found no similar responses when players
were playing a non-violent game, SuperMonkey Ball 2 (Salminen &
Ravaja, 2007). Taken together these results suggest that the observed increases in theta wave activity were linked to taking part
in emotional events in games.
Ravaja, Turpeinen, Saari, Puttonen, and Keltikangas-Jarvinen
(2008) looked at facial EMG activity and skin conductance responses as well as assessments of mood during game-play (joy,
pleasant relaxation, fear, anger, and depressed feeling) in response
to short duration emotional game events. They found that counterintuitive emotions were experienced during game playing events.
Although we might expect that wounding and killing one’s opponent would elicit positive emotional responses since these events
indicate progress in the game, the events did in fact lead to anxiety
or anger. Players possibly experience ‘‘normal’’ empathetic responses that would be felt in response to such an event in real life.
Similarly wounding or killing of one’s own character, which would
be a negative event in the game, led to positive emotions, which
may have been due to relief from the stress of playing the game.
The authors concluded that we should not assume that we know
which emotions are experienced during game-play as it may be
difficult to dissociate the import of emotions in games from those
experienced in real life.
Sell, Lillie, and Taylor (2008) measured enjoyment of the game
as well as physiological benefits (heart rate, oxygen consumption
and energy expenditure) experienced by players while playing
the dance exercise game Dance Dance Revolution (DDR). Sell
et al. found that all players enjoyed playing the game more than
working on a treadmill but the physiological benefits experienced
depended on the level of fitness of the players. More experienced
players were able to work at higher levels of the game and could
consequently expend more energy, achieving improved physical
benefits and increased enjoyment compared to less experienced
players. This study also illustrates difficulties in choosing an appropriate control since treadmills are not typically known for their
engaging properties!
775
Liu, Agrawal, Sarkar, and Chen (2009) reported an innovative
use of players’ predictable physiological responses to games as a
basis for adjusting the level of game difficulty (DDA) for players
in trying to provide them with optimal challenge. This method
was compared with DDA based on player performance measures.
While the study used small numbers, it was found to provide a
promising means of quantifying players’ emotions when playing
computer games and using these to provide optimally challenging
experiences for players.
3.7. Motives/reasons for playing games
Over time, enjoyable feelings experienced while playing games
will lead to positive attitudes and expectations of games which
provide more enduring reasons or motives for playing games.
Motives for playing games provide an alternative perspective on
engagement which involve appraisals of feelings experienced
while playing games. Tan (2008) made a similar theoretical distinction between ‘‘on-line phenomenal experiences of activities’’
and ‘‘selecting and engaging in activities’’ in discussing emotions
linked to media.
Overall the method used most frequently in studying motives
for playing games was the survey (14), although two good quasiexperimental studies and two qualitative studies were also identified. Several studies of motives for playing digital games were
grounded in rigorous theoretical models, mostly based on satisfaction of needs. Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski (2006) argued that
understanding motives for playing games is an under-researched
area and they applied Deci and Ryan’s (1985) generic motivational
theory, self determination (SD) theory, to examine players’ motives
for playing games. The main finding from Ryan et al.’s detailed
studies was that players’ ratings of enjoyment and value in games
and a desire for future play were strongly predicted by presence
and players’ self determined needs for competence, autonomy
and relatedness. This suggests that the need for challenge, the freedom to act in a virtual world and opportunities to develop relationships are important contributors to game enjoyment. Ryan et al.
also found that player presence was an important predictor of
game enjoyment.
Uses and gratifications (U&G) theory provides an account of
more specific, media-related motives for playing games. Lucas
and Sherry (2004) asked 18–24 year olds to rate six previously
established uses and gratifications for playing computer games
(competition, challenge, social interaction, diversion, fantasy and
arousal). Challenge was the top rated reason for playing games
for both males and females, with the need for arousal and excitement also rated highly by both genders. Colwell (2007) was also
influenced by U&G theory and identified companionship, preferring playing games to being with friends, fun/challenge and stress
relief as needs that playing games meets for adolescents.
Chou and Tsai (2007) examined links between reasons for playing games and enjoyment of games in Taiwanese high school students. They found that using games for entertainment, seeking
information, filling time and social reasons were among the four
most important reasons predicting enjoyment of games for both
males and females.
A sub-set of papers focused on motives for playing specific
kinds of games. Kim and Ross (2006) extended U&G theory to
study the gratifications of playing sports games and found sports
knowledge and application and identification with sport as unique
motives for playing sports games. Klimmt, Schmid, and Orthmann
(2009) found that the primary determiners of the appeal of multiplayer browser games were the social relationships developed in
the games and their flexibility of use, with competition a less
important motive for playing these games. Clearly some game genres or platforms are more engaging than others. Lee et al. (2007)
776
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
found that simulation, role-playing and action games were the
most popular games with high and middle school students in
Korea.
Several papers addressed the increasing popularity of Massively
Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) and Massively Multiplayer
Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). In a short but influential
paper, Yee (2006) found achievement, socialising and immersion
were important motives for playing online games. Using Yee’s
(2006) questionnaire, Suznjevic and Matijasevic (2010) found that
achievement was the most important motive for players of the
MMORPG World of Warcraft with team work also important but
immersive features less so. Using a qualitative approach, Frostling-Henningsson (2009) found that online gaming is motivated
primarily by social reasons with players seeking opportunities for
cooperation and competition. Players were also motivated by
escapism and flow as well as opportunities to carry out behaviours
that would not be possible in the real world. Lin and Lin (2011)
used a more specialised qualitative technique used in marketing
to identify players’ perceptions of the attributes, consequences
and values associated with playing MMORPGs. Players identified
fun and enjoyment of life, a sense of belonging, warm relationships
with others and a sense of accomplishment as reasons for playing
games. These studies confirm, using a different methodological approach, the use of games for enjoyment and to satisfy the needs for
competence and relatedness as specified in self-determination
theory.
The popularity of violent games would appear to suggest that
the violent content of games is an important factor in the enjoyment of these games. While the current review did not focus on
violence, Przybylski, Ryan, and Rigby (2009) argued that ‘‘little research has examined the role of violent player content in player
motivation and immersion’’. They examined violence as a motive
for playing games but found that the violent content of games
did not predict player ratings of enjoyment and value in games
over and above players’ needs for competence and autonomy. This
suggests that violence is not an important factor in contributing to
game enjoyment. Rather players play violent games for reasons
similar to those for playing other games, i. e. because these games
provide challenges and the freedom to act in a virtual world.
A number of papers focused on differences between players in
motives for playing games. Gender is the most obvious user characteristic which influences engagement in games: males are more
interested in games, enjoy games more, spend more time playing
games, are much more likely to play for extended periods of time
than females and have different game preferences to females
(Chou & Tsai, 2007). Lucas and Sherry (2004) found that males
rated all six reasons for playing (challenge, competition, social
interaction, fantasy, arousal and diversion) as more important than
females, confirming the greater enthusiasm for games that males
have. Interestingly males rated social interaction as the second
most important reason for playing games, while females rated it
the least important suggesting that males are much more likely
than females to regard game playing as an opportunity to socialise
with friends. Jansz, Avis, and Vosmeer (2010) found that social
interaction, fantasy and challenge were rated significantly more
important motives for males than females with no gender differences in enjoyment, control and diversion. Olson (2010) found that
boys were significantly more likely than girls to play for fun, to
compete with other people, for challenge and for emotional reasons, including excitement, relaxation and coping with anger.
Age differences in motives for playing were also reported.
Eglesz, Fekete, Kiss, and Izsó (2005) found that children under 10
play games to achieve better results, while 14- to 18-year-olds like
more stimulating games because they are more driven by sensation-seeking motives. When they fail players over 30 are motivated
to try again. Griffiths, Davies, and Chappell (2004) showed differ-
ences in motives and play patterns between adult and adolescent
players of Everquest. They found that adolescents are more likely
to play because of violence and are more likely to sacrifice work
to play, while adults are more likely to sacrifice socialising.
Jeng and Teng (2008) found that personality traits were strong
predictors of game-playing motivations, while Teng (2008) found
that players of online games had higher openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion scores but not neurotocism or agreeableness. Koo (2009) found that players with an external locus of
control enjoy online games more, concentrate more on the games
and use games as an escape strategy more than those with an
internal locus of control.
Sell et al. (2008) found that player expertise impacted on enjoyment of games, with more experienced players of DDR achieving
improved physical benefits and greater enjoyment than less experienced players. Fang and Zhao (2010) brought together player
characteristics and game type, arguing that the fit between these
will influence the level of enjoyment experienced in playing
games. They examined the impact of sensation seeking and self
forgetfulness on enjoyment of five different categories of computer
game and found that sensation seeking was linked to behavioural
enjoyment for action oriented game types and to cognition for
family entertainment/simulation game.
Wan and Chiou (2007) found that players who were classified
as on-line game addicts had higher levels of intrinsic than extrinsic
motivation, while non-addicts’ extrinsic motivation was significantly higher than their intrinsic motivation. This suggests that addicts are more susceptible to the pleasurable features of the games.
Lee et al. (2007) found that players in a high risk group for internet
addiction played games more and reported more difficulty in controlling their game use than those in potential or low risk groups.
3.8. Game usage
The huge amounts of money spent on games, the large numbers
of children, adolescents and adults who play games worldwide and
the amount of time spent on playing games are important indicators of engagement in games. The only design which was used in
studying game usage was the survey, although several papers used
sophisticated modelling techniques to analyse predictors of game
usage. Playing games is clearly a highly popular leisure activity
with players spending around 7 h per week playing games (Lee &
Larose, 2007; Lucas & Sherry, 2004). Eglesz et al. (2005) found that
children in the 14–18 year old age-range spent the most time playing games, a fact that they attributed to their need for sensation
seeking and emotional release. Griffiths et al. (2004) found that
the average number of hours played by players of the game Everquest was 25.3 h per week for adolescents and 24.7 h for adults.
A number of authors looked at the links between motives for
playing games and game usage. Colwell (2007) found fun/challenge, preferring games to friends and stress relief were significant
predictors of the amount, duration and total weekly play. Shieh
and Cheng (2007) found that Taiwanese adolescents and young
adults who value games as a leisure pursuit, who are concerned
about social norms, who play games for a sense of empathy and
escapism and who value the social aspects of games will play online games more. Yee (2006) found that escapism, hours played
per week and advancement (the desire to progress in the game)
were the best predictors of problematic use of games.
Just as we might assume that people play games primarily because they enjoy them, so too we might predict that the more people
enjoy playing games, the longer they will play. However people play
games for both positive and negative reasons and Lee and LaRose
(2007) found that time spent playing games is strongly influenced
by negative reasons for playing games. They proposed that many
people start to play video games to help them manage negative
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
psychological states by relieving boredom, reducing loneliness,
passing time or providing an escape, so-called self-reactive outcome
expectations. Lee and LaRose also highlighted the importance of
self-regulatory mechanisms in controlling game usage. They modelled computer gaming habits and usage of 388 college undergraduates and found that players’ self-reactive outcome expectations
were positively linked to deficient self-regulation of game playing,
with respect to inaccurate judgements about appropriate norms of
acceptable games use and failure to feel guilt about excessive play.
Lee and Larose also found that flow did not have a direct impact on
the amount of time spent playing computer games, directly questioning the commonsense assumption that the more players enjoy
a game the more time they will spend playing it. However, flow
did have an impact on habit strength, self-reactive outcome expectations and self-regulation variables, suggesting that experiencing
flow makes it more likely that players will have difficulties in regulating media consumption. This study provides an interesting insight into the mechanisms by which normal players might be
drawn into playing games excessively and explains why enjoyment
is not necessarily a good predictor of time spent playing games.
Many players feel passionate about playing games, but a distinction is made between harmonious passion (HP) and obsessive
passion (OP), where harmonious passion is regarded as positive
and obsessive passion as negative. Przybylski, Weinstein, Ryan,
and Rigby (2009) argued that the former is determined by wanting
to play games, while the latter is determined by needing to play.
Wang, Chen, Lin, and Wang (2008) found that players with higher
HP and OP had significantly higher flow disposition, positive affect
and played for longer than those with moderate or low HP/OP profiles. Overall the findings confirmed that harmonious passion tends
to be linked to positive outcomes and obsessive passion tends to be
linked to negative outcomes.
Koo (2009) found that perceived enjoyment, escape and social
affiliation but not concentration or epistemic curiosity predicted
players’ intention to play. They also found that players with an
external locus of control enjoy online games more, concentrate
more on the games and use games more as an escape strategy than
players with an internal locus of control. Hsu and Lu (2004) used
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), extending it to leisure
applications of IT and showing that social norms (i. e. players’ perceptions of other people’s views of the technology), critical mass
(the number of people using the technology) and flow are more relevant to explaining attitudes to and the use of on-line entertainment games than the traditional extrinsic TAM variables,
perceived ease of use and usefulness.
3.9. Game market and player loyalty
The current review did not explicitly address the computer
games market, but several papers mentioned the need to understand the games market in providing a rationale for the study.
For example Lee and Larose (2007) reported that retail sales of
computer games plus consoles, software and accessories reached
$US10.5 billion in 2005, while Przybylski, Ryan et al. (2009) reported that the computer games market is now even bigger than
Hollywood.
Wu, Wang, and Tsai (2010) examined why players want to continue playing a particular game. They found that achievement,
enjoyment and social interaction gratifications derived from the
game as well as service mechanisms (fairness, incentive and security) positively predicted players’ motivations to continue playing
a game and their ‘‘proactive stickiness’’, i.e. players’ tendency to
be loyal to the game. Presence did not predict players’ motivation
to continue playing. Chang and Zhang (2008) found that players’
attitudes to materialism were linked to their motivation for online
gaming (self-confidence and achievement; escape and virtual
777
identification; sociability; reward and entertainment) and this predicted players’ attitudes toward online games, although the effects
of materialism on attitude were fully mediated by motivation. Hsu
and Lu (2007) found that customer loyalty in online game communities was influenced by perceived enjoyment, social norms and
preference, while perceived cohesion of the community had an indirect impact on loyalty through its impact on customers’ loyalty to
the community.
3.10. Impact of game-playing on life satisfaction
Seven papers looked at the impact of playing games on life satisfaction. Apart from Smyth’s (2007) between groups study, all studies in this category were surveys. Most of the studies looked at both
positive and negative impacts of playing games. Ogletree and Drake
(2007) found gender differences in the impact of games with males
playing games for longer durations than females and males agreeing
that playing games interfered more with sleeping and class preparation then females. More males also complained about their own
game playing, while more females than males complained about
the amount of time their significant other played computer games.
The results are consistent with the displacement hypothesis, which
proposes that game playing replaces more important activities in
the lives of young people. Wang, Khoo, Liu, and Divaharan (2008)
found that physiological and aesthetic dimensions of game satisfaction had positive effects, but web surfing frequency and the educational component of game satisfaction had negative effects on
adolescent life satisfaction. Skoric, Teo, and Neo (2009) found that
addictive but not engagement tendencies had a negative impact
on the academic performance of primary school children.
Self determination theory proposes that taking part in activities
which meet his needs enhances a person’s well-being. Przybylski,
Weinstein et al. (2009) examined links between game players’
self-determined needs and harmonious and obsessive passion and
found, as predicted, that players with higher levels of self-determined need satisfaction also had higher levels of harmonious passion and this was positively linked to life satisfaction, while those
with lower levels of need satisfaction had higher levels of obsessive
passion, which was negatively linked to life satisfaction. Similar
findings were reported by Lafrenie, Vallerand, Donahue, and Lavigne
(2009), although these authors found that high obsessive passion
was positively related to positive as well as negative affective experiences, again suggesting that, despite negative outcomes, even
players with high obsessive passion enjoy playing games.
Addressing concerns that playing online games is associated
with detrimental outcomes, Smyth (2007) compared aspects of
engagement (game usage, health, well-being, socialisation, sleep
and academic progress) in MMORPGs with arcade, console and
computer games. Smyth reported that playing MMORPGs is linked
to both positive and negative consequences. The MMORPG group
reported greater enjoyment of the game and a greater interest in
continuing to play the game. However they also spent significantly
more hours playing, reported worse health and sleep quality and
greater interference of games with their social life and academic
work suggesting that, while the MMORPGs are clearly engaging,
the outcomes are largely detrimental.
4. Discussion
The number of papers providing empirical evidence about
engagement in digital entertainment games captured in the current review confirms the surge in interest in this area over the past
10 years. A structured approach to synthesising the findings from
these diverse papers was developed which categorised studies
in terms of the different approaches used by their authors to
778
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
understand engagement in games. This categorisation is consistent
with process models of engagement which look at different stages
in the course of engagement. For example, the model of media
enjoyment proposed by Vorderer et al. (2004) placed subjective
experience at the heart of media enjoyment but claimed that a
comprehensive account of media enjoyment should also consider
the antecedents of enjoyment such as motives and player and
game prerequisites and outcomes of media enjoyment. O’Brien
and Toms’ (2008) process model of engagement with technology
made similar claims about different stages in the process of
engagement but adopted the perspective of an individual engaging
with a game rather than providing an abstract description of the
process.
As Brockmyer et al. (2009) acknowledge there is still a lack of
consensus about how best to characterise subjective experience
in games. The different constructs which have been proposed,
enjoyment, immersion, presence, flow and arousal are similar but
emphasise slightly different aspects of subjective experience in
games. Flow, the best known term for describing the enjoyable
subjective experiences of playing games, has a strong focus on cognitive features relating to the task such as challenge, concentration,
goals and feedback. Jennett et al. (2008) argued that immersion is a
more useful construct than flow since it can exist to varying degrees on different tasks and can explain a broader range of subjective experiences than flow which refers only to states of optimal
experience. Presence, with its specific focus on the feelings of actually being present in the game, is an important aspect of the
engagement experience, but it describes a rather narrow view of
engagement. While many accounts view enjoyment of games as almost synonymous with engagement, arousal theory highlights
excitement as a distinct emotion from enjoyment as suggested in
the dimensional theory of emotions (Aymerich-Franch, 2010).
Brockmyer et al. adopt a pragmatic and eclectic approach to characterising engagement in games in their Game Engagement Questionnaire by including questions about different aspects of
subjective experience.
While most measures of engagement are questionnaire based,
several papers described objective measures of engagement in
games, based either on behavioural or physiological responses.
While time spent playing games may seem like an obvious correlate of enjoyment, Lee and Larose (2007) suggested caution in
using this as a proxy behavioural indicator of engagement in games
since negative reasons for playing games and poor regulation of
game playing were better predictors of game usage than flow. On
a more positive note Jennett et al. (2008) found that both eye
movements and time to re-engage in an activity following immersion provided promising objective measures of immersion. Liu
et al.’s (2009) use of a range of physiological correlates of emotions
felt while gaming to adapt the difficulty level of a game to players’
needs suggests that these measures can provide reliable and useful
indicators of engagement in games. However links between physiological and subjective measures of engagement are not always so
easy to interpret. Ravaja et al. (2005) pointed out that physiological
measures can provide potentially ambiguous measures of arousal
in computer games. Heart rate, for example, can either increase
in response to emotional arousal or decrease in response to attentional engagement, both of which are relevant subjective indicators of engagement in games.
While subjective experience is central to explanations of the appeal of games, players’ motives for playing games provide an alternative perspective on understanding player engagement which
examines the factors which impact on why people might choose
to play games. Many different motives for playing games were
identified with fun/enjoyment and challenge consistently rated
as the most important reasons for playing games. Challenge (competence) is a key reason for playing games in SD theory, Yee’s
(2006) motivational theory and in U&G theory. Playing games
satisfies players’ need for achievement, a need first identified by
McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1953) as an important
motivator of behaviour. There was evidence too that games satisfy
players’ needs for autonomy (Klimmt et al., 2007; Ryan et al., 2006)
and relatedness (Lin & Lin, 2011), the other needs specified in SD
theory. Ryan et al. (2006) also recognised the importance of presence in predicting game enjoyment, although Jennett et al.
(2008) pointed out that presence is not necessary for immersion
as many games and puzzles which do not involve a strong sense
of presence are nevertheless highly engaging.
SD theory has been criticised for considering a narrow range of
motives for playing games and U&G theory identified a broader
range of needs that playing games can meet including competition,
arousal and fantasy. Many other features including suspense and
narrative have been found to contribute to engagement in games
and it seems likely that other features will be identified. While
we may want to provide a more coherent understanding of motives
for playing games, the reality is that a range of diverse and
unrelated features contribute to engagement. O’Brien and Toms
(2008) call these features ‘‘engagement attributes’’.
While SD theory focuses on user needs it is also recognised that
features of the games themselves contribute to engagement. Progress in understanding motives will be made by looking in more
detail at the characteristics of specific kinds of games as well differences between players in the kinds of games that they enjoy. Social
motives are especially important reasons for playing online games
and browser games (Klimmt, Rizzo et al., 2009; Klimmt, Schmid
et al., 2009), while competition seems to be more important in
some games than others (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009) and for
some players (Lucas & Sherry, 2004; Olson, 2010). Several papers
looked at the impact of gender (Chou & Tsai, 2007; Karakus, Inal,
& Cagiltay, 2008), age (Eglesz et al., 2005) and personality differences between players in their engagement in games. Fang and
Zhao (2010) brought together player characteristics and game
type, arguing that the fit between these will influence the level
of enjoyment experienced in playing games. O’Brien and Toms
(2008) side-stepped the issue of whether motivational features
are properties of the game or the player by proposing that engagement attributes are properties of the user-game interface.
We have argued that it is useful to distinguish motives and subjective experience as separate components in understanding
engagement. However, in practice many game characteristics,
including enjoyment, challenge, arousal, fantasy, suspense, competition and interest are relevant both as reasons for playing games
and as facets of subjective experience. Challenge for example is a
key characteristic of flow theory but it is also recognised as a motive for playing games. A number of studies examined links between reasons for playing and subjective experience. For
example Ryan et al. (2006), Przybylski, Ryan et al. (2009), and Chou
and Tsai (2007) looked at motives for playing games as predictors
of enjoyment. In a detailed theoretical analysis of interest, Tan
(2008) argued that the experience of boredom (the distal reason)
will set in train behaviours which will be experienced as interest.
It would be useful to carry out similar detailed examinations of
other characteristics which are important in engagement.
While enjoyment is key to explanations of engagement in
games, players also experience negative emotions while playing
games. Jennett et al.’s (2008) preliminary studies of pace related
anxiety and immersion were inconclusive but suggested that experiencing negative emotions such as anxiety may actually help to
engage players in games. Players also play games for negative reasons such as escapism, avoiding boredom and depression and, as
Lee and LaRose found, this has negative consequences since such
players are less able to control their gameplay. While violent
games are very popular, Przybylski, Ryan et al. (2009) found that
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
violence itself did not predict enjoyment of and immersion in
games while Ivory and Kalyanaraman (2007) found no difference
between violent and non violent games in ratings of presence,
involvement and arousal. Future research should consider the role
of negative emotions in engaging players in games in more detail.
Studies looking at the impact of playing games on general life
satisfaction also suggest that playing games has both positive
and negative consequences. Smyth (2007) found that players of online games enjoyed them more than those playing other kinds of
games, even although they also suffered more from the detrimental effects of playing these games. As with other highly enjoyable
behaviours there is a fine dividing line between enjoyment and
addiction. Wan and Chiou’s (2007) finding that on-line game addicts had higher levels of intrinsic motivation suggests that, despite the disadvantages of being an addict, these players still
enjoy playing games. Even those who are not addicts may experience both harmonious and obsessive passion for games, and several studies suggest that players with a more obsessive passion
suffer more detrimental outcomes than those with a more harmonious passion for games.
Methodologically, while RCTs would theoretically provide more
rigorous evidence that digital entertainment games lead to increased engagement, difficulties in establishing meaningful controls would suggest that other designs may be more informative
and appropriate. Several good quasi-experimental studies were
found in the review, which have added to our understanding of
subjective experience and physiological correlates of emotions
experienced in playing games. Surveys were the most popular
method for studying motives and time spent playing games,
although many of these studies used sophisticated modelling techniques to examine links between different aspects of engagement
providing more coherent models of engagement in games (Chou
& Tsai, 2007; Hsu & Lu, 2004; Lee & LaRose, 2007; Ryan et al.,
2006; Przybylski, Ryan et al., 2009). Nevertheless experimental
studies of motives for playing games would help to provide more
rigorous evidence of motivational aspects of games. In addition
qualitative research looking at players’ experiences in playing
games would help to add detail to our understanding of engagement in games.
The current review had a number of limitations. It was limited
by the search terms used, the journals included and the time period of papers published, although the focus on the past 10 years ensured that the review covered the most recent research. The review
concentrated on empirical evidence regarding engagement in
games and speculative papers were excluded as we felt it was
important to ground our understanding of engagement in research
evidence. In addition, while we regarded engagement as a positive
outcome of playing games, in practice it is difficult to focus uniquely on positive aspects of engagement. The current review related to digital entertainment games and excluded papers which
discussed engagement in games for learning. However it is expected that many of the ideas discussed here will also be relevant
to understanding engagement in games for learning.
4.1. Conclusion
This systematic literature review of empirical research over the
past 10 years has revealed the complex, multi-factorial nature of
engagement in digital entertainment games. The range of games
and game platforms available is continually expanding and we
are just beginning to understand the motivational appeal of different kinds of games. Future research should aim to develop this in
conjunction with a better understanding of player preferences for
different kinds of game. As with many other pleasurable activities,
playing games can easily lead to negative outcomes as engagement
turns into habitual play or even addiction if played for the wrong
779
reasons. The current review has regarded engagement in games
in a positive light, but has also highlighted the need for researchers
to investigate in more detail the delicate balance between positive
and negative experiences, emotions and motives in engaging players in games.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by a grant from the Wellcome
trust to Professor Thomas M. Connolly.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020.
References
Aymerich-Franch, L. (2010). Presence and emotions in playing a group game in a
virtual environment: The influence of body participation. Cyberpsychology,
Behaviour and Social Networking, 13, 649–654.
Baldaro, B., Tuozzi, G., Codispoti, M., Montebarocci, O., Barbagli, F., Trombini, E.,
et al. (2004). Aggressive and non-violent videogames: Short-term psychological
and cardiovascular effects on habitual players. Stress and Health, 20(4),
203–208.
Beeli, G., Casutt, G., Baumgartner, T., & Jäncke, L. (2008). Modulating presence and
impulsiveness by external stimulation of the brain. Behavioral and Brain
Functions, 4(33), 1–7.
Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., & Burkhart, K. M. (2009). The
development of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of
engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 624–634.
Chang, J.-H., & Zhang, H. (2008). Analyzing online game players: From materialism
and motivation to attitude. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 11(6), 711–714.
Chatfield, T. (2010). Fun Inc: Why games are the 21st century’s most serious business.
Virgin Books.
Chou, C., & Tsai, M.-J. (2007). Gender differences in Taiwan high school students’
computer game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 812–824.
Chumbley, J., & Griffiths (2006). Affect and the computer game player: The effect of
gender, personality, and game reinforcement structure on affective responses to
computer game-play. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 9(3), 308–316.
Colwell, J. (2007). Needs met through computer game play among adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2072–2082.
Connolly, T. C., Stansfield, M. H., & Hainey, T. (2008). Development of a general
framework for evaluating games-based learning. Proceedings of the 2nd
European conference on games-based learning. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya,
Barcelona, Spain.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper and Row.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Durkin, K., & Barber, B. (2002). Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive
adolescent development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 272–392.
Eglesz, D., Fekete, S., Kiss, O. E., & Izsó, L. (2005). Computer games are fun? On
professional games and players’ motivations. Educational Media International,
42(2), 117–124.
Fang, X., & Zhao, F. (2010). Personality and enjoyment of computer game play.
Computers in Industry, 61, 342–349.
Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-person shooter games as a way of
connecting to people: ‘‘Brothers in blood’’. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour,
12(5), 557–562.
Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2004). Online computer gaming: A
comparison of adolescents and adult gamers. Adolescence, 27, 87–96.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68.
Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM
with social influences and flow experience. Information and Management, 41,
853–868.
Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2007). Consumer behavior in online game communities: A
motivational factor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1642–1659.
Ivory, J. D., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement
and violent content in video games on players’ feelings of presence,
involvement, physiological arousal, and aggression. Journal of Communication,
57, 532–555.
Jansz, J., Avis, C., & Vosmeer, M. (2010). Playing The Sims2: An exploration of gender
differences in players’ motivations and patterns of play. New Media & Society,
12(2), 235–251.
780
E.A. Boyle et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 771–780
Jeng, S.-P., & Teng, C.-I. (2008). Personality and motivations for playing online
games. Social Behaviour and Personality, 36(8), 1053–1060.
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., et al. (2008).
Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661.
Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2008). A descriptive study of Turkish high school
students’ game-playing characteristics and their considerations concerning the
effects of games. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2, 2520–2529.
Kim, Y., & Ross, S. D. (2006). An exploration of motives in sport video gaming (2006).
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 8(1), 34–47.
Klimmt, C., Hartman, T., & Frey, A. (2007). Effectance and control as determinants of
video game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 10(6), 845–847.
Klimmt, C., Rizzo, A., Vorderer, P., Koch, J., & Ficher, T. (2009). Experimental evidence
for suspense as determinant of video game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology and
Behaviour, 12(1), 29–31.
Klimmt, C., Schmid, H., & Orthmann, J. (2009). Exploring the enjoyment of playing
browser games. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 12(2), 231–234.
Koo, D.-M. (2009). The moderating role of locus of control on the links between
experiential motives and intention to play online games. Computers in human
Behavior, 25, 466–474.
Lafrenie, M.-A. K., Vallerand, R. J., Donahue, E. G., & Lavigne, G. V. L. (2009). On the
costs and benefits of gaming: The role of passion. Cyberpsychology and
Behaviour, 12(2), 285–290.
Lee, M.-S., Ko, Y.-H., Song, H.-S., Kwon, K.-H., Lee, H.-S., Nam, M., et al. (2007).
Characteristics of internet use in relation to game genre in Korean adolescents.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 278–285.
Lee, D., & LaRose, R. (2007). A socio-cognitive model of video game usage. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 632–650.
Lin, Y.-L., & Lin, H.-W. (2011). A study on the goal value for massively multiplayer
online role-playing games players. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
2153–2160.
Liu, C., Agrawal, P., Sarkar, N., & Chen, S. (2009). Dynamic difficulty adjustment in
computer games through real-time anxiety-based affective feedback.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(6), 506–529.
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A
communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31(5), 499–523.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nabi, R. L., & Kremar, M. (2004). Conceptualising media enjoyment as attitude:
Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4),
288–310.
Nacke, L. E., Grimshaw, M. N., & Lindley, C. A. (2009). More than a feeling:
Measurement of sonic user experience and psychophysiology in a first person
shooter game. Interacting with Computers, 22, 336–342.
O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual
framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955.
Ogletree, S. M., & Drake, R. (2007). College students’ video game participation and
perceptions: Gender differences and implications. Sex Roles, 56, 537–542.
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of
normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 180–187.
Przybylski, A. K., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). The motivating role of violence in
video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 243–259.
Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, S. (2009). Having to versus
wanting to play: Background and consequences of harmonious versus
obsessive engagement in video games. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour,
12(5), 485–492.
Qin, H., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2010). Effects of different scenarios of game
difficulty on player immersion. Interacting with Computers, 22, 230–239.
Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Laari, J., Kallinen, K., Salminen, M., Holopain, J., et al., (2005).
The psychophysiology of video gaming: Phasic emotional responses to
game events. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 conference: Changing views – worlds
in play.
Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2008).
The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent
video game events. Emotion, 8(1), 114–120.
Russell, W. D., & Newton, M. (2008). Short-term psychological effects of interactive
video game technology exercise on mood and attention. Educational Technology
& Society, 11(2), 294–308.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video
games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30,
347–363.
Salminen, M., & Ravaja, N. (2007). Oscillatory brain responses evoked by video game
events: The case of Super Monkey Ball 2. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 10,
330–338.
Salminen, M., & Ravaja, N. (2008). Increased oscillatory theta activation evoked by
violent digital game events. Neuroscience Letters, 435(1), 69–72.
Schneider, E. F., Lang, M., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story how
story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to firstperson shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 361–375.
Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sell, K., Lillie, T., & Taylor, J. (2008). Energy expenditure during physically interactive
video game playing in male college students with different playing experience.
Journal of American College Health, 56(5), 505–512.
Sherry, J. (2004). Flow and media enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4),
328–347.
Shieh, K.-F., & Cheng, M. S. (2007). An empirical study of experiential value and
lifestyles and their effects on satisfaction in adolescents: An example using
online gaming. Adolescence, 42(165), 199–215.
Skoric, M. M., Teo, L. L. C. M. M. C., & Neo, R. L. (2009). Children and video games:
Addiction, engagement, and scholastic achievement. Cyberpsychology and
Behaviour, 12(5), 567–572.
Smyth, J. M. (2007). Beyond self-Selection in video game play – An experimental
examination of the consequences of massively multiplayer online role-playing
game play. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 10(5), 717–721.
Suznjevic, M., & Matijasevic, M. (2010). Why MMORPG players do what they do:
Relating motivations to action categories. International Journal of Advanced
Media and Communication, 4(4), 405.
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player
enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.
Tan, E. S.-H. (2008). Entertainment is emotion: The functional architecture of the
entertainment experience. Media Psychology, 11(1), 28–51.
Teng, C.-I. (2008). Personality differences between online game players and
nonplayers in a student sample. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 11(2), 232–234.
van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Banse, R., Etter, A., Wehrle, T., & Scherer, K. R.
(2004). Psychophysiological responses to appraisal dimensions in a computer
game. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 663–688.
Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfield, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388–408.
Wan, C.-S., & Chiou, W.-B. (2007). The motivations of adolescents who are addicted
to online games: A cognitive perspective. Adolescence, 42(165), 179–197.
Wang, E. S.-T., Chen, L. S.-L., Lin, J. Y.-C., & Wang, M. C.-H. (2008). The relationship
between leisure satisfaction and life satisfaction of adolescents concerning
online games. Adolescence, 43(169), 177–184.
Wang, C. K. J., Khoo, A., Liu, W. C., & Divaharan, S. (2008). Passion and intrinsic
motivation in digital gaming. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 11(1), 39–45.
Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2008). Playing online
games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence,
flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2274–2291.
Wu, J.-H., Wang, S.-C., & Tsai (2010). Falling in love with online games: The uses and
gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1862–1871.
Yannakis, G. N., & Hallam, J. (2007). Towards optimizing entertainment in computer
games. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 21, 933–971.
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for playing online games. Cyberpsychology and
Behaviour, 9(6), 772–775.