A Manifesto for More Productive Psychological Games Research

Abstract

Despite enormous resource investment, researchers lack consensus on seemingly simple questions about how video games affect players. Topics such as violent games and aggression, playtime and wellbeing, and more are characterized by deeply divided opinions and conflicting results even at the meta-analytic level. I argue that much of this disagreement stems from limitations of common methods, including use of problematic self-report measures, overreliance on cross-sectional research, and superficial use of theory, among others. To resolve debates more effectively, I describe six practices games research should adopt more widely: 1) strengthening the theoretical derivation chain, 2) attending to inter-individual effect size variation, 3) prioritizing longitudinal, within-person studies, 4) harnessing digital trace data, 5) controlling individual game features, and 6) adopting open research principles. For each practice, I include practical steps and resources for implementing them in one's own work. While critical of the current state of knowledge, the paper is hopeful: with the help of these practices, the next generation of video games research can be the most informative yet.

Four grand challenges for video game effects scholars: How digital trace data can improve the way we study games

“…Together, an over-reliance on cross-sectional studies of convenience samples, alongside a research culture in which hypotheses are rarely subjected to severe tests (Mayo, 2018), leaves us with a large 'bag of video game effects' but fewer robust causal theories to integrate and act upon these (Ballou, 2022). This state of affairs, which affects not just games research but the social sciences more broadly, has been referred to as a theory crisis (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021;Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019).…”

Debate: We need data infrastructure as well as data sharing – conflicts of interest in video game research

“…Recent research has shown that there are multiple alternative technological solutions that allow access to the kinds of data that industry holds, but without needing to broker data sharing with industry partners. For example, data donation frameworks – often operating in tandem with legal frameworks such as GDPR – allow users to first obtain the data that a company holds regarding their activity and then voluntarily share this data with research groups (Ballou, 2022). APIs and data dumps can allow researchers direct access to industry data without necessitating any collaborative relationship (e.g.…”