Cargando…

How we see electronic games

Theories regarding the influences of electronic games drive scientific study, popular debate, and public policy. The fractious interchanges among parents, pundits, and scholars hint at the rich phenomenological and psychological dynamics that underlie how people view digital technologies such as gam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Przybylski, Andrew K., Weinstein, Netta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27077016
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1931
_version_ 1782426876487139328
author Przybylski, Andrew K.
Weinstein, Netta
author_facet Przybylski, Andrew K.
Weinstein, Netta
author_sort Przybylski, Andrew K.
collection PubMed
description Theories regarding the influences of electronic games drive scientific study, popular debate, and public policy. The fractious interchanges among parents, pundits, and scholars hint at the rich phenomenological and psychological dynamics that underlie how people view digital technologies such as games. The current research applied Martin Heidegger’s concept of interpretive frameworks (Heidegger, 1987) and Robert Zajonc’s exposure-attitude hypothesis (Zajonc, 1968) to explore how attitudes towards technologies such as electronic games arise. Three studies drew on representative cohorts of American and British adults and evaluated how direct and indirect experiences with games shape how they are seen. Results indicated this approach was fruitful: negative attitudes and beliefs linking games to real-world violence were prominent among those with little direct exposure to electronic gaming contexts, whereas those who played games and reported doing so with their children tended to evaluate gaming more positively. Further findings indicated direct experience tended to inform the accuracy of beliefs about the effects of digital technology, as those who had played were more likely to believe that which is empirically known about game effects. Results are discussed with respect to ongoing debates regarding gaming and broader applications of this approach to understand the psychological dynamics of adapting to technological advances.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4830233
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48302332016-04-13 How we see electronic games Przybylski, Andrew K. Weinstein, Netta PeerJ Psychiatry and Psychology Theories regarding the influences of electronic games drive scientific study, popular debate, and public policy. The fractious interchanges among parents, pundits, and scholars hint at the rich phenomenological and psychological dynamics that underlie how people view digital technologies such as games. The current research applied Martin Heidegger’s concept of interpretive frameworks (Heidegger, 1987) and Robert Zajonc’s exposure-attitude hypothesis (Zajonc, 1968) to explore how attitudes towards technologies such as electronic games arise. Three studies drew on representative cohorts of American and British adults and evaluated how direct and indirect experiences with games shape how they are seen. Results indicated this approach was fruitful: negative attitudes and beliefs linking games to real-world violence were prominent among those with little direct exposure to electronic gaming contexts, whereas those who played games and reported doing so with their children tended to evaluate gaming more positively. Further findings indicated direct experience tended to inform the accuracy of beliefs about the effects of digital technology, as those who had played were more likely to believe that which is empirically known about game effects. Results are discussed with respect to ongoing debates regarding gaming and broader applications of this approach to understand the psychological dynamics of adapting to technological advances. PeerJ Inc. 2016-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4830233/ /pubmed/27077016 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1931 Text en ©2016 Przybylski and Weinstein http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Psychiatry and Psychology
Przybylski, Andrew K.
Weinstein, Netta
How we see electronic games
title How we see electronic games
title_full How we see electronic games
title_fullStr How we see electronic games
title_full_unstemmed How we see electronic games
title_short How we see electronic games
title_sort how we see electronic games
topic Psychiatry and Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27077016
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1931
work_keys_str_mv AT przybylskiandrewk howweseeelectronicgames
AT weinsteinnetta howweseeelectronicgames