Dev. Psychology Research Design Proposal

User Generated

Inzcvevan

Writing

Description

PLEASE DON'T ACCEPT TO DO THIS ASSIGNMENT IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH APA OR HAVE NEVER DONE A RESEARCH PROPOSAL.

I have included some articles that I found. They should help.

Find a developmental angle.

Use the article provided to help with the research. Find articles with similar content to the ones referenced in the document.

TITLE: The affect of violent video games vs competitive games on children's psychosocial health (if you have a better title, you can change it)

Contents:

1. Title and Table of Contents

2.Research Abstract

Begin with a description of the research you select. This can include developmental concepts that cover biological, psychological, and cognitive variables and factors that underpin behavior and mental processes.

3.Literature Review

Summarize knowledge contributed by leading scholarly experts who have researched the topics relevant to the case. This lets your reader know what any expert looking at research such as this would expect to find and why.Use peer-reviewed journals for this since it specifically must meet scholarly requirements.

4.Research Question

Post an evidence-based analysis of the literature and present your research question, applying the expert knowledge gleaned from your research to help support your anticipated conclusions and recommendations. Focus on those aspects of the research that will allow you to apply and analyze theories related to your chosen Developmental Psychological concepts and their implications.From this, derive your hypotheses and explain them.

5.Research Design

Present your research design and justifications for the design based on your research question and your literature review. Describe the process and actions you propose for conduct of your research as well as the rationale for these activities.Incorporate best practices from other research that exists for your identified domain and also explain how you would guard against bias.

6.Expected Outcomes

Based on your analysis, discuss the outcomes that you expect from your research.Explain how these expected outcomes might predict future behavior based on your examination of the chosen Developmental Psychological concepts.Discuss what future direction research might take based on your outcomes.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 DOI 10.1007/s10964-017-0646-z EMPIRICAL RESEARCH Video Gaming and Children’s Psychosocial Wellbeing: A Longitudinal Study Adam Lobel1 Rutger C. M. E. Engels2 Lisanne L. Stone3 William J. Burk4 Isabela Granic4 ● ● ● ● Received: 1 November 2016 / Accepted: 9 February 2017 / Published online: 21 February 2017 © The Author(s) 2017; This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The effects of video games on children’s psychosocial development remain the focus of debate. At two timepoints, 1 year apart, 194 children (7.27–11.43 years old; male = 98) reported their gaming frequency, and their tendencies to play violent video games, and to game (a) cooperatively and (b) competitively; likewise, parents reported their children’s psychosocial health. Gaming at time one was associated with increases in emotion problems. Violent gaming was not associated with psychosocial changes. Cooperative gaming was not associated with changes in prosocial behavior. Finally, competitive gaming was associated with decreases in prosocial behavior, but only among children who played video games with high frequency. Thus, gaming frequency was related to increases in internalizing but not externalizing, attention, or peer problems, violent gaming was not associated with increases in externalizing problems, and for children playing approximately 8 h or more per week, frequent competitive gaming may be a risk factor for decreasing prosocial behavior. We argue that replication is needed and that future research should better distinguish between different forms of gaming for more nuanced and generalizable insight. * Adam Lobel Adam@AdamLobel.com 1 Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Chemin des Mines 9, Geneva 1202, Switzerland 2 Trimbos Institute, Da Costakade 45, Utrecht 3521VS, Netherlands 3 Overwaal, Centre for Anxiety Disorders, Pro Persona Tarweweg, Nijmegen 6534AM, Netherlands 4 Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Montessorilaan, Nijmegen 6525HR, Netherlands Keywords Psychosocial development Video games Prosocial behavior Longitudinal ● ● ● Introduction Video games have rapidly become a universal aspect of child development (Lenhart et al. 2008), and their quick rise to prominence has stimulated scientific inquiry and public concern (Ferguson 2013). With researchers stressing that children may be particularly susceptible to the influence of video game playing (Bushman and Huesmann 2006; Lobel et al. 2014a), the effects of video games on children’s psychosocial development remains highly debated. Video games have thus been widely studied as a potential cause for aggressive cognitions and behavior (Anderson et al. 2010; Carnagey and Anderson 2004), emotional problems such as depression (Tortolero et al. 2014), and hyperactivity and inattention (Gentile et al. 2012). In these lines of research, video games are seen as a compelling entertainment medium whose clever use of feedback loops and positive reinforcement schedules train unhealthy habits of mind (Gentile and Gentile 2008a, b). Conversely, researchers have recently begun to look at video games as a domain for training healthy habits of mind (Adachi and Willoughby 2012; Granic et al. 2014). From this perspective, many video games reward communication and cooperation as well as resolving negative emotions such as frustration. Moreover, video games seem to provide a context for the fulfillment of self-deterministic needs, thereby positively contributing to psychological well-being (Ryan et al. 2006). The current paper adds to the discussion on gaming’s positive and negative consequences with data J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 from a longitudinal study that could address the relations between different forms of video game playing and the psychosocial development of children. Here, psychosocial development refers broadly to the psychological and social changes children undergo during development, including changes in patterns of internalizing and externalizing problems, attention, and how children relate to peers. Psychosocial Development and Gaming In a recent review we argued for the potential of video gaming to afford psychosocial benefits (Granic et al. 2014). This perspective focuses on gaming as a modern and meaningful form of play, and therefore as a context where children’s developmental needs can be met (Fisher 1992; Verenikina et al. 2003). Just as traditional forms of play provide positive contexts for children’s psychosocial development (Erikson 1977; Piaget 1962; Vygotsky 1978), so too video games seem to afford promise (Adachi and Willoughby 2012; Granic et al. 2014). This promise is in part due to the ubiquity of gaming; with between 90 and 97% of children playing video games (Lenhart et al. 2008), it seems that social development has partly migrated from physical playgrounds to digital ones. Moreover, video games have become—particularly in the past decade—a more social and emotionally rich entertainment medium. Thus, modern video games may provide a context for children to bond with others and learn the benefits of cooperation. Yet despite the potential benefits of gaming for children’s psychosocial development, scant empirical work has explored these options (Hromek and Roffey 2009; Przybylski and Wang 2016). Instead, there has been a predominant focus on the potential psychosocial dangers of gaming. A recent meta-analysis identified 101 studies that investigated the effects of playing (violent) video games on children’s and adolescents’ psychosocial health. Of these studies, nearly 70 of them assessed whether (violent) video games were related to externalizing problems (such as aggression). In contrast, prosocial behavior (e.g. Gentile et al. 2009) and internalizing problems (such as depression) were each assessed in about 20 studies (e.g. Parkes et al. 2013). Just 9 studies assessed the relation between gaming and attention problems (e.g. Bioulac et al. 2008) and even fewer investigated the relation between gaming and children’s peer relationships (e.g. Przybylski 2014). Several methodological shortcomings are also important to highlight. First, gaming research among children has predominantly been cross-sectional in nature—64 of the 101 studies identified in Ferguson (2015) were correlational. The major limitation of these studies is that they do not allow inferences about order. Moreover, many of these studies have not controlled for relevant background variables such as socio-economic status (SES) and gender. On the other hand, 885 while experimental studies allow researchers to draw causal inferences, the real-world generalizability of such gaming studies remain debated. Regarding studies on externalizing problems in particular, researchers have questioned the ecological validity of the outcome measures used (see Anderson and Bushman 1997; Ritter and Eslea 2005) and the extent to which these studies used well-matched control conditions (see Przybylski et al. 2014). Beyond these issues, as most of these experimental studies were run in a single lab session, these experiments do not give enough insight into the longterm consequences of playing video games. Regarding internalizing problems, studies that examine the link between gaming and emotional problems have predominantly focused on “problematic gamers.” These are individuals who habitually play for very many hours and show other signs of dependency, such as avoiding social interactions or obligations in favor of gaming (van Rooij et al. 2011). Among adolescents, such gamers seem to have elevated depression symptoms compared to their peers (Messias et al. 2011). A recent, large scale, cross-sectional study among Canadian adolescents also indicated that video game play was positively associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety (Maras et al. 2015). These findings are consistent with the conclusions made in a review by Kuss and Griffiths (2012). These problems seem to emerge as a result of escapism; that is that problematic gamers seem drawn to gaming as an escape from real world problems. As a means of escape, gaming may offer temporary distraction, but without alleviating real world distress, excessive gaming may only exacerbate said problems. Still, the crosssectional nature of past studies leaves open whether individuals with internalizing problems retreat to video games as an escape, or whether gaming acts as a precursor to these issues. Moreover, little is known about the relationship between gaming and internalizing problems in children due to the scarcity of research among this cohort. Finally, hyperactivity and inattention has been investigated as a detrimental psychosocial outcome of gaming. This research is premised on the perception that video games are fast-paced and offer frequent rewards, thus potentially habituating children to a steady stream of novel, pleasurable stimuli. On the one hand, children with Attentional Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder have been shown to play more video games than their peers (Mazurek and Engelhardt 2013) and Gentile and colleagues (2012) argue that there may be a bidirectional effect between attentional problems and gaming. On the other hand, studies among adults show that action video games may confer cognitive benefits, including improvements in executive functioning (Green and Bavelier 2012). Due to these conflicting findings, and a lack of longitudinal research among children, the extent to which gaming may influence children’s attention remains largely unknown. 886 J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 The potential influence of video games on social behavior seems particularly relevant. This is because, compared to the video games of just two decades ago, contemporary video games have become increasingly social in nature (Olson 2010). Researchers such as Greitemeyer and Ewoldsen have noted that just as some games predicate in-game progress on violence, other games predicate progress on prosocial behaviors (Ewoldsen et al. 2012; Greitemeyer and Osswald 2011). For instance, many games designed for multiple players feature cooperative game modes where players are encouraged to work together with others. A number of studies support the hypothesis that cooperative gaming may promote prosocial behavior (Dolgov et al. 2014; Ewoldsen et al. 2012) and may curb aggressive behaviors (Jerabeck and Ferguson 2013; Velez et al. 2014) (although many of these studies feature the sorts of methodological shortcomings mentioned above). In contrast to cooperative gaming, researchers have also investigated whether competitive gaming promotes aggression and discourages prosocial behavior (Eastin 2007). For instance, Adachi and colleagues performed a series of studies to test the relative extent to which violent content and competitive play each promote aggression (Adachi 2015). Using experimental and longitudinal designs, these studies indicated that in both the shortand long-term, competitive gaming may be a greater predictor of aggressive outcomes than violence alone. However, cooperative and competitive gaming have yet to be researched in the way these forms of play most commonly occur in the real world—in tandem. Thus, while researchers have tried to individually assess the effects of these forms of play, they often co-occur in the real-world of gaming most children participate. This is because many competitive video games not only allow cooperative modes, but the competition in these games is often team-based. However, no longitudinal studies to date have simultaneously investigated the influence of both cooperative and competitive video game playing; this is important as many video games designed for competitive play are also team-based, and therefore allow for cooperative play as well. Second, this study targeted an under-studied population, namely children between the ages of seven and eleven. Indeed, despite claims that children are especially vulnerable to the effects of video game playing (Bushman and Huesmann 2006), scant longitudinal research has targeted children. Children seem particularly susceptible to being influenced by video games because, unlike adults, they are still in the process of forming patterns for how they deal with social and emotional challenges. The behaviors and patterns of mind that are therefore promoted during video game may have a greater impact on them than on adults. Moreover, as children near adolescence, their peer network and relationships become increasingly important (Davies 2010). As a result, the social interactions they enact and rehearse during video game play may be of greater relevance for how they interact with their peers in the real world. Finally, our longitudinal design allowed us to simultaneously test for both gaming and selection effects; in the former, video game playing may precipitate psychosocial changes, whereas in the latter, children who already show psychosocial deficits may select video games as an outlet. Thus, our longitudinal design also allowed us to investigate the tandem development of video game playing and psychosocial health. Five domains of children’s psychosocial health were assessed at two timepoints—externalizing problems, internalizing problems, hyperactivity and inattention, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. Given the psychosocial benefits of play, we expected video game playing at the first time point to predict decreases in children’s (H1) externalizing problems, (H2) internalizing problems, (H3) peer problems, and (H4) overall psychosocial problems by the second time point. Given the lack of consensus in the research, no predictions were made for the influence of gaming on hyperactivity and inattention, or on prosocial behavior, although exploratory analyses were conducted. We also explored the potential relationships between violent video game content and both externalizing problems and prosocial behavior. Finally, we also hypothesized that (H5a) cooperative gaming at the first time point would be associated with increases in prosocial behavior, whereas (H5b) competitive gaming at the first time point would be associated with decreases in prosocial behavior. Design and Hypotheses Method The present longitudinal study was designed to address the gaps in the literature described above. First, we focused on the potential psychosocial benefits that playing video games may have for children. Thus, in addition to assessing negative outcomes such as externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and hyperactivity and inattention, we also focused on peer relations, and prosocial behavior. Participants Prosocial Behavior and Cooperative and Competitive Gaming Data were collected during home visits 1 year apart (T1 and T2; days between visits: range 265–510, M = 392.22, SD = 59.05). Participants were recruited from a pool of 298 participants already participating in research which tracked children’s psycho-social health (Stone et al. 2010). Parents J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 Table 1 Child and parent demographics at T1 and T2 887 Children Age (years) Sex Age (years) Sex T1 (n = 194) Range 7.27–11.43 Male 98 (50.5%) M 9.22 Female 96 (49.5%) SD 1.14 T2 (n = 184) Range 8.31–12.68 Male 90 (48.9%) M 10.24 Female 94 (51.1%) SD 1.14 were contacted via letters sent to their homes and follow-up phone invitations. At T1, the children’s gender was evenly split (boys n = 98); 86.6% of parent reporters were female (n = 168); with the exception of three adopted mothers and one adopted father, all parents were the child’s biological parent; finally, 96.9% of parents were Dutch (n = 188), with the others coming from Suriname (n = 1) or nearby European countries (n = 5). The study’s procedures were approved by the Behavioural Science Institute’s Ethical Review Board under the Radboud University, and informed consent forms were obtained from parents at both timepoints. Descriptive statistics for the sample at T1 and T2 are reported in Table 1. Ten participants from T1 declined to participate at T2. Additionally, data from ten parent reports were missing at T2 because their data was not properly saved by the recording software. With the exception of five parents, all parent reports were provided by the same parent at T1 and T2. Among parents, education level was low for 6.7%, medium for 30.4%, and high for 60.3%1. Procedure Children provided self-reports during a face-to-face interview with an experimenter. Parents provided their survey responses via an online questionnaire. Families were rewarded a 20 and 30 Euro voucher check (per child) for their participation at T1 and T2 respectively. 1 Parents Secondary and higher education in the Netherlands is stratified. Here, low refers to individuals who completed the lowest level of secondary school, a vocational school track until the age of 16; medium refers to individuals who completed a more advanced vocational track until the age of 17; and high refers to individuals with a university-level education, having attained a Bachelor’s degree or higher. T1 (n = 194) Range 29.95–51.47 Male 26 (13.4%) M 41.88 Female 168 (86.6%) SD 3.66 T2 (n = 174) Range 30.68–52.42 Male 24 (13.8%) M 42.83 Female 150 (86.2%) SD 3.76 Measures Psychosocial health Psychosocial health was measured by parent’s reports on the Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ (Goodman 1997); Dutch version (van Widenfelt et al. 2003)). The SDQ uses a 3-point Likert scale (0–2 Not true to Very true) and is comprised of five sub-scales: (a) internalizing problems, (b) externalizing problems, (c) hyperactivity/inattention, (d) peer relationship problems, and (e) prosocial behavior. Consistent with Stone and colleagues (2010) reliability was calculated using ω; this reliability index has repeatedly been shown to yield more accurate estimates than α, particularly so when data are skewed, as is the case with SDQ (Stone et al. 2015; Zinbarg et al. 2005). All sub-scales showed acceptable to good reliability at T1 and T2: (a) internalizing problems (sample: Many worries, often seems worried; ωT1 = .83; ωT2 = .81); (b) externalizing problems (sample: Often fights with other children or bullies them; ωT1 = .75; ωT2 = .89); (c) hyperactivity/inattention (sample: Restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long; ωT1 = .88; ωT2 = .89); (d) peer problems (sample: Rather solitary, tends to play alone; ωT1 = .83; ωT2 = .68); and (e) prosocial behavior (sample: Shares readily with other children; ωT1 = .84; ωT2 = .78). All sub-scales consist of five items with sum scores being calculated for each sub-scale. The SDQ also includes a total difficulties score, calculated as the sum scores of all scales except for prosocial behavior (ωT1 = .95; ωT2 = .95); this reflects children’s general psychosocial health. Descriptive statistics for the SDQ measures are presented in Table 2. Gaming frequency Children’s frequency of video game playing was assessed by: (1) Parental reports for the number of hours their child 888 J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 Table 2 Change in SDQ from T1 to T2 Violent gaming T1 T2 M SD M SD Internalizing problems 1.99 2.1 1.76 1.86 Externalizing problems 1.01 1.39 0.84 1.46 Hyperactivity 2.99 2.55 2.89 2.62 Peer problemsa 1.14 1.63 0.97 1.27 Prosocial behavior 6.77 1.49 6.9 1.31 7.15 5.33 6.47 4.99 Total difficulties b a Peer problems decreased from T1 to T2, t(173) = 2.09, p = .038 b Total difficulties decreased from T1 to T2, t(173) = 2.29, p = .023 plays on average per week; (2) child reports for the number of hours they had played video games during the past week; (3) children’s ability to recall their gaming hours across a whole week was scaffolded by an additional measure of gaming frequency: in interviews, children looked over a calendar with the experimenter and indicated for each day over the past full week whether or not they had played a video game in the morning, afternoon, and evening. “Video games” were explicitly described to parents and children as any game that can be played on an electronic device, and several example games were listed. Descriptive statistics for the frequency measures are presented in Table 3. Both parent’s and children’s reported hours of gaming were Windorized with a cut-off at 3 SD above the mean (T1: parent reports: M = 5.76, SD = 3.87, outliers n = 4; child reports: M = 4.86, SD = 4.25, outliers n = 6. T2: parent reports M = 6.83, SD = 5, outliers n = 2; child reports: M = 5.92, SD = 5.9, outliers n = 2). Children reported an average of 7.88 discrete play sessions per week (SD = 4.15) at T1 and 8.11 (SD = 4.78) at T2. Moderate correlations were observed across the three frequency measures at each time point (T1: r ≥ .47, p < .001; T2: r ≥ .41, p < .001). Moderate correlations were also observed within reporters across T1 and T2 (parental report: r = .566, p < .001; child report: hours r = .367, p < .001, calendar r = .485, p < .001). Game frequency was operationalized as child reports of hours gaming2. As psychosocial health was reported by parents, this means that our analyses were performed across reporters. This is preferred to analyses using only a single reporter as such analyses introduce a potential single source bias (Burk and Laursen 2010; Lobel et al. 2014a). 2 Analyses using parent reported hours yielded the same pattern of results. Similar to the methods in Anderson and Dill (2000) and Prot et al. (2014), children were asked to report their favorite video game(s) from the past several weeks. At T1, Minecraft, Super Mario Bros., and Subway Surfer were the most popularly listed games/franchises, each being reported by 13 children. At T2, the most popular titles were more diverse with 46 children listing Minecraft, 21 listing a title from the Fifa franchise, and 18 listing Mario Party and Hay Day each. Violent gaming was computed as a dichotomous variable; children who listed a violent video game among their favorite games were assigned a 1, and those who did not were assigned a 0. Video games were classified as being violent when gameplay required players to harm other ingame characters. Cooperative and competitive gaming Whereas third-party review boards provide information about whether a game contains violent content, the extent to which games are played cooperatively or competitively is not. Violent content is therefore objectively observable based on a game’s content and design, whereas competitive and cooperative play is more difficult to observe. Following Przybylski and Mishkin (2016), cooperative and competitive gaming were therefore individually assessed by children with a single item using a Likert scale (5-point scale: Never to Every time or almost every time). Experimenters clearly informed children what was meant by “cooperative” and “competitive” gaming: Children were asked to think about the times that they play video games, and to rate the frequency with which, when playing, they play a game where they have to “work together with others; that the game is cooperative” and “play against others; that the game is competitive”. Planned Analyses All analyses were performed in R (R Core Team 2013). For preliminary analyses, paired-sample t-tests were used to determine whether children’s psychosocial health and gaming frequency changed from T1 to T2, independent ttests were used to determine whether there were gender differences on all variables at both timepoints, and correlations were calculated. To investigate our hypotheses, three sets of structural path models were estimated with the lavaan package (Rosseel 2012). In all models, full information maximum likelihood was used to account for missing values and the Hubert-White covariance adjustment (MLR in lavaan) was applied to standard errors in order to deal with the lack of normally distributed variables. In the first models, cross-lagged panel models were estimated to test H1-H4; that is, whether gaming at T1 J Youth Adolescence (2017) 46:884–897 Table 3 Gender differences in gaming frequency at T1 and T2 889 Parent hours T1 Child hours T2 T1 Child calendar T2 T1 T2 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Total 5.67 3.63 6.80 4.90 4.90 4.07 5.81 5.48 7.88 4.15 8.11 4.76 Boys 6.75 3.94 8.26 5.16 5.93 4.21 7.55 5.85 9.23 3.99 9.81 2.63 Girls 4.62 2.95 5.47 4.25 3.85 3.67 4.16 4.54 6.47 3.83 6.49 4.48 t p t p t p t p t p t p 4.24
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Your work is complete.

RUNNING HEAD: THE EFFECT VIOLENT AND COMPATATIVE VEDEO GAMES
EFFECT ON CHILDREN’S PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH

The Effect of Violent and Competitive Video Games Effect on Children’s Psychological Health
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
Date

THE EFFECT VIOLENT AND COMPATATIVE VEDEO GAMES EFFECT ON
CHILDREN’S PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH

i

Contents
1.0 Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.0.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0.2 Psychological Development and Gaming ........................................................................................ 2
3.0 Research Question ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.0 Research Design .................................................................................................................................... 4
4.0.1 Experimental Research .................................................................................................................... 4
4.0.2 Cross-Sectional investigation ........................................................................................................... 5
5.0 Expected Outcomes ............................................................................................................................... 5
6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Reference ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

THE EFFECT VIOLENT AND COMPATATIVE VEDEO GAMES EFFECT ON
CHILDREN’S PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH

1

1.0 Abstract
Video games impact on children psychosocial development has for a long time been an
issue of discussion. There have been reported cases where young children within the ages of 7 to
11 have been confirmed playing video games, which was either cooperatively and/or
competitively influential. This cases also reported that violent gaming affected the psychological
health of the children. This type of gaming has been noted to increase emotional complications.
Violent gaming was later found not to...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags