Content uploaded by Juraj Kovalčík
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juraj Kovalčík on Jul 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
46 Game Studies
Acta Ludolog ica 2023, Vol. 6, No. 1
Viability of Using Digital
Games for Improving Team
Cohesion: A Systematic
Review of the Literature
Juraj Kovalčík, Magdaléna Švecová,
Michal Kabát
Mgr. Juraj Kovalčík, PhD.
University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
Faculty of Mass Media Communication
Námestie J. Herdu 2
917 01 Trnava
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
juraj.kovalcik@ucm.sk
Juraj Kovalčík is an assistant professor at the Department of Digital Games at the
Faculty of Mass Media Communication, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in
Trnava, Slovakia. His re search focuses on th e history of games a nd gaming in Slovakia,
game narr atives and aesthetics, and relations betwe en digital games and other audio -
visual media.
Mgr. Magdaléna Švecová, PhD.
University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
Faculty of Mass Media Communication
Námestie J. Herdu 2
917 01 Trnava
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
magdalena.svecova@ucm.sk
Magdaléna Švecová is the head of the Department of Digital Games at the Faculty of
Mass Medi a Communication , University of Ss. Cy ril and Methodius in Trnava, Sl ovakia.
Her research is focused on gamication of education, ethical aspects of digital games
and game journalism.
46 Game Studies
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
Acta Ludolog ica 2023, Vol. 6, No. 1
Mgr. Michal Kabát, PhD.
University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
Faculty of Mass Media Communication
Námestie J. Herdu 2
917 01 Trnava
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
michal.kabat@ucm.sk
Michal Kabát is an assistant professor at the Department of Digital Games at the
Faculty of Mas s Media Commu nication, Un iversity of Ss. C yril and Meth odius in Trnava,
Slovakia. His academic interests are particularly focused on mapping the history of
local gaming experience in post-socialist countries and the current development of
virtual worlds. He is involved in game jams, eSport and video-streaming activities at
the university.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
48 Game Studies
ABSTRACT:
Team cohesion, teamwork and team building are important constructs regarding teams
and their performance in various organizations and environments. In this review, we sum-
marize the current state of research on the inuence of digital games on team cohesion
and related constructs. We found a total of 7 studies that t the criteria, resulting in 18
outcomes. Among the 18 outcomes that improved throughout the intervention, 15 re-
ported signicant improvement from the intervention and 3 reported no signicant dif-
ferences. Specically, team communication, task delegation, atmosphere, trust, team
ow, team performance and goal commitment were the most improved sub-constructs
by team building video gaming interventions. The majority (n = 9) of those with signi-
cant improvements post-test were from randomly controlled trials (RCTs) with single or
two control groups. Overall, we found that team video gaming may be eective in sup-
porting team cohesion or team building; however, to enhance the understanding of the
relationship between digital games and team cooperation, it is recommended to extend
or vary gameplay intervention times, prioritize diverse outcome measures, address re-
porting biases, conduct follow-up assessments, include diverse populations and report
demographics, and recognize the specic eects of dierent game features on outcomes.
KEY WORDS:
digital games, review, team building, team cohesion, team performance, teamwork.
DOI:
10.34135/actaludologica.2023-6-1.46-65
Introduction
A well-developed eective team is an asset to any business enterprise1 and can be
dened as a group of individuals who come together to work collaboratively towards a
common goal or objective.2 Moreover, the team is characterized by interdependence,
shared responsibility and role specication.3 One of the basic parameters of a well-func-
tioning team is team cohesion. Cohesion, in general, mirrors a particular system of at-
traction or bond – driven by either the team members or the team tasks and encourages
the team to persevere together.4 Team cohesion is an essential element for teams, since
the lack of a sense of cohesion within a team can result in unmotivated behaviour and a
lack of participation by its members.5 There have been several meta-analyses of team
1 HIRIYAPPA, B.: Team Building and Group Dynamics Management. Bloomington, IN : Booktango, 2013, p. 8.
2 For more information, see: DYER Jr., W. G., DYER, J. H., DYER, W. G.: Team Building Proven Strategies for
Improving Team Performance. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley an d Sons, 2013.
3 See: ZHANG, X., KWAN, H. K.: Team behavioral integration links team interdependence with team
performance: an empirical investigation in R&D teams. In Frontiers of Business Research, Vol. 13, No. 7,
p. 193-211.
4 See also: CASEY-CAMPBELL, M., MARTENS, M. L.: Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the
group cohesion-performance literature. In International Journal of Management Reviews, 2019, Vol. 11, No.
2, p. 223-246.
5 For example, see: MYSIRLAKI, S., PARASKEVA, F.: Virtual Team Eectiveness: Insights from the Virtual
World Teams of Massively Multiplayer Online Games. In Journal of Leadership Studies, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 1,
p. 34-55.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
cohesion6 suggesting team cohesion is positively related to team eectiveness, and that
the relationship is strengthened by task interdependence, such as the relationship be-
tween cohesion and eectiveness is stronger when team members are more interdepend-
ent.7 Team cohesion has a positive relationship with team performance.8 For instance, pre-
vious studies have shown that group cohesion can improve athletes’ sports performance,9
in project teams10 or among students.11
One way to increase team cohesion is to organize team-building activities. Team
building refers to a systematic and intentional process aimed at enhancing the eective-
ness and cohesiveness of a team.12 Team building involves a wide range of activities, de-
signed for improving team performance.13 Current research is inclined to the idea that
team building does improve team outcomes. Specically, process and aective outcomes
were most improved by team-building interventions. Moreover, all the components (i.e.,
role clarication, goal setting, interpersonal relations, and problem solving) of team build-
ing had a moderate eect on outcomes but the goal-setting and role-clarication compo-
nents had the largest eect.14 Traditional team-building activities are often conducted in
physical settings. In today’s rapidly evolving work landscape, where remote teams have
become increasingly prevalent, it may be challenging to implement traditional team-build-
ing activities. However, the rise of digital games with competitive or cooperative elements
oers a promising alternative for fullling the role of classic team-building activities. As
the number of global users of digital games is rising (with an estimated 3.1 billion users
in 2027), there is a chance that employees will use them as a team development activ-
ity and also that they will be digitally skilled to operate them.15 Due to their capabilities
around easy communication, emotional engagement, and social interaction, 3D virtual
worlds and team video gaming (TVG) oer a potential avenue for fostering (virtual) team
development.16 Also, according to a survey conducted in Slovakia, respondents perceive
6 BEAL, D. J. et al.: Cohesion and performa nce in groups: a meta-a nalytic clari cation of constru ct relations.
In Journal of applied psychology, 2003, Vol. 88, No. 6, p. 989.; For more information, see: CARRON, A. V.
et al.: Cohesion and Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis. In Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
2002, Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 168-188.; EVANS, C. R., DION, K. L.: Group cohesion and performance: A meta-
analysis. In Small Group Research, 1989, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 175-186.; GULLY, S. M., DEVINE, D. J., WHITNEY,
D. J.: A Meta-An alysis of Cohesi on and Perform ance: Eects of Leve l of Analysis and Task Inter dependence .
In Small Group Research, 1995, Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 497-520.
7 COOKE, N. J., HILTON, M. L.: Enhancing the eectiveness of team science. Washington, D.C. : National
Academies Press, 2015, p. 56.
8 See: GROSSMAN, R. et al.: The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring
measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. In Organizational Psychology Review, 2022,
Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 181-238.
9 See: GU, S., XUE, L.: Relationships among Sports Group Cohesion, Psychological Collectivism, Mental
Toughness and Athlete Engagement in Chinese Team Sports Athletes. In International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, Vol. 19, No. 9, p. 1-14. [online]. [2023-02-15]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094987>.
10 For example, see: CHIOCCHIO, F., ESSIEMBRE, H.: Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review
of Disparities Between Project Teams, Production Teams, and Service Teams. In Small Group Research,
2009, Vol. 40, No. 4, p. 382-420.
11 For more information, see: LENT, R. W., SCHMIDT, J., SCHMIDT, L.: Collective ecacy beliefs in student
work teams: Relation to self-ecacy, cohesion, and per formance. In Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006,
Vol. 68, No. 3, p. 73-8 4.
12 See also: BELBIN, R. M.: Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, New York, NY : Routledge,
2010.
13 See: FAPOHUNDA, T. M.: Towards Eective Team Building in the Workplace. In International Journal of
Education and Research, 2013, Vol. 1. No. 4, p. 1-12. [onlin e]. [2023-02-15]. Av ailable at: <http s://www.ijern.
com/images/April-2013/23.pdf>.
14 For example , see: KLEIN, C. et al. : Does Team Building Work?. In Small Group Research, 2009, Vol. 40, No . 2,
p. 181-222.
15 CLEMENT, J.: Number of users of video games Worldwide 2017-2027. Released on 1st June 2023. [online].
[2023-02-22]. Available at: <https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-
world/>.
16 ELLIS, J. B. et al.: Games for Virtual Team Buildin g. In MARSDEN, G., LADEIRA , I., KOTZÉ, P. (eds.): DIS ‘08:
Proceed ings of the 7th ACM confer ence on Designi ng interactive sys tems. New York, NY : ACM, 200 8, p. 295.
50 Game Studies
these gaming and gamication aspects to be important for the future to a greater extent
than they have actually applied them in the present.17
Thanks to continuous research in this area, the image of digital gaming as a negative
phenomenon and a pointless activity is also gradually changing and its positive aspects are
coming to the forefront of public opinion.18 Authors like J. McGonigal promote their research
communicating gamers as expert problem solvers and collaborators, since they cooperate
with other players to overcome daunting virtual challenges.19 Also, players’ in-game moti-
vational experiences can contribute to aective well-being, but they do not aect the de-
gree to which play time relates to well-being.20 Many features have been shown to have a
positive impact on the development of various skills not only in children, but also in adults.21
Moreover, compared to conventional learning, game-based learning has several benets
that make it eective such as control over gaming experience, a sense of immersion and
involvement, practicing knowledge and skills repeatedly, collaboration and knowledge-shar-
ing among players and quantiable achievements.22 Naming particular skills, game-based
learning is not only about increasing motivation to learn,23 improving cognitive abilities24 and
gaining hard skills, but also a wide range of soft (including social) skills. The positive impact
of digital games on social behaviour has been proven and players seem to acquire impor-
tant prosocial skills when they play games that are specically designed to reward eective
cooperation, support, and helpful behaviour.25 Another research suggests that research-
ers and practitioners should consider using prosocial digital games to promote a variety of
prosocial behaviours and skills that are crucial for young people’s social-emotional develop-
ment and the well-being of society.26 Studies have also associated altruistic personality and
helpful behaviours in cooperative or competitive video game play.27
It goes without saying, therefore, that this potential of digital games has already been
used to promote team cohesion and various teamwork skills as well, for instance team ef-
ciency, leadership, etc.28 G. S. Anderson and S. Hilton demonstrated in their study that
engagement in collaborative video games has the potential to enhance team cohesion.29
Also, the promotion of cohesion through cooperative team-play activates trust norms,
17 STACHO, Z. et al.: Gamekácia v procese adaptácie zamestnancov. In REFLEXIE – Kompendium teórie
a praxe podnikania, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 84.
18 For more information, see: GRANIC, I., LOBEL, A., ENGELS, R. C. M. E.: The Benets of Playing Video
Games. In American Psychologist, 2014, Vol. 69, No. 1, p. 66-78.
19 For example, see: McGONI GAL, J.: Reality I s Broken: Why Games Make Us Bet ter and How They Can Chan ge
the World. New York, NY : Penguin Books, 2011.
20 See also: JOHANNES, N., VUORRE, M., PRZYBYLSKI, A. K.: Video game play is positively correlated with
well-being. In Royal Society Open Science, 2021, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 1-14. [online]. [2023-02-15]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202049>.
21 For more information, see: CONNOLLY, T. M. et al.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on
computer games and serious games. In Computers & Education, 2012, Vol. 59, No. 2, p. 661-6 86.
22 See: BOW MAN Jr., R. F.: A “Pac-Man” T heory of Motiva tion: Tactical Implic ations for Classro om Instructio n.
In Educational Technology, 1982, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 14-17.
23 WICHADEE, S., PATTANAPICHET, F.: Enhancement of Performance and Motivation through Application of
Digital G ames in an Engli sh Language Cla ss. In Teaching English w ith Technolo gy, 2018, Vol. 18, No. 1 , p. 87-88.
24 VICKERS, S. W.: Digital gaming as a learning tool : a literature review. [Master Thesis]. Cedar Falls, IA :
University of Nor thern Iowa, 2012, p. 30.
25 See also: GRANIC, I., LOBEL, A., ENGELS, R. C. M. E.: The Benets of Playing Video Games. In American
Psychologist, 2014, Vol. 69, No. 1, p. 66-78.
26 SALEME, P. et al.: Prosocial digital games for youth: A systematic review of interventions. In Computers
in Human Behavior Reports, 2020, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 4-6. [online]. [2023-02-15]. Available at: <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100039>.
27 VEL EZ, J. A., EWOLD SEN, D. R.: Helping Be haviors During V ideo Game Play. In Journa l of Media Psycholog y
Theories Methods and Applications, 2013, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 198.
28 RIIVARI, E., KIVIJÄRVI, M., LÄMSÄ, A.-M.: Learning teamwork through a computer game: for the sake
of performance or collaborative learning?. In Educational Technology Research and Development, 2021,
Vol. 69, No. 3, p. 1765.
29 ANDERSON, G. S., HILTON, S.: Increase team cohesion by playing cooperative video games. In Software
Education Today, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 3 6.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
resulting in an increase in cooperative behaviour.30 The issue of the involvement of digital
games in the development of team spirit, with an emphasis on improving team cohesion,
is evolving gradually with the rise of esports, which are very closely linked to this issue.
There is evidence that involvement in esports helps young players to develop skills that
are needed in 21st century societies and which are increasingly valued by employers.31
Mostly, competitive or cooperative digital games which are the foundation of electronic
sports are a way to improve team functions through play. In gameplay scenarios involv-
ing teams competing against each other or solving specic challenges, the inclusion of
agents as mechanisms to inuence team behaviour becomes a signicant factor. Addi-
tionally, game environments are particularly suitable for situations where manipulation of
resource constraints, such as decision-making time, is desirable.32 Also, esports players
have experience which leads to signicant benets for communicative competencies.33
Due to the positive eects of esports and competitive play on behaviour in the con-
text of increasing commitment and the formation of cohesive teams therefore, positive
eects can also be assumed in the organizational environment. In addition, esports, and
digital competitive gaming in general, develop necessary soft-skills, for example, prob-
lem-solving, schematic and conceptual thinking, working under pressure and leader-
ship.34 For this reason, we decided to design a research project called Using Competitive
Digital Games to Develop Team Cohesion and Social Adaptation in Generation Z. Its aim
is to develop a methodology for the eective use of competitive digital games. As part of
the sub-objectives of this project, we are creating a competitive digital game that will be
used for research purposes, in particular, conducting an experimental play of a competi-
tive game, based on which we will investigate the degree of increase in team cohesion in
the research sample. For this reason, we have decided to conduct this pre-research in
the form of a literature review. The main aim of this study is to provide an overview and to
summarize current data on the issue, what experiments on team video gaming have been
carried out so far and what results they have produced in relation to team cohesion. We
therefore formulated our research question as follows: What has been found so far in the
literature about the impact of digital games on team cohesion and team building?
Methods
The literature review is conducted in relation to the research project mentioned
above and in accordance with the principles of systematic reviews as described by
J. Hendl and J. Mareš.35 We have followed the PRISMA guidelines to ensure transparent
30 GREITEMEYER, T., COX, C.: There’s no “I” in team: Eects of cooperative video games on cooperative
behavior. In European Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 227.
31 ZHONG, Y. et al.: The impact of esports participation on the development of 21st century skills in youth: A
systematic review. In Computers & Education, 2022, Vol. 191, No. 8, p. 11. [online]. [2023-03-01]. Available
at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104640>.
32 DI PIETRANTONIO, J., MENDONCA, D.: Opening the Black Box of Team Per formance with Open-source
Games: A Review and Recommendations. In IEEE Transactions on Games, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 175-177.
33 HANGHØJ, T., NIELSEN, R. K. L.: Esports skills are people skills. In ELEAEK, L. et al. (eds): 13th European
Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL 2019). Reading : Academic Conferences and Publishing
International Limited, 2019, p. 541.
34 See: HEWET T, K. J. E.: Embracing Video Games for Strategic Thinking, Collaboration, and Communication
Skills Pra ctice. In KHOSROW-PO UR, M. (ed.): Research Anthology on Fandom s, Online Social Communitie s,
and Pop Culture. Hershey, PA : IGI Global, 2022, p. 29 6-314.
35 HENDL, J.: Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní metody a aplikace. Prague : Portál, 2005, p. 349-369.; MAREŠ, J.:
Přehle dové studie: jejich t ypologie, fun kce a způsob vyt váření. In Pedagogická orientace, 2013 , Vol. 23, No. 4 ,
p. 429-434.
52 Game Studies
and comprehensive reporting of our review process.36 For inclusion in the review, papers
were required to (a) evaluate the eects of a digital game on team cohesion, teamwork or
team building; (b) include measurable, quantitative outcomes in the design and purpose
of the study; (c) be published in or translated into English; (d) be peer-reviewed; (e) date
from January 2010 to November 2022; and (f) have a nonclinical study population over
the age of 18. As we were interested in teams forming and functioning in professional or
higher education environments, we excluded studies focused on children or adolescents.
Non-peer-reviewed reports, such as unpublished manuscripts or conference abstracts,
were not eligible for inclusion.
The electronic databases searched for this review were Scopus and Web of Science.
The search was conducted in November 2022. Search terms included (“team cohesion”
OR “teamwork” OR “team building”) AND (“video game” OR “digital game”). Applying the
snowballing method, reference lists cited in study reports included in the review were also
searched. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for eligibility and relevant articles were ob-
tained in full and assessed against the inclusion criteria described above.
Each record’s title and abstract were screened by one researcher, each retrieved re-
port was then screened independently by two researchers, and any disagreements were
resolved by discussion. Two reviewers working independently collected data from each
report identied as eligible at the full text level. Discrepancies in the full-study coding were
resolved by discussion.
Study factors were coded based on coding from past reviews of game-based social
skill development37. Reports were coded in terms of: name of authors and date published;
the main aims of study; the team outcomes; study design, follow-up, and duration; details
of participants, their mean age, age range, education level, gender split, ethnicity break-
down; presence of facilitator; game creator involvement.
Results
The number of records at all stages of the review is reported using the PRISMA ow
diagram (Picture 1). Among the reports assessed for eligibility, eleven were excluded from
the nal review for the following reasons: the games selected to study their eects on
team cohesiveness, teamwork engagement/competence and/or team building were not
digital games;38 studies reported early versions of an ongoing research or used identical
36 PAGE, M. J. et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. In
International Journal of Surgery, 2021, Vol. 372, No. 71, p. 6. [online]. [2023-01-17]. Available at: <https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906>.
37 JANUARY, A. M., CASEY, R. J., PAULSON, D.: A Meta-Analysis of Classroom-Wide Inter ventions to Build
Social Skills: Do They Work?. In School Psychology Review, 2011, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 246-247.; CONNOLLY,
T. M. et al.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games.
In Computers & Education, 2012, Vol. 59, No. 2, p. 663-664.; ABDUL JABBAR, A. I., FELICIA, P.: Gameplay
Engagement and Learning in Game-Based Learning: A Systematic Review. In Review of Educational
Research, 2015, Vol. 85, No. 4, p. 748-749.; CLARK, D. B., TANNER-SMITH, E. E., KILLINGSWORTH, S. S.:
Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. In Review of Educational
Research, 2016, Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 89-90.; QIAN, M., CLARK, K. R.: Game-based Learning and 21st century
skills: A review of recent research . In Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 63, No. 1, p. 52-53.; ZHENG,
L. R. et al.: Serious Games as a Complementary Tool for Social Skill Development in Young People: A
Systematic Review of the Literature. In Simulation & Gaming, 2021, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 690- 692.
38 See: BOZANTA, A. et al.: Eects of serious games on perceived team cohesiveness in a multi-user virtual
environm ent. In Computers in Human Behaviour, 20 11, Vol. 59, No. 1, p. 38 0-388.; MAR TÍN-HERNÁNDE Z, P.
et al.: Fostering University Students’ Engagement in Teamwork and Innovation Behaviors through Game-
Based Learning (GBL). In Sustainability, 2021, Vol. 13, No. 24, p. 1-16. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413573>.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
experiments to other studies included in the nal review;39 studies researched the inu-
ence of team cohesion on in-game team performance, not the eects of playing games on
team cohesion;40 studies reported pilot studies, trial runs or preliminary research and/or
did not include quantiable outcomes.41
Picture 1: PRISMA ow diagram of the study selection process
Source: own processing; HADDAWAY, N. R. et al.: PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA
2020-compliant ow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. In Campbell
Systematic Reviews, 2022, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 5. [online]. [2023-05-12]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230>.
39 See also: A NDERSON, G.: The Impact of Cooperative Video Games on Team Cohesion. [Dissertation Thesis].
Terre Haute, IN : Ind iana State Univer sity, 2010.; GREITEME YER, T., TRAUT-MATTAUSCH, E., OSSWALD, S.:
How to ameli orate negative e ects of violent v ideo games on co operation: Pl ay it cooperativ ely in a team. In
Computers in Human Behaviour, 2012, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 1465-1470.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Video Gaming
for Team Building: Eects on Team Performance. In AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction,
2018, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 205-231.
40 For more information, see: MAYER, I. et al.: Stealth Assessment of Teams in a Digital Game Environment.
In DE GLORIA, A. (ed.): Games and Learning Alliance: Second International Conference, GALA 2013. Cham :
Springer, 2014, p. 224-235.; MAYER, I.: Assessment of Teams in a Digital Game Environme nt. In Simulation
& Gaming, 2018, Vol. 49, No. 6, p. 602-619.
41 For example, see: WATTS, C., SHARLIN, E., WOYTIUK, P.: Exploring Interpersonal Touch-Based
Interaction and Player Socialization in Prism Squad: GO!. In PRAKASH, E. C. (ed.): Proceedings of the
3rd annual International Conference [on] Computer Games, Multimedia & Allied Technology (CGAT 2010).
Singapore : APTF, 2010, p. 1-8. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://utouch.cpsc.ucalgary.
ca/docs/PrismSquadGO-CGAT2010-CW.pdf>.; VON THIENEN, J. et al.: Leveraging Video Games to
Improve IT-Solutions for Remote Work. In PREUSS, M. (ed.): 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG).
Piscataway, NJ : IEEE, 2021, p. 1-8. [online]. [2023-03-12]. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/353482804_ Leveraging_Video_Games_to_Improve_IT-Solutions_for_Remote_Work>.;
NELSON, M., AHN, B.: Use of games to teach teamwork and communication s kills to engineering students.
In 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). Piscataway, NJ : IEEE, 2021, p. 1-9. [online]. [2023-
03-16]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637377>.; PRATTICÓ, F. G. et al.: Asteroid
Escape: A Serious Game to Foster Teamwork Abilities. In CIGNONI, P., MIGUEL, E. (eds.): 40th Annual
Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics, Eurographics 2019 – Short Papers.
Eindhoven : The Eurographics Association, 2019, p. 53-5 6.
54 Game Studies
We found a total of 7 studies that t the criteria, resulting in 18 outcomes. Study
characteristics are included in Table 1. The studies resulted in the following outcomes
related to team cohesion, teamwork or team building: team cohesion,42 social relation-
ships, i.e. cohesion, communication, task delegation (giving and taking), atmosphere,43
cooperative behaviour,44 trust,45 team ow,46 goal commitment,47 team performance,48
teamwork skills.49
Table 1: Characteristics of studies included in literature review (n = 7)50
Type of study N Total
Randomly controlled trials
Waitlist control 0
4Single control 3
Two control 1
Quasi-experimental Single control 1 4
No control 3
42 See: ANDERSON, G. S., HILTON, S.: Increase team cohesion by playing cooperative video games. In
Cr ossTa lk, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 33-37.; GREITEMEYER, T., COX, C.: There’s no “I” in team: Eects of
cooperative video games on cooperative behavior. In European Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, Vol.
43, No. 3, p. 224-228.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In
ÅGERFALK, P. J., LEVINA , N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems – Dig ital Innovation at t he Crossroads , ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : A ssociatio n for Informati on Systems,
2016, p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/21/>.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Building Through Team Video Games: Randomized
Controlled Trial. In JMIR Serious Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 1-16. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
43 For example, see: GARCIA, M. B. et al.: Promoting Social Relationships Using a Couch Cooperative Video
Game: An Empirical Experiment with Unacquainted Players. In International Journal of Gaming and
Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 1 , p. 1-18. [online]. [2023- 06-03]. Availa ble at: <https://
doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.303106>.
44 See also: GREITEMEYER, T., COX, C.: There’s no “I” in team: Eects of cooperative video games on
cooper ative behavio ur. In European Journal o f Social Psycholo gy, 2013, Vol. 43, No. 3, p . 224-228.; WEND EL,
V. et al.: Designi ng A Collabora tive Serious Gam e For Team Buildi ng Using Minecr aft. In VAZ DE CARVALHO,
C., ESCUDEIRO, P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th European Conferen ce on Games Based Lea rning. Reading :
Academic Conferences Limited, 201 3, p. 569-578.
45 Ibidem.
46 See: KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In ÅGERFALK, P. J.,
LEVINA, N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems –
Digital Innovation at the Crossroads, ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : Association for Information Systems, 2016,
p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/21/>.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Building Through Team Video Games: Randomized
Controlled Trial. In JMIR Serious Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 1-16. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
47 For example, see: KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In
ÅGERFALK, P. J., LEVINA , N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems – Dig ital Innovation at t he Crossroads , ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : A ssociatio n for Informati on Systems,
2016, p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/21/>.
48 See: KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In ÅGERFALK, P. J.,
LEVINA, N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems –
Digital Innovation at the Crossroads, ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : Association for Information Systems, 2016,
p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/21/>.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Building Through Team Video Games: Randomized
Controlled Trial. In JMIR Serious Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 1-16. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
49 For more information, see: WANG, D.-Y., CHEN, Y.-A.: Training Teamwork Skills Using MMORPGs. In 2012
IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning. Piscataway,
NJ : IEEE, 2012, p. 94-98.
50 Remark by the authors: The studies encompassed various measures and assessments, resulting in a total
that does not add up to 7. Types of study also exceed 7, because one study repor ted two experiments
with dierent control group conditions. In Mention sample demographics, no breakdown oers general
statement about demographics, breakdown species the percentage of racial or ethnic groups.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
Measure format Survey 711
Task Assessment 4
Reporter (survey) Self-repor t 7 7
Facilitator present Reported 17
Not reported 6
Creator as author 2 2
Follow-up conducted 0 0
Participant age
18-29 5
7Mixed 1
Not reported 1
Education
College/university students
or higher 57
Not reported 2
Continent
North America 3
7Europe 2
Asia 2
Gender
0-45% female 4
7
45-55% female 0
55-100% female 1
Not reported 2
Mention sample demographics
Yes, no breakdown 0
7
Yes, breakdown 1
No 6
Source: own processing
Most of the studies (n = 5) used previously designed games: Halo 351 , Mario Kart:
Double Dash!!52, Halo 453, Rock Band54, World of Warcraft55, Minecraft56. One study used a
game design ed specically for the p urposes of the study (Quick Fix57) an d one used a speci-
cally designe d modication of the pre-exis ting popular game Minecr aft58 (Table 2). All stud-
ies used sur veys and four of them add ed task assessment as anoth er measure of outcome.
None of the studi es included follow-up and they were con ducted in the United States (n = 3),
Europe (n = 2) or Asia (n = 2). Study duration was mostly not reported (n = 5). The dura-
tion of gameplay in those studies that reported it (n = 4) was between 15 and 45 minutes.
51 BUNGIE: Halo 3. [digital game]. Redmond, WA : Microsof t Game Studios, 2007.
52 NINTENDO EAD: Mario Kart: D ouble Dash!!. [digital game]. Kyoto : Nintendo, 2003.
53 3 43 INDUSTRIES: Halo 4. [digital game]. Redmond, WA : Microsoft Studios, 2012.
54 HARMONIX, PI STUDIOS: Rock Band. [digital game]. New York, NY : MTV Games, 20 07.
55 BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: World of Warcraft. [digit al game]. Irvine, CA : Blizzard Entertainment, 2004.
56 MOJANG STUDIOS: Minecraft. [digital game]. Stockholm : Mojang Studios, 2011.; Remark by the authors:
There was used a special game mod for the experiment.
57 Remark by the authors: The game is not available publicly.; See also: GARCIA, M. B. et al.: Promoting
Social Relationships Using a Couch Cooperative Video Game: An Empirical Experiment with Unacquainted
Players. I n International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 1 , p. 1-18.
[online]. [2023-06-03]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.303106>.
58 S ee: WENDEL, V. et al.: Desi gning A Collabor ative Serious Game For Team Building Us ing Minecraft . In VAZ
DE CARVALHO, C., ESCUDEIRO, P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Games Based
Learning. Reading : Academic Conferences Limited, 2013, p. 569-578.
56 Game Studies
Table 2: Description of digital games used in interventions
Title Description
Halo 3
A commercially available action game and a rst-person shooter. One to
four players participate on one of four teams thus creating a cooperative
environment where team members must defend and protect each other
against the enemy. If desired, four teams of four players can participate
at one time playing against the other teams
Mario Kart:
Double Dash!!
A commercially available racing game. In the cooperative mode, one
player controls the kart while the other controls the use of items used to
slow down the other competitors or gain an advantage over them. The
two players may switch roles at any time by simultaneously pressing a
button on their respective controllers. In the single mode, the player con-
trols both the kart and the items.
Halo 4
A commercially available action game and a rst-person shooter. In mul-
tiplayer mode, the players must coordinate their attacks in order to beat
the other group.
Rock Band A commercially available music game. The players must coordinate their
activities to perform the songs correctly.
World of
Warcraft
A leader among the current generation of MMORPGs (commercially
available). The players are allowed to choose the race and class (profes-
sion) of the role they want to play. Every race and every character class
has dierent abilities, and players will be faced with a variety of tasks
and situations in the game. In order to achieve high scores, they need to
adopt heterogeneous grouping in the game.
Quick Fix
A couch cooperative video game, developed for this study (not com-
mercially available). The game mechanics emulate the model of an auto
repair simulator, where players perform repairs and other services on ve-
hicles. In line with the goal, the in-game tasks imitate a sequential team-
building design, playable by 2-4 players. Players have the freedom to dis-
tribute task assignments. The formulation of teamwork is dependent on
how players intercommunicate with one another during gameplay.
Minecraft
A commercially available sandbox game. The players’ task is to save the
‘last gnome on earth’. Only one player at a time can carry the gnome.
This player will continuously slow down until he/she cannot move at all.
Furthermore, this player cannot jump. This mechanic forces players to
hand the gnome to each other in order to be able to move the gnome
forward and to overcome certain obstacles.
Source: own processing
Outcomes that improved throughout the intervention included team cohesion, so-
cial relationships, trust, cooperative behaviour, team ow and performance and goal com-
mitment. Team cohesion was the outcome most commonly measured across studies,
with ve studies including it as an outcome measure. Post-test, out of the 18 outcomes, 15
reported signicant improvement from the intervention and 3 reported no signicant dif-
ferences from the intervention. Of those with signicant improvements post-test (n = 15),
most (n = 9) were from randomly controlled trials (RCTs) with single or two control groups.
Details of all studies, measures, and team cohesion improvements are summarized in
Table 3.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
Discussion
In this review, we summarize the current existing literature on digital games’ inuence
on team cohesion and related constructs (teamwork and team building). We found signi-
cant team improvements in studies that targeted team cohesion, team communication,
task delegation, atmosphere, trust, team ow, goal commitment and team performance.
However, overall few studies have been conducted and peer-reviewed in the literature on the
subject. Those few that have been, use considerably dierent methods and outcome meas-
ures that are not easily uniable. There are also certain contradictory results. In V. Wendel
et al., the outcome ‘cooperative behaviour’ is measured by using self-report surveys and
task assessments. While the survey repor ts improved cooperation after TVG treatment, the
assessment of the prisoner’s dilemma game shows no signicant eect (p > .20).59 Using
a similar measure of two-person give-some dilemma, T. Greitemeyer and C. Cox reported
a signicant improvement in cooperative behaviour, including the eect size (very large,
d = 1.12).60 The lack of eect in the results of V. Wendel et al. can be explained by familiar-
ity between participants, who knew each other and cooperated before the study, so the 25
minute- long treatment could not make a meaningful impact in this area.61 D.-Y. Wang and
Y.-A. Chen failed to show signicant improvement in teamwork skills using World of Warcraft
in their quasi-experimental design (no control group). As if to compensate, authors resort
to anecdotal evidence: “For instance, one team had a poor atmosphere in the beginning. [...]
Afterwards, the team’s atmosphere was changed.” Based on this and contrary to their own
experimental results, they “still believe that games are eective in training teamwork skills.”
Such a conclusion is obviously uncalled-for.62
The group of researchers around M. J. Keith is represented in our results by two
studies. M. J. Keith and his colleagues are consistently interested in the social eects of
digital games.63 G. S. Anderson, co-author of another reviewed study from 2015, is also a
co-author of both M. J. Keith-led studies. In a sense, this is a review of evolution in their
common research, of renement in their theoretical backgrounds, experimental meth-
ods, outcome measures and overall quality of reporting. For example, G. S. Anderson’s
study from 2015 has quasi-experimental design and does not report eect sizes,64 both
M. J. Keith-led studies are RCT designs, report eect sizes and the study from 2021 is
the only one in this review to analyze the demography of its participants. Remarkably,
while both G. S. Anderson’s study from 2015 and the M. J. Keith-led study from 2016
report signicant improvement in self-reported team cohesion, their latest study from
59 WENDEL, V. et al.: Designing A Collaborative Serious Game For Team Building Using Minecraf t. In VAZ
DE CARVALHO, C., ESCUDEIRO, P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Games Based
Learning. Reading : Academic Conferences Limited, 2013, p. 575-576..
60 GREITEMEYER, T., COX, C.: There’s no “I” in team: Eects of cooperative video games on cooperative
behavior. In European Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 226.
61 For example, see: WENDEL, V. et al.: Designing A Collaborative Serious Game For Team Building Using
Minecr aft. In VAZ DE CARVALHO, C., ESC UDEIRO, P. (eds.): Proceedin gs of the 7th European Co nference on
Games Based Learning. Reading : Academic Conferences Limited, 2013, p. 5 69-578.
62 WANG, D.-Y., CHEN, Y.-A.: Training Teamwork Skills Using MMORPGs. In 2012 IEEE Fourth International
Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning. Piscataway, NJ : IEEE, 2012, p. 96.
63 See: KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In ÅGERFALK, P. J.,
LEVINA, N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems –
Digital Innovation at the Crossroads, ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : Association for Information Systems, 2016,
p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/HumanBehavior/
Presentations/21/>.; KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Building Through Team Video Games: Randomized
Controlled Trial. In JMIR Serious Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 1-16. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
64 See also: ANDERSON, G. S., HILTON, S.: Increase team cohesion by playing cooperative video games. In
Cr ossTa lk, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 33-37.
58 Game Studies
2021, based on similar methods and the same outcome measure (Group Environment
Questionnaire),65 shows no signicant results (p = .49).66 This is not concerning for the
authors, because they have developed a dierent social construct of team ow that, ac-
cording to their results, is manipulated by TVG (unlike cohesion) and better accounts for
heightened team performance (team building).
Our review only relied on self-report surveys in all of the studies, which could provide
a limited viewpoint on the impact of the digital game and the changes it may bring. On the
whole, studies avoided reporting biases. None of the studies conducted follow-up proce-
dures. As social constructs, team cohesion or team ow may take a longer time to appear
in assessment. Team building implies gradual process in its name, but only one study
used more than one hour of gameplay time. Without conducting follow-ups, existing lit-
erature is unable to say anything about the possible lasting team eects of video gaming.
Only one of the studies included demographic information about its participants. If
the backgrounds of participants are not taken into account, the outcomes of interventions
could exhibit bias towards particular races or ethnicities.67 Most studies (n = 5) took place
in the United States or Europe. Partly due to the small sample and missing demographic
information we could not establish any specic correlation between the outcome of the
study and the location or demographics of the study. Acknowledging and addressing the
study sample is an essential initial measure in comprehending the variations in how di-
verse demographics react to interventions.68
According to S. L. Marlow et al. the general limitation in studying the impact of
games on learning outcomes is the challenge of distinguishing the distinct eects of vari-
ous game characteristics.69 Typically (as in our review), studies employ commercial o-
the-shelf (COTS) games that come with predetermined features,70 making it dicult to
modify attributes according to specic researchers’ needs. Improving team cohesion or
teamwork can be compared to learning outcomes, therefore this limitation is relevant to
our review. On the other hand, even if one attribute can be changed, it often leads to un-
intentional alterations in other game features.71 The studies cannot provide the complete
mechanism by which digital games enable the desired results and the specic game at-
tributes are not linked to teamwork behaviours.72
The submitted review also has certain limitations in its design. We have focused on
quantitative research on the ecacy of digital games for improving team cohesion, while
overlooking qualitative studies. Our data synthesis was inadequate for meta-analysis due
65 For more information, see: CARRON, A. V. et al.: Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. In
Journal of Sp ort and Exercise Psychology, 2002, Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 16 8-188.
66 KEITH, M. J. e t al.: Team Building Thro ugh Team Video Game s: Randomized Co ntrolled Trial. In JMIR Serious
Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 9. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
67 DELUCA, S. M., KELMAN, A. R., WAELDE, L. C.: A Systematic Review of Ethnoracial Representation and
Cultural Adaptation of Mindfulness - and Meditation-Based Interventions. In Psychological Studies, 2018,
Vol. 63, No. 2, p . 125.; HOFFMA NN, D. M.: Reecting o n Social Emotion al Learning: A Crit ical Perspect ive on
Trends in the Unite d States. In Review of Ed ucational Rese arch, 2009, Vol. 79, No. 2, p . 540-54 2.; MAHFOUZ,
J., ANTHO NY-STEVENS, V.: Why Trouble SEL? The Need fo r Cultura l Relevance in SEL. In Occasional Paper
Series, 2020, Vol. 11 , No. 43, p. 61-62.
68 PARRISH, P., LINDER-VANBERSCHOT, J.: Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of
multicultural instruction. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2010,
Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 10-16.
69 MARLOW, S. L. et al .: Eliciting teamwor k with game attri butes: A systematic r eview and research a genda. In
Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 55, No. 1, p. 421 .
70 BOWERS, C . A., JENTSCH, F.: Use of comme rcial, o-the-shelf, sim ulations for team re search. In SALAS, E.
(ed.): Advances in Hum an Performance an d Cognitive Engineering Rese arch, Vol. 1. Bingley : Emer ald Group
Publishing, 2001 , p. 296.
71 BEDWELL, W. L. et al.: Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to Learning: An Empirical Study. In
Simulation & Gaming, 2012, Vol. 43, No. 6, p. 734.
72 MAR LOW, S. L. et al.: El iciting teamwork w ith game attribu tes: A systematic rev iew and research age nda. In
Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 55, No. 1, p. 421 .
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
to restricted data availability, variations in interventions and constructs evaluated. The
instruments employed for some of the outcomes lacked validation or explicit description.
As a result, the ndings derived from these possibly invalid and unreliable measures may
not accurately represent the actual impacts of the intervention.
There are many ways to improve research in digital games’ eects on team cohe-
sion. Study design can be improved by extending or varying the gameplay intervention
times (or at least reporting them); prioritizing other outcome measures than self-report
surveys; reporting biases; conducting follow-ups; sampling from diverse populations; re-
porting demographics; and recognizing the distinct eects of various game features on
the outcomes.
Conclusion
Our literature review highlights the current state of research on the inuence of digi-
tal games on team cohesion and on related constructs such as teamwork and team build-
ing. Although several studies demonstrate signicant improvements in team-related fac-
tors, there are notable limitations and inconsistencies within the existing literature.
The review revealed that only a limited number of studies have been conducted and
peer-reviewed in this area, and they employ diverse methodologies and outcome meas-
ures, making it challenging to establish unied conclusions. Contradictory results were
observed in certain cases, such as the disparity between self-report surveys and task as-
sessments in measuring cooperative behaviour, or discrepancies in the results regard-
ing self-reported team cohesion between studies using identical methods and outcome
measures.
One signicant limitation of the reviewed studies is their heavy reliance on self-re-
port surveys, which may oer a limited perspective on the impact of digital games and the
changes they bring. Additionally, the absence of follow-up procedures and limited game-
play time hindered the understanding of lasting team eects and the gradual process of
team building. Demographic information was lacking in most studies, which raises con-
cerns about potential biases in intervention outcomes concerning certain races or eth-
nicities. Moreover, the majority of studies were conducted in the United States or Europe.
Limitations such as restricted data availability for meta-analysis and insucient valida-
tion or explicit description of outcome measures underscore the need for improved study
designs and methodology in future research.
Team video gaming may be eective in supporting team cohesion or team building.
However, this nding is only preliminary due to the factors mentioned above. To enhance
the understanding of digital games’ impact on team cohesion, it is recommended to ex-
tend or vary gameplay intervention times, prioritize diverse outcome measures, address
reporting biases, conduct follow-up assessments, include diverse populations and report
demographics, and recognize the specic eects of dierent game features on outcomes.
By addressing these recommendations, future research can provide more robust and
comprehensive insights into the relationship between digital games and team cohesion,
facilitating the development of eective interventions and strategies to enhance team-
work and collaboration in various contexts.
60 Game Studies
Table 3: Study details (n = 7)
Study / game(s) Participants Design Outcome measure(s) Findings
G. S. Anderson,
S. Hilton (2015) /
Halo 3
56 participants in the United
States
Age: 18-29
Gender: 13% Female
Ethnicity: not reported
Quasi-experimental
No control
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Self-report team cohesion
Measure: Group Environment Questionnaire
(modied from A . V. Carron et al. 2002; validated)
Improved at post in all 4
submeasures (ATG-T, ATG-S, GI-T,
GI-S)
No signicant dierence in
gameplay duration (1h/6h)
M. B. Garcia et al.
(2022) /
Quick Fix
61 participants in the
Philippines
Gender: Not reported
Education: Not reported,
Ethnicity: Not reported
Age: Not reported
Quasi-experimental
No control
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Self-report social relationships (cohesion,
communication, task delegation, atmosphere)
Measure: Evaluation of Social Systems Scale
(C. Aguilar-Raab, D. Grevenstein, J. Schweitzer, 2015;
validated)
Improved
Cohesion p = .019
Task delegation p = .041
Communication p = .041
Atmosphere p = .037
T. Greitemeyer,
C. Cox (2013) /
Mario Kart:
Double Dash!!
56 participants in Great Britain
Gender: 63% female
Education: University students
Ethnicity: Not reported
Age: 18-29 (assumed)
RCT
Single control – single-player
game
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Self-report cohesion
Measure: Not specied
Self-report trust
Measure: Not specied
Behavioural assessment of cooperative behaviour
Measure: t wo-person give-some dilemma (modied
from P. A. M. Van Lange, 1999)
Improved
t(33) = 4.89, p < .001, d = 1.65
Improved
t(33) = 2.23, p < .05, d = .68
Improved
β = .47, p < .01, d = 1.12
M. J. Keith et al.
(2016) / Halo 4,
Rock Band
Experiment 1: 352 participants
Gender: 21% Female
Experiment 2: 372 par ticipants
Gender: 28% Female
United States
Education: University students
Ethnicity: Not reported
Age: 18-29 (assumed)
RCT
Experiment 1: two controls
– individual homework/goal
training seminar
Experiment 2: single control –
individual homework
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Identical outcome measures for Experiments 1 and 2
except for goal commitment (absent from Experiment
2)
Self-report team ow (referred to as group ow)
Measure: Cognitive absorption (modied from
R. Agar wal, E. Karahanna, 20 00; validated)
Self-report team cohe sion (referred to as group
cohesion)
Measure: Group Environment Questionnaire
(A. V. Carron et al., 198 5; validated)
Self-report (group) goal commitment
Measure: not specied (H. J. Klein et al. 1999)
Behavioural assessment of team (group) performance
Measure: developed for study
Experiment 1
Improved
β = .30, p < .001
Improved
β = .29, p < .001
Improved
β = .18, p < .05
Improved
F = 5.282, p = .0 07
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
Experiment 2 (summarized): All
forms of video gaming (including
individual,
competitive, and cooperative) are
an eective strategy for building
group ow and group cohesion that
in turn improve performance.
M. J. Keith et al.
(2021) / Halo 4,
Rock Band
586 par ticipants in the United
States
Gender: 24,2% Female
Education: University students
Age: 22,9 (mean)
Ethnicity: 80.4% Caucasian,
10,1% Asian, 7% Hispanic
RCT
Single control – no team-build-
ing activity
No follow-up Facilitator present
Self-report team ow
Measure: Cognitive absorption (modied from
R. Agarwal, E. Karahanna, 2000; validated)
Self-report team cohesion
Measure: Group Environment Questionnaire
(A. V. Carron et al., 198 5; validated)
Behavioural assessment of team performance
Measure: developed by researchers
Improved (via construct of
challeng e)
β = .451, p < .001
No signicant eect
β = –.004, p = .49
Improved
F1 = 8.760, p = .004
D.-Y. Wang,
Y.-A. Chen
(2012) /
World of Warcraft
32 participants in Taiwan
Gender: not reported
Education: University students
Ethnicity: Not reported
Age: 18-29 (assumed)
Quasi-experimental
No control
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Self-report teamwork skills
Measure: Teamwork Skills Que stionnaire (modied
from M. C. Chien, 2000; validation N/A)
No signicant eect
V. Wendel et al.
(2013) /
Minecraft (mod
developed for the
study)
28 participants in Germany
Gender: 8% Female
Education: University students
and higher
Ethnicity: Not reported
Age: 21 to 45 years, mean 25.81
Quasi-experimental
Single control – solving puzzle
No follow-up
Facilitator not reported
Self-report cooperative behaviour (referred to as
group cooperation)
Measure: Group-cooperation Questionnaire
developed for study; Not validated
Behavioural assessment of trust and cooperative
behaviour
Measure: Prisoner’s dilemma game (modied from
B. Sheese, W. Graziano, 2005)
Improved
F(1,22) = 3.94; p = .060
No signicant eects (p > .20)
Source: own processing
62 Game Studies
Acknowledgment: The study is a partial outcome of the scientic project supported by the
Science Grant Agency (VEGA) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport
of the Slovak Republic and the Board of the Slovak Academy of Sciences No. 1/0038/22,
titled ‘Using Competitive Digital Games to Develop Team Cohesion and Social Adaptation
of Generation Z’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
343 INDUSTRIES: Halo 4. [digital game]. Redmond, WA : Microsoft Studios, 2012.
ABDUL JABBAR, A. I., FELICIA, P.: Gameplay Engagement and Learning in Game-Based Learning: A
Systematic Review. In Review of Educational Research, 2015, Vol. 85, No. 4, p. 740-779. ISSN 0034-
6543.
ANDERSON, G.: The Impact of Cooperative Video Games on Team Cohesion. [Dissertation Thesis].
Terre Haute, IN : Indiana State University, 2010.
ANDERSON, G. S., HILTON, S.: Increase team cohesion by playing cooperative video games. In
Cr ossTalk, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 33-37. ISSN 2160-1577.
BEAL, D. J. et al.: Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarication of construct
relations. In Journal of applied psychology, 2003, Vol. 88, No. 6, p. 989-1004. ISSN 0021-9010.
BEDWELL, W. L. et al.: Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to Learning: An Empirical Study.
In Simulation & Gaming, 2012, Vol. 43, No. 6, p. 729-760. ISSN 1046-8781.
BELBIN, R. M.: Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, New York, NY : Routledge,
2010.
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: World of Warcraft. [digital game]. Irvine, CA : Blizzard Entertainment,
2004.
BOWERS, C. A., JENTSCH, F.: Use of commercial, o-the-shelf, simulations for team research. In
SALAS, E . (ed.): Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Vol. 1. B ingley :
Emerald Group Publishing, 2001, p. 293-317.
BOWMAN Jr., R. F.: A “Pac-Man” Theory of Motivation: Tactical Implications for Classroom
Instruction. In Educational Technology, 1982, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 14-17. ISSN 0013-1962.
BOZANTA, A. et al.: Eects of serious games on perceived team cohesiveness in a multi-user virtual
environment. In Computers in Human Behaviour, 2011, Vol. 59, No. 1, p. 380-388. ISSN 0747-5632.
BUNGIE: Halo 3. [digital game]. Redmond, WA : Microsoft Game Studios, 2007.
CARRON, A. V., WIDMEYER, W. N., BRAWLEY, L. R.: The development of an instrument to assess
cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. In Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 1985, Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 244-266. ISSN 0895-2779.
CARRON, A. V. et al.: Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. In Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 2002, Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 168-188. ISSN 1543-2904.
CASEY-CAMPBELL, M., MARTENS, M. L.: Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group
cohesion-performance literature. In International Journal of Management Reviews, 2019, Vol. 11,
No. 2, p. 223-246. ISSN 1468-2370.
CLARK, D. B., TANNER-SMITH, E. E., KILLINGSWORTH, S. S.: Digital Games, Design, and Learning:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. In Review of Educational Research, 2016, Vol. 86, No. 1,
p. 79-122. ISSN 0034-6543.
CLEMENT, J.: Number of users of video games Worldwide 2017-2027. Released on 1st June 2023.
[online]. [2023-02-22]. Available at: <https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-
gamers-world/>.
CONNOLLY, T. M. et al.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and
serious games. In Computers & Education, 2012, Vol. 59, No. 2, p. 661-686. ISSN 0360-1315.
COOKE , N. J., HILTON, M. L.: Enh ancing the eectivenes s of team science. Washing ton, D.C. : National
Academies Press, 2015.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
DELUCA, S. M., KELMAN, A. R., WAELDE, L. C.: A Systematic Review of Ethnoracial Representation
and Cultural Adaptation of Mindfulness - and Meditation-Based Interventions. In Psychological
Studies, 2018, Vol. 63, No. 2, p. 117–129. ISSN 0033-2968.
DI PIETRANTONIO, J., MENDONCA, D.: Opening the Black Box of Team Performance with Open-
source Games: A Review and Recommendations. In IEEE Transactions on Games, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 2,
p. 170-179. ISSN 2475-1502.
DYER Jr., W. G., DYER, J. H., DYER, W. G.: Team Building Proven Strategies for Improving Team
Performance. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley and Sons, 2013.
ELLIS, J. B. et al.: Games for Virtual Team Building. In MARSDEN, G., LADEIRA, I., KOTZÉ, P. (eds.):
DIS ‘08: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems. New York, NY :
ACM, 2008, p. 295-304.
EVANS, C. R., DION, K. L.: Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. In Small Group
Research, 1989, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 175-186. ISSN 1552-8278.
FAPOHUNDA, T. M.: Towards Eective Team Building in the Workplace. In International Journal of
Education and Research, 2013, Vol. 1. No. 4, p. 1-12. ISSN 2201-6740. [online]. [2023-02-15]. Availab le
at: <https://www.ijern.com/images/April-2013/23.pdf>.
GARCIA, M. B. et al.: Promoting Social Relationships Using a Couch Cooperative Video Game: An
Empirical Experiment with Unacquainted Players. In International Journal of Gaming and Computer-
Mediated Simulations, 2022, Vol. 14, No. 1 , p. 1-18. ISSN 194 2-3888. [online]. [2023-06-03]. Available
at: <https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.303106>.
GRANIC, I., LOBEL, A., ENGELS, R. C. M. E.: The Benets of Playing Video Games. In American
Psychologist, 2014, Vol. 69, No. 1, p. 66-78. ISSN 1935-990X.
GREITEME YER, T., COX, C.: There’s no “I” in te am: Eects of cooperat ive video games on coo perative
behavior. In European Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 2 24-228. ISSN 1099- 0992.
GREITEMEYER, T., TRAUT-MATTAUSCH, E., OSSWALD, S.: How to ameliorate negative eects
of violent video games on cooperation: Play it cooperatively in a team. In Computers in Human
Behaviour, 2012, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 1465-1470. ISSN 0747-5632.
GROSSMAN, R. et al.: The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring
measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. In Organizational Psychology Review,
2022, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 181-238. ISSN 2041-3874.
GU, S., XUE, L.: Relationships among Sports Group Cohesion, Psychological Collectivism, Mental
Toughness and Athlete Engagement in Chinese Team Sports Athletes. In International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, Vol. 19, No. 9, p. 1-14. ISSN 1660-4601. [online].
[2023-02-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094987>.
GULLY, S. M., DEVINE, D. J., WHITNEY, D. J.: A Meta-Analysis of Cohesion and Performance: Eects
of Level of Analysis and Task Interdependence. In Small Group Research, 1995, Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 497-
520. ISSN 1552-8278.
HADDAWAY, N. R. et al.: PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA
2020-compliant ow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open
Synthesis. In Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2022, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 1-12. ISSN 1891-1803. [online].
[2023-05-12]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230>.
HANGHØJ, T., NIELSEN, R. K. L.: Esports skills are people skills. In ELEAEK, L. et al. (eds): 13th
European Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL 2019). Reading : Academic Conferences
and Publishing International Limited, 2019, p. 535-542.
HARMONIX, PI STUDIOS: Rock Band. [digital game]. New York, NY : MTV Games, 2007.
HENDL, J.: Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní metody a aplikace. Prague : Portál, 2005.
HEWET T, K. J. E.: Embr acing Video Game s for Strategic Thinking , Collaboration, a nd Communicatio n
Skills Practice. In KHOSROW-POUR, M. (ed.): Research Anthology on Fandoms, Online Social
Communities, and Pop Culture. Hershey, PA : IGI Global, 2022, p. 296-314.
HIRIYAPPA, B.: Team Building and Group Dynamics Management. Bloomington, I N : Booktango, 201 3.
64 Game Studies
HOFFMANN, D. M.: Reecting on Social Emotional Learning: A Critical Perspective on Trends in the
United States. In Review of Educational Research, 2009, Vol. 79, No. 2, p. 533-556. ISSN 003 4-6543.
CHIOCCHIO, F., ESSIEMBRE, H.: Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review of Disparities
Between Project Teams, Production Teams, and Service Teams. In Small Group Research, 2009,
Vol. 40 No. 4, p. 382-420. ISSN 1552-8278.
JANUARY, A. M., CASEY, R. J., PAULSON, D.: A Meta-Analysis of Classroom-Wide Interventions to
Build Social Skills: Do They Work?. In School Psychology Review, 2011, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 242-256.
ISSN 2372-966X.
JOHANNES, N., VUORRE, M., PRZYBYLSKI, A. K.: Video game play is positively correlated with well-
being. In Royal So ciety Open Science, 2021, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 1-14. ISSN 205 4-5703. [online]. [2023-02-
15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202049>.
KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Building Through Team Video Games: Randomized Controlled Trial. In JMIR
Serious Games, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 1-16. ISSN 2291-9279. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at:
<https://doi.org/10.2196/28896>.
KEITH, M. J. et al.: Team Video Gaming for Team Building: Eects on Team Performance. In AIS
Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 205-231. ISSN 1944-3900.
KEITH, M. J. et al.: The Eects of Video Gaming on Work Group Performance. In ÅGERFALK, P.
J., LEVINA, N., KIEN, S. S. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Systems – Digital Innovation at the Crossroads, ICIS 2016. Atlanta, GA : Association for Information
Systems, 2016, p. 1-20. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/
HumanBehavior/Presentations/21/>.
KLEIN, C. et al.: Does Team Building Work?. In Small Group Research, 20 09, Vol. 40, No. 2, p. 181-222.
ISSN 1552-8278.
LENT, R. W., SCHMIDT, J., SCHMIDT, L.: Collective ecacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation
to self-ecacy, cohesion, and performance. In Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006, Vol. 68, No. 3,
p. 73-84. ISSN 0001-8791.
MAHFOUZ, J., ANTHONY-STEVENS, V.: Why Trouble SEL? The Need for Cultural Relevance in SEL. In
Occasional Paper Series, 2020, Vol. 11, No. 43, p. 58-70. ISSN 2375-3668.
MAREŠ, J.: Přehledové studie: jejich typologie, funkce a způsob vytváření. In Pedagogická orientace,
2013, Vol. 23, No. 4, p. 427-454. ISSN 1805-9511.
MARLOW, S. L. et al.: Eliciting teamwork with game attributes: A systematic review and research
agenda. In Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 55, No. 1, p. 413-423. ISSN 0747-5632.
MARTÍN-HERNÁNDEZ, P. et al.: Fostering University Students’ Engagement in Teamwork and
Innovation Behaviors through Game-Based Learning (GBL). In Sustainability, 2021, Vol. 13, No. 24, p.
1-16. ISSN 2071-1050. [online]. [2023-02-02]. Available at : <https://doi.org/10.3 390/su132413573>.
MAYER, I.: Assessment of Teams in a Digital Game Environment. In Simulation & Gaming, 2018, Vol.
49, No. 6, p. 602-619. ISSN 1046-8781.
MAYER, I. et al.: Stealth Assessment of Teams in a Digital Game Environment. In DE GLORIA, A. (ed.):
Games and Learning Alliance: Second International Conference, GALA 2013. Cham : Springer, 2014,
p. 224-235.
McGONIGAL, J.: Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World.
New York, NY : Penguin Books, 2011.
MOJANG STUDIOS: Minecraft. [digital game]. Stockholm : Mojang Studios, 2011.
MYSIRLAKI, S., PARASKEVA, F.: Virtual Team Eective ness: Insights from th e Virtual World Teams of
Massively Multiplayer Online Games. In Journal of Leadership Studies, 2019, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 34-55.
ISSN 1935-262X.
NELSON, M., AHN, B.: Use of games to teach teamwork and communication skills to engineering
students. In 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). Piscataway, NJ : IEEE, 2021, p. 1-9.
[online]. [2023-03-16]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637377>.
NINTENDO EAD: Mario Kart: Double Dash!!. [digital game]. Kyoto : Nintendo, 2003.
ACTA LUDOLOGICA
PAGE, M. J. et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews. In International Journal of Surgery, 2021, Vol. 372, No. 71, p. 1-9. ISSN 1743-9191. [online].
[2023-01-17]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906>.
PARRISH, P., LINDER-VANBERSCHOT, J.: Cultural dim ensions of learning: Ad dressing the challenges
of multicultu ral instruction. In Th e International Review of Research in Open and Dis tributed Learning,
2010, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 1-19. ISSN 1492-3831.
PRATTICÓ, F. G. et al.: Asteroid Escape: A Serious Game to Foster Teamwork Abilities. In CIGNONI,
P., MIGUEL, E. (eds.): 40th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics,
Eurographics 2019 – Short Papers. Eindhoven : The Eurographics Association, 2019, p. 53-56.
QIAN, M., CL ARK, K. R.: Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. In
Computers in Human Behavior, 2016, Vol. 63, No. 1, p. 50-58. ISSN 0747-5632.
RIIVARI, E., KIVIJÄRVI, M., LÄMSÄ, A.-M.: Learning teamwork throu gh a computer game: for the sake
of performance or collaborative learning?. In Educational Technology Research and Development,
2021, Vol. 69, No. 3, p. 1753-1771. ISSN 1556-6501.
SALEME, P. et al.: Prosocial digital games for youth: A systematic review of interventions. In
Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2020, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 1-9. ISSN 2451-9588. [online]. [2023-
02-15]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100039>.
STACHO, Z. et al.: Gamekácia v procese adaptácie zamestnancov. In REFLEXIE – Kompendium
teórie a praxe podnikania, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 78-89. ISSN 2730-020X.
VELEZ, J. A., EWOLDSEN, D. R.: Helping Behaviors During Video Game Play. In Journal of Media
Psychology Theories Methods and Applications, 2013, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 190-200. ISSN 1864-1105.
VICKERS, S. W.: Digital gaming as a learning tool : a literature review. [Master Thesis]. Cedar Falls, IA :
University of Northern Iowa, 2012.
VON THIENEN, J. et al.: Leveraging Video Games to Improve IT-Solutions for Remote Work. In
PREUSS, M. (ed.): 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). Piscataway, NJ : IEEE, 2021 , p. 1-8. [online].
[2023-03-12]. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353482804_Leveraging_
Video_Games_to_Improve_IT-Solutions_for_Remote_Work>.
WANG, D.-Y., CHEN, Y.-A.: Training Teamwork Skills Using MMORPGs. In 2012 IEEE Fourth
International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning. Piscataway, NJ :
IEEE, 2012, p. 94-98.
WATTS, C., SHARLIN, E., WOYTIUK, P.: Exploring Interpersonal Touch-Based Interaction and
Player Socialization in Prism Squad: GO!. In PRAKASH, E. C. (ed.): Proceedings of the 3rd annual
International Conference [on] Computer Games, Multimedia & Allied Technology (CGAT 2010).
Singapore : APTF, 2010, p. 1-8. [online]. [2023-06-02]. Available at: <https://utouch.cpsc.ucalgary.
ca/docs/PrismSquadGO-CGAT2010-CW.pdf>.
WENDEL, V. et al.: Designing A Collaborative Serious Game For Team Building Using Minecraft.
In VAZ DE CARVALHO, C., ESCUDEIRO, P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on
Games Based Learning. Reading : Academic Conferences Limited, 2013, p. 569-578.
WICHADEE, S., PATTANAPICHET, F.: Enhancement of Performance and Motivation through
Application of Digital Games in an English Language Class. In Teaching English with Technology,
2018, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 77-92. ISSN 1642-1027.
ZHANG, X., KWAN, H. K.: Team behavioral integration links team interdependence with team
performance: an empirical investigation in R&D teams. In Frontiers of Business Research, Vol. 13,
No. 7, p. 193-211. ISSN 1673-7431.
ZHENG, L. R. et al.: Serious Games as a Complementary Tool for Social Skill Development in Young
People: A Systematic Review of the Literature. In Simulation & Gaming, 2021, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 686-
714. ISSN 1046-8781.
ZHONG, Y. et al.: The impact of esports participation on the development of 21st century skills in
youth: A systematic review. In Computers & Education, 2022, Vol. 191, No. 8, p. 1-20. ISSN 036 0-1315.
[online]. [2023-03-01]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104640>.
