Perceived realism is considered a key concept in explaining the mental processing of media messages and the societal impact of media. Despite its importance, little is known about its conceptualization and dimensional structure, especially with regard to digital games. The aim of this study was to test a six-factor model of perceived game realism comprised of simulational realism, freedom of choice, perceptual pervasiveness, social realism, authenticity, and character involvement and to assess it against an alternative single- and five-factor model. Data were collected from 380 male digital game users who judged the realism of the first-person shooter Half-Life 2 based upon their previous experience with the game. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to investigate which model fits the data best. The results support the six-factor model over the single- and five-factor solutions. The study contributes to our knowledge of perceived game realism by further developing its conceptualization and measurement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BusselleRW. Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 2001; 3:43–67.
2.
KonijnE, BijvankMN, BushmanBJ. I wish I were a warrior: the role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 2007; 43:1038–1044.
3.
ShapiroMA, Peña-HerbornJ, HancockJ. 2006. Realism, imagination, and narrative video games. VordererP, BryantJ. Playing video games: motives, responses & consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 275–289.
4.
KrcmarM, FarrarK, McGloinR. The effects of video game realism on attention, retention and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:432–439.
5.
PotterWJ. Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1986; 30:159–174.
6.
BilandzicH, BusselleR. Enjoyment of films as a function of narrative experience, perceived realism and transportability. Communications. The European Journal of Communication Research, 2011; 36:29–50.
7.
de KortYAW, IJsselsteijnWA. Reality check: the role of realism in stress reduction using media technology. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2006; 9:230–233.
8.
MeijerF, GeudekeBL, van den BroekEL. Navigating through virtual environments: visual realism improves spatial cognition. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2009; 12:517–521.
9.
AndsagerJL, AustinEW, PinkletonBE. Questioning the value of realism: Young adult's processing of messages in alcohol-related public service announcements and advertising. Journal of Communication, 2001; 51:121–142.
10.
HamamA, EidM, El SaddikA. Effect of kinesthetic and tactile haptic feedback on the quality of experience of edutainment applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2012[Epub ahead of print]10.1007/s110442-012-0990-7.
11.
HuesmannLR, Moise-TitusJ, PodolskiCet al.Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 2003; 29:201–221.
12.
HaridakisPM. Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 2002; 4:323–353.
13.
PeterJ, ValkenburgPM. Adolescents' exposure to sexually explicit online material and recreational attitudes toward sex. Journal of Communication, 2006; 56:639–660.
14.
RivadeneyraR, WardLM. From Ally McBeal to Sábado Gigante: Contributions of television viewing to the gender role attitudes of Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2005; 20:453–475.
15.
SegrinC, NabiRL. Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage?Journal of Communication, 2002; 52:247–263.
16.
HallA. Reading realism: audiences' evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of Communication, 2003; 53:624–641.
17.
HawkinsRP. The dimensional structure of children's perceptions of television reality. Communication Research, 1977; 4:299–320.
18.
PopovaL. 2010. Perceived reality of media messages: Concept explication and testing. Conference paper: Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Singapore, 2010.
19.
BusselleRW, GreenbergBS. The nature of television realism judgments: a reevaluation of their conceptualization and measurement. Mass Communication and Society, 2000; 3:249–268.
20.
PotterWJ. Perceived reality in television effects research. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1988; 32:23–41.
21.
ShapiroMA, ChockTM. Psychological processes in perceiving reality. Media Psychology, 2003; 5:163–198.
22.
GallowayAR. Social realism in gaming. Game Studies 2004. 4. www.gamestudies.org/0401/galloway/. 2012 Feb. 27.
23.
MallietS. An exploration of adolescents' perceptions of videogame realism. Learning, Media and Technology, 2006; 31:377–394.
24.
RibbensW, MallietS. Perceived digital game realism: a quantitative exploration of its structure. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2010; 19:585–600.
WitmerBG, SingerMJ. Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence, 1998; 7:225–240.
27.
BrockmyerJH, FoxCM, CurtissKAet al.The development of the game engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009; 45:624–364.
28.
BellP. Realism and subjectivity in First-Person Shooter videogames. Georgetown Peer-reviewed Journal of Communication, Culture and Technology. 2003; 3. www.gnovisjournal.org/2003/04/16/realism-subjectivity-in-first-person-shooter-games/. 2012 Jan. 14.
29.
JuulJ. 2005. Half real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
EskelinenM. The gaming situation. Game Studies, 2001; 1. www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/. 2012 Dec. 28.
31.
FrascaG. 2003. Simulation versus narrative: introduction to ludology. WolfMJP, PerronB. The video game theory reader. London: Routledge, 151–158.
32.
JanszJ. The emotional appeal of violent video games. Communication Theory, 2005; 15:219–241.
33.
KücklichJ. Perspectives of computer game philology. Game Studies, 2003; 3. www.gamestudies.org/0301/kucklich/. 2012 Feb. 27
34.
LeeKM. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 2004; 14:27–50.
35.
CallejaG. Digital game involvement. Games and Culture, 2007; 2:236–260.
36.
BusselleRW, BilandzicH. Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: a model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 2008; 18:255–280.
37.
ByrneBM. 2010. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
38.
Nintendo. Super Mario Galaxy [Game]Kyoto: Nintendo, 2007.
39.
Rockstar North. Grand Theft Auto IV [Game]New York: Rockstar Games, 2008.
40.
LangA. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 2000; 50:46–70.
41.
WoodRTA, GriffithsMD, EatoughV. Online data collection from video game players: Methodological issues. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2004; 7:511–518.
42.
JanszJ, TanisM. Appeal of playing online First Person Shooter games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2007; 10:133–136.
43.
GhumanD, GriffithsMD. A cross-genre study of online gaming: Player demographics, motivation for play, and social interactions among players. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2012; 2:13–29.
44.
BollenKA. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
45.
HuLT, BentnerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999; 6:1–55.
46.
SchreiberJB, NoraA, StageFKet al.Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 2006; 99:323–337.
47.
MuthénB, KaplanD. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1992; 45:19–30.
48.
JöreskogKG, SörbomD. 1988. LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
