The use of computer game based architectures may help provide a safe, controlled environment in which geographically dispersed military units can develop leadership skills while rehearsing a specific task such as search and rescue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among task difficulty, team task performance, personality and computer game experience using a modified version of the popular video game, Half Life 2 ™. Twenty dyads searched a virtual environment to find a target avatar while disregarding distractor avatars. Task difficulty was represented by low or high numbers of distracters. Findings showed that manipulating difficulty in this way led to differences in search efficiency, but not overall accuracy or task completion time. Personality and gaming experience did not influence team performance outcomes as expected. This research suggests researchers and trainers must act judiciously when modifying game characteristics, such as task difficulty, to design and implement immersive training programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvarezK.SalasE.GarofanoC.M. (2002). An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 385–416.
2.
AndrewsD. H. (2005). Distributed simulation for training of teams. In StantonHedgeBrookhuisSalasHendrick (Eds.), Building a Winning Virtual Team. CRC Press, NY. New York.
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.GoldbergL. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 707-21.
4.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353.
5.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166.
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345.
7.
AvolioB.KahaiS. (2003). Adding the "E" to E-Leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325-338.
8.
BarrickM.R.StewartM. J.NeubertM. J.MountM. K. (1998). Relating member ability personality to work-team processes team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377 – 391.
9.
BellB.S.KozlowskiS.W.J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49.
10.
CampbellC.H.KnerrB.W.LamptonD.R. (2004). Virtual Environments for Infantry Solders: Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training, and Mission Rehearsal. (ARI Special Report 59). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA
11.
CohenJ. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
CookeN.J.GormanJ.C.WinnerJ.L. (2007). Team cognition. In DursoF.NickersonR.DumaisS.LewandowskyS.PerfectT. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 239-268). New York: Wiley.
13.
FreyA.HartigJ.KetzelA.ZinkernagelA.MoosbruggerH. (2007). The use of virtual environments based on a modification of the computer game Quake III Arena in psychological experimenting. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2026–2039.
14.
GeddieJ. C.BoerL. C.EdwardsR. J.EnderwickT. P.GraffN.NATO Research Technology Organisation (RTO) (2001). NATO Guidelines on Human Engineering Testing and Evaluation (RTO Publication No. A241293). France: RTO Human Factors and Medicine Panel (HFM) Research and Study Group 24 on Human Engineering Testing and Evaluation.
15.
GutwinC.GreenbergS. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In SalasE.FioreS. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 177–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
HaysR. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. (Tech Report 2005-004). Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, FL.
17.
HinzTindaleVollrath (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,121, 43-64.
HollingsheadA. B.McGrathJ.E.O’ConnorK. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 307-333.
20.
JohnsonM.D. (2006). The effects of workload on individual and team cognition, affect and performance. Michigan State University, East Lansing MI.
21.
LamptonD.BlissJ.OrvisK.KringJ.GlennA.M. (2009). A distributed game-based simulation training research testbed. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting.
22.
LipnackJ.StampsJ. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organizations with Technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
23.
MuellerK. E.LaVangeL.E.RameyS.L.RameyC.T.1992. ‘Power Calculations for General Linear Multivariate Models Including Repeated Measures Applications.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association, Volume 87, No. 420, pages 1209-1226.
24.
OrvisHornBelanich (2008). The roles of task difficulty and prior videogame experience on performance and motivation in instructional videogames. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2415-2433
25.
PowellA.G. PiccoliG.B. IvesB. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. SIGMIS Database, 35(1): 6-36.
26.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
SiegelS.CastellanN.J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill.
SlaterM.SadagicA.UsohM.SchroederR. (2000). Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: A comparative study. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(1), 37-51.
30.
Smith-JentschJohnstonPayne1998. Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training (pp. 61-87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31.
StanneyK.M.MourantR.R. (1998). Human factors issues in virtual environments: A review of the literature. Presence, 7(4): 327–351.
