Video games,the brain and magical thinking: A 21 st century controversy

Abstract

The following article is a thorough literature review, discussing the impact of media technology on brain development in the context of magical thinking. This systematic literature review discusses the impact of video gaming on magical thinking in early childhood. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on how media technology, especially video games, can influence the cognitive process in children, thus their magical thoughts. In conclusion, more research needs to be done in regards to magical thinking, and video gaming. There is still a controversy about the extent media technology can influence a child’s discrimination between fantasy, and reality.

Introduction

Technology plays an increasing role in the lives of children (whether through education or in their daily lives). Currently, there are not enough studies to provide information about the true long term effects of the use of electronic media on children’s development. Electronic media is any interactive device that requires software to function, in addition to having the option of having it connected to the internet. Examples of electronic media devices are television, computers, tablets, ipads, video game consoles, and mobile phones. There is general agreement that children start using electronic technology as early as primary school (Vandewater and Lee, 2009). There is also growing evidence that in contemporary American society, young children are exposed to a varied and increasing number of media sources (Bazzini et al., 2010). Understanding the extent of electronic devices use by children has been of interest to educators, medical practitioners and parents (Ebbeck et al., 2016). For example, video games, as a form of electronic media, are very popular among children for purposes of entertainment. Exploring the use of video games, as a particular form of electronic media, among young children is essential to shed light on how video gaming affects their reality, and as a result, their magical thinking. Virtual reality, in the context of video gaming, is the bridge that connects reality and computer technology, where children can interact with artificial environments while playing a video game (Das et al., 2005). Magical thinking refers to thoughts or actions that young children create, which are physically unconnected to real events (Bolton et al., 2002).

According to literature, when children are in a state of confusion or error, they resort to magical thinking (Bolton et al., 2002). Simon et al., (2009) quoted Zusne and Jones’s (1989) definition of magical thinking as “the belief that one’s thoughts, words, or actions can achieve specific physical effects in a manner not governed by the principles of ordinary transmission of energy or information (p. 13).” For example, young children might watch a movie about humans with super powers, and believe that they can fly, like Superman. Another good example is what Maureen Ryan (2018) uses, describing a child she encountered in her research, who thought that spinning in circles would make his favorite TV show appear. When children are thinking magically, their thoughts, actions, and beliefs are not associated with reality.

Significance

The aim of this article is to highlight the fact that the effects of video gaming were not looked at from the perspective of magical thinking. In other words, a systematic literature review is needed to understand how video gaming can impact magical thoughts in children. A systematic literature review, documents, evaluates, analyzes, and summarizes the existing literature to identify a certain gap in the topic being discussed (Fink, 2005). The gap that this paper identifies is the lack of enough studies in regards to the effects of video gaming on magical thinking in early childhood, in addition to the present controversy regarding the extent media technology can affect children’s discrimination between fantasy and reality.

Methodology

Several articles were researched from different academic online databases (ERIC, Education Research Complete, JSTOR…). Key words such as media technology, video gaming, brain development, magical thinking, fantasy, reality, early childhood, and Piaget were used to identify relevant articles. Most articles were recent, with the exception of Piaget’s theories, as Jean Piaget was the first to discuss the concept of magical thinking during the egocentric stage.

As part of the procedure in a systematic literature review discussed by Fink (2005), all relevant articles were documented, evaluated, analyzed, and finally summarized as seen fit for this paper. For example, any article that discussed video gaming or media technology and brain development was introduced in this paper. Similarly, any ideas that involved magical thoughts in children, and their impact on fantasy and reality, were also included.

Based on the above, this paper starts with the definition of magical thinking, and then moves to discuss how video gaming impacts brain development, where this process can in turn affect children’s discrimination between fantasy and reality, thus creating magical thoughts.

What is magical thinking?

Piaget believed that magical thinking occurs during the egocentric stage of development. He believed that in the egocentric stage, children under the age of seven are afraid of having negative thoughts about someone, because they are fearful that these thoughts will manifest themselves into the reality-that is if these thoughts came true then the child will feel a sense of guilt for causing them (Simonds et al., 2009). Egocentrism is a central concept in Piaget’s theory related to early cognitive development, which stems from his constructivist view of development (Carpendale and Racine, 2011). According to Piaget, the concept of egocentrism is correlated with knowledge development (Carpendale and Racine, 2011). Egocentrism represents a failure to distinguish between the self and its surroundings, in addition to the unconscious confusion of one’s perspective with that of the other (Piaget, 1932; Piaget, 1995; Piaget and Inhelder, 1967; Carpendale and Racine, 2011). An egocentric thought consists of three major aspects of symbolic thought: it has no logical sequence, it is not a conscious process, and it is guided by imagery rather than concepts (Kesselring and Müller, 2011).

Influenced by Freud, Piaget introduced the concept of egocentrism in 1922, and then revised it in the 1930s. He explained that it is a reoccurring phenomenon at the beginning of the developmental stages (Piaget, 1932; Kesselring and Müller, 2011). Piaget distinguished between two modes of thinking. The first is symbolic thinking; a thought process indifferent to truth where a child is a dreamer, and an artist. The second mode of thinking is logical thinking, which is forming rational thoughts (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). According to Piaget (1926), egocentrism occurs from birth until the development of logical thoughts around age seven or eight. In this context, egocentrism becomes the phase where a child transitions from symbolic thinking to logical thinking (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). This process occurs unconsciously, in that every desire is transformed into reality through an image or an illusion (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). Egocentrism is divided into two forms: ontological and logical (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). The first is when a child fails to clearly distinguish a subjective from the objective. The latter represents speech in children where children talk without listening to each other. In this phase, children also fail to understand relational concepts and spatial relations (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). In logical egocentrism, a child views the world from their own perspective, thinking that everyone thinks the way they do (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). This process explained by Kesselring and Müller (2011), forms the introductory phase of egocentrism in the 1920s.

In the 1930s, Piaget revised his concept of egocentrism by explaining that egocentrism is no longer a transitional stage, rather it is a reoccurring process at different stages of development (Piaget, 1932). In Kesselring and Müller (2011) review of the concept of egocentrism in the context of Piaget’s work, they explain that symbolic thinking remains with us through adulthood, and that reason develops at the expense of symbolic thinking. However, we cannot free ourselves completely from symbolic thinking (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). In Piaget’s later work with Inhelder (1955/1958), he discovered a third form of egocentrism which occurs during the formal operations stage. In this stage an individual lacks perspective on the external world and cannot distinguish between interpersonal perspectives. For example, adolescents’ egocentrism manifests itself in learning to know “new” cultures (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). Therefore, egocentrism occurs several times during development; at the beginning of the sensorimotor stage, at the beginning of the pre-operational stage, and similarly at the beginning of the formal operations stage (Kesselring and Müller, 2011). “Overcoming egocentrism or developing perspective taking is required for understanding and for human forms of cognition.” (Carpendale and Racine, 2011: 346). This provides theoretical evidence on how magical thinking could be a result of the egocentric stage that children pass through.

In addition to egocentrism, object permanence can also impact magical thinking in children. Piaget defined, object permanence as the assumption that a physical object continues to exist after an individual can no longer see it (Subbotsky, 2005). Magical thinking is related to this concept of object permanence, because it includes the possibility that magical and other types of mental-physical causality can directly affect perceived or imagined objects (Subbotsky, 2005). For example, a child who engages in magical thinking believes that they can change the object by thinking or wishing it to change (Subbotsky, 2005). Subbotsky (2005) distinguishes between two domains of imagined reality. The first is the imagined physical domain where objects still exist and have the same properties (Ex: seeing a dress in a catalogue and wanting to buy it). The second is the fictional domain where the properties of the physical world are suspended (Ex: dreaming of the impossible such as flying pigs) (Subbotsky, 2005). Ontologically speaking, imagined reality can be either different than the perceived physical reality, that is nothing remains in that reality; or it can be similar to physical reality, in which all fictional objects remain permanently (Subbotsky, 2005).

In the context of the psychoanalytic theory, magical thinking is a way of thinking that disrupts external reality through replacing it by an invented psychic reality (Ogden, 2010). In magical thinking, an individual experiences psychic reality as “more real” than external reality, so an invented reality becomes external reality for a person who engages in magical thinking (Ogden, 2010). In other words, the purpose of magical thinking is to avoid facing the truth of one’s internal and external experience, which in turn leads an individual to believe that they create the reality that everyone lives in (Ogden, 2010). In extreme cases, an individual might disconnect themselves from external reality through the use of fantasies that create delusional or hallucinatory thoughts, thus a person’s self-awareness is lost (Ogden, 2010). Such sort of thinking does not exist in the real world; rather it only exists in an individual’s mind (Ogden, 2010).

Magical thinking has also been described in the context of specific neurodevelopmental disorders, such as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). In this context, magical thinking refers to the belief that a person’s actions, words, or thoughts are capable of creating specific physical effects that are not governed by the laws of nature or ordinary (Simonds et al., 2009). Therefore, magical thinking is practiced to achieve the illusion of control in uncontrollable situations. For example, the child or adult might perform certain rituals which give them a sense of control in the face of fear, anxiety, or uncertainty (Simonds et al., 2009). Therefore in such instances, children’s ritualistic behaviors are correlated with magical beliefs and explanations of events, and are unrelated to naturalistic or physical explanations (Simonds et al., 2009). Bolton et al. (2002), defined magical thinking as a path children resort to when they are in a state of confusion, so they are not able to distinguish between mind and reality. Bolton et al. (2002) study revealed an association between magical thinking and OCD, and magical thinking and anxiety. Similarly, Simonds et al. (2009), found that magical thinking is correlated with obsessive compulsiveness and anxiety. While Bolton et al. (2002) did not find any gender difference between these correlations, Simonds et al. (2009), found that boys engage more in magical thinking.

Within most theories of developmental psychology, magical thinking is a stage that children pass through on their way to logical and scientific thought (Bolton et al., 2002). It is also a concept discussed mostly in the context of pathology. However, magical thinking can be also seen as a typical stage in child development. In children, magical thinking can be defined as children’s fantasy lives, and their ability to distinguish between what is real and what is not (Wang, 2009). Art and entertainment, media in general, affect magical thinking by creating imaginative scenarios and objects. For example, three to 6 year olds believe that imagination can create or change a physical object. Similarly, four to 6 year olds believe that they can influence someone in doing what they want by simply wishing it (Subbotsky, 2005). Researchers studying the theory of mind believe that children less than 4 years old do not understand how the mind works, thus failing to understand false beliefs (Subbotsky, 2005).

In one study, 3 years old children were able to differentiate between imagined objects, and the objects they see; however, they believed that imagined entities cannot be touched or seen by other people (Subbotsky, 2005). Subbotsky (2004) believes that there are conflicting ideas about children’s engagement in magical thinking. She explains that studies that were conducted in the early 90s suggest that children between the ages of four and five are able to distinguish between possible and impossible transformation without resorting to magical thinking. In later studies though, children aged four, six and eight use the term “magic” when faced with phenomena that they have no correct physical explanations for. Subbotsky (2004), explains that two and a half years old children are incapable of giving a scientific explanation to a given event, and believe that a real magical transformation has occurred. Similarly, 4 year olds believe in events as being “really magical”, whereas 5 year olds insist that they are just tricks.

In a study involving 91 children, 70% of the 3 year olds reported that Santa is real while 78% believed that the garbage man is real. By age five, their certainty about the garbage man grew; however, 83% of the children believed that Santa is real. At age seven, Santa beliefs decreased, and by age nine only a third believed in Santa (Wang, 2009). At first sight, the results of the 5 year olds might seem absurd. However, according to Wang (2009), 5 year olds have the cognitive ability to put the pieces of evidence together, but since the pieces are misleading, they might end up with the wrong conclusion. In other words, 5 year olds can see their gifts under the Christmas tree, which, to them, is proof enough for Santa’s existence. Wang (2009) explains that 3 year olds do not have the cognitive skills to put the pieces of evidence together, and that is why the percentage of children who believe in Santa at the age five was higher.

In another study, 44 preschoolers were presented with a new character called “The Candy Witch”. This imaginary character only appears on Halloween and replaces the candy that kids collected with toys. In this study, parents were asked to remove the candy and replace it with a toy as a form of “evidence”. Older preschoolers, average of 5 years old, were more convinced of the existence of the “Candy Witch” than their younger counterparts, who were of an average age of three and a half (Wang, 2009). In a different experiment on 91 children, children’s belief in the “Tooth Fairy” changed as their cognitive skills developed. Sixty one percent of the 3 year olds, 65% of the 5 year olds, 54% of the 7 year olds and 24% of the 9 year olds believed in the existence of the “Tooth Fairy” (Wang, 2009). All studies speak to the fact that if children are able to provide “evidence” for a certain event, they will believe it, yet it all depends on their cognitive skills. Unlike Wang (2009), Subbotsky (2004), thinks that age five is when children are actually able to understand physical causality. On the other hand, the study of Bolton et al. (2002), and Simonds et al. (2009), found that children between the ages of five to ten showed high scores indicative of beliefs in magical causation, and neither of both studies found that there is an age-related decline in magical thinking.

Ma and Lillard (2006), explain that 3 year old children are able to understand that people can only act on real physical objects. For example, a boy with a real cookie can eat the cookie, while a boy who pretends that he has a cookie cannot eat it. Ma and Lillard (2006), suggest that children might fall under the pretend-real confusion in some instances. For example, some children believe that what they imagine might become real, and thus, pretend entities might manifest themselves in the real world (Ma and Lillard, 2006). This idea replicates the Piagetian concepts of magical thinking and egocentrism discussed previously. It is apparent that some children understand the difference between what is real and what is not by the age of three. However, they sometimes confuse what is pretend and what is real (Ma and Lillard, 2006). When there are emotions involved, this pretend-real confusion intensifies. For example, a pretend entity becomes real when there is an emotion attached to it, such as Santa’s Christmas presents, or scary monsters (Ma and Lillard, 2006). This idea also confirms Bolton et al. (2002), and Simonds et al. (2009) findings about the way children engage in magical thinking (unreal thoughts) when there is anxiety involved.

In terms of play and magical thinking, from a psychoanalytic perspective, children’s play is full of meaning making and represents their unconscious fantasies (Bertolini and Nissim, 2002). This echoes Ogden (2010) definition of magical thinking, where a person can replace physical reality with an invented one. So play, acts as an intermediary between reality and fantasy, where children are able to communicate their mental states (Bertolini and Nissim, 2002). Any kind of play helps in a child’s mental, and cognitive development, as well as in building their own image of the world (Bertolini and Nissim, 2002).

Therefore, video game play has the ability to shape a child’s image of the world, for this kind of play involves child’s direct interactions with specific scenes and settings that evoke certain emotions such as fear, excitement, horror, triumph, or power (Bertolini and Nissim, 2002). In a study of children’s video game play, Bertolini and Nissim (2002) describe, “Children were drawn into a virtual world of three dimensional images, full of action, where the experience of travelling and adventure became a form of exploration that could stretch out over time and space in a highly variable manner, possibly even for weeks or months. Meanwhile, the existence of the body and the need for social interaction seemed to fade into the background (p. 308).

Video Gaming and Brain Development

Knowing that magical thinking is a process related to cognitive development, it is worth looking at how media technology can alter the brain. Since the 1990s, research in neuroscience increased significantly with a focus on brain development in children and adults (O’Connor & Joffe, 2013). According to O’Connor and Joffe (2013), there is an explicit proof that children’s brains are affected by early experiences that would last into adulthood. Brain development continues throughout adolescence and early adulthood, in which this development is both a complex linear, and a nonlinear process (Taki & Kwashima, 2012). Therefore, understanding the brain processes and mechanisms in the area of cognitive and social emotional functioning, can help understand children’s learning and developmental outcomes in these areas (O’Connor & Joffe, 2013). As an example, Taki and Kawashima (2012), explain that gray matter volume increases with age (from 3 years of age to adolescence) and then decreases. This fluctuation in gray matter volume occurs during the first and second decade of life (Taki & Kawashima, 2012). It is worth noting that gray matter area includes the regions of the brain responsible for muscle control and sensory perception (seeing, hearing, memory, emotions, speech, decision making, and self-control). Taki and Kawashima (2012), examined the influence of lifestyle on brain development, and found that sleeping habits affect brain maturation in terms of gray matter volume. The authors also found that a healthy diet, especially breakfast, affects the cognitive function of a brain. Even though Taki and Kawashima’s (2012) findings seem to be unrelated to the influence of media use on development, children’s frequent and intense use of media technology today is in its essence a change in the lifestyle. It is therefore, not unreasonable to expect that engaging with media technology, such as video games for long hours and on a daily basis might negatively affect children’s brain development— i.e.: development of gray matter.

Media has witnessed a rapid growth in the video game industry for almost three decades (Saleem et al., 2012). In the past, children were more involved in outdoor games, but with the advancement of technology, children spend a major part of their free time watching TV, using computers, and playing video games (Lisón et al., 2015). Video game play is undoubtedly a leisure activity in the United States, where 72% of the households play a video or a computer game; and 11 to 14 year old children play them for almost 90 min a day (Blumberg and Randall, 2013). There is evidence that suggests playing long hours of video games per day, does have some adverse effects on children’s health. For example, today, children who spend long periods engaging with video games instead of traditional forms of play, on average burn 600 calories less per day than children 50 years ago (Lisón et al., 2015).

In an interesting study, Lisón et al. (2015), found that children reach higher heart rates while playing active video games, than walking on a treadmill. “Active video games are electronic games that allow players to physically interact by using body movements with images on the screen, in a variety of activities such as sports, dancing or fitness games (Lisón et al., 2015: 373).” In their study, Lisón et al. (2015) found that playing with other children increased pleasure, and positive emotions in children. Therefore, they concluded that competitive gaming is healthy for children, since it helps them deal with a competitive society, and it promotes more movement (Lisón et al., 2015). However, the authors note that active video gaming is not sufficient to replace recommended daily exercise for children such as free play and sports (Lisón et al., 2015). Another study (DeVet et al., 2014), which supports the use of active video gaming, suggests that active video games opens up the possibility for using them as a public health strategy in avoiding overweight in youth.

Generally speaking, media, including videogames, affects children’s development more than they would adults’, because children have less developed knowledge structures and existing encoded cognitions (Saleem et al., 2012) Drawing from the social cognitive learning theory used in Saleem et al. (2012) study, interacting with scripts, such as video games, tends to have long term effects on children. These effects are represented by the development of changes in precognitive, and cognitive constructs (perceptions and beliefs), cognitive emotional constructs (attitudes and stereotypes), and affective traits such as conditioned emotional responses, empathy, and trait hostility. Saleem et al. (2012), discuss that video games with pro-social content increase helpful behavior and decrease hurtful behaviors, while video games with violent content increase hurtful behavior and decrease helpful behaviors.

One way to study brain development in children is through neuro-imaging methods (Hummer, 2015). Hummer (2015) explains that neuro-imaging helps us understand how exposure to violent media affects children’s brain development. It appears that exposure to television, film, and violent computer/video games results in an increase in aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors (Hummer, 2015). Hummer (2015) believes that exposure to media violence causes change in relevant brain regions, which would influence individual characteristics and behaviors for many years to come. A delayed neurodevelopment throughout childhood leads to executive dysfunction such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Hummer, 2015). Hummer (2015) also notes that the development of brain regions responsible for motivation, emotion, and reward sensitivity mature earlier than neural regions in the prefrontal cortex. The development of the prefrontal cortex continues into the mid of the second decade, where attention, inhibitory control and emotion or behavior regulation are most vulnerable during adolescence (Hummer, 2015). According to Hummer (2015), these specific functions in the brain seem to be altered by repeated exposure to violent media in early childhood.

In addition, the presence of disruptive behavior is linked to past violent media exposure, which in turn alters brain activity. For example, in one study on adolescents, the group that played a violent video game, during the study, had higher amygdala activity when presented by aggressive words after playing a video game in comparison to the group who played non-violent games (Hummer, 2015). The amygdala is the part of the brain which responds strongly to emotionally arousing stimuli. It is responsible for processing emotions, such as fear, anger, fight or flight. Repeated engagement with violent video games may play a role in altering the amygdala responses to negative stimuli. Since the prefrontal cortex, which provides connections to the amygdala, has not reached full maturity in adolescence, extensive media violence exposure might have effects on emotional regulation in adulthood (Hummer, 2015).

Research has shown that cognitive and socio-affective development in adolescence goes through structural and functional brain changes where synaptic density is at its peak in early childhood (Crone and Konijn, 2018). However, synaptic pruning (synaptic elimination) increases in adolescence resulting in a decrease of synaptic density in late childhood. Excessive exposure to media is seen as a factor influencing changes in synaptic pruning (Crone and Konijn, 2018). For example, Crone and Konijn (2018), explain that when one group of adolescence was excluded from participating in an online Cyberball computer game, their brain activity was associated with regions that are also activated when experiencing salient emotions, indicating a connection between online gaming and social rejection. On the other hand, children, adolescents and adults who felt accepted on social media, and were not excluded from the online Cyberball computer game, had neural responses represented in their ventral striatum, the area of the brain responsible for the reward system, similar to pleasant taste and receiving money (Crone and Konijn, 2018). Crone and Konijn (2018) continue to explain that more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the area of the brain responsible for emotions and cognition, was associated with receiving online peer feedback and viewing oneself; for example, having an increased self-esteem. Another finding by Crone and Konijn (2018) was that social brain activity in young adolescents, 12 to 13 years old, was more active when they donated money online suggesting that this age is a critical period for social media risk perception and pro-social directions. This part of Crone and Konjin (2018) study, takes us back to Hummer (2015) explanation of how the amygdala had a higher activity in adolescents when presented with emotionally arousing stimuli. Both studies focused on the impact media has on emotional regulation. Finally, it appeared that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex region, a region in the brain involved in self control, was active when adolescents were exposed to fictional emotional media content; even though they were told the footage is not real, they still reacted the way they may react to a real condition (Crone and Konijn, 2018).

Such research presents evidence in support of altering effects of media use on the areas of the brain that is related to emotions, cognition, and social development.

Media’s Effect on Children’s Discrimination between Fantasy and Reality

Children are generally skeptical about the reality status of new entities, and events (Woolley and Ghossainy, 2013). Piaget was the first to discuss this claim, explaining that children often confuse between non-realities, such as fantasy, for reality (Woolley and Ghossainy, 2013). Thus, children are often portrayed as confusing between reality, and non-reality (Woolley and Ghossainy, 2013). Similar to magical thoughts, fantasy or fantastical events, are defined as, “physically impossible actions, ones that violate physical law” (Li et al., 2015: 102).

Media is one important factor contributing to meaning making in the lives of children, as well as adults (Dill-Shackleford et al., 2016). Additionally, people interact with media to question their beliefs, and feelings, in order to make meaning of an interaction, thus media possesses the potential of changing one’s beliefs ((Dill-Shackleford et al., 2016). Modern technology, such as video games, continues to push the boundaries between an image and reality (Troseth et al., 2019), resulting in different meaning making ideas among individuals.

Early childhood is associated with fantasy, wonder, and magic, and the media has contributed in maintaining this tradition (Goldstein and Alperson, 2019). The ongoing blending between virtual reality and reality had existed for decades with purposeful and easy interaction between the digital domain, and the real world (Billinghurst et al., 2001). An important part of children’s media is for children to discriminate between what parts should be taken into reality, and what elements should remain in a digital domain-a story, a movie or a film (Goldstein and Alperson, 2019).

In fictional media, people, including children, are introduced to new perspectives about life ((Dill-Shackleford et al., 2016). We know little about children’s discrimination between what they see on electronic media devices, such as TV, and reality (Li et al., 2015). Further, the distinction between what is real, and what is fantasy in media is actively constructed during the preschool years. The distinction between real and fantasy is more complex considering the screen content (Richert and Schlesinger, 2016). In a study about children and media, Goldstein and Alperson (2019) found that, magical content was extremely high within the media targeted for children, in such a way that it deviates from the laws of nature. Further, the supernatural content is usually portrayed positively and celebrated, filling children’s lives with magic and pretend. Such media exposure influences children’s understanding, and their knowledge of the world (Thierry and Pipe, 2009).

With technological advancements, children’s response to images might deepen their confusion regarding fantasy and reality (Troseth, et al., 2019). For example, computer, and video game graphics can look so real, in which children cannot distinguish what they see on screen from real entities (Troseth et al., 2019).

Children’s Perception of Non-Reality

Woolley and Ghossainy (2013), explain that when children aged five to seven were shown various types of programs on television, they presumed that everything that happens on television was not real. Cartoons, for example, reduce children’s executive functioning, immediately after viewing, due to magical events (Li et al., 2015). In their study, Li et al. (2015), discuss that children aged four believe that possible (real) events which they see on televised media are not real, because these events can only occur on television. Similarly, the same children also believe that fantastical events, such as what they see in cartoons, cannot happen in real life. The authors discussed special effects that are used in film media in connection with fantastical events, might be misleading to children, even if the context of these events is real. In other words, any real or fantastical event seen on television is perceived as not real. The authors suggest that, children aged four, are more likely to misjudge the status of reality on television, claiming that any event, fantastical or real, presented on television is always unreal (Li et al., 2015).

Some computer games, which stimulate children’s imaginations, elicit pretend play (Johnson and Christie, 2009). While children are aware that the video games they play are not real, they still engage in non real behaviors (Johnson and Christie, 2009). For example, children might pretend to chase an invisible balloon, they saw flying on a computer screen, around the classroom. Even though children know that the balloon is not real, they still pretend as though it exists in reality.

In Carrik and Ramirez (2012) study, when children were reinforced, and were motivated to respond correctly by getting a prize, they were able to report that fantastical events are not real. The authors discuss that certain contexts might prompt children to report magical events as real, even though, they understand it is not.

Children’s Perceptions of Reality

According to Li et al. (2015), children confuse the reality status of televised events, and they view them as more real, yet sometimes as less real than they actually are. Richert and Schlesinger (2016) study revealed that, children between the ages of four and five and a half, did not have a clear understanding that fantastical events they saw in clips were not possible in the real world. Therefore, they reported fantasy as real events. By age six, children become more aware of the boundaries between reality and fantasy, thus they do not mix between real and fantastical events they watch on television (Li et al., 2015).

Children, sometimes, confuse fantastical events with real ones when such events are presented through video. Due to the high similarity and overlapping that sometimes exists between real life events, and events presented on video, children tend to confuse between what is real and what is not (Thierry and Pipe, 2009).). According to the discriminibality principle of source monitoring theory; if the medium of information is similar to reality, it is more likely for an individual to confuse between reality and fantasy (Thierry and Pipe, 2009). According to Thierry and Pipe (2009), several studies provided evidence that children confuse what they observe on video with reality. Thierry and Pipe (2009), use the discriminibality principle of source monitoring theory to explain that, children are more likely to confuse fantastical information seen on videos with reality, in contrast to events seen or heard live from another person (Thierry and Pipe, 2009). To elaborate, if children are not aware of the source of information, they might confuse false information with real information or events. In other words, they might not discriminate between what is real or not.

By highlighting the body of literature around children’s perceptions of reality and non reality in media, the following sections discuss the effects of confusing between fantasy and reality.

The Effects of Confusing Fantasy with Reality

Richert and Schlesinger (2016) explained that, when children view media content as real, they are more likely to transfer it to the real world, than content which is perceived as pretend. Additionally, if children are able to relate to characters in media, they are more likely to transfer this content to the world outside of the digital screen (Richert and Schlesinger, 2016). For example, one study found that more than half of four to 6 year olds transferred information from an on screen character, to the real world, believing that the character was a trustworthy source of information (Richert and Schlesinger, 2016). This notion was supported by Goldstein and Alperson (2019), who explained that preschool children’s preference is biased regarding the characters to whom they can relate to, as compared to the “fun” or “magical” characters. Preschoolers are less likely to transfer information from magical characters.

Conclusion and Controversy

According to Subbotsky (2004), some studies found that 4 and 5-year-old children did not engage in magical thinking, and were able to distinguish between possible and impossible events. Accordingly, children of this age insisted on some magical events as being “tricks”. Moreover, there is some research that shows some children are able to make distinctions between what is real and what is not, possible and impossible, as early as age three (Woolley and Ghossainy, 2013). On the other hand, some other studies reported that, children aged four, six, and eight explained phenomena without any physical explanation as magical events (Subbotsky, 2004). Studies of younger children have showed similar findings. Two and a half year olds were able to provide scientific explanations, believing that magical events can occur (Subbotsky, 2004). Similarly, 4 year olds believed that some events are “really magical.” In the context of video gaming, Johnson and Christie (2009), believed that computer based game playing, impact children’s imagination.

Little is known about the effects video games have on children’s cognitive development, in terms of reality and magical thoughts (Nakamuro et al., 2015). Simply put, almost two decades ago; it was discussed that, with the advancement in electronic media technology, new digital media needs to be developed, which clears the differences between physical and digital domains (Billinghurst et al., 2001). In our present time, more advanced electronic media had been introduced to our lives, yet children’s discrimination of what is real, or not, in relation to such media had been an ongoing debate.