The effects of game structure on video game and cognitive creativity in children

• In Event: Building on divergent thinking: Expanding approaches to measuring children’s creativity

Abstract

Creativity has been highlighted as a key skill for success in the 21st century (Barczak et al., 2010), with a particularly influential period for developing creativity under the age of ten (Hoffmann & Russ, 2012; Leggett, 2017; Russ, 2016; Russ et al., 1999). While there are a number of hypotheses on how to foster and measure creativity, one possible pathway for children and adults is video games (Blanco-Herrera et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2012; Shute & Rahimi, 2021). Research on video games typically focuses on possible negative effects of gaming in adolescents and young adults. However, ever younger children are given access to video games (Rideout & Robb, 2020), making research on younger groups necessary. As children reach the age of six, development of, and interest in, pretend play begins to dwindle, and more free time is spent on video games (Flynn et al., 2019; Thompson & Goldstein, 2019). Given modern marketing and accessibility, video games may even begin to replace of time typically spent on pretend play, especially as pretense toys are replaced by robotic toys and computer games (Balci & Ahi, 2017; Kardefelt-Winther, 2017; Sauerwein & Rees, 2020). There are several types of video games children commonly play, such as building games (Minecraft) or competitive online games (Fortnite). Importantly, video games are not a monolith; the range of games contain very different content, which may affect children differentially, including possibly priming or fostering their creativity.

The current study investigates how different children’s video games may prime cognitive creativity after playing, as well as how children conceptualize creativity within those video games. Children between the ages of 7-9 were randomly assigned to play one of two video games (Minecraft, with no narrative, or Dragon Quest Builders, with narrative) and were trained on the game in a lab space. After completing 30 minutes of game play, participants provided open-ended responses about their in-game creativity, and completed two trials of the Alternative Uses Tasks, which was then scored on fluency, flexibility, and originality. Children also self-reported total amount of past video game experience and gaming preferences. Parents completed surveys of demographics, measures of children’s creative behaviors, and their opinions on video games. Preliminary quantitative results from a partial sample (n=24) are inconclusive. Overall experience and creativity scores do not show a significant relationship, R2 = 0.016, F(1, 20) = 2.214, p = .57 and the difference in AUT scores between type of game played, using experience as a covariate, showed no significant difference F(1,19) = 0.49, p = 0.49. However, qualitative findings revealed differences in the way children talked about their creativity in the game. Children who played Minecraft mentioned creativity criteria such as original ideas and referenced differences from their past gameplay, while children who played Dragon Quest Builders focused on fulfilling the game’s pre-set building tasks, even when discussing creativity. These results illuminate what children’s creativity in video games looks like, laying the ground work for potential use of video games as creativity measurement and intervention.

Authors

• Darian Stapleton, George Mason University
  Presenting Author

• Thalia Raquel Goldstein, George Mason University