Helen Malloy Mrs.

Evans PHYC 101 04/13/2011

Article Summary: Real Behavior in Virtual Environments
Video games are good ways of entertaining one-self. They can provide the mental and physical stimulation and satisfaction of human drives. Today¶s video games are becoming more immersive and spectacular. They draw you with their in depth story lines and intuitive game play. And as time as progressed, we see that they are becoming even more in-sync with the human body. Now consoles can be controlled hands free! As we become more and more entranced with virtual worlds, such as the ones created in video games, one can ask: can we utilize these new technologies for research purposes? In the research article: Real Behavior in Virtual Environments: Psychology Experiments in a Simple Virtual-Reality Paradigm Using Video Games, the researchers Michail D. Kozlov, and Mark K Johnsen experimented to find out if they are indeed a good research tool. Here is my review and critique of their research. In their research article Kozlov and Johnsen do not particularly argue a point. Their experiment was focused more on the usefulness of virtual reality to the field of phycology, more specifically, the study of behavior. Some of the reasons that were cited were that virtual reality is easy to manipulate, it is cheaper to set up, and they are impressively immersive. I was always interested in the realm of video games and its application beyond entertainment. I think that Kozlov and Johnsen pointed out some good facts about the application of video game¶s virtual environments as a learning tool. Essentially, games are nothing but a reflection of real world imagination, so applying it

but using VR as a first prerequisite to real world experimentation seems like realistic idea. If Kozlov and Johnsen wanted to prove that this is a good way of research then they should have picked participants reflective of the general population. would a person be more inclined to help someone if they knew someone was going to ask them. and Kozlov and Johnsen used the Good Samaritan Study. This would help me see their behavior beyond what was expected of them or told to them. The students were told to get through a labyrinth in a specific time period. What I would have changed would be the facts that they were told people were going to ask them for help. the Bystander effect. This adds validity to their findings and experiment because their research would be more ³believable´ if it correlated with previous research. to me. One area of the experiment that would hurt validity though would be the participant sample. ultimately nothing can replace the real world as a good experimenting tool. They are more than likely to have extensive video game play beyond the general population. This. In real life. or the opposite? . They were also told that virtual people would try and talk to them or ask for help. would have created some sort of bias. and Milgram classic experiment to help as a foundation for their results. Realistically they did need some previous experimentation to base their assumption on. If the participants are undergrad students then they are probably young adults between the ages of 18 and 25. I didn¶t have any qualms about the procedures of the experiment. However. They used forty undergrad psychology students for their first experiment and twenty-nine students from the forty previous students for the second experiment.to psychology is an excellent idea based on their reasoning. but they were reminded that they were on a time limit.

sound. Also. A computer and mouse seem really hard to get a real world experience from. This key factor was the belief about the reality of the environments and that their methodology was simplistic. however. This research article could be the stepping stone for more experimentation for the use of video games in psychology. To have a fully immersive game the graphics. the participant could have a slight biased. In their findings. and in the second experiment people were less likely to help in areas where there were large numbers of bystanders compared to areas with little to no bystanders. Thus. They said they their research was corrected in proving their hypothesis. I agree with this. . Experiment 2 was designed to increase the bystander effect by increasing the number of people asking for help. These were the things that I thought kept it from being an excellent experiment. and the realism of the game itself could have come into play. but the intent came through and presented quite nicely. and controls must be immersive as well. Kozlove and Johnsen proved their point that video games can be used as a form of research for behavior. but essentially was the same experiment. but admit that some key factors may have influenced the participants. I would have used all of the same participants instead of picking a few to see if there was a more concrete correlation. throughout their experiment little things were holding them back.This would illustrate a more real world experience. The use of the computer can inhibit the games realism. Kozlov and Johnsen found that the participants helped less people under the first experiment.

Johansen K. CyberPsychology. 711714. (2010). D. .. and Social Networking. M.Real Behavior in Virtual Environments: Psychology Experiments in a Simple Virtual-Reality Paradigm Using Video Games.Reference Kozlov. 13. Behavior. M.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful