CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Digital Games and MediaEducational Games and GamificationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 371 of the 382 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social gaming: A systematic review

Open access
Gonçalves, David, Pais, Pedro, Gerling, Kathrin, Guerreiro, Tiago, Rodrigues, André·2023·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Digital games often constitute a shared activity where people can spend time together, communicate and socialize. Several commercial titles place social interaction at the center of their design. Prior works have investigated the social outcomes of gaming, and factors that impact the experience. Yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how social gaming has been approached and explored before. In this work, we present a systematic review covering 263 publications, gathered in February 2021, that study gaming experiences involving more than one person, with a focus on the social element that emerges among partakers (players and/or spectators). We contribute with a systematized understanding of (1) how the topic is being defined and approached, (2) what facets (mainly in terms of outcomes and determinants of the experience) are being acknowledged and (3) the methodologies leveraged to examine these. Our analysis, based on mixed deductive and inductive coding, reveals relevant gaps and tendencies, including (1) the emphasis in novel technologies and unconventional games, (2) the apparent negligence of player diversity, and (3) lower ecological validity associated with totally mediated evaluations and a lack of established constructs to assess social outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107851

Cites

371 of 371 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 382 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Yamagishi, 1999, Bounded generalized reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism, Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 72

Related

Metadata

Authors
Gonçalves, D., Pais, P., Gerling, K., Guerreiro, T., & Rodrigues, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
Gonçalves, David
ORCID
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
147
Pages
107851
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2023.107851
OpenAlex
W4381384711
Cited by
72
References
382
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Funders
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UI/BD/151178/2021, UIDP/00408/2020, CMU/TIC/0026/2021, UIDB/00408/2020, 2022.12448, 2022.08895)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
social gaming, multiplayer games, social interaction in games, spectators, social outcomes, game design, ecological validity, research gaps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review