Cited by 2,456Digital Games and MediaEducational Games and GamificationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 76 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The benefits of playing video games.

Granic, Isabela, Lobel, Adam, Engels, Rutger C. M. E.·2014·American Psychologist

Abstract

Video games are a ubiquitous part of almost all children's and adolescents' lives, with 97% playing for at least one hour per day in the United States. The vast majority of research by psychologists on the effects of "gaming" has been on its negative impact: the potential harm related to violence, addiction, and depression. We recognize the value of that research; however, we argue that a more balanced perspective is needed, one that considers not only the possible negative effects but also the benefits of playing these games. Considering these potential benefits is important, in part, because the nature of these games has changed dramatically in the last decade, becoming increasingly complex, diverse, realistic, and social in nature. A small but significant body of research has begun to emerge, mostly in the last five years, documenting these benefits. In this article, we summarize the research on the positive effects of playing video games, focusing on four main domains: cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social. By integrating insights from developmental, positive, and social psychology, as well as media psychology, we propose some candidate mechanisms by which playing video games may foster real-world psychosocial benefits. Our aim is to provide strong enough evidence and a theoretical rationale to inspire new programs of research on the largely unexplored mental health benefits of gaming. Finally, we end with a call to intervention researchers and practitioners to test the positive uses of video games, and we suggest several promising directions for doing so.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that psychological research on video games has been overwhelmingly focused on harms (aggression, addiction, depression) and that a balanced perspective should also consider documented cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social benefits. The authors synthesize existing evidence across these four domains and call for intervention researchers to test video games as mental health tools.

Key findings

  • Cognitive: training studies show shooter/"action" game players have faster and more accurate attention allocation, higher spatial resolution, and enhanced mental rotation; a meta-analysis (Uttal et al., 2013) found these spatial-skill gains comparable to formal high school/university courses and that they transfer to non-game spatial tasks. Effects are robust for shooter games but not for puzzle or role-playing games.
  • Motivational: games provide immediate, concrete feedback and dynamically calibrated difficulty, which the authors propose trains an incremental theory of intelligence and persistence; Ventura et al. (2013) found extent of game use predicted how long participants persisted on difficult anagrams outside gaming.
  • Emotional: puzzle games (e.g., *Angry Birds*, *Bejeweled II*) have been shown to improve mood, promote relaxation, and ward off anxiety; the authors propose games reward adaptive emotion-regulation strategies such as reappraisal, though they call this speculative.
  • Social: over 70% of gamers play with a friend (ESA, 2012); prosocial games predict prosocial behavior (Gentile et al., 2009), and cooperative (vs. competitive) play of violent games is linked to increased helping and reduced aggressive cognitions. In health applications, the *Re-Mission* RCT across 34 medical centers found significantly greater treatment adherence, self-efficacy, and cancer knowledge in the intervention group, and the game has been distributed to over 200,000 patients; the *SPARX* CBT-based game RCT was as effective as therapist-administered CBT for depression.
  • Harms acknowledged: 3% of Dutch and about 8% of U.S. youth who play games show pathological addiction symptoms; two meta-analyses on violent games and aggression reached conflicting conclusions.

Methods

Narrative review/integrative synthesis, not an original empirical study; no new data are collected. The authors summarize existing correlational, longitudinal, experimental, training, fMRI, and meta-analytic work across four domains (cognitive, motivational, emotional, social) and integrate developmental, positive, social, and media psychology theory to propose candidate mechanisms. They also review "serious games" in health and education (e.g., *Re-Mission*, *SPARX*) and outline future research and intervention directions.

Limitations

Stated by the authors: very few well-designed studies examine both positive and negative effects of the same games; most studies rely on survey/self-report rather than objective, psychophysiological, or neural measures; the field focuses almost exclusively on short-term effects with few longitudinal or diary studies; and most work examines single-player games despite over 70% of play being social. The authors explicitly note that claims about motivational, emotional, and social benefits are more speculative than cognitive ones, and that causal direction (selection vs. influence) remains unresolved. Evident from the text: as a narrative review it presents no systematic search or effect-size synthesis of its own, and several proposed mechanisms (e.g., reappraisal training, flow transferring to real-world outcomes) are described as untested hypotheses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034857

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 76 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 84 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 41
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
58 of 58
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most children and adolescents are enthralled with video games.

    “Given how enthralled most children and adolescents are with video games, we believe that a multidisciplinary team of psychologists, clinicians, and game designers can work together to develop genuinely innovative approaches to mental health interventions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The most essential mechanism of engagement in games is fun.

    “they often develop products that miss the most essential mechanism of engagement in games-the fun.”
2 of 2

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 72 references

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Kendall, P. C. (2011). Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  3. Kendall, S. B. (1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463-473. doi:10.1901/ jeab.1974.21-463
  4. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation (Vol. 24). New York, NY: Norton.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001

Metadata

Authors
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. M. E.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2014-01
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
66-78
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2063077274
Cited by
2,456
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 181 · 2025: 245 · 2024: 240 · 2023: 277 · 2022: 225 · 2021: 229 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 239 · 2018: 168 · 2017: 154 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 118 · 2014: 51
FWCI
298.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
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
video games, children and adolescents, cognitive benefits, motivation, emotional benefits, social benefits, mental health, psychosocial development, media psychology, positive psychology, game-based intervention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Child, Child Behavior, Cognition, Emotions, Humans, Mental Health, Motivation, Social Behavior, Video Games

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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