Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Availability of Video Games

Over the last few years, the availability of video games has become considerably more differentiated. Video games can now be played on the PC, on a gaming ­console (both mobile and at home) or on the cell phone. The available titles range from easy to play casual games in a web browser, to complex virtual worlds or action-packed shooter games (Blake and Klimmt, Chap. 23). Several thousand titles can be played on the various contemporary platforms. For the Nintendo DS, for example, more than 1,400 titles are publicly available (see USK/ESRB databases). Adults and children as consumers can therefore choose from a broad range of titles. The question however remains: How do gamers select the specific games they like to play from the available range of titles? With respect to the video game use of children and adolescents, this question gains importance. As many gamers are still minors, legal schemes are installed to protect them from harmful content.

The aim of this chapter is to scrutinize existing approaches in media choice ­theory as applied to video games. Based on these theoretical approaches, an ­integrative, phase-based media choice model for video games is deduced. This model accounts for the various phases in the media choice and selection process. Further, the emphasis is put on the media choice of children and adolescents with respect to three influencing factors: parental mediation, developmental status and legal regulations. A critical evaluation of the integrated model for explaining ­children’s media choice and possible practical implications are discussed in the ­concluding section of this chapter.

Approaches in Media Choice

Along with the enormous range of video games on offer, academic research on video games has increased tremendously over the last few years (Klimmt 2009). Research no longer focuses exclusively on the – in particular negative – effects of video games (Lee and Peng 2006). The question ‘Why do people play video games?’ has gained some prominence in academic research as well (Bryant and Davies 2006, 182; Fritz 2003, 10). The answer to this question lies in a range of different approaches (Vorderer 2006), each with a specific theoretical (and disciplinary) focus. Four generally acclaimed approaches are at the centre of attention in this chapter: the ‘uses-and-gratification approach’ (UGA), the ‘transfer model’ by Jürgen Fritz, integrated action-theory-based approaches and economic decision models.

The Uses-and-Gratification Perspective

The uses-and-gratification approach (UGA) is one of the most prominent theoretical approaches in explaining video game (and media in general) choices (Scherer and Naab 2009). The UGA is not a monolithic concept but rather a range of theoretical and methodological approaches. The basic assumption of the UGA is the perception of media users as active recipients. These media users have certain needs that they aspire to satisfy through various media. Thus, the media become possible sources for ­gratification (Ruggiero 2000). One starting point of UGA-based research is the ­identification of typologies of needs that explain why certain media are selected and made use of. As of today, several typologies of needs for video game use have been identified. In particular, the need for challenge and competition, but also – with respect to multi-player games – the need for community and social exchange seems to play a decisive role in explaining gamers’ video game choices (Jansz and Martens 2005; Lucas and Sherry 2004; Seifert and Jöckel 2009; Sherry et al. 2006; Yee 2005).

From a theoretical perspective, the distinction between ‘gratifications sought’ and ‘gratifications obtained’ is a central component of more elaborated concepts in the UGA tradition. The now almost classical ‘expectancy-value model’ by Palmgreen (1984), for example, argues that gratifications sought are the product of expectations towards a media product and their evaluations. Media use is then based on these ‘gratifications sought’. When the medium – a video game – is used, the ­gratifications obtained from this use may then be compared with the original ­gratifications sought which result in a feedback process for further media choice processes (Palmgreen 1984; Schlütz 2002, 46). Schlütz (2002) expanded this model in order to explain media choice with video games. In her perspective, the starting point for choosing a video game is a deficit motivation, a lack that – when it becomes conscious – needs to be overcome. This results in certain gratifications sought, ­leading to the use of video games. In Schlütz’ perspective, video-game use can then be distinguished in two distinct phases. The gaming experience phase is mainly based on flow-like (Sherry 2004) experiences, while the preceding phase is characterized by the development and evaluation of obtained gratifications. In line with the ­expectancy-value model, these gratifications obtained impact on the expectations of a media product in following media choice processes (Schlütz 2002, 72–78).

Still, no general model for the use of video games could be deduced as both gratifications obtained and gratifications sought may differ not only with respect to media in general but also with respect to certain video game genres and types. Besides the open methodological issues, in particular with respect to the scales used in UGA research, a general critique on UGA-based research for video games is the perception of the user as a conscious decision maker. Asking a gamer after a video game session why he has played a game may yield answers that do not account for the actual decision-making process (Vorderer 2006, 55–56). Additionally, the question remains open why the choice was made for a specific game (Jöckel 2009, 99–100). Still, UGA research may generate a good starting point for media choice theory, as long as it moves beyond the identification of more or less concrete ­typologies of needs.

The Transfer Model by Jürgen Fritz

In contrast to UGA-based approaches which originated in media research in general, Jürgen Fritz developed a genuine model for explaining video game use. Arguing from a media pedagogy/media education perspective, he sees the aspects power, sovereignty and control as explanatory variables for the fascination of video games. His approach departs both from the stimulus-response-based effects tradition and the UGA tradition with its focus on intention-driven decision-making processes. The fundamental assumption of Fritz’ model is the perception of the world from a constructivist perspective. Reality is shaped by the cognitive capacities of individuals. The world we are living in therefore consists of several worlds that are generated by our cognitive system. Cognitive schemata allow us to navigate between these worlds. The ‘virtual world’ of video games is one of these worlds – such as the ‘real world’ (of concrete tangible objects around us) or the ‘dream world’. Between these different ‘worlds’, so-called transfer processes occur (Fritz 2006).

Fritz’ model then assumes that gamers choose the games they play with foresight for possible transfer processes (see Fritz and Fehr 1997, 67). What gamers aspire to are power, sovereignty and control (Fritz 2003, 10). Achieving mastery in the game through cognitive or sensomotoric skills is seen as a crucial aspect of gaming. The resulting process can be described as ‘structural coupling’ (strukturelle Kopplung): Gamers’ preferences are shaped by their need for control (ibid.). These preferences are then matched with the concrete offer of video games. Structural coupling means simultaneity, but not necessarily a causal relationship between certain structures and action patterns or experiences between the ­individual, cognitively generated worlds of men (Fritz and Fehr 1997, 67; Fritz 2006, 121). The concrete aspect of game playing is then modelled, in parallel with Schlütz’ approach (2002), as ‘flow’-like activity which results in an amalgamation of action and consciousness (Fritz 2006, 132–134).

Fritz concludes that a functional scheme can be deduced. The starting point for this scheme is a primary motivational source such as boredom or a need for excitation. When these motivational sources are confronted with a concrete offer of video games (as a kind of requesting stimulus), not only a satisfaction of these primary motivations can be achieved, but they may also result in self-concentrated gaming experiences (labelled as secondary gaming actions). In the end, these gaming experiences may lead to mood management and flow experiences, if players achieve power and control in the game. However, boredom and failure in the game may lead to withdrawal from it (ibid., 138–140).

Fritz’ transfer model with its roots in constructivist action theory is an elaborated attempt to explain video game use. In contrast to approaches in the UGA tradition, its empirical examination is still limited. The few qualitative studies that were carried out are very much oriented on concrete cases (Witting 2007). No general model of transfer processes could be deduced. The fact that gamers form a connection between their real world leisure activities such as playing football and virtual world gaming preferences (playing football games) is rather plausible but cannot explain why gamers prefer one (similar) alternative over the other. Accounting for the different livelihoods of gamers and the relationships between the different circumstances (or ‘worlds’) seems to be an important element for an elaborated but also applicable media choice model for video games.

Integrated Action-Theory-Based Models

Approaches in media psychology and entertainment research that expand the UGA perspective have led to new insights for answering the question ‘Why do media users play video games?’ (Klimmt 2009, 65–66; Vorderer 2006). One focus of these elaborated approaches (Klimmt 2006) lies in the analysis of the reception process of video game playing (Meldgaard, Chap. 17). Not so much the selection and choice in the pre-communicative phase but the processes that occur during the communicative phase are in the centre of research. Still, one theoretical branch in entertainment research provides some additional insights for media choice. Video games, like other media, may be used for mood management. Grodal (2000) as well as Bryant and Davies (2006) see the essential function of video games in the affective ­regulation of moods. The application of mood management or selective exposure theory (Knobloch-Westerwick 2006) to video games is not without problems. Mood ­management ­theory, for example, is not able to explain repeated exposure to video games (Bryant and Davies 2006, 190). Overall, empirical studies using mood management as a ­theoretical background are still limited (Reinecke and Trepte 2008).

Aspects of mood management or selective exposure theory may be integrated with elements of the UGA tradition, particularly the expectancy-value model in order to explain media choice processes. Hartmann (2006), for example, aims to find a causal explanation of selection intensities of different media offers (Hartmann 2006, 174). Based on the expectancy-value model, he argues that media users evaluate an alternative based on developed preferences. What he includes in the decision-making process are various forms of costs. Not all possible alternatives have the same costs. Costs may thus be components of what turns out to be the expectancy of a certain alternative (ibid., 148). Furthermore, motives or needs that are central in the UGA tradition are only one component of expectancies, but the video-game-specific knowledge system and expectancies of (required) competencies also impact on the media choice process. The effect of video game exposure may thus result in varying degrees of cognitive or affective response (ibid., 125). If users do not assume to have the required level of competence to play a certain game, this game is not chosen as an alternative, if gamers’ aim is cognitive relaxation as the potential relaxation benefit is overshadowed by the expected hours of training.

Overall, Hartmann’s model is a very complex and theoretically saturated model for explaining the (psychological) processes of media choice processes. Nevertheless, as with all other models described, the characteristics of the media offer are not fully accounted for.

Consumer-Research-Based Decision Models

Media choice models based on the expectancy-value model implicitly involve the assumption of men as – at least partially – rational beings. In economic theory, this assumption can be summed up under the concept of the Homo Oeconomicus. The basic concept sees individuals as aiming to reduce their costs and maximize their profits. Their preferences are fixed, and the individual has all the necessary information (Schweiger 2007, 168–169). For media choice processes, it is more accurate to assume that individuals only possess limited information as it does not seem to be rational to gather information on several thousand titles before making a decision. Therefore, the decision-making process can be described as one under uncertainty.

Media products such as video games are characterized as experience goods (ibid., 186–193). The value of an experience good only becomes apparent ex post, after the product has been used or experienced. Still, experience goods may signal their potential value ex ante. In order to reduce the risk of ­consumption decisions, consumer may, for example, rely on certain product characteristics such as genre information, age ratings or external reviews (Jöckel 2009, 82–83; Neelamegham and Jain 1999). In effect, this may lead to what Gerhard Schulze labels ‘Experience Rationality’ (Erlebnisrationalität), where actions that aim to achieve certain ­experiences are used to organize one’s self. With more and more complex environments and options, routinized strategies might result in different user typologies (Schulze 2005, 41–42).

When children, adolescents or adults choose a certain video game, not only do their personal traits and preferences decide which game to choose, but the games themselves signal their qualities upon which users can base their decisions upon (Jöckel 2009, 107–110). The more accurate a game signals its qualities and the more these qualities match the preferences of the individual user, the more likely this game will be chosen by consumers. The theory of subjective quality assessment accounts for these external qualities, arguing that in addition to the evaluation as in the expectancy-value model, users judge the different alternatives on the basis of the perceivable qualities of the media product (Wolling 2009). Not accounting for the experience of the good properties of media products, this theory has not yet been applied to video games but may nevertheless provide some useful insights for a complex and dynamic video game choice model.

In addition to Hartmann’s account of different cost situations, one also needs to account for the fact that most video games are not free. Monetary costs are still a neglected area of research in media choice theory (Scherer and Naab 2009). Costs may play an essential role at least for the acquisition of video games. This suggests that the video game choice process consists of a use as well as a concrete acquisition decision.

An Integrated Phase-Based Media Choice Model for Video Games

A Phase-Based Approach on Media Choice

An integrated and dynamic media choice model for video games needs to account not only for the individual characteristics of the potential users but also for the qualities of the products. Different products with their individual characteristics can be seen as alternatives within the decision-making process. Additionally, it has become apparent that the media choice process is not monolithic but consists of different phases. All of these phases are located in what can be labelled the pre-communicative phase (Schweiger 2007). It ranges from the intention to use a certain media product to the concrete use, the actual game playing. The aim of this model is to analyse the interplay of these processes.

Three distinct phases can be deduced that take place at separated stages of time but are not independent of each other (Dogruel and Jöckel 2011). For each of these phases, specific theoretical approaches as outlined above are of relevance. The three phases are

  • The phase of video game acquisition

  • The phase of intermedia choice

  • The phase of intramedia choice

The phase of video game acquisition is an often neglected aspect of video game choice. Only if users have bought or acquired a video game through some other means (shared, downloaded or received) can this game be played. This phase also consists of – in a broader sense – the acquisition of the relevant gaming hardware as a previous investment decision (Scherer and Naab 2009).

The phase of intermedia choice has often been in the focus of academic research (Hartmann 2006; Schlütz 2002) and sees video game choices, following the UGA tradition, as only one alternative out of a broad range of rival leisure activities.

The intramedia choice is the phase that follows the decision to use video games as leisure activity. Here, users decide which of the games they have access to they will use. It becomes apparent that intramedia choices can only be made within the scope of the available options for which the decision during the acquisition phase has set the restrictions. As already implied in the expectancy-value model, the decision at the intramedia choice phase has then effects on decisions in proceeding acquisition or intermedia choice phases.

An Integrated Media Choice Model

The classical expectancy-value model occupies the central stage of the proposed media choice model. In particular for the inter- and intramedia phases, approaches in the mood management or selective exposure tradition demonstrate the necessity to include more situation-based factors. Here, the assumption of the rational media user needs to be re-evaluated. Emotional factors may interfere with rational decision making. Based on certain moods, users will come to different decisions (Bryant and Davies 2006; Hartmann 2006). Moods may directly impinge on the concrete evaluation of an alternative.

The transfer model by Fritz states that not only situation- or mood-based implications influence the decision-making process, but video game use is embedded in the broader livelihood of users. Gamers are not blank sheets but are human beings with distinct preferences but also identities and social environments. These environmental factors shape what users expect from a certain game.

The expectations are – a lesson learnt from Hartmann (2006) – more complex than elementary psychological needs that need to be fulfilled. Expected costs (time, money) but also expected competencies and the game-based knowledge system play a role for the constitution of these expectancies (Weber and Shaw 2009) which then lead to a concrete decision model that can be characterized as a black-box that is filled by the different individual processes.

As of now, the characteristics of video games themselves are still neglected. As consumer decision models for experience goods (Neelamegham and Jain 1999) and the theory of subjective quality assessment (Wolling 2009) both assume, users will compare their own expectancies with the signalled characteristics of the product. It becomes apparent that this comparison is of crucial importance particularly for the acquisition phase. Here, users have to rely on external information – reviews in magazines, web portals or indications on the game box itself – in order to ­adequately judge if a video game will suit their needs or not. Prior experience has not been made directly but yet experiences with the genre or the brand or franchise may guide the decision-making process. Here, the influence of peers as advisories may play a crucial role as well.

Thus, for the acquisition phase, these signalled characteristics of the product are confronted with the individual expectancies of the user but also with his or her competencies.

This perspective assumes that in line with findings on consumer decision making (Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg 2003, 369–374), video game acquisition choices are decisions made under a condition of considerable cognitive control. Users actively seek out information to justify their decision making (extensive or at least limited decision making). This assumption however is no longer valid for the intermedia and intramedia choice phases.

In these later phases, uncertainties have already been reduced – the video game has already been acquired. Thus, more situation-based factors, such as moods or needs, may impact on the decision-making process. No longer complex evaluations of product characteristics and individual expectancies occur. Instead, ritualized and habitualized decision making with less cognitive control may take place. With respect to the intramedia choice phase, users only have to decide which of the games among their repertoire they will use. They have already had prior experiences with this game, so that – with the exception of the first time use of a particular game – users make decisions at least partially knowing what to expect and which needs this particular game will fulfil.

The actual uses of the video game then lead to the dynamic component of the illustrated phase-based media choice model. By playing a video game, expectancies are re-evaluated. Experiences are gathered. Competencies are improved; self-efficacy may increase (or decrease in case of an unpleasant gaming experience). Users may even act as external information sources for other users by writing about a game at an online portal or by direct word-of-mouth among friends. Users implicitly evaluate their gaming experience. This evaluation impacts on ongoing decision-making processes by oneself and others.

Media Choice of Children and Adolescents

Three crucial aspects need to be integrated in the proposed phase-based media choice model for children and adolescents: (1) developmental aspects, (2) parental mediation and (3) legal regulation. These three aspects need to be integrated into the proposed media choice model.

Developmental Aspects

Few studies have accounted for the gaming preferences of children and adolescents (Valkenburg and Cantor 2000). There are several descriptive studies on what games children and adolescents actually use or prefer (Meister et al., Chap. 19; Jöckel and Dogruel 2009; MPFS 2008b; Kutner and Olson 2008; von Salisch et al. 2006), but few of these studies actually try to explain why children chose a particular game. Based on the UGA, von Salisch, Oppl and Kristen assume that children are – as proposed in the phase-based model – not only rational users. Instead, three aspects determine media choice processes by children and ­adolescents. Children choose games that (a) address their developmental task, (b) offer possibilities for escapism and mood management or (c) match their level of development (von Salisch et al. 2006, 148).

Not all games, however, are fun for children of all ages. As the feeling of mastery and control is of central importance for a positive gaming experience, gamers need to be able to complete the tasks offered by a game (Fritz 2006; Sherry 2004). If children depending on their developmental status are not able to cope with certain challenges because their cognitive or sensomotoric skills are not developed enough, playing these games would not result in a fun experience. On the other hand, if they become more experienced gamers, simple and easy games – such as some jump-and-run games – are no longer attractive as the gamers feel ‘under-challenged’. Developmental tasks (Havighurst 1953) and gaming thus go hand in hand. Learning to read on the one hand might be a developmental task that can be learned in a ­typical children’s game (von Salisch et al. 2006). For adolescents, on the other hand, researchers have argued that shooter games may fulfil a crucial role for their development and identity formation, as adolescent males may learn to cope with feelings such as anxiety, anger and stress in action-related, violent video games (Jansz 2005). Developmental task and status may thus influence the expectancies children and adolescents have towards certain games (Stephenson, Chap. 15).

Legal Regulations

Developmental aspects however play a crucial role for the second influence factor on children’s and adolescents’ media choice: legal regulations. Minors are not allowed to play all games. Worldwide, age-based regulatory systems have been installed (Smith 2006) to protect children from the harmful influence of violent or sexually offensive media content. The basic assumption of these schemes is that the developmental status of a child refers to a certain age (Süss 2004, 33). De jure, legal regulation denies children the access to certain games based on the children’s age. This is an obvious influence factor of media choice, as certain games are not available for them. Legal regulations, however, only impinge on the first phase of media choice, the acquisition phase. De facto, this influence is even more restricted, as studies indicate that unsuitable video games, meaning games for which the children are legally too young, are a rather widespread phenomenon particularly among boys (Jöckel and Dogruel 2009). Research indicates even a contrarian effect. Games that are forbidden become more attractive (forbidden fruit effect) (Bivanjk et al. 2009; Nikken and Jansz 2007).

Parental Mediation

The reason for this seeming failure of legal regulations lies in the third crucial ­influence factor on children’s media choice: parental mediation. Parents mediate their children’s media use. Rooted in television research, parental mediation has been analysed for the Internet (Livingstone and Helsper 2008) or video games (Nikken et al. 2007). Overall, four distinct mediation strategies could be identified in the various studies: the restrictive strategy, the evaluative or active strategy, the co-use strategy or the lack of any strategy (Livingstone and Helsper 2008; Nikken et al. 2007; Valkenburg et al. 1999).

Restrictive mediation relies heavily on the use of bans and time restrictions. Children are not allowed to watch certain programmes, to play certain games or are only allowed to access the Internet for a given, limited period of time. It becomes apparent that preferring such a restrictive mediation strategy impinges on the media choice of children and adolescents. Restrictive mediation seems to directly influence the acquisition phase, when a particular game is outright forbidden by the parents. The effect of this restrictive mediation, however, is rather limited (Livingstone and Helsper 2008). Children at an early age develop strategies to either evade their parents’ orders or to persuade them to buy a game for which they are still too young (Kutner and Olson 2008). Furthermore, the already mentioned forbidden fruit effect makes forbidden games – at least for older boys – even more attractive (Bijvank et al. 2009). Still, the preference for a restrictive mediation strategy may influence children’s media choice processes in several ways. In the acquisition phase, it may result in forbidding the purchase of a certain game. In the concrete use situation as a consequence of intramedia choice, it may limit the available time for a game and therefore also the outlook on potential gratifications.

As with restrictive mediation, evaluative or active mediation may influence both the acquisition and intramedia choice phase. During the acquisition phase – it may be assumed – parents with an active mediation style try to explain why their children can or cannot use a particular game. However, research on parental mediation and game acquisition is limited (Nikken et al. 2007). It could be hypothesized that restrictive strategies rely more on age-based ratings, whereas active mediation focuses more on content-based descriptions. However, empirical research could not fully prove this assumption (ibid.). For the intramedia phase, active mediation could mean that a particular game will no longer be chosen, as parents outline the potential negative content effects. Still, there is even less research on this phase of the media choice process.

A similarly limited amount of research is available for the role of co-use ­strategies. What makes the situation even more complicated is that by contrast to other media, co-use of video game playing occurs even less than co-use for television or the Internet (MPFS 2008b, 13). As for the acquisition phase, it could be expected that parents with a strong emphasis on co-use mediation would influence their children in choosing games that allow for co-use options such as sports games or family-related titles. This hypothesis however has not yet been empirically addressed.

The lack of any mediation strategy, however, is expected to lead to a proliferation of unsuitable video games for the children. Even if this assumption sounds plausible, it still lacks empirical foundation.

Integrating Developmental Status, Legal Regulations and Parental Mediation into the Media Choice Model

Overall, parental video game mediation can be seen as a third factor influencing children’s media choice processes. Still, it is not independent of the above-mentioned aspects of legal regulations and developmental status. Despite the mixed findings on the importance of age ratings for video games and their role for parents (Bushman and Cantor 2003; Gentile and Walsh 2002; MPFS 2008a; Nikken et al. 2007), it can be stated that there is a connection between parental mediation and legal regulation schemes. Without the mediating role of the parents, legal regulations cannot work properly. Furthermore, the preference for a certain mediation strategy not only is influenced by socio-demographic factors, psychological predispositions and experiences on the part of parents but is also dependent on the respective child’s developmental status.

With respect to the proposed phase-based media choice model, it becomes apparent that each of the three aspects – parental mediation, legal regulation and developmental status – plays a different role for the three phases. Legal regulations for example may only impact on the acquisition phase. Here, age ratings can act as a guideline for acquisition decisions. They can be seen as one of the instruments signalling a product’s inherent qualities. Additionally, parental mediation that uses age ratings as guidelines is particularly focused on the acquisition phase. Here, parents can decide if a game is bought or not. Findings from the MPFS KIM study (2008b) illustrate that parents are indeed the prime source for video game acquisition. Still, if a video game is acquired through other means, this form of regulation no longer applies. Restrictive parental mediation may then not only impact on the acquisition phase but may, for example, reduce the alternatives in the intermedia choice phase. Evaluative mediation is presumably stronger in influencing the concrete gaming experience and therefore the post-consumption evaluation. Developmental status not only determines the preferences for video games but also impacts on the gaming experience and the post-consumption evaluation of a video game as well.

Discussion

Academic research in media pedagogy, communication studies, media psychology or consumer research has come up with complex approaches in explaining the choice of video games. This chapter argued for the need for an integrated, dynamic media choice model. Therefore, the video game choice process needs to be separated into three distinct but also interdependent phases: the acquisition, the intermedia and the intramedia choice phase. The often neglected acquisition phase sets the constraints for the following phases that have already been at the focus of academic research. Following approaches from a UGA perspective but also integrating findings from the transfer model by Fritz, integrated action-theory-based choice models by Hartmann (2006) and economic decision making (Neelamegham and Jain 1999), the relationships between the individual media choice phases have been evaluated. Expanding the notion of Fritz’ transfer model (Fritz 2006), the integration of concrete video game characteristics can be seen as a crucial element for the identified acquisition phase. Here, elements from economic consumer research can help to foster our understanding of media choice processes for video games. The proposed model only presents a rather broad framework for the individual processes at the different phases. For future research, these processes need to be further scrutinized. The already existing, illustrated approaches on media choice for video games provide useful starting points for this endeavour. With respect to the video game choice of children and adolescents, three crucial influencing aspects could be identified: legal regulation, parental mediation and developmental aspects. Again, this chapter provides a rather broad framework for the potential impacts of these distinct aspects. As an important finding, it could, for example, be outlined that the proliferation of unsuitable video games is not a sign of a failure in the legal system but is the result of a complex process within the interplay of developmental tasks, parental mediation and video game choice. It stresses the importance of further analysing the interdependence between acquisition decisions and parental mediation. As the acquisition phase could be identified as the phase where the highest level of cognitive control is assumed, this phase seems to be of crucial importance for an active mediation of video game use between parents and their children.

Overall, the outlined implications illustrate that when analysing the video game choice of children and adolescents, not only psychological dispositions need to be thoroughly accounted for but also the interplay with social and mediating factors in particular on the part of the parents and peers.