Go with the Flow?

The implications of flow on game-based learning and video game addiction

by Malcolm Amos

Introduction

The presence of technology, electronic media devices, the internet, and video games is so prevalent in our culture, society, and daily lives that most people will have at some point felt the state of optimal experience, known as “Flow”, that comes from total immersion or involvement in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) such as surfing the Internet, watching videos, or playing games. Flow theory was introduced by Csikszentmihalyi in the mid-1970s to explain the pleasant feelings people experience when they focus themselves on a very intensive task (Meseguer-Artola & Rodríguez-Ardura, 2016, p. 1) for either work or leisure. Originally associated with the emotional state of enjoyment and fulfilment felt by athletes and artists, the term is also applicable in describing the happiness experienced by all people (Chen, 2007, p.31) immersed in an activity.

At the heart of the flow experience is the need to balance the skills of the individual with the challenges of the activity (see Figure 1). This balance is very delicate and an imbalance can lead to feelings of apathy (the result of low challenge and low skill), anxiety (the result of high challenge and low skill), or boredom (the result of low challenge and high skill) (Csikszentmihalyi, as cited in Admiraal, Huizenga, Akkerman, & Ten Dam, 2011, p. 1186).

FIGURE 1 Model of flow. From “The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning,” by W. Admiraal, J. Huizenga, S. Akkerman, & G. Ten Dam. 2011, Computers in Human Behavior, 27, p. 1186.

Other important components of flow include: concentration on the task; clearly defined goals; a sense of personal control; action-awareness merging; a loss of ego or self-consciousness; an altered sense of time; and immediate feedback (Chen, 2007, p.31-32).  Jackson and Eklund (as cited in Hull, Williams, & Griffiths, 2013) include a ninth component for flow experience – autotelic experience.

Kiili (2005) redefines flow by categorizing flow characteristics into two dimensions – flow antecedents and flow experience. Kiili (2005) suggests that the challenge and skill balance, clearly defined goals, feedback, sense of control, and the merging of action and awareness are factors that encourage people to enter an experience of flow, while task concentration, loss of ego, altered sense of time, and autotelic experience are mental experiences encountered during a state of flow (p. 15).

Flow in Game Based Learning

No matter how you define flow, most of these characteristics can be found in video games and the experiences of digital game play. In fact, digital and online games today are designed and created to include important aspects of flow such as clear goals, feedback, customized control, and the mastery of skills through various challenges (Chen, 2007, p. 32). Although the results of flow in a game are typically focused on enjoyment and entertainment, there are also important positive implications of flow that relate to education. Some studies of flow and digital games have shown that flow: improves game performance (Admiraal et al., 2011); enhances academic performance (Meseguer-Artola & Rodriguez-Ardura, 2016); motivates learners to undertake more challenges during game play (Kiili, 2005); and raises player loyalty to games (Su, Chiang, Lee, & Chang, 2016). Many of these findings match the learning principles mentioned by Gee (2005) for good video game use (p. 34). Furthermore, Van Eck (2006) and Arnab et al. (2012) list flow as having positive effects on engagement, immersion and interactivity in game based learning.

Flow in Addiction

However not all outcomes of flow in regard to online and digital gaming are seen as positive. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) noted that often a flow experience is “so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it” (p. 4). In other words, the positive effects of flow in a game can cause players to engage in behaviour that may lead to addictive tendencies.

While attempts have been made to define addiction, there is still considerable debate about how it should be classified. Yee (as cited in Wu, Scott, & Yang, 2013) defines online gaming addiction as “a recurring behaviour that is unhealthy or self-destructive which the individual has difficulty ending” (p. 206). Most studies of gaming addiction have adopted Griffiths (1996) framework of internet addiction. This framework of addiction, adapted from gambling machine addiction research, focuses on six components: salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse (p. 20). Although extensive, these components are not without controversy. Further discussion on this issue will come later.

To distinguish if addictive gaming tendencies are the result of flow experience or continual repetitive behaviour, Chou and Ting (2003) undertook a study. Their results found that although recurring behaviours can affect addictive tendencies in gaming, the presence of flow has a greater impact on triggering addiction and habit formation (p. 672). Some other significant studies on flow and addiction have also found that: online gamers who experience flow as the result of social interaction and co-playing are more likely to develop addictive behaviours than those who experience flow as the result of playing games for entertainment and/or to escape from reality (Liu & Chang, 2016); gamers who become specialists or experts in online games are more likely to display addictive tendencies as a result of their deep flow experiences than other kinds of players (Wu et al., 2013); the most significant predictor for addiction in flow is the component of time being altered during play (Hull et al., 2013; Yang, Lu, Wang, & Zhao, 2014).

Implications of Flow and Addiction in South Korea

While understanding the role of flow experience within gaming is important for all contexts, it is especially relevant in understanding the highly addictive gaming context of South Korea. Unlike many western cultures, South Koreans view video games not just as a means of entertainment but as an integral part of their culture and daily lives (Zhou, 2017). Factors which significantly impact Korea’s addictive infatuation with video games include social access, and professional gaming and competition (Zhou, 2017). Other Asian countries, like China, also exhibit similar characteristics in their gaming culture.

The first factor of gaming addiction in South Korea is how Koreans typically access and play video games. In many western countries game playing and access to online gaming is confined to the solitude and privacy of homes. However, in Asian countries internet cafés, or “PC Bangs” in South Korea, are the most common location for playing video games. PC Bangs offer users broadband internet connections on high-end computers set up for video gaming at a minimal hourly rate (“PC Bang”, 2017). What differentiates PC Bangs from other kinds of internet cafés in the world is that these facilities are places people visit to specifically socialize and interact with each other (Vratonjic, Milosevic, Dragojevic, & Maeder, 2007, p. 16). In addition, most Koreans play online multiplayer video games that require teamwork and interaction with other gamers. Therefore, it is quite common for a PC Bang to be taken over by teams of players who transform the space into simulated combat posts for coordinating and executing their game strategies and play (Vratonjic et al., 2007, p. 16).  Both of these considerations illustrate why addiction has become a major problem in South Korea. Essentially, South Koreans’ gaming and flow experiences are being driven by a high socially interactive environment in which extensive amounts of co-playing form a common part of a gamer’s daily experiences. In light of the negative results found from flow experience research mentioned earlier, it is little wonder then that many South Koreans tend to exhibit addictive behaviours as a result.

A second key factor that actively contributes to gaming addiction in Korean culture is the extensive presence of professional gaming and competition. In South Korea, professional gamers are paid huge six-figure incomes to join gaming teams sponsored by major corporations and businesses. These teams enjoy a celebrity-like status and regularly compete in competitions and world-wide tournaments that can last for several months at a time. Competition games are viewed live by thousands of fans and broadcast to even greater numbers of people through online networks and full-time video game television channels. (Vratonjic et al., 2007; Zhou, 2017). Because social behaviour in South Korea is centred around playing video games, gamers look to the professionals for success, recognition, and approval. Consequently, the boundaries between ‘normal’ and ‘pathologically’ video game use in South Korea has become blurred (Starcevic, 2012, p. 16) as professional gamers regularly practice gaming skills for up to 12 hours a day (Vratonjic et al., 2007, p. 9). These requirements of professional gaming and competition are being observed and interpreted by adolescent South Koreans outside the competition arena as reasonable measures of gaming which in turn prompts them to devote a great deal of time to developing and improving their gaming skills beyond the norm through activities such as: keeping track of the latest game strategies and tips; reading gaming magazines; searching gaming forums and websites; watching game walk-throughs and commentary on gaming television networks (Vratonjic et al., 2007, p. 13) and engaging in excessive amounts of game play. However, as pointed out earlier in the studies of flow and addiction, attempts by gamers to become specialists and online gaming experts tend to generate flow experiences that, though highly rewarding and enjoyable, result in behaviours that can become extremely addictive. This is clearly evident in this aspect of South Korea’s gaming culture.

Several high-profile cases of addiction in Korea involving game-related deaths and the involuntary manslaughter of an infant have led South Korea to view Internet and online gaming addiction “as one of its most serious public health issues” (Block, 2008, p. 306). Some ways that the country is taking steps to address addiction include: creating a government agency to address the issue (Freeman, 2008, p. 44); implementing shutdown laws for gaming; training addiction counsellors; and creating hospitals and treatment centres to diagnose and treat addiction disorders (Block, 2008, p. 306).

Addiction Diagnosis Issues

In order to diagnose and treat addiction effectively, it is important to have a clear understanding of the characteristics of the addiction. As mentioned earlier, there is still a great deal of controversy in this area.

One of the reasons why diagnosis for addiction can be difficult is due to the fact that ‘addiction’ is not recognized as a formal diagnosis within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (Starcevic, 2008, p.16). The closest concept to addiction that has been formally recognized is that of dependence, a term often associated with substance use.

Another reason why addiction diagnosis is a challenge is because of the model used to describe addiction characteristics. The framework and concept that has most often been used in studies of internet and gaming addiction is that of Griffiths (1996) which is based on studies involving pathological gambling machine use. Unlike addiction, pathological gambling has been classified and recognized in the DSM-IV as a behavioural addiction or impulse control disorder (Starcevic, 2008, p.18). However, Starcevic (2008) argues that the framework used to diagnose pathological gambling may be unsuitable for application to gaming addiction because of its connections to behavioural addiction rather than substance-related dependence (p. 17). Furthermore, Starcevic (2008) points out that a diagnosis for gaming addiction may not always be possible because not all of the six criteria (salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse) may be met by gamers (p. 17).

A third reason for diagnosis issues is comorbidity. According to Block (2008), addicted patients typically show symptoms of other disorders, making accurate diagnosis and treatment a challenge. He believes that in many western cultures gaming addiction may not be detected by therapists because patients tend to seek out diagnosis for other comorbid conditions (p. 306).

A final consideration for addiction diagnosis concerns the misinterpretation of flow experiences that relate to high engagement as addictive tendencies and behaviour. In considering the six criteria of addiction presented by Griffiths (1996), Charlton and Danworth (2004) believed that some of the criteria used to evaluate addiction were actually indicators of engagement because many of the negative consequences associated with these measures were absent (p. 61). They also suggested that the results of addiction numbers from early studies of addiction were over exaggerated because of the misinterpretation of engagement factors as exhibitors of addiction (Charlton & Danworth, 2004, p. 66). The findings from their research showed that euphoria, tolerance, and cognitive salience were more likely to be indicators of high engagement than measures of addiction (p. 65). The implications of these criteria changes will be useful in defining and shaping the understanding of addiction in future research and have provided a clearer distinction between activities that are considered to be engaging as opposed to addictive.

Conclusion

As technology and video games enter the learning environment it is vital that educators can distinguish the kinds of experiences and factors that are needed to initiate flow experiences that will lead to positive outcomes of learning and engagement, while avoiding the negatives factors that can promote addictive tendencies and behaviours. Investigations of flow and addiction studies have highlighted several negative aspects of addictive behaviours. Unfortunately, many of these factors are evident in South Korea’s addictive gaming culture. Although much still needs to be done in order to accurately measure and diagnose video game addiction, understanding the differences between engagement and addiction is important for future studies.

References:

Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185-1194.

Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, J., De Freitas, S., Popescu, M., Romero, M., … & Usart, M. (2012). Framing the adoption of serious games in formal education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 159-171.

Block, J. J. (2008). Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction.

Charlton, J. P., & Danforth, I. D. (2004). Differentiating computer-related addictions and high engagement. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies, 31.

Chen, J. (2007). Flow in games (and everything else). Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 31-34.

Chou, T. J., & Ting, C. C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 663-675.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Freeman, C. B. (2008). Internet gaming addiction. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 4(1), 42-47.

Gee, J. P. (2005, June). Good video games and good learning. In Phi Kappa Phi Forum (Vol. 85, No. 2, p. 33). THE HONOR SOCIETY OF PHI KAPPA PHI.

Griffiths, M. (1996). Behavioural addiction: an issue for everybody?. Employee Councelling Today, 8(3), 19-25.

Hull, D. C., Williams, G. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Video game characteristics, happiness and flow as predictors of addiction among video game players: A pilot study. Journal of behavioral addictions, 2(3), 145-152.

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13-24.

Liu, C. C., & Chang, I. C. (2016). Model of online game addiction: The role of computer-mediated communication motives. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 904-915.

Meseguer Artola, A., & Rodríguez-Ardura, I. (2016). Flow in e-learning: what drives it and why it matters.

PC Bang. (2017, April 28). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_bang

Starcevic, V. (2013). Is Internet addiction a useful concept?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(1), 16-19.

Su, Y. S., Chiang, W. L., Lee, C. T. J., & Chang, H. C. (2016). The effect of flow experience on player loyalty in mobile game application. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 240-248.

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE review, 41(2), 16.

Vratonjic, N., Milosevic, Z., Dragojevic, A., & Maeder, E. W. (2007). Computer and Video Games in South Korea (No. SHS-STUDENT-2008-010).

Wu, T. C., Scott, D., & Yang, C. C. (2013). Advanced or addicted? Exploring the relationship of recreation specialization to flow experiences and online game addiction. Leisure Sciences, 35(3), 203-217.

Yang, S., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Zhao, L. (2014). The benefits and dangers of flow experience in high school students’ internet usage: The role of parental support. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 504-513.

Zhou, P. (2017, March 3). South Korea Computer Gaming Culture. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/south-korea-computer-gaming-culture-1434484