THESE

l

, LIBRARY
21310 Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF CONTROLLER TYPE IN A VIOLENT VIDEO
GAME:
PRESENCE, AROUSAL, AND STATE HOSTILITY

presented by

Gyoung M. Kim

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Telecommunication,
Information Studies, & Media

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
3;! 722! to

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KlProj/Aod-PmlelRC/DateDue.indd

THE EFFECTS OF CONTROLLER TYPE IN A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME:
PRESENCE, AROUSAL, AND STATE HOSTILITY

By

Gyoung M. Kim

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Telecommunication, Information Studies, & Media

2010

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF CONTROLLER TYPE IN A VIOLENT COMPUTER GAME:
PRESENCE, AROUSAL, AND STATE HOSTILITY
By

Gyoung M. Kim

The past decade has witnessed a significant technological advancement of computer
game input devices. However, empirical research on the psychological impacts of these
input devices on the players is limited. The present investigation employed a within-
subjects experiment to examine the advanced input devices of video games in a violent
video game by exposing participants (N=24) to a traditional control scheme (keyboard
and mouse) and an advanced game controller (touch screen panel) and measuring this
factor’s impacts on players’ sense of presence, physiological arousal, psychological
arousal, and state hostility. The results indicated that the advanced game controller
increased participants’ sense of presence and physiological arousal. However,
participants’ psychological arousal and state hostility were not increased by the advanced
game controller. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are

discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis would not have been possible without the help, support, guidance and
efforts of a lot of people. Firstly, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Wei Peng, for her
continuous support in the Master’s program. Wei was always there to listen and to give
advice. She taught me how to develop and express my ideas. Her patience and support
helped me overcome many crisis situations and finish this thesis. I would also like to
thank to Dr. Frank Biocca, a director of Media, Interface, and Network Design Labs, for
giving me an opportunity to work at the lab over the years. He inspired me to think about
better technologies for human and his thoughtful advice expanded my research area.

Dr. Carrie Heeter is one of the best teachers I have had in my life. She introduced me the
world of Serious Games. Her insightful comments and thoughts helped me enrich my
thesis. A special thanks goes to Dan Marsh, who is a former assistant professor of our
department. His creative and innovative ideas and thoughts always excited me.

Besides my advisors, I would like to thank my Kim’s family: my parents, Jong
Hwooi Kim and Jung Sook Kim, for giving me life in the first place, and for their
unconditional support and encouragement to pursue my interests. My sisters, Saihee and
Taihee, for listing to my complaints and frustrations, and for believing me.

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all my teachers and everyone
in the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media, at Michigan

State University.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 2
Technological advancement in video games ...................................... 2
Natural mapping .......................................................................... 3
Touch screen .............................................................................. 5
Presence ................................................................................... 6
Arousal ...................................................................................... 7

State Hostility .............................................................................. 9
METHOD ................................................... . ....................................... 1 0
Participants .............................................................................. 10
Stimuli ..................................................................................... 10
Measurements .......................................................................... 1 1
RESULT ........................................................................................... 13
DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 14

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 15

FIGURES .......................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX ....................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 24

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Screen shot ofthe game play ................................ 18

FIGURE 2: The game play with atouch screen 18

The effects of controller type in a violent computer game:

Presence, arousal, and state hostility

Introduction

Video games have become one of the fastest growing forms of media. A study by
Strategy Analytics (2010) shows that the global game market has grown by over 50% in
the period from 2005 to 2009 and it is estimated that the global game market will reach
$47.5 billion in 2010. In addition, according to Nielson Media Research (2009), 83% of
teens in the United States own at least one game console. Skalski, Lange, Tamborini, and
Shelton (2007) suggested that technological advancement could be one reason for the
growing video game market. Technical innovation in the video game industry leads to
huge improvements not only in graphics, but also in game controllers (Skalski, 2004;
Williams, 2002).

Video gaming controllers, input devices for the computing system, have been
improved over time with advancing technology. Traditional input devices such as a
mouse, keyboard, or joystick had been used as the main gaming controllers for PC games
and console games. Recently, more advanced controllers such as a force-feedback
controller, gesture recognition camera inputs, and ultrasensitive motion controllers have
been developed with new technologies and those provide better gaming conditions to
game players.

Playing a video game is making contact with a virtual world. What we see in the

virtual world does not actually exist. He and Agah (2001) mentioned “the impossibility of

really touching the entities in the virtual real world, makes the interaction unreal and
more difficult.” From their statement, we can expect that game players may recognize
that the virtual world is not real because they cannot actually touch it. However, what if
game players are able to have a simulated feeling of actual touching components in the
virtual world through a touch screen?

Many researchers have investigated the relationship between violent video games
and players’ emotional states. However, existing experimental research has not detailed
the role of the touch screen, one of the fastest growing technologies, as the controller for
video games and its effects on players. This study attempts to make a contribution to the

research on and the effect of technological variables in a violent video game.

Literature Review I

Technological advancement in video games

The goal of multimedia applications is providing users a higher resolution of
media (Buttolo, Oboe, Hannaford, & McNeely, 1996). In the game industry, video games
are getting more realistic and advanced (Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007; Barlett,
Rodeheffer, Baldassaro, Hinkin, & Harris; 2008) and a number of innovative and user-
centered devices have been released to provide more immersive experiences to game
players.

Many game development companies release content in HD (High Definition)
video resolution. According to Sony’s official technical data, the PlayStation 3 is able to

play Blu-ray media which displays up to 1080p resolution, the highest definition

commercially available today. Moreover, most game consoles also provide HD sound
today (e.g., Dolby Digital 5.1 channel surround and 7.1 channel surround sound).

In the controller field, various input devices can be used to achieve the goal of
providing better experiences to players. With advanced technology, input devices have
become more interactive and varied. Biocca and Delaney (1995) proposed that a variety
of input devices such as voice/audio input, haptic input, body movement and orientation
input, facial expressions and eye movements, and psycho-physiological input and brain
waves could be used as input channels and could enhance mediated interpersonal
communication.

Advanced input devices could play a significant role in making video games more
realistic. Many researchers claim that advanced input or output devices of a game console
or computer could impact users’ psychological state or game skills. He and Agah (2001)
found that people perform better when they play the game with advanced input devices
(e. g., a force-feedback joystick). They also suggested that higher communication speed
between the host and the peripheral leads to higher performance of players in the virtual
reality (He & Agah, 2001). Those findings show that the advancement of the input device

can have an impact either on media users’ physical and psychological states.

Natural mapping

The concept of natural mapping, defined by Steuer (1992) as “the ability of a
system to map its controls to changes in the mediated environment in a natural and
predictable manner” (p. 47), has been proposed as one variable of making game players

have the feeling of realism in the virtual world (Tamborini & Skalski, 2006).

Norman (1986, 1988) suggested that natural mapping has the advantage of
immediate understanding. For instance, stove controllers set up in a 2 x 2 rectangular
form is more convenient to use than stove controllers laid out in a straight line and
similarly, the seat controller shaped of the seat itself provides more straightforward
controls (Norman, 1998).

Recently, Skalski et a1 (2007) found that game players who played a racing game
with a natural mapped controller such as a steering wheel experienced a higher level of
perceived controller naturalness than those who played the game with a keyboard or
joystick. Likewise, Bowman and Boyan (2008) also suggest that game players who play a
golf game with a motion controller (e. g., swinging the controller like swinging the golf
club) could have a greater level of presence than those playing with a traditional
controller. They suggest, “Naturally mapped game environments allow the player to
access known behaviors and skills and translate that knowledge directly to the game
environment” (Bowman & Boyan, 2008, p. 6).

From these examples of and studies of natural mapping, we can infer that it would
take less time for game players to understand and operate naturally mapped game
controller devices, as those are designed based on human instinct and mental models for
behavior. Natural controls in the video game should also cause players to feel more like
they are playing in the real world because their body movements playing the game are
similar to movements in the real world. Therefore, players may have a higher sense of
presence and arousal when they are playing a game naturally with a natural mapped

controller. The concepts of presence and arousal are discussed in later sections.

Touch screen

The touch screen is increasingly used as an input device in many industries (e.g.,
cellular phones, laptops, commercial kiosks, medical devices, etc.). DisplaySearch (2010)
estimates that 511 million touch screens will be used for mobile phones in 2010, reaching
50% of all cell phones by 2016. In addition, they also reported that the touch screen
market size would be increased from $4.3 billion in 2009 to around $14 billion by 2016.

Touch screens could be used as natural mapped video game controllers. The touch
screen can provide more accurate and direct controls, faster navigation speed, and less
arm fatigue than using a mouse or joystick to players (Sears, Plaisant, & Shneiderman,
1992). Albinsson and Zhai (2003) stated, “interaction on touch sensitive screens is
literally the most ‘direct’ form of HCI (Human-Computer Interaction)” (p. 105).

The ability to directly touch and manipulate data on the screen without using any
intermediary devices has a very strong appeal to users (Benko, Wilson, & Baudisch,
2006). Moreover, people are likely to feel immersed when they natural interaction and
control (Witmer & Singer, 1998; Witmer, Jerome, & Singer, 2005).

Forlines, Wigdor, Shen, and Balakrishnan (2007) stated, “Interacting with an
application through directly touching graphical elements is a more ‘natural’ or
‘compelling’ approach than working indirectly with a mouse or other pointing device.”

According to the literature we reviewed, we can expect that a touch screen may
reduce the number of gaming controllers in the general gaming setting (i.e., using both a
keyboard and mouse at the same time) and provide a more natural way to control objects
in the game. The touch screen has a strong potential to create a natural media setting and

it also could be a natural mapped controller for video games, particularly for games in

which touch is the natural way of interaction (e.g., punching). More natural settings
provided by the touch screen will increase players’ states such as presence or arousal like

a natural mapped controller allow players to have a higher sense of presence and arousal.

Presence

Presence has been defined as the “perceptual illusion of nonmediation” (Lombard
& Ditton, 1997), “a psychological state in which virtual objects are experienced as actual
objects in either sensory or nonsensory ways” (Lee, 2004, p. 37) and a “user’s feeling that
mediated representations are real” (Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007, p. 534). These
definitions of presence all focus on how much people regard a virtual environment as a
real or natural surrounding.

According to the various scholars’ definitions of presence, realism and presence
are highly correlated. In the virtual reality, the concept of presence can be used to create
the realistic environment that is computer generated (Sallnas, Rassmus-grohn, &
SjOstrOm, 2000). Likewise, Calvert and Tan (1994) found that a greater realism in a video
game would influence players’ emotional state.

The components which can affect the quality of media may influence players’
level of psychological or physiological states. One component that can contribute to
presence is interactivity (Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Steuer, 1992). Heeter (1992) suggests
responsiveness is one dimension of interactivity and that a highly responsive virtual
environment could induce a higher sense of presence than less responsive environments.
Downs and Oliver (2009) found that a motion-recognizing controller which provides high

responsibility and interactivity induces a greater level of presence. Players who played a

golf game with a motion controller on the Wii had a higher level of presence than those
who played a golf game without the motion controller (Downs & Oliver, 2009).

Generally, a mouse curser or some other shape must be shown on the screen to
represent the direction of the mouse when we use the mouse. On the contrary, the point
where the players’ fingers make contact with the screen is exactly the same place where
players want to control because the touch screen is a both input and output device of the
computing system. The touch screen provides direct and natural controls to players, and
helps to create realistic gaming settings. When game players touch the screen in order to
control objects in the virtual reality, they may feel more natural than playing with the
mouse or keyboard, because players actually “touch” the objects on the screen.

For this reason, a touch screen could be related to vividness and realism and could
increase the quality of these elements which are variables in inducing the higher state of
presence. Therefore we hereby set up the following hypothesis:

H1: Players will experience higher levels of presence when they use a touch

screen game controller than when they use a mouse game controller to play the

punch game.

Arousal

Arousal is defined as a physiological or psychological state of being excited or
activated. Arousal can be measured in two different ways: physiological arousal and
psychological arousal. Physiological arousal has been measured by physiological
variables such as skin conductance, muscle movement, or heart rate (Stein & Levine,

1987). Ravaja (2004) proposed that heart rate (HR) and skin conductance response (SCR)

are reliable and valid factors for measuring arousal. Psychological arousal can be
measured by questionnaires or surveys.

Scholars suggest that technological advancement in video game realism
(including graphics, sounds, and controllers) could increase not only players’ presence
but also their arousal (Lombard et al., 2000; Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007). Arousal and
presence are closely related (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). In addition, Ivory and
Kalyanaraman (2007) also found that newer video games that have more natural game
settings with advanced technology evoke higher levels of presence and arousal to game
players and violent video games produce higher states of arousal than nonviolent video
games.

In addition, as we discussed above, the touch screen provides the natural gaming
settings for control. The touch screen device is controlled by actually touching the screen.
Therefore, game players may have a more realistic feeling of “touching” objects with
their fingers as opposed to holding a mouse or typing on a keyboard. According to
findings by researchers, there are strong relationships among realism and arousal
(Lombard et al., 2000; Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007). Therefore, we can assume that a
touch screen, which provides natural controls, may enhance players’ psychological or
physiological state in violent video games.

Therefore, we hereby set up the following hypotheses:

H2: Players will experience higher levels of physiological arousal when they use a

touch screen game controller than when they use a mouse game controller to play

the punch game.

H3: Players will experience higher levels of psychological arousal when they use
a touch screen game controller than when they use a mouse game controller to

play the punch game.

State Hostility

A number of scholars have been investigating the effects of violent video games
on human aggression.

Some researchers claim players are able to be aggressive while playing violent
video games (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Similarly, playing a
highly aggressive game would make players more hostile than playing a less aggressive
game (Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Ballard & Weist, 1996).

Williams (2009) also found high state hostility can be generated by violent
content in violent video games. He had participants play a violent game and nonviolent
game (as a control). Participants who played the violent game demonstrated higher level
of state hostility than those who played the nonviolent game. In addition, Barlett et a1
(2008) found that players who played a higher graphic quality video game had more state
hostility than those who played a lower graphic quality video game. Moreover, Barlett et
al (2008) found from their experiment that participants who played the violent video
game with maximum blood had a higher sense of state hostility than those who played
the game with medium blood, low blood, or no blood. They also suggested that the
quality of video game graphics is related to the realism (Barlett et al, 2008).

From previous research on arousal, people tend to have a higher state hostility

after playing a violent video game with realistic game settings. Therefore, we can predict

that people who play a violent video game in which touch panel provides a more
naturally mapped interface will elicit more realistic feeling during game play, and thus
lead to higher state hostility than when they play using a less naturally mapped interface.
We hypothesize that,
H4: Players will experience higher levels of state hostility when they use a touch
screen game controller than when they use a mouse game controller to play the

punch game.

Method

Participants

In total, 24 male college students were recruited from two undergraduate classes
at a mid-westem university to participate in the experiment for extra credit. Calvert and
Tan (2002) found that males behave more aggressively than females and are more
interested in violent video games than females (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002). Thus, we
included only males in the present study. Potential participants were asked to fill out a
short screening questionnaire asking their gender and favorite video game genres and
only male participants who play violent video game were recruited for this experiment.

All participants signed an informed consent form before participation.

Stimuli

The punch game developed by Vizard (WorldViz LLC, Santa Barbara, CA) was
selected for this study. A full high definition resolution (1920x1080) touch screen panel

was used for this experiment. In this game, players punched the enemy coming to them

10

either using a mouse or touching enemies on the screen using their fingers. When the
game player hit the enemies, they flew away with screams.

Upon arrival at the laboratory, each qualified participant first took the pre-
experiment questionnaire that measured state hostility and psychological arousal. Then
three physiological measuring devices were attached to his hands and arm to measure the
participant’s physiological arousal. Each was given five minutes of relaxation time in
order to measure his base line physiological arousal state. After measuring the baseline,
participants were randomly assigned to play the video game either with a mouse first or
touch screen first.

Participants were given one minute to practice the game play. After the practice,
participants played the punch game for six minutes and took the post-experiment
questionnaire that measured state hostility, psychological arousal, and presence.
Participants were asked to punch at least 100 enemies in a session. They had five minutes
of rest time after they finished first session. After that, they played the same game for six
minutes with a different type of controller and then took the same post-experiment

questionnaire again.

Measurements

Presence. The factor of “Sense of Physical Space,” “Engagement,” and
“Ecological Validity” were selected from ITC-SOPI questionnaires (Lessiter, Freeman,
Keogh, & Davidoff, 2000) to measure presence in the present study. Cronbach’s alpha of

the measures of “Sense of Physical Space,” “Engagement,” “Ecological Validity” in

11

playing with a mouse were 0.917, 0.806, and 0.953 and playing with a touch screen were
0.969, 0.789 and 0.951 respectively.

Participants rated their levels of agreement using a nine-point scale, anchored by
1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Example items include: “I had a sense of being
in the scenes displayed,” “I felt that the characters and/or objects could almost touch me,”
and “I felt I was visiting the places in the displayed environment.”

Physiological Arousal. Galvanic skin response (GSR) was measured through skin
conductance levels (SCLs) by using the Biopac MP150 system (Biopac INC., Goleta,
CA). The hardware settings for SCLs were ZOuQ/volt filtering and a 1.0 Hz high-pass
filter, and 200 samples per second. SCL baseline was measured for five minutes before
beginning the game, and was measured continuously during play. The mean value was
calculated from SCL data of each participant’s six-minute game play.

Psychological Arousal. Psychological arousal was measured using the Perceived
Arousal Scale (Anderson et al., 1995) which contains 24 items. Cronbach’s alpha of the
measure of psychological arousal in pretest, playing with a mouse, and playing with a
touch screen were 0.761, 0.816, and 0.842 respectively. Participants rated their levels of
agreement using a nine-point scale, anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly
agree). Example items included: “Active,” “Energetic,” “Exhausted,” and “Inactive.”

State Hostility. State hostility was measured using the State Hostility Scale
(Anderson et al., 1995) which contains 32 items. Cronbach’s alpha of the measure of
state hostility in pretest, playing with a mouse, and playing with a touch screen were

0.812, 0.796, and 0.852 respectively. Participants rated their levels of agreement using a

12

nine-point scale, anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Example items

included: “I feel furious,” “I feel frustrated,” “I feel good-natured.”

Result

Repeated ANOVAs were used to test the hypotheses in the present study.

Hypothesis 1 was supported, stating that video game players playing with a touch
screen will have higher level of presence than player who played with a mouse. Repeated
ANOVA analysis showed the significant main effect of game controllers on players’
sense of presence, F (1, 23) = 16.34, p < .01, n2 = 0.42. Participants reported
significantly higher levels of presence (M = 4.2, SD = 1.81) when they played with a
touch screen than when they played with a mouse (M = 2.97, SD = 1.75).

Repeated ANOVA analysis showed the significant main effect of game
controllers in the “Sense of Physical Space” part, F (1,23) = 8.536, p < 0.01, n2 = 0.271.
Participants reported significantly higher levels of “Physical Space” (M = 4.06, SD =
2.38) when they played with a touch screen than when they played with a mouse (M =
3.06, SD = 2.10).

In the “Engagement” part, repeated ANOVA analysis showed the significant main
effect of game controllers, F (1,23) = 15.092, p < 0.01, n2 = 0.396. Participants reported
significantly higher levels of “Engagement” (M = 4.94, SD = 1.68) when they played
with a touch screen than when they played with a mouse (M = 3.58, SD = 1.67).

Lastly, the touch screen was significant for “Ecological Validity,” F (1,23) =

15.844, p < 0. 01, n2 = 0.408. Participants reported significantly higher levels of

13

“Ecological Validity” (M = 3.90, SD = 1.89) when they played with a touch screen than
when they played with a mouse (M = 2.61, SD = 1.79).

Hypothesis 2 was supported. Repeated ANOVA analysis showed the significant
main effect of game controllers on players’ physiological arousal, F (1, 23) = 8.578, p <
.05, 172 = 0.27. Participants demonstrated a greater increase of physiological arousal (M =
7.8, SD = 7.3) when they played with a touch screen than when they played with a mouse
(M = 6.3, SD = 6.17).

Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Repeated AN OVA analysis showed that there
was no significant effect of game controllers on psychological arousal, F (1, 23) = 2.913,
p = .10, n2 = 0.11. There was no significant difference of psychological arousal when
they played with the touch screen (M = 3.66, SD = 0.87) and when they played with a
mouse (M = 4.1, SD = 0.95).

Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Repeated AN OVA analysis showed that there
was no significant effect of game controllers on state hostility, F (l, 23) = 0.069, p > .8,
n2 = 0.003. There was no significant difference of state hostility between playing with a

touch screen (M = 3.1, SD = 0.66) and playing with a mouse (M = 3.14, SD = 0.55).

Discussion
The main purpose of the present research was to analyze the effect of different
types of controllers on psychological states such as presence, psychological arousal and
state hostility, and physiological state of arousal. The within-subjects experiment found

that the touch screen induces a higher sense of presence and physiological arousal in the

14

violent video game. However, the touch screen did not increase players’ level of self-
reported psychological arousal or their state hostility.

Many researchers agree that recent video games offer increasingly realistic play
(Carnagey & Anderson, 2004; Gentile & Anderson, 2003) mostly due to advanced
graphics or sounds. Touch screen interfaces could provide a different way of increasing
video game realism.

Biocca (1997) suggests that media exposure outcome is strongly impacted by
close mapping of a human’s body movements. Skalski et al. (2007) also mentioned,
“advanced control devices allow players to perform a range of actions conducive to the
experience of presence.” The result from the present experiment showed that the touch
screen as a controller, in the punching game for this study, was experienced as a more
natural interface than the mouse. In addition, we also found that this realistic game,
human-centered touch screen controller influenced players’ sense of presence and
arousal.

The touch screen has not been used widely in the violent video game industry yet.
This study demonstrates experiential benefits of using the touch screen as the game

controller in the game industry and enabling more natural gaming settings.

Limitations and Future Research
Although the present research found some effects of the advanced game controller
on players’ states, several questions remain unanswered.
First, we found that the result of physiological data measured by a computer and

psychological data measured by the paper-based questionnaire were different. The

15

number of items for measuring arousal was 24. On the other hand, Biopac measured 200
samples of participants’ physiological data per second. We can assume that the
discrepancy in the psychological arousal may be resulting fi'om the lack of reflection on
their psychological state on the paper-based questionnaire at this time.

Secondly, enjoyment was not measured in this study. Enjoyment is one of most
important variables of video game playing because people play games for fun. If we put
enjoyment as a dependant variable, we could find whether advancement of the input
device and enjoyment were related or not.

Third, players’ gaming performance was not measured. However, we have
anecdotal evidence that participants tend to play this video game more naturally with a
touch screen. Players punched enemies more like really punching someone when they
used a touch screen than when they used a mouse. They also tended to use their hands
and arms together while playing with a touch screen. On the contrary, players used only
their hands while they were playing with a mouse. Future research will include game
performance as a dependent variable.

Fourth, it is possible that not all game players want naturally mapped controllers
while playing a game. The naturally mapped controller may appeal to casual gamers
more than to hardcore gamers (e.g., “Playing a different game,” 2006).

Finally, based on the present study, touch screen game controllers impacted game
player’s perceived presence and physiological arousal. However, the touch screen may
not play a significant role in generating a natural game environment in some other cases.

For instance, for games that require player’s control of avatars’ legs or multi parts, a

16

touch screen may not provide as a natural way of controlling as it provides in this punch

game.

17

FIGURES

Figure 1.

Screen shot of the game play

 

Figure 2.

The game play with a touch screen

 

18

1. Pretest Questionnaire

1D:

 

1. Instruction: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following mood statements. Use the following 9-point scale. 1 means “strongly

APPENDIX

disagree” and 9 means “strongly agree”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel furious. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like I’m about to Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
explode.

I feel fiiendly_ Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel aggravated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel understanding Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel amiable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel storm). Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel mad. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel polite. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel mean. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel discontented. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel bitter. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like banging on a table. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel burned up_ Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel irritated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like yelling at Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
somebody.

I feel frustrated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel cooperative. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel kindly. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like swearing Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel unsociable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel cruel. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel outraged. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel good-natured. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel agreeable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel disagreeable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel angry, Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel enraged. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel offended. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel sympathetic. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel disgusted Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree

 

19

 

 

L1 feel tame. [Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree]

 

2.

Instruction: Different people react very differently to the same situations. Indicate
to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment. Use the
following 9-point rating scale. 1 means “very slightly or not at all” and 9 means
“extremely”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Active very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Alert very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Aroused very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Depressed very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Drowsy very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Dull very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Energetic very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Excited very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Exhausted very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Fatigued very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Forceful very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Inactive very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Lively very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Powerful very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Quiet very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sharp very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sleepy very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Slow very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sluggish very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Tired very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Vigorous very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Weak very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Weary very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Wom-out very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely

 

 

2. Posttest Questionnaire

ID:

 

ll.

 

Instruction: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following mood statements. Use the following 9-point scale. 1 means “strongly
disagree” and 9 means “strongly agree”.

 

[ [feel furious_ l Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree J

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like I’m about to Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
explode.

I feel friendly. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel aggravated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel understanding. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel amiable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel stormy. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel mad. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel polite. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel mean. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel discontented. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel bitter. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like banging on a table. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel burned up. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel irritated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like yelling at Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
somebody.

I feel frustrated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel cooperative. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel kindly. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel like swearing. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel unsociable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel cruel. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel outraged. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel good-natured. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel agreeable. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel disagreeable Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel angry. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel enraged. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel offended. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel sympathetic. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel disgusted. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
I feel tame. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
2.

Instruction: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following mood statements. Use the following 9 point scale. 1 means “strongly

disagree” and 9 means “strongly agree”.

 

I had a sense of being in the
scenes displayed

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree

 

I felt I was visiting the places
in the displayed environment

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree

 

 

I felt that the characters

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree

 

21

 

 

 

and/or objects could almost
touch me

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree

I felt involved (in the
displayed environment)

 

I enjoyed myself Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 Strongly Agree

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 9 Strongly Agree

My experience was intense

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 9 Strongly Agree

The content seemed
believable to me

 

The displayed environment Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree

seemed natural

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree

I had a strong sense that the
characters and objects were
solid

 

Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Strongly Agree

While playing the game, I
felt like I was really 'there' in

the game environment.

 

I had the sensation that I Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree
moved in response to parts of

the displayed environment

 

 

Ifelt surrounded by the Strongly Disagreel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Agree

displgxed environment

 

 

 

3.

Instruction: Different people react very differently to the same situations. Indicate
to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment. Use the
following 9-point rating scale. 1 means “very slightly or not at all” and 9 means
“extremely”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Active very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Alert very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Aroused very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Depressed very slightly or not at all I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Drowsy very slightly or not at all I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Dull very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Energetic very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Excited very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Exhausted very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Fatigued very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Forceful very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Inactive very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Lively very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Powerful very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Quiet very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sharp very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sleepy very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely

 

 

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slow very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Sluggish very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Tired very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Vigorous very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Weak very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Weary very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
Worn-out very slightly or not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely

 

 

 

4. Open-ended question about their guess of the hypothesis

Instruction: Please write down your thoughts about the experiment. It could be your
guess about the purpose of this study or your feedback about this game and this
questionnaire. Thank you!

23

REFERENCES

Albinsson, P. A., & Zhai, S. (2003). High precision touch screen interaction. Proceedings
of CHI 2003, 105-112.

Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings
and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23(3), 161-178.

Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal
of Adolescence, 27, 1 13- 122.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and
prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature.
Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.

Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & Deneve, K. M. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile
affect, hostile cognition, and arousal — Tests of a general-model of affective
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 434-448.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings,
and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 772-790.

Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986). Affect of the game player: Short-term
effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 390-402.

Ballard, M. E., & Wiest, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat: The effects of violent videogame
play on males’ hostility and cardiovascular responding. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 717-730.

Ballard, M. E., & Lineberger, R. (1999). Video game violence and confederate gender:
Effects on reward and punishment among college males. Sex Roles, 41, 541-558.

Barlett, C., Bruey, C., & Harris, R. (2007). The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent

24

Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal. Paper presented at
International Communication Association. San Francisco, CA.

Barlett, C. P., Harris, R. J., & Bruey, C. (2008). The effect of the amount of blood in a
violent video game on aggression, hostility, and arousal. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44, 539-546.

Barlett, C., Rodeheffer, C., Baldassaro, R., Hinkin, M. P., & Harris, R. J. (2008). The
effect of advances in video game technology and content on aggressive
cognitions, hostility, and heart rate. Media Psychology, 11(4), 540-565.

Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on
aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 283-290.

Benko, H., Wilson, A. D., & Baudisch, P. (2006). Precise selection techniques for multi-
touch screens. Proceedings of CH1 2006, 1263-1272.

Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual
environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved
October 29, 2006 fiom http: / / jcmc.indiana.edu/v013 / issue2 / kim.html

Biocca, F ., & Delaney, B. (1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. In Frank Biocca
& Mark R. Levy (eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality mp. 57-124).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bowman, N. D., & Boyan. A. (2008). Cognitive Skill and Presence Predict Flow in
Natural Mapping (Wii) Video Game Interfaces Conference Papers. International
Communication Association, 2008 Annual Meeting, 1-25.

Buttolo, P., Oboe, R., Hannaford, B., & McNeely, B. (1996). Force feedback in shared
virtual simulations, Proceedings of MICAD, Paris.

Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. (1994). Impact of virtual reality on young adults’ physiological
arousal and aggressive thoughts: Interaction versus observation. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 125-139.

25

Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2004). Violent video game exposure and
aggression: A literature review. Minerva Psichiatrica, 45, 1-18.

DisplaySearch (2010). Touch panel market analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/touch_p
anel_market_analysis.asp

Downs, E., Oliver, M. (2009). How can Wii learn from video games? Examining
relationships between technological affordances & sociocognitive deterrninates on
affective and behavioral outcomes. Conference Papers — International
Communication Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, 1-52.

Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., & Balakrishnan, R. (2007). Direct-touch vs. mouse
input for tabletop displays. Proceedings of CHI 2007. 647.

Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: The newest media
violence hazard. In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media violence and children (pp. 131-152).
Westport, CT: Praeger.

Griffiths, M. D. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review of the literature.
Aggression & Violent Behavior, 4, 203-212.

Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. 0., & Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the stereotype: The
case of online gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 81-91.

He, F. &Agah, A. (2001). Multi-modal human interactions with an intelligent interface
utilizing images, sounds, and force feedback. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic
Systems, 32(2), 171-190.

Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence.
Presence, 1, 262-271.

Holson, L. M. (2004). Out of Hollywood, rising fascination with video games. New York
Times. Retrieved April 10, 2004 from
http: / /www.nytimes.com/ 2004/ 04/ 10/technology/ 10GAME.htm

26

Ivory, J. D. & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement and
violent content in video games on players’ feelings of presence, involvement,
physiological arousal, and aggression. Journal of Communication, 5 7(3), 532-
555.

Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27-50.

Lessiter, J ., Freeman, J. F., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Development of a new
cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Paper

presented at Presence 2000: 3rd International Workshop on Presence, Delft, The
Netherlands.

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved June 5, 2006
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/v013/issue2/lombard.html.

Lombard, M., Reich, R. D., Grabe, M. E., Bracken, C. C., & Ditton, T. B. (2000).
Presence and television: The role of screen size. Human Communication
Research, 26, 75-98.

Nielson Media Research (2009). How teens use media. Retrieved from

http://en-
us.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_us/documents/pdf/White%20Pap
ers%ZOand%20Reports%2011/ How%20Teens%ZOUse%20Media.pdf

Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D.A. Norman and SW. Draper (Eds.) User
centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. (pp.
31-61). Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, Basic Books.

“Playing a Different Game” (2006). Playing a different game. The Economist. Retrieved
October 29, 2006 from
http://www.economistcom/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8080787

Ravaja, N. (2004). Contributions of psychophysiology to media research: Review and

27

recommendations. Media Psychology, 6(2), 193-235.

Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Turpeinen, M., Laarni, J ., Slaminen, M., & Kivikangas, M. (2006).
Spatial presence and emotions during video game playing: Does it matter with
whom you play? Presence: T eleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 381-392.

Sallnas, E., Rassmus-grohn, K., & SjOstrOm, C. (2000). Supporting presence in
collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. AMC Transactions on
human-computer interaction, 7, 461 -476.

Sears, A., Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (1992). A new era for high-precision
touchscreens. In R. Hartson, D. Hix (Eds.), Advances in Human-Computer
Interaction (pp. 1-33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers.

Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis.
Human Communication Research, 27, 409-431.

Singh, S. N., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1987). Arousal and advertising effectiveness.
Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 4-40.

Skalski, P. (2004). The quest for presence in video game entertainment. Presented as part
of presence panel at the Central States Communication Association Annual
Conference, Cleveland, OH.

Skalski, P., Lange, R. L., Tamborini, R. & Shelton, A. K. (2007). Mapping the Road to
Fun: Natural Video Game Controllers, Presence, and Game Enjoyment. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
San Francisco, CA.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.
Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.

StrategyAnalytics (2010). Global video game market forecast.
fi'om
http: //www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=ReportAbstractViewe
r&a0=5282

28

Tamborini, R., Eastin, M. S., Skalski, P., Lachlan, K., Fediuk, T. A., & Brady, R. (2004).
Violent virtual video games and hostile thoughts. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 48, 335-357.

Tamborini, R. & Skalski, P. (2006). The role of presence in the experience of electronic
games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 225-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Uhlmann, E. & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic
aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41-52.

Williams, D. (2002). A structural analysis of market competition in the US. home video
game industry. International Journal on Media Management, 4(1), 41-54.

1 Williams, D. (2009). The effect of frustration, violence, and trait hostility. Mass
Communication and Society, 12(3), 291-310.

Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). lntemet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an
online game. Communication Monographs, 72, 217-233.

Witrner, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A

presence questionnaire. Presence: T eleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7,
225-240.

Witrner, B. 6., Jerome, C. J., Singer, M. J. (2005). The factor structure of the presence
questionnaire. Presence, 14(3), 298-312.

29

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ill Hill lllllllllll

063 8021

III! |

3 1293 O