• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The impact of cooperative video games on team cohesion

Dissertation
Author: Greg Anderson
Abstract:
  In today's economy, productivity and efficiency require collaboration between employees. In order to improve collaboration the factors affecting teamwork must be examined to identify where changes can be made in order to increase performance. One factor contributing to teamwork is team cohesion and represents a process whereby members are joined by a common bond in the pursuit of a common objective. A popular social bonding activity sweeping the world is playing cooperative video games. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of playing cooperative video games on team cohesion. Subjects (N=56) were randomly placed into 15 teams of three to four members. A modified Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) pretest was administered to determine the initial degree of cohesiveness between team members and to examine a wide cross-section of correlates and cohesiveness. Each team was randomly assigned to a specific intervention length of either one or three weeks with the one week groups playing for one hour and the three week groups playing for six hours. After the randomly assigned length of game play was completed, team members completed the modified GEQ posttest. The results of the posttest were compared with the pretest to determine the effect on the team's cohesion. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and a 2 x 2 MANCOVA was used to determine if playing collaborative video games affected the level of cohesion. A mixed design was used as post hoc analyses for each GEQ cohesive factor and indicated that levels of cohesion increased due to the intervention but was not dependent upon the length of the intervention. The results of this analysis indicated that video games can be used as a team building experience to improve cohesion regardless of how long the video game is played.

TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ............................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 7 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 8 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 10 Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................................................. 14 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 16 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................................18 Teamwork and Group Dynamics ...................................................................................... 19 Team Development ........................................................................................................... 22 Cohesion ........................................................................................................................... 24 Measuring Cohesion ......................................................................................................... 26

viii

Group Environment Questionnaire ................................................................................... 29 Validity of Instrument ....................................................................................................... 31 Learning By Playing Video Games .................................................................................. 31 History and Trends of Video Gaming Industry ................................................................ 32 Pros and Cons of Playing Video Games ........................................................................... 41 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 45 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................46 Research Design................................................................................................................ 47 Subjects ............................................................................................................................. 48 Site .................................................................................................................................... 48 Test Instrument ................................................................................................................. 49 Quantitative Procedure.......................................................................................... 49 Reliability of the Instrument ................................................................................. 50 Validity of Instrument ........................................................................................... 51 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 51 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 55 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................57 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 58 Null Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 58 Demographics ................................................................................................................... 60 Testing of Hypotheses....................................................................................................... 61 Individual Attractions to the Group-Task Subscale Results (ATG-T) ............................. 64 Individual Attractions to the Group-Social Subscale Results (ATG-S) ........................... 67

ix

Group Integration-Task Subscale Results (GI-T) ............................................................. 71 Group Integration-Social Subscale Results (GI-S) ........................................................... 74 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 78 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................79 Post Hoc Conclusions for Individual Attraction to the Group – Task (ATG-T) .............. 80 Post Hoc Conclusions for Individual Attraction to the Group – Social (ATG-S) ............ 81 Post Hoc Conclusions for Group Integration – Task (GI-T) ............................................ 82 Post Hoc Conclusions for Group Integration – Social (GI-S) .......................................... 83 Implications....................................................................................................................... 84 Further Studies .................................................................................................................. 85 Recommendation #1 ............................................................................................. 86 Recommendation #2 ............................................................................................. 86 Recommendation #3 ............................................................................................. 86 Recommendation #4 ............................................................................................. 86 Recommendation #5 ............................................................................................. 87 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................88 APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS......................................................................................100 APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL LETTER ...............................................................................102 APPENDIX C: IRB MODIFICATION APPROVAL LETTER .................................................103 APPENDIX D: FLOWCHART OF PROCEDURES ..................................................................105 APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM........................................................................106 APPENDIX F: MODIFIED GEQ PRETEST ..............................................................................109 APPENDIX G: MODIFIED GEQ POSTTEST ...........................................................................114

x

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Different Types of Work Teams and Uses. ......................................................................20

Table 2 Stages of Group Development. .........................................................................................23 Table 3 Cohesion Factors...............................................................................................................26 Table 4 Cohesion Measurement Tools. .........................................................................................27 Table 5 Cronbach Alpha Values for GEQ. ....................................................................................31 Table 6 Video Game Genres. .........................................................................................................36 Table 7 Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) Ratings. ..................................................38 Table 8 Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) Ratings. .....................................................39 Table 9 Some Positive Effects of Playing Video Games. ..............................................................43 Table 10 Some Negative Effects of Playing Video Games. ..........................................................44 Table 11 Cohesive Sub-Scales. ......................................................................................................50 Table 12 Items in the GEQ. ...........................................................................................................54 Table 13 GEQ Cohesive Factors. ...................................................................................................61 Table 14 Group 1 & 2 Pretest and Posttest Means and Gain Scores. ............................................62 Table 15 2 X 2 MANCOVA Using Hotelling's Trace Coefficient. ...............................................63 Table 16 Descriptive Statistics for ATG-T (Attraction to the Team to Achieve Goals). ..............64 Table 17 Levene’s Test of Equality for the ATG-T Cohesive Factor. ..........................................65

xi

Table 18 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for ATG-T With a Covariate Using the Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................65

Table 19 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for ATG-T. ..............................................................66 Table 20 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for ATG-T Without Covariate Using the Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................67

Table 21 Observed Power for ATG-T Using Hotelling’s Trace Coefficient. ................................67 Table 22 Descriptives for ATG-S (Attraction to the Team by its Social Environment). ..............68 Table 23 Levene’s Test of Equality for the ATG-S Cohesive Factor. ...........................................68 Table 24 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for ATG-S With a Covariate Using Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................69

Table 25 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for ATG-S. ..............................................................70 Table 26 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for ATG-S Without Covariate Using Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................70

Table 27 Observed Power for ATG-S Using Hotelling’s Trace Coefficient. ................................71 Table 28 Descriptives for GI-T (How the Team Functions to Achieve Goals). ............................72 Table 29 Levene’s Test of Equality for the GI-T Cohesive Factor. ..............................................72 Table 30 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for GI-T With a Covariate Using Greenhouse-Geisser Correction. .....................................................................................................................................72

Table 31 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for GI-T. ..................................................................73 Table 32 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for GI-T Without Covariate Using Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................74

Table 33 Observed Power for GI-T Using Hotelling’s Trace Coefficient.....................................75 Table 34 Descriptives for GI-S (How the Team Functions at a Social Level). .............................75

xii

Table 35 Levene’s Test of Equality for the GI-S Cohesive Factor. ...............................................76 Table 36 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for GI-S With a Covariate Using Greenhouse-Geisser Correction. .....................................................................................................................................76

Table 37 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for GI-S. ..................................................................77 Table 38 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects for GI-S Without Covariate Using Greenhouse- Geisser Correction. ........................................................................................................................77

Table 39 Observed Power for GI-S Using Hotelling’s Trace Coefficient. ....................................78

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Factors that Define Group Cohesion. ......................................................................30

Figure 2. Flow of Procedure. .........................................................................................................52

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Cohesion is the act or state of sticking together tightly and is understandably referenced in an environment where more than one individual is present such as in a team or group. Team cohesion has been a focus of many researchers in regards to its relationship with sports and gaining a competitive advantage (Weinberg & Gould, 2006). A key research question for sport psychology is to show whether teams with greater cohesion are more successful since having an ability to work as a cohesive unit blocks out distractions that inhibit performance and is often the difference between a team and their opponent (Weinberg & Gould, 2006). Group cohesion has been a topic of considerable interest in many different environments. The military contends that cohesive groups are more effective in combat situations thus providing an advantage over the enemy (Ahronson & Cameron, 2007). Throughout the history of business, corporations have also been searching for ways to gain the upper hand over competitors and since cohesion determines job performance (Mullen & Cooper, 1994), industry and business have increasingly become more reliant upon teams within an organization (Salas & Fiore, 2004). Teams are used everywhere and during the last two decades of the twentieth century collaborative teamwork has been sweeping through organizations (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Almost anywhere people gather to accomplish a task will involve the use of teams. There are

2

many different tools used in the design and delivery of team training and it takes more than a technical skill to make an effective team (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2002). Teams and teamwork have become an indispensable part of society (O’Connor, Johnson, & Khalil, 2004) and requires a workforce with high levels of training (Khalil, 2000). The U.S. Department of Labor identified teamwork as one of the top five work skills that should be taught in schools (Armstrong & Kleiner, 1996). Teamwork has been identified as an indispensable skill since it helps a company gain a competitive edge (Winter, Waner, & Neal-Mansfield, 2008) and compete in a global market (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Teamwork is a combined activity by more than one individual where each person puts his or her individual interests and opinions aside in deference to the unity and efficiency of the group. Teamwork involves many different dynamics with one of great interest being that of team cohesion. Team cohesion has been linked to team performance (Ensley & Pearson, 2005) and can have a positive impact not only on performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994) but also on team social interactions (Levi, 2007). It is “a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” (Carron, 1982). Projects are commonly undertaken by teams and workers must be able to work together in order to accomplish organizational tasks (Khalil, 2000). In order to increase team cohesiveness there must be a common purpose that can only be accomplished through interdependency with team members working cooperatively (Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 1999). A common purpose can be based upon a variety of activities that help develop good internal social interactions which are necessary for a team to increase cohesion (Levi, 2007). One such activity that has gained notoriety as a favorite social activity is playing video games. The promising results of human behavioral research based upon gaming and the

3

expanding gaming industry have resulted in an increased interest in identifying the effects of playing video games (Valluri, 2006) and could be considered a viable training strategy. Playing video games is not just an activity for kids. In the past forty years the video game industry has changed from being nonexistent to a multi-billion dollar business (Deuze, Martin, & Allen, 2007). According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) video gaming is the fastest growing form of entertainment. ESA announced that total sales for 2007 were $18.85 billion surpassing the motion picture industry which saw modest growth in 2007 with a total box office take of $9.66 billion. The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) announced in 2008 that sales of video games have even surpassed music sales. According to the PEW Internet project in a memo from Amanda Lenhart and research assistant Alexandra Macgill “Nearly all American teens (97%), and more than half of adults age 18+ (53%) say they play video games, and about one-in-five adults (21%) plays video games every day or almost every day” (memo, December 7, 2008). Research shows that playing an interactive game is an interactive social activity that can develop knowledge and also improve social and communication skills (Vorderer & Bryant, 2006). The perception exists that video gaming promotes antisocial behavior and isolation (Williams, 2004) but the solitary gaming of the past is transforming into social gaming and becoming a social experience (Swisher, 2008). Although the cultural perception of video gaming is that it negatively affects behavior, current research shows that there is definitely a social aspect to playing video games (Griffiths, Davies, & Chappell, 2003; Jones, 2003). Advanced video game production technology is constantly being implemented and a new consumer is emerging that wants an interactive experience. As game developers implement more advanced computer graphics and put more effort on game artificial intelligence (Shen &

4

Zhou, 2006) each advance in technology enhances the possibilities of more realism in a video game (Dovey & Kennedy, 2006). The popularity of video gaming not only is perceived as a popular form of entertainment but is being researched as a tool for improving organizational training results. All teams are different and therefore a myriad of instructional strategies should be researched and implemented (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2002). As companies struggle to compete in a global economy the development of intellectual capital has become an organization’s most valuable asset (Marquardt, Berger, & Loan, 2004). Developing capital such as organization workers involves the use of training to unleash the potential of human expertise (Swanson & Holton III, 2001) and improving the adult workforce. Simulations such as video games are bridging the gap between classrooms and real job skills and improving the learning process (Aldrich, 2004). Fortune magazine reported that Motorola calculated that for every $1 spent on training delivers $30 in productivity gains within three years (Phillips, 1997). James Paul Gee, a prominent researcher of video games and their relationship to education, said “Video games have the potential to lead to active and critical learning” (Gee, 2003). As technology continues to improve the realism in video games in regards to graphics and artificial intelligence, organizations continue to use video games to train employees to become more efficient since this medium is cost effective, safe, and reproduces real-world environments (Phillips, 1997). Along with a more advanced simulation game, social networks are being formed through game play. Humans are using video games to connect with each other (Williams, 2006). As a group of individuals develop into a team, members will identify the tasks necessary to be effective and to be organized into team roles (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005). Collaborative video

5

games require team members to also assume certain roles based upon the genre of the game being played. Video games are classified by genres with all sharing a common trait of being a different form of interactive entertainment (Jansz & Martens, 2008). A video game genre considers the characteristics of the interactive experience, the game’s goals and objectives, the game characters and the player controls (Malliet & de Meyer, 2005). Males primarily play fast-action games either based upon sports or violence while girls primarily play fantasy or educational games (Wright et al., 2001). With the popularity of video gaming growing as a favorite leisure activity there is a necessity to research the effects it has on society (Funk, Germann, & Buchman, 1997). Simply put, whether good or bad, video games are a pervasive component of the social environment and have a significant impact on society and culture. If one of the impacts can be identified as cohesion then collaborative video gaming could be a positive activity rather than the typical stereotyped adult perspective that it is a waste of time. Previous studies have suggested the need for further research investigating factors that influence cohesion, specifically in relation to group development (Cota, Evans, et al., 1995). Cohesion factors include member acceptance, information sharing, stick togetherness, leader dependence, and task orientation (Treadwell, Lavertue, Kumar, & Verraraghavan, 2001). It is postulated that since social relationships help teams generally develop into a more cohesive unit (Meyer, 1982) then playing cooperative video games could positively impact the cohesive factors thus helping promote group effectiveness.

6

Problem Statement The problem of this research was to determine to what degree playing cooperative video games for one to three weeks increased team cohesion for individuals between the ages of 18 and 29. Research Questions This research conducted a study to have randomly formed teams consisting of up to four players on each play a cooperative video game and then utilized a modified Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) as a pre-test and a post-test to assess four specific factors of cohesiveness that can develop within a team. For this test, the alpha was set to 0.05. The study will aim to answer the following research questions: RQ1. What was the change in the degree (scale) of the cohesive factor individual attraction to the group-task (ATG-T) based upon the length of the intervention program? RQ2. What was the change in the degree (scale) of the cohesive factor individual attraction to the group-social (ATG-S) based upon the length of the intervention program? RQ3. What was the change in the degree (scale) of the cohesive factor group integration-task (GI-T) based upon the length of the intervention program? RQ4. What was the change in the degree (scale) of the cohesive factor group integration-social (GI-S) based upon the length of the intervention program? RQ5. What was the change in the degree (scale) of each GEQ cohesive factor based upon the length of the intervention program and the inclusion of the covariate estimate hours playing video games each week?

7

Assumptions The following fourteen assumptions apply to the study. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship and effect of playing collaborative video games on team cohesion. 1) It therefore assumed that a relationship exists and that as one plays collaborative video games, cohesion is increased. 2) All participants (n=56) were between the ages of 18 and 29 years old but the age of the game player within the range did not significantly influence the level of cooperation. 3) Since there are a wide variety of collaborative video games rated for different age groups that could have been used in the study the ESRB video game rating did not significantly influence the level of cooperation. 4) Along with the ESRB rating the video game genre did not significantly influence the level of cooperation. The popular video game, Halo, was selected because it is collaborative in nature. 5) A sample of video game players representing all game players were allowed to participate in the study so there is an assumption that within the random sample the participant’s age, occupation, or gender did not significantly influence the level of cooperation. 6) The total number of study participants (n=56) in the random sample represents the population. 7) It is assumed that the subjects that volunteered to play have an interest in video gaming. 8) There is an assumption that the environment of playing competitive video games and team motivation is the same whether the participants are in an academic, business, military, or sports environment. 9) We will assume that very little time is needed in order to begin increasing cohesion through the use of cooperative video games and also that cohesion is a group property that can be assessed. 10) It is assumed that the win/loss record did not affect the team cohesion. 11) It is assumed that the experience or skill level of subjects did not affect the team cohesion. 12) It is assumed that if a member from one of the teams drops out of the study it will not affect game play and the remaining team members may continue to play and participate in the study.

8

13) It is assumed that the more time playing collaborative video games increases team cohesion. 14) The last assumption is that participants might be susceptible to the Hawthorne Effect which is that participants might be impacted and influenced in their responses due to the fact that they are participating in the study (Cooper & Schinlder, 2003). Limitations The following seven limitations apply to this study. 1) The primary limitation for this study is that the random sample (n=56) being used in the study might not represent all ages. Other limitations that apply to the study are as follows. 2) The study is limited to video game players that spend free time playing interactive entertainment. 3) The sample used a modified Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) test where terms were changed to reflect the current research environment. 4) The data gathered was limited to December 1 st , 2009 to December 19 th , 2009. 5) Due to compensating the subjects and a need to keep the cost down along with a low level of risk, the maximum number of players on each team was four with the total study participants being at least forty eight. 6) This study may be limited by the reliance upon the perceptions of the individuals surveyed and the sample size. 7) The study may also be limited by the length of the intervention. It could be that the team-building activity was not allowed the necessary time to allow the long-term benefits of the team-building activity to develop. Purpose and Need Interactive entertainment has surpassed the music and film industry in revenue and news media and video gaming CEO’s predict it will continue to grow even in times of economic difficulties. With the exorbitant number of hours spent on playing video games it would be beneficial to identify a reason to play rather than simply for fun. This research identifies that there is more to video gaming than entertainment. The purpose of this study will be twofold:

9

first, to provide an insight as to a non-entertainment benefit of playing cooperative video games, and second, to use this data to present industry with another team building activity that will increase team cohesion and thus provide a competitive edge in the workplace. With interactive entertainment being a relatively new field of research and the ever growing popularity of playing video games increasing, “there is a breadth of research taking place that examines video games—and not just whether games are good or bad for the players” (Duffy, 2006). Both old and young are playing video games as a form of leisure entertainment and the popularity continues to grow at a tremendous rate (Duffy, 2006). Opponents of video gaming argue that it promotes social isolation, increased aggressive behavior, endorses gender bias, confuses reality with fantasy, and is simply a waste of time (Griffiths & Davies, 2005; Smith, 2006; Weber et al., 2006). Advocates of video gaming dispute the negative effects by pointing out the positive effects such as players are introduced to technology, encourages problem solving and increases logic skills, provides practice in motor and spatial skills, and is therapeutic (Lieberman, 2006; Ritterfeld & Weber, 2006). The proposed study contributes to the academic discipline of interactive entertainment in three ways. First, the results of this research will help society better understand how the video gaming industry has evolved into the largest form of leisure entertainment and continues to expand into all genders and ages. Second, by understanding the growth of the industry and realizing the effects video game play has on society, we can recognize the changes occurring as it shifts towards cooperative game play thus requiring interaction with other individuals and possibly the societal effects. Third, the research will inform those concerned with video game play dominating leisure activity time as to whether or not something productive can be established by playing cooperative video games and as a result add to the body of knowledge.

10

All of these contributions will help future interactive entertainment researchers more easily conduct comprehensive literature reviews. Procedures Historically, cohesion has been considered one of the most important small group variables (Lott & Lott, 1965). Cohesion-performance is driven by a commitment to a task (Mullen & Cooper, 1994) and is a multidimensional dynamic process including task and social cohesion (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). A number of studies have suggested that team building activities increase cohesion (Smith, 1997). The proposed research was a pretest-posttest quantitative group’s design (Boyle, 2002). The quantitative findings measure the longitudinal changes on team cohesion through the use of a pretest and posttest assessment for the participants playing collaborative video games. The research implements Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley’s instrument Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) which is a conceptual model for measuring cohesion (1985). Researchers Albert Carron and Lawrence Brawley created the GEQ based upon assumptions that cohesion can be evaluated through perceptions of individual group members. The test identifies four constructs related through different task and social interactions as viewed through the eyes of the individuals about them self and their team (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 2002). The authors clarify that the model is a framework that serves as a guideline and should be used in its original content. However, as necessary, revisions are acceptable including changes to words, the deletion of non-pertinent questions, and the addition of items that are more culturally meaningful to the study (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 2002). The GEQ is an 18-item questionnaire based upon Carron’s (1982) conceptual model of cohesion representing four constructs. The model divides cohesion into two categories: group

11

integration and interpersonal attractions to the group. The model then subdivides the two categories into 4 sub-scales by assessing the Group Integration-Task (GI-T), Group Integration- Social (GI-S), Individual Attractions to the Group-Task (ATG-T), and the Individual Attractions to the Group-Social (ATG-S). The GI-T and GI-S sub-scales represent the “us”, “our” and “we” perceptions while the ATG-T and ATG-S sub-scales represent the “I”, “my”, and “me” perceptions. Four test questions refer to ATG-T, five questions assess ATG-S, five questions assess GI-T, and four questions assess GI-S. Responses are in the form of a 9-point Likert scale based on strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (9) with the higher score reflecting stronger perceptions of cohesiveness. Some items on the questionnaire were slightly modified as suggested by the instrument authors to represent the culture of this study. Since team cohesion is a multidimensional construct, all four components of team cohesion do not need to be present in order to show a degree of change in cohesion (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 2002). In this research, the sample (n=56) was selected from the population by advertising at a university campus, placing advertisements in the school newspaper, and by drawing upon Psychology students that have to participate in some form of research interventions each semester. Interested applicants were directed to a website to allow potential subjects to register to participate in the study. Registered subjects that met the criteria of being between the ages of 18 and 29 years old were able to specify time and day availability to participate in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to participate in either the one or three week intervention. Participants were informed that the intervention could last up to three weeks but did not know the length of their intervention until it was completed and they had taken the modified posttest GEQ. Due to the cost of compensating subjects and a need to keep the cost down along with a

Full document contains 133 pages
Abstract:   In today's economy, productivity and efficiency require collaboration between employees. In order to improve collaboration the factors affecting teamwork must be examined to identify where changes can be made in order to increase performance. One factor contributing to teamwork is team cohesion and represents a process whereby members are joined by a common bond in the pursuit of a common objective. A popular social bonding activity sweeping the world is playing cooperative video games. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of playing cooperative video games on team cohesion. Subjects (N=56) were randomly placed into 15 teams of three to four members. A modified Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) pretest was administered to determine the initial degree of cohesiveness between team members and to examine a wide cross-section of correlates and cohesiveness. Each team was randomly assigned to a specific intervention length of either one or three weeks with the one week groups playing for one hour and the three week groups playing for six hours. After the randomly assigned length of game play was completed, team members completed the modified GEQ posttest. The results of the posttest were compared with the pretest to determine the effect on the team's cohesion. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and a 2 x 2 MANCOVA was used to determine if playing collaborative video games affected the level of cohesion. A mixed design was used as post hoc analyses for each GEQ cohesive factor and indicated that levels of cohesion increased due to the intervention but was not dependent upon the length of the intervention. The results of this analysis indicated that video games can be used as a team building experience to improve cohesion regardless of how long the video game is played.