Exploring the Role of Action Mechanics in Game-Based Stress Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital games can provide effective recovery from stress, with players turning to a variety of genres-including those with game mechanics that can be considered stressors themselves, i.e., action mechanics. We examine whether action mechanics undermine or facilitate game-based recovery by exposing participants (n=60) to a stress induction, and then having them play a roguelike game in one of three conditions: Combat-Required, Combat-Optional, and Combat-Free. We assess experience through self-report and observed physiological responses. Our findings suggest that gameplay-irrespective of action mechanic intensity-supports the recovery process through the pathways of experienced psychological detachment, control, dominance, and pleasure. Additionally, action mechanics were perceived by participants as particularly promising for mastery recovery experiences-but undermine the recovery pathways of relaxation, as corroborated by experienced arousal and subjective stress. Physiological measures corroborate subjective self-report. We contend that video games featuring action mechanics represent a promising strategy for stress recovery, and may be particularly beneficial in the re-assertion of mastery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".