Can Video Games Promote Moral Cognition? Supporting Epistemic Play in Papers, Please through Dialogue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Interesting and relevant paper on epistemic play and moral learning. The paper has an innovative approach to video game-based moral learning. The authors’ did a good literature review in section “1.Introdution” on game-based learning in general, and also about moral learning with the “Papers, Please” game.

As a suggestion, I recommend adding “epistemic play” to the list of keywords.

In Table 1, Line 6, please change “not let YOU enter” to “not let HIM enter”.

Lines 274-275 seem to be incoherent, and I recommend the authors review the content. The authors write “Similarly, in the case of the refugee, of the 3 cases that did not have IMplicit intuitions, 2 of which had moral intuitions that appeared implicitly” but it seems to be “Similarly, in the case of the refugee, of the 3 cases that did not have EXplicit intuitions, 2 (of which) had moral intuitions that appeared implicitly”

In section “4. Discussion and conclusions” the authors refer to % data (relative frequencies). As the study only reports to 12 pairs of students it’s important to (also) use absolute frequencies.

Lines 554-563 reports important conclusions about the need “to reduce the cost of the pragmatic goal related to success in the game” (p. 560-561) but also claim that “(…) this may involve dilution of the conflict, (…) which seemed to affect less explicitness of moral content.” (p. 561-563.). I suggest that the authors try to propose ideas that impact conceptions and design of moral learning games.

In my opinion, one important evidence that results from this study is the importance of the pedagogical approach used (dialogue pairs) in epistemic and moral learning in the “Papers, Please” game.

It was a pleasure to review your paper!

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your interest in reviewing our article and for providing valuable feedback. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. In the forthcoming paragraphs, we will address your suggestions systematically, outlining the modifications we have implemented.

Q1. I recommend adding “epistemic play” to the list of keywords.

R1. We have added epistemic play to the list of keywords.

Q2. Lines 274-275 seem to be incoherent, and I recommend the authors review the content. The authors write “Similarly, in the case of the refugee, of the 3 cases that did not have IMplicit intuitions, 2 of which had moral intuitions that appeared implicitly” but it seems to be “Similarly, in the case of the refugee, of the 3 cases that did not have EXplicit intuitions, 2 (of which) had moral intuitions that appeared implicitly”

R2. We agree with the reviewer. We have changed the word “implicit” to “explicit” (line 279).

Q3. The authors refer to % data (relative frequencies). As the study only reports to 12 pairs of students it’s important to (also) use absolute frequencies.

R3. According to the reviewer's recommendations, we have included the absolute frequencies in the text.

Q4. Lines 554-563 report important conclusions about the need “to reduce the cost of the pragmatic goal related to success in the game” (p. 560-561) but also claim that “(…) this may involve dilution of the conflict, (…) which seemed to affect less explicitness of moral content.” (p. 561-563.). I suggest that the authors try to propose ideas that impact conceptions and design of moral learning games.

R4. In our opinion, these are very novel results that still need to be developed in future studies. Nevertheless, we have referred to this need in lines 563-569.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents a small (with regards to the size of the sample, just 12 pairs of players) study on whether playing Papers, Please in pairs can trigger discussions and reflection on moral issues. The paper is well written, the text flows naturally and the text and ideas are easy to follow.

The contribution of the work is quite unclear as the findings seem rather obvious and trivial. Papers, Please is a single player game. The authors have made pairs of players play as one, and observed the communication between them. It seems rather obvious that two individuals that are asked to take decisions together will be forced to talk to each other about their thinking. 

More importantly, the title, abstract and introduction of the paper puts the focus and emphasis on the teaching/learning of morality. As the authors acknowledge in thein concluding remarks, there is nothing in their results that points to any learning on moral issues. 

That is not to say there is no value in the work. It is an interesting study and for sure it can be a useful basis for future research to have some already measured level of communication between individuals who cooperate to make moral decisions; it could be used to assess how effective other approaches are in triggering pragmatic and epistemic discussions.

Overall, the study seems interesting and for sure there is some value in it, but it does not seem to be on the issues that the title of the paper implies. A different approach to the presentation of the work, with clearly identified meaningful contributions, would help.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we want to express our deep gratitude for your keen interest in reading our article and for the insightful comments you've shared. Your feedback has unquestionably helped us in making valuable improvements. In the subsequent sections, we will methodically respond to all your requests while also outlining the revisions we have made to the manuscript.

Q1. The contribution of the work is quite unclear as the findings seem rather obvious and trivial. Papers, Please is a single player game. The authors have made pairs of players play as one, and observed the communication between them. It seems rather obvious that two individuals that are asked to take decisions together will be forced to talk to each other about their thinking. 

 

R1. The manuscript uses a methodology focused on promoting moral cognition through dialogue. Through this study, we have been able to identify a clear increase in moral cognition through dialogue compared to another study that identified moral cognition obtained through spontaneous play alone.

In addition, thanks to this manuscript, we have been able to identify how different characteristics of the game (the possibility of interacting directly with the victim, the existence of conflict, emotional activation, etc.) seem to be related to greater moral cognition.

Finally, it has also been identified that, even in these cases in which there is greater moral cognition, the decisions are not more moral, which is related to the goals of the game itself. This fact implies a reconsideration when measuring moral change based on the decisions made, since these cannot be decontextualized from the moment of the game itself.

Q2. More importantly, the title, abstract and introduction of the paper puts the focus and emphasis on the teaching/learning of morality. As the authors acknowledge in thein concluding remarks, there is nothing in their results that points to any learning on moral issues. 

R2. We agree with the reviewer that the term moral learning is not the most appropriate to refer to the results of the article, given that the work does not analyse the changes produced by the intervention in the moral positions of the participants. Therefore, we have changed the terms moral learning and moral content to moral cognition. From our perspective, moral cognition will help to promote moral learning, as specified in lines 47-48 or lines 101-113, but, as has been said, this study does not directly analyse it. However, it is also important to point out that we have included in the limitations of the paper that it is important to carry out other studies that try to identify the moral learning that is achieved thanks to this cognitive activation (lines 570-577)

Q3. That is not to say there is no value in the work. It is an interesting study and for sure it can be a useful basis for future research to have some already measured level of communication between individuals who cooperate to make moral decisions; it could be used to assess how effective other approaches are in triggering pragmatic and epistemic discussions.

Overall, the study seems interesting and for sure there is some value in it, but it does not seem to be on the issues that the title of the paper implies. A different approach to the presentation of the work, with clearly identified meaningful contributions, would help.

R3. We would like to thank you for your appreciation and the positive aspects pointed out. As for the lack of relationship between the title and theoretical framework of the article and the results obtained, as we pointed out in R2, we have solved it by swapping the term moral learning and moral content for moral cognition, which in our opinion is more accurate if we take into account the proposed objectives.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study may offer important findings for the design of educational video games to promote positive learning in college students.

Introduction and literature review

There is a lack of theoretical support on "moral learning", which is one of the main categories of the study. A theoretical section is needed to define this construct to better situate the author's epistemological position regarding it.

Several studies on the subject are located in the journals: “Journal Of Moral Education” y “Cognition”, among others.

Studies have been identified that even address the issue of game design for moral learning, which given their direct connection, the authors might consider.

·        * Schrier, K. (2019). Designing Games for Moral Learning and Knowledge Building. Games and Culture, 14(4), pp. 306–343. DOI: 10.1177/1555412017711514

An article with a similar intent to the present study, more related to moral activity, was published in 2022 and is cited as a reference [36]:

·      * Cabellos, B., Pozo, J.-I., Marín-Rubio, K., Sánchez, D.L. (2022). Do pro-social video games promote moral activity?: an analysis of user reviews of Papers, Please. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), pp. 11411–11442. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11072-x

Because of their proximity, it would be appropriate to explain the points in common and distant from this study.

In several parts of the text, the analysis of "moral content" is mentioned, and it is even a descriptor that has a greater presence than "moral learning". If we consider that for the objective it is stated: "Our study is therefore aimed at analyzing the moral content made explicit whilst using Papers, Please through the 90 joint decisions discussed in pairs"; (lines 89 and 90), then a whole theoretical epigraph is devoted to "Levels of moral content explicitness...". In this sense, the authors are invited to reflect on the need to clarify the title and place more emphasis on "moral content".

This is also supported by the fact that the objectives stated in lines 177-179 refer to "moral content" and "moral learning" is not made explicit in any of the objectives of the study.

Materials and Methods

It would be appropriate if the research allows it to offer a characterization of the psychology students who participated in the study, year of study, sex, previous experience as players, etc., may be important characteristics especially to have a better representation of the processes studied and the subjects involved.

Results

The results section also makes greater reference to moral content than to moral learning.

Discussion and conclusions

The authors are encouraged to include in the discussion of the results the implications that the study has on student learning, contrasting with other studies, in order to better amplify the value that this research would have for the educational and scientific community, and to give greater strength to the contribution of the study.

References and general aspects.

In a general sense, the study should broaden the literature review, and resolve the issue of the place of "moral learning". It is not clear whether the central objective of the game is to promote this type of learning.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we are very grateful for your interest in reading our article and for the comments you have made about it, which undoubtedly allow us to improve it. In the following lines, we will try to answer in an orderly manner all your requirements, also indicating the changes we have made in the manuscript.

Q1. There is a lack of theoretical support on "moral learning", which is one of the main categories of the study. A theoretical section is needed to define this construct to better situate the author's epistemological position regarding it.

R1. As we will explain below, due to the reviewer's recommendations, we have decided to replace the term moral learning with moral cognition, which we consider more appropriate according to the objectives of the paper. It is for this reason that we prefer not to go further into moral learning in order not to create false expectations for the reader.

Q2. Because of their proximity, it would be appropriate to explain the points in common and distant from this study.

•   * Cabellos, B., Pozo, J.-I., Marín-Rubio, K., Sánchez, D.L. (2022). Do pro-social video games promote moral activity?: an analysis of user reviews of Papers, Please. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), pp. 11411–11442. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11072-x

R2. We thank the reviewer for his contribution and agree on the common points that exist between our manuscript and this article. In fact, both the aims and the categories of analysis of the current study are largely based on that previous work (see lines 72 and 247)

Q3. In several parts of the text, the analysis of "moral content" is mentioned, and it is even a descriptor that has a greater presence than "moral learning". If we consider that for the objective it is stated: "Our study is therefore aimed at analyzing the moral content made explicit whilst using Papers, Please through the 90 joint decisions discussed in pairs"; (lines 89 and 90), then a whole theoretical epigraph is devoted to "Levels of moral content explicitness...". In this sense, the authors are invited to reflect on the need to clarify the title and place more emphasis on "moral content". This is also supported by the fact that the objectives stated in lines 177-179 refer to "moral content" and "moral learning" is not made explicit in any of the objectives of the study.

R3. We agree with the reviewer that the term moral learning is confusing and does not fit well with the objectives we set out in this paper. For this reason, we have changed the term moral learning to moral cognition. This moral cognition also corresponds to the category of moral content that we analysed. Therefore, these changes have been included throughout the paper.

Q4. It would be appropriate if the research allows it to offer a characterization of the psychology students who participated in the study, year of study, sex, previous experience as players, etc., may be important characteristics especially to have a better representation of the processes studied and the subjects involved.

R4. Following the reviewer's recommendations, we have added a table including several descriptor variables of the participants (gender, frequency of video game use in daily life, expertise using video games, age and political ideology (lines 197-198).

Q5. The results section also makes greater reference to moral content than to moral learning.

R5. As mentioned above, we hope that unifying the terms moral content and moral learning will increase the coherence of the text and facilitate the understanding of the results obtained.

Q6.The authors are encouraged to include in the discussion of the results the implications that the study has on student learning, contrasting with other studies, to better amplify the value that this research would have for the educational and scientific community, and to give greater strength to the contribution of the study.

R6. Throughout the discussion, some ideas have been incorporated that we believe can broaden the contributions of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I was already appreciative of the value in this work and only concerned that the title and scope of presentation did not match the core contribution. Following the change in the title and emphasis of presentation in the revised version, I see no reason to delay publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I have read your work very carefully. I am grateful to have considered each of the suggestions made.

I congratulate you for your commitment.