Discussion:

The bulk of research on video games has largely focused on adolescents,

teenagers and aggression. The most obvious and powerful change in games has
been in their growing social nature. Most obvious and powerful change in games
has been in their growing social nature. Game players had already been known
to seek out game play in general for social reasons but for explicitly networked
games, the attractions are the other players the relationships between them and
their impact on out-of-game community and relationships. For gender-based
research, it is imperative to begin considering game spaces in which players
from both genders interact, rather than studying solo players in a lab and using
gender as a post hoc control variable. In games, gender has again been
employed as a basic demographic control, rather than as a dynamic element that
shapes how players approach games, interact within them, and negotiate
expectations. Gender research has almost entirely avoided the study of sexual
relationships among gamers, but has occasionally examined family interactions
focusing instead on hot social topics such as the displacement of homework, and
health by gender.
A handful of recent studies have examined the social contexts of female game
play. Female gamersboth young and oldwho play frequently believe that
games can be valuable spaces for socializing, including playing with friends and
family as well as meeting new people via games and females are also more often
drawn to gaming through ofine social networks than through standard
advertising, which tends to focus on a male point of view .Yet such work stresses
the factors that bring female players to games, and does not scientically
explore how they play or think about playing once in games. Further, none of the
research yet performed utilizes gender role theory to explore female game play,
leaving the theory underdeveloped in terms of contemporary digitally based
leisure activities.
From our study we can conclude that the four different independent variables
were explained by certain number of factors as shown in component matrix. The
table contains component loadings, which are the correlation between the
variable and component. The table makes it easier to read the correlations in a
meaningful way. The table has principle components that have been extracted.
As one can see from the footnote that 4 components have been extracted. The
components whose Eigen values are greater than 1.
From the table one can see that the values of all the components are not very
clear and lies in the grey area. The components have not loaded properly
accounting to the contribution of different factors. Therefore we performed the
rotation and got the rotated component matrix which shows the factor loadings
for each variable.
We went across each row to nd out which variable is contributing highest for
proper loading. When you see the age subtest it loaded highest on factor 1 with
a value of .765. Similarly educational qualication loaded highest on factor 1 as
well. The third question loaded max with factor 2 with a value of .576. Similarly
the fourth question loaded with factors 1 and 3 with values corresponding to .403
and .540. The question with colour theme loaded with factor 4 and has a value .
818. Likewise question sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth loaded with factor 2,
factor 3, factor 2 and factor 3 and has values equivalent to .544, .651, .741 and .

713 respectively.
The rotation method used was Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization and rotation converged in 19 iterations.
We are not using the component transformation matrix table as it has to do with
SPSS performing the orthogonal rotation that was asked. Then Regression was
run on the data.
This table simply states the variables in the model and the selection method cho
sen. From the model summary table we can see that the correlation and the rsquare and indicates how much is explained. We are not worried about the
annova box.
The nal box labelled Coefficient gives the results of the analysis. Each columns
is explained below:
Unstandardized Coefficients B: This shows the value and the numbers in the
linear regression equation.

The relationship between REGR factors and the dependent variable

how many factors have you spend playing video games in the last
fortnight? are .336, .115, .363 and .346 respectively

Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Error: This is the standard error for the
coefficients- it is used in the calculation of signicance.
T test: This is the t-test to see if the coefficients are signicantly different from
0. A value over 1.96 indicates signicance at the 5% level.
Sig: This is the p-value. If this is under 0.05 then the variable is signicant. The
values we have here are .005, .324, .002 and .004 which implies that there is a
signicant relationship between dependent variable and other REGR factor
scores except REGR factor 2 which is over 0.05. Thus for the question item How
many hours have you spend in playing video games in the last fortnight?
signicant factors are demography, feminine nature and game design.
Similarly we have performed regression for other dependent variables In the
last fortnight maximum how long have you spent in playing a videogame in one
sitting? and How many different videogames have you ever played? and have
found signicant factors gender role & stereotype along with feminine nature
having .044 and .005 sig values and gender roles and stereotype with .048 sig
value.
Taken together, these ndings afrm the predictive power of gender role theory,
and highlight the importance of including gender as an independent variable in
future work among social gamers.