skip to main content
research-article
Open Access
Honorable Mention

Close but Not Too Close: Distance and Relevance in Designing Games for Reflection

Published:31 October 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Reflection is an important precursor to attitude and behavior change, but existing advice on designing for reflection in games is mixed and requires further empirical investigation. We report on the design and evaluation (n=32) of a game to prompt student reflection on work-life balance. Participants played as themselves or a third person character (Alex). An inductive qualitative analysis of post-play interviews, and a follow-up one week later, resulted in four themes relating to how gameplay facilitated reflection: making (sensible) consequences visible; it's like MY life; the space between Alex and I; and triggers in everyday life. A deductive qualitative analysis also indicated that while both games resulted in different forms of reflection for the majority of players, those who role-played as Alex appeared more likely to experience higher levels of reflection. Through exploring the ways in which the two versions of the game succeeded, and failed, to support reflection, we highlight the importance of providing a relevant context to players (so the game feels close to their experience), and allowing them to role-play as someone other than themselves (but not too close).

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

v6chip224.mp4

mp4

17.3 MB

References

  1. Eric PS Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 93--102. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598598 .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Max V Birk, Cheralyn Atkins, Jason T Bowey, and Regan L Mandryk. 2016. Fostering intrinsic motivation through avatar identification in digital games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2982--2995. doi: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2858036.2858062.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ann Blandford. 2013. Semi-structured qualitative studies, in The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, M. D. Soegaard, Rikke Friis Ed., 2nd ed. The Interaction Design Foundation, 2013, ch. 52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Augusto Boal. 1985. Theatre of the Oppressed. Theatre Communications Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Julia Ayumi Bopp, Klaus Opwis, and Elisa D Mekler. 2018. "An Odd Kind of Pleasure" Differentiating Emotional Challenge in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 2018 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173615.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 1985. Promoting reflection in learning, in Reflection: Turning experience into learning D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker Eds. London: Kogan Page, 1985, pp. 18--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2, 77--101. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2016. (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts' (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19, 6, 739--743. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jack W Brehm. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dani Cavallaro. 2009. Anime and the visual novel: narrative structure, design and play at the crossroads of animation and computer games. McFarland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marta E Cecchinato, Anna L Cox, and Jon Bird. 2015. Working 9--5? Professional differences in email and boundary management practices. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3989--3998. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702537.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Adela Chen and Elena Karahanna. 2014. Boundaryless technology: Understanding the effects of technology-mediated interruptions across the boundaries between work and personal life. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 2, 16--36. [Online]. Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol6/iss2/1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Tom Cole, Paul Cairns, and Marco Gillies. 2015. Emotional and functional challenge in core and avant-garde games. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 121--126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2793147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sabrina Haskell Culyba. 2018. The Transformational Framework: A process tool for the development of Transformational games. ETC Press, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.transformationalframework.com/product/book-pdf/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Rowan Daneels, Nicholas D Bowman, Daniel Possler, and Elisa D Mekler. 2021. The "eudaimonic experience': A scoping review of the concept in digital games research. Media and Communication, 9, 2, 178--190. doi: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3824.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Alena Denisova, Julia Ayumi Bopp, Thuy Duong Nguyen, and Elisa D Mekler. 2021. "Whatever the Emotional Experience, It's Up to Them": Insights from Designers of Emotionally Impactful Games. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--9. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1145/3411764.3445286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. John Dewey. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA, USA: D. C. Heath.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Niharika Doble and MV Supriya. 2011. Student life balance: myth or reality? International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 3, 237--251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111120088.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Rowanne Fleck. 2012. Rating reflection on experience: A case study of teachers' and tutors' reflection around images. Interacting with computers, 24, 6, 439--449. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.07.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rowanne Fleck and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Reflecting on reflection: framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM, 216--223. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Eva Ganglbauer, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Florian Güldenpfennig. 2015. Why and what did we throw out? Probing on reflection through the food waste diary. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1105--1114. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. James Paul Gee. 2003. What video games have to teach us about literacy and learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Chad Phoenix Rose Gowler and Ioanna Iacovides. 2019. "Horror, guilt and shame" -Uncomfortable Experiences in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 325--337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Melanie C Green and Timothy C Brock. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79, 5, 701. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022--3514.79.5.701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Melanie C Green, Timothy C Brock, and Geoff F Kaufman. 2004. Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication theory, 14, 4, 311--327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2885.2004.tb00317.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Catherine Grevet. 2014. Managing the Work-Home Boundary in a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Culture. In MobileHCI'14 Workshop on Socio-Technical Systems and Work-Home Boundaries.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jessica Hammer, Alexandra To, Karen Schrier, Sarah Lynne Bowman, and Geoff Kaufman. 2018. Learning and role-playing games, in Role-Playing Game Studies: A Transmedia Approach, J. Zagal and S. Deterding Eds., Routledge, 2018, pp. 283--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jennefer Hart, Ioanna Iacovides, Anne Adams, Manuel Oliveira, and Maria Margoudi. 2017. Understanding engagement within the context of a safety critical game. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 253--264. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1145/3116595.3116633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ioanna Iacovides and Anna L Cox. 2015. Moving beyond fun: Evaluating serious experience in digital games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2245--2254. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Maria Karyda, Elisa D Mekler, and Andrés Lucero. 2021. Data Agents: Promoting Reflection through Meaningful Representations of Personal Data in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--11. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1145/3411764.3445112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Geoff F Kaufman and Mary Flanagan. 2015. A psychologically "embedded" approach to designing games for prosocial causes. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9, 3, Art no. 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015--3--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Geoff F Kaufman, Mary Flanagan, and Max Seidman. 2016. Creating Stealth Game Interventions for Attitude and Behavior Change: An"Embedded Design" Model. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 2, 3, 173--193. doi: https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v2i3.57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Geoff F Kaufman and Lisa K Libby. 2012. Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103, 1, 1--19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027525.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Rilla Khaled. 2018. Questions over answers: Reflective game design, in Playful disruption of digital media, Springer, 2018, pp. 3--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Kathleen P King. 2009. The handbook of the evolving research of transformative learning: Based on the Learning Activities Survey. IAP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ellen Ernst Kossek, Marian N Ruderman, Phillip W Braddy, and Kelly M Hannum. 2012. Work--nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 1, 112--128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Tim Marsh and Brigid Costello. 2013. Lingering serious experience as trigger to raise awareness, encourage reflection and change behavior. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 116--124. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1007/978--3--642--37157--8_15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Elisa D Mekler, Ioanna Iacovides, and Julia Ayumi Bopp. 2018. "A Game that Makes You Question..." Exploring the Role of Reflection for the Player Experience. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 315--327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242691.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jack Mezirow. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Mary Beth Oliver and Anne Bartsch. 2010. Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36, 1, 53--81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2958.2009.01368.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Pablo Ortiz and D Fox Harrell. 2018. Enabling critical self-reflection through roleplay with Chimeria: Grayscale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 353--364. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1145/3242671.3242687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Barbel Pee, Theresa Woodman, Heather Fry, and Elizabeth S Davenport. 2002. Appraising and assessing reflection in students' writing on a structured worksheet. Medical Education, 36, 6, 575--585. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365--2923.2002.01227.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Paul J Silvia and Ann G Phillips. 2011. Evaluating self-reflection and insight as self-conscious traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 2, 234--237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.035.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Alistair Raymond Bryce Soutter and Michael Hitchens. 2016. The relationship between character identification and flow state within video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, B, 1030--1038. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Racheal L Stimpson and Kimberly L Filer. 2011. Female graduate students' work-life balance and the student affairs professional, in Empowering women in higher education and student affairs: Theory, research, narratives, and practice from feminist perspectives, P. A. Pasque and S. E. Nicholson Eds., Sterling, 2011, pp. 69--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Gearóid Ó Súilleabháin and Julie-Ann Sime. 2010. Games for learning and learning transfer, in Critical design and effective tools for e-learning in higher education: Theory into practice, IGI Global, 2010, pp. 113--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Jennifer Sumsion and Alma Fleet. 1996. Reflection: can we assess it? Should we assess it? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 2, 121--130. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1080/0260293960210202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Craig Thorley, "Not By Degrees: Not by degrees: Improving student mental health in the UK's universities," in "IPPR: London, UK," 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/not-by-degreesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117, 2, 440--463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Selen Turkay and Charles K Kinzer. 2014. The effects of avatar-based customization on player identification. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 6, 1, 1--25. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.4018/ijgcms.2014010101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Matthew Alexander Whitby, Sebastian Deterding, and Ioanna Iacovides. 2019. "One of the baddies all along": Moments that Challenge a Player's Perspective. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, 339--350. doi: https://doi-org.libproxy.york.ac.uk/10.1145/3311350.3347192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Krysia M Yardley-Matwiejczuk. 1997. Role Play: Theory and Practice. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Close but Not Too Close: Distance and Relevance in Designing Games for Reflection

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue CHI PLAY
      CHI PLAY
      October 2022
      986 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3570219
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 31 October 2022
      Published in pacmhci Volume 6, Issue CHI PLAY

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader