skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858419acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Peak-End Effects on Player Experience in Casual Games

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

The peak-end rule is a psychological heuristic observing that people's retrospective assessment of an experience is strongly influenced by the intensity of the peak and final moments of that experience. We examine how aspects of game player experience are influenced by peak-end manipulations to the sequence of events in games that are otherwise objectively identical. A first experiment examines players' retrospective assessments of two games (a pattern matching game based on Bejeweled and a point-and-click reaction game) when the sequence of difficulty is manipulated to induce positive, negative and neutral peak-end effects. A second experiment examines assessments of a shootout game in which the balance between challenge and skill is similarly manipulated. Results across the games show that recollection of challenge was strongly influenced by peak-end effects; however, results for fun, enjoyment, and preference to repeat were varied -- sometimes significantly in favour of the hypothesized effects, sometimes insignificant, but never against the hypothesis.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1911-file3.mp4

mp4

12.2 MB

References

  1. Abuhamdeh, S. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically motivating, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38, 3 (2012), 317--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ariely, D. Combining Experiences Over Time: The Effects of Duration, Intensity Changes and On-Line Measurements on Retrospective Pain Evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11 (1998), 1945.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bernhaupt, R. (ed.), Game User Experience Evaluation. Springer, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brave, S. and Nass, C. Emotion in human-computer interaction. in Julie, A.J. and Andrew, S. eds. The human-computer interaction handbook, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2003, 81--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cockburn, A., Quinn, P. and Gutwin, C. Examining the peak-end effects of subjective experience. in Proceedings of CHI'15: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, (2015), 357--366. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cowley, E. and Farrell, C. Retrospective evaluations: Will chance versus luck oriented individuals select different moments of an experience? Advances in Consumer Research, San Antonio, USA, 2006, http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v33/naacr_v33_32. pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row, NY, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Wirtz, D. and Oishi, S. End effects of rated life quality: the James Dean Effect. Psychol Sci. 12, 2 (2001), 124--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dixon, M. and Verma, R. Sequence effects in service bundles: Implications for service design and scheduling. Journal of Operations Management 31, 3 (2013), 138--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Do, A., Rupert, A. and Wolford, G. Evaluations of pleasurable experiences: The peak-end rule. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 1 (2008), 96--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Finn, B. Ending on a High Note: Adding a Better End to Effortful Study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36, 6 (2010), 15481553.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredrickson, B. and Kahneman, D. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 1 (1993), 4555.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hamari, J. and Tuunanen, J. Player types: A metasynthsis. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 1, 2 (2014), 29--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Harrison, C., Amento, B., Kuznetsov, S. and Bell, R. Rethinking the progress bar. in Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, ACM, (2007), 115--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Harrison, C., Yeo, Z. and Hudson, S.E. Faster progress bars: manipulating perceived duration with visual augmentations. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, (2010), 1545--1548. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hassenzahl, M. and Sandweg, N. From mental effort to perceived usability: transforming experiences into summary assessments CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Vienna, Austria, 2004, 1283--1286 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kahneman, D. Evaluation by Moments: Past and Future. in Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. eds. Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press NY, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kahneman, D. Experience Utility and Objective Happiness: A Moment-Based Approach. in Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. eds. Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press NY, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B., Schreiber, C. and Redelmeier, D. When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 1 (1993), 401--405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. and Sarin, R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 2 (1997), 375405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Langer, T., Sarin, R. and Weber, M. The retrospective evaluation of payment sequences: duration neglect and peak-and-end effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 58, 1 (2005), 157--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. McGonigal, J. 2014. Games Can Make a Better World. from http://janemcgonigal.com/2014/01/06/transcriptgames-can-make-a-better-world/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Nasiry, J. and Popescu, I. Dynamic Pricing with LossAverse Consumers and Peak-End Anchoring. Operations Research 59, 6 (2011), 1361--1368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Pagulayan, R.J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R.L. and Fuller, T. User-centered design in games. in Jacko, J., A and Sears, A. eds. The human-computer interaction handbook, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2003, 883--906. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Redelmeier, D.A. and Kahneman, D. Patients' memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 66, 1 (1996), 3--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Redelmeier, D.A., Katz, J. and Kahneman, D. Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Pain 104, 1 (2003), 187--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Ryan, R., Rigby, C.S. and Przybylski, A. The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A SelfDetermination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion 30, 4 (2006), 344--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Streufert, S. and Streufert, S.C. Effects of conceptual structure, failure, and success on attribution of causality and interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11, 2 (1969), 138--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Švelch, J. Comedy of Contingency: Making Physical Humor in Video Game Spaces. International Journal of Communication 8 (2014), 2530--2552.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput. Entertain. 3, 3 (2005), 3--3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Peak-End Effects on Player Experience in Casual Games

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      6108 pages
      ISBN:9781450333627
      DOI:10.1145/2858036

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate565of2,435submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader