• “A psychologically “embedded” approach to designing games for prosocial causes”

“A psychologically “embedded” approach to designing games for prosocial causes”

Geoff Kaufman, Mary Flanagan

Question: How can we engage people with real life scenarios and key societal issues without triggering psychological defenses?

One sentence answer: Use methods to hide the message: (1) Intermix on and off topic content, (2) Use game genrres or framing devices to “direct players’ attention/expectations away from the games true aims”

“Low Level” Notes:

Intro

• Games have a lasting impact on society
• Focus on negative impact of games has leaded inconclusive results, hence recent efforts have also looked at the potential for prosocial attitudes to be instilled
• Other (less successful) approaches
  • Making the user informed. (Turns out this doesnt necessarily cause positive impact). Directness can trigger defenses that blunt persuasiveness or inspire beliefs counter to intended outcome.

Embedded Design

• The Awkwardness Game used obfuscating to reduce stereotypes and bias in STEM domains.

Study 1A: Testing effectiveness of Intermixed Strategy

• Test Method: 309 participants from Middle/High Schools in New England in mixed gender groups.
• Results Measured using (1) Assigning scientist role to one of 3 female characters, and (2) Rating set of 5 responses to 5 situations with an overt target of bias

Study 1B: Intermixed vs Imbalanced versions

• Test Method: 232 youths (middle/high school) to Intermixed, Inbalanced, control condition (5,9,0 overtly biased-related cards).
• Results measured using (1) Degree which someone else can read a drawing of an E on their forehead (2) Perceived measure of sarcasm in a statement.

The Buffalo Game: Given a noun and adjective identify a real/fictitious person with those in order to collect cards. (Some interesting pairings: tattooed visionary, saintly merchant)

Study 2A: Effectiveness of Obfuscating

• Test Method: 193 College students assigned to a game/no game of buffalo.
• Results measured using (1) “list 4 social identity groups important to them (gender, race, ethnicity, religion, profession, hobby group, etc …) then rate how similar the avg member of each group is to the avg member of the other groups from 1 - 9 (extremely similar) these then avged. Lower similarity = higher social identity complexity. (2) Universal Orientation Scale: 20 statements they (1) strongly disagree to (9) strongly agree

Study 2B: Additional Evidence for 2A’s goal

• Test Method: same as 2A (201 students)
• Results measured using (1) Internal Motiation to Repsond without Prejudice Scale.

Other Strategies

• Distancing, Embodied Cognition, Priming, Strategic inversion, Delayed reveal

General Discussion/Conclusion

• Embedded Design provides complementary methods, also the idea of precursor games

Questions:

• So wouldn’t you get different biases from the college student population regardless of them playing Buffalo - the no game condition is surprising.
• Why is the framing part sort of squished at the end of 2B?
• More “incorrect” uses would be nice / bad scenarios.

Interesting Phrases: “Safe space” of perceiving content in “Party” Games.