Abstract
players—employ numerous types of persuasive tactics; the individual
contributions of such tactics to the effectiveness of these games as a full
experience have not yet been tested. In this study we examine two existing
persuasive games about teen dating violence by performing a controlled
experiment on effects on attitudes towards abusive relationships. We
selected these games on the basis of their relative focus on narrative
or procedural arguments (i.e., mirroring real-world processes through ingame systems). Participants (N = 262) were drawn from a mixed sample
of university and senior secondary school students who, with a mean
age of 19 years, were slightly older than the game’s target audiences.
Results indicated that the games affected some of the attitudes they were
intended to, but that the effects of the narrative and procedural games
were not differentiated. Character and cognitive identification (with the
game’s protagonists and procedural rhetoric) differed between games, but
negatively predicted attitude change. We describe conclusions about how
game developers may comfortably explore multiple designs without fear of
hampering effects.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 97-120 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Journal of Games, Self, & Society |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Playing against abuse : Effects of procedural and narrative persuasive games. / Jacobs, Ruud S.; Jansz, Jeroen; Kneer, Julia.
In: Journal of Games, Self, & Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019, p. 97-120.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Playing against abuse
T2 - Effects of procedural and narrative persuasive games
AU - Jacobs, Ruud S.
AU - Jansz, Jeroen
AU - Kneer, Julia
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Persuasive games—games that intend to change attitudes inplayers—employ numerous types of persuasive tactics; the individualcontributions of such tactics to the effectiveness of these games as a fullexperience have not yet been tested. In this study we examine two existingpersuasive games about teen dating violence by performing a controlledexperiment on effects on attitudes towards abusive relationships. Weselected these games on the basis of their relative focus on narrativeor procedural arguments (i.e., mirroring real-world processes through ingame systems). Participants (N = 262) were drawn from a mixed sampleof university and senior secondary school students who, with a meanage of 19 years, were slightly older than the game’s target audiences.Results indicated that the games affected some of the attitudes they wereintended to, but that the effects of the narrative and procedural gameswere not differentiated. Character and cognitive identification (with thegame’s protagonists and procedural rhetoric) differed between games, butnegatively predicted attitude change. We describe conclusions about howgame developers may comfortably explore multiple designs without fear ofhampering effects.
AB - Persuasive games—games that intend to change attitudes inplayers—employ numerous types of persuasive tactics; the individualcontributions of such tactics to the effectiveness of these games as a fullexperience have not yet been tested. In this study we examine two existingpersuasive games about teen dating violence by performing a controlledexperiment on effects on attitudes towards abusive relationships. Weselected these games on the basis of their relative focus on narrativeor procedural arguments (i.e., mirroring real-world processes through ingame systems). Participants (N = 262) were drawn from a mixed sampleof university and senior secondary school students who, with a meanage of 19 years, were slightly older than the game’s target audiences.Results indicated that the games affected some of the attitudes they wereintended to, but that the effects of the narrative and procedural gameswere not differentiated. Character and cognitive identification (with thegame’s protagonists and procedural rhetoric) differed between games, butnegatively predicted attitude change. We describe conclusions about howgame developers may comfortably explore multiple designs without fear ofhampering effects.
U2 - 10.1184/R1/7857578
DO - 10.1184/R1/7857578
M3 - Article
VL - 1
SP - 97
EP - 120
JO - Journal of Games, Self, & Society
JF - Journal of Games, Self, & Society
SN - 2641-9785
IS - 1
ER -