The Mario Brothers are Unfair: A study on Sense of Progression in Computer Gameplay
- 79 Downloads
This study investigated how a sense of progression, rather than a precise calculation of the goal distance, is important in making the decision to invest additional resources in an ongoing task. One hundred participants were recruited to play a computer game in which the goal stage of the game was not provided and the game character could be killed by different death traps that were located in unexpected areas. The results indicate that more participants continued playing the game when they believed that they could make progress in the gameplay. When they did not experience a sense of progression, they chose to quit no matter how much time they had already spent playing the game. The results of this study further suggest that in fixed conditions, a sense of progression is built through the gradual improvement that can be anticipated in the gameplay. However, no sense of progression could be established in random conditions under which improvement through experience was impossible.
KeywordsSense of progression Goal Continuation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was not supported by any funding.
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest among all the involved authors of this manuscript. All author declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., & Rapp, J. C. (2011). Examining the Use of Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Construct in International Research: A 25-Year Review. International Business Research Journal, 4(1), 3-15.Google Scholar
- Bowen, J., Qiu, Z., & Li. Y. (1994). Robust tolerance for ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, 57(1), 155-165.Google Scholar
- Emmons, R. A. (1996). Striving and feeling: personal goals and subjective well-being. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: lining motivation and cognition to behavior. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1057–1068.Google Scholar
- Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hirsh, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2008). The devil you know: neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19(10), 962-967.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. USA: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Malmierca, M. S., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., Escera, C., & Bendixen, A. (2014). Neuronal adaptation, novelty detection and regularity encoding in audition. Frontiers in System Neuroscience, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00111.
- van Putten, M., Zeelenberg, M., & van Dijk, E. (2010). Who throws good money after bad? Action vs. state orientation moderates the sunk cost fallacy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 33–36.Google Scholar
- Wiese, B. S. (2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. In B. R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, & S. D. Phillips (Eds.), Personal project pursuit: goals, action and human flourishing (pp. 301–328). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Zakowski, S. G. (1995). The effects of stressor predictability on lymphocyte proliferation in humans. Psychology and Health, 10, 409-425.Google Scholar