Advertisement

An Exploration of the Relationship Between Personality and Strategy Formation Using Market Farmer: Using a Bespoke Computer Game in Behavioural Research

  • Andrew ReillyEmail author
  • Dirk Van Rooy
  • Simon Angus
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11863)

Abstract

A computer game was designed for use in a study examining the relationship between facets of the personality trait openness to experience and exploration of a dynamic environment where initial knowledge is limited. A total of 38 females and 56 males aged between 18 and 62 completed a measure of openness to experience and exploration-exploitation before playing Market Farmer: a game specifically designed to engage players and record strategy formation behaviour over time. As expected, exploration increased initially and then fell as players learned successful strategies. It was hypothesised that openness to experience would positively moderate the relationship between exploration and score in the latter part of the game, through adventurousness and intellect. As expected adventurousness did positively moderate the relationship between exploration and score, however intellect did not, and liberalism did. These results may reflect differences in ambiguity tolerance and flexibility in expectations when establishing strategies and indicate that Market Farmer offers a promising tool for the examination of personality and strategy formation.

Keywords

Serious games Personality Openness to experience Exploration Strategy Research 

References

  1. 1.
    Coovert, M.D., Winner, J., Bennett Jr., W., Howard, D.J.: Serious games are a serious tool for team research. Int. J. Serious Games 4(1), 41–55 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schönbrodt, F.D., Asendorpf, J.B.: Virtual social environments as a tool for psychological assessment: dynamics of interaction with a virtual spouse. Psychol. Assess. 23(1), 7–17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Szell, M., Thurner, S.: Measuring social dynamics in a massive multiplayer online game. Soc. Netw. 32(4), 313–329 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A.C., Swinth, K.R., Hoyt, C.L., Bailenson, J.N.: Target article: immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13(2), 103–124 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Washburn, D.A.: The games psychologists play (and the data they provide). Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35(2), 185–193 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyle, E.: Psychological aspects of serious games. In: Moreno-Ger, P., Baxter, G., Boyle, E., Connolly, T.M., Hainey, T. (eds.) Psychology, Pedagogy, and Assessment in Serious Games, pp. 1–18. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams, D.: The mapping principle, and a research framework for virtual worlds. Commun. Theory 20(4), 451–470 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elson, M., Quandt, T.: Digital games in laboratory experiments: controlling a complex stimulus through modding. Psychol. Pop. Media Culture 5(1), 52–65 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reilly, A.: Design sciences in social psychological research: using computational models and serious games to complement existing methods. Manuscript submitted for publication, Department of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narayanan, V.K., Zane, L.J., Kemmerer, B.: The cognitive perspective in strategy: an integrative review. J. Manag. 37(1), 305–351 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mintzberg, H., Westley, F.: Decision making: it’s not what you think. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 42(3), 89–93 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibcus, P., Vermeulen, P.A.M., Radulova, E.: The decision-making entrepreneur: a literature review. In: Vermeulen, P.A.M., Curseu, P.L. (eds.) Entrepreneurial Strategic Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective, pp. 11–40. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hills, T.T., Todd, P.M., Lazer, D., Redish, A.D., Couzin, I.D., Cognitive Search Research Group: Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19(1), 46–54 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berger-Tal, O., Nathan, J., Meron, E., Saltz, D.: The exploration-exploitation dilemma: a multidisciplinary framework. PLoS One 9(4), e95693 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, J.A.: Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: development of the IPIP-NEO-120. J. Res. Pers. 51, 78–89 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keller, T., Weibler, J.: Behind managers’ ambidexterity—studying personality traits, leadership, and environmental conditions associated with exploration and exploitation. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 66(3), 309–333 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keller, T., Weibler, J.: What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 22(1), 54–71 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen, J.D., McClure, S.M., Yu, A.J.: Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 362(1481), 933–942 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maule, A.J., Hockey, G.R.J., Bdzola, L.: Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Physiol. 104, 283–301 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweetser, P., Wyeth, P.: GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Comput. Entertain. 3, 3 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curseu, P.L., Vermeulen, P.A.M., Bakker, R.M.: The psychology of entrepreneurial strategic decisions. In: Vermeulen, P.A.M., Curseu, P.L. (eds.) Entrepreneurial Strategic Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective, pp. 41–67. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Braad, E., Žavcer, G., Sandovar, A.: Processes and models for serious game design and development. In: Dörner, R., Göbel, S., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Masuch, M., Zweig, K. (eds.) Entertainment Computing and Serious Games. LNCS, vol. 9970, pp. 92–118. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46152-6_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations