How Relevant Is Your Choice?

User Engagement and Perceived Agency in Interactive Digital Narratives on Video Streaming Platforms
  • Lobke KolhoffEmail author
  • Frank Nack
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11869)


With the release of the film Black Mirror: Bandersnatch Netflix entered the area of interactive streamed narratives. We performed a qualitative analysis with 169 Netflix subscribers that had watched the episode. The key findings show (1) participants are initially engaged because of curiosity and the novelty value, and desire to explore the narrative regardless of satisfaction, (2) perceived agency is limited due to arbitrary choices and the lack of meaningful consequences, (3) the overall experience is satisfactory but adaptions are desirable in future design to make full use of the potential of the format.


Interactive Digital Narrative (IDN) User engagement Agency Streamed interactive fiction Netflix Bandersnatch 


  1. 1.
    Solarski, C.: Interactive Stories and Video Game Art: A Storytelling Framework for Game Design. AK Peters/CRC Press, New York (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker, J.: Piecing together and tearing apart: finding the story in afternoon. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia: Returning to Our Diverse Roots, pp. 111–117 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth, C.: Experiencing Interactive Storytelling (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray, J.: Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The Free Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hales, C.: Cinematic interaction: from kinoautomat to cause and effect. Digit. Creat. 16, 54–64 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammond, A.: Literature in the Digital Age: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gomery, D.: The Hollywood blockbuster: industrial analysis and practice. In: Stringer, J. (ed.) Movie Blockbusters, pp. 84–95. Routledge, London (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davenport, G.: New Orleans in transition, 1983–1987: the interactive delivery of a cinematic case study. The International Congress for Design and Planning Theory, Education Group Conference Proceedings (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mateas, M., Stern, A.: Build it to understand it: ludology meets narratology in game design space. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA), 3 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dow, S., Mehta, M., Harmon, E., MacIntyre, B., Mateas, M.: Presence and engagement in an interactive drama. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1475–1484 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nardi, B., Harris, J.: Strangers and friends: collaborative play in World of Warcraft. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 149–158 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burroughs, B.: House of Netflix: streaming media and digital lore. Popul. Commun. 17, 1–17 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Brien, H., Toms, E.: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 938–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Attfield, S., Kazai, G., Lalmas, M., Piwowarski, B.: Towards a science of user engagement (position paper). In: WSDM Workshop on User Modelling for Web Applications, pp. 9–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lalmas, M., O’Brien, H., Yom-Tov, E.: Measuring User Engagement. Synth. Lect. Inf. Concepts Retr. Serv. 6, 1–132 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoenau-Fog, H.: Hooked! Evaluating engagement as continuation desire in interactive narratives. In: International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 219–230 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vorderer, P., Knobloch, S., Schramm, H.: Does entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching an interactive TV movie on viewers’ experience of entertainment. Media Psychol. 3, 343–363 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ben-Shaul, N.: Can narrative films go interactive? New Cine.: J. Contemp. Film 2, 149–162 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Limerick, H., Coyle, D., Moore, J.: The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: a review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 643 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murray, J.: Research into interactive digital narrative: a kaleidoscopic view. In: International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, pp. 3–17 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roth, C., Vermeulen, I.: Real story interaction: the role of global agency in interactive storytelling. In: International Conference on Entertainment Computing, pp. 425–428 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roth, C., Koenitz, H.: Bandersnatch, yea or nay? Reception and user experience of an interactive digital narrative video. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, pp. 247–254 (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cirucci, A., Vacker, B.: Black Mirror and Critical Media Theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J., Tosca, S.: Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction. Routledge, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thompson, S., Armstrong, W., Thomas, C.: Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: a control heuristic explanation. Psychol. Bull. 123, 143–161 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baltar, F., Brunet, I.: Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res. 22, 57–74 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Informatics InstituteUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations