Abstract
In this contribution, we present the conception of the serious moral game uMed: Your Choice for the training of medical students’ moral sensitivity and resoluteness. First, we offer an overview of the moral competences that we aim to train through the game: an empathic concern for relevant groups; an awareness of one’s susceptibility to biases and stress, moral schemas and scripts for automatized sensitivity under time pressure; a sensitivity to attitudes of moral disengagement; and skills for speaking up about ethical issues. Second, we present the educational game mechanisms and contents that we have selected and combined to achieve the desired learning outcomes: playing an intern at a clinic, learners deal with several cases, in which they have to interact with patients, patients’ relatives, and co-workers. Their decisions, including the way they communicate, have immediate as well as delayed consequences, and players receive constant feedback in terms of three value categories (empathy, integrity, efficiency). Third, we discuss how we employ the game within our study program. We close with a discussion of a possible critique of our design and with an outlook on the further design process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
One of the authors experienced this case as a patient.
- 2.
This example is meant to illustrate how a script is basically a routine procedure of doing something.
- 3.
The game does not demand medical knowledge from players. Relevant information on diagnoses, treatments etc. will be readily available so that the game can also be played by medical laypeople.
- 4.
For instance, we have optimized a previously published test of value sensitivity in medicine (Ineichen et al. 2017) and used this instrument for pre- and post-tests with players and control groups.
- 5.
The anonymization of the player data is crucial: It ensures the safe space that allows for the students to learn by trial and error and to play with the ethical scenarios, which can even include the imagination of antisocial behaviors. Disclosing personal player data to lecturers and group members could lead to the attribution of blame or the stigmatization of learners. If students choose to share and discuss their own game experiences and decisions, they should be able to do this at their own will.
References
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. New York, NY: Delacorte.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (3) (pp. 193–209).
Batson, D., Polycarpou, M., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H., Mitchener, E., Bednar, L., Klein, T., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and Attitudes: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Improve Feelings Toward the Group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, (pp. 495–509).
Bazerman, M., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2011). Blind spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do About It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Christen, M., Faller, F., Götz, U., & Müller, C. (2013). Serious Moral Games. Analyzing and Engaging Moral Values Through Video Games. Zurich: Zurich University of Arts. https://www.encyclog.com/_upl/files/SeriousMoralGames_English_Final.pdf. Retrieved: [23.03.2020].
Christen, M., & Katsarov, J. (2018). Serious Moral Games—Videospiele als Werkzeuge der Ethikbildung. In T. Junge & C. Schumacher (Eds.), Digitale Spiele im Diskurs. www.medien-im-diskurs.de. Retrieved: [23.03.2020].
Consalvo, M., Busch, T., & Jong, C. (2019). Playing a Better Me: How Players Rehearse Their Ethos via Moral Choices. Games and Culture, 14 (3), (pp. 216–235). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016677449.
Formosa, P., Ryan, M., & Staines, D. (2016). Papers, Please and the systemic approach to engaging ethical expertise in video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 18, (pp. 211–225). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9407-z.
Gentile, M. (2010). Giving Voice to Values. How to Speak Your Mind When You Know What’s Right. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.
Gibbs, J. (2014). Moral Development and Reality. Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gioia, D. (1992). Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11 (5), (pp. 379–389).
Hand, M. (2018). A Theory of Moral Education. Oxon: Routledge.
Hannah, S., & Avolio, B. (2010). Moral Potency: Building the Capacity for Character-based Leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62 (4), (pp. 291–310).
Hodent, C. (2018). The Gamer’s Brain. How Neuroscience and UX Can Impact Video Game Design. Boca Raton et al.: CRC Press.
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ineichen, C., Christen, M., & Tanner, C. (2017). Measuring Value Sensitivity in Medicine. BMC Medical Ethics, 18 (5).
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Katsarov, J., & Christen, M. (2018). Promoting the Moral Sensitivity of Police and Military Personnel. NECESSE, 3 (1), (pp. 114–120).
Katsarov, J., Christen, M., Mauerhofer, R., Schmocker, D., & Tanner, C. (2019). Training Moral Sensitivity Through Video Games: A Review of Suitable Game Mechanisms. Games and Culture, 14 (4), (pp. 344–466). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017719344.
Lee, D. (2006). Academic Freedom, Critical Thinking and Teaching Ethics. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 5 (2), (pp. 199–208).
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Computer Games for Learning. An Evidence-Based Approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mitchell, J., Macrae, C., & Banaji, M. (2006). Dissociable Medial Prefrontal Contributions to Judgments of Similar and Dissimilar Others. Neuron, 50 (4), (pp. 655–663). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.040.
Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative Ethical Education. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 703-733). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raemer, D. B., Kolbe, M., Minehart, R. D., Rudolph, J. W., & Pian-Smith, M. C. (2016). Improving Anesthesiologists’ Ability to Speak Up in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Experiment of a Simulation-Based Intervention and a Qualitative Analysis of Hurdles and Enablers. Academic Medicine, 91 (4), (pp. 530–539). doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001033.
Rest, J. (1982). A Psychologist Looks at the Teaching of Ethics. The Hastings Center Report 12 (1), (pp. 29–36).
Seiler, S., Fischer, A., & Voegtli, S. (2011). Developing Moral Decision-Making Competence: A Quasi-Experimental Intervention Study in the Swiss Armed Forces. Ethics and Behavior, 21, (pp. 452–470).
Simola, S. K. (2010). Use of a “Coping-Modeling, Problem-Solving” Program in Business Ethics Education. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, (pp. 383–401).
Tanner, C., & Christen, M. (2014). Moral Intelligence—A Framework for Understanding Moral Competences. In M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer & C. Tanner (Eds.), Empirically Informed Ethics. Morality Between Facts and Norms (pp. 119–136). Cham: Springer.
Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185 (4157), (pp. 1124–1131).
Watts, L., Medeiros, K., Mulhearn, T., Steele, L., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. (2017). Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27, (pp. 351–384).
World Medical Association. (1999). Resolution on the Inclusion of Medical Ethics and Human Rights in the Curriculum of Medical Schools World-Wide. Tel Aviv: World Medical Assembly.
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. (2013). A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Serious Games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, (pp. 249–265).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Katsarov, J., Biller-Andorno, N., Eichinger, T., Schmocker, D., Christen, M. (2020). uMed: Your Choice—Conception of a Digital Game to Enhance Medical Ethics Training. In: Groen, M., Kiel, N., Tillmann, A., Weßel, A. (eds) Games and Ethics. Digitale Kultur und Kommunikation, vol 7. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28175-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28175-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-28174-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-28175-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)