Persuasive Gaming: Identifying the different types of persuasion through games

Teresa de la Hera Conde-Pumpido

Abstract


The academic study of persuasion through digital games started from a game-centric approach by trying to understand how persuasiveness can be structured within digital games. However, players' performances and the context in which games are played also have an important role in the process of persuasion. The role of these two factors has been the focus of attention in recent research on persuasive games through studies that try to find a balance between players’ preferences and needs and persuasive goals. The objective of this paper is to broaden the understanding of the potential of persuasive gaming practices by providing a theoretical framework that serves to structure previous theoretical approaches on how digital games can be used to persuade players. This theoretical framework serves to explain the different types of persuasion that can be established through digital games, which contributes to better understand how serious games should be designed to respond to different types of serious goals. The three types of persuasion proposed here are: exocentric persuasion, as a game-centric approach for persuasion; endocentric persuasion, as a player-centric approach for persuasion; and game-mediated persuasion, as a context-centric approach for persuasion.

Keywords


persuasive games; persuasive communication; serious games; theoretical framework; persuasion

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bogost, I., Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge: MIT, 2007.

Pisan, Y. and Tan, C. T. “Persuasive environments: Argumentation models in serious games,” in ICCSE 2012 - Proceedings of 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science and Education, 2012, pp. 1319–1322. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccse.2012.6295308

de la H. Conde-Pumpido, T. “A Conceptual Model for the Study of Persuasive Games,” Proc. DiGRA 2013 DeFragging Game Stud., pp. 1–15, 2013.

Løvlie, A. “The rhetoric of persuasive games. Freedom and Discipline in America’s Army,” Conf. Proc. Philos. Comput. Games 2008, pp. 70–91, 2008.

Heide, J. and Nørholm, S. “Playful persuasion. The Rhetorical Potential of Advergames.,” Nord. Rev., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 53–68, 2009.

Treanor, M. and Mateas, M. “Newsgames: Procedural Rhetoric meets Political Cartoons,” Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. 2009.

Bogost, I. “The Rhetoric of Video Game,” in The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, K. Salen, Ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008, pp. 117–140.

Bogost, I. “Frame and Metaphor in Political Games,” DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views - Worlds in Play. 2005.

Frasca G. and Aarseth, E. “Play the message. Play, Game and Videogame Rhetoric,” IT University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2007.

Sicart, M. “Against Procedurality,” Game Stud., vol. 11, no. 3, 2011.

Ferrari, S. “The Judgment of Procedural Rhetoric,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, 2010.

Hochleitner W.et al., “Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions,” CHI Play 2015 - Proc. 2015 Annu. Symp. Comput. Interact. Play, pp. 811–816, 2015.

Dansey, N. “Emergently-Persuasive Games,” in Cases on the Societal Effects of Persuasive Games, 2015, pp. 175–192.

Gamberini L.et al., “LNCS 7284 - Tailoring Feedback to Users’ Actions in a Persuasive Game for Household Electricity Conservation,” LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 100–111, 2012.

Lankes, M., Hochleitner, W., Rammer, D., Busch, M. and Mattheiss, E. “From Classes to Mechanics – Player Type Driven Persuasive Game Development,” Proc. 2015 Annu. Symp. Comput. Interact. Play, pp. 595–600, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2810316

De la Hera Conde-Pumpido, T. and Paz Aléncar, A. “Collaborative Digital Games as Mediation Tool to Foster Intercultural Integration in Primary Dutch Schools,” e-Learning Pap., vol. 43, pp. 13–23, 2015.

Hung, C. “Video games in context: An ethnographic study of situated meaning-making practices of Asian immigrant adolescents in New York City,” Situated Play, vol. 2010, no. 5/29, pp. 248–253, 2007.

Fernando, O. N. N., Adachi, K. and Cohen M., “Phantom sources for separation of listening and viewing positions of multipresent avatars in narrowcasting collaborative virtual environments,” in 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2004. Proceedings., 2004, pp. 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdcsw.2004.1284027

Fogg, B. J. “Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do,” Persuas. Technol. Using Comput. to Chang. What We Think Do, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 283, 2003.

Petty R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 19, pp. 123–205, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

De la Hera Conde-Pumpido, T. “Persuasive Structures in Advergames: Conveying Advertising Messages through Digital Games,” Utrecht University, 2014.

Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E., Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.

Partan, S. R. and Marler, P. “Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals.,” Am. Nat., vol. 166, no. 2, pp. 231–245, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1086/431246

Wei, “Veevia Cancer Game.” 2007.

Walz, S. P., “Delightful Identification & Persuasion: Towards an Analytical and Applied Rhetoric of Digital Games,” Level Up. Proceedings of the 1st International Digital Games Research Conference. University of Utrecht Press, Utrecht, pp. 194–207, 2003.

Möring, S. M. “Games and Metaphor. A critical analysis of the metaphor discourse in game studies,” IT University of Copenhagen, 2013.

University of Washington Harborview Burn Centre in Seattle, “SnowWorld.” 2011.

Gee, J. P. “Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling,” Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. pp. 1–122, 2012.

Steinkuehler, C. A. “Learning in Massively Multiplayer Online Games,” Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Learn. Sci. (ICLS ’04), no. 608, pp. 521–528, 2002.

Smith S. M. and Petty, R. E. “Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis,” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 257–268, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223004

“The Survivor Games.” [Online]. Available: http://thesurvivorgames.wixsite.com/beta.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v4i1.140

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





Serious Games Society


Creative Commons LicenseThe International Journal of Serious Games (IJSG) by Serious Games Society is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.