Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
more » « less
Background Innovative approaches are needed to understand barriers to and facilitators of physical activity among insufficiently active adults. Although social comparison processes (ie, self-evaluations relative to others) are often used to motivate physical activity in digital environments, user preferences and responses to comparison information are poorly understood.
Objective We used an iterative approach to better understand users’ selection of comparison targets, how they interacted with their selected targets, and how they responded to these targets.
Methods Across 3 studies, different samples of insufficiently active college students used the Fitbit system (Fitbit LLC) to track their steps per day as well as a separate, adaptive web platform each day for 7 to 9 days (N=112). The adaptive platform was designed with different layouts for each study; each allowed participants to select their preferred comparison target from various sets of options, view the desired amount of information about their selected target, and rate their physical activity motivation before and after viewing information about their selected target. Targets were presented as achieving physical activity at various levels below and above their own, which were accessed via the Fitbit system each day. We examined the types of comparison target selections, time spent viewing and number of elements viewed for each type of target, and day-level associations between comparison selections and physical activity outcomes (motivation and behavior).
Results Study 1 (n=5) demonstrated that the new web platform could be used as intended and that participants’ interactions with the platform (ie, the type of target selected, the time spent viewing the selected target’s profile, and the number of profile elements viewed) varied across the days. Studies 2 (n=53) and 3 (n=54) replicated these findings; in both studies, age was positively associated with time spent viewing the selected target’s profile and the number of profile elements viewed. Across all studies, upward targets (who had more steps per day than the participant) were selected more often than downward targets (who had fewer steps per day than the participant), although only a subset of either type of target selection was associated with benefits for physical activity motivation or behavior.
Conclusions Capturing physical activity–based social comparison preferences is feasible in an adaptive digital environment, and day-to-day differences in preferences for social comparison targets are associated with day-to-day changes in physical activity motivation and behavior. Findings show that participants only sometimes focus on the comparison opportunities that support their physical activity motivation or behavior, which helps explain previous, equivocal findings regarding the benefits of physical activity–based comparisons. Additional investigation of day-level determinants of comparison selections and responses is needed to fully understand how best to harness comparison processes in digital tools to promote physical activity.
-
Understanding players' mental models are crucial for game designers who wish to successfully integrate player-AI interactions into their game. However, game designers face the difficult challenge of anticipating how players model these AI agents during gameplay and how they may change their mental models with experience. In this work, we conduct a qualitative study to examine how a pair of players develop mental models of an adversarial AI player during gameplay in the multiplayer drawing game iNNk. We conducted ten gameplay sessions in which two players (n = 20, 10 pairs) worked together to defeat an AI player. As a result of our analysis, we uncovered two dominant dimensions that describe players' mental model development (i.e., focus and style). The first dimension describes the focus of development which refers to what players pay attention to for the development of their mental model (i.e., top-down vs. bottom-up focus). The second dimension describes the differences in the style of development, which refers to how players integrate new information into their mental model (i.e., systematic vs. reactive style). In our preliminary framework, we further note how players process a change when a discrepancy occurs, which we observed occur through comparisons (i.e., compare to other systems, compare to gameplay, compare to self). We offer these results as a preliminary framework for player mental model development to help game designers anticipate how different players may model adversarial AI players during gameplay.more » « less
-
Reflection is a critical aspect of the learning process. However, educational games tend to focus on supporting learning concepts rather than supporting reflection. While reflection occurs in educational games, the educational game design and research community can benefit from more knowledge of how to facilitate player reflection through game design. In this paper, we examine educational programming games and analyze how reflection is currently supported. We find that current approaches prioritize accuracy over the individual learning process and often only support reflection post-gameplay. Our analysis identifies common reflective features, and we develop a set of open areas for future work. We discuss these promising directions towards engaging the community in developing more mechanics for reflection in educational games.more » « less
Full Text Available