persuasive technologies with gamification: change the … · 2016-08-04 · persuasive technologies...

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future 1 | P a g e

Persuasive technologies withGamification: Change the campuswith funChou, Wen Huei; Chang, Teng-wen; Hwang, Chorng-Sii; Hung, Chung-Wen; Shiau, Yeu-Horng; Ko, Ya-Ling

National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Doliu, Taiwan

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract

Fogg (2003) proposed“Persuasive Technology” as a more subtle and perhaps more sustainable method of intervention to influence user behavior. This approach offers potential for improvingperformance, reducing user errors, and improving the quality of life. Another trend is anemerging recognition that design can change user behavior to produce social benefits (Blevism2007; Brown, 2008; Fabricant 2009; Stanton & Young 1998; 2003; Lockton, Harrison, andStanton, 2010). Lockton et al. (2011; 2009) proposed a design concept called “Design withIntent” (DwI) to identify 101 inspirational design patterns that recur across design fields. DwI isintended to be used by designers working to influence user behavior by helping designers facedwith‘design for behavior change’ briefs.This research intends to shed light on the innovative andpragmatic implementation of DwI indesign education, by designing a project called “change thecampus with fun”. Students are asked to modify or generate some playful behavior designed to make their campus a friendlier place. Aside from the basic DwI program, students were asked toaccentuate the “fun theory” in their system design to provide intrinsic motivation to support social and sustainability purposes. Ten students’ projects were collected and discussed in this study. This research concludes that gamification can be playful triggers that change targetbehavior. The target behavior remains and becomes habitual or customary.

KEYWORDS: Design with Intent; Persuasive; Gamification; Changeby design


Persuasive technologies

A designer harnesses a design solution as well as applies and integrates for a new approach to afresh statement. The arrival of digital media and computational tools has opened up newpossibilities for creative practice and it is a highly fertile ground for the investigation of creativityand the role of new technologies. At the same time, it places new demands upon the creators ofthe technological solutions and pushes forward our understanding of the future requirements ofcreative technologies (Edmonds, et al., 2005).

However, the role of science and technology in design does not only lie with innovation. Asdesign experiments manifests both scientific and educational values through the activeinvolvement of researchers in learning and teaching procedures through “scientific processes of discovery, exploration, confirmation, and dissemination” (Kelly, 2003). Researchers manage research processes in collaboration with participants to design and implement interventionssystematically to refine and improve initial designs (Wang and Hannafin, 2005). In many ways,research-based design is intrinsically linked to, and its development nourished by, multiple designand research methodologies. Researchers assume the functions of both designer and researcherby drawing on procedures and methods from both fields to form a hybrid methodology (Orrill,Hannafin, & Glazer, 2003; Reigeluth & Frick, 1999). In a development that parallels the socialsciences (Ahmed and Shore 1995; Appadurai 1996; Giddens 1990, 1995), the idea of a quantumshift in human society, brought about in part by advances in communication technologies,provides the context in which researchers must think about the present and plan for the future.Paul Dourish, in his recent CSCW paper, “Re-Space-ing Place: Space and Place Ten Years On”, (Dourish 2006) that referenced both de Certeau (1984) and Massey (1993), argued that space isembodied social production. Construction is anything that creates or gives meaning to a space orplace.

Persuasive technologies change attitudes or behavior with or without their knowledge (Fogg,2009). Persuasion is one of the most effective tools to help change attitudes or behaviors(O’Keefe, 2002). Fogg proposed“Persuasive Technology” as a more subtle and perhaps more sustainable method of intervention to influence user behavior. This approach offers potential forimproving performance, reducing user errors, and improving the quality of life (Fogg, 1999;2003). Another trend is an emerging recognition that design can change user behavior to producesocial benefits (Blevism 2007; Brown, 2008; Fabricant 2009; Stanton & Young 1998; 2003;Lockton, Harrison, and Stanton, 2010). They are all focused on persuasive interfaces to becreated that motivate behavior change by providing information to users at points of decision,behavior, or consequence. Intille ((2004) analyzed the amount of practical projects applied theconcepts and changed the circumstance of usage. Some examples such as improving workplacesafety (Guastello, 1993), encouraged seat belt usage and public recycling (Geller, 1984), reducingelectricity consumption (Seligman, 1978), and encouraging exercise in public spaces (Brownell,1980); have consistently shown that context-sensitive information presentation does alter


behavior (Intille, 2004). The underlying belief is that technology that appropriately persuadeshuman behavior has had designers who have carefully planned it.

Design with Intent

However, many attempts at persuasive design fail because people do not understand what factorslead to behavior change (Fogg, 2009). Eckles believes that many attempts at persuasive design failbecause people do not understand what factors lead to behavior change (Eckles et al, 2009);therefore, he proposed a new model for understanding human behavior. In Fogg BehaviorModel (FBM), behavior is a product of three factors: motivation, ability, and triggers, each ofwhich has subcomponents (Fogg, 2009). The FBM asserts that for a person to perform a targetbehavior, he or she must (1) be sufficiently motivated, (2) have the ability to perform thebehavior, and (3) be triggered to perform the behavior. But Lockton et al. (2010a) noted that,given the substantial potential of persuasive technology to influence user behavior for socialbenefits, designers lack guidance in choosing among design techniques for influencing interaction.The Design with Intent concept refers to design intended to influence or result in certain user behavioracross a range of disciplines from architecture to software (Lockton, 2008). Techniques used inone context, suitably generalized, can be applied in others, and the aim of the DwI Method is toassist this process. It takes designers from a brief involved behavior change to a range ofapplicable design techniques and examples that can inspire concepts addressing the problem— a‘structured brainstorming’ method, perhaps. Lockton et al.(2010a; 2009) proposed a designconcept called “Design with Intent” (DwI) to identifyinspirational design patterns within eightlenses that recur across design fields.

DwI is intended to be used by designers working on influencing user behavior, by helpingdesigners faced with ‘design for behavior change’ briefs. There are two ‘modes’ of the method, inspiration, and prescription, depending on how the designer or design team prefers to make use ofthem. Lockton also illuminates eight‘lenses’ on influencing user target behaviors in his DwI 1.0version. The eight lenses group design patterns that share similar considerations, behavioralunderstanding, or assumptions about how to influence users: to some extent, these groups,architectural, error proofing, interaction, ludic, perceptual, cognitive, Machiavellian, and security,a designer versed in a particular discipline might approach a brief on influencing behavior(Lockton, 2010)

Lockton et al. (2010a; 2009) analyzed a wide range of projects to confirm the function of eachpattern, but recognized that the applicability of DwI is limited because their study was carried outby the authors, rather than by independent designers. The approach would have to be used insituations subject to a full range of real-world constraints. However, a set of pertinent designconcepts has been generated and could be developed further (Lockton, Harrison, and Stanton,2008).


Gamification

Persuasive technologies change attitudes or behavior with or without their knowledge (Fogg,2009). Persuasion is one of the most effective tools to help change attitudes or behaviors(O’Keefe, 2002). Fogg proposed“Persuasive Technology” as a more subtle and perhaps moresustainable method of intervention to influence user behavior. This approach offers potential forimproving performance, reducing user errors, and improving the quality of life (Fogg, 1999;2003). Another trend is an emerging recognition that design can change user behavior to producesocial benefits (Blevism 2007; Brown, 2008; Fabricant 2009; Stanton & Young 1998; 2003;Lockton, Harrison, and Stanton, 2010). They are all focused on persuasive interfaces to becreated that motivate behavior change by providing information to users at points of decision,behavior, or consequence. Intille ((2004) analyzed the amount of practical projects applied theconcepts and changed the circumstance of usage. Some examples such as improving workplacesafety (Guastello, 1993), encouraged seat belt usage and public recycling (Geller, 1984), reducingelectricity consumption (Seligman, 1978), and encouraging exercise in public spaces (Brownell,1980); have consistently shown that context-sensitive information presentation does alterbehavior (Intille, 2004). The underlying belief is that technology that appropriately persuadeshuman behavior has had designers who have carefully planned it.

Gamification

Fogg (2009) addressed a behavior model called Fogg Behavior Model (FBM), to show that threeelements must converge at the same moment for a behavior to occur: motivation, ability, andtrigger, as Fogg believes it would help academics understand behavior change better. Specifically,in this research, we focused on the factors that work together in the context of a trigger and howthe trigger causes intended behavior change.

Identical with the above, a similar approach from other researchers, video games and gameaspects have been studied as potential means to shape user behavior towards the intentions ofthe system designer (Lockton, Harrison, and Stanton, 2010; Niebuhr, and Kerkow, 2007), or toinstill embedded values (Barr, Noble, and Biddle, 2007). Many researchers use of game designelements in non-game contexts is an efficient way to encourage people to behave and achievegoals they have designed for. They believe fun and gamification is a telling accelerator topersuade people obedient to roles (Bell et al., 2006; Von Ahn, 2006; Bogost, 2010; Deterding et al.2011; Thom et al. 2012; Singer and Schneider, 2012; Landers and Callan, 2011). A growing bodyof research looks into “games with a purpose” and believes specific design features that afford player enjoyment (von Ahn, 2008). Furthermore, researchers in HCI and management scienceshave identified design principles that enhance the motivational affordances of computer-supported collaborative work (Jung, Schneider, and Valacich, 2010; Zhang, 2008) to suggest thatplayability use as a model for rewards and reputation systems of gamified applications with


economically inspired approaches such as incentive centered design (Bernhaupt, 2010; Shaffer,2008; Sweetser and Wyeth, 2005).

Finally, the growing body of research points to the significant role of social contexts in theconstitution of video game play experience. Deterding et al. (2011) and Kort (2008) indicated thatit immediate raises questions as to if and how to transfer of (game) design patterns into ‘alien’ social contexts might significantly alter their experiential affordances. In this design project, weintegrated the fundamental concepts of persuasive technology and gamification, along with theguidelines of DwI methods, to help designers apply these conditionals in their design processes.The purpose of the design project is to cultivate young designers to know this intent well anddevelop natural patterns when they design.

Design Project

This study chose to stimulate the innovate quality of playability design and extend the concept ofa ‘persuasive technology’ to a project in Nation Yulin University of Science and Technology inTaiwan. In this project, we first explained what the eight lenses from the DWI method are, anddiscuss how gamification and fun theory have worked in design through many case studies. Theproject duration is six weeks and students were given a task to find an inappropriate orimprovable behavior in their campus for real. They employed the Design with Intent method tochange these situations with fun. The participatory students are from the Department ofElectrical Engineering and the Department of Digital Media Design.

Brown states that the design thinking process best resembled a ‘system of spaces’(Brown 2010).He indicated that there are three spaces— inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Inspirationrefers to the opportunity or motivation to search for solutions to a problem. Ideation is theprocess of generating, developing, and testing new ideas. Implementation refers to the executionof ideas from the project stage to their lives (Brown 2010). The fundamental intent of this projectwas to improve public space in campus via carrying out substantial persuasive technology intostudents’ design practices, facilitated under the eight lenses on influencing user behavior from theDesign with Intent Method v.1.0 (DwI) through three systems of spaces. DwI has eight lenses,and each lens has different patterns for inspiring designers to influence people’s interactions with products, services, environments, and each other, via the design of systems. However, thesepatterns are more like ingredients to enhance the deliberation of design process. They are notstandard principle or formula to produce a design outcome and they neither fit every differentproblem situation. In this project, we provide 101 patterns to each design team, for positivechecking of their design processes. Five design requirements are derived for design teams at thebeginning: 1) use a playful induction to change behavior; 2) this induced behavior must be undernatural and intuitive circumstance; 3) the behavior should also be an incentive for fun andentertaining interaction; 4) this design can enhance the sense of positive values and morals; let theparticipants think that the change is valuable, and are willing to continue the changing behavior;


and 5) let common supervision of social mutual binding, and let this behavior not easy to bechanged via design.

Project teaching plan with comparisons between design characteristics and system of spaces thatfollow characteristics proposed by Brown (2009) drove the process: empathy, integrative thinking,optimism, experimentalism, and collaboration. Within project execution, along with his system ofspace of design thinking process, nine phases of activities were designed for the teaching plan toachieve the goal of “Change our campus with fun”. The nine phases are listed below(Table 1):

Three student design projects are described below:

Case study A- Kaz Bin: nine phases are processing 1). Problem finding: in the design schoolbuilding, normally a trash bin in the refuse room of the staircase appeared some unfinished foodfrom wasted lunch boxes. Sometimes this waste leaked and stank (Fig. 1). 2). Investigate thesurroundings: the refuse room of the staircase at first floor. The refuse room not only forthrowing away rubbish is also a recycling storage place. In addition, this place has a narrow paththat is actually not suited for wide objects. In this spot is a need for a friendly food collecting binwith a slim but tall size. 3). People: who engaged, who acts and who reacts: the major target usersare those who dump their trash without finishing their food. Also relevant to all the people whouse and clean the refuse room. 4). Target behavior: the target behavior is to make people emptytheir residual food in food waste barrels before they dump it into trash bin. 5). Scenario design:allow people to make an extra effort is easy, playful, and have a sense that they are doing the rightthing. Therefore, students described the use situations, and simulated usage. 6). Design andtechnical implement discussion: the application of the concept of feeding a monster via theappearance of the personalized blue monster. Using infrared detectors to detect when someoneholding the food in front of bin, this bin will automatically open its mouth and make the soundof crunchy chewing sound “Kaz! Kaz!”. The interaction will bring users to follow the rules and bring playfulness and amusement when they feed the bin some food. Also in front of bin, there isa LED panel to show the current capacity of the bin, to make it more like a living monster, andwill help cleaning staff efficiently to understand the circumstance of bin (Fig. 2-3). 7). Test andpilot study. 8) Execution. 9). Evaluation.

Case B- Basketball Trash Can: nine phases in the processes: 1). Problem finding: many peoplecome to school stadium for some exercise or to play ball and usually leaving the sports drink,water bottles, or cans in garbage (Fig. 4). 2). Investigation of the surroundings: the whole area ofstadium is quite big, but only the trash bin established. Students interviewed at the Office of theGeneral Affairs, a staff told them there were a few trash bins in this area, but because manystudents lived in the student dormitory nearby and even nearby residents dumped their garbagein these bins. They decided to withdraw most of the bins and left only one there. For this reason,they are not going to put more bins in this area. 3). People: Anyone staying or passing this area,but mostly is for whom sports here. 4). Target behavior: allow the behavior of taking out thetrash become a game and enhance the willingness to walk a short distance to take out the trash.5). Scenario design: students use role-playing and video clips to explain the situation and discuss


the possible solutions from actual situations. They came out to add an installation of a basketballframe to the existing trash bin (Fig. 5) to make a game simulating as a shooting game to mappingthe relevant experience in stadium. 6). Design and technical implement discussion: students applythe technology with infrared detectors and photoresistors to detect when trash is throw throughthe basket The installation has a led panel to show a thumbs-up signal with triumphant buzzerwhen the trash successfully went through the basket 7). Test and Pilot study. 8) Execution. 9).Evaluation.

Case C- Music touch: nine phases are processing 1). Problem finding: when people go to theATM to withdraw money, normally they need to wait in line, for this reason the person isoperating the machine would feel uneasy being stared at while waiting in line. At the same time,the space is an open area (Fig. 6), but people normally do not line up closely or strictly, plus thereis not clear hints to understand the waiting order. It becomes an awkward experience about goingto the ATM. 2). Investigate the surroundings: this ATM established in the basement of studentactivity center and is located in a remote space, with dim light, particularly with few people there.But there are only two ATMs on our campus, when students need to withdraw some cash theyneed to use one. 3). People: they withdraw money and friends company with them. 4). Targetbehavior: changing the mode when people wait for ATM money withdraw, make them have clearhints of lining order, and also light up this dim place with some colorful light and some music, sothat there is something to do instead of staring the person who is using the ATM, and furthermore to induce interaction with the waiting people. 5). Scenario design: role-play, storyboard. 6).Design and technical implement discussion: this team used Arduino to connect and control abuzzer, a micro switch, and some RGB soft LED light bars (Fig. 7) to build an interactive floormusic touch pad along with he visual information to guiding those people in line to act and lineup properly. 7). Test and Pilot study: they use a simple prototype to investigate how users reactwith this facility (Fig. 8 ) and modify the sound and music feedback situation after test (Fig 9). 8)Execution. 9). Evaluation.

Discussion and conclusions

In all the design and research process of this project, we enhanced the concepts of DWI methods,request students to check the DWI design patterns all the time, and, in particular, tookgamification as the triggers to alter user behavior. The procedures and results were significant inmany ways and we found something worth considering when similar design projects areimplemented. However, these installations are temperate, with the limitation of time and budget,we did not complete all installations with durable materials, nor did those installations offercomplete evaluations for usage. Students used simple materials to build their prototypes. Thefragile materials were frequently damaged and this affected students to complete evaluations.However, this study still sorts out valuable thoughts from participatory observations andinformal survey.


We found these playful installments were proper for the campus. This may be because youngpeople are more curious and fond of playfulness. Normally young people do things in groups,this reason also helps they have fun interaction when they try the installations with friends. Theyeven play them and have fun with strangers. The effectiveness of using these installations withothers is better than one person playing alone.

The playful interaction was not only just entertaining specific persons who are using it, but also itmanifests the behavior itself, as people around will watch and notice. The consequence become acommon supervision of mutual social binding, people will keep doing it not only because it is fun,then it becomes moral consciousness.

With the aim of enhancing triggers for target behavior with the gamification concept, we foundthe playful ability is an important trigger to change behavior. In many cases, people did not dothe right tings, not because they do not know or they can not do it. It was because they do notfeel they have to do it, and are not motivated properly to change. For example, everyoneunderstands the importance of waste classification and recycling, but doing it in a narrow andstinky space with no one watching. Many people will just quickly dump the trash and go away.The trigger is the motivation, and it enhances a behavior, and also enhanced the notability of thisbehavior. This consequence became a series group action that became a normal customs.

DWI design method supplies various patterns from eight lenses to observe and stimulate theconsideration and innovation during design process. These design patterns successfully assisteddesigners to be deliberative with many perspectives at various levels. These design projects arecross discipline. These design patterns really helped students to get into situations when theystarted from the beginning.

With the benefit of using DWI design patterns for assisting design process, the design patternssometimes are over-detailed for some conditions, when the design context and requirements arediverse from these patterns. To send forth all these specified pattern descriptions, could bedistracted from focus. If the 101 patterns can be categorized to another classification under theeight lenses of DWI method, this may help designers to apply it more efficacious.

As for the limitations mentioned above, this research was more focused on design education andplanning, it does not provide clear proof to compare the significance to apply our design tochange target behaviors. Also lack the rigorous evidence to confirm our observations about theenhanced behavior would be expected to become a habit. Further study will be designed toinvestigate these perspectives.

Figures and Table

Table 1 Nine phases of activities


Eleven phases Description Lenses activities

1 Problem finding:with clearphotograph, film andword description tostate clearly thatcause of the problemas well as ofinteraction

Observation and describethe problems, to be precisepointed to a question of thereasons, such asindiscriminate bicycleparking, damaged doorbars, a basketball court withlots of garbage, cloggedsinks, and so on

Error proofing, Users Research:observation,records,interviews,surveying

2 Investigate thesurroundings

Observe this environment,including its geographicallocation, size, dynamic linesboth from solid andmoving flow and so on.

Architectural, History review,experiencestudies,environmentalstudies,interviews andmeasuring

3 People: Whoengaged, who actsand who reacts?

Understand who isinvolving in thiscircumstance.

Interaction, Field research

4 Target behavior:what’s the behaviors for changing

Study what are the keyelements of changing theproblem situation?

Ludic,Perceptual,Cognitive

Observations,and participatingobservation

5 Scenario design Design and technologyapplication and analysis

Ludic,

Machiavellian

Security

Role-playing,story board, andvideo clips

6 Design and technicalimplement discussion

Professional knowledgeand skills

7 Pilot study

8 Execution

9 Evaluation


Diagrams, charts, illustrations, tables, and images etc., must not be more than 14 cm wide and 25cm high. Figures should be numbered, e.g. “Table 1” or “Figure 2”. They should be placed with a blank line between text and image at the end of the main text, one after the other, and notintegrated into the main text. To limit the size of the file, please use image editing tool to resizelarge images.

Fig. 1 Existing state of the refuse room

Fig. 2 the design of “Kaz” trash bin


Fig. 3 The panel in the front of bin

Fig. 4 rubbish left behind after people left the stadium

Fig. 5 the design prototype of Basketball Trash Can


Fig. 6 people wait for the ATM in the open space

Fig. 7 the mat pad designed with sound and light interaction

Fig. 8 a pilot study design in investigate how people react with the design

Fig. 9 the observation of the final prototype


ReferencesBarr, P., Noble, J., and Biddle, R. (2007). Video game values: Human-computer interaction and

games. Interacting with Computers 19(2), 180-195.Beale, R. (2007). Slanty Design. Communications of the ACM, 50(1), 21-24.Bell, M., Chalmers, M., Barkhuus, L., Hall, M., Sherwood, S., Tennent, P., Brown, B., Rowland,

D., Benford, S., (2006). Interweaving Mobile Games with Everyday Life. Proceedings of CHI2006, 417-‐426.

Bernhaupt, R. (2010). User Experience Evaluation in Entertainment. In R. Bernhaupt, EvaluatingUser Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods. Springer, London, 3-7.

Bogost, I. (2010). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press. 464-469. ISBN:0262514885

Brown, Tim. (2008), Design Thinking, Harvard business review• June 2008, K. D. Brownell, A. J. Stunkard, and J. M. Albaum, (1980). Evaluation and modification of

exercise patterns in the natural environment, Amer. J. Psychiatry, vol. 137, pp. 1540–1545.Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L.,O’Hara, K., and Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using

game-design elements in nongaming contexts.Proc. CHI EA ‘11, ACM Press, 2425-2428.Dourish, P. (2007). Seeing like an interface. OZCHI, 251, 1–8.Eckles, Dean, Wightman, Doug, Carlson, Claire, Thamrongrattanarit, Attapol, Bastéa-Forte,

Marcello, and Fogg, B. J. (2009). Social responses in mobile messaging: influence strategies,self-disclosure, and source orientation. CHI 2009: 1651-1654

Edmonds, E.A., Candy, L, Fell, M., Pauletto, S., & Weakley, A. (2005). The Studio as Laboratory:Combining Creative Practice and Digital Technology Research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4), 452-481.

Fabricant, R. (2009).“Behaving badly in Vancouver.” Design Mind, February 11 2009, FrogDesign, San Francisco. Retrieved June 1, 2009, fromhttp://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/behaving-badly-in-vancouver.html

Fogg, B. J. , (1999). Persuasive technologies, Commun. ACM, vol. 42, 27–29A-Lockton, D., Harrison, D.J., Stanton, N.A. , (2010). The Design with Intent Method: a design

tool for influencing user behavior. Applied Ergonomics Vol.41 No.3, 382-392Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We think and Do.

Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Fogg, B.J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Paper presented at Persuasive 2009, 4th

International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Article No. 40, Claremont, CA, 26–29 April 2009.Geller, E. S. (1984). A delayed reward strategy for large-scale motivation of safety belt use: A test

of long-term impact, Accident Anal. Prevention, vol. 16, 457–463.Guastello, S. J. (1993). “Do we really know how well our occupational accident prevention programs work?,” Safety Sci., vol. 16, 445–463.

B-Dan Lockton with David Harrison & Neville A. Stanton, (2010). Design with Intent: 101 patternsfor influencing behavior through design, equifine, Windsor, Berkshire, UK


Intille, S. (2004). Ubiquitous computing technology for just-in-time motivation of behaviorchange. In Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics, San Francisco California,1434–1437.

Jung, J.H., Schneider, C., and Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the Motivational Affordance ofInformation Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting inGroup Collaboration Environments. Management Science 56, 4, 724- 742.

Kelly, A.E. (2003). Research as Design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.Kort, Y.A. and Ijsselsteijn, W.A. (2008). People, Places, and Play: Player Experience in a Socio-

Spatial Context. Computers in Entertainment 6, 2 art. 18.Landers R.N. and Callan. R.C. (2011). Casual Social Games as Serious Games: The Psychology of

Gamification in Undergraduate Education and Employee Training. Serious Games andEdutainment Applications, 399–423.

Lockton, D., Harrison, D., and Stanton, N.A. (2010). The Design with Intent Method: A designtool for influencing user behavior. Applied Ergonomics 41, 3, 382-392.

Lockton, D, Harrison, D, Holley, T & Stanton, 2009, Influencing Interaction: Development ofthe Design with Intent Method, in Persuasive Technology: Fourth International Conference, Persuasive2009, Claremont, California, ACM Digital Library, New York.

Lockton, D., Harrison, D., and Stanton, N.A. (2008). Design with Intent: Persuasive Technologyin a Wider Context. Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference, Persuasive 2008,Oulu, Finland, June 4-6, 2008, Springer, Berlin, 274-278.

Niebuhr, S. and Kerkow, D. (2007). Captivating patterns: a first validation. Proc. PERSUASIVE2007, Springer, 48-54.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion theory and research (2nd. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAOrrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. R. (2003). Research on and research with emerging

technologies revisited: The role of disciplined inquiry in the study of technology innovation.In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.),335-396 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Cognitive Education and the Cognitive Domain. In C. M. Reigeluth(Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Volume II: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 51-68. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

C. Seligman, L. Becker, and J. M. Darley, (1978). Behavioral approaches to residential energyconservation, Energy and Building, vol. 1, 325–337.

Shaffer, N. (2008). Heuristic Evaluation of Games. In K. Isbister and N. Shaffer, Game Usability.Morgan Kaufman, Amsterdam et al., 79-89.

Singer, Leif and Schneider, Kurt. (2012). It was a Bit of a Race: Gamification of Version Control.In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Games and software engineering, 9-9 June 2012,Zurich, 5-8.

Stanton, NA & Young, M. (1998). Is utility in the mind of the beholder? A study of ergonomicsmethods. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 29, no. 1, 41-54.

Stanton, NA & Young, M. (2003). Giving ergonomics away? The application of ergonomicsmethods by novices. Applied Ergonomics, vol. 34, 479-490.


Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. GameFlow, (2005). A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment inGames. Computers in Entertainment 3, 3, art. 3A.

Jennifer Thom, David R. Millen, and Joan DiMicco. (2012). Removing Gamification from anEnterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.ACM, 2012.

Von Ahn, L. (2006). Games with a purpose. IEEE Computer Magazine 39, 6, 92–99von Ahn, L. and Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM

51, 8, 58-67.Wang, F. & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-Based Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning

Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-24.Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational Affordances: Reasons for ICT Design and Use. Communications of

the ACM 51(11), 145-147.

persuasive technologies with gamification: change the … · 2016-08-04 · persuasive technologies...

Documents