This is an author produced version of Contextual Autonomy Support in Video Game Play :
A Grounded Theory.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/100125/
Proceedings Paper:
Deterding, Christoph Sebastian orcid.org/0000-0003-0033-2104 (2016) Contextual
Autonomy Support in Video Game Play : A Grounded Theory. In: Proceedings of the 34th
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI'16. ACM , New
York , pp. 3931-3943.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858395
promoting access to
White Rose research papers
[email protected]
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
Contextual Autonomy Support in Video Game Play:
A Grounded Theory
Sebastian Deterding
Digital Creativity Hub
University of York, York, UK
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
One immediate question regarding this endeavor is whether
these various contexts themselves affect the desired motivational pull of gameplay: In the eponymous 1876 novel, Tom
Sawyer famously convinced his friends pay him for the
privilege of whitewashing Aunt PollyÕs fence in his stead
because he made said chore appear to be something he
wanted rather than had to do, suggesting not just that
ÒWork consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and
that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to doÓ
[49] Ð but that this lack of obligation itself is part of what
makes play appealing. If that were the case, it would cast a
gloomy light on applied gaming that turns voluntary play
into obligatory homework or job tasks.
Autonomy experience constitutes a core part of the intrinsic
motivation of playing games. While research has explored
how autonomy is afforded by a gameÕs design, little is
known about the role of the social context of play. Particularly, engaging with serious games or gamified applications
is often obligatory, which may thwart autonomy. To tease
out contextual factors that affect autonomy, we conducted a
qualitative interview study that compared gameplay experience in leisure and work contexts. We found that leisure
contexts, particularly solitary play, support autonomy
through a time and space shielded from outer demands, the
license to (dis)engage with and configure the situation to fit
oneÕs spontaneous interests, and a lack of social and material consequence. Thwarted autonomy occurs both in leisure
and work contexts when playersÕ spontaneous interests
mismatch socially demanded gameplay. We discuss implications for entertainment and applied gaming.
Indeed, play is commonly defined as ÒvoluntaryÓ, ÒfreeÓ, or
ÒautotelicÓ, itÕs own goal [1,2,21,32,52], unlike formal
schooling, work, and other applied gaming contexts. Several scholars in human-computer interaction (HCI) [8], informatics [31], and game studies [58,59,61,63] hypothesize
that mainstream forms of gamification Ð behavior tracking,
quantitative progress feedback, and reward systems Ð might
thwart rather than support the openness, inconsequentiality,
and voluntariness characteristic for play. And evidence
suggests that forced serious game play results in negative
affect and reduced performance [19], and that worker consent moderates whether imposed workplace gamification
results in positive or negative affect [29].
Author Keywords
Games; play; video games; motivation; autonomy; context;
gamification; self-determination theory.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Miscellaneous; K.8.0. Personal Computing: Games.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades, serious games, gamified applications, and other forms of applied gaming have tried to harness the motivational pull of game play for non-entertainment purposes across various contexts [3,40]. The underlying logic is simple: games are intentionally designed to afford engaging play activity. Hence, redesigning (presumed)
non-engaging activities in contexts like work or learning
into a game or infusing them with the ÔactiveÕ ingredients of
game design should make them more engaging as well [10].
Such potential demotivating effects of play contexts and
their (lacking) voluntariness are relevant for entertainment
game design as well: Journalists and ethnographers of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs)
for instance observed that Òinstrumental playÓ Ð play that is
work-like in its repetitive tedium and instrumentality, or
even performed as obligatory wage labor Ð is sometimes
described by its players as not enjoyable or play at all
[11,30,46,51]. Social network games have been repeatedly
critiqued for their Òdark patternsÓ [62] that coerce players to
play through timers or social pressure, with presumed negative effects on play experience. A recent survey [60] indicates that solitary and multiplayer playing differ in autonomy experience. Yet existing conceptualizations of the
voluntariness of play have remained quite muddled and definitional [23]: they merely state that play is voluntary by
definition. They do not provide a systematic theorization of
ÒvoluntarinessÓ, nor functional explanations how this quality comes about.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
CHI'16, May 07 - 12, 2016, San Jose, CA, USA.
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to
ACM.
ACM978-1-4503-3362-7/16/05É$15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858395
3931
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
A promising approach to theorizing the impact of contexts
on game play motivation, especially the role of voluntariness, is self-determination theory (SDT) [6]. SDT argues
that human beings actively seek out and engage in activities
that satisfy basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy: perceiving oneself as the causal
origin of oneÕs actions. Basic need satisfaction explains
why activities like play are intrinsically motivating, while
autonomy provides a well-established construct for ÒvoluntarinessÓ. SDT-informed research has identified contextual
features that affect autonomy and demonstrated that need
satisfaction can explain game play motivation. Finally,
most critiques of gamification draw on SDT in some form
to theorize its potential adverse effects [8,31,58,59,61] Ð yet
have remained at the stage of hypothesizing.
source of oneÕs own behaviorÓ ([38], p. 8). ÒTo be autonomous means to behave with a sense of volition, willingness,
and congruence; it means to fully endorse and concur with
the behavior one is engaged in.Ó ([6], p. 85). SDT emphatically does not equate autonomy with independence or the
presence of choice [38]: If a monk is woken up at 6 a.m. in
a cloister and told to attend morning service, she may still
perceive attending service as autonomous if she realizes
that attending service is congruent with her goals, values,
and needs, and thus actively endorses the activity. Choice is
ÔmerelyÕ a facilitating condition that makes it more likely
that individuals find a self-congruent activity and perceive
themselves as the causal origin of that activity.
Autonomy in fact plays a triple conceptual role in SDT [6].
First, it is a basic need that fuels intrinsic motivation. Second, it describes a qualitative spectrum of all motives. This
spectrum of self-determination ranges from fully autonomous intrinsic motivation to fully controlled extrinsic motivation, where an activity is motivated by social, psychological, or material consequences separable from the activity,
such as rewards or punishments. Controlled motives are experienced as an unpleasant, effortful, strained Òhaving toÓ.
Between these two poles sit multiple degrees to which an
individual has integrated the value of activities originally
brought to it from outside. Introjected extrinsic motives are
internalized ÒmustsÓ and ÒshouldsÓ from parents and peers
Ð these are still overall controlled. In contrast, internalized
and integrated extrinsic motives are overall autonomous:
the individual understands and actively embraces the activity as beneficial to its own goals, values, and needs, even if
the activity isnÕt (yet) intrinsically motivating.
In this paper, we therefore ask how the situational context
of game play affects autonomy experience. To answer this
question, we used SDT to theorize gameplay motivation,
the voluntariness of play, and how it is impacted by social
context (theoretical background). SDT-informed work has
explored the effects of game design on autonomy, but not
of the social contexts of gameplay (previous work). We
conducted a qualitative interview study following grounded
theory, inviting participants with video gaming experience
in both leisure and work contexts to compare gameplay
moments of high and low autonomy (method). Results indicate that autonomy is the unspoken norm for leisure play
contexts. They support autonomy by socio-materially enabling a meta-process of (dis)engagement and configuration:
players can choose what to play when and how such that is
fits their spontaneous inclinations. A time window without
pressing demands and a space safe from potentially disapproving observers allows players to let go of autonomythwarting self-regulation Ð particularly in single-player
games. In multi-player gaming, in contrast, concerns for the
enjoyment of others or oneÕs reputation may compel players
to play against their spontaneous interests, thwarting autonomy. In non-leisure contexts, lacking situational choice and
severe social consequences of gameplay outcomes often
thwart autonomy. The discussion aggregates these observations into a theoretical model and derives ramifications for
entertainment and applied gaming.
According to SDT, individuals are typically energized by
multiple motives at once: we may both enjoy riding a horse
and feel we have to ride to make a good impression on
someone at the same time. This brings us to the third aspect
of autonomy: The sum of motives Ð their aggregate degrees
of perceived self-determination Ð determines whether an
activity is experienced as overall autonomous or controlled,
and thus, whether it satisfies or thwarts the basic need for
autonomy [6]. Hence, giving people extrinsically motivating rewards for an activity they already intrinsically enjoy
may paradoxically reduce overall motivation, as it may tilt
the activityÕs overall perceived self-determination toward
the controlled and thereby thwart its original autonomy
need satisfaction [64]. As a corollary, autonomy support
can be improved by both adding circumstances that evoke
autonomous motives and removing circumstances that
evoke controlling motives.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a well-established need
theory of human motivation that argues that human beings
actively strive towards growth [6,38]. This active tendency
manifests itself in intrinsic motivation: people seek out, engage in, and enjoy certain activities Òfor their own sakeÓ,
because these activities satisfy three basic psychological
needs essential to psychological well-being, namely competence, relatedness, and autonomy [6,38]. Experientially, intrinsic motivation and the underlying need satisfaction manifest as enjoyment, engagement, and Òwanting toÓ Ð what
game researchers variously call ÒfunÓ or ÒenjoymentÓ [39].
Besides autonomy, SDT has been fundamentally concerned
with the social-contextual nature of motivation. Social contexts strongly affect the satisfaction or thwarting of basic
psychological needs. Specifically, following cognitive
evaluation theory, a sub-theory of SDT, any environmental
event holds potential controlling, autonomy-thwarting aspects (pushing an actor into a certain direction), and poten-
Autonomy is defined as Òbeing the perceived origin or
3932
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
tial informational, competence-supporting aspects (informing an actor how to improve her actions to achieve her desired goals) [38]. Individuals actively construe the Òfunctional significanceÓ or controlling versus informational
meaning of environmental events based on both the nature
of these events and the surrounding contextual climate [6].
For instance, expected rewards, threatened punishments,
imposed goals, surveillance, competition or evaluation all
overall tend to be viewed as controlling events [38]. However, in an autonomy-supportive company climate, a monetary bonus (expected reward) might be perceived as positive
informational feedback rather than a control attempt. Such
construal occurs on multiple levels of generality, with higher levels affecting lower ones [57]: if a person perceives
herself overall autonomous in engaging in swimming (context), she can still experience an individual swimming training as controlled, but she will be more likely to perceive it
as autonomous than someone who already perceives
swimming in general as controlled, particularly if she actively recalls her overall endorsement of swimming.
and psychotherapy (see [43] for a review). These strategies
chiefly revolve around providing meaningful rationales for
activities (enabling conscious integration), acknowledgement of negative feelings, the use of non-controlling language, the provision of choices, and appealing to basic
needs. When it comes to social contexts of gameplay, research has focused on the effect of social presence and social interaction Ð the general argument being that more social presence and interaction equals a better gaming
experience [5,14,17,24,27]. Some studies have explicitly
linked the effect of social presence on game enjoyment to
SDT, namely the satisfaction of relatedness needs [24].
To summarize, SDT is a promising theoretical approach to
the motivational effect of context in game play, particularly
to the ÒvoluntarinessÓ of play contexts. In SDT terms, voluntariness can be construed as perceiving oneÕs activity as
overall autonomously motivated, which satisfies a basic autonomy need and thus, intrinsically motivates and generates
enjoyment. Research indicates that basic need satisfaction
correlates with and predicts gaming motivation and enjoyment, and research on non-gaming domains indicates that
particular contextual circumstances can facilitate or thwart
overall autonomous motivation. Theory suggests that the
obligatory contexts of serious games or gamification may
thwart autonomy. But there has been no empirical study so
far exploring whether and how the situational context of
leisurely game play exactly supports autonomy, and in turn,
how non-leisurely contexts may thwart it. To address this
gap, we formulated the research question: How does the situational context of video game play affect autonomy experience?
One can easily see the appeal of SDT for theorizing the
contextual ÒvoluntarinessÓ of play: SDT was explicitly
formulated to explain why certain activities, play in specific, are intrinsically motivating. Autonomy provides an established, operationalized, and tested psychological construct for ÒvoluntarinessÓ that explains why perceivedvoluntary activity is engaging and enjoyable. Cognitive
evaluation theory explains how particular social-contextual
circumstances facilitate or thwart this experience. As Juul
[23] notes, theories that categorically define play as ÒvoluntaryÓ (e.g. [2,21]) are at an impasse when faced with phenomena like instrumental play. SDT in contrast provides an
explanatory model how and when individuals might perceive proscribed play as controlled or autonomous.
METHOD
Although there is considerable work on autonomysupporting and thwarting features in non-play contexts, we
opted for a theory-generating approach since existing work
has been chiefly theory-derived, not empirically grounded,
and many scholars have argued for the idiosyncrasy of play
[42], cautioning against straightforward generalization from
existing work. Notably, we did not intend to generate a
general theory of gameplay motivation, gameplay context,
or the voluntariness of play, but to construct a local theory
within the framework of SDT how gameplay contexts affect
autonomy.
PREVIOUS WORK
Beyond such theoretical appeals, much empirical work supports the promise of SDT for tackling the contextual voluntariness of play. A rapidly growing number of experimental
studies is successfully using SDT to explain video game
play enjoyment and motivation [33Ð37,39,41,44,45]. Following the SDT-derived Player Experience of Need Satisfaction model (PENS) [37], games satisfy autonomy needs
through a number of ways (see [7] for a design-focused review): particularly so-called Òsandbox gamesÓ provide
players with Òmeaningful choiceÓ such as choosing different goals, strategies, and actions [37]; customization [25];
improving or customizing oneÕs avatar [33,47,48]; back stories that provide rationales for activity [37]; wide-open, explorable worlds [50]; and the possibility to create and inhabit a character that is highly congruent with oneÕs ideal
self [34].
Given our theory-generating interest, we chose a qualitative
method. We collected data using biographical episodic interviews [12], as these provide efficient access to a wide
variety of relevant incidents. Interviews were enriched with
researcher field notes on interview situations.
We recruited a purposive sample of German adult gamers
(aged 19Ð62, 15 male, 4 female) who engaged both in (presumed high-autonomy) leisurely gameplay and (presumed
low-autonomy) gameplay as work, i.e. professional e-sports
athletes engaging in high-stakes e-sports tournaments and
training, game journalists playing games to review them,
and game designers and researchers playing games to ana-
A rich body of SDT work corroborates that and how particular strategies facilitate an autonomy-supporting contextual
climate and thus, autonomy satisfaction and intrinsic motivation across education, parenting, coaching, work, health
3933
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
RESULTS
lyze them. We explicitly invited participants to compare
and contrast their memories of leisurely and work gameplay
contexts, with the rationale that such would help foreground
otherwise taken-for-granted aspects of leisurely play. In a
sense, we viewed the ÔatypicalÕ cases of play as work as
quasi-natural Òbreaching experimentsÓ [15]: deviations
from usually unconscious social norms and routines that
reveal the presence of these norms in the shape of actors
voicing unease, moral indignation, or difficulty making
sense of the situation. We aimed to maximize diversity in
participantsÕ age, gender, and experience across different
game genres, devices, and social contextures in our initial
sample.
Autonomy as Social Norm in Leisurely Gameplay
Our first observation was that participants viewed intrinsically motivated, autonomous play as the expected norm for
leisurely play. Despite recent critiques that phenomena like
instrumental play break down the Òwork/play dichotomyÓ
articulated by scholars like Huizinga or Caillois [2,21], our
participants used just these terms to make sense of their experience: autonomous, intrinsically motivated gaming they
called ÒplayÓ, and gaming out of controlled motives, absent
intrinsic motivation, they described as ÒworkÓ or ÒworklikeÓ (see [30] for a similar observation). As one game designer unpacked her experience having to play competitor
games as part of her job:
We construed a semi-structured interview script with a first
section on basic aspects of social contexts taken from frame
analysis [16], and a second section on autonomy support,
which generated the bulk of data for the present paper. The
section invited participants to freely report remembered episodes of high and low experienced autonomy, high and low
voluntariness, high and low choice, and high and low consequence, since these regularly appear in the literature as
ways of describing and supporting autonomy. Participants
then described what kinds of enjoyment or motivation (if
any) they experienced in these moments, and what aspects
of the given situation they thought gave rise to these experiences. Given that previous research focused exclusively on
autonomy-supporting game features, we intentionally tried
to capture gaming moments of low autonomy to identify
what autonomy-thwarting features might be absent in leisurely gameplay.
ÒYes, it is a game somehow, [É] in its basic substance, because it has game rules, and those I follow. But I wouldnÕt
say that I play it very passionately. So itÕs still a game as
such, and defined as such, but I would not say that *I* play
it at that moment. Because that has a different meaning for
me, that- if I play in that moment, then I would have fun
with this thing.Ó (P9/285-288)
Similarly, another player noted that even leisurely play of
MMORPGs could turn from ÒplayÓ into ÒworkÓ once it became a social obligation: ÒThen it feels like working, [É]
<<I have to do this now. Do it as productively and quickly
as possible.>> [É] That is a form that you also find in other contexts, in working, actually.Ó (P2/54)
This led different participants of the same MMORPG session to frame and experience it differently, Òwhere I said at
a certain point, that I donÕt want to partake regularly in
battles. And when [É] I say: <<I donÕt want this to become
an obligation for me>>, then I am representing in that situation the position, then itÕs no longer play, and they represent the position: <<Why? ItÕs fun>> ((laughs)). Then the
definitions are different.Ó (P2/276-279)
We recorded and transcribed all interviews using the conventions of [22], and coded and analyzed data using the
qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA (version
10.0), following grounded theory in the Corbin and Strauss
tradition [4]: To ensure our concepts were empirically
grounded and that we remained open to new concepts
emerging, we followed the principles of constant comparison and theoretical sampling [4]: We gathered and coded
data in parallel, comparing each new datum against existing
concepts. In the course, we revised or added concepts and
relations as required by the data, revised the interview
script, and chose new participants based on emerging questions and hypotheses.
In contrast, in non-leisurely gameplay contexts, it is an understood and expected norm that gaming should serve the
respective instrumental purpose, irrespective of whether
one wants to engage in gaming or enjoys it at that moment.
Indeed, it would be inappropriate to let enjoyment get in the
way of the instrumental outcome: ÒAt the office, [É] I have
to focus on the game analytically, and not say, I let myself
go and play the whole day, and at the end no results. That
would be inappropriate.Ó (P9/142)
We conducted 19 interviews with an average length of 90
minutes until we reached theoretical saturation [4], in tune
with previous findings that qualitative interview studies
reach 90% code saturation around 12 interviews [18]. We
collected roughly 1,900 minutes of audio recordings together with field notes and participant illustrations, which included 245 passages coded under the main code ÒautonomyÓ, with 18 sub-codes and further sub-sub codes.
Interviews were conducted in German and translated into
English for this paper. German originals and the final interview script can be accessed at [56].
This basic social norm of leisure play contexts Ð that gameplay ought to occur autonomously, for the sake of enjoyment Ð fuels a set of further social licenses that directly
support autonomy by allowing players to reconfigure and
(dis)engage with the play situation as fits their spontaneous
needs and interests.
License to Autonomously (Dis)engage with Play
Participants noted that in leisure contexts, they expected to
and typically could choose whether to play, when to play,
3934
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
and how long to play, that is, when to stop (and potential
restart) playing. Participants would start to play when they
have Òthe feeling, I want to play on the computer now, and
nothing speaks against that, because I donÕt want to do
anything else as well, then I do that, and then I start that.Ó
(P4/384) In turn, participants would play Òuntil [they] donÕt
want to anymoreÓ (P11-1/248), stopping when they Òsimply
lost interest againÓ (P10/125). This license was reported to
instill a sense of autonomy:
Notably, social participation norms interact with the gamesÕ
design features: the more practical effort it requires to organize a gaming session, the bigger the Òclosure point spanÓ
([55], p. 349) of the game (the time it takes to come to a satisfying closure), and the more closure is dependent on all
players participating through to the end, the more participation norms are enforced, and the more likely it is that some
players will experience having to play beyond their spontaneous desire. For instance, the online multiplayer game
StarCraft features short matches and easy access to players,
allowing individual players to configure play time to their
liking: ÒSo there I know for sure, a match takes between ten
and twenty minutes on average, thatÕs something I, thatÕs
something you can simply time very well. [É] I can, when I
want to, simply play my two matches and thereby have two
closed experiences, so to speak.Ó (P10/68) Similarly, in a
multiplayer game than can be played with different numbers of players, Òif youÕre not in the mood anymore, then
you simply say: Hey, guys, IÕm not in the mood anymore
[É] the others say: Yes, okay, weÕll continue to play a little
longer. Because there itÕs not so important, there you can,
you can play it with two people, you can play it with three
people or with four or alone.Ó (P15/297)
ÒWhen I in principle have no time limit, that is, when I can
say, I can play until I say: <<I donÕt want to anymore.>>
No appointments and no obligations, both inside the game
and outside of the game, then I find, thatÕs an experience of
freedom.Ó (P9/308)
In non-leisure contexts, participants reported often having
little choice whether and when to start or stop playing. The
instrumental demands of a fixed training time, a review that
had to be submitted in time, or data that had to be gathered
in time for a project or research paper often created the experience of time pressure, which is known to thwart autonomy [38]. Asked when gaming felt non-autonomous to him,
one game researcher answered:
In contrast, so-called ÒraidsÓ in MMORPGs may require
active participation from as many as 40 bespoke players for
several continuous hours. Here, loss of reputation and status
was a negative consequence that in addition to fear of embarrassment and hurting social relations by violating basic
participation norms compelled players to play against their
spontaneous interest. Said one participant about his experience raiding in World of Warcraft (WoW):
Participant: ÒAt most in situations where there is a certain
time pressure.Ó
Interviewer: ÒOkay. For instance?Ó
Participant: ÒSo if IÕm, whatever, in two or three days
thereÕs a project, some workshop and there we need, I donÕt
know, these five or ten games have to run on all computers.
You have to, you have to know your way around the games
at least a bit but you donÕt really want to do it, but you nevertheless have to make yourself acquainted with them once
more.Ó (P10/314-317)
ÒI had the conflict, for instance, that I played soccer [É]
and sometimes during the evenings, where there was soccer
training, there was also a raid. [É] And then sometimes
there were some people missing and then I said: <<Come, I
let soccer training slide for once.>> And then you join in
there [É] if you donÕt really feel like it. You also enter a
kind of commitment towards the other people. And I donÕt
find it decent if you then say: <<Yeah::: I put my interests
definitely over the, over those of the others>>, because
thatÕs a social group that wants to reach a goal. [É] So
with other games I never had it like that, that if I didnÕt feel
like it, that I would then go. [É] especially with WoW you
somehow had [É] a social coercion behind it. Because as I
said, this reputation and then also the social contexts that
you maintained through it. Or found there. [ÉY]ou donÕt
feel like training in the evening, or something, and you still
go there. Because you feel socially obliged somehow.Ó
(P19-2/68-78)
Notably, this license to (dis)engage with gameplay at will
was most pronounced in solitary leisurely gaming. In multiplayer gaming, participants reported sometimes not having
this license. They played although they didnÕt want to any
longer, which instilled unenjoyable experiences of control.
The underlying motives participants mentioned were on the
one hand, basic Òparticipation normsÓ [54]: Especially for
adults with many responsibilities, scheduling and setting up
a gameplay session can require significant effort, and many
multi-player games require the continued participation of
all participants until the end to bring gameplay to a satisfying closure (i.e., determining who wins). Since the basic
normative goal of leisurely play situations is (shared) enjoyment [54], participation norms ask players to be respectful of the other playersÕ enjoyment and not spontaneously
decide to not join or leave prematurely. Says one player:
License to Autonomously Choose Games
ÒSo if you play together in a clan, then there are situations
where things arenÕt over yet, where you just have to finish
the session. There I cannot, of course I could decide voluntarily to leave, but that would be inappropriate, if I would
leave. Because then I would let my team hang.Ó (P9/290)
Beyond choosing when to play, leisure play contexts come
with the social license to choose which game to play, and to
change games during a play encounter. As an e-sport athlete
compared his experience of playing the e-sport game Coun-
3935
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
terstrike during training with his experience of playing his
favorite leisure time game, Commandos:
cating a particular game state to record it for a research
study, be it efficiently yet systematically exploring the possibility space of a game to be able to report on it. As a game
researcher described it: ÒAnd when I play for the job, then
itÕs [.] goal-oriented. [É] I wouldnÕt play if I could get directly to the point I want to get to, letÕs put it that way. So
there the activity of playing is more [.] purely utilitarianÓ.
(P10/406)
ÒNo, Commandos we always only played when we felt like
it. [É] Apart from Counterstrike I would never play any
other game when I donÕt want to. [É] when Diablo 3 comes
out now, then I will really want to play it, so I will play it
very much. But if I donÕt want to play it at a certain point,
[.] then I will not play it if somebody asks me: Do we want
to play a round of Diablo? When I donÕt want to, then I
donÕt want to, and then I donÕt play it.Ó (P15/195)
In e-sports, for instance, gaming was constrained by the
agreed-upon strategy, enforced by other team members:
ÒYou could say that the tactics [É] force your game. [É]
when the tactician of the team is of the opinion that you
have to play static, then youÕre bound to these instructions
or to the ways he wants to see from you, although you might
not like them.Ó (P13/411)
In contrast, in non-leisure contexts, participants would often
play specific pre-ordained games even if they didnÕt feel
like it, which instilled a controlled experience. Said one
game designer: ÒEspecially in the work context itÕs not always voluntary. So voluntarily I wouldnÕt prefer this genre
very much. ThatÕs more unfreeÓ. (P9/284)
Lack of play style choice also could occur in leisurely multiplayer gaming, as this MMORPG player put it:
Apart from the basic autonomy of making self-determined
choices, this license to choose which game to play also
supports autonomy in another way: Players can pick games
that suit their current preferences and needs, making it more
likely that they will play a game that instills intrinsic motivation, supporting overall autonomous motivation. During
one field observation, we found that players would cycle
through many games in a row, change game modes or difficulty levels, until they arrived at a game setup that was enjoyable for everyone involved Ð and when it wasnÕt any
longer, they switched games again. As one journalist observed, leisurely playing is characterized by the fact that
people do not put up with games they do not find enjoyable:
Òthere are bosses, where, I donÕt know, some special jobs
have to be allocated. And where you are then for a time, so
I was DD, so damage dealer, and usually my job is to make
damage, when you then get certain special jobs with that
boss and you know well, yes, you will only run around or
search around or you have to keep your eye out for something, and you canÕt make as much damage as you could
do, then itÕs the case that you sometimes think: <<IÕd rather like to do something else.>>Ó (P18/339)
Like participation norms, the license to choose play styles
showed an interesting interaction between context and
game features. Providing meaningful choice is commonly
seen as a premier way of in-game autonomy support [37].
Yet as a game journalist noted, this freedom to choose can
flip into an oppressive demand to exhaust if encountered in
the context of playing a game to review it:
ÒI mean, many people play games very, very briefly, so [.]
there is a moment when you play and itÕs not fun, unless
you just spent seventy Euros and know after four hours this
will get awesome, then maybe you still play it. Otherwise
you rarely find people cramped, well, maybe not cramped,
but grumpy in front of a console. And the typical video
game journalist, he sits angrily and lost in soliloquies in
front of a console.Ó (P3-1/438)
ÒAnd as a reviewer you have to look: How does an, an adventure like Heavy Rain, which plays a lot with the freedom
to act, and suggests it, there you have to- as a normal, contemplative player you just play it through, and afterwards
you think: <<Maybe IÕll do it again.>> And here you indeed have to play the same scenes immediately again and
look, how, what is different, so. [That is]
Interviewer: Ò[That is,] you have to actually exhaust the
possibility space?Ó
Participant: ÒExactly, yes. Yes, yes. You are forced to do it,
itÕs no longer an optional possibility. Whenever youÕre
forced to do something, then in becomes more work.Ó (P32/669-672)
Again, this license was reported to be most pronounced in
solitary leisure play. In multiplayer gaming, players need to
agree on a game that is jointly enjoyable for all, which
means that sometimes one player bows to the enjoyment of
the group and plays a game she would not have chosen:
ÒWe also do that, but itÕs, itÕs like this in this group, that we
like to play cards together, and the ladies suggest that. IÕm
actually not the type for that. [É] I wouldnÕt necessarily
have to have that, but they, they suggest it again and again
and then we just do it.Ó (P17/692-696)
A Relaxed Temporal Field: Making Time for Play
Beyond social norms allowing to choose whether, when,
how long, what and how to play, leisure contexts support
autonomy through a relaxed temporal and spatial field.
Specifically for adults, the ability to (dis)engage in leisurely
play was reported to be an effortful accomplishment. As
participants stated, to feel free to play meant to first attend
to oneÕs adult responsibilities for work and family. As a re-
License to Autonomously Choose Play Style
In addition to choosing when and what to play, leisure contexts come with the license to change how to play to optimize (shared) enjoyment. In non-leisure contexts, the targeted instrumental outcome of the activity was reported to
require specific, goal-oriented styles of gameplay: be it lo-
3936
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
sult, leisure play typically only occurred in ÔfreeÕ time windows to begin with: ÒThose are the really regular windows
É after work and after I have brought the little one to bed.
É And otherwise, if it works out time-wise on the weekend,
then it depends. Well, the, the family has priority, for sure.Ó
(P5/29) ÒI- if itÕs dark, I can somehow say to myself, itÕs
evening somehow, I can call it a day, and then I can perhaps also simply play with a cleaner conscience.Ó (P10/21)
would trigger fears of appearing to do something inappropriate for the work context: not noticing a colleague who
has a question, shouting in frustration in an otherwise very
silent office environment. In contrast, her experience playing alone at home was ÒFreedom I would also say, certainly
in the private context, because there I can simply show all
emotions that I develop when I play this game. And that I of
course donÕt have when IÕm sitting in the office. ThatÕs not
a feeling of freedom. I would say, if I had the opportunity to
play Battlefield in the office, I would enjoy it less because I
then donÕt have this feeling of freedom.Ó (P9/309)
On top of that, participants reported actively creating time
windows cleared from other pressing needs:
Interviewer: ÒSo thatÕs the usual process, that you, that you
pick a day, and then on that day start in the afternoon and
stop in the evening?Ó
Participant: ÒThatÕs, yes, you can almost see that as the
usual case with me. [É] If it is that way and I can focus on
the afternoon, then I also plan it like that, such that I have
finished everything until then, until that point, that could
make me go to the door or interrupt the game.Ó (P7/62-65)
Again, this freedom from having to regulate oneÕs attention
and emotion is most pronounced in solitary play. As the
same participant continued, when playing with friends on a
couch, Òthe considerateness for the friends dominates, for
the people with whom IÕm sitting there. So then itÕs less the
case, that I focus on the game and say: <<I am now, now I
am free and can determine this.>> Instead itÕs also more
about me being the host, and being a guest of somebody
and still take regard of that.Ó (P9/309-311)
This matches findings that spontaneous play in animals and
children only occurs in a Òrelaxed fieldÓ where no immediate outer threats or more pressing inner needs (hunger, pain)
are present [1,32]. From the perspective of autonomy support, one can phrase this as follows: First, the practically
accomplished absence of outer responsibilities (typically
motivated by controlling motives of internalized demands
or external negative consequences) already creates a time
space that is overall more autonomous. Second, players
donÕt experience a goal conflict between the intrinsic motivation to play and another, competing motive to attend to a
responsibility, which would thwart full absorbed engagement in gameplay, reducing the maximum of intrinsic need
satisfaction that could otherwise be derived from gameplay.
In short, the moment co-present others observe gameplay,
players need to potentially self-regulate engagement, which
brings us to spatial shielding. Participants noted that they
would undertake practical efforts to create a space that
would give them the license to play leisurely. This entailed
that they would typically set up gaming equipment in a private room that is materially shielded from the interruptions
and eyes of others who donÕt participate in play. Thus, uninterrupted engrossment in gameplay would become more
likely (increasing intrinsic need satisfaction, thus overall
autonomous motivation), and players did not need to selfregulate emotion display to fit the Ònormal appearancesÓ of
public settings (reducing controlled motivation): Òin my
private rooms, then I can show any emotion, because there
would be nothing inappropriate in doing so, because I
wouldnÕt offend anyone with itÓ (P9/225) This feature became obvious when participants compared their experience
of playing in private rooms with their experience playing
mobile games in public, which one participant described as
follows: ÒSince I am then mostly in a public surrounding,
loud screaming or throwing that thing in the corner are not
an option. Although you would really want to do it, you
have to restrain yourself a bit there and, letÕs put it this
way, appear a bit more suited for public.Ó (P7/ 269-271)
A Relaxed Spatial Field: Making Place for Play
The relaxed field of leisurely play contexts is as much a
temporal as a spatial shielding from the demands of others.
In everyday life, internalized social norms compel us to
continually monitor and regulate our attention and emotion
display to ÔfitÕ the demands of the particular social situation
Ð an experience of controlled motivation [9]. In leisurely
play, this demand doesnÕt disappear: We canÕt be ÒspoilsportsÓ who take no visible interest in the game, nor Òsore
losersÓ who display Òtoo muchÓ negative affect over losing,
etc. However, games are typically designed to spontaneously hold our attention and elicit specific intense emotions that
fit the norms of leisure play contexts: Players are allowed
and expected to get fully attentively involved in gameplay,
and to experience and display more intense emotion than in
other everyday situations. This fit of spontaneous and socially demanded engrossment and emotion dissolves the
need to actively self-regulate [9]. Since non-leisure contexts
typically donÕt allow the deep engrossment or intense emotion afforded by gameplay, situational norms and spontaneous affordances mismatch, requiring perceived-controlling
self-regulation. As one game designer described it, playing
a game at the workplace Ð even if it was part of her work Ð
In addition, participants reported actively configuring those
private spaces to further minimize any potential distraction:
locking doors, moving their game equipment to a part of the
room most distant from other rooms to avoid overhearing
noises from other inhabitants, Òand I switch off the lights
and put on headphones and somehow try to have more immersionÓ. (P2/59)
Minimized Consequence
We already saw that participants reported controlled motives in multiplayer gaming when negative consequences
were attached to play: Not showing up to a multi-player
3937
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
gaming session or leaving it prematurely might trigger disapproval or a loss of reputation. This is not surprising: Acting out of concern for separable consequences of a behavior
is the definition of extrinsic motivation [6]. However, such
consequences are still very muted and rare in leisure contexts, if compared to non-leisure contexts: A game journalist delivering a review late or an e-sport athlete not showing
up for a tournament can expect heavy social sanctions from
her colleagues as well as potential material consequences
like not being paid for an article, losing oneÕs job, or not
winning prize money. This extends to play styles, as a game
journalist notes: Òwhen you fail and know: <<I canÕt write
the review tomorrow>>, because you actually havenÕt
reached these and these things, [É] the consequence then
means for instance, that you have to get up in the morning
two hours early to start the game again.Ó (3-2/631)
somebody gets you to, so says *have to*, <<You should
play now>>, but when you really want to [É] thatÕs voluntary for me. [É W]hen youÕre in a team [É] you have to
know that itÕs a time investment. And then I donÕt find that
involuntary, instead you enter a compromise, and thatÕs
voluntary. ThatÕs a decision of a person.Ó (P14/156-157)
In short, experiences of controlled motivation only became
salient when spontaneous interests and provided choices
mismatched and perceived-controlling motives kept players
to given choices, without players being able to construe said
choices as self-congruent on some level [57]. As another esport player answered the question whether he experienced
pre-scheduled training times as non-autonomous:
ÒIn::: 95 percent of the cases no. It's still a hobby. You- it's
still a passion. You enjoy playing it, also because something
like:: a professional level comes in, money and you get
around and you get to know new people. ThatÕs nice, no
question. And those remaining five percent, those are the
percentages where you say: <<Hm, not training again from
seven to ten pm? Now I could have gone to the movies with
my girlfriend.>> For example. Where you would say: <<I
so would have wanted to go with her to the movies. Damn,
damn, damn. Why do I have to train now?>>Ó (P16/97-99)
In contrast, not only are most interactions in leisure play
contexts symbolically mediated such that they materially
reduce the risk of any physical harm. They entail the social
norm that play ought to not come with material consequence attached. Several participants noted that they intentionally avoided gambling Ð gaming for money, Òbecause
then thereÕs the pressure that you have to win. Of course,
everybody who plays wants to win somehow. Or have some
successes, at least. Otherwise you wouldnÕt play, presumably. Bu::t when itÕs about money, thatÕs a real thing, and,
that you have to work hard for. That wouldnÕt have a playful character for me then.Ó (P8/297-303) To be sure, some
deemed some involvement of money acceptable. The point
participants made is that material consequence is acceptable
as long as it contributes to enjoyment rather than becoming
the purpose of the game. Playing Poker for money is acceptable because Òthe thrill is biggerÓ, but only if one plays
for cents instead of Òfor real moneyÓ (P11/337-345).
DISCUSSION
This paper combined episodic interviews with a grounded
theory methodology to identify how social contexts Ð particularly leisure and non-leisure contexts Ð affect autonomy
experience in gameplay.
Analysis suggests multiple direct and indirect routes of autonomy support, propelled by social norms interacting with
material circumstances (fig. 1). First, leisure play contexts
entail the social license to choose whether, when, what, how
long and how to play, directly supporting autonomy. Nonleisure contexts lack this license, thwarting autonomy. Second, leisure contexts enable this license and directly reduce controlled motives by minimizing social and material
consequence of gameplay. Again, this is typically not the
case in non-leisure contexts. Third, leisure contexts typically entail a field shielded from outer demands and public observers. This directly reduces the amount of controlling
demands, as well as the need to fit oneÕs engagement to
ÔnormalÕ public appearances. More indirectly, the leisure
play license to (dis)engage with and configure the total play
situation enables players to choose games and play styles
that best fit their spontaneous interests and needs (within
the range of what is accessible), and the relaxed spatiotemporal field reduces (concern for) outer distractions interfering with play. This facilitates players experiencing a
maximum of intrinsic need satisfaction from play, which
increases the overall perceived autonomy of the activity.
Autonomy Experience as Interest-Choice Mismatch
Notably, the mere absence of choice or presence of controlling consequences did not necessarily lead to an overall experience of controlled motivation. When gameplay itself
generated intense intrinsic motivation, this could outweigh
or make participants forget controlling motives. As one participant observed, MMORPG raids to him became Òthese
outer commitments that got you to join in at times where
you donÕt want toÓ, yet Òthe activity itself was in any case
still playful from its feeling. Especially if it were challenging opponents and such, then (3s) it definitely was a playful
activityÓ. (P2/79) And true to SDTÕs contention that autonomy depends not on choice or obligation per se but the individualÕs active endorsement of an activity, one e-sport
player reported experiencing mandatory training as autonomous when it was either enjoyable or he reminded himself
that he chose to make the training commitment: ÒIf you,
3938
Designing New Player Experiences
License to (dis)engage
& conÞgure situation
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
+
Salient
autonomous motives
+
+
Ð
+
Spatial Þeld cleared
from distraction
+
Minimized social and
material consequence
Ð
Temporal Þeld cleared
from outer demands
Ð
Spatial Þeld shielded
from public observers
Ð
Ð
+
Intrinsically motivated
gameplay
Salient
controlled motives
Self-regulation of
attention & emotion
display
Construal of action as
autonomous
+
Autonomy need
satisfaction
Ð
+
Figure 1. Integrated model of contextual autonomy support in leisure play contexts
In sum, leisure play contexts support autonomy by sociomaterially affording a relaxed spatio-temporal field shielded from non-play demands, and a meta-process of configuration and (dis)engagement in which players can fit the situation to their interests and needs thanks to minimized
consequence. Play becomes a controlled experience when
spontaneous interests and socio-materially available choices
mismatch, and perceived-controlling motives keep the individual from leaving or changing the situation, and these
controlling motives outweigh whatever intrinsic need satisfaction the activity itself generates, such that the individual
doesnÕt construe the activity as overall autonomous. Consequently, even leisurely play can become overall controlling,
particularly in multiplayer encounters when the regard for
other playersÕ enjoyment (including consequences of embarrassment or loss of status) compels players to play
against their inclinations. Hence, solitary leisurely play is
the most autonomy-supporting context, as players donÕt
need to take others into account here.
ness unclear [11,30,46,51]. Our results offer a theoretical
model how ÒvoluntarinessÓ comes about in and relates to
ÒplayÓ: The experience of autonomy is a social norm for the
type of context people label ÒplayÓ (cf. [57]). As part of
(re)producing a play context, people accomplish a sociomaterial setup that strongly affords autonomy. The resulting
autonomy experiences lead participants to then recognize
and label the situation as ÒplayÓ. Conversely, if the setup of
a gaming situation affords little autonomy, this experience
may lead participants to label it ÒworkÓ and flag it as inappropriate: something that should be autonomous isnÕt. This
model opens to the wider question how labeling or framing
and autonomy experience interrelate. For instance, does labeling something as ÒplayÓ increase experienced autonomy? There are several interesting starting points for this research trajectory [20,26,28], but it essentially remains an
open question.
Third, our results indicate that non-autonomous (ÒinvoluntaryÓ) play not only happens in the rarefied circumstances
of instrumental MMORPG play, goldfarming, or e-sports. It
is an everyday occurrence in multiplayer gaming. Contemporary game enjoyment research has mainly argued that
more players equal a better gaming experience thanks to
social facilitation, presence, and relatedness. Against this
thrust, a recent study found that people experience more
autonomy in solitary than social play [60]. Our study lends
further support that multiplayer gaming may buy gains in
social motives with a loss of autonomy support. It also provides an empirically grounded theoretical model how copresent others affect autonomy: by binding situational configuration, (dis)engagement, and self-regulation of conduct
to regard for the othersÕ enjoyment. One design implication
here is to support autonomy by reducing the closure point
span and participation dependency of multiplayer games,
for instance with design patterns like pick-up groups [55].
Limitations
As a qualitative study with a small and culturally homogenous sample, the present study cannot (and does not want
to) make claims toward broad generalizability. It can also
not claim reliability in any statistical sense, though in the
qualitative sense that data collection, transcription, and
analyses were transparently documented [13]. Hence, one
main task for future research is the experimental testing of
the grounded theory developed here.
Implications for entertainment games
That being said, our findings do hold a number of interesting ramifications. First, they identify several ways in which
contexts support autonomy that have not been described in
the SDT literature on games or social contexts in general.
Second, existing research has chiefly treated ÒvoluntarinessÓ as a defining feature of ÒplayÓ without unpacking the
construct further [23]. Several scholars pointed to phenomena of instrumental play that contradict this straightforward
definition, leaving the relation between play and voluntari-
Connected to this, we found that play in public, for instance
on mobile phones or with public installations, can be less
autonomous because players need to actively self-regulate
3939
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
attention and emotion display to fit normal public appearances, against the intense engrossment and arousal playing
the game may stir. Designers of public play installations
may consider using walls and other physical covers to minimize these negative effects.
or in the case of workplace gamification, not involve core
job tasks necessarily linked to remuneration and promotion;
and rather than reinforce existing regulations, it should restructure activity such that participants have a greater ability to align what they do when, how, and with whom with
their own interests and needs, analogous to e.g. Montessori
pedagogy or results-only work environments [31,58,61,6568]. Our study provides a theoretical model why and how
these recommendations work to support autonomy.
Finally, our study revealed meta-processes of people setting
up, (dis)engaging with, and configuring the total play situation which could not have been observed in a laboratory
study, as the experimental control of conditions would have
prevented it by definition. We also found instances where
game design and context interact: a design feature like ample meaningful choice can support or thwart autonomy depending on what kind of play style is socially mandated.
Not only have these processes and interaction effects not
been reported: they suggest that there may be a larger number of situational processes and factors of gaming enjoyment missed by experimental designs Ð tasking game enjoyment researchers to devise more ecologically sensitive
and valid methods.
The prescription of particular goals and activities in obligatory contexts receives its motivational power from social
and material consequences attached to outcomes of peopleÕs activities. Here our findings most directly speak to the
hypothesized undermining effect of gamification: We found
ample evidence that players feel coerced when consequences Ð extrinsic incentives Ð compel them to play against their
inclination. Yet our observations qualify the undermining
effect hypothesis in two regards. First, undermining should
not be caused by the mere presence of progress feedback
like points or badges. It should only occur if such measured
progress is connected to perceived-controlling social or material consequences (money, work hours, reputation, embarrassment). This linkage is part of the systemÕs sociomaterial context Ð what other people and things do with the
progress data it collects. Second, we found that gameplay
experience only became controlled when players were
compelled to do something they did not spontaneously feel
like doing, could not construe the activity as autonomous on
a higher level, and when intrinsic enjoyment didnÕt outweigh salient controlled motives. This would suggest that
even obligatory engagement with serious games or gamified applications with undermining consequences attached
may be experienced as autonomous when it fits the participantÕs spontaneous inclinations, generates strong intrinsic
enjoyment, and/or is actively endorsed by the participant.
This is not to deny a potential undermining effect; but it
clarifies that it is far from the sole mechanism potentially
affecting autonomy in applied gaming.
Implications for applied gaming
Although our study did not explicitly explore autonomy experiences with gamified applications or serious games, its
results still arguably speak to the frequent concern that
gamification may create demotivating coercion rather than
engaging play. Most critiques of this kind draw on SDT in
some form [8,31,58,59,61], hypothesizing that the progress
feedback and reward elements central to gamification
(points, badges, leaderboards) produce the well-documented effect of extrinsic rewards undermining existing intrinsic motivation by thwarting autonomy [64]. In a sense, although gamification criticism is concerned with differences
in autonomy between entertainment and applied gaming,
like game enjoyment research, it has chiefly focused system
design not social context. Yet our results indicate that context is what matters.
First, obligatory contexts like work or formal schooling
lack a relaxed spatio-temporal field shielded from outer
demands and observing others. Even in voluntary contexts
like personal fitness, gamified applications may thwart autonomy by making participantsÕ conduct visible to others
(e.g. through public leaderboards), instilling autonomythwarting self-regulation and controlled motives of social
recognition (cf. [8,58]) Ð suggesting that physical shielding
is a relevant design feature for applied game design as well.
In summary, our results support the concern that serious
games and gamified applications in non-leisure contexts
face the challenge that these contexts lack a core source of
gameplay enjoyment: the autonomy experience of ÒfreeÓ
play. However, they suggest that this is not exclusively (or
even primarily) due to an undermining effect automatically
caused by progress feedback. Progress feedback likely only
becomes undermining when it is contextually connected to
perceived-controlling consequences. And even with consequence-laden progress feedback attached, participants can
perceive play as overall autonomous. Last not least, nonleisure contexts like work or formal schooling thwart autonomy through other contextual routes as well: they lack
the relaxed spatio-temporal field and license to configure
and (dis)engage with the situation that is the (social) norm
in leisurely play contexts. Put differently: Unlike Tom, his
friends really werenÕt obliged to whitewash Aunt PollyÕs
fence.
Obligatory contexts furthermore provide little or no license
to configure and (dis)engage with the situation to fit oneÕs
interests and needs. Beyond directly thwarting autonomy,
this also makes it less likely that people will engage in an
activity that supplies intrinsic enjoyment. Thus, where engagement with a serious game or gamified application is
mandated, and/or the game or application reinforce existing
restrictions of conduct, this will likely reduce peopleÕs autonomy. Several scholars and practitioners have suggested
that ÔgoodÕ gamification should be voluntary to participate
in; only involve activities that are voluntary to begin with,
3940
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
REFERENCES
15. Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.
Polity Press.
1.
Gordon M. Burghardt. 2005. The Genesis of Animal
Play: Testing the Limits. MIT Press.
2.
Roger Caillois. 2001. Man, Play, and Games. University of Illinois Press.
16. Erving Goffman. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on
the Organization of Experience. Northeastern University Press.
3.
Thomas M. Connolly, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Ewan MacArthur, Thomas Hainey, James M. Boyle. 2012. A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Evidence on
Computer Games and Serious Games. Computers &
Education 59, 2: 661Ð686.
17. Frederik de Grove, Jan van Looy, Joyce Neys, Jeroen
Jansz. 2012. Playing in School or at Home? An Exploration of the Effects of Context on Educational Game
Experience. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 10, 2:
199Ð208.
4.
Juliet Corbin, Anselm L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (3rd ed.). Sage.
5.
Yvonne A. De Kort, Wijnand A. Ijsselsteijn. 2008.
People, Places, and Play: Player Experience in a SocioSpatial Context. Computers in Entertainment 6, 2: Art.
18.
18. Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, Laura Johnson. 2006. How
Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with
Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods 18, 1:
59Ð82.
6.
7.
8.
9.
19. Carrie Heeter, Yu-Hao Lee, Brian Magerko, Ben Medler. 2011. Impacts of Forced Serious Game Play on
Vulnerable Subgroups. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations 3, 3: 34Ð53.
Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan. 2012. Motivation,
Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination
Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Richard M. Ryan (ed.). Oxford University Press,
New York, 85Ð107.
20. J. Howard, K. McInnes. 2013. The Impact of ChildrenÕs Perception of an Activity as Play rather than Not
Play on Emotional Well-Being. Child: Care, Health
and Development 39, 5: 737Ð742.
21. Johan Huizinga. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the
Play-Element in Culture. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Menno Deen. 2015. G.A.M.E. Games Autonomy Motivation & Education: How Autonomy-Supportive Game
Design May Improve Motivation to Learn. Ph.D Dissertation, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, NL.
22. Gail Jefferson. 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols
with an Introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies
from the First Generation, Gene H. Lerner (ed.). John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 13Ð31.
Sebastian Deterding. 2011. Situated Motivational Affordances of Game Elements: A Conceptual Model. In
CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification. http://gamificationresearch.org/chi2011/papers.
23. Jesper Juul. 2005. Half-Real: Video Games between
Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press.
24. Linda K. Kaye, Jo Bryce. 2012. Putting The ÔFun FactorÕ Into Gaming: The Influence of Social Contexts on
Experiences of Playing Videogames. International
Journal of Internet Science 7, 1: 23Ð37.
Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The Joys of Absence: Emotion, Emotion Display, and Interaction Tension in Video Game Play. In Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
(FDGÕ15).
25. Keunyeong Kim, Michael G. Schmierbach, Saraswathi
(Saras) Bellur, Mun-Young Chung, Julia Daisy
Fraustino, Frank Dardis, Lee Ahern. 2015. Is It a Sense
of Autonomy, Control, or Attachment? Exploring the
Effects of in-Game Customization on Game Enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior 48: 695Ð705.
10. Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The Lens of Intrinsic Skill
Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design. HumanComputer Interaction 30, 3-4: 294Ð335.
11. Julian Dibbell. 2008. The Chinese Game Room: Play,
Productivity, and Computing at Their Limits. Artifact
2, 3: 1Ð6.
26. Andreas Lieberoth. 2015. Shallow Gamification: Testing Psychological Effects of Framing an Activity as a
Game. Games and Culture 10, 3: 229Ð248.
12. Uwe Flick. 1997. The Episodic Interview: Small-Scale
Narratives as Approach to Relevant Experiences. LSE
Methodology Institute Discussion Papers Ð Qualitative
Series. London.
27. Holin Lin, Chuen-Tsai Sun. 2011. The Role of Onlookers in Arcade Gaming: Frame Analysis of Public
Behaviours. Convergence 17, 2: 125Ð137.
28. Karen Littleton, Helen Ashman, Paul Light, Jayne Artis, Tony Roberts, Annerieke Oosterwegel. 1999. Gender, Task Contexts, and ChildrenÕs Performance on a
Computer-Based Task. European Journal of Psychology of Education 14, 1: 129Ð139.
13. Uwe Flick. 2010. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine
EinfŸhrung. (3rd ed.). Rowohlt.
14. Brian J. Gajadhar. Understanding Player Experience in
Social Digital Games: The Role of Social Presence.
Ph.D. Dissertation, TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, NL.
3941
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
29. Ethan Mollick, Nancy Rothbard. 2014. Mandatory
Fun: Consent, Gamification and the Impact of Games
at Work. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2277103.
42. Jaakko Stenros. 2014. In Defence of a Magic Circle:
The Social, Mental and Cultural Boundaries of Play.
Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 1, 2: 147Ð185.
30. Bonnie A. Nardi. 2009. My Life as a Night Elf Priest:
An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft.
University of Michigan Press.
43. Yu Lan Su, Johnmarshall Reeve. 2011. A MetaAnalysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs
Designed to Support Autonomy. Educational Psychology Review 23, 1: 159Ð188.
31. Jason Nolan, Melanie McBride. 2014. Beyond Gamification: Reconceptualizing Game-Based Learning in
Early Childhood Environments. Information, Communication & Society 17, 5: 594Ð608.
44. Ron Tamborini, Matthew Grizzard, Nicholas David
Bowman, Leonard Reinecke, Robert J. Lewis, Allison
Eden. 2011. Media Enjoyment as Need Satisfaction:
The Contribution of Hedonic and Nonhedonic Needs.
Journal of Communication 61, 6: 1025Ð1042.
32. Anthony D. Pellegrini. The Role of Play in Human Development. Oxford University Press.
33. Wei Peng, Jih-Hsuan Lin, Karin A. Pfeiffer, Brian
Winn. 2012. Need Satisfaction Supportive Game Features as Motivational Determinants: An Experimental
Study of a Self-Determination Theory Guided Exergame. Media Psychology 15, 2: 175Ð196.
45. Ron Tamborini, Nicholas David Bowman, Allison
Eden, Matthew Grizzard, Ashley Organ. 2010. Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic
Needs. Journal of Communication 60, 4: 758Ð777.
46. T.L. Taylor. 2006. Play Between Worlds: Exploring
Online Game Culture. MIT Press.
34. Andrew K. Przybylski, Netta Weinstein, Kou Murayama, Martin F Lynch, and Richard M Ryan. 2012. The
Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That
Let You Be All You Can Be. Psychological Science
23, 1: 69Ð76.
47. Selen Turkay, Daniel Hoffman, Charles K. Kinzer,
Pantiphar Chantes, Christopher Vicari. 2014. Toward
Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning:
Learning Theory, Game Design Characteristics, and
Situating Video Games in Classrooms. Computers in
the Schools 31, 1: 2Ð22.
35. Andrew K. Przybylski, C. Scott Rigby, Richard M.
Ryan. 2010. A Motivational Model of Video Game
Engagement. Review of General Psychology 14, 2:
154Ð166.
48. Selen Turkay. 2013. The Long Term Effects of Customization on User Experiences in an Online Social Game:
A Mixed Method Study. Ph.D Dissertation. Columbia
University, New York, NY.
36. Leonard Reinecke, Ron Tamborini, Matthew Grizzard,
Robert Lewis, Allison Eden, and Nicholas David
Bowman. 2012. Characterizing Mood Management as
Need Satisfaction: The Effects of Intrinsic Needs on
Selective Exposure and Mood Repair. Journal of
Communication 62, 3: 437Ð453.
49. Mark Twain. 1876. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
The American Publishing Company.
50. Netta Weinstein, Andrew K Przybylski, Richard M.
Ryan. 2009. Can Nature Make Us More Caring? Effects of Immersion in Nature on Intrinsic Aspirations
and Generosity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 35, 10: 1315Ð1329.
37. Scott Rigby, Richard M. Ryan. 2011. Glued to Games:
How Video Games Draw Us in and Hold Us Spellbound. Praeger.
38. Richard M. Ryan, Edward L Deci. 2002. An Overview
of Self-Determintation Theory: An OrganismicDialectical Perspective. In Handbook of SelfDetermination Research, Edward L Deci, Richard M.
Ryan (eds.). University of Rochester Press, Rochester,
3-36.
51. Nick Yee. 2006. The Labor of Fun: How Video Games
Blur the Boundaries of Work and Play. Games and
Culture 1, 1: 68Ð71.
52. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1975. Beyond Boredom and
Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games.
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
39. Richard M. Ryan, C. Scott Rigby, Andrew Przybylski.
2006. The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A SelfDetermination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion 30, 4: 344Ð360.
53. Thomas Malaby. 2007. Beyond Play: A New Approach
to Games. Games and Culture 2, 2: 95Ð113.
54. Sebastian Deterding. 2015. Forced to Be Free,
Partially: Participation Norms in Leisurely Video
Gaming Encounters. In DiGRA 2015.
40. Katie Seaborn, Deborah I. Fels. 2015. Gamification in
Theory and Action: A Survey. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 74, 2: 14-31.
55. Staffan Bjšrk, Jussi Holopainen. 2005. Patterns in
Game Design. Charles River Media.
41. Kennon M. Sheldon, Vincent Filak. 2008. Manipulating Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness Support
in a Game-Learning Context: New Evidence That All
Three Needs Matter. British Journal of Social Psychology 47, 2: 267Ð283.
56. Sebastian Deterding. 2014. Modes of Play: A Frame
Analytic Account of Video Game Play. Ph.D. Disserta-
3942
Designing New Player Experiences
#chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA
tion, Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany,
http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/6863/.
63. Jaakko Stenros. 2015. Behind Games: Playful Mindset
as Basis for Ludic Transformative Practice. In The
Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications,
Steffen P. Walz, Sebastian Deteding (eds.). MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 201Ð222.
57. Nicholas Gillet, Robert J. Vallerand, Sofiane Amoura,
Brice Baldes. 2010. Influence of coachesÕ autonomy
support on athletes' motivation and sport performance:
A test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise
11, 2: 155Ð161.
64. Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, Richard M. Ryan.
1999. A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments
Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on
Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125: 6,
627Ð668.
58. Steven Conway. 2014. Zombification?: Gamification,
motivation, and the user. Journal of Gaming & Virtual
Worlds 6, 2: 129Ð141.
65. Ross Smith. 2010. Communicate Hope: Using Games
and Play to Improve Productivity: 42projects.
Management Innovation eXchange.
http://www.managementexchange.com/story/communi
cate-hope-using-games-and-play-improveproductivity-42projects
59. Marigo Raftopoulos. 2014. Towards gamification
transparency: A conceptual framework for the
development of responsible gamified enterprise
systems. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds 6, 2:
159Ð178.
66. Ross Smith. 2012. How Play and Games Transform the
Culture of Work: An Interview with Ross Smith.
American Journal of Play 5, 1: 1Ð21.
60. Kellie Vella, Daniel Johnson, Leanne Hides. 2015.
Playing Alone, Playing With Others: Differences in
Player Experience and Indicators of Wellbeing. In
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI annual symposium
on Computer-human interaction in play (CHI
PLAYÕ15), 3Ð12.
67. Kevin Werbach, Dan Hunter. 2012. For the Win: How
Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business.
Wharton Digital Press.
61. Scott Nicholson. 2012. A User-Centered Theoretical
Framework for Meaningful Gamification. In
Proceedings of Games Learning Society 8.0, 223Ð229.
68. Sebastian Deterding. 2012. Paidia as Paideia: From
Game-Based Learning to a Life Well-Played. Keynote,
Games Learning Society 8.0.
62. JosŽ P. Zagal, Staffan Bjšrk, Chris Lewis. 2013. Dark
Patterns in the Design of Games. In Proceedings of
Foundations of Digital Games 2013.
3943