Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a continuous increase in the design and application of computer games for purposes other than entertainment in recent years. Serious games—games that motivate behavior and retain attention in serious contexts—can change the attitudes, behaviors, and habits of players. These games for change have been shown to motivate behavior change, persuade people, and promote learning using various persuasive strategies. However, persuasive strategies that motivate one player may demotivate another. In this article, we show the importance of tailoring games for change in the context of a game designed to improve healthy eating habits. We tailored a custom-designed game by adapting only the persuasive strategies employed; the game mechanics themselves did not vary. Tailoring the game design to players’ personality type improved the effectiveness of the games in promoting positive attitudes, intention to change behavior, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, we show that the benefits of tailoring the game intervention are not explained by the improved player experience, but directly by the choice of persuasive strategy employed. Designers and researchers of games for change can use our results to improve the efficacy of their game-based interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".