Exploring the impact of game framing on the motivational appeal of persuasive strategies and their effectiveness in behaviour change games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enhance the persuasiveness of behaviour-change games, designers employ persuasive strategies. These persuasive strategies are intended to motivate the users towards the desired behaviours. Hence, the motivational appeal of these persuasive strategies can play an important role in the effectiveness of these behaviour-change games. Furthermore, research has shown that game framing can impact its effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to understand how the type of framing employed in the game impacts the effectiveness of persuasive strategies and their motivational appeal. To advance research in this direction, this paper explores the relationship between the perceived effectiveness of four popular persuasive strategies (reward, competition, praise and suggestion) and their motivational appeal in a persuasive game for healthy eating across the three different game framings: gain-framing, loss-framing or gain-loss-framing. In a study of 371 participants, our results revealed that all the persuasive strategies were perceived to be significantly effective across all game-framing versions. We also discovered that game framing had varying significant impacts on the relationship between the perceived effectiveness of persuasive strategies and their motivational appeal. We conclude by offering some insights on how to implement persuasive strategies to design games with better persuasive motivational appeal.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it