Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 33–39 | Cite as

The Mario Brothers are Unfair: A study on Sense of Progression in Computer Gameplay

  • L. Y. LoEmail author
  • S. W. Li
  • M. Lin
Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated how a sense of progression, rather than a precise calculation of the goal distance, is important in making the decision to invest additional resources in an ongoing task. One hundred participants were recruited to play a computer game in which the goal stage of the game was not provided and the game character could be killed by different death traps that were located in unexpected areas. The results indicate that more participants continued playing the game when they believed that they could make progress in the gameplay. When they did not experience a sense of progression, they chose to quit no matter how much time they had already spent playing the game. The results of this study further suggest that in fixed conditions, a sense of progression is built through the gradual improvement that can be anticipated in the gameplay. However, no sense of progression could be established in random conditions under which improvement through experience was impossible.

Keywords

Sense of progression Goal Continuation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest among all the involved authors of this manuscript. All author declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Allaire, J. C., & Marsiske, M. (2002). Well- and ill-defined measures of everyday cognition: relationship to older adults’ intellectual ability and functional status. Psychology and Aging, 17(1), 101–115. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.17.1.101.101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselme, P. (2010). The uncertainty processing theory of motivation. Behavioural Brain Research, 208(2), 291–310. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardi, R. A., Bosco, S. M., & Rapp, J. C. (2011). Examining the Use of Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Construct in International Research: A 25-Year Review. International Business Research Journal, 4(1), 3-15.Google Scholar
  5. Boehne, D. M., & Paese, P. W. (2000). Deciding whether to complete or terminate an unfinished project: a strong test of the project completion hypothesis. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 178–194. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowen, J., Qiu, Z., & Li. Y. (1994). Robust tolerance for ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, 57(1), 155-165.Google Scholar
  7. Broder, A. (2000). Assessing the empirical validity of the “take-the-best” heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1332–1346. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dean Jr., J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy Management Journal, 39(2), 368–392. doi: 10.2307/256784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505–510. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Emmons, R. A. (1996). Striving and feeling: personal goals and subjective well-being. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: lining motivation and cognition to behavior. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  11. Flory, N., & Lang, E. V. (2011). Distress in the waiting room. Radiology, 260, 166–173. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Garland, H., & Newport, S. (1991). Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human decision Process, 48(1), 55–69. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90005-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garland, H., Sandefur, C. A., & Rogers, A. C. (1990). De-escalation of commitment in oil exploration: when sunk costs and negative feedback coincide. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 721–727. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goetzmann, W. N., & Peles, N. (1997). Cognitive dissonance and mutual fund investors. The Journal of Financial Research, 20(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant, J., & Marsden, P. (1987). The structure of memorized knowledge in students and clinicians: an explanation for diagnostic expertise. Medical Education, 21, 92–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1987.tb00672.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1057–1068.Google Scholar
  17. Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. He, X., & Mittal, V. (2007). The effect of decision risk and project stage on escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirsh, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2008). The devil you know: neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19(10), 962-967.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. USA: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Keil, M., Truex, D. P. I. I. I., & Mixon, R. (1995). The effects of sunk cost and project completion on information technology project escalation. Engineering Management, IEEE Transaction, 42(4), 372–381. doi: 10.1109/17.482086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, T. (2004). Sunk costs, rationality, and acting for the sake of the past. Nous, 38, 612–640. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2004.00462.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malmierca, M. S., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., Escera, C., & Bendixen, A. (2014). Neuronal adaptation, novelty detection and regularity encoding in audition. Frontiers in System Neuroscience, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00111.
  24. Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., & Lees, J. L. (1990). Arousal, extraversion, and individual differences in resource availability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 150–168. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mcafee, R. P., Mialon, H. M., & Mialon, S. H. (2010). Do sunk costs matter? Economic Inquiry, 48(2), 323–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2008.00184.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarthy, A. M., Schoorman, F. D., & Cooper, A. C. (1993). Reinvestment decisions by entrepreneurs: rational decision-making or escalation of commitment? Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 9–24. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(93)90008-S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moon, H. (2001). Looking forward and looking back: integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-of-commitment progress decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 104–111. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126. doi: 10.1145/360018.360022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newell, B. R., Weston, N. J., & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone “takes-the-best.”. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 91, 82–96. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00525-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabin, M. (1994). Cognitive dissonance and social change. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A. H., & Herrmann, D. J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 484–494. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331. doi: 10.1177/01461672982412006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., Smith, K., & Share, T. (2002). Personal goals and psychological growth: testing an intervention to enhance goal attainment and personality integration. Journal of Personality, 70(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Staw, B. M., Barsade, S. G., & Koput, K. W. (1995). Escalation at the credit window: a longitudinal study of bank executives’ recognition and write-off of problem loans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. USA: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Putten, M., Zeelenberg, M., & van Dijk, E. (2010). Who throws good money after bad? Action vs. state orientation moderates the sunk cost fallacy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 33–36.Google Scholar
  37. Wiese, B. S. (2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. In B. R. Little, K. Salmela-Aro, & S. D. Phillips (Eds.), Personal project pursuit: goals, action and human flourishing (pp. 301–328). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Winkler, I., Háden, G., Ladinig, O., Sziller, I., & Honing, H. (2009). Newborn infants detect the beat in music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 2468–2471. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809035106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zakowski, S. G. (1995). The effects of stressor predictability on lymphocyte proliferation in humans. Psychology and Health, 10, 409-425.Google Scholar
  40. Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2004). De-escalation after repeated negative feedback: emergent expectations of failure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 365–379. doi: 10.1002/bdm.478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Counselling and PsychologyHong Kong Shue Yan UniversityNorth PointHong Kong

Personalised recommendations