Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Anselme, P. (2010). The uncertainty processing theory of motivation. Behavioural Brain Research, 208(2), 291–310. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J., Qiu, Z., & Li. Y. (1994). Robust tolerance for ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, 57(1), 155-165.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Flory, N., & Lang, E. V. (2011). Distress in the waiting room. Radiology, 260, 166–173. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann, W. N., & Peles, N. (1997). Cognitive dissonance and mutual fund investors. The Journal of Financial Research, 20(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1057–1068.

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2008). The devil you know: neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19(10), 962-967.

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. USA: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1994). Cognitive dissonance and social change. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. USA: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakowski, S. G. (1995). The effects of stressor predictability on lymphocyte proliferation in humans. Psychology and Health, 10, 409-425.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counselling and Psychology, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, 10 Wai Tsui Crescent, Braemar Hill Road, North Point, Hong Kong

    L. Y. Lo, S. W. Li & M. Lin

Authors
  1. L. Y. Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. W. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Y. Lo.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lo, L.Y., Li, S.W. & Lin, M. The Mario Brothers are Unfair: A study on Sense of Progression in Computer Gameplay. Curr Psychol 38, 33–39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9586-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9586-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation