Reflection Through Gaming: Reinforcing Health Message Response Through Gamified Rehearsal

  • Piiastiina Tikka
  • Miia Laitinen
  • Iikka Manninen
  • Harri Oinas-Kukkonen
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10809)

Abstract

Reflection is generally considered an effective means of achieving behavior change. A gamified approach to promoting rehearsal and reflection in a healthy eating context was studied. The game was based on the principles of the Implicit Attitude Test: by categorizing food items under positive or negative associations the players would gain points according to how fast they categorized foods under positive or negative associations. Game scores constituted feedback for reflection, and repeated playing constituted rehearsal of target responses. Experiment participants (N = 58) played the game over a five-day period. Constructs of Rehearsal (REH), self-reported questionnaire responses on Reflection (REFL) and Perceived Persuasiveness (PEPE), and self-reported Perceived Health Behavior Change (PHBC) were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The results show that PLAY moderates the REFL-PEPE relationship, and there are also significant relationships between REH and PEPE, PEPE and PHBC, and REFL and PHBC.

Keywords

Persuasive technology Behavior change Gamification Self-reflection Perceived Persuasiveness PSD PLS-SEM 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgement

Harri Oinas-Kukkonen wishes to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation for supporting this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., et al.: Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 18, 1667–1676 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, I., Dey, A.K., Forlizzi, J.: Understanding my data, myself: supporting selfreflection with ubicomp technologies. In: Proceedings of UbiComp 2011 International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, R.R.: Reflection in higher education: a concept analysis. Innov. High. Educ. 26, 37–57 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelders, S.M., Kok, R.N., Ossebaard, H.C., Van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.: Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J. Med. Internet Res. 14(6), 2–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liboriussen, B.: Craft, creativity, computer games: the fusion of play and material consciousness. Philos. Technol. 26(3), 273–282 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghazisaeidi, M., Safdari, R., Goodini, A., Mirzaiee, M., Farzi, J.: Digital games as an effective approach for cancer management: opportunities and challenges. J. Educ. Health Promot. 6, 30 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., Schwartz, J.: Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74(6), 1464 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(6), 1223–1235 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 28 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamari, J., Koivisto, J.: Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. In: Proceedings of ECIS 2013 European Conference on Information Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huotari, K., Hamari, J.: Defining gamification – a service marketing perspective. In: Proceedings of MindTrek 2012, 3–5 October 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Werbach, K., Hunter, D.: For the Win: How Game Thinking can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alahäivälä, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Understanding persuasion contexts in health gamification: a systematic analysis of gamified health behavior change support systems literature. Int. J. Med. Inform. 96, 62–70 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawachi, I.: It’s all in the game – the uses of gamification to motivate behavior change. JAMA Intern. Med. 177(11), 1593–1594 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schoech, D., Boyas, J.F., Black, B.M., Elias-Lambert, N.: Gamification for behavior change: lesons from developing a social, multiuser, web-tablet based prevention game for youths. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 31(2), 197–217 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    King, D., Greaves, F., Exeter, C., Darzi, A.: “Gamification”: influencing health behaviours with games. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 106(3), 76–78 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kappen, D.L., Orji, R.: Gamified and persuasive systems as behavior change agents for health and wellness. XRDS: Crossroads, ACM Mag. Stud. 24(1), 52–55 (2017). ACMCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lumsden, J., Edwards, E.A., Lawrence, N.S., Coyle, D., Munafò, M.R.: Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Ser. Games 4(2), e11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maison, D., Greenwald, A.G., Bruin, R.: The implicit association test as a measure of implicit consumer attitudes. Pol. Psycholog. Bull. 32, 1–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roefs, A., Jansen, A.: Implicit and explicit attitudes toward high-fat foods in obesity. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 111(3), 517–521 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grant, A.M., Fraklin, J., Langford, P.: The self-reflection and insight scale: a new measure of private self-consciousness. Int. J. Soc. Behav. Person. 30, 821–835(15) (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts, C., Stark, P.: Readiness for self-directed change in professional behaviours: factorial validation of the self-reflection and insight scale. Med. Educ. 42, 1054–1063 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crano, W.D., Prislin, R.: Attitudes and persuasion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 345–374 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Drozd, F.: Factors affecting perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 123–205 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cox, D.N., Anderson, A.S., Reynolds, J., McKellar, S., Lean, M.E.J., Mela, D.J.: Take five, a nutrition education intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on consumer choice and nutrient intakes. Br. J. Nutr. 80(2), 123–131 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tikka, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Contributing or receiving – the role of social interaction styles in persuasion over a social networking platform. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 21, 705–721 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R.: The go/no-go association task. Soc. Cogn. 19(6), 625–666 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gefen, D., Ringdon, E.E., Straub, D.W.: Editor’s comment: an update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Q. 35(2), 3–14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fornell, C., Larker, D.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1(18), 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nunally, J.C., Bernstein, I.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lyke, J.A.: Insight, but not self-reflection, is related to subjective well-being. Person. Ind. Differ. 46, 66–70 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halttu, K., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Persuading to reflect: role of reflection and insight in persuasive systems design for physical health. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 32, 1–32 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stein, D., Grant, A.M.: Disentangling the relationships among self-reflection, insight, and subjective well-being: the role of dysfunctional attitudes and core self-evaluations. J. Psychol. 148, 505–522 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piiastiina Tikka
    • 1
  • Miia Laitinen
    • 1
  • Iikka Manninen
    • 1
  • Harri Oinas-Kukkonen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations