A foundation for the persuasive gameplay experience

Citation for published version (APA):Kors, M. J. L., van der Spek, E. D., & Schouten, B. A. M. (2015). A foundation for the persuasive gameplayexperience. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Foundations of Digital Games Conference Foundations of DigitalGames .

Document status and date:Published: 01/01/2015

Document Version:Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can beimportant differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. Peopleinterested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit theDOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and pagenumbers.Link to publication

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:openaccess@tue.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 13. Jun. 2020

A Foundation for the Persuasive Gameplay Experience

Martijn KorsDept. Industrial DesignEindhoven University of

TechnologyP.O.Box 513, 5600 MB

Eindhoven, The Netherlandsm.j.l.kors@tue.nl

Erik van der SpekDept. Industrial DesignEindhoven University of

TechnologyP.O.Box 513, 5600 MB

Eindhoven, The Netherlandse.d.v.d.spek@tue.nl

Ben SchoutenDept. Industrial DesignEindhoven University of

TechnologyP.O.Box 513, 5600 MB

Eindhoven, The Netherlandsbschouten@tue.nl

ABSTRACTGames are increasingly used for purposes that stretch be-yond their primary strength as medium for entertainment.The interactive nature of games provide players with variousopportunity to deal with complex (societal) issues on a moreinvolved and personal level, far more than any other mediumaffords. As such it is not surprising to see that games offer agreat platform for persuading players to adopt a particularperspective on events that occur in the real, physical, world.Games for persuasion, or games for attitude-change, havebeen a topic of discussion over the past decade. Concretedesign strategies however, to analyze persuasive gameplayor guide the designer in embedding persuasive messages ingameplay, are scarce. As such, to advance the disciplinewe have set our focus on the development of strategies thataid the persuasive game design process. In this paper we de-scribe the Attitudinal Gameplay Model as foundation for thePersuasive Gameplay Experience. The model serves as anoverview of what game elements can be utilized for persua-sion, how they are interrelated and what mental processesof the player are important to take into account.

KeywordsPersuasive Games, Persuasive Gameplay, Games for Change,Games for Attitude Change, Game Design Strategies, Per-suasion

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Landlord’s board game, designed by Elisabeth Magie in1904, the earliest predecessor of the well known Monopolygame, was created with the deliberate agenda in mind to ad-dress issues regarding monopoly on land ownership [20][46].And Sugoroku, a series of Japanese board games, was usedas platform to arouse national passion or create sites forsocial critique during the middle ages [20]. GEOlino’s Melt-down, a more recent board game designed by Kolle Rebbe,was created with the intent to raise awareness on climatechange and stir up further dialogue among pupils on the

topic [33]. In the game Meltdown players have to guide aparent polar bear together with polar bear children over realslowly melting ice floes in a race against room temperature.

The concept to use games as vehicles to promote ideologicalideas, bring forth arguments or stimulate critical thinkingis definitely not a new phenomenon, it is however with theadvent of the computational era that the use of games forsuch purposes becomes increasingly more popular. This Warof Mine, a digital game developed by game studio 11 BitStudios in collaboration with non-profit charity Warchild [1]provides us with a peek into the life of civilians enduring theharsh phases of war. Based on interviews with experienceexperts the game promotes a more realistic and possiblymore credible representation of what war could entail forthe average civilian [12]. Spec Ops: The Line also providesa distressing perspective on war, but with a different settingand perspective, as through the eyes of a soldier [51].

We increasingly see games that go beyond the creation ofrewarding experiences alone, implementing messages to per-suade and leave the player with something to think about inperspective to events that occur in the real, physical, world.Designers who seek an outlet for presenting a different pointof view on issues, people, objects or concepts that occurin the real-world essentially enter the realm of persuasion[42][35][38]. There is however little practical knowledge onhow to design for the successful implementation of persua-sion in games, let alone strategies that support this complexdesign process. In particular finding a balance between thepersuasive message and the important engaging aspects ofgames seems difficult, often resulting in games that are tooconcerned with getting the message across and lose the en-gaging qualities that games require at their core.

Some have provided useful pointers for designing such per-suasive games [17][15]. However, more practical strategiesto analyze the player’s moment-to-moment (persuasive) ex-perience and more concrete strategies to aid the persuasivegame design process do not exist yet. As such, our researchfocus is situated within the search for a deeper understand-ing of games as persuasive medium and the subsequent aimto develop strategies (methods, tools, models, etc.) to max-imize the potential of games as a persuasive medium. Ourfirst effort has resulted in the Attitudinal Gameplay Modelas foundation for the implementation of persuasive messagesin games. A model that should be useful for the designer inunderstanding how attitudes in gameplay are processed by

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and thatcopies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page.Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations ofDigital Games (FDG 2015), June 22-25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.ISBN 978-0-9913982-4-9. Copyright held by author(s).

the player and what game elements and mental processes areinfluential in the goal for persuasion. At the same time, themodel serves as guideline in answering the overarching “howto design for”question in regards to the persuasive gameplayexperience, providing direction for future research.

2. GAMES FOR ATTITUDE-CHANGEGames as a medium, just like written text, photos and filmare capable of expressing certain values of their creators [21].Unlike more traditional media however, games are unique intheir interactive affordances and real-time rendering capa-bilities. Games offer a new dimension to the existing reper-toire of media used to persuade [7][8][15]. Most other mediapresent us with a one-way stream of arguments, leaving theaudience with little opportunity to argue their own point ofview; to discuss and further elaborate on why one shouldchange their attitude(s). Games however present playerswith the unique capabilities to evaluate beliefs against a sys-tem that accepts input to a certain degree. The proceduralnature of games as such promote new venues for the field ofpersuasion.

In his influential book Persuasive Games, The ExpressivePower of Videogames, Bogost argues that we are essentiallydealing with a new type of persuasion, decribed as Proce-dural Rhetoric [7][8]. Procedural Rhetoric is seen as “Theart of persuasion through rule-based representations and in-teractions rather than the spoken word, writing, images ormoving pictures”, or as Bogost simply explains by “usingprocesses persuasively” [8]. It closely relates to the mediumcategory of Fogg’s Functional Triad, indicating that “Sim-ulations can persuade people to change their attitudes orbehaviors by enabling them to observe immediately the linkbetween cause and effect” [22]. Bogost consequently definedPersuasive Games as “games that mount procedural rhetoriceffectively” [8]. Some however argued that Bogost’s defi-nition for persuasive games is too narrow and incompletein the sense that games also encompass persuasive featuresother than procedural rhetorics, such as persuasion throughthe game’s audiovisual elements [14][15][27]. Bogost seemsto mention such elements throughout his work but positionsthem more as seperate to procedural rhetoric [7], rather thanin the more synergetic relationship we adhere to. Frascalikewise concludes: “Even though I agree that rules are anessential aspect of game rhetoric, they cannot work inde-pendently from objects, ideas, texts, sounds and images.”[27], a statement further elucidated by de la Hera [15] . E.g.In the game September 12th, created by Frasca, the rulesand procedures of the game are important to construct thepersuasive argument, yet the styling is responsible for pro-viding the eventual meaning of the rules and procedures.Changing the audiovisual elements to a style in which youdrop packages of food supplies will completely change themessage (even if the rules and procedures stay the same).

De la Hera presents a set of “dimensions” through whichgames can channel persuasion. De la Hera mapped thesedimensions into a conceptual model, promoting that persua-sion in games can be grouped on three levels: The Signs, TheSystem and The Context [14][15]. The Signs deal with thegame’s Visual Persuasion, Sound Persuasion, Haptic Per-suasion and Linguistic Persuasion. This level is related tothe study of semiotics, elaborated by Salen and Zimmerman

as to how games convey meaning (specifically through theinterrelationship between signs presented within the samesystem) [46][14]. One level higher we find the System inwhich the Cinematic Persuasion, Procedural Persuasion andNarrative Persuasion is situated. This level is essentially re-sponsible for the presentation of the Signs and their interre-lationship. On the top level we find the Context of the game,explaining the persuasive dimensions that are used to keepthe player hooked, including Social Persuasion, Tactical Per-suasion, Affective Persuasion and Sensorial Persuasion. Thepresented model is useful as it provides an overview of whatpersuasive properties games can encompass. From a morepractical point of view, the model is primarily useful as toolfor game analysis, but provides little grip on explaining ourprimary interest, questioning how to design for persuasionthrough games.

This how question, one we have determined as essential foradvancing the use of games as persuasive medium, surpris-ingly remains a rather under-explored area. In general wesee two aspects that are important for successful persua-sive gameplay: The inclusion of strategically placed gameelements that bring forth the persuasive message and theoverarching stimulus to keep players engaged, offering richand rewarding experiences. Work focused on the engagingproperties of gameplay have been flourishing over the pastdecade, already resulting in several initiatives such as theGame Design Lenses by Jesse Schell [47], The PENS Frame-work by Ryan and Rigby [45] and the Playful ExperienceFramework by Korhonen et al. [34]. The engaging aspectsof gameplay are the indispensable vehicles to drive success-ful persuasive gameplay and account to several gameplayqualities that stimulate the transfer of attitudes, a processexplained in section 3. Game design strategies for persua-sion however are still in their infancy stage, likely as theyare not fundamentally concerned with the gameplay quali-ties that deal with the the creation of engaging experiences.Yet, understanding attitudes in gameplay, how to design forpersuasion through games and what game design strategiescan support designers in maximizing the persuasive proper-ties becomes increasingly relevant. In particular if we wantgames to occupy a more significant position in contemporarymedia used for persuasion.

2.1 Persuasive TechnologyWithin the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) wenotice that Fogg’s perspective on Persuasive Technology ismost dominant as an umbrella for computational persuasion(essentially including digital games). This is likely due to hisextensive work translating the concept of behavior-changethrough technology in more practical strategies, stimulatinga more approachable format for industry [23][26][24]. Foggdefines Persuasive Technology as“interactive computing sys-tems designed to change people’s attitudes and behaviors”[22]. While this would provide us with a more concise start-ing point in regards to Persuasive Games there are two as-pects that are somewhat troublesome from our perspective.First, we do not want to limit ourselves to the computational(digital) landscape. Some persuasive games work well (oreven better) in an analog format, take GEOlino’s Meltdownfor example [33]. Such kinds of analog games are great atpromoting a more interpersonal, intimate dialogue amongparticipants.

The second remark on Persuasive Technology is more sub-stantial and argues that Fogg’s scope on “persuasion” issomewhat limiting. Most of Fogg’s contemporary work isessentially focussed on gaining compliance, devoting littleattention to how attitudes are shaped to influence conse-quent behavior through the interaction with technology. Arather surprising focus since it ignores the more substan-tial attitude-behavior relationship that is inherent to per-suasion [3][38]. Bogost argues that “Persuasive Technologyis not fundamentally concerned with altering the user’s fun-damental conception of how real-world processes work. Per-suasive technology works in the service of existing mate-rial ends, rather than the reasons one would want to pursuethose ends.” [8]. Bogost, commenting on persuasive technol-ogy from a more rhetorician perspective, boldly argues thatManipulating Technology might have actually been a bet-ter name for Persuasive Technology [8]. Conversely, we be-lieve that games should become more like interactive docu-mentaries, to convey ideas and values, presenting argumentsabout how things work in the real-world from a particularperspective. Games are great at providing people a moreinvolved experience, an environment in which they can rea-son by themselves why certain perspectives are worth con-sidering. We believe it to be a more sustainable approachtowards changing behavior in the longer run, situated froma more internalized motivation rather than the often arbi-trary abuse of game principles to make real-world tasks ex-trinsically more enjoying (without providing why one shouldengage in particular behavior).

2.2 Persuasive GameplayWe have chosen to focus on persuasive gameplay rather thanpersuasive games as expression for our field of interest as itbetter captures the various moment-to-moment situationsof the player(s), playing the game, in context. It also bet-ter captures the notion that persuasion is independent fromgame categorization (serious game, entertainment, etc.) andgenre (real-time strategy, first person shooter, platformer,etc.). Practically all games are capable of holding a per-suasive intent embedded by the designer, even if this is notthe primary focus of the end product. The collection ofpersuasive gameplay experiences encountered by the player,throughout the game, eventually determines the resultingchange in attitude(s) (as induced by the game). In generalwe see persuasive gameplay as “the designed experience, oc-curring when the game is set into motion by the participatingplayer, that attempts to shape a player’s attitude towards anobject or concept as represented by the game”. We use thisdescription as guideline to indicate what persuasive game-play entails within our current research focus, and as meansto identify when persuasive gameplay occurs.

2.2.1 Designed experienceGameplay is a concept that has been described by Salenand Zimmerman as “the experience of a game set into mo-tion through the participation of players” [46]. We addeddesigned to capture a collection of aspects that are essentialin defining persuasive gameplay. Ralph and Wand elabo-rate that Design is defined as “the specification of an object,manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in aparticular environment, using a set of primitive components,satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints” [44].The specific inclusion of “accomplish goals” (the persuasive

intent and engaging experience) and “in a particular envi-ronment”(to indicate that persuasive gameplay is influencedby the context in which the game is played) exemplifies sev-eral important properties that account to persuasive game-play. Gameplay is a dynamic property of games and as suchthe designer is promoted to design game elements that in-crease the likeliness of the envisioned gameplay experience tohappen (or to be persuasive, as objective within persuasivegameplay) [28][30].

2.2.2 Attempts to shape a player’s attitudePersuasive gameplay is characterized by the attempt to in-fluence an attitude of the player(s). An attitude, accordingto Perloff, is “a learned, global evaluation of an object (per-son, place or issue) that influences thought and action” [42].As such we conclude that attitudes can be learned throughpersuasive gameplay [50], and that attitude-change as re-sult from this process is capable of influencing consequentbehavior-change (a property that designers often seem tobe after). Following the Expectancy-Value perspective de-veloped by Fishbein and Ajzen an attitude consists of twocomponents that we can shape (through gameplay): thecognitive (beliefs) and the affective (feelings) [19]. “An at-titude is a combination of what you believe or expect ofa certain object and how you feel about (evaluate) theseexpectations.”, as elucidated by Perloff [42]. Persuasion isthe process in which an attempt is made to strengthen orweaken either the cognitive or affective component(s) of anattitude by presenting arguments (through gameplay). Thisprocess essentially attempts to make an object or conceptto be more or less “likable” to the player. A third attitudecomponent, behavior, refers to the player’s past behavioror experience and is often used as time-saver to avoid theneed for re-evaluating objects or concepts when encounteredagain [35][5][16]. By targeting the cognitive and affective at-titude component through gameplay frequently enough wecan cause an attitude’s behavior component to change aswell (i.e. changing past experiences) [35].

2.2.3 Object or concept as represented by the gamePersuasive gameplay is focused on shaping the attitude to-wards an object (person, place or issue) or concept (a notionor idea), that is fundamentally external to the game. Thegame presents a (deliberate) representation of an object orconcept that exists in the real, physical, world. The pri-mary aim of persuasive gameplay as such is not to shapeattitudes towards the representation of the object or con-cept presented in the game, but fundamentally towards theactual represented object or concept, that exists in the real,physical, world.

Figure 1: Attitudinal Gameplay Model for the Persuasive Gameplay Experience

3. ATTITUDINAL GAMEPLAYOur first step towards design strategies for the persuasivegameplay experience is the thorough understanding of theplayer’s gameplay process, and in particular how attitudesplay a role in this. This is useful for the designer as it pro-vides an overview of where and how specific influences mat-ter to persuade the player (i.e. influence attitudes). In Fig-ure 1 we have visualized this gameplay process, identifyingthe most essential components (or category thereof) to takeinto account when designing for persuasive gameplay. Themodel ultimately serves as a reference for constructing thepersuasive gameplay experience. It also supports the per-spective that there are essentially two synergetic routes indesigning for persuasive gameplay that have to complementeach other in the goal of presenting persuasive messages.It also promotes a better understanding of the differencebetween attitudes that the player holds towards the rep-resentation of the attitude object or concept (in the game-world) and the actual represented attitude object or concept(that exists in the real-world). There are several qualitiesof the gameplay that the designer can control to influencethe transfer between both worlds. Transfer is the processof adopting attitudes from the the game-world into the real-world (and from the real-world into the game-world), thelight grey areas in the model indicate these different worlds.Since we specified persuasion as a process primarily aimedat attitude-change, a central role has been reserved for at-titudes in the model. And although not visualized, an at-titude we hold in the real-world naturally influences a real-world intent for behavior [35][39]. The process visualizedin the grey area of the game-world represent the gameplayprocess in which persuasive elements can be embedded bythe designer. Surrounding the grey areas Game Elements(rounded solid borders) can be found that the designer canutilize to persuade the player. The Mental Processes of theplayer (rounded dashed borders) influence the gameplay ex-perience and persuasive effect. Both influential Game Ele-

ments and Mental Processes are placed according to theirfunction and relation to the individual parts of the game-play process. The Game Elements are interrelated througha flow diagram to indicate dependencies, supporting the de-signer in uncovering how game elements are related to max-imize persuasiveness. The Mental Processes are related ona more holistic level and represent the moment to momentsituation of the player’s thoughts and feelings, influencingand influenced by the interaction process. From a birds-eyeperspective we can divide the model in four sections. Thefirst section explains the Attitude and Transfer, the secondsection explains the Semiosis Route, the third section ex-plains the Behavior Route and the fourth section explainsthe Attitude Formation.

3.1 Attitude and TransferAttitude(s) has received a prominent position in the model,presented as a central hub. The model indicates that thereare two parts of attitude acquisition that the designer hasto take into account. Because the game presents a syn-thesized representations of the attitude object or concept inthe real-world a process known as transfer applies. In agame the attitude-change essentially first happens towardsthe synthesized representation and not directly to the atti-tude object or concept in the real-world. Pulling the twoapart allows the designer to identify gameplay qualities thatare expected to improve the transfer of attitudes betweenboth worlds. At the same time this helps to avoid misun-derstanding when certain persuasive strategies do not havethe expected results, as the bottleneck does not always haveto be caused by the quality of the persuasive message it-self. As such, the designer with persuasive intent shouldnot exclusively focus on embedding persuasive messages ingameplay, it is of equal importance to stimulate this transferprocess. Muchinsky defines transfer as “the application ofknowledge, skills and attitudes acquired during training tothe environment in which they are normally used” [37][32],

also known as knowledge transfer from the field of seriousgames, in which transfer of knowledge is essential (specif-ically in games for education). Furthermore, in particularto persuasive game design, Visch et al. describes the sametransfer as the “effect of user experienced game-world onforming, altering, or reinforcing user-compliance, -behavior,or -attitude, in the real-world” and likewise argues that thetransfer process is often neglected in the design process ofpersuasive games [49]. A similar type of transfer is alsodescribed in recent work done by Ortiz de Gortari and Grif-fiths, who study the phenomenon of game-world elementsthat transfer into the real-world [40]. We have identifiedthree aspects that serve as overarching collection of game-play qualities that the designer can focus on in stimulatingthe transfer of attitudes; Relevance, Engagement and Cred-ibility. See Figure 2 for an exemplification of Attitude andTransfer.

3.1.1 RelevanceRelevance deals with how pertinent the topic of the game-play (and more importantly the attitude object or concept)is to the player. According to O’Keefe, “As a given issuebecomes increasingly personally relevant to a receiver, thereceiver’s motivation for engaging in thoughtful considera-tion of that issue presumably increases” [38]. This relevanceis primary determined by the player’s personal identity (cul-ture, interest, etc.), state (mental and physical) and thecontext (including situational aspects) in which the game isplayed. The designer is capable of causing the attitude ob-ject or concept to become more relevant to the player. Byintroducing important aspects of the attitude object or con-cept that the player might not have considered before. Or byactively creating new relations with the player (e.g. throughthe identification with characters that promote aspects ofthe attitude object, a quality that has already shown suc-cess in narrative persuasion [13][42]) the designer can guidethe player to develop new interests. In a broader sense wealso account to relevance as determinant for the the degreeto which a player can (correctly) correlate the representationof the attitude object or concept (in the game-world) to therepresented attitude object or concept (in the real-world).

3.1.2 EngagementEngagement in games is likely one of the most importantaspects for gameplay and generally relates to how engrossedwe are with what happens (during gameplay). Existing def-initions however are quite diverse and the positioning of en-gagement in relation to phenomena like immersion, pres-ence and flow is still rather diffuse [9]. For the Attitudi-nal Gameplay Model we have chosen to view engagement asumbrella for several gameplay qualities including immersion,presence, flow, involvement and enjoyment to indicate qual-ities that can have an influence on the persuasive gameplayexperience. Several studies have already indicated the influ-ence of these gameplay qualities on the transfer of attitudes.Presence and Immersion for example have shown positiveinfluence, using virtual reality, in overcoming certain phobia[29][41][22]. Persuasive messages embedded in gameplay areonly as good as to what level the game is actually played.As such, the designer of persuasive gameplay should focuson both the implementation of persuasive messages as wellas on the engaging properties of the gameplay [10].

Figure 2: Unlike most video documentaries, agame’s synthesized representation often lacks a di-rect link to a concrete real world event. This Warof Mine by 11 Bit Studios [1] hints to a city undersiege in a fictitious (East European) western society(e.g. due to the destroyed city, ethnic representa-tion of the characters and the launch trailer pre-senting a survivor of the Bosnian War [12]). Thegame offers a representation of citizens that have toendure the harsh influences of war, presenting theplayer with the conceptual dilemma’s they have toface during war. Based on this representation theplayer transfers applicable attitudes from the real-world (and attitudes shaped through similar games).These attitudes are useful in making sense of thegiven game-world. With persuasive gameplay thedesigner attempts to shape the player’s attitude andaims for this attitude to transfer to the player’s real-world attitudes. This War of Mine argues that war iscruel and that citizens are among the most affected.The designer hopes that the player eventually agreeswith this argument and changes (likely reinforces)his or her attitude to real-world citizens currently inwar. Based on this attitude they consequently askthe player to donate to War Child, supporting theattitude to become a real-world behavior-change.This transfer process is further stimulated by sev-eral aspects. From a West European point of viewThis War of Mine can easily be related to the cur-rent war in Donbass (Ukraine), increasing relevance.The game has been been developed in collaborationwith charity War Child and various experience ex-perts [1][12], increasing credibility. And the gamehas been designed as an entertainment game, keep-ing a strong focus on offering the player an engagingexperience.

3.1.3 CredibilityCredibility is a more holistic aspect of the game, a qualityknown as source credibility in theory on Persuasion [42][38].It determines the degree to which the player thinks thatwhat is represented in the game is believable. This doesnot only account to what is presented during gameplay, italso depends on aspects outside of the game such as who de-signed the game, their relationship with the attitude objector concept and the persuasive intent perceived by the player.It can for example depend on the support from third partieswhom we might regard trustworthy or expert, or not [25][22].

As a designer it is important to understand that credibilityinfluences how the player enters the game in the first placeand as such also how the game is introduced (e.g. as partof an existing campaign or through a mandatory companytraining). Several methods are at the designer’s disposal toincrease credibility, such as by incorporating multiple per-spectives on issues, and reason why one is preferred [42].

3.2 Semiosis RouteThe first route, coming from the central attitude hub, iswhat we call the Semiosis Route. The process of meaning-making as introduced by Peirce (and Saussure), the studyof Signs, also known as Semiotics [11]. As human beings wemake sense of the environment around us by attaching mean-ing to the things we see, hear, smell and feel. As Chandlerexplains; “Anything can be a sign (words, images, sounds,gestures, objects, etc.), as long as someone interprets it as’signifying’ something - referring to or standing for some-thing other than itself” [11]. From a designer’s perspectiveit is important to understand that everything implementedin the game can convey something, and not only the signsmeant to support the persuasive message. Not taking intoaccount what other signs convey could potentially cause adiscrepancy for the persuasive message. As such, in design-ing persuasive gameplay it is important to understand whatall signs in the game mean, and how they could possibly af-fect the strength of the persuasive message [15]. The Semio-sis Route consists of two phases, Perception and Semiosis.See Figure 3 for an exemplification of the Semiosis Route.

3.2.1 PerceptionPerception is used to indicate the ability to perceive a sign.A player can only make meaning of a sign when it can beperceived. The perception of a sign is, outside of personalfactors of the player, influenced by the designers choice onhow to present the signs (or the affordances of the playerthat restricts or enables perception). The presentation ofsigns is determined by the placement of signs in the gameworld, their prominence, cinematic treatment or throughcut-scenes.

3.2.2 SemiosisThe Semiosis process, or the process of meaning-making asexplained, follows the perception phase. Saussure indicatesthat a sign has no absolute value independent from its re-lation with other signs in the same system [11]. As such itis important for the designer of persuasive gameplay to takethe value of a sign into account, understanding what rela-tion it has with other signs and how it is influenced by thecontext in which the game is presented. Peirce’s definitionof a sign, “Something that stands for something, to some-body, in some respect or capacity”, hints to an extra aspectwe have to consider, which refers to interpretation as Salenand Zimmerman indicate by explaining Peirce’s definition[46]. Eventually, a sign’s meaning (or collection thereof)is the result of the interpretation by the individual player,depending on the player’s identity, context of play and theemergent narrative. Taking the value of a sign into consid-eration is important as it can guide the interpretation of theplayer, likewise influencing the persuasive message one con-structs. There are two types of narrative, one we can con-trol as designer and one that only exists in the players mind.

Figure 3: Meltdown by Kolle Rebbe [33] presentsseveral signs (perception) that are interdependent(sign value) to convey an event related to the topic ofimminent climate change (interpretation). The signsare the visual miniature polar bears in different sizes(visually representing a polar bear parent and chil-dren), the blue game board (visually representingwater) and the ice cubes (both visually and hapti-cally representing (melting) ice floes). The meltingice cubes in connection to the other signs and givencontext present an argument that the north pole willbe gone if we do not put a halt to global warming.The melting ice cubes, under room temperature, es-sentially represent the current situation in the real-world. The only way to stop the ice cubes frommelting is to put them back in the freezer, result-ing in the argument that the only way to save thenorth pole is to reverse the process of global warm-ing. Changing one of the signs will however causethe game to convey something completely different.Replacing the ice cubes for miniature oil drums forexample will break the game’s connection to climatechange, representing an event that will more likelybe related to a real-world event concerning oil spills.

The embedded narrative is a detailed planning of signs andprocedures to tell a particular story. The emergent narra-tive is the internal narrative that only exists in the player’smind and is influenced by practically everything the playerdoes in the game world (and social interaction around this),combined with the embedded narrative (if one exists).

3.3 Behavior RouteThe second route, also coming from the central attitude hub,is the Behavior Route. The reason for Bogost to so heavilyfocus on the procedural rhetoric, as presented through thegame’s rules and procedures, rather than through signs iseasy to elucidate. Attitudes based on direct experience hap-pen to be stronger, and are more likely to predict consequentbehavior [4][35]. And above all, from a medium perspectiveunique to games. At the same time however, the rules andprocedures mean very little if there are no signs to supportthe same persuasive message. As such both Semiosis Routeand Behavior Route have to work in synergy. Our implemen-tation of behavior in the Persuasive Gameplay ExperienceModel is based on the the Theory of Planned Behavior byAjzen [2][35] and the Mao model by Olander and Thøgersen[39], two models that support the designer in determining

the likeliness of a behavior to happen based on several men-tal and (in games controllable) dependencies. See Figure 4for an exemplification of the Behavior Route.

3.3.1 Intent for BehaviorBased on an attitude the player is able to develop an In-tent for Behavior, often coming from the Semiosis Route.The Opportunity dependency is based on whether the pro-cedures of the game provide the right situational conditionsfor the player to perceive a behavior as possible (and re-quires a synergy with the Semiosis Route) [39]. The op-portunity can also serve as trigger to stir up an intentionto initiate a behavior [23]. The designer can place specificopportunities throughout the game to influence the playerin making specific attitudes actionable. Also, the designercan use false opportunities to present an indirect persuasivemessage on why certain real-world processes are potentiallyflawed. A good example of this is Frasca’s September 12th,first providing a sense that you can defeat the terrorists, butquickly introducing the idea that engaging in the behavioronly escalates the issue [27]. The Perceived Behavior Controldependency is based on the beliefs of the player concerningtheir ability to perform a particular behavior [2]. In the MaoModel this dependency also hints to the concept of build-ing habits through the repetitive performance of a particularbehavior [39]. The Subjective Norm, also known as the So-cial Norm in the Mao Model, is described as “the perceivedsocial pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior”[2]. Although the game world offers more affordances forbehavior that might not resonate with the Subjective Norm(in comparison to real-world behavior), it still makes perfectsense to factor it in as a dependency within a game environ-ment. In multiplayer games (in particular in their analogform) a player’s behavior is still influenced by the subjec-tive norm, particularly depending on the relationship withother players and relevant for maintaining a pleasant playexperience with them. A designer should keep in mind thatthe behavior of the player might find a strong influence fromhis or her direct social environment, which is particulary im-portant when persuasive games are focussed on an emergentdialogue among participants [48]. e.g. Some players mightbe more comfortable in presenting their opinions than oth-ers. It is important to understand what implications thismight have for the persuasive effect of the game, and howthe designer could possibly influence, for example ease, thesubjective norm for participating players (e.g. in games thataddress more intimate topics among youngsters).

3.3.2 Perform BehaviorDepending on how well the Intent for Behavior developed, aplayer performs (or not) the intended behavior. The perfor-mance of the behavior is determined by the Rules (embed-ded in the Procedures) of the game, providing feedback onwhether a behavior went as expected or not. The outcomeresults is a specific consequence (e.g. success, no effect orfailure). Based on the outcome of the behavior the playerconfirm whether his belief concerning the outcome of thebehavior was correct or not. An unexpected feedback mightresult in cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refersto a situation in which the player holds conflicting beliefs orfeelings [18][42]. Through affecting the performance of theplayer by specifying the rules a designer can actively cre-ate a discrepancy in the player’s beliefs of how things work,

Figure 4: The first encounter with other Americansoldiers in Spec Ops: The Line by Yager Devel-opment [51] creates a conflicting experience; thosewho the player was set out to rescue actually hap-pen to be hostile. The player feels in control overown actions and is given the opportunity to shootback. The subjective norm should not be influen-tial at this stage, although some players might tryto act with moral thought and not return fire di-rectly. The Rules however determine that it is nec-essary to return fire for progressing in the game,even though this feels conflicting with prior beliefsheld by the player (i.e. that American soldiers areallies). The conflicting experience, known as cog-nitive dissonance [18][42], offers a unique gameplayexperience that is frequently used in Spec Ops: TheLine. It is not particularly interesting that the gameends by saying that one could have also just stoppedplaying the game to end the increasing level of vio-lence, an argument that is directly targeted at theplayer (e.g. are you really a hero in shooter games?).

bended to compliment the persuasive message. Since peopleare likely to reduce such tension by changing their attitudes[35] it can be an affective strategy for creating persuasivegameplay. The outcome of this behavior consequently flowsinto the Attitude Formation in which the player evaluatesthe outcomes of the behavior [39]. The Behavior Route ispotentially the most prominent strength in games as persua-sive medium as it feels like a form of self-persuasion to theplayer, a type of persuasion that yields promising results incomparison to more direct types of persuasion [4].

3.4 Attitude FormationThe final section of the model deals with the Attitude For-mation, the mental process of the player evaluating the out-comes of either the Semiosis Route or the Behavior Routeand relating them to existing beliefs and emotions. Con-sequently this updates the cognitive and affective attitudecomponent(s) towards the representation when successful.The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) by Petty and Ca-cioppo provides a detailed process overview describing howlikely one would change attitudes based on a persuasive mes-sage [43]. The ELM has already been adopted for researchon the evaluation of persuasive games [31] and within re-search on the impact of entertainment games on attitudes[36]. The ELM indicates that there are two dependencies(Motivation and Ability) that influence the likeliness a player

elaborates on a given persuasive message (a higher elab-oration and ability is said to results in a stronger attitudechange) [35][38][42][43]. Both dependencies have several sub-variables that influence how likely one will elaborate on amessage; some are part of the player’s identity while oth-ers are moreover influenced by the designer. Motivating as-pect are Relevance, Need for Cognition and Responsibility[38][42]. Need for Cognition is depending on the player’s ten-dency to think deep about things, which remains a ratherpersonal trait. Although part of the Relevance and Respon-sibility can be transferred from the real-world, the designercan also cause a persuasive messages to become more rele-vant within the game-world itself. For example by present-ing the persuasive message as important for the player’s pro-gression in the game, which likely influences the motivationof the player to elaborate on the message. Aspects for theAbility to elaborate are player Knowledge an Understand-ing of the matter, Available time, Distraction and Repetitionof the persuasive message [38][42]. Knowledge and Under-standing are personally related when they are transferredfrom the real-world, but can be influenced by providing spe-cific knowledge and skills presented throughout prior eventsin the game. Available time can be provided after expo-sure to a persuasive message, allowing the player to take thetime and reflect on the message. A similar patterns is quitecommon in games after an intense moment, such as a bossfight, giving the player a moment of rest. Distractions canbe managed through the presentation of signs that constructthe persuasive message. When certain signs are importantfor the argument the designer might want to avoid other dis-tracting signs that could cause the player to miss the signsresponsible for delivering the persuasive message. Repeti-tion can be managed as part of the Embedded Narrative ofthe game, providing multiple moments of exposure to thepersuasive message throughout the game. In the event ofa successful persuasive attempt the player’s attitude com-ponents are strengthened or weakened as intended by thedesigner (i.e. the attitude is shaped, as explained in section2.2.2). In case of an unsuccessful persuasive attempt theattitude components remain unaffected, or shaped in a waynot intended by the designer. After the Attitude Formation,the player returns to the central attitude hub where the cy-cle is repeated depending on the Presentation of (new) Signsor the opportunity to develop a new Intent for Behavior.

4. CONCLUSIONWe presented a multidisciplinary approach to understandingpersuasive gameplay, both by elucidating a position withinthe field of games used to persuade and by providing anintroduction to what shaping attitudes through gameplayentails. This paper is meant as foundation for future re-search on the formulation of game designs strategies (meth-ods, tools, models, etc.) to maximize the persuasive poten-tial of games. With the Attitudinal Gameplay Model weprovide an overview of the gameplay process with attitudesas central hub. We have chosen for attitudes as central hubto accommodate for persuasion, a concept inherently con-cerned with the attempt to shape attitudes. The model visu-alizes several relevant attributes that can be utilized by thedesigner for the implementation of persuasive messages inthe gameplay process. Divided over four sections the modelintroduces several key aspects that form the foundation foranalyzing and conceptualizing the persuasive gameplay ex-

perience. The presented aspects are the need for gameplayqualities that promote a transfer of attitudes between thegame-world and the real-world (relevance, engagement andcredibility), the concept that there are essentially two syn-ergetic routes to persuasion (semiosis and behavior), andthe sense that the persuasive strength of gameplay is influ-enced by several player variables (such as player identity,player context and player state). With this we made a firststep in addressing the lack of practical persuasive game de-sign strategies for designers to conceptualize and develop thepersuasive gameplay experience.

5. FUTURE RESEARCHThis paper was a first step in understanding what persuasivegameplay entails and what elements are influential in thiscomplex process. It provides us with a foundations for thefuture development of game design strategies that addressthe individual aspects required to successfully drive persua-sion through gameplay. We are currently using the model astool in analyzing games that hold such persuasive gameplay.From this analysis we plan to distill recurring game designpatterns [6] for persuasion that should inspire the collectionof game design lenses [47] to maximize the persuasivenessof gameplay. Through the evaluation of these game designlenses for persuasion in collaboration with industry partnerswe plan to construct a design framework that should supportthe designer in going from introducing a persuasive intent tothe eventual design of the persuasive gameplay experience.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis article was written within the project “Persuasive gam-ing. From theory-based design to validation and back”fundedby the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).See www.persuasivegaming.nl for project details and follow-up research on persuasion through games.

7. REFERENCES[1] 11 Bit Studios. This War Of Mine, 2014.

[2] I. Ajzen. The theory of planned behavior.Orgnizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50:179–211, 1991.

[3] Aristotle. The Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 1984.

[4] E. Aronson. The power of self-persuasion. AmericanPsychologist, 54(11):875, 1999.

[5] D. J. Bem. Self-perception theory. Advances inexperimental social psychology, 6:1–62, 1972.

[6] S. Bjork and J. Holopainen. Patterns in game design(game development series). 2004.

[7] I. Bogost. The rhetoric of video games. The ecology ofgames: Connecting youth, games, and learning, pages117–140, 2008.

[8] I. Bogost. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Powerof Videogames, volume 23. The MIT Press,Cambridge, 2010.

[9] P. Bouvier, E. Lavoue, and K. Sehaba. Definingengagement and characterizing engaged-behaviors indigital gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 2014.

[10] J. Burke, M. McNeill, D. Charles, P. Morrow,J. Crosbie, and S. McDonough. Designing engaging,playable games for rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the8th International Conference on Disability, Virtual

Reality & Associated Technologies, pages 195–201,2010.

[11] D. Chandler. Semiotics: the basics. Routledge, 2007.

[12] D. Crawley. War is hell: How This War of Mine drewon real-life survivors for inspiration, 2014.

[13] A. de Graaf, H. Hoeken, J. Sanders, and J. W.Beentjes. Identification as a mechanism of narrativepersuasion. Communication Research, 39(6):802–823,2012.

[14] T. de la Hera Conde-Pumpido. A Conceptual Modelfor the Study of Persuasive Games. DiGRA 2013 -DeFragging Game Studies, 2013.

[15] T. de la Hera Conde-Pumpido. Persuasive structuresin advergames. conveying advertising messagesthrough digital games. 2014.

[16] A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken. The psychology ofattitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich CollegePublishers, 1993.

[17] J. Ferrara. Games for Persuasion: Argumentation,Procedurality, and the Lie of Gamification. Gamesand Culture, 8(4):289–304, Aug. 2013.

[18] L. Festinger. A theory of cognitive dissonance,volume 2. Stanford university press, 1962.

[19] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen. Belief, attitude, intentionand behavior: An introduction to theory and research.1975.

[20] M. Flanagan. Critical Play: Radical Game Design,volume 82. 2009.

[21] M. Flanagan and H. Nissenbaum. Values at Play inDigital Games. MIT Press, 2014.

[22] B. Fogg. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers toChange What We Think and Do, volume 5. MorganKaufmann, 2003.

[23] B. Fogg. A behavior model for persuasive design.Proceedings of the 4th International Conference onPersuasive Technology - Persuasive ’09, page 1, 2009.

[24] B. Fogg and J. Hreha. Behavior wizard: a method formatching target behaviors with solutions. InPersuasive technology, pages 117–131. Springer, 2010.

[25] B. Fogg and H. Tseng. The elements of computercredibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages80–87. ACM, 1999.

[26] B. J. Fogg. Creating persuasive technologies: aneight-step design process. In Persuasive, page 44, 2009.

[27] G. Frasca. Play the message: Play, game andvideogame rhetoric. Unpublished PhD dissertation. ITUniversity of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007.

[28] T. Fullerton. Game Design Workshop: A PlaycentricApproach to Creating Innovative Games. 2008.

[29] A. Garcia-Palacios, H. Hoffman, A. Carlin, T. u.Furness, and C. Botella. Virtual reality in thetreatment of spider phobia: a controlled study.Behaviour research and therapy, 40(9):983–993, 2002.

[30] R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. Mda: Aformal approach to game design and game research. InProceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges inGame AI, volume 4, 2004.

[31] R. S. Jacobs, J. Jansz, and J. Kneer. Avalidation-oriented approach to persuasive games.Unpublished manuscript, 2015.

[32] B. Kapralos, F. Moussa, and A. Dubrowski. Anoverview of virtual simulation and serious gaming forsurgical education and training. In Technologies ofInclusive Well-Being, pages 289–306. Springer, 2014.

[33] Kolle Rebbe. GEOlino Meltdown, 2013.

[34] H. Korhonen, M. Montola, and J. Arrasvuori.Understanding playful user experience through digitalgames. In International Conference on DesigningPleasurable Products and Interfaces, pages 274–285,2009.

[35] G. Maio and G. Haddock. The psychology of attitudesand attitude change. Sage, 2009.

[36] S. Malliet and H. Martens. Persuasive play: Extendingthe elaboration likelihood. Interdisciplinary Modelsand Tools for Serious Games: Emerging Concepts andFuture Directions: Emerging Concepts and FutureDirections, page 206, 2010.

[37] P. M. Muchinsky. Psychology Applied to Work: AnIntroduction to Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology. Wadsworth Publishing, 1999.

[38] D. J. O’Keefe. Persuasion: Theory and research,volume 2. Sage, 2002.

[39] F. Ølander and J. Thøgersen. Understanding ofconsumer behaviour as a prerequisite forenvironmental protection. Journal of ConsumerPolicy, 18(4):345–385, 1995.

[40] A. Ortiz de Gortari and M. Griffiths. An introductionto game transfer phenomena in video game playing.Video game play and consciousness. NY: NovaPublisher, 2012.

[41] T. D. Parsons and A. A. Rizzo. Affective outcomes ofvirtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety andspecific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of behaviortherapy and experimental psychiatry, 39(3):250–261,2008.

[42] R. Perloff. The dynamics of persuasion:Communication and attitudes in the 21st century.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, 3 edition,2008.

[43] R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo. The elaborationlikelihood model of persuasion. Advances inexperimental social psychology, 19:123–205, 1986.

[44] P. Ralph and Y. Wand. A proposal for a formaldefinition of the design concept. In Designrequirements engineering: A ten-year perspective,pages 103–136. Springer, 2009.

[45] R. M. Ryan, C. S. Rigby, and A. Przybylski. Themotivational pull of video games: A self-determinationtheory approach. Motivation and emotion,30(4):344–360, 2006.

[46] K. Salen and E. Zimmerman. Rules of play: Gamedesign fundamentals. MIT press, 2004.

[47] J. Schell. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses.CRC Press, 2008.

[48] J. G. Tanenbaum, A. N. Antle, and J. Robinson.Three perspectives on behavior change for seriousgames. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’13,2013.

[49] V. Visch, N. Vegt, H. Anderiesen, and K. Van derKooij. Persuasive game design: A model and itsdefinitions. In CHI 2013: Workshop Designing

Gamification: Creating Gameful and PlayfulExperiences, Paris, France, 27 April-2 May 2013.ACM, 2013.

[50] P. Wouters, E. D. Van der Spek, andH. Van Oostendorp. Current practices in serious game

research: A review from a learning outcomesperspective. Games-based learning advancements formultisensory human computer interfaces: techniquesand effective practices, pages 232–255, 2009.

[51] Yager Development. Spec Ops: The Line, 2012.