A neuroeconomic perspective on social gaming and social ...Ÿmüller_2015... · More and more users...
1
SEU F (r) + SEU H (r) Max! Rational actors try to maximize both emotive and hedonic utility as a function of the risk factor r Risk behavior is influenced by the rational and emotive calculus rooted in the dopamine-based system of evaluation. Both intrinsic and extrinsic cues trigger gaming and gambling (SIR-model). Pathological risk behavior can be rational. Releases of phasic and tonic dopamine guide intertemporal choice but also bias feedback systems and goal hierarchy updating resulting in: A neuroeconomic perspective on social gaming and social gambling Kristina Weißmüller University of Hamburg, Chair of Public Management Background Today, one of the main issues in gaming research is the convergence of gaming and gambling in the digital world. More and more users play online in coop-mode or MMO games, in social networks, and on mobile devices. Digital distribution and free-to-play (F2P) games are extremely popular and gaming has long become a socio-cultural and community-based activity. At the same time, various legal and illegal providers of gambling have entered the online market in the form of online poker, sports betting apps, lottery websites, slot machine games with real payments, and many others. In many parts of the world, the market for online gambling is strictly regulated or simply illegal. Yet, law enforcement in the www is complex and painstakingly slow, creating an enormous de facto free market for online gambling. Conclusion Gamification of gambling and the variability of risk factors trigger both intrinsic and extrinsic cues for rational addiction. Heavy users are especially vulnerable to hybrid forms such as F2P-P2W because they bias both the assessment of SEU F and SEU H . Three strong criteria to differentiate social gaming from social gambling: (maladaptive) patterns of behavior, subjective expected utility, payment (volume and frequency). Need for quantitative analysis on big user data! Stricter internet law enforcement is key to breaking the illegal market and improving user protection. Market leaders systematically create communities in order to exploit neuroeconomic biases, to create social pressure, and to drive economic demand for both social gaming and social gambling. Interaction effect? Literatur cited Bracha, A. & Brown, D. J. (2012): Affective Decision Making: A Theory of Optimism Bias. Games and Economic Behavior, 57, 67-80. Dolan, R. & Sharot, T. (2012): Neuroscience of Preference and Choice - Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms, Academic Press London. Gainsbury, S. M., Hing, N., Delfabbro, P. H., King, D. L. (2014): A taxonomy of gambling and casino games via social media and online technologies. International Gambling Studies, 14:2, 196-213. Kahneman, D. (2003): Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93:5, 1449-1475. Petry, N. M. (2012): Discounting of probabilistic rewards is associated with gambling abstinence in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121:1, 151-159. Research question How can we differentiate social gaming from social gambling under rational choice? For further information: Please contact: [email protected] Social gam(bl)ing = transition from individual to collective risk consumption Gaming or Gambling?(Gainsbury et al. 2014) Gambling (classical): Consumption of risk on purpose. Outcomes predominantly depend on chance, participation against monetary payment (legal criteria). Risk factor (r) is constant. Gambling in a broader sense: Doesn’t meet all legal criteria for classical gambling, e.g. Poker schools online, F2P Roulette mobile apps without payments. Gaming (classical): Playing games just for fun (SU H ), outcomes depend on fixed game design and “skill level”. No expectation of monetary prizes. Gaming in a broader sense: Expected hedonic utility SEU H is mutable through monetary payments: r = var. - P2P: Subscription based MMO (e.g. WoW) - F2P: Purchase of in-game vanity items or game extensions for real money (pay to customize), e.g. LodR Online's “premium subscriptions”. F2P-P2W: Expected functional utility SEU F (r) is mutable through monetary payment. Game or gamble? Without social interaction, gaming and gambling are two separate spheres of risk consumption. Casual games might imitate classical gambling mechanisms (such as online roulette for entertainment) but the market for gambling is separated on a legal basis. Neuroeconomic framework Figure 1: Individual consumption: Traditional boundaries, unilateral intersection of spheres. For users, gaming and gambling differ by expected functional utility. GAMING SEU F = 0 GAMBLING SEU F ≤ 0 SEU H( ri ) > 0; const. Response R risk behavior SU t + 1 Stimuli Intention I approach or avoidance rational feedback Memory Emotive System Rational System SEU Fi t → max! SEU Hi t → max! SEU t Information processing emotive feedback Emotive System Rational System SEU F t → max! SEU H t → max! SEU t decreased or maladaptive sensitivity, cue-based (implicit) conditioning, and hyperbolic discounting. (Dolan & Sharot 2012; Kahneman 2003; Petry 2012; Bracha & Brown 2012) SEU F (r ij ) = f SEU H (r j ) f SEU F (r j ) Brian J. Matis/Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Social interaction fundamentally changes user motivation: Expected utility now depends on the behavioral strategies of other players (j). In reality, online gaming is a free market: Gaming and gambling become two extremes of one fully transmissive continuum and create hybrid forms of F2P-P2W games. Hybrid F2P-P2W: affect both systems (SEU F and SEU H ) through the social variability of risk factors. Examples: SEU H : fun from playing or winning. SEU F : winning money or tradeable items. Figure 2: Collective (social) risk consumption: Hybrid forms, bilateral intersection of spheres. Functional game utility depends on the actions of other gamers! SOCIAL GAMING HYBRIDS SEU F = 0 SOCIAL GAMBLING SEU F ≤ 0 Different types of social gaming and social gambling trigger dissimilar behavioral cues through social motivation and lead to distinctive patterns of usage: Cooperative episodic social games (e.g. WoW) bias SEU H : External peer pressure, rankings and championships; punctual arousal in events and raids. http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.gam es.com/media/2012/10/farmville-2 -halloween-logo-1351353221.jpg Competitive continuous social games (e.g. FarmVille) bias SEU H : Constant emotive involvement, regular repetitive cues, mobile integration. http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_pho to_images/5056341/zynga_poker_l arge_verge_medium_landscape.jpg Social gambling SEU F : Multiple tables and higher frequency through mobile real-time integration increase (biased) expected rake. ? SEU F : Sunk cost fallacies and repetitive consumption, medium effect. SEU H : peer pressure through large community, emotive habituation. Rockstroh (2001): Einführung in die Neuro- psychopharmakologie, Heinz Huber, Bern. F2P = free to play; P2W = pay to win SEU F (r ij ) = var §
Transcript of A neuroeconomic perspective on social gaming and social ...Ÿmüller_2015... · More and more users...
SEUF(r) + SEUH(r) Max!
Rational actors try to maximize both emotive and hedonic utility as a function of the risk factor r
Risk behavior is influenced by the rational and emotive calculus rooted in the dopamine-based system of evaluation. Both intrinsic and extrinsic cues trigger gaming and gambling (SIR-model).
Pathological risk behavior can be rational. Releases of phasic and tonic dopamine guide intertemporal choice but also bias feedback systems and goal hierarchy updating resulting in:
A neuroeconomic perspective on social gaming and social gamblingKristina Weißmüller
University of Hamburg, Chair of Public Management
BackgroundToday, one of the main issues in gaming research is the convergence of gaming and gambling in the digital world. More and more users play online in coop-mode or MMO games, in social networks, and on mobile devices. Digital distribution and free-to-play (F2P) games are extremely popular and gaming has long become a socio-cultural and community-based activity.
At the same time, various legal and illegal providers of gambling have entered the online market in the form of online poker, sports betting apps, lottery websites, slot machine games with real payments, and many others. In many parts of the world, the market for online gambling is strictly regulated or simply illegal. Yet, law enforcement in the www is complex and painstakingly slow, creating an enormous de facto free market for online gambling.
ConclusionGamification of gambling and the variability of risk factors trigger both intrinsic and extrinsic cues for rational addiction.
Heavy users are especially vulnerable to hybrid forms such as F2P-P2W because they bias both the assessment of SEUF and SEUH.
Three strong criteria to differentiate social gaming from social gambling: (maladaptive) patterns of behavior, subjective expected utility, payment (volume and frequency). Need for quantitative analysis on big user data!
Stricter internet law enforcement is key to breaking the illegal market and improving user protection.
Market leaders systematically create communities in order to exploit neuroeconomic biases, to create social pressure, and to drive economic demand for both social gaming and social gambling. Interaction effect?
Literatur citedBracha, A. & Brown, D. J. (2012): Affective Decision Making: A Theory of Optimism Bias. Games and Economic Behavior, 57, 67-80.
Dolan, R. & Sharot, T. (2012): Neuroscience of Preference and Choice - Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms, Academic Press London.
Gainsbury, S. M., Hing, N., Delfabbro, P. H., King, D. L. (2014): Ataxonomy of gambling and casino games via social media and online technologies. International Gambling Studies, 14:2, 196-213.
Kahneman, D. (2003): Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93:5, 1449-1475.
Petry, N. M. (2012): Discounting of probabilistic rewards is associated with gambling abstinence in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121:1, 151-159.
Research questionHow can we differentiate social gaming from social gambling under rational choice?
For further information:Please contact: [email protected]
Social gam(bl)ing = transition from individual to collective risk consumption
Gaming or Gambling?(Gainsbury et al. 2014)
Gambling (classical): Consumption of risk on purpose. Outcomes predominantly depend on chance, participation against monetary payment (legal criteria). Risk factor (r) is constant.
Gambling in a broader sense: Doesn’t meet all legal criteria for classical gambling, e.g. Poker schools online, F2P Roulette mobile apps without payments.
Gaming (classical): Playing games just for fun (SUH), outcomes depend on fixed game design and “skill level”. No expectation of monetary prizes.
Gaming in a broader sense: Expected hedonic utility SEUH is mutable through monetary payments: r = var.- P2P: Subscription based MMO (e.g. WoW)- F2P: Purchase of in-game vanity items or game extensions for real money (pay to customize), e.g. LodR Online's “premium subscriptions”.
F2P-P2W: Expected functional utility SEUF(r) is mutable through monetary payment. Game or gamble?
Without social interaction, gaming and gambling are two separate spheres of risk consumption. Casual games might imitate classical gambling mechanisms (such as online roulette for entertainment) but the market for gambling is separated on a legal basis.
Neuroeconomic framework
Figure 1: Individual consumption: Traditional boundaries, unilateral intersection of spheres.For users, gaming and gambling differ by expected functional utility.
GAMINGSEUF = 0
GAMBLING
SEUF ≤ 0
SEUH(ri) > 0; const.
Response R
risk behavior
SU t+1
StimuliIntention I
approachor
avoidance
rational feedback
Memory
Emotive System
Rational System
SEUFit→ max!
SEUHit→ max!
SEU t
Informationprocessing
emotive feedback
Emotive System
Rational System
SEUFt→ max!
SEUHt→ max!
SEUt
decreased or maladaptive sensitivity,cue-based (implicit) conditioning, andhyperbolic discounting.
(Dolan & Sharot 2012; Kahneman 2003; Petry 2012; Bracha & Brown 2012)
SEUF(rij) = f SEUH(rj)
f SEUF(rj)
Bri
an J
. Mat
is/F
lick
r (C
C B
Y-N
C-S
A 2
.0)
Social interaction fundamentally changes user motivation: Expected utility now depends on the behavioral strategies of other players (j).
In reality, online gaming is a free market: Gaming and gambling become two extremes of one fully transmissive continuum and create hybrid forms of F2P-P2W games.
Hybrid F2P-P2W: affect both systems (SEUF and SEUH) through the social variability of risk factors.
Examples: SEUH: fun from playing or winning. SEUF: winning money or tradeable items.
Figure 2: Collective (social) risk consumption: Hybrid forms, bilateral intersection of spheres. Functional game utility depends on the actions of other gamers!
SOCIALGAMING
HYBRIDS
SEUF = 0
SOCIAL GAMBLING
SEUF ≤ 0
Different types of social gaming and social gambling trigger dissimilar behavioral cues through social motivation and lead to distinctive patterns of usage:
Cooperative episodic socialgames (e.g. WoW) bias SEUH:External peer pressure, rankingsand championships; punctualarousal in events and raids.
http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.games.com/media/2012/10/farmville-2-halloween-logo-1351353221.jpg
Competitive continuous social games (e.g. FarmVille) bias SEUH: Constant emotive involvement, regular repetitive cues, mobile integration.
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/5056341/zynga_poker_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg
Social gambling SEUF: Multiple tables and higher frequency through mobile real-time integration increase (biased) expected rake.
?
SEUF: Sunk cost fallacies and repetitive consumption, medium effect.SEUH: peer pressure through large community, emotive habituation.
Rockstroh (2001): Einführung in die Neuro-psychopharmakologie, Heinz Huber, Bern.
F2P = free to play; P2W = pay to win
SEUF(rij) = var
§
![MMO: Payload AIV MMO-SWG #3 [March 2006] -1- C. Noshi/RASC, Kyoto Univ. MMO Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter AIV (Assembly, Integration, Verification) for.](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/56649e4e5503460f94b44dc0/mmo-payload-aiv-mmo-swg-3-march-2006-1-c-noshirasc-kyoto-univ-mmo.jpg)
