IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v40y2021i1p63-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivated to lose? Evaluating challenge and player motivations in games

Author

Listed:
  • Dominicus Tornqvist
  • Jennifer Tichon

Abstract

Players report losing some games can be as much fun, or more than winning. It is imperative to identify what motivates a player to pursue failure in games due to the importance of many games now used for educational and health purposes. The game’s intended outcomes can be entirely undermined if players would rather lose than win the game. To achieve reliable predictions on the win/lose dilemma, we propose a new model of challenge, Dynamic Probability Response, which quantifies the degree and type of challenge. Many previous studies focus on individual differences in play. This study focuses on how different play motivations interact. Three conceptualisations of winning were tested against each other by giving players a mutually exclusive choice between challenge, gratuitous feedback from interaction (juice hypothesis), and compliance with visual cues denoting victory (game value adoption hypothesis). Each potential motivation for play was derived from psychological theory that is prevalent in the game design literature. Using a within-subject ANOVA, the three hypothesised motivations investigated were each individually supported. Some hypotheses about which motivations can disrupt the game’s goal were supported. Others were not. The applications of these results to game and simulation design are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominicus Tornqvist & Jennifer Tichon, 2021. "Motivated to lose? Evaluating challenge and player motivations in games," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 63-84, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:40:y:2021:i:1:p:63-84
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1672789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1672789
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1672789?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:40:y:2021:i:1:p:63-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.