体育活动游戏化实地实验--对动力和步数的影响

IF 5.3 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS
Elaine Marie Grech , Marie Briguglio , Emanuel Said
{"title":"体育活动游戏化实地实验--对动力和步数的影响","authors":"Elaine Marie Grech ,&nbsp;Marie Briguglio ,&nbsp;Emanuel Said","doi":"10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gamification is finding growing application in the field of physical activity, promising engaging and motivating experiences that foster behavioural change. Yet, rigorous empirical work substantiating favourable claims is limited. Our study sought to find evidence for the effects resulting from gamification of physical activity on the users’ motivation, perceived usefulness, and the behavioural change in terms of step counts. We employed a four-week randomised controlled field experiment to investigate how the choice of different gamification designs affects outcomes. Participants were provided with a wearable physical activity tracker and randomly assigned to either a: 1) competitive gamified group; 2) cooperative gamified group; 3) hybrid gamified group; or 4) control group. Data gathered includes a panel dataset of step counts and self-reported data on the users’ intrinsic motivation and perceived usefulness. We found that at the end of the intervention, gamification made no difference to self-assessed intrinsic motivation or perceived usefulness compared to a non-gamified self-tracking experience. Yet, despite the lack of psychological effects, the use of gamification did result in stronger behavioural outcomes relative to the control group - in the form of increased step counts. Indeed, all groups treated with gamification recorded an increase in step counts during the intervention period. Furthermore, amongst the gamified treatments, it was the hybrid design that generated the largest difference in step counts (relative to the control group). The finding that gamification can stimulate a stronger behavioural outcome, but does not evoke a stronger psychological outcome at the end of the intervention merits further investigation as to the mechanisms at play.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54955,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human-Computer Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581923002148/pdfft?md5=15c484a5b9e980f757b906bc5c0a84b6&pid=1-s2.0-S1071581923002148-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A field experiment on gamification of physical activity – Effects on motivation and steps\",\"authors\":\"Elaine Marie Grech ,&nbsp;Marie Briguglio ,&nbsp;Emanuel Said\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Gamification is finding growing application in the field of physical activity, promising engaging and motivating experiences that foster behavioural change. Yet, rigorous empirical work substantiating favourable claims is limited. Our study sought to find evidence for the effects resulting from gamification of physical activity on the users’ motivation, perceived usefulness, and the behavioural change in terms of step counts. We employed a four-week randomised controlled field experiment to investigate how the choice of different gamification designs affects outcomes. Participants were provided with a wearable physical activity tracker and randomly assigned to either a: 1) competitive gamified group; 2) cooperative gamified group; 3) hybrid gamified group; or 4) control group. Data gathered includes a panel dataset of step counts and self-reported data on the users’ intrinsic motivation and perceived usefulness. We found that at the end of the intervention, gamification made no difference to self-assessed intrinsic motivation or perceived usefulness compared to a non-gamified self-tracking experience. Yet, despite the lack of psychological effects, the use of gamification did result in stronger behavioural outcomes relative to the control group - in the form of increased step counts. Indeed, all groups treated with gamification recorded an increase in step counts during the intervention period. Furthermore, amongst the gamified treatments, it was the hybrid design that generated the largest difference in step counts (relative to the control group). The finding that gamification can stimulate a stronger behavioural outcome, but does not evoke a stronger psychological outcome at the end of the intervention merits further investigation as to the mechanisms at play.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Human-Computer Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581923002148/pdfft?md5=15c484a5b9e980f757b906bc5c0a84b6&pid=1-s2.0-S1071581923002148-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Human-Computer Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581923002148\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human-Computer Studies","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581923002148","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

游戏化在体育锻炼领域的应用越来越广泛,它有望带来吸引人和激励人的体验,从而促进行为的改变。然而,能够证实其有利说法的严谨实证工作却很有限。我们的研究试图找到证据,证明体育锻炼游戏化对用户的积极性、感知有用性以及在步数方面的行为改变所产生的影响。我们采用了一个为期四周的随机对照现场实验,来研究选择不同的游戏化设计会对结果产生怎样的影响。我们为参与者提供了一个可穿戴的体力活动追踪器,并将他们随机分配到以下两个组别中:1)竞争游戏化组;2)合作游戏化组;3)混合游戏化组;或 4)对照组。收集的数据包括步数的面板数据集以及用户内在动机和感知有用性的自我报告数据。我们发现,在干预结束时,与非游戏化的自我跟踪体验相比,游戏化对自我评估的内在动机或感知有用性没有任何影响。然而,尽管缺乏心理效应,游戏化的使用确实比对照组带来了更强的行为结果--以增加步数的形式。事实上,在干预期间,所有采用游戏化方法的小组的步数都有所增加。此外,在游戏化处理中,混合设计产生的步数差异最大(相对于对照组)。游戏化能激发更强的行为结果,但在干预结束时并不能唤起更强的心理结果,这一发现值得进一步研究其作用机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A field experiment on gamification of physical activity – Effects on motivation and steps

Gamification is finding growing application in the field of physical activity, promising engaging and motivating experiences that foster behavioural change. Yet, rigorous empirical work substantiating favourable claims is limited. Our study sought to find evidence for the effects resulting from gamification of physical activity on the users’ motivation, perceived usefulness, and the behavioural change in terms of step counts. We employed a four-week randomised controlled field experiment to investigate how the choice of different gamification designs affects outcomes. Participants were provided with a wearable physical activity tracker and randomly assigned to either a: 1) competitive gamified group; 2) cooperative gamified group; 3) hybrid gamified group; or 4) control group. Data gathered includes a panel dataset of step counts and self-reported data on the users’ intrinsic motivation and perceived usefulness. We found that at the end of the intervention, gamification made no difference to self-assessed intrinsic motivation or perceived usefulness compared to a non-gamified self-tracking experience. Yet, despite the lack of psychological effects, the use of gamification did result in stronger behavioural outcomes relative to the control group - in the form of increased step counts. Indeed, all groups treated with gamification recorded an increase in step counts during the intervention period. Furthermore, amongst the gamified treatments, it was the hybrid design that generated the largest difference in step counts (relative to the control group). The finding that gamification can stimulate a stronger behavioural outcome, but does not evoke a stronger psychological outcome at the end of the intervention merits further investigation as to the mechanisms at play.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 工程技术-计算机:控制论
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
108
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Human-Computer Studies publishes original research over the whole spectrum of work relevant to the theory and practice of innovative interactive systems. The journal is inherently interdisciplinary, covering research in computing, artificial intelligence, psychology, linguistics, communication, design, engineering, and social organization, which is relevant to the design, analysis, evaluation and application of innovative interactive systems. Papers at the boundaries of these disciplines are especially welcome, as it is our view that interdisciplinary approaches are needed for producing theoretical insights in this complex area and for effective deployment of innovative technologies in concrete user communities. Research areas relevant to the journal include, but are not limited to: • Innovative interaction techniques • Multimodal interaction • Speech interaction • Graphic interaction • Natural language interaction • Interaction in mobile and embedded systems • Interface design and evaluation methodologies • Design and evaluation of innovative interactive systems • User interface prototyping and management systems • Ubiquitous computing • Wearable computers • Pervasive computing • Affective computing • Empirical studies of user behaviour • Empirical studies of programming and software engineering • Computer supported cooperative work • Computer mediated communication • Virtual reality • Mixed and augmented Reality • Intelligent user interfaces • Presence ...
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信