skip to main content
10.1145/3270316.3271547acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

You; the Observer, Partaker or Victim. Delineating Three Perspectives to Empathic Engagement in Persuasive Games using Immersive Technologies.

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

A commonality in socially-aware persuasive games is the strategy to appeal to empathy, as a means to have players feel and understand the struggles of another. This is particularly evident in the expanding use of immersive technologies, lauded for its ability to have players more literally 'stand in another's shoes'. But despite the growing interest, empathic engagement through immersive technologies is still ill-defined and the design thereof complicated, with questions like "who is the player?" and "with whom does the player empathize?". We contend that a better understanding of the different perspectives to empathic engagement - the observer, partaker, and victim - and the gap between realities can be insightful, and resulted in a framework to support future research and design.

References

  1. Sun Joo Ahn, Amanda Minh Tran Le, and Jeremy Bailenson. 2013. The Effect of Embodied Experiences on Self-Other Merging, Attitude, and Helping Behavior. Media psychology 16, 1: 7--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Tameem Antoniades. 2017. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Hellblade Feature Documentary. Ninja Theory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gabo Arora, Barry Pousman, and Chris Milk. 2015. Clouds over Sidra. Vrse.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. BAFTA Guru. 2018. "I Was In Tears Most Days" | Tameem Antoniades on Making Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Youtube. Retrieved April 28, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fftTG-o5A10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. Daniel Batson and Nadia Y. Ahmad. 2009. Using Empathy to Improve Intergroup Attitudes and Relations. Social issues and policy review 3, 1: 141--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. S. Bellet and M. J. Maloney. 1991. The importance of empathy as an interviewing skill in medicine. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 266, 13: 1831--1832.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Maureen Bell. 2001. A case study of an online role play for academic staff. In Meeting at the crossroads: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 63--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonathan Belman and Mary Flanagan. 2010. Designing games to foster empathy. International Journal of Cognitive Technology 15, 1: 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ian Bogost. 2007. Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Mit Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 2013. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Matt Burdette. 2015. The Swayze Effect. Retrieved June 20, 2018 from https://www.oculus.com/story-studio/blog/the-swayze-effect/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaehee Cho, Yeongmin Won, Atit Kothari, Stephanie Fawaz, Zixu Ding, and Xu Cheng. 2016. INJUSTICE: Interactive Live Action Virtual Reality Experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (CHI PLAY Companion '16), 33--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jonathan Cohen. 2001. Defining Identification: A Theoretical Look at the Identification of Audiences With Media Characters. Mass Communication and Society 4, 3: 245--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Josh Constine. 2015. Virtual Reality, The Empathy Machine. Techcrunch. Retrieved July 11, 2018 from http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/02/01/what-it-feels-like/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishan Coupland. 2017. What's The Point Of Empathy Games: Five Examples Of An Expanding Genre. The Writing Platform. Retrieved May 9, 2018 from http://thewritingplatform.com/2017/07/whats-point-empathy-games-five-examples-expanding-genreGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Anneke De Graaf, Hans Hoeken, and José Sanders. 2012. Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research 39, no. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Emblematic. 2013. Project Syria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Joshua A. Fisher. 2017. Empathic Actualities: Toward a Taxonomy of Empathy in Virtual Reality. In proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, 233--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Lynne Hall, Sarah Woods, Ruth Aylett, Lynne Newall, and Ana Paiva. 2005. Achieving Empathic Engagement Through Affective Interaction with Synthetic Characters. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 731--738. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Teresa de la Hera Conde-Pumpido. 2013. A Conceptual Model for the Study of Persuasive Games. In Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Games Research Association Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hans Hoeken, Matthijs Kolthoff, and José Sanders. 2016. Story Perspective and Character Similarity as Drivers of Identification and Narrative Persuasion. Human communication research 42, 2: 292--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mohammadreza Hojat, Joseph S. Gonnella, Thomas J. Nasca, Salvatore Mangione, Michael Vergare, and Michael Magee. 2002. Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty. The American journal of psychiatry 159, 9: 1563--1569.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ioanna Iacovides and Anna L. Cox. 2015. Moving Beyond Fun: Evaluating Serious Experience in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 2245--2254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ruud S. Jacobs, Jeroen Jansz, and Teresa de la Hera. 2017. The Key Features of Persuasive Games: A Model and Case Analysis. In New Perspectives on the Social Aspects of Digital Gaming: Multiplayer 2, Thorsten Quandt and Rachel Kowert (eds.). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Martijn J. L. Kors, Gabriele Ferri, Erik D. van der Spek, Cas Ketel, and Ben A. M. Schouten. 2016. A Breathtaking Journey. On the Design of an Empathy-Arousing Mixed-Reality Game. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 91--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Martijn J. L. Kors, Erik D. van der Spek, Gabriele Ferri, and Ben A. M. Schouten. 2016. Occasionally a Dull Moment. Designing for Introspection and Retrospection in Persuasive Games. In DiGRA 2016 Workshop: Morality Play: The Design of Games for Moral Engagement.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Martijn Kors, Erik van der Spek, and Ben Schouten. 2015. A Foundation for the Persuasive Gameplay Experience. In Proceedings of the 10th Foundations of Digital Games Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Frederike Manders. 2015. INTERU_PSY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. MediaMonks and Greenpeace. 2016. A Journey to the Arctic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Chris Milk. 2015. How virtual reality can create the ultimate empathy machine. TED.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Emily Moyer-Gusé. 2008. Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages. Communication theory: CT: a journal of the International Communication Association 18, 3: 407--425.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Daphne A. Muller, Caro R. van Kessel, and Sam Janssen. 2017. Through Pink and Blue Glasses: Designing a Dispositional Empathy Game Using Gender Stereotypes and Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '17 Extended Abstracts), 599--605. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Martin Nerurkar. 2017. Wheelhouse.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ninja Theory. 2017. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Wei Peng, Mira Lee, and Carrie Heeter. 2010. The Effects of a Serious Game on Role-Taking and Willingness to Help. The Journal of communication 60, 4: 723--742.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Nicola S. Schutte and Emma J. Stilinovi?. 2017. Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motivation and emotion 41, 6: 708--712.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mary Lou Shelton and Ronald W. Rogers. 1981. Fear-Arousing and Empathy-Arousing Appeals to Help: The Pathos of Persuasion. Journal of applied social psychology 11, 4: 366--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Stephanie de Smale, Martijn Kors, and Alyea Sandovar. 2017. The Case of This War of Mine: A Production Studies Perspective on Moral Game Design. In Games and Culture.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharon T. Steinemann, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2015. Increasing Donating Behavior Through a Game for Change: The Role of Interactivity and Appreciation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '15), 319--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Erik Stolterman. 2008. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design 2, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Keith Stuart. 2016. Video games where people matter? The strange future of emotional AI. The Guardian. Retrieved July 11, 2018 from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/12/video-game-characters-emotional-ai-developersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Ainsley Sutherland. 2017. No, VR Doesn't Create Empathy. Here's Why. BuzzFeed. Retrieved July 6, 2018 from https://www.buzzfeed.com/ainsleysutherland/how-big-tech-helped-create-the-myth-of-the-virtual-realityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Joshua Tanenbaum and Karen Tanenbaum. 2015. Empathy and Identity in Digital Games: Towards a New Theory of Transformative Play. In Proceedings of the 10th Foundations of Digital Games Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. TechCrunch. 2016. The Era of VR Storytelling. Youtube. Retrieved June 19, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CqPyT3G_SEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Joseph Volpe. 2015. The Godmother of Virtual Reality: Nonny de la Peña. Engadget. Retrieved May 11, 2018 from https://www.engadget.com/2015/01/24/the-godmother-of-virtual-reality-nonny-de-la-pena/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Mirjam Vosmeer, Christian Roth, and Hartmut Koenitz. 2017. Who Are You? Voice-Over Perspective in Surround Video. In proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, 221--232.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jonathan Wells. 2016. From Project Syria to That Dragon, Cancer: the rise of empathy video games. The telegraph. Retrieved May 11, 2018 from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/the-surprising-rise-of-empathy-video-games/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. T. Wiseman. 1996. A concept analysis of empathy. Journal of advanced nursing 23, 6: 1162--1167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. You; the Observer, Partaker or Victim. Delineating Three Perspectives to Empathic Engagement in Persuasive Games using Immersive Technologies.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI PLAY '18 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts
          October 2018
          725 pages
          ISBN:9781450359689
          DOI:10.1145/3270316
          • General Chairs:
          • Florian 'Floyd' Mueller,
          • Daniel Johnson,
          • Ben Schouten,
          • Program Chairs:
          • Phoebe O. Toups Dugas,
          • Peta Wyeth

          Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 October 2018

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Work in Progress

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI PLAY '18 Extended Abstracts Paper Acceptance Rate43of123submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader