Restricted accessAnnouncementFirst published online 2010-06
Does Imposing a Goal Always Improve Exercise Intentions in Avatar-Based Exergames? The Moderating Role of Interdependent Self-Construal on Exercise Intentions and Self-Presence
What are important factors to consider when designing health messages to improve people's physical activity using avatar-based exergames? Does the effectiveness of health messages embedded in exergames depend on players' self-construal? Drawing on regulatory focus theory and the literature on self-construals, this study examined the effects of imposing a prevention goal (“Exercise to avoid aging”) and the moderating role of game players' interdependent self-construal on their exercise intentions and feelings of self-presence. Results indicated that regulatory fit between game player's self-construal and the nature of the goal (i.e., fit between interdependent self-construals and the imposed goal with a prevention regulatory focus) increases exercise intentions and self-presence. Theoretical contributions to exergame literature and practical implications for designing health games are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LeeAY, AakerJL, GardnerWL. The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2000; 786:1122–34.
2.
HigginsET. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 1997; 52:1280–300.
3.
HigginsET. 1998. Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. ZannaMP. Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–46.
4.
KellerJ, BlessH. Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: the interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2006; 36:393–405.
5.
LatimerAE, RiversSE, RenchTAet al.A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008; 443:826–32.
6.
ShahJY, HigginsET, FriedmanRS. Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1998; 74:285–93.
7.
CrossSE, MorrisML, GoreJS. Thinking about oneself and others: the relational interdependent self-construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002; 823:399–418.
8.
AgrawalN, MaheswaranD. The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2005; 31:841–49.
9.
AhluwaliaR. How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 2008; 453:337–50.
10.
BioccaF. 1997. The cyborg's dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environment. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html. 2009 Dec. 30.
11.
LeeK. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 2004; 141:27–50.
12.
JinSA, ParkN. Parasocial interaction with my avatar: effects of interdependent self-construal and the mediating role of self-presence in an avatar-based console game, Wii. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 200912.
13.
LeeKM, NassC. Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology, 2005; 7:31–45.
14.
BotellaCM, JuanMC, BanŏsRMet al.Mixing realities? An application of augmented reality for the treatment of cockroach phobia. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2005; 82:162–71.
15.
LeeS, KimGJ. Effects of haptic feedback, stereoscopy, and image resolution on performance and presence in remote navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2008; 66:701–17.
16.
JinSA. Effects of 3D virtual haptics force feedback on brand personality perception: the mediating role of physical presence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009in presswww.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2009.0098. 2009 Dec. 30.
17.
SingelisTM. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 1994; 20:580–91.
18.
CrossSE, BaconPL, MorrisML. The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2000; 78:791–808.
19.
GoreJS, CrossES. Pursuing goals for us: relationally autonomous reasons in long-term goal pursuit. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2006; 90:848–61.
20.
SwaminathanV, PageKL, Gühan-CanliZ. My brand or our brand: the effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 2007; 34:248–59.
21.
JainSP, DesaiKK, MaoH. The influence of chronic and situational self-construal on categorization. Journal of Consumer Research, 2007; 34:66–76.
22.
AgrawalN, MaheswaranD. The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2005; 31:841–9.
23.
KolstadA, HorpestadS. Self-construal in Chile and Norway: implications for cultural differences in individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2009; 40:275–81.
24.
AhluwaliaR. How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 2008; 45:337–50.
25.
MelnykV, van OsselaerSMJ, BijmoltTHA. Are women more loyal customers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service providers. Journal of Marketing, 2009; 73:82–96.
26.
BresnahanMJ, LevineTR, ShearmanSMet al.A multimethod multitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 2005; 31:33–59.
27.
MarkusHR, KitayamaS. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 1991; 98:224–53.
28.
OysermanD, CoonHM, KemmelmeierM. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 2002; 128:3–72.
29.
JinSA. I can be happy even when I lose the game: The influence of chronic regulatory focus and primed self-construal on exergamers’ mood. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2010in press.
