The authors developed SIMULME, an Internet-based simulation game of the environmental and economic consequences of food consumption, to improve environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals. The game was first applied with 215 pupils divided into 12 classes. Six classes were taught the consequences of food consumption using the learning game (experimental condition) and 6 using a standard lecture (control condition). Positive changes in environmental attitudes concerning nutrition behavior were more marked in the experimental than in the control condition. An additional experiment tested the game’s effects on subsequent buying behavior. After playing the game (experimental) or not (control), participants entered the nutrition section of the online shop of the Swiss retailer Coop with the possibility of winning a purchase worth CHF 40. The consumption pattern of those who played SIMULME was ecologically more positive than that of the control participants. Aspects of game validity and game design are discussed with respect to the effectiveness of games for environmental education.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81-93.
3.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
4.
Crott, H. W., Giesel, M., & Hoffmann, C. (1998). The process of inductive inference in groups: The use of positive and negative hypothesis and target testing in sequential rule discovery tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 938-952.
5.
Crott, H. W., & Hansmann, R. (2003). Informative intervention to improve normative functioning and output of groups. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(3), 177-193.
6.
Davis, J. H., Stasser, G., Spitzer, C., & Holt, R. (1976). Changes in group members’ decision preferences during discussion: An illustration with mock juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1177-1187.
7.
Deger, K. (1994). Sprechmotorisches Lernen mit Feedback: Grundlagen und therapeutische Anwendung [Motor function speech learning with feedback: Fundamentals and therapeutic application]. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft.
8.
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Aléman, J. L. (2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1238-1258.
9.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (1992). Persönliches Umweltverhalten. Diskrepanzen zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit [Personal environmental behavior. Discrepancies between aspirations and reality]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 44(2), 226-251.
10.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving (Psychological Monographs, 58 [5, Serial No. 270]). Washington: American Psychological Association.
11.
Ernst, A. (1997). Ökologisch-soziale Dilemmata: Psychologische Wirkmechanismen des Umweltverhaltens [Ecologic-social dilemmas: Psychological mechanisms underlying environmental behavior]. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
12.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161-202.
13.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Patterson and Company.
14.
Flury-Kleubler, P., & Gutscher, H. (2001). Psychological principles of inducing behaviour change. In R. Kaufmann-Hayoz & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Changing things—moving people (pp. 109-129). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
15.
Funck, D. (1997). Ökologische Eigenmarken im Handel [Ecological brands in trade]. In M. Bruhn (Ed.), Handelsmarken. Entwicklungstendenzen und Zukunftsperspektiven der Handelsmarkenpolitik (2nd ed., pp. 199-214). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschl Verlag.
16.
Godwin, W. F., & Restle, F. (1974). The road to agreement: Subgroup pressures in small group consensus processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 500-509.
17.
Goosen, K. R., Jensen, R., & Wells, R. (2001). Purpose and learning benefits of simulations: A design and development perspective. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 32(1), 21-39.
18.
Grechus, M. (1999). The comparison of individualized computer game reinforcement versus peer-interactive board game reinforcement on nutrition label knowledge retentionof fifth graders. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 59(7-A), 2323.
19.
Hassenstein, B. (2001). Verhaltensbiologie des Kindes (5. Aufl.) [Behavioral biology of children (5th ed.)]. Heidelberg: Spektrum-Verlag.
20.
Jungbluth, N. (2000). Environmental consequences of food consumption: A modular life cycle assessment to evaluate product characteristics. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5(3), 143-144.
21.
Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. W. (2000). Food purchases: Impacts from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5(3), 134-142.
22.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.
23.
Kaufmann-Hayoz, R., & Di Giulio, A. (Eds.). (1996). Umweltproblem Mensch: Humanwissenschaftliche Zugänge zu umweltverantwortlichem Handeln [Environmental problem mankind: Social scientific perspectives on responsible environmental action]. Bern: Paul Haupt.
24.
Kerr, N. L. (1981). Social transition schemes: Charting the group’s road to agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 684-702.
25.
Kerr, N. L. (1992). Group decision making at a multialternative task: Extremity, interfaction distance, pluralities, and issue importance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 64-95.
26.
Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effect of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349-363.
27.
Kerres, M., & Jechle, T. (2000). Betreuung des Lernens in telemedialen Lernumgebungen [Accompanying the learning in electronic media learning environments]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 28(3), 257-277.
28.
Köllner, T. (2001). Land use in product life cycles and its consequences for ecosystem quality. Doctoral thesis no. 2519, Institute for Economy and the Environment, University St. Gallen.
29.
Krishnamurthi, L., & Raj, S. P. (1991). An empirical analysis of the relationship between brand loyalty and consumer price elasticity. Marketing Science, 10(2), 172-183.
30.
Kyburz-Graber, R., & Schlüter, K. (2001). Umweltbildung im 20. Jahrhundert: Anfänge, Gegenwartsprobleme, Perspektiven [Environmental education in the 20th century: Start, current problems, perspectives]. Münster: Waxmann.
31.
Marschall, F. (1992). Informationsfrequenz und motorisches Lernen: Zur Frage von Häufigkeit und Verteilung ergänzender Feedback-Information bei sportmotorischen Optimierungsprozessen [Frequency of information and motor functional learning: Concerning the question of frequency and dispersion of supplemental feedback-information of motor optimization processes in sports]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
32.
Meffert, H., & Burmann, C. (1996). Identitätsorientierte Markenführung—Konsequenzen fürdie Handelsmarke [Identity oriented brand management—Consequences for trademarks]. In M. Bruhn (Ed.), Handelsmarken. Entwicklungstendenzen und Zukunftsperspektiven der Handelsmarkenpolitik (2nd ed., pp. 49-69). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschl Verlag.
33.
Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 140-202). New York: Academic Press.
34.
Mosler, H. J., Ammann, F., & Gutscher, H. (1998). Simulation des Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): Ein Beispiel zur Entwicklung und Analyse von Umweltinterventionen [Simulation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): An example for the development and analysis of environmental interventions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 29, 20-37.
35.
Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
36.
Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1977). Pour une nouvelle approche de l’influence minoritaire: Les determinants psychosociauxdes strategies d’influence minoritaires [In favor of a new approach toward minority influence: The psychosocial determinants of the strategies of influence of minorities]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 30, 573-579.
37.
Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 29(1), 20-30.
38.
Preisendörfer, P. (1996). Umweltbewußtsein in Deutschland—Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Environmental concern in Germany—Results of a representative survey]. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
39.
Raser, J. C. (1969). Simulations and society: An exploration of scientific gaming. Boston: Allyn& Bacon.
40.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In Ch. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
Reimann, P. (1990). Problem solving models of scientific discovery learning processes. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.
42.
Reimann, P. (1991). Detecting functional relations in a computerized discovery environment. Learning and Instruction, 1, 45-65.
43.
Reimann, P. (1999). The role of external representations in distributed problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 9, 411-418.
44.
Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104-112.
45.
Schahn, J. (1993). Die Kluft zwischen Einstellung und Verhalten beim individuellen Umweltschutz [The gap between individual attitudes and behaviors concerning nature protection]. In J. Schahn & T. Giesinger (Eds.), Psychologie für den Umweltschutz (pp. 29-49). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
46.
Schenk, H.-O. (1997). Funktionen, Erfolgsbedingungen und Psychostrategie von Handels und Gattungsmarken [Function, conditions for success, and psychological strategies for brands and trademarks]. In M. Bruhn (Ed.), Handelsmarken. Entwicklungstendenzen und Zukunftsperspektiven der Handelsmarkenpolitik (2nd ed., pp. 71-96). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschl Verlag.
47.
Schuetz, S. (1979). Effects of a simulation game on children’s consumer knowledge. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 48(3), 767-773.
48.
Sleet, D. A. (1985). Application of a gaming strategy to improve nutrition education. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 16(1), 63-70.
49.
Torres, M., & Macedo, J. (2000). Learning sustainable development with a new simulation game. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 31(1), 119-126.
Ulrich, M. (2000). Strategies for sustainable development in the need-field nutrition—An innovative approach using the policy exercise COREBIFA—SIMULATION GAME ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND NUTRITION. In R. W. Scholz, R. Häberli, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions (pp. 72-77). Zürich, Switzerland: Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag.
52.
Ulrich, M., & Borner, S. (2000). A method to communicate scientific results to people outside science—The example of COREBIFA—SIMULATION GAME ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND NUTRITION. In R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook I: Dialogue sessions and idea market (pp. 560-564). Zürich, Switzerland: Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag.
53.
Williams, R. H. (1980). Attitude change and simulation games: The ability of a simulation game to change attitudes when structured in accordance with either the cognitive dissonance or incentive models of attitude change. Simulation & Games: An International Journal, 11(2), 177-196.
