In this article, the authors report the results of two experiments that explored hypotheses about the relative learning advantages of role-play and scenario design. The experiments were conducted with similar student populations in Australia and Israel. Using a matched-pairs design, participants were randomly assigned to design and role-play conditions. They worked on their tasks following an hour-long lecture on three negotiation concepts: alternatives, time pressure, and negotiating power. A lecture-only control group was implemented in the Australian experiment. In both experiments, designers, working “behind the scenes,” indicated better concept learning in the short run than their role-play counterparts performing “onstage,” as well as in comparison with the control group. They showed better understanding of the way the concepts are related and retained the learning gains over time. Moreover, the designers were at least as motivated as role-players and controls and, for the Israel participants, showed more motivation. The results, favoring designers, spread widely across the various questions, asked immediately after the experience and 1 week later: 86% of the answers given favored designers in terms of direction; 52% of these were statistically significant. Implications are discussed for explanatory mechanisms, programmatic research, and teaching/training approaches.
Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st century game design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
2.
Bredemeier, M.E., & Greenblat, C.S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation & Games, 12, 307-332.
3.
Cherryholmes, C. (1966). Some current research on effectiveness of educational simulations: Implications for alternative strategies. American Behavioral Scientist, 10, 4-7.
4.
Crookall, D. (1995). A guide to the literature on simulation/gaming . In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 151-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Crookall, D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation/Games for Learning , 17(4), 147-170.
6.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
7.
deLeon, P. (1981). The analytic requirements of free-form gaming . Simulation & Games, 12, 201-231.
8.
Druckman, D. (1971). Understanding the operation of complex social systems: Some uses of simulation design. Simulation & Games, 2, 173-195.
9.
Druckman, D. (1993). The situational levers of negotiating flexibility . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 236-276.
10.
Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507-556.
11.
Druckman, D. (1995). The educational effectiveness of interactive games . In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 178-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Druckman, D. (1996). Bridging the gap between negotiating experience and analysis. Negotiation Journal, 12, 371-383.
13.
Druckman, D. (2005). Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
14.
Druckman, D. (2006). Uses of a marathon exercise. In A. K. Schneider & C. Honeyman (Eds.), The negotiator's fieldbook: The desk reference for the experienced negotiator (pp. 645-656). Washington, DC : American Bar Association.
15.
Druckman, D. (2008). Situations. In S. Cheldelin, D. Druckman, & L. Fast (Eds.), Conflict: From analysis to action (2nd ed., pp. 120-145). London: Continuum.
16.
Druckman, D., & Robinson, V. (1998). From research to application: Utilizing research findings in training programs. International Negotiation, 3, 7-38.
17.
Duke, R.D. (1974). Gaming: The future's language. New York: Halsted Press.
18.
Ebner, N., & Efron, Y. (2005). Using tomorrow's headlines for today's training: Creating pseudo-reality in conflict resolution simulation games. Negotiation Journal, 21, 377-394.
19.
Ellington, H., Addinall, E., & Percival, F. (1984). Case studies in game design. London: Nichols Publishing Company.
20.
Ellington, H., Fowlie, J., & Gordon, M. (1998). Using games and simulations in the classroom. London: Routledge.
21.
Faure, A.M. (1994). Some methodological problems in comparative politics . Journal of Comparative Politics, 6, 307-322.
22.
Felson, R. (1981). An interactionist approach to aggression. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social-psychological research (pp. 181-199). New York: Academic Press.
23.
Feltz, D.L. (1994). Self-confidence and performance. In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 173-206). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
Gamson, W.A. (1972). SIMSOC: Establishing social order in a simulated society. In M. Inbar & C. S. Stoll (Eds.), Simulation and gaming in social science (pp. 51-68). New York: The Free Press.
25.
Greenblat, C.S. (1975). Gaming-simulation and social science: Rewards to the designer. In C. S. Greenblat & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 92-98). New York: Halsted Press.
26.
Greenblat, C.S. (1998). Designing games and simulations: An illustrated handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
27.
Greenblat, C.S., & Duke, R.D. (1975). Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications . New York: Halsted Press.
28.
Harris, M.J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects . Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.
29.
Inbar, M., & Stoll, C.S. (1972). Designing a simulation. In M. Inbar & C. S. Stoll (Eds.), Simulation and gaming in social science (pp. 265-286). New York: The Free Press.
30.
Jacoby, L.L., & Bjork, R.A. (1994). Illusions of comprehension, competence, and remembering . In D. Druckman & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 57-80). Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
31.
Jones, K. (1985). Designing your own simulation. London: Routledge.
32.
Jones, K. (1995). Simulations: A handbook for teachers and trainers . London: Routledge.
33.
Kankaarinta, I., & Virtanen, L. (1981). Simulation and games: The real and the ideal. In B. Hollinshead & M. Yorkje (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1980 conference of the Society for Academic Gaming and Simulation in Education and Training (SAGSET, pp. 146-148). London: Kogan Page.
34.
Kolb, D.M. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Mathevet, R., Le Page, C., Etienne, M., Lefebvre, G., Poulin, B., Gigot, G., et al. (2007). BUTOSTAR: A role-playing game for collective awareness of wise reedbed use. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 233-262.
36.
Mclaughlan, R.G., & Kirkpatrick, D. (2005). Online text-based role play-simulation: The challenges ahead. Simtect, Sydney : Simulation Industry Association of Australia.
37.
Meerts, P. (2002). Training of negotiators. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues (2nd ed., pp. 455-464). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Moore, C.W. (2003). The mediation process (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
39.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L., & Boven, L.V. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49, 529-540.
40.
Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychology experiment . American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
41.
Pierfy, D.A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research, stumbling blocks, and steppingstones. Simulation & Games, 8, 255-268.
42.
Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D., & Whitehall, B.V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261-276.
43.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J. Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
44.
Spector, B.I. (1995). Creativity heuristics for impasse resolution: Reframing intractable negotiations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 542, 81-99.
45.
Susskind, L.E., & Corburn, J. (2000). Using simulations to teach negotiation: Pedagogical theory and practice. In M. Wheeler (Ed.), Teaching negotiation: Ideas and innovations (pp. 285-310). Cambridge, MA: PON Books.
46.
Toth, F.L. (1995). Simulation/gaming for long-term policy problems . In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 134-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
Truger, A. (2001). Training peacebuilders and peacekeepers. In L. Reychler & T. Paffenholz (Eds.), Peacebuilding: A field guide (pp. 35-42). Boulder, CO: Rienner Publishing.
48.
Van Sickel, R. (1986). A quantitative review of research on instructional simulation gaming: A twenty-year perspective. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14, 245-264.
49.
Wheeler, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching negotiation: Ideas and innovations. Cambridge MA: PON Books.
50.
Winham, G.R. (2002). Simulation for teaching and analysis. In V. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 465-480). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
51.
Wolfe, J., & Crookall, D. (1998). Developing a scientific knowledge of simulation/gaming . Simulation & Gaming, 29, 7-19.
