Serious games are often assigned to learners and not played voluntarily. A problem for educators is how to motivate learners in these assigned conditions. This study examines the influence of regulatory fit experience on player motivations and time spent on learning aspects of the game. Regulatory fit theory posits that when instructions match the learners’ promotion or prevention motivational systems, learners will experience “regulatory fit,” which will make them “feel right” about the current instructions and tasks. Our findings support the regulatory fit theory. When learners experienced regulatory fit, they played the game for 26% longer time than learners who did not experience regulatory fit. Learners in regulatory fit conditions also displayed more learning-related behaviors such as spending more time on learning feedback both during gameplay and between gameplay sessions. Positive feedback seems to motivate promotion-oriented learners; however, negative feedback did not demotivate prevention-oriented learners as theory predicted.
AakerJ. L.LeeA. Y. (2001). ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘we’ avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33–49.
2.
AakerJ. L.LeeA. T. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 15–19.
3.
AvnetT.HigginsE. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1–10.
4.
CacioppoJ.GardnerW.BerntsonG. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839–855.
5.
CamachoC. J.HigginsE. T.LugerL. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: “What feels right is right” and “what feels wrong is wrong.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498–510.
6.
CesarioJ.HigginsE. T. (2008) Making message recipients “feel right”: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415–420.
7.
CesarioJ.GrantH.HigginsE. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘feeling right.’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404.
8.
ElliotA. J.CovingtonM. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 73–92.
9.
ForsterJ.GrantH.IdsonL. C.HigginsE. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253–260.
10.
FreitasA. L.LibermanN.HigginsE. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291–298.
11.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441–467.
12.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
HeeterC.EgidioR.MishraP.WinnB.WinnJ. (2009). Alien games: Do girls prefer games designed by girls?Games and Culture, 4, 74–100.
14.
HeeterC.LeeY.MagerkoB.MedlerB. (2013). Conceptually meaningful metrics: Inferring optimal challenge and mindset from gameplay. In El-NasrMagy SeifDrachenAndersCanossaAlessandro (Eds.), Game analytics - Maximizing the value of player data (pp.731–762). London, England: Springer-Verlag.
15.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
16.
HigginsE. T. (1998). From expectancies to worldviews: Regulatory focus in socialization and cognition. In DarleyJ. M.CooperJ. (Eds.), Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 243–309). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
HigginsE. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
18.
HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.
KellerP. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 109–114.
21.
LangA. (2000). The information processing of mediated messages: A framework for communication research. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.
22.
LeeY.HeeterC.MagerkoB.MedlerB. (2012). Gaming mindsets: Implicit theories in serious game learning, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 15, 190–194. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0328
23.
MangelsJ.ButterfieldB.LambJ.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75–86.
24.
PapastergiouM. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52, 1–12.
25.
PavlovI. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Translated and Edited by G. V. Anrep.
London: Oxford University Press.
26.
PrenskyM. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment, 1, 1–4.
27.
ShahJ.HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.
28.
SpiegelS.Grant-PillowH.HigginsE. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 39–54.
29.
Van EckR. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause, 41, 16–30.
30.
WangJ.LeeA. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction, Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 28–38.
31.
WinnB. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. In FerdigR. E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp.1010–1024). Retrieved fromhttp://gel.msu.edu/winn/Winn_DPE_chapter_final.pdf
