This document summarizes an exploratory study on how social contexts can affect autonomy experience in video game play. The study found that video game play in both leisurely and low-autonomy contexts (such as for work) can involve experiences of controlled motivation when player choices and interests do not align with external expectations or consequences. A lack of choice over aspects of gameplay such as when and how long to play, game selection, and ability to disengage reduced experienced autonomy. The study suggests more research is needed on implementing situational autonomy support to improve enjoyment and outcomes of gamification and serious games used in controlled contexts.

1. situational autonomy support
in video game play
an exploratory study
Sebastian Deterding (@dingstweets)
Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research
ICA 2013 Preconference »The Power of Play: Motivational Uses and Applications«
London, June 16, 2013
c b

2. 1
Outset
3
Method
2
Theory
4
Results
5
Outlook

3. 3
Method
2
Theory
4
Results
5
Outlook1
Outset

4. serious games in school contexts

5. gamification in work contexts

6. Johan Huizinga
»First and foremost,
all play is a voluntary
activity.«
homo ludens (1938/1950: 7)
Cf. Caillois 2001, Suits 2005, Pellegrini 2009, Burghardt 2005

7. Lopez 2011

8. Heeter et al. 2011, Mollick & Rothbard 2013

9. 1 3
Method
4
Results
5
Outlook
Theory
2
Outset

10. Edward Deci,Richard Ryan
»To be autonomous means to behave
with a sense of volition, willingness, and
congruence; it means to fully endorse
and concur with the behavior one is
engaged in.«
motivation, personality, and development (2012: 85)

11. autonomy in SDT
• Action is energised and directed by three basic
psychological needs: autonomy, competence,
relatedness
• All motivations range from controlled to
autonomous, external to internal locus of causality
• Individuals potentially energised by multiple
motivations at the same time; sum determines
overall experienced level of autonomy
• Motivational »significance« of social-contextual
input results from subjective construal process
Ryan & Deci 2002, Deci & Ryan 2012

12. spectrum of motivations
Perceivedexternal
locusofcausality
Perceivedinternal
locusofcausality
External
extrinsic
introjected
extrinsic
internalised
extrinsic
integrated
extrinsic
intrinsic
{
{
overall controlled
overall autonomous
Deci & Ryan 2012

13. autonomy in SDT
• Action is energised and directed by three basic
psychological needs: autonomy, competence,
relatedness
• All motivations range from controlled to
autonomous, external to internal locus of causality
• Individuals potentially energised by multiple
motivations at the same time; sum determines
overall experienced level of autonomy
• Motivational »significance« of social-contextual
input results from subjective construal process
Ryan & Deci 2002, Deci & Ryan 2012

14. existing research
• Video gaming can satisfy intrinsic needs, which can
explain part of video game play enjoyment (1)
• Some studies on in-game autonomy support
specifically through »meaningful choice« (2)
• Studies on video gaming context mainly explored
relatedness support (3)
• Many studies on social contexts supporting or
thwarting autonomy in other activities (4) – but none
on video gaming yet
(1) Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski 2006; Tamborini et al. 2010, 2011; Przybylski, Rigby & Ryan 2010; Peng et al. 2012; Przybylski et al.,
2012, Reinecke et al. 2012; (2) Rigby & Ryan 2011; (3) Kaye & Bryce, 2012; (4) Deci, Koestner & Ryan 1999, Deci & Ryan 2012

15. How do social contexts affect
autonomy experience in video
game play?
research question

16. 1
2
Theory
4
Results
5
Outlook3
Method
Outset

17. Method
• 19 interviewees gaming in leisurely and presumed-
low autonomy contexts: game journalism, design,
research, e-sport, gamified application
• Semi-structured interviews, 90-120 min. length
• Interviewees invited to openly compare contexts,
then narrate high/low autonomy experiences
• Transcription of all interviews
• Coding and analysis w/ MAXQDA following directed
qualitative content analysis (1)
Hsieh & Shannon 2005, Gläser & Laudel 2011

18. 1 3
Method
2
Theory
5
Outlook
4
Results
Outset

19. in-game autonomy support
• Salient autonomy with meaningful choice (impacts
game world, no faux choice) & open spaces (1)
• Salient controlled motivation related to expectations
and values
• expected action is thwarted (invisible walls,
‘logical’ move impossible)
• expected choice not provided (‘railroad’ levels)
• cut scenes, QTE take away expected agency
• progress requires action against player’s values
(1) Cf. Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski 2006; Rigby & Ryan 2011

20. Situational autonomy support
• Autonomy in play is taken for granted: Interviewees
recalled mainly moments of controlled motivations
as noteworthy, labelling them »work«, »not play«
• Playing in low-autonomy contexts is less enjoyable
& emotional, more effortful, pressured, detached
• Both leisurely and low-autonomy contexts hold
experiences of controlled motivation
• They become salient when spontaneous interests
and provided choices mismatch and controlled
motivations keep players to given choices

21. P3: And as a reviewer you have to look: How does an, an adventure
like Heavy Rain, which plays a lot with the freedom to act, and
suggests it, there you have to- as a normal, contemplative player you
just play it through, and afterwards you think: ‘Maybe I’ll do it again.’
And here you indeed have to play the same scenes immediately again
and look, how, what is different, so. [That is]
Interviewer: [That is,] you have to actually exhaust the possibility
space?
P3: Exactly, yes. Yes, yes. You are forced to do it, it’s no longer an
optional possibility. Whenever you’re forced to do something, then in
becomes more work. (P3-2/669-672)
game features and context interact

22. In::: 95 percent of the cases no. It's still a hobby. You- it's still a
passion. You enjoy playing it, also because something like:: a
professional level comes in, money and you get around and you
get to know new people. That's nice, no question. And those
remaining five percent, those are the percentages where you
say: <<Hm, not training again from seven to ten pm? Now I
could have gone to the movies with my girlfriend.>> For
example. Where you would say: <<I so would have wanted to
go with her to the movies. Damn, damn, damn. Why do I have
to train now?>> (P16/97-99)
…with current goals & interests

23. controlling lack of choice
• Whether and when to start playing
• What game to play
• How to play (goal-focused vs. explorative)
• Whether and when to achieve game states
• When to stop gaming
• Whether and how to self-regulate emotion display

24. P9: When I in principle have no time limit, that is, when I can
say, I can play until I say: <<I don't want to anymore.>> No
appointments and no obligations, both inside the game and
outside of the game, then I find, that's an experience of
freedom. (P9/308)
freedom of choice

25. Then also simply games you actually, somehow, don’t want to
play. So that’s something that you have to bring yourself to do,
to play games you would not voluntarily play. Yes perhaps also
to ruin the game with walkthroughs, save games or cheat
codes. So that’s something one does intentionally. And well, I
would never do that otherwise. Yes, in the end, everything to,
to, what, what’s helpful to reach the goal you set before.
(P10/380-382)
game choice

26. • Low-autonomy contexts
• Professional reputation
• Material consequence (prize money, workload)
• Verbal sanctions from superiors and peers
• Leisurely contexts
• Social norms of reciprocity, harmony, politeness
• Reputation (if gaming is tied to identity)
• Loss or attainment of in-game resources
controlling motivations

27. So with other games it was never like that, that I would go even
if I didn't feel like it. With WoW you had, especially with WoW
there somehow was a social, yes, somehow, a social coercion
behind it. Because of, as I said, this reputation and then also
the social contexts that you maintained through it. Or found
there. That they moved you to go there. Because I think, that's
the thing with sport. That you don't feel like training in the
evening, or something, and you still go there. Because you feel
socially obliged somehow. (P19-2/68-78)
social norms

28. Because then ((when money is involved)) there's the pressure
that you have to win. Of course, everybody who plays wants to
win somehow. Or have some successes, at least. Otherwise
you wouldn't play, presumably. Bu::t when it's about money,
that's a real thing, and that you have to work hard for. That
wouldn't have a playful character for me then. (P8/297-303)
material consequence

29. situational autonomy support
Not need-aligned,
controlled gameplay
Intrinsic need satisfying
gameplay
Ability to reconfigure &
dis/engage
Lack of social/material
consequence
Salient
autonomous motivations
Salient
controlled motivations
+
+
+–
–
Construal of action as
autonomous
–
+
+

30. 1 3
Method
2
Theory
4
Results
5
Outlook
Outset

31. Conclusion & Ramifications
• Autonomy support in video gaming involves a
situational meta-process of configuration & dis/
engagement
‣ Calls for more ecological studies on situational
processes of gaming enjoyment
• Gamification and serious games in low-autonomy
contexts face potentially serious challenge
‣ Calls for more studies on effects of situational
autonomy support

32. future research
• Operationalisation and experimental testing of
model
• Testing of relation between autonomy experience
and play experience in video gaming
• Testing of effect of autonomy experience on
productivity in gamification of work
• Testing of effect of autonomy experience on learning
outcomes in educational games

33. References
Burghardt, G. M. (2005). The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, Play, and Games. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-
Determination Theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 85–107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4th Ed.).
Wiesbaden: VS.
Heeter, C., Lee, Y.-H., Magerko, B., & Medler, B. (2011). Impacts of Forced Serious Game Play on Vulnerable Subgroups. International Journal
of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 3(3), 34–53.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–88.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
Kaye, L. K., & Bryce, J. (2012). Putting The “Fun Factor” Into Gaming: The Influence of Social Contexts on Experiences of Playing Videogames.
International Journal of Internet Science, 7(1), 23–37.
Lopez, S. (2011, October 19). Disneyland workers answer to “electronic whip”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/
2011/oct/19/local/la-me-1019-lopez-disney-20111018
Mollick, E. & Rothbard, N. (2013). Mandatory Fun: Gamifiction and the Impact of Games at Work. Working Paper.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The Role of Play in Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peng, W., Lin, J.-H., Pfeiffer, K. a., & Winn, B. (2012). Need Satisfaction Supportive Game Features as Motivational Determinants: An
Experimental Study of a Self-Determination Theory Guided Exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175–196.
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–
166.
Reinecke, L., Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., Lewis, R., Eden, A., & David Bowman, N. (2012). Characterizing Mood Management as Need
Satisfaction: The Effects of Intrinsic Needs on Selective Exposure and Mood Repair. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 437–453.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation
and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An Overview of Self-Determintation Theory: An Organismic-Dialectical Perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3–36). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic Needs.
Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777.
Tamborini, R., Grizzard, M., David Bowman, N., Reinecke, L., Lewis, R. J. & Eden, A. (2011). Media Enjoyment as Need Satisfaction: The
Contribution of Hedonic and Nonhedonic Needs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1025–1042.

34. sebastian@codingconduct.cc
@dingstweets
codingconduct.cc
Thank you.