PlayStation will work with University of Oxford researchers on voluntary guidance for game studios after an experiment found that environmental information in a purpose-built game influenced food choices. The research used Pecking Orders, a purpose-built mobile game created with Media Molecule. It tested whether environmental information presented during gameplay could affect food choices afterward.
The study involved 4,034 UK adults. Compared with a control version, participants who received environmental information chose grocery baskets with about 20% lower environmental impact immediately after playing. The difference remained at roughly 8% to 10% in a follow-up two to three weeks later.
SIE supported the project through a philanthropic donation, but the researchers say the company had no influence on the study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the paper.
Those numbers need some context. Researchers didn't follow thousands of people through their normal supermarket trips. They used an experimental online supermarket stocked with real Tesco products and prices. Everyone received a virtual £50 budget, and 50 randomly selected participants actually received one of the baskets they created through Tesco Click+Collect.
Media Molecule Built Pecking Orders for the Study
Pecking Orders is a short, first-person mobile adventure where you play a photojournalist working for a local news magazine. Your character is trying to boost the magazine's popularity and investigate a mystery around town. Completing the game took around 45 minutes during the study.
Sustainability isn't the main subject of the story. Instead, six food choices appear throughout the larger plot. Each choice presents two options with different environmental impacts.
Media Molecule created the story, gameplay, art, characters, dialogue, and audio. The research team handled the academic side, including the scientific information. Environmental material accounted for roughly 15% to 20% of the game's script.
Researchers created four versions of Pecking Orders called Control, Nature, Social, and Nature+Social. The control contained no explicit environmental information. The other versions used the same story and food choices but changed how environmental information and consequences appeared.
That gave researchers a way to compare different versions of essentially the same game rather than completely different experiences.
Oxford Measured Grocery Choices After Gameplay
Participants entered the experimental supermarket after playing Pecking Orders. Products and prices came from Tesco, and the environmental score for each basket covered four areas. These included greenhouse gas emissions, land use, scarcity-weighted water use, and eutrophication.
All three versions containing environmental information resulted in lower-impact grocery baskets than the control immediately after play. When researchers combined those groups, the difference was about 20%. Two to three weeks later, a smaller effect remained at roughly 8% to 10%.
The researchers linked the change to several factors. Participants learned more about the environmental impact of food, kept that information in mind after playing, and reported some changes in their preferences. The longer-lasting effects were especially apparent among people who began the experiment with lower sustainability preferences.
There are limits to what these results tell us. Participants were recruited because they'd already expressed an interest in video games, so the sample doesn't represent every UK adult. Researchers also followed them for only two to three weeks.
The experiment didn't include a separate group that received the same environmental information without playing a game. Because of that, it can't establish whether the game format was more effective than receiving the information another way.
PlayStation Plans Voluntary Guidance for Game Studios
PlayStation says it will now work with Oxford on voluntary guidance for studios interested in incorporating environmental themes into games. The guidance is intended to help studios use accurate information that fits naturally with gameplay and the intended audience.
The reactions to the game could also matter as PlayStation and Oxford develop that guidance. Adding environmental content didn't reduce how entertaining participants rated Pecking Orders. Around 85% of the treatment groups also described the game as informative, compared with 23.3% for the control.
The response wasn't entirely positive. About 22.8% of the treatment groups described the game as biased, compared with 5.5% for the control. Another 21.1% called it manipulative, compared with 10% for the control.
That gives PlayStation and Oxford more to consider than whether environmental information can affect a choice. Their own research indicates that people can learn from this type of content without rating the game as less entertaining. It also indicates that some people recognize the message and react negatively to how it's presented.
Pecking Orders doesn't prove that a commercial game can change behaviour on a large scale. It does provide measurable evidence from a controlled game, an incentivised shopping task, and a follow-up several weeks later. The next question is whether the guidance can help studios explore subjects like this without turning their games into lectures.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Please stay respectful and on topic.