University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring empathy through negotiation

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring empathy through negotiation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright 2012 Andy Uehara
EXPLORING EMPATHY THROUGH NEGOTIATION
by
Andy Uehara
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF CINEMATIC ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
(INTERACTIVE MEDIA)
May 2012
ii
Dedication
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Thank you for everyone who came before
me who made me, made my interests possible, and helped to shape my life.
Special thanks to my family, Casey, my friends and colleagues, my classmates,
the faculty, my team, playtesters, Sushi, and Tora-ni.
Faculty and advisors: Peter Brinson, Jeremy Gibson, Marientina Gotsis, Kurosh
ValaNejad, and John Hight.
My team: Avimaan Sayam, Simon Wiscombe, Graham Lock, Ron Cruz, Brian
Paul, Anna Drubrich, and Jongnic Bontemps. My classmates for their support
and stimulating conversations.
Playtesters and others for their feedback: Josh McVeigh-Schultz, Annette Alicia
Angus, Corey China, Joe Ungemah, Loan Verneau, Jason Mathias, Elizabeth
Swenson, Sean Bouchard, and Huck Furey
Mary Flanagan and Jonathan Belman for their paper “Designing Games to Foster
Empathy.” Although my approach was drastically from different their
recommendations, they are among the few who have written about empathy in
games.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication....................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................iv
Abstract .......................................................................................................................v
Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
Defining Empathy........................................................................................................ 3
Defining Negotiation.................................................................................................... 5
Empathy and Negotiation ........................................................................................ 8
Souper Bowl Design Document .................................................................................. 9
Design Goal ............................................................................................................ 9
Game Mechanics of Empathy and Negotiation.......................................................10
Design Mechanic Goals..........................................................................................16
Empathy Prior Art.......................................................................................................17
Interactive Prior Art Games Table...........................................................................20
Souper Bowl ..............................................................................................................34
Souper Bowl: Game Description.............................................................................34
Game Setup........................................................................................................34
Game Introduction ..............................................................................................35
Phase 1: Planning...............................................................................................35
Phase 2: Negotiation...........................................................................................36
Phase 3: Growth .................................................................................................37
Preliminary Results ................................................................................................38
Implications................................................................................................................45
Potential for Empathy in Games.............................................................................46
Current Status and Next Steps...................................................................................47
Conclusion.................................................................................................................48
Bibliography...............................................................................................................50
Appendix A: Summary of Playtest Results .................................................................52
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Diagram of the Components of Empathy 3
Figure 2: "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy" Point of View Gun 17
Figure 3: Picture from “The Empathy Experience” 18
Figure 4: Tina Gonsalves’ Feel Series 19
Figure 5: Picture of Souper Bowl from Winter Thesis Show 34
Figure 6: Picture of the Planning Phase Screen Capture 35
Figure 7: Picture of the Contract that the Player Inputs 36
Figure 8: Picture of the Growth Phase Screen 37
Figure 9: Picture of Players during the Growth Phase 39
v
Abstract
As technology has increased the potential for small groups or powerful
individuals to cause global harm, the need for humankind to work together has
grown. Empathy may be one solution. There have been many attempts to make
games that evoke empathy. However, the majority of these games utilize an
explicitly didactic and coercive approach to empathy. The goal of Souper Bowl
was to evoke empathy between players through a self-directed approach framed
by negotiation. Souper Bowl’s game mechanics enable the players to negotiate
in a context in which they may explore a range of interactions, from cooperation
to competition. This paper reviews the literature related to empathy and
negotiation in games. It then describes Souper Bowl as an exploration of new
mechanics to evoke empathy in games.
1
Introduction
“Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each
other’s eyes for an instant?” -Henry David Thoreau “Walden
(Writings)”
Humanity has reached the point at which a small group of people can use
technology and science to harmfully impact the entire planet. Nuclear weapons
and bioengineered infectious disease are just a few of the technologies which
have the potential to kill millions. The impact of this terrifying level of technology
is that a small group with sufficient resources can gain the ability to end
humanity. Placed in the hands of a few who have a grievance with another party,
these technologies may result in a conflict that puts us on the verge of
catastrophe.
A possible solution is through prevention: create a global culture in which
individuals have a greater degree of empathy for each other. Empathy, the ability
to take another’s perspective and act accordingly, allows a person to understand
another, paving the way to work with the other person to find solutions that are
mutually acceptable. Games have the potential to embody emotions such as
empathy (Belman and Flanagan 2009).
There are a number of games that promote empathy; however, they coerce
empathy by putting the player in the situation of the subject matter and instructing
the player to feel empathetic. Presenting a message so explicitly may cause a
2
game to be interpreted as propaganda and discourage some players from
playing. Thus, Souper Bowl was developed to encourage players to explore
empathy without revealing the true nature of the game. Ian Bogost describes the
term procedural rhetoric as “persuading through processes.” Using empathy as
its procedural rhetoric, Souper Bowl allows players to develop and explore
empathy on their own.
Souper Bowl is a series of negotiation simulations between two players with a
narrative that connects all of the negotiations. The game mechanics of Souper
Bowl are intended to encourage players to think about the cognitive and affective
concerns of other players and to take an appropriate response based on their
understanding.
This paper begins with a review of existing work in order to establish an
understanding of the definitions of and connections between empathy and
negotiation. It then explores the design of Souper Bowl as an attempt to evoke
empathy through a procedural rhetoric, including results from a number of
playtests. Finally, this paper considers conclusions from the project and future
directions.
3
Defining Empathy
Empathy is a broad subject that has been studied in fields as diverse as
psychology, neuroscience, negotiation, and social work, resulting in a variety of
different definitions. The standard dictionary definition of empathy is “the action of
understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing
the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present
without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an
objectively explicit manner (Merriam-Webster).” Deeper analyses of empathy
have identified three components: cognitive understanding, affective
understanding, and appropriate response (also known as conscious decision
making), which are explained in greater detail below (Gerdes et al. 2011).
Figure 1: Diagram of the Components of Empathy
Empathy has two components of understanding. First, cognitive understanding is
the intellectual understanding of another person’s perspective. For example, a
4
chess player may try to think like their opponent in order to find the optimal move.
Second, affective understanding is the emotional understanding of another
person’s emotion and mood. If the chess player knows that the other player
highly values the emotional reaction to winning and would deliberately lose to
avoid hurting an opponent’s feelings, this shows insight into the other player’s
emotions. Affective understanding is difficult without understanding a person’s
affective state, which influences their capability to make decisions.
Affective understanding has two sub parts: emotion and mood. Emotion is
defined as an affective state reaction to a specific cause, stimulus or thought. It is
usually a short and intense experiences and a person consciously recognizes the
cause of the emotion (Forgas, 1995). Mood is defined as a subtle and long
lasting background affective state, that typically has unclear origins (Derbaix
1991). There are a number of studies that show how mood can affect decisions
(Dasgupta and Greenwald 2001)(Lawrence and Bargh 2008)(Wiltermut 2012).
For example, imagine two fictional people, named Alice and Bob. Alice finds a
dollar on the floor before meeting Bob. If Alice met Bob immediately afterwards
and was cheerful, this is an example of emotion. Alice would consciously
recognize that the dollar caused her cheerfulness. However, if Alice met with that
Bob hours later and was cheerful, Alice may not recognize that the source of
their cheerfulness was finding the dollar bill. In the latter situation, cheerfulness is
an example of mood.
5
Studies have confirmed that, by evoking an appropriate response to another
individual, empathy promotes pro-social behavior in most situations. (Berenguer
2007) (Caravita et al. 2009) (Mueller and Waas 2002) Conversely, in situations
where empathy is lacking conflict may arise. (Moor and Silvern 2006)(Wheeler et
al. 2002) (Giancola 2003) The resolution of these conflicts is via negotiation or
armed conflict. Negotiation is a basic tool to resolve conflict. The definition of
negotiation and how it relates to empathy is explored in more detail below.
Defining Negotiation
"It is difficult to negotiate where neither will trust" -Samuel Johnson
Negotiation means “to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion,
and compromise” (Merriam-Webster). Each person in a negotiation has the
opportunity to persuade the other person, compromise, or walk away from the
table. There are two general types of negotiations, distributive and integrative,
which may be explained through an example of a boy and a girl negotiating over
who will get more of a pie (Essentials of Negotiation 27-87). In a distributive
negotiation, the negotiators are trying to determine who gets a bigger piece of the
pie. A resolution in which one child takes more pie would be at the expense the
other child. In an integrative negotiation, the negotiators are trying to grow the
pie, so that when they come to a resolution it is not at the expense of one or the
other. An example of an integrative solution may be giving the filling to the girl
and giving the crust to the boy. Another solution may involve literally enlarging
6
the pie so that there is more for both parties. Both types of negotiation are used
to come to an agreement.
There are a number of basic terms that are important for understanding
negotiations. These include:
 Imperfect information: Almost all negotiation scenarios involve imperfect
information, meaning that the individual negotiators do not have access to
all of the available information in a scenario.
 Bargaining range: Bargaining range refers to the distance between the
maximum amount that each negotiator is willing to bid. If there is an
overlap between the two negotiators’ bargaining ranges, the range is
considered positive. Otherwise, if there is no overlap, the bargaining range
is considered to be negative.
 Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA): Each party to a
negotiation has a BATNA, which is the best result that can occur for the
party in the absence of an agreement.
 Pareto optimal deals: In analyzing a distributive negotiation, the pareto
optimal deal is the point where neither negotiator can increase their share
of the deal without making at least one other person less well off.
Integrative solutions offer an increase in the bargaining range so that the
quality of the pareto optimal deal is better. (Essentials of Negotiation 35-
168)
7
Like empathy, negotiation has multiple components. Some of these components
include:
 Frames: The frame is the context in which the negotiation is perceived.
Each person in a negotiation has their own frame and may change their
frame throughout the negotiation.
 Tactics: Tactics are short term techniques used to gain advantage in a
negotiation or to respond to other tactics.
 Externalities: Externalities are the outside factors that can influence a
negotiation. For example, outside factors may include other people,
commitments, reputation or appearance.
 Trust: Repetitive negotiations introduce relationship factors such as trust,
which can be built or lost between the two parties. (Essentials of
Negotiation 35-168)
8
Empathy and Negotiation
Negotiation shares several characteristics with empathy. Negotiation has a
cognitive aspect, in which negotiators must intellectually understand the items
being negotiated over and their relative values. Negotiation also has an affective
aspect, which encompasses the way the negotiators feel towards each other, as
well as their moods. The one area where negotiation and empathy differ is in
appropriate response. While empathy generally only provokes appropriate
response (as shown by pro-social behavior) in negotiations, appropriate or
inappropriate response may occur.
Empathy and negotiation share some common barriers such as: (Essentials of
Negotiation 19-26)(Belman and Flanagan 2009).
 Bias: Biases and prejudices are conscious and unconscious beliefs that
exclude other possibilities and are sometimes considered negative. A
common bias is when an individual likes people who are similar to
themselves. Thus it becomes difficult to think of the other person in a
negative light, even if they are trying to take unfair advantage. (Burger et
al. 2004).
 Unintentional irrational behavior: During the course of a negotiation or
an exercise in empathy, one party can become affected by the other party
and act unintentionally irrational. Unfortunately, because the behavior is
9
unintentional and is no longer based on cognitive and/or affective
understanding, the acting party is no longer in a position to be empathetic.
 Externalities: Examples of externalities include in-group loyalty, authority
figures, and conceptions of harm, purity, or fairness (Graham et al.
2009).There are a number of studies, for example the Stanford Prison
study and the Milgram experiments, that explore how people are willing to
reject their empathy in the face of these barriers (Zimbardo 1971)(Milgram
1963).
 Intent: A common issue occurs when both parties are capable of
empathy, but they do not have the intent to be empathetic. In a negotiation
this is referred to as “bad faith” negotiations, where a party(ies) does not
intend to come to an agreement.
Souper Bowl Design Document
Design Goal
The design goal is to create a game that implicitly evokes empathy through
negotiation. In Souper Bowl, the core mechanic that is shared between empathy
and negotiation is communication to determine interests, intent, and resolutions
to conflicts over the course of an unspecified number of scenarios that comprises
a cohesive evolving narrative. This mechanic was designed to explore the
components of empathy and negotiation.
10
Game Mechanics of Empathy and Negotiation
The specified game mechanics of Souper Bowl were drawn from an
understanding of the components of empathy and negotiations, as well as a
review of prior art utilizing these two concepts. A more detailed description of
prior art follows the game mechanics explained below. As described previously,
empathy contains a number of components including cognitive understanding,
affective understanding, and appropriate response. The components of
negotiation include conflict, bargaining range, distributive and integrative
negotiation, framing, tactics, and externalities.
The design components selected to achieve Souper Bowl’s design goal are:
 Player Conflict
 Constraints Needed for Empathy
 Hidden Information
 Procedural Rhetoric
 Multiple Sessions
 Unknown Number of Sessions
 Minimal Character Descriptions
 Game as Framework/Motivation
 Outside Obligations and Risk
 Integrative Solutions
 No Moderator
11
Player Conflict
Player conflict is necessary game design element of Souper Bowl. In order to
have a negotiation there must be a conflict to resolve. While it is possible for
players to have empathy in the absence of conflict, without conflict there is no
need for affective understanding. A core feature of Souper Bowl is for players to
practice empathy with each other, which cannot be done in a single player
environment, so it was necessary to have a conflict state in which both players
are active participants.
Constraints Needed for Empathy
The players must have resource constraints in order to develop empathy. There
is no cost to fulfilling the other player’s needs if resources are unlimited. If a
player has unlimited resources, there is no need to negotiate or consider another
person’s cognitive or affective condition.
Hidden Information
As mentioned earlier, an important element of both negotiation and empathy is
communication. In part, player conflict reflects different interests and
perspectives. The differences are caused by players having access to different
information about the same scenario. Players are free to share information. Thus
through communication of hidden information, players will learn to practice
empathy and negotiation.
12
Procedural Rhetoric
The intent of Souper Bowl’s game system is to encourage empathic behavior
without coercion. Procedural Rhetoric is a key design element of the game
system. The basis of Procedural Rhetoric lies not in a game’s representational
elements, but in the system: the mechanics and processes that underlie and
govern the game. Ian Bogost explains that “processes that might appear
unexpressive, devoid of symbol manipulation, may actually found expression of a
higher order (Bogost 5).” Souper Bowl is designed for players to directly
negotiate with each other. If players are face to face, they can see and respond
to each other’s verbal and non-verbal signals and are thereby enabled to perform
the actions necessary for empathy. The players also have the freedom to act in
non-empathetic ways, which in turn may provoke empathetic responses (for
example, one player’s failure to show empathy may elicit sadness or anger in the
second player, and upon recognizing this response, the first player may alter his
or her actions and become more empathetic). There are no other procedures
outside of those related to negotiation. The procedures of empathy are not
abstracted in any way. This lack of alternatives forces the players to either
negotiate or end negotiations. Limiting the procedures to negotiation also gives
players an experiential learning experience. Experiential learning is a cyclical
process that capitalizes on the participants' experiences for acquisition of
knowledge. The process involves setting goals, thinking, planning,
experimentation, reflection, observation, and review. By engaging in these
13
activities, learners construct meaning in a way unique to themselves,
incorporating the cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of learning. Thus, in
Souper Bowl, players learn through experience, rather than through a didactic
approach that explicitly teaches empathy.
Multiple Sessions
Souper Bowl was designed for multiple negotiation sessions in order to disrupt
what may be referred to as the “used car salesman effect,” which refers to the
stereotype of a seller influencing a buyer to believe they have received a good
deal on a bad car. The impact of the “used car salesman effect” on player mood
was evident in early single session iterations of Souper Bowl. Multiple sessions
can disrupt an affected person’s mood in two ways. First, players would have a
chance between sessions to get perspective on their agreement, without being in
the company of the other player, and have an opportunity to reflect cognitively on
what they negotiated. Second, players may think twice before attempting
manipulative affective behavior, because there would be future sessions and
possible repercussions from any anti-social behavior. For example, a major
repercussion would be the loss of trust between players.
Unknown Number of Sessions
The game should have an unknown number of sessions to avoid a betrayal
during the last scenario. A significant concern was that the player who knew how
14
often they would interact with another player would defect on the last negotiation,
knowing that there were no consequences for such behavior. (Murnighan 22).
Without consequences, there is little need to consider the affective understanding
of another player or worry about trust. Thus, every scenario was designed to end
in such a way that left the players with the possibility that future negotiations
would take place.
Minimal Character Descriptions
The game should have minimal character descriptions, so players must self-
define their characters. As a result, players should be more emotionally invested
because they have fewer tools to distance themselves from the characters they
play. In playtests with minimal character descriptions, players appeared to have
more authentic and realistic affective states. Giving players minimal character
descriptions negatively impacted the perceived immersive quality of the game.
Game as Framework
The majority of the mechanics of empathy and negotiation are related to
communication. Therefore, the game should not replace communication but
rather provide an environment in which communication may occur. Thus, Souper
Bowl differs from the majority of empathy games in which players are told about
a plight in order to provoke empathy but the actions are not related to empathy.
The game should evoke a desire and space to practice empathy.
15
Outside Obligations and Risk
After allowing the players to establish an initial relationship, the game should
explore some of the additional barriers to empathy. To present a realistic setting,
Souper Bowl includes barriers similar to those that may impede empathy. Some
the barriers Souper Bowl explores include: negative bargaining range,
demonization of players, various risk reward levels, commitments to outside
groups, uncertain outcomes and values, and representational power.
Integrative Solutions
A key component of empathy is the appropriate response, and its equivalent in
negotiation may be considered an integrative solution. By presenting players with
conflict, it was important for the players to be able to express their empathy by
exploring alternative solutions which could make better deals for both parties.
Many of the scenarios in Souper Bowl have the potential for integrative solutions.
No Moderator
In many role playing games and simulations, a game master moderates the
experience to ensure that the procedures are not violated and feelings are not
hurt. A key difference between Souper Bowl and typical live simulations or ARGs
is that Souper Bowl is designed without a game master. As a result, players must
manage the full effects of their negotiation, which can be dangerous, as players
could hurt each other. On the other hand, this danger provokes the affective and
16
cognitive responses which can evoke empathy. Players also have a greater
responsibility to attempt to affectively understand each other, rather than rely on
a third party to intervene.
Design Mechanic Goals
The above design decisions, were made with the intent that players would work
to create positive experiences for each other due to empathy. This project
explores two main hypotheses. First, players will be empathetic to create more
positive experiences. Players who create negative experiences for each other will
dissuade the other player from playing. The lack of empathy will trigger a desire
for the player creating negative experiences to empathize and create more
positive experiences. In other words, it is in the player’s own best interest to be
empathetic to continue the play experience.
Second, empathetic players will seek out integrative negotiations. It is reasonable
to assume that as players become more empathetic, their capacity to detect
unfair negotiations, and their will to create fair negotiations, will also grow.
Having explored the theoretical design direction, prior art will be described to
review previous work on empathy and the methods that are employed to evoke it.
17
Empathy Prior Art
Figure 2: “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” Point of View Gun
The Point of View Gun is a fictional device that Douglas Adams created for the
movie version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The gun was
commissioned by the Intergalactic Consortium of Angry Housewives who were
tired of ending every argument with their husbands with the phrase, “You just
don’t get it, do you?” During the movie, Trillian shoots Zaphod, who then
immediately understands why she is upset over the destruction of Earth and her
relationship with Arthur. The device conveys empathy in both the cognitive and
affective understanding. Interestingly, it also seems to provoke the appropriate
pro-social response. The Point of View Gun promotes empathy by directly
transferring information to the target in a way that stimulates appropriate
response, yet does not require any communication.
18
Figure 3: Picture from The Empathy Experience
There are many art pieces that provoke an empathy response in the viewer. The
Empathy Experience was an art exhibit at the University of Colorado in which a
number of art pieces were exhibited, showing and explaining the injustices of
child sex trafficking. When there is more than one viewer present, the exhibit
creates scenarios where the viewers interact to explore their interpretations of
empathy. While any piece may provoke multiple scenarios, in general these art
pieces were not designed to invoke empathy with the same group of people over
the course of multiple scenarios.
19
Chameleon Feel: Inside Feel: Insula Feel: Trace Feel: Perspire
Figure 4: Tina Gonsalves’ Feel Series
The Feel Series of interactive art is notable because it uses biofeedback from a
user or group of users to change the presentation of various media. The pieces
ask the viewer to explore their affective mood and emotions and how media can
be sensitive to such feelings. Each piece uses a different form of affective
computing to identify physiological changes in the viewer and reveals different
images and sounds based on the physiological changes. While these pieces are
interesting and raise questions about affective computing, they explore a different
area than the focus of this paper. Furthermore, none of the pieces were designed
to remember the interactions between them and a repeat viewer, none of the
interactions encourage users to interact with each other, and none of the
interactions have a component of appropriate response.
20
Interactive Prior Art Games
The following table describes relevant interactive prior art games, including a
brief note on how each explores empathy and/or negotiation.
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Abstract
Strategy
Board
Game
Chess,
Mancala, Go
Strategy
games in
which the
military pieces
are
abstracted. A
common
characteristic
is that all
information is
available (no
hidden
information)..
Cognitive
understanding:
Players must
use
perspective
taking in order
to succeed.
n/a
Rhythm Hush A rhythm
game in which
you play the
role of a
Rwandan
mother singing
a lullaby to her
infant while
trying to avoid
being
discovered.
Cognitive
understanding:
Player must
understand the
character’s
motivations for
hiding.
Affective
understanding:
Drives the
player’s desire
to have the
mother sing.
n/a
21
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Turn
Based
Role
Playing
Game
Ayiti: The
Cost of Life
The player
plays as a
family
struggling to
survive in
Haiti.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players must
understand the
trade-offs of
the family’s
actions.
Affective
understanding:
Family
members take
ill or die to
provoke
emotion.
n/a
Turn
Based
Role
Playing
Game
Super
Columbine
Massacre
The player
plays the role
of Eric Harris
and Dylan
Klebold during
the days
leading up to
and including
the massacre
of students at
Columbine
High School.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players learn
the various
steps in
retracing the
killers’ steps.
Affective
understanding:
Harris and
Klebold’s
journal entries
provoke
emotion.
n/a
22
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Action
Based
Role
Playing
Game
Phone Story The player
plays the role
of various
workers
involved with
the life cycle
of an iPhone.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players
assume the
role of workers
and perform
actions.
Affective
understanding:
The suffering of
the workers,
and any player
identification
with using an
iPhone,
provoke
emotion.
n/a
Action
Based
Role
Playing
Game
Sweatshop The player
assumes the
role of a low
level manager
trying to
succeed in a
sweatshop.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players learn
the trade-offs
that are
necessary to
make the
quota.
Affective
understanding:
The suffering of
the workers
provokes
emotion.
n/a
23
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Simulation Peacemaker Players play
the role of one
of the many
groups in the
Israeli-
Palestinian
conflict.
Players may
explore ways
to create
peace
between the
two factions.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players must
understand the
impacts of their
decisions on
the various
groups in the
factions.
Affective
understanding:
Players learn
how various
decisions can
impact the
groups’
emotions.
n/a
Simulation The
Graveyard
The player
plays the role
of an old
woman who
visits a
graveyard.
Cognitive
understanding:
The old woman
may only move
slowly about
the graveyard,
expressing the
effects of
aging.
Affective
understanding:
The limited
actions and
movement are
emotionally
evocative of old
age.
n/a
24
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Action
Simulation
Darfur is
Dying
Players take
the role of a
family of
Darfuri
refugees who
are trying to
survive from
the Janjaweed
militia in a
harsh
environment.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players learn
the activities
necessary to
survive.
Affective
understanding:
The Janjaweed
militia capturing
the Darfuri
family one by
one provokes
emotion.
n/a
Strategy
Games
Settlers of
Catan
Players play
the role of
groups that
are competing
to expand
across an
island.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players must
understand the
choices the
other players
need to make
to grow their
groups.
Affective
understanding:
Players may
gain affective
understanding
as they notice
how close they
and other
players are to
winning or
losing.
Players are not
required to
trade, but may
negotiate. When
negotiating, the
value of
resources
fluctuates
depending on
who is in the
lead and who
has more
access to
resources. The
trading is also
distributive in
nature as only
one player may
win the game.
25
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Strategy
Board
Game
Diplomacy Players play
the role of a
World War II
power in an
attempt to
conquer
Europe.
Cognitive
understanding:
In order to
succeed,
players must
understand and
predict other
players’
decisions to
support or
betray each
other.
Affective
understanding:
Players are
forced to ignore
their affective
understanding
of other
players, as
they must
betray them in
order to win.
Players may
negotiate for
support from
other players.
These
negotiations in
are distributive
as there may be
only one winner.
26
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Family
Game
Dragon’s
Gold
Players
assume the
role of a party
of adventurers
who must
negotiate with
other parties
to get the
highest value
of treasure.
Cognitive
understanding:
In order to
succeed,
players must
understand the
value of the
various
treasure types
and understand
why other
players wish to
accumulate
different
treasure.
Affective
understanding:
Player
emotions
become more
evident during
intense
negotiations as
the game nears
its end.
However,
players must
suppress their
emotional
understanding
in order to win.
Players must
negotiate with
each other
within a one
minute time
limit. However,
the negotiation
is distributive in
nature as there
are no
integrative
solutions
available for the
players.
27
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Family
Game
Pandemic Players play
the role of
disease
combat
specialists
who cooperate
to contain the
global spread
of four disease
pandemics.
n/a
There is no
need for
cognitive or
emotional
understanding
of other
players, as
they all have
the same goal.
n/a
28
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Strategy
Game
Modern Art Players
assume the
role of art
collectors who
buy and sell
paintings with
fluctuating
values. The
player with the
most money at
the end of the
game wins.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players must
asses what art
pieces are
remaining and
the relative
value of art
pieces for
auction.
Affective
understanding:
As there is
considerable
hidden
information,
players may
explore
emotional
understanding.
n/a
Card
Game
Poker A card game
with a high
component of
hidden
information
and betting.
The outcome
is determined
by luck and
successful
betting.
Cognitive
understanding:
Players explore
the possible
hands the other
players have
and how it
affects their
betting
strategy.
n/a
29
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Empathy
Curriculu
m
World in
Conversatio
n
A program
that allows
students to
communicate
with other
students
around the
world.
Cognitive and
Affective
Understanding:
Students
interact with
other students
around the
world on
various issues
and topics
using open
ended
questions. This
promotes both
cognitive and
affective
understanding.
Depending on
the participants,
this may
promote
negotiation of
ideas.
Collective
Story
Telling
Microscope Multiple
players
collectively
create a
narrative.
Cognitive and
Affective
Understanding:
Players use
both empathy
components to
create a
narrative
experience that
is successful
for other
players.
n/a
30
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Negotiatio
n
Curriculu
m
Bullard
Houses
scenario
One player
plays the role
of a
representative
of the Bullard
family. The
other player
plays the role
of a
representative
who wishes to
buy the
Bullard
Houses.
Players
negotiate to
see how and if
the Bulard
family
representative
will work with
the potential
buyer.
Cognitive
Understanding:
Players must
consider the
other player’s
representative’
s interests.
Affective
Understanding:
The scenario is
a single
session, so
players are not
encouraged to
consider the
other party’s
affective state.
The scenario is
a negotiation
and allows
players to
explore many
aspects of
negotiation.
31
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Large
Group
Negotiatio
ns
Model UN A group
simulation
where players
play the role of
ambassadors
who debate
issues in the
same format
as the United
Nations
General
Assembly.
Cognitive
Understanding:
Players explore
other players’
perspectives to
negotiate
resolutions to
conflicts.
Affective
Understanding:
The players
may not have
affective
understanding
as the
simulation
takes place in a
learning
environment,
giving the
player a way to
avoid taking
responsibility
for their
actions.
Model UN is a
group activity
where players
explore the
depth of
negotiation. One
drawback to this
system is that
the negotiations
are emulated as
part of the UN,
whose
regulations are
not conducive to
successful
negotiations.
32
Table: Interactive Prior Art Games, Continued
Genre Game Name Brief
Description
Empathy Negotiation
Role
Playing
Game
Dungeons
and Dragons
Players
assume the
role of heroes
in a party, who
interact with a
fictional world
and each
other.
Cognitive and
Affective
Understanding:
Players may
explore
empathy;
however, they
are generally
playing roles
that are in
cooperation
with each
other, so it is
not necessary
to understand
another
player’s
cognitive and
emotional
state.
Players may
explore
negotiation,
depending on
the narrative.
However,
negotiation is
not a core
aspect of the
experience.
Live
Action
Role Play
(LARP)
Starship
Valkrie:
Sigrun
Players
assume the
role of a crew
member on
the ship
Sigrun. In
each session,
players
explore a new
situation in
which the ship
and crew are
in danger.
Cognitive and
Affective
Understanding:
LARP
experiences
vary from
session to
session and
may include
opportunities
for players to
explore other
player’s
cognitive and
affective states.
n/a
The prior art that most closely resemble Souper Bowl are simulations. The
simulations attempt to encourage player behavior that is similar or directly related
33
to the desired behavior with other players. A significant disadvantage in
simulations is the presence of a moderator or moderated environment. Since the
moderator is in a position to mediate any disputes, this is a power dynamic which
taints the experience.
The game Dragon’s Gold shares many negotiation characteristics with Souper
Bowl. However, it differs in that players may not develop integrative solutions
which allow both players to succeed. The negotiations seem to be appropriate
and natural for resolving disputes over distribution of treasure. The nature of the
mechanics such as the thief to stealing gems has a negative impact on
integrative solutions.
There are a number of components that were taken from the prior art and
implemented into Super Bowl. The player have direct interaction, not abstracted
and/or metaphorical interactions. This was a critical component of Souper Bowl.
Very few graphics or physical representations needed to convey the system to
the player. By keeping the images and components sparse, these games
maintain the focus on the players’ interactions. Settlers of Catan provides players
with the option to negotiate with one another. This optionality changes the focus
of the game such that players only attempt to negotiate when they have a
cognitive understanding of a self-benefiting trade. While Pandemic does not offer
players an opportunity for affective understanding, the cooperation needed and
34
the feelings of success have parallels to integrative negotiation, where the needs
of both parties are met. Pandemic and other cooperation based games suggest
interesting ways to model integrative negotiations. Based on this review, there
were a number of design mechanics that were appropriate for Souper Bowl.
Souper Bowl
Souper Bowl: Game Description
Figure 5: Picture of Souper Bowl from Winter Thesis Show
Game Setup
The game is setup with two players with computers, sitting at a table across from
each other. Players access the website where the game is hosted. Players are
presented with an overview of the game, rules, and scenarios.
35
Game Introduction
Each player plays the role of an antique collector who will be negotiating with the
other player. Upon creating accounts, the players start a game with each other.
Both players play as antique collectors and are randomly assigned a role and
presented with a written description and numerous photographs describing the
first scenario. The scenario is comprised of three phases: planning, negotiation,
and growth.
Phase 1: Planning
Figure 6: Picture of the Planning Phase Screen Capture
During the planning phase, each player receives different information about a
scenario. The information includes a high level overview of the scenario along
with a series of digital polaroids. The front of each polaroid shows an image of
the subject matter and a descriptive title. The back of each polaroid gives
36
scenario relevant information about the subject matter on the front of the
polaroid. In some scenarios there are also informational audio clips. Players are
also prompted an optional step of making a plan which explores empathetic
cognitive understanding. Players are given an unlimited amount of time to read
and prepare for their negotiation.
Phase 2: Negotiation
Figure 7: Picture of the Contract that the Player Inputs
When the players are ready, they begin the negotiation phase. During the
negotiation phase, the players have one hour to reach an agreement or decide
not to agree. The players will primarily interact with each other and have very
little player-computer interaction. During this phase, players have three rules by
which they must abide:
37
a) Information given to the players by the scenario are to be treated as facts.
The players cannot create new resources or otherwise modify the
information about the resources.
b) The players can tell lies about any information.
c) Players can agree to mutually pretend that time has passed.
At the end of the scenario, the players must input the results into the computer as
either a failure to reach agreement or as a contract with the relevant details.
Players also complete a survey that explores their affective state.
Phase 3: Growth
Figure 8: Picture of the Growth Phase Screen
After confirming the negotiation result, the growth phase begins, in which players
are given a summary of the results for that scenario. The players may compare
their plan (if they created one) with the actual results of their scenario. Players
38
can see some of the other data about the scenario, such as how they felt, how
much they trust the other character, and if they thought the deal was good.
Players are also given a summary of other resolutions to the scenario and how
their results differed. General empathy and negotiation tips are provided to the
players as advice. Players must wait one day before they can start the next
scenario, which begins with the planning phase and moves into negotiation and
growth.
There are currently six scenarios which explore different barriers to empathy. The
initial scenarios begin as simple negotiations with large bargaining ranges. The
following negotiations explore barriers such as lack of stake, externalities, and
negative bargaining range.
Preliminary Results
Overall, Souper Bowl as a digital experience successfully met the design goal.
During the winter thesis show, players experienced a digital version, which many
felt had too much text and was not as malleable as an earlier paper prototype. In
general, players appeared to prefer handling the physical cards and play money
over the digital version.
39
Figure 9: Picture of Players during the Growth Phase
Metrics
The project used surveys and, when possible, a live observer to aid in the
development process. The survey included quantitative and qualitative methods
to capture the player experience, with general and scenario-specific questions.
Examples of qualitative questions include the following:
 Describe the scenario in one sentence
 How would you describe your experience?
 Describe what was your resolution to the scenario
 Describe what you liked about the experience
 Describe what you didn’t like about the experience
40
Examples of the quantitative questions, which players were asked to rate on a
scale from 1 to 10 (with 1 equivalent to low/bad and 10 equivalent to high/good),
are as follows:
 What is your character’s level of trust with the other character?
 How do you feel about the character you negotiated with?
 What is your level of satisfaction about the deal or lack of the deal?
 How good of a deal was it for the other party?
Early metrics were focused on surveying the players after each scenario. Some
of the later metrics were used both before and after the scenario. In total,
nineteen of the playtest groups were surveyed. One problem with the metrics
was that they did not fully capture the experience, particularly when empathy
occurred. The results that provided the richest data on player empathy came
from the survey’s qualitative questions and through direct observation of most
playtests by an impartial third party. The presence of a third party may have had
an impact on the results, but for the purposes of development this was deemed
necessary.
The different methods of data collection occasionally yielded inconsistent results.
Self-reported surveys showed some data that did not match the observed results.
In particular, the quantitative data had large disparities between the observations
and the self-reported values. For example, in one negotiation, Alice was trying to
41
take advantage of Bob. Bob said aloud that he would not take the deal because
he thought Alice was lying. However, in the reported values for trust, both Bob
and Alice marked five, or neutral. While such an inconsistency may be due to a
variety of factors, this sort of behavior was not uncommon in the surveys.
The metrics evolved as various lessons were learned and applied to the game
design. A number of iterations were explored in the quantitative surveys, which
involved rewording, asking different questions, removing questions, and
rearranging questions. In the end, the quantitative questions yielded the least
useful results, while the open-ended qualitative questions generally yielded
results that aligned with the observed behavior.
For further study, a new system would need to be developed to obtain more
accurate self-reported results. While the qualitative questions provided richer and
more detailed representations of the player experiences, survey fatigue may
cause such questions to lose their value. Survey fatigue may have occurred
when pre- and post-experience surveys were conducted to capture players’
cognitive understanding of the scenarios.
Observations
During the playtests, a number of noteworthy moments occurred that illustrate a
variety and depth of player interaction (see Appendix A for a summary of results).
42
The situations described below are taken from the experiences and observations
of different sets of playtesters. For confidentiality and simplicity, player names
are replaced with the fictional names of “Alice” and “Bob” in each situation.
Don’t Talk Down
During the second scenario, Alice was offering a deal to Bob. From a cognitive
perspective, it was a good deal for both Alice and Bob. Unfortunately, the deal
did not go through because Bob felt that Alice was condescending. Afterwards
Alice and Bob discussed why the deal failed and it became apparent that Alice’s
lack of affective understanding caused Bob to reject the deal rather than the
terms of the deal itself. That negotiation dramatically transformed the way both
players interacted. The players attempted to be more empathetic in future
scenarios, even though there were many opportunities to take advantage of each
other.
The Reset
During the first few scenarios, Alice and Bob had come to a few agreements, but
in every scenario, Alice was so angry that she said she would have walked out if
it had been real life. Because the negotiations became so intensely heated, the
players were given the option to end the game or start over. The players decided
to stay as they were and to “reset” the relationship. The type of agreements and
the negotiation style was dramatically different afterwards. In hindsight I wish I
43
had not intervened, and seen if the players would have tried to be more
empathetic and repair their relationship.
Stymied by Peggle
During a trial of the first prototype, the two players were playing over Skype. Alice
made an ultimatum almost immediately after the negotiation began. Bob declined
to accept the ultimatum. After which Alice ignored Bob completely and began
playing a different digital game Peggle. Bob spent the rest of the session trying to
get Alice to talk to him. Unfortunately, the players never reconciled during the
second scenario. This was an example of an extreme lack of cognitive and
affective empathy on the part of Alice. Bob may have affected Alice’s so that she
became unintentionally irrational.
The Haggler
During a trial of the first scenario Alice was negotiating aggressively. Bob was
extremely frustrated and said, “This isn’t fun there is no way for us to come to an
agreement.” He added that he would have walked away in real life. In the end,
Bob eventually accepted Alice’s deal. During a debrief of the scenario Alice
shared that she came from a culture where haggling was common, so she was
waiting for Bob to start to walk away before relenting on the deal. Bob’s
frustration was partially caused by Alice’s lack of affective empathy for the level
of Bob’s frustration and not cognitively recognizing how cultural difference may
44
affect the negotiation. Bob’s frustration was also partially caused by Bob’s own
lack of cognitive empathy as to what the value of the object was and how Alice
was setting the negotiation price range.
Regrettable Solution
During the second scenario, Alice was determined to create an equitable
solution. Bob, on the other hand, was trying to take advantage of Alice. Alice
spent almost an hour trying to brainstorm various solutions to the scenario. In the
end, the players created the most complex contract model out of all of the
playtests. Afterwards, it was revealed that Bob wanted to change his position, but
felt he could not without undermining his earlier position and arguments. This
was a great example of one player trying to be empathetic and negotiating
integratively and the other player becoming more empathetic over the course of
the negotiation.
A common pattern emerged when one player’s extreme lack of empathy would
cause the other such distress, that the player was compelled to develop some
degree of empathy. After such scenarios, the players often discussed the
situation or showed more pro-social behavior in later sessions.
45
Implications
A few implications may be drawn from the wide variety of playtests.
1) Players who initially created a poor relationship work to improve it or quit. After
a few sessions with players that had poor affective understanding of each other
and were forced to continue to interact, the players generally attempted to
improve their relationship. This is interesting because the results of the
negotiations suggests that, if people are forced to interact through a bad initial
relationship, their empathy for each other may resolve the conflict.
2) There were a number of playthroughs where players did not spend more than
5 minutes trying to create the best possible solution. These players did not even
attempt to find an integrative solution. It is possible that haggling is not part of
everyday culture in the United States so many people were uncomfortable
negotiating. On the other hand, it is also possible that players do not want to put
in the effort, which is a significant concern, as without intent, there can be no
empathy.
3) Players did not consistently search for or try to improve integrative solutions.
With the exception of the final scenario, the attempts to find an integrative
solution were inconsistent. There area a few number of reasons why this might
have happened. It is possible that the integrative solution opportunities may have
46
been too opaque for the players. Also, the level of empathy that Souper Bowl
created may not have been adequate to drive integrative negotiations.
One caveat to the results was the playtest were not the result of a real life
simulation. Among the playtesters, most players knew their partners. However,
among the players who did not know each other well, the initial negotiations
appeared to be unfriendly and aggressive. In general, the ranges and results of
the negotiation did not vary significantly, but the tension during the negotiations
was much higher. The prior pre-existing relationship may act as a safety-net to
prevent truly unempathetic players from abusing other players, which would be
an interesting area for further study.
Potential for Empathy in Games
The results suggest that there is potential to evoke empathy in players through
these alternative game mechanics. It appears that, in a situation in which a
person creates a one-on-one relationship with another person for an
indeterminate amount of time, they would be more empathic towards each other.
However when players had a fight and reconcile, afterwards there was a lower
level of emotional intensity, which may be due to fear of becoming emotionally
invested. Thus it remains a challenge to develop methods to maintain high
emotional investment throughout the negotiation. A second challenge arises
when players decide to cooperate. To the extent that they reach empathic deals
47
and fail to find the best deal for both of them. One possible reason is that players
stop trying to create integrative solutions in the spirit of compromise and
cooperation. However, ideally to seek a truly appropriate response, both players
would continue to make an effort to find better integrative solutions.
Current Status and Next Steps
The immediate next step is to finish developing a second set of narrative
scenarios that explore empathy as it relates to groups rather than individuals.
Both players will play as the leaders of two different cultural groups of people that
meet for the first time and must negotiate to survive in the face of diminishing
resources. A new narrative is being developed primarily because feedback from
Souper Bowl indicates that players want more than money as a goal. Given that
Souper Bowl primarily explored monetary transactions, it seemed most
appropriate to create a new narrative in order to provide players with a variety of
goals.
Another area to explore is exposing indicators of our affective side to players.
Mood plays a larger role in our behavior than most people may realize. By
exposing sensor readings of indicators of our affective side to others, perhaps we
can catch ourselves before our tempers rise, or recognize when we are being
manipulated. Similarly, perhaps we can be more in tune with other people and
see how our words are affecting them.
48
There have been a number of studies that attempt to measure our affective state.
For example the Ekman “Facial action coding system” is a system for analyzing
facial recognition that exposes our emotions. (Ekman and Friesen 1982) At MIT
Rosalind Picard has explored sensors to measure affective state and found that
the sensors can be used as unreliable indicators for certain affective states.
(Picard 1997)(Picard 2003) It is unclear if players who try Souper Bowl would find
it easier or more difficult to reach a compromise given additional information on
another player’s affective state.
Conclusion
This exploration of empathy in games came from a personal experience of
traveling to the other side of the world. The trip was transformative, and as a
result I became dramatically more empathetic towards others. If the essence of
the trip could be distilled into a form which others could experience, it may have
the ability to change the world. Thus, Super Bowl was developed to explore how
to promote empathy in people on their terms and in a way that is personal to
them through games.
A critical part of this thesis was dedicated to defining empathy. The body of
literature on empathy is extraordinarily large and multi-disciplinary, with a range
of opinions on the nature of empathy and its value.
49
Souper Bowl encourages players to explore empathy with each other as they
navigate a narrative experience. It does this by creating scenarios that give the
players opportunities to explore empathy in an atmosphere of potential conflict.
The emotions players generate while playing lead them to have an authentic self-
directed experience in which they may seek to become more or less empathetic.
In many ways, Souper Bowl is not a traditional game; while there are rules and
an end, the goal was not to create a fun experience, but to indirectly promote
empathy in each individual player.
Souper Bowl is an experiment in the areas of empathy and games. It offers
players a chance to risk real emotions and feelings with other players. In doing
so, Souper Bowl may not appeal to everyone. However, after players navigate
the initial hurt feelings and continue to push on, the results suggest that they
enjoy the experience and gain a better understanding of each other.
50
Bibliography
Jonathan Belman and Mary Flanagan. "Designing Games to Foster Empathy"
Cognitive Technology, 14.2 (2010): 5-15.
Jaime Berenguer. "The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and
Behaviors" Environment and Behavior 39.2 (2007): 269-283.
Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. Ebrary Web Oct. 2011.
Jerry M. Burger, Nicole Messian, Shebani Patel, Alicia del Prado, Carmen
Anderson. "What a Coincidence! The Effects of Incidental Similarity on
Compliance" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2004): 35-43.
Simona C. S. Caravita, Paola Di Blasio, and Christina Salmivalli. "Unique and
Interactive Effects of Empathy and Social Status on Involvement in Bullying"
Social Development 18.1 (2009): 140-163.
Robert B. Cialdini. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: William
Morrow 1984. Print
Nilanjana Dasgupta and Anthony G. Greenwald. "On the Malleability of
Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice With Images of Admired
and Disliked Individuals" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81.5
(2001): 800-814.
Christian Derbaix and Michel T. Pham. "Affective reactions to consumption
situations: a pilot investigation" Journal of Economic Psychology 12 (1991): 325-
355.
Forgas, J.P. "Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM)"
Psychological Bulletin 117.1 (1995): 39-66 .
Karen E. Gerdes , Kelly F. Jackson , Jennifer L. Mullins and Elizabeth A. Segal.
"Teaching empathy: a framework rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and
social justice" Journal of Social Work Education 47.1 (Winter 2011): 109-131.
Peter R. Giancola "The moderating effects of dispositional empathy on alcohol-
related aggression in men and women." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112.2
(2003): 275-281.
51
Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. "Liberals and Conservatives
Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations" Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96.5 (2009): 1029-1046.
Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, Philip Zimbardo. "Interpersonal dynamics in a
simulated prison." International Journal of Criminology & Penology 1.1 (1973):
69-97.
Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders, and Bruce Barry. Essentials of Negotiation.
McGraw-Hill Irwin 2007. Print
"negotiate." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 1 November
2011.
Avigail Moor and Louise Silvern. "Identifying pathways linking child abuse to
psychological outcome: The mediating role of perceived parent failure of
empathy." Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6.4 (2006):91-114.
Michaele A. Mueller and Gregory A. Waas. "College students' perceptions of
suicide: The role of empathy on attitudes, evaluation, and responsiveness."
Death Studies 26.4 (2002): 325-341.
Murnighan, J. Keith. The Dynamics of Bargaining Games. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall 1991. Print
Stanley Milgram. "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 67.4 (1963): 371-8.
Jennifer G. Wheeler, William H. George, and Barbara J. Dahl. "Sexually
aggressive college males: Empathy as a moderator in the 'Confluence Model' of
sexual aggression." Personality and Individual Differences, 33.5 (2002): 759-776.
Lawrence E. Williams and John A. Bargh. "Experiencing Physical Warmth
Promotes Interpersonal Warmth" Science 322.5901 (2008):606-607.
Scott S. Wiltermut. "Synchronous activity boosts compliance with requests to
aggres" Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(2012):453-456.
52
Appendix A: Summary of Playtest Results
To differentiate the two players in each scenario, players are referred to as Alice
and Bob.
Scenario 1
● Narrative description: Alice has an incomplete collection of Langlands
antiques which is missing the bowl. Bob is an antique seller who happens
to have the Langlands bowl. Alice and Bob know of each other’s mutual
interest and attempt to make a deal.
● Negotiation description: A straight forward negotiation with a large
bargaining range and options for compromise and integrative negotiation.
Bob has a few items to sell, and Alice wishes to buy more than one of
Bob’s items. Both players share knowledge of the approximate value of
the item. The bargaining range for both players, based on their shared
knowledge of the bowl’s estimated price, is $550-$1,600.
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Alice’s BATNA: $0
○ Alice’s maximum amount: $3,000
○ Bob’s BATNA: $450
○ Bob’s minimum amount: $400
● Integrative solution range:
○ Alice has contacts who want a set of spoons and a bird cage.
53
● Positive or Negative Externalities:
○ There is an externality between the characters and the fictional
characters who have asked them for their services. If the players
decide to honor those services, there may be an impact on the
players’ connections.
● Selected player experiences:
○ One player showed a level of affective understanding: “I was happy
because the seller was also happy.”
○ Several players cognitively understood the other players: “She saw
through my ruse; I thought I did quite well in the deal, but
subsequent revelation has taught me that she was the real winner
in the exchange.” “Buyers shouldn't tell the sellers that they own the
full set. It makes it clear to the seller that the bowl is a lot more
valuable to them.”
○ One player demonstrated appropriate response: “$1,200 in a check
for the soup bowl and the spoons (that I, by the way, was believing
in my head were worth almost nothing) and $50 in cash for the
birdcage that was in terrible, terrible condition that I also believed
was not even worth $50 bucks.”
○ Three groups of players developed integrative solutions, buying the
spoons and/or bird cage.
54
Scenario 2
This scenario only occurs if there was a deal in scenario one.
● Narrative description: Alice learns that the Langlands soup bowl she
bought was an imitation. Bob’s alternative buyer, Arlo, is an auctioneer
who in scenario one had proposed some options to Bob. Arlo wants the
imitation bowl; in return, Arlo is willing to offer a real bowl. Arlo is also
willing to pay a percentage of the imitation bowl’s sale or a set price.
● Negotiation description: Alice must decide if she wants to sell her
imitation bowl back to Bob. Bob has a number of options to offer to Alice.
Bob has to weigh whether being a referrer for Alice or acting as a
middleman to Arlo and Alice.
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Alice’s BATNA: $0
○ Bob’s BATNA: -$500
○ Bob’s maximum amount: the money from the first scenario and
Arlo’s offers.
● Integrative solution range:
○ Alice has a collectible piece of pottery worth $300. Bob has a
number of options which can meet Alice’s goals.
55
● Positive or Negative Externalities:
○ There may be an externality with the players and Arlo. Depending
on if a deal is made and how the deal will work with Arlo, there can
be future impacts in their collective relationship.
● Selected player experiences:
○ One player showed a level of affective understanding: “I felt he was
very willing to make the deal -and I could get more money.”
○ Several players cognitively understood the other players: “We
decided to put the bowl up for action, I would take 30% of the
proceeds, with a minimum of $500. [The other player] would take
60%, and the auctioneer (Arlo) would take his 10%.”
○ Some players demonstrated appropriate response: “I enjoyed being
completely open and getting a better deal than I felt I would.” “I
compromised to make sure there was a deal. I spent a lot.“
○ Two groups of players developed integrative solutions that were
based on sharing any proceeds Arlo might generate from his
auction.
Scenario 3
● Narrative description: Howard and Estelle are going through a bitter
divorce and are mutual acquaintances of Alice and Bob. Howard and
Estelle have a plate they would like restored, but due to the divorce, are
56
not on speaking terms. Howard has asked Alice, and Estelle has asked
Bob, to negotiate on their behalves on the terms of the plate restoration,
after which both characters must oversee the restoration in person.
However, the couple have asked Alice and Bob to restore the plate in
such a way that it is hurtful for the other. To makes matters more
complicated, Alice has a nephew who will be in town during the
negotiation week and Bob has a personal interest in the plate.
● Negotiation description: This scenario explores how players will negotiate
if they have no personal stake in the scenario. The scenario also explores
how players will treat their relationships with their fictional friends, or their
fictional family, and their personal desires.
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Bob’s BATNA: Bob can walk away from the scenario without any
stakes.
○ Alice’s BATNA: Alice can meet with her nephew in three days.
○ Bob’s minimum amount on behalf of Estelle: Agree to seven days
of restoration.
○ Alice’s minimum on behalf of Howard: Agree to four days of
restoration beginning immediately.
● Integrative solution range:
○ Alice and Bob can agree to a solution in which they purchase the
plate from Howard and Estelle.
57
● Positive or Negative Externalities:
○ The players’ relationships with both Howard and Estelle.
○ The players’ conceptions of what is fair for either, or both, Howard
and Estelle.
○ The balance of personal versus professional desires which can be
reflected in Alice’s relationship with her nephew.
● Selected player experiences:
○ One player had trouble describing the quality of the deal from the
other player’s perspective, demonstrating difficulty with cognitive
understanding: “How do I incorporate the fact that her top priority
was to see the restoration done properly - other than that, she had
a terrible deal.”
○ Some players demonstrated appropriate response: “The honest
approach worked this time as I wanted to spend time with my
nephew. We talked through timelines and agreed everything could
be done at a reasonable pace.” “We agreed that the restoration
process would need five days, and that I would be absent one day
so I could see my nephew. We also agreed that the piece needed
to achieve a selling price of $9,000 for all of us to be happy.”
58
○ One group of players developed an integrative solution: “I thought 7
days was the amount needed to get the job done and [the other
player] agreed. We put the restoration into the future for both of our
sakes.”
Scenario 4
● Narrative description: Alice and Bob are both contacted by two groups.
The first group is a family member that is in financial trouble. The second
group is an antiques group that is willing to let Alice and Bob have limited
access to a communal credit line. Each group has a different focus. Alice
and Bob must independently decide which group they are willing to join.
Alice and Bob are also invited to attend a closed bid auction event. Arlo
from Scenarios 1 and 2 is the auctioneer, who warns the players not to
collude.
● Negotiation description: This scenario introduces a new situation in which
players are not negotiating with each other over an item, but have the
opportunity to collaborate to reduce risk. There are two auctions that the
players may bid upon. Based on which organization the players join, they
will have access to different information and resources to participate in the
scenario. The players have an opportunity to discuss in between each
auction.
59
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Both players’ BATNA: If the players decide to take part in the
auction, they may decide to not share information.
● Integrative solution range:
○ The players may share information or potential buyers of a given
item in the auction, so long as they do not collude on how they will
bid.
● Positive or Negative Externalities:
○ Players have a family member who is in trouble, which may affect
their decision.
○ The external moral code related to collusion may also affect their
decision.
○ Players will need to use the credit line for both groups to bid in
either auction. The debt will have an impact on their decision.
○ If players had a negative experience with Arlo during Scenario 2
this may also have an impact on their behavior.
● Selected player experiences:
○ This scenario provoked a negative response to cognitive
understanding, with one player stating: “Don't worry about
competing with the other player and don't collude.”
○ Some players preferred to not communicate at all: “I liked the silent
auction feel and making an educated guess on what things were. “
60
○ Some players demonstrated appropriate response: “I talked about
the items with [the other player] and then we bid.”
○ There was only one set of players that explored discussing the
items and contacts without discussing their actual bid.
○ There were a number of players who decided not to bid at all; this
may be due to risk aversion.
Scenario 5
*This scenario only occurs if the player with more money won an auction from
Scenario 4.
● Narrative description: The players’ groups provided a number of potential
buyers for the last scenario. The player with the most money has potential
buyer(s) for the auctioned items in Scenario 4; these buyers reneg on their
buying commitment. This leaves the player with inventory and no one to
sell to. The poorer player has a contact who is willing to purchase from the
richer player.
● Negotiation description: This is a negotiation which is deliberately
designed to create a negative bargaining range between the players.
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Richer player’s BATNA: They have to carry the debt of whatever
they were unable to sell.
○ Poorer player’s BATNA: $0 (no impact).
61
● Integrative solution range:
○ There is no integrative solution.
● Positive or Negative Externalities:
○ There is one potential externality which is the contact the poorer
player has for the richer player.
● Selected player experiences:
○ This scenario provoked a negative response to affective
understanding: “There wasn't anything for me to do. I didn't care
one way or another what happened with this.”
○ Some players cognitively understood the other players: “I couldn't
find a way to break even.” “A no incentive deal.”
○ Although there was a negative bargaining range, all players who
experienced this scenario decided to make a deal even if one side
was going to lose money.
Scenario 6
● Narrative description: With the past several deals, the players have gotten
to know each other better. The players have a choice about continuing to
meet each other as individuals or formalizing their relationship.
Formalizing their relationship could be as permanent as starting a
company or creating a finders fee system with each other.
62
● Negotiation description: This negotiation is to explore how the players
explicitly view their relationship with each other.
● Negotiation aspects:
○ Both players’ BATNA: they can both agree not to create a formal
relationship.
● Selected player experiences:
○ Some players demonstrated appropriate response: “I liked it as a
culmination of our evolving back and forth relationship. It was easy
to establish one way or the other what we wanted insofar as the
business plan, and the rest was simple.”
○ One player had a comment about how they were trying to avoid
emotional understanding with the other players “Trying to deflect
[the other player]'s attempts to make a business contract.”
○ All of the players who created a contract enacted strict rules to
make sure that the distribution of wealth was equal.
○ One example of a contract with an appropriate response: “It's a
60/40 split: whomever brings in the deal gets 60% of the profits,
while the other person gets 40%. That way one is rewarded for
working to bring in a deal, but isn't hurt should a dry spell happen.”

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The moonlighters: a narrative listening approach to videogame storytelling

PDF

Paralect: an example of transition focused design

PDF

Manjusaka

PDF

Outer Wilds: a game of curiosity-driven space exploration

PDF

Grayline: Creating shared narrative experience through interactive storytelling

PDF

Dissonance

PDF

Ahistoric

PDF

Feel the force

PDF

By nature: an exploration of effects of time on localized gameplay systems

PDF

Historicity and sociality in game design: adventures in ludic archaeology

PDF

Leafcutters: life simulation gameplay designed to evoke engagement with real-world subject matter

PDF

Psynchrony: finding the way forward

PDF

Resurrection/Insurrection

PDF

Intimation and experience of the self in games

PDF

Quicksilver: infinite story: procedurally generated episodic narratives for gameplay

PDF

Emotion control of player characters: creating an emotionally responsive game

PDF

Songlines: combining music and gesture to create a mythic experience

PDF

Lost together

PDF

Day[9]TV: How interactive Web television parallels game design

PDF

The ritual model: how to use the mechanics of ritual to create meaningful games

Asset Metadata

Creator Uehara, Andy (author)

Core Title Exploring empathy through negotiation

School School of Cinematic Arts

Degree Master of Fine Arts

Degree Program Interactive Media

Publication Date 05/06/2012

Defense Date 03/23/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Empathy,game design,negotiation,OAI-PMH Harvest,simulation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brinson, Peter (committee chair), Gibson, Jeremy (committee member), Hight, John (committee member)

Creator Email andy_uehara@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-33197

Unique identifier UC11288952

Identifier usctheses-c3-33197 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-UeharaAndy-788.pdf

Dmrecord 33197

Document Type Thesis

Rights Uehara, Andy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA