Forests, not trees: field-dependent learning styles in games

11Feb09

Witkin’s cognitive theory of field dependence-independence describes a high-level cognitive control which determines the mode of interpretation and organization of the perceptual field and working memory. My assumption is that field-dependence/independence is related to other constructs in sociology and cognitive theory, namely male reason and androcentrism, and that modern videogames privilege not only male perspectives but also the male cognitive style. Males are generally more field-independent than women, a difference which may be biological but which is almost certainly also amplified as a result of social conditioning. My goal, then, is to reinvent certain patterns in game design to appeal to a more field-dependent mode of learning and performing.

This table (Garger and Guild, 1987) describes learning characteristics in field-dependents:

• Perceives globally
• Experiences in a global fashion, adheres to structures as given
• Makes broad general distinctions among concepts, sees relationships
• Social orientation
• Learns material with social content best
• Attends best to material relevant to own experience
• Requires externally defined goals and reinforcements
• Needs organization provided
• More affected by criticism
• Uses spectator approach for concept attainment

The most obviously salient points here are the suggestions that field-dependents adheres to structures as given, are more interested in social material, are more interested in material relevant to own experience (that is, they learn in order to apply, not because the learning process itself has meaning), require external goals yet are more affected by criticism, learns by spectating rather than participating. These points are the ones that seem most relevant to being attracted to and motivated by videogame structural conventions (if we consider videogames to be user-perpetuated feedback systems), because they easily map onto the evaluation and feedback systems that videogames are made up of. Don’t worry, the rest of the list will not be ignored, but I will use these points to open the discussion.

If field-dependents adhere to structures as given, I understand that they expect provided interpretative models to yield the desired outcome of interaction with a complex system. Since this is opposed to field-independents’ tendency to impose structures of restrictions, that is interpret and categorize information in order to create their own model for interacting with the system the information is perceived to belong to, I take this to mean that field-dependents prefer accurate, nonambiguous rules of engagement that they don’t have to restructure themselves when the model fails.

In other words, a field-dependent videogame user might lose interest in the game if it contradicts their expectations or experience, whereas a field-independent user will amend their model of the game’s dynamics (in the meaning of the word given by LeBlanc et al’s MDA framework (2004)). This is a fairly safe assumption, and a general rule of good design: the feedback and situations that arise from interaction with an artefact should be consistent and reinforce the user’s understanding of the way mechanics produce dynamics. This allows the user to rely more on their model of the observed dynamics, and allows the game designer to challenge the user with more complex or sophisticated permutations of these dynamics, thus maintaining user interest because reinforcing their perceptual/interpretative model yields positive/pleasurable affect.

Social material is a big challenge in game design. Since firm rules and expectations surrounding the presentation of social dynamics or social interplay don’t really exist, it’s hard to meet expectations. In my mind, there are two major branches to the social trunk in game design: The social simulation and the social environment. The simulation seeks to involve the user in situations or circumstances where interactions yield dramatically rather than systemically coded feedback. In other words, the user can understand feedback as a social value judgement. This is what makes traditional drama interesting: The playwright casts the spectator as able to relate to the protagonist, whose actions are evaluated by antagonists or supporting agents who presents different qualities of feedback. In order to avoid a full discussion of dramatic dynamics, the spectator can be said to appropriate the protagonist’s motivations and values, which are then evaluated and amended through interaction with other dramatic agents and situations. In other words, the user’s experiences and motivations are subject to conflict, and the user is offered the opportunity to reconsider and reinterpret them in accordance with the outcome of the conflict.

The social environment casts the user as participant in a context shared by multiple other participants. The social environment is not simulated and not necessarily dramatic (in that there is no conflict of motivation or values), but the context may provide structural cues that allow users to roleplay conflicts between participants, whether or not the system provides mechanics to allow for resolution of the performed conflict.

Immediately, my assumption is that field-dependent users will find the social environment more interesting that the social simulation, because the content of the social environment is more relevant to real-world experience since their actions will affect the real-world experience of a different user. On the other hand, drama such as soap operas are simulated, but presents social experiences and conflicts in a more condensed and contrast-filled fashion than real life manages, hence one definition of drama: Real life with the dull bits removed. Social simulations may also be relevant to real-world experience because they provide opportunity to apply conflict to motivations and values without any real-world consequences other than being offered the opportunity to amend and reapply those motivations and values. Drama offers the opportunity to evaluate your experiences on your own premises via a proxy instigator of conflict. As long as conflicts bear some semblance to the conflicts encountered in real life, the information gleaned from being spectator to drama may be applicable.

If field-dependents are motivated by material relevant to own experiences (that is, presumably, real-world experiences), we need to define what constitutes a real-world experience. While understanding of existing social and institutional structures are very relevant to modern-day life, experiences or knowledge that bear no relevance to the real world may still be relevant in certain social situations, such as role-playing or storytelling; both fairly common social pursuits. If this suggestion stands to reason, it is impossible to create social simulations relevant to everybody’s social experiences (as evidenced by the practically endless supply of different narratives constructed throughout recorded history), while social environments with a broad enough set of users and dynamics should be relevant to a large amount of people (as evidenced by the dominance of World of Warcraft in the game-oriented social environment market). However, even the popularity of social environments should be limited by the relevance of the setting to the desired real-world experience. In other words, the audiences of both social simulations and social environments are limited by demographics. Which is more limited by demographics is hard to tell, since social simulations (or social representations) enjoy greater awareness and recognition in the marketplace.

It is interesting to note that the setting of both social environments and simulations will influence the form of the goals imposed on the user, in other words the externally defined goals. Conversely, it’s just as valid to say that the externally defined goals, that is the goals the designer intends the user to pursue, will define the choice of the setting/context that contains the dynamics (interrelated systems of mechanics) that must be engaged with in order to reach the goal (aesthetics?). I believe an important question here is whether the user’s participation in dynamics justifies the goal, or whether the participation is justified by the goal. In either case, it seems safe to assume that user experiences should have a clearly defined goal or outcome in order for field-dependent users to want to learn to participate in them. I believe this goal or outcome is tightly coupled with the relevance of the experience to real-world experience.

Perhaps there is an element of performance here, as well? The user must enjoy positive affect in performing according to the rules of the game in order to participate, but is performance in according to the norms of the socio-cultural context a prerequisite for positive affect resulting from participation in the rules of the game? The number of compulsive players of MMOs seem to indicate that wilfull betrayal of society’s expectations to the rewards for labour-intensive time investment is part of the attraction of these games. However, these games are often more reminiscent of work than play, and perhaps the need to put in much (low-intensity, in most MMOs) labour in order to reap symbolic rewards mirror the social conditioning of socialized subjects? One of the prerequisites of a stable society is its citizens willingness to participate in labour that may not provide them with positive affect, in order to receive payment in abstract quantities that can be exchanged for materials that will provide positive affect.

If field-dependent users are more affected by criticism (whether in the colloquial or academic sense of the word), I take it to mean that harsh or unambiguous performance evaluations such as penalties or fail-states will result in negative affect. Penalties and fail-states are very common game design devices for perpetuating the player’s motivation to improve their interpretative models of the game’s dynamics, but could also be considered an archaic convention left over from the arcade game business model and one that has no particular function in the now-dominant experience-based (as opposed to mastery-based) videogames.

Since field-dependents also seem to be most comfortable with provided structures and external goals, it stands to reason that the alternative to unambiguous performance evaluations would be verbose feedback that gives the user an idea of how to amend their model of the game dynamics. This way, the game can reinforce the provided model by pointing out where the user’s actions contradicted the game’s intended dynamics. However, this mode of communication between user and game could be interpreted as spite if the user is penalized by losing progress or losing resources that may not be easily replenishable.

Many modern games already address this issue with checkpoints that automatically revives the avatar and gives the user another shot at overcoming a challenging section of gameplay. In the case of field-dependents who have little experience with games, encountering fail-states at all could be demotivating and the designer should consider an alternative to explicit fail-states by offering the user the opportunity to retry immediately, or providing some manner of affirmative feedback to allow the user to feel at ease with their performance in the game.

This suggests a game design where the player is continuously evaluated in a non-judgmental and inclusive manner, helping the user to amend errors in the conceptual model of the game’s dynamics. This doesn’t preclude competetive games or combat simulations, but it certainly implies that these kinds of games will be less attractive to the field-dependent user. A more thorough discussion of teaching and motivational styles that privileges field-dependents is required.

Filed under: Cognitive theory, Field-dependence/independence, Game design, Gender-inclusive game design   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Cognitive theory, Game design, sociology