DEAL WITH IT / Serenity

One of the things out there that can give us more insight into coping by breaking a few things down is the structure of Primary and Secondary Appraisal (Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006). These are the two connected processes of looking at a situation to see if it is stressful and then deciding how to deal with it (being of aware of these two processes and being able to purposefully direct them would be meta-cognition).

Primary Appraisal is where we ask ourselves “Do I care?”. If we think that yes, this does matter to us and that this might take a lot of resources than the situation is judged as possibly stressful.

If so, secondary appraisal begins by asking “What can I do about it?”. Immediately tapping into your sense of control – or not – and your sense of self-efficacy – or not. It matters here that you value yourself and your skills and you recognize the abilities you have and foresee yourself applying them with vigour. It also matters that you see the situation for what it is and make a realistic judgement about how much of it can be changed. By you or by anyone else.

Secondary Appraisal continues into “What am I going to do about it?”. The answer to this question is your selected coping strategy – and more effort is not always the right answer. Sometimes in life there is really not much we can change about a situation. You would be better of trying to deal with it differently instead of trying to change it. There is no predetermined right or wrong coping strategy because it always depends. Mostly it depends on how much control you can have and how many resources you have available, emotional or otherwise.

When you choose a coping strategy that matches the amount of control you have, we call this ‘adaptive coping’ and this leads to fewer negative psychological symptoms than ‘maladaptive coping’ (Park, Folkman & Bostrom, 2001). Adaptive coping might mean that you select to do nothing because there is nothing that can be done, except deal with how you feel about it.

In my opinion this Secondary Appraisal process is most eloquently expressed in the Serenity Prayer (Reinhold Niebuhr, 1892-1971), famously used by Alcoholics Anonymous:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

 

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on DEAL WITH IT / Serenity

Rehabilitation thinking for games in health

Designing and researching games in health has underlayers of models we (unwittingly) hold on what rehabilitation should be  – and held within this our concepts of disability – driving our design decisions or the questions we ask.

Rehabilitation: all measures that aim to lessen bodily, mental or psychological disability or social isolation or the effects thereof and to guide those afflicted by it (back) into society

(Franke, 2010).

Following this definition every measure that was intended to lessen suffering should be thought of as rehabilitation. It would follow that any measure intended to rehabilitate someone is ‘rehabilitation’ regardless of the effect of such a measure, at the same time the definition does not leave room for measures that might not have been intended to rehabilitate but in effect lessen a person’s disability. Here we find the same hopeful designer-driven definition as we do in Serious Games versus the more effect driven definition of Serious Gaming (see my chapter Understanding Serious Gaming for more on this).

In the application of gaming in rehabilitation we can often recognise INTEGRATION and even SEGREGATION thinking. Supposedly, a subgroup of humans (the disabled) is in need of games that are different from games for ‘normal’ people. In this line of thinking segregation occurs for example when hard- and software platforms are especially built for the disabled. An integration approach would be to build different games for the disabled but using the same platform as ‘normal’ players.

When a game is prescribed as part of a therapy – when the game is on a device made exclusively for the disabled and the gameplay is entirely focused on rehabilitative action, than these games adhere to the MEDICAL or NATURAL MODEL. In this model of thinking disease is an opposite state to health and never the twain shall meet. The SALUTOGENESE MODEL views health and disease not as a dichotomy but as a gliding scale (Lindstrom, 2010). In this model every person at every moment in their lives is healthy to some extend and unhealthy to some extend. So even when we are diagnosed as diseased (by the medical model) there are parts of our lives in which we are healthy. Thinking within either the medical or the salutogenese model leads to a different approach of the player and possibilities for gameplay. One can approach the design as for the ‘disabled’ or for a ‘player with a disability’.

Some definitions of disability concern the limitations in the expression of individuality, normality, adaptation and differentiation (Franke, 2010). Games can allow for all different kinds of expression by their designers and by their players. They move in between the realms of art, exploration, creation and learning.  There are different ways in which mediated games could be used to bend limitations of expression that disabled people might struggle with. A game designed in such a way that the experience of a disabled person may be shared with any another human being connects the gameplay to the Right of Community and Participation (Franke, 2010).

Posted in Games, Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Rehabilitation thinking for games in health

Keep your arousal high

We often think of the responses of our body and our emotional state as linked to our performance. “My heart is racing. I am terribly nervous because I am no good at…..”. However, this is not necessarily a valid conclusion. ‘Nervous’ is a combination of a physical state (aroused) and an emotional one (anxious) which is attached to a moral judgement of your behaviour (no good). Seems logical. But the response of our body could have been attached to a different judgement, accompanied by a different emotion and it would seem just as logical. “My heart is racing. I am all pumped up and ready to go rock this….”. You still have an aroused physical state but with a positive emotion (excitement) and the moral judgement turns the other way (all good).

One of the factors determining the likelihood of you going emotionally one way or the other is your sense of self-efficacy. People with a high sense of self-efficacy tend to see arousal as some extra push by their body, a trigger to ACT. People with a low sense of self-efficacy interpret the same arousal as an obstacle. A sign to stop and sit down until the arousal goes away or even worse, they take it as a sign that their capabilities are insufficient and that they cannot possibly do this.

The advice we get to combat nervousness and plummeting self-esteem often targets our level of arousal: sit down and take a few breaths – in through your nose, down to your belly button and out your mouth. Sound familiar? You could also, perhaps more effectively, leave your arousal where it is and try to change your emotional state by focusing on what is going to make this a positive experience for you. Connect it to some core value you have, play with it and shape it in some way you would actually enjoy experiencing it.

Most importantly focus on that which YOU believe you can do – connect it to where your self-efficacy is highest and start shaping it from there. Keep your arousal high and let it work for you. Your higher heart rate makes you more alert and gives all your senses a boost to perform at their best. It is the same experience of an athlete, crouched down and ready to race.

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Does a game prompt make us excited? Small online experiment

Finally online at ResearchGate – my presentation during Berlin Playweek 2016 at the Researching Games Barcamp

The effect of a Game Prompt on Self-Efficacy concering problem solving challenges of living with Diabetes type II.

 

Initial results, would love to know your thoughts or comments on @ThePrisca

Posted in Games, Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Metacognition: Discussing a definition

‘Thinking about thinking’ had been cited by Flavell before the eighties as a “promising new area of investigation” coining the term metacognition. “Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them. […] Metacognition refers, among other things, to the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects on which they bear, usually in the serve of some concrete goal or objective”. (Flavell, 1976, p. 232)

Still fuzziness continued in the fields of psychology and education around terms such as ‘strategic knowledge’. Great discrepancy existed in the definition of strategic knowledge, most apparent in the research area of problem solving, even though a debate on this issue had been in the literature for over a decade at that time.

“To some, strategies are general processes that operate across domains (e.g.,Gillingham, Garner, Guthrie, & Sawyer, 1988; Roth, 1985), whereas to others they are compilations or extensions of domain-specific knowledge  (e.g.,Chi, 1985; Rabinowitz & Chi, 1987). Furthermore, while some researchers investigate a singular strategy, such as mapping (Resnick,1982), others investigate complex, interrelated groups of strategies such as summarizing, predicting, and verifying (e.g.,Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Schoenfeld, 1985).” (Alexander & Judy, 1988, p. 381.)

After having discussed the concepts of strategic knowledge and metacognition for another two decades in the fields of cognitive research and learning theories, a need was clear for a higher level connection of concepts:

“Traditional developmental research in memory and reasoning, as well as current investigations in such disparate areas as theory of mind, epistemological understanding, knowledge acquisition, and problem solving, share the need to invoke a meta-level of cognition in explaining their respective phenomena.” (Kuhn, 2000, p. 178).

At that time there were several models and definitions of metacognition (which had replaced strategic knowledge as the umbrella term). These models and definitions are discussed, summarized and distilled in 2002 by Pintrich:

“Metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge of general strategies that might be used for different tasks, knowledge of the conditions under which these strategies might be used, knowledge of the extent to which the strategies are effective, and knowledge of self (Flavell, 1979; Pintrich et al., 2000; Schneider & Pressley, 1997).” (Pintrich, 2002).

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Workshop Spelenderwijs 6 oktober

6 oktober 2015, 10:00 – 16:30 uur, Amsterdam
Interesse in gamification? Staat u op het punt om spel serieus te gaan gebruiken? Tijdens deze workshop krijgt u een inleiding in de wereld van doelmatig spelen. U gaat naar huis met nieuwe kennis en inzichten en de juiste vragen om verder te kunnen.

De Psychologie van Game Based Learning en Gamification
Steeds vaker in educatie, HRM en productontwikkeling maakt men gebruik van spel of spelelementen. Door middel van game-based-learning, serious games, applied games, gameful design of gamification willen we allemaal gebruik maken van onze neiging to spelen.

Werkbare wetenschap
Tijdens deze intensieve dag krijgt u een beter begrip van van wat serious gaming en gamification is en wanneer het wel/niet werkt. Deze workshop biedt u een fundament in de wetenschappelijk kennis van de psychologische processen achter en onder spelstructuren.

Stap-sprong-vraag
U neemt uw eigen – abstracte of zeer specifieke – vraagstuk mee naar de workshop om mee aan de slag te gaan. Aan de hand van uw eigen vraagstuk doorlopen we gelijktijdig psychologische theorie, resultaten uit onderzoek en de mogelijkheden voor toepassing. Samen bespreken wij verschillende voorbeelden en onderzoeken we de toepassing voor uw eigen vraagstuk en de mogelijkheden voor andere deelnemers. Als deelnemer bent u tijdens de dag gestructureerd en open aan het brainstormen. U denkt mee, stelt vragen en wordt bevraagd.

De kracht van spelen in je vingers
U verkent de relevante achtergronden uit de sociale wetenschappen, krijgt kennis uit toegepaste psychologie samengevat en verrijkt uzelf met inzichten uit gaming-onderzoek.

We behandelen onder andere
– spelen, spel en spelelementen
– de leerkracht van spel
– extrinsiek vs. intrinsieke motivatie
– Self Determination Theory
– psychologisch welzijn
– Flow
– spelerstypen
– Fogg Behaviour Model
– narritiviteit
– verschillende vormen van feedback
– Points, Badges & Leaderboards.

Deelnemers en kosten
Deze workshop is gemaakt voor een volle dag voor maximaal 12 deelnemers. Kosten € 260,- per persoon (excl. btw). Inclusief catering, readers, dagverslag & follow-up. Mail naar priscillaharing[at]hotmail.com om u aan te melden & voor verdere vragen.

”De vraag hoe maak ik het leuk/hoe bouw ik spel-elementen in coaching en training komt regelmatig boven en daar pas ik delen van de theorie uit de workshop bij toe. Het is voor mij vooral een kader en een anker.”
Paul de Vries, StudiumGenerale – Hogeschool Utrecht.

“De workshop heeft mij inzicht gegeven in de markt en achtergronden van gamification. Het model van hoe dat te benaderen was heel inzichtelijk en handzaam.”
Henriëtte van Strijland, marketeer.

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment