Image by LenardPro - source: DeviantArt
First a mild warning: if you're a gamer, like me, you won't like this probably, but please keep reading and watch the videos. I think you'll be glad you did.
Everybody knows the name Pavlov, and what it means to have a "Pavlov reaction":
Pavlovian conditioning: A method to cause a reflex response or behavior by training with repetitive action. The Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov conditioned dogs to respond in what proved to be a predictable manner.
source: MedicineNet
Now Pavlov experimented on dogs mostly and his mor famous experiment was the one in which he made dogs salivate when hearing a bell ring, just by ringing that bell before each dinner. He got the idea for this experiment in conditioning when he noticed that his dogs would start to salivate as soon as he entered the room, regardless if he brought food with him.
This conditioning was further studied and greatly enhanced by B.F. Skinner, who's claim to fame are his experiments on pigeons; he conditioned these small-brain birds to do all sorts of tasks by the same method of conditioning. The environment in which the experiments were being done even have become their own expression now: the Skinner Box. Here's a short video of how he teaches a pigeon to make a full counter-clockwise turn:
Now, if it works on pigeons and dogs and monkeys... why wouldn't it work on humans? This question got answered by a games researcher at Microsoft called John Hopson who wrote an article called "Behavioral Game Design" back in 2001:
The contingencies in computer games are more complex, but the analogy is clear enough. For example, players in an RPG earn experience points to gain levels or collect bonus items to gain extra lives. In an arcade-style game, power-ups appear at random intervals, or only when certain conditions are met. As in any contingency, there are actions on the part of the participant which provide a reward under specific circumstances. This is not to say that players are the same as rats, but that there are general rules of learning which apply equally to both.
source: Gamasutra - April 27, 2001
The article deals with the art of getting gamers hooked on repeating the same actions over and over again whether they like it or not, by strategically balance the parameters of time invested, actions and rewards. The "need" for the use of these conditioning-techniques has increased greatly since that article from 2001. Where games publishers once were happy to sell a number of copies of a game, they're now increasingly changing that to a subscription-based form of merchandising, like in the many MMORPG's out there.
Also, when we've put a certain amount of time and effort in obtaining a reward, our brains automatically assign some value to the reward, regardless if it's a virtual item that has no meaning whatsoever in real life. But what about real life? Are we being conditioned into certain behavioral patterns in our daily life? You bet ya! If you don't believe you're "being gamed" right now, then watch this video about our not too distant future, and tell me what the chances are of this not happening:
Dancing with Pepsi-cans, growing plants in your car, gaining experience points for doing homework... Behavioral conditioning is something that just happens; don't ever forget that ultimately we are each other's Skinner Box. But if we let making a profit be our main guide for behavioral manipulation, in a panopticon-society that would put Orwell to shame, the world of tomorrow doesn't look pretty at all. The technology is unstoppable, so this will happen. Best get rid of the scarcity-mindset beforehand!
The same Microsoft game researcher from earlier also wrote an article 10 years after the original in 2001. It has become a very famous article it seems:
It's been translated into multiple languages and assigned as homework. It's been cited by academics, pilloried by the Huffington Post, and even lampooned by my childhood favorite, Cracked magazine.
source: Gamasutra - June 15, 2012
He brings a little more balance to the story by stating this:
While the science underlying these techniques is true and the techniques do work, they are not the Philosopher's Stone of game design. Classic behavioral psychology is a nice simple model of certain basic mental processes, but it falls down when trying to explain the totality of human behavior. There's a reason why modern psychology consists of more than just behaviorism!
source: Gamasutra - June 15, 2012
I am not reassured though. The examples he uses are just not right:
Consider the use of loyalty cards at a coffee-shop. It is a contingency, exactly like the game contingencies covered in the original article. Indeed, it should be more powerful than game contingencies because it provides tangible real world benefits. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that "buy 10 lattes, get 1 free" is manipulative or too powerful for the average person to resist. (The chemical properties of caffeine notwithstanding.)
source: Gamasutra - June 15, 2012
The whole point is to "gamify" that whole point system so that it becomes more than just a boring collecting-game, as explained in the previous video. So I'd say: stay vigilant!
Thanks so much for visiting and reading my blog! I hope it wasn't so depressing that you won't return tomorrow. But until then, keep gaming consciously and keep steeming!
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
@helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.