=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2637/paper9
|storemode=property
|title=Green gamification: How gamified information presentation affects pro-environmental behavior
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2637/paper9.pdf
|volume=Vol-2637
|authors=Tobias Wolf
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/Wolf20
}}
==Green gamification: How gamified information presentation affects pro-environmental behavior==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2637/paper9.pdf
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Green gamification: How gamified information
presentation affects pro-environmental behavior
Tobias Wolf1 [0000-0002-3945-833X]
1 University of Goettingen, Platz der Goettinger Sieben 3, 37073 Goettingen, Germany
tobias.wolf@wiwi.uni-goettingen.de
Abstract. Although most people believe that climate change and sustainability
are important problems, too few actively engage in pro-environmental behavior.
Why is that? The psychological distance to the consequences of climate change
is too high. Therefore, people have the perception that their actions do not affect
climate change. Drawing on construal level theory, this research examines
whether gamified information presentation (i.e., providing information in the
form of a game with visual or numerical feedback) enhances pro-environmental
behavior by reducing the psychological distance. Results from an online experi-
ment with a follow-up survey reveal that visual feedback increases pro-environ-
mental behavior through perceived vividness, while numerical feedback works
through perceived information quality. These findings advance the understanding
of the psychological outcomes that govern how people respond to receiving en-
vironmental information in the form of gamification. Further, they provide im-
portant practical implications on how policy makers might use gamified infor-
mation presentation to nudge pro-environmental behavior.
Keywords: Gamification, Gamified Information Presentation, Pro-Environ-
mental Behavior, Sustainability, Construal Level Theory, Psychological Dis-
tance.
1 Introduction
The United Nations state that “climate change is the defining issue of our time [1].”
Due to global warming, food production is threatened, and the risk of catastrophic
flooding is rising. Increased carbon dioxide emissions are one of the main reasons for
global warming. The rise of these emissions is largely man-made. Therefore, humans
have to change their behavior drastically to ensure a sustainable life on earth [1]. Re-
cently, a shift in thinking has occurred amongst a broad population: Most people have
a pro-environmental attitude. Unfortunately, although the majority of individuals are
environmentally conscious, they do not behave in such a way. This can be explained
by psychological barriers that impede such behavioral choices [2]. Individuals often
have a high psychological distance to the effects of global environmental problems be-
cause the consequences of climate change have no immediate effect on people's own
lives [3].
Currently, there is a multitude of approaches to enhance pro-environmental behav-
ior. However, these interventions are usually not very successful since many of these
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 82
actions attempt to just educate people with information about the problems of global
sustainability [4, 5]. This information indeed raises general concerns about the environ-
ment but doesn’t trigger behavioral change, as it is perceived as complex and uninter-
esting [6]. Therefore, interventions that reduce the psychological distance to the conse-
quences of environmental problems and elicit an actual shift in behavior are needed.
I suggest that gamification has the potential to address these challenges. Gamifica-
tion has emerged as a technological trend that transfers the features of games to non-
game contexts [7, 8]. Studies in different fields, such as health, education, and market-
ing, have already shown that gamification influences people's behavior [9]. However,
the few studies in the field of sustainability do not provide conclusive findings on
whether gamification affects actual pro-environmental behavior [4, 5, 10].
Hence, this research aims to understand whether and how gamification can increase
pro-environmental behavior. In order to reach this goal, first, I draw on one of the de-
fining traits of games – immediate feedback [11]. Games and gamification provide in-
formation in terms of feedback, which is a response to past behavior and directly re-
flects the consequences of one’s actions [12]. Second, based on construal level theory
(CLT), I argue that the psychological distance should be reduced by the gamified in-
formation presentation (i.e., providing information using a game) because the feedback
makes the effects of own behavior more vivid and helpful [13]. CLT posits that people
act differently based on their perceived psychological distance and that low psycholog-
ical distance induces people to become active [14, 15]. Therefore, I posit that gamifi-
cation in terms of gamified information presentation can enhance pro-environmental
behavior due to the reduction of psychological distance. Thus, the gamified information
presentation should increase perceived vividness and information quality which accord-
ingly should encourage pro-environmental behavior.
I conducted an online experiment with a follow-up survey two weeks later, combined
with a diary approach. In the experiment, the subjects were confronted with daily deci-
sions that affect their carbon dioxide emissions differently. An effective total of 450
subjects took part in the study. Each participant was facing either one of three different
types of gamified information presentation (visual feedback, numerical feedback, vis-
ual and numerical feedback combined) or no gamified information presentation, where
the subjects received the same information, but not in the form of personal feedback on
their own actions. The results of seemingly unrelated regressions provide evidence that
gamified information presentation enhances pro-environmental behavior. While visual
feedback works through increased vividness, numerical feedback enhances perceived
information quality.
The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, by examining the relationship be-
tween gamified information presentation and pro-environmental behavior, this study
expands the previous literature on gamification and sustainability [e.g., 4, 10]. Second,
by drawing on CLT and psychological distance, this study brings a new theoretical
perspective on how gamification motivates behavior [9]. Third, the insights into the
effect of gamification and the different types of gamified information presentation on
pro-environmental behavior are valuable for policy makers and environmental organi-
zations, as they reveal an effective intervention on how to nudge people towards more
sustainable behavior.
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 83
2 Conceptual framework
2.1 Gamification and pro-environmental behavior
Gamification aims to transfer features of games to non-game contexts in order to evoke
a gameful experience [7, 8]. Accordingly, a user should perceive a gamified situation
or an interaction with a gamified service similar to playing a game even if in a serious
context [9]. To accomplish this, gamification is based on the “ludus” concept [7]; i.e.,
the fundamental characteristics of games like goals, rules, structure, and feedback
should be transferred into the non-game context [11]. Through these components, gam-
ification presents and conveys information differently. People take an active part in the
presentation of information and experience information in a gameful way. Hence, using
a game or game elements to convey information refers to gamified information presen-
tation [13]. I emphasize that feedback is key to perceiving and processing information
differently from conventional forms of information presentation. Feedback gives peo-
ple direct information about their individual behavior which makes it more likely that
they modify their future actions [12]. More precisely, in games, people receive concrete
and immediate information about the consequences of their choices and what might
have happened with alternative decisions. This helps them to reflect on their behavior
and shows how changes in behavior might have a relevant impact [16]. Literature on
information presentation often distinguishes between visual and numerical feedback.
Visual feedback describes the animation that reacts to the behavior or decision of the
user in a game: A dynamic change of graphics, color schemes, and other visual stimuli
takes place [16]. Numerical feedback, on the other hand, gives people feedback on ac-
tions by using numbers. Various numerical formats exist to represent information, such
as percentages or odds [17]. Games often use both types of feedback.
In light of growing environmental problems, the scientific discussion of approaches
to promote pro-environmental behavior is increasing. Pro-environmental behavior re-
fers to actions that consciously aim to minimize the negative effects of one's actions on
nature [18]. This includes a wide variety of activities. Previous studies in gamification
literature mostly focus on energy consumption [4, 5, 10]. While the studies predomi-
nantly imply that gamification has a positive effect on the intention to reduce energy
consumption, the effect on actual pro-environmental behavior is uncertain due to op-
posing results [e.g., 4, 10]. To examine this relationship, this study utilizes the paradigm
that raising awareness of the effects of personal actions can contribute to changed in-
tentions and behaviors [12]. For this reason, this study focuses on gamified information
presentation in which feedback has a decisive role in conveying information. I draw on
CLT to explain how differences in giving and processing information affect behavior.
2.2 Construal level theory
The CLT by Trope and Liberman [14] is an influential approach on how psychological
distance influences individuals’ thoughts and behaviors. The theory differentiates be-
tween a high and a low level of construal. CLT assumes that people mentally construe
situations that are psychologically close in terms of low-level, detailed, and contextu-
alized features, rather than at a distance where they construe the events in terms of high-
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 84
level, abstract, and stable characteristics. Research has shown that different dimensions
of psychological distance (time, space, social, and hypothetical) influence one’s mental
construal which in turn guides prediction, evaluation, and behavior [14]. People regu-
larly have a high psychological distance to climate change. For example, people in Eu-
rope have a high construal regarding a persistent dry season in Africa as a consequence
of climate change because of the spatial distance. Also, in most cases, the effects of
current environmentally harmful activities manifest decades later. This temporal dis-
tance leads to high levels of abstraction [2]. Such high psychological distance inhibits
behavioral change [15]. The psychological distance of people should be detectable with
constructs that represent ones’ mental abstraction level, such as vividness and infor-
mation quality.
Vividness of presentation describes a presentation of information that is character-
ized by clarity and liveliness. Perceived vivid information is emotionally appealing,
imaginary-provoking, and causes sensory, temporal and spatial proximity [19]. It
should be noted that vividness is not a stimulus but represents the reaction of individuals
to stimuli. Since vivid information or events appear concrete, this corresponds to low-
level construals and should be based on a low psychological distance [14, 15].
Information quality is assessed by the degree to which an information is perceived
as helpful in completing a particular task [20]. Information quality is a multidimen-
sional construct. The dimensions understandability, accuracy, relevancy, and appropri-
ate amount of information appear to be particularly important in the context of (gami-
fied) information presentation [21]. To educate people, the perceived understandability
and accuracy of information is essential to reduce the complexity of content. At the
same time, personally relevant content increases the attention of users and facilitates
the absorption of information. An appropriate amount of information helps to process
that information effectively with the available cognitive resources [22]. Consequently,
it can be assumed that depending on the perceived information quality, individuals ex-
perience information or situations either concrete or abstract. At low-level construals,
people perceive events as understandable and relevant, thus experiencing higher infor-
mation quality [14].
2.3 Conceptual model
As mentioned before, the effects of climate change are abstract for many individuals
[2]. I assume that with the use of gamification, the psychological distance decreases
and the presented information is perceived as more vivid and of higher quality. The
gamified information presentation in the form of different feedback types (visual feed-
back, numerical feedback, and visual and numerical feedback combined) simulate the
impact of people’s choices on the environment and thereby will reinforce first the in-
tention of pro-environmental behavior and subsequently resulting in actual pro-envi-
ronmental behavior through perceived vividness and information quality (see Fig. 1).
Based on the theoretical consideration of CLT, it can be expected that gamified in-
formation presentation will create a more concrete level of representation by giving
feedback in various forms. This lower representation level will be reflected by in-
creased perceived vividness and information quality [14, 15]. More precisely, visual
feedback in games (e.g., animations or videos) directly conveys sensory information
that allows a person to experience how their behavior affects the environment. Thus,
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 85
visual feedback can be used to simulate the consequences of one's behavior, which are
very close to reality. This experience will ultimately increase the perceived vividness
of presentation [13]. While the strength of visual feedback is the simplification and
vividness of information, numerical feedback is particularly concrete and accurate [17].
Statistical information alone is often not meaningful for individuals, but numerical in-
formation in terms of feedback on one’s behavior becomes more relevant for the indi-
vidual. Further, with gamified information presentation, it is possible to give the appro-
priate amount of information and express them in a comprehensible manner [22, 23].
Thereby, numerical feedback will mainly increase the perceived information quality. A
concrete level of representation via vividness or information quality goes hand in hand
with a lower psychological distance and thus is associated with more intense behavioral
responses [14, 15]. Ultimately, the strongest reactions can be observed with direct ex-
periences. Hence, experience via simulation of the consequences of climate change
with gamified information presentation should lead first to pro-environmental behavior
intention and subsequently to actual pro-environmental behavior [13, 24].
Fig. 1. Research Model
3 Method
3.1 Design, sample, and procedure
To test the research model, I used a one-factorial (visual feedback vs. numerical feed-
back vs. visual and numerical feedback combined vs. no gamified information presen-
tation) between-subjects design. I collected data through an online experiment distrib-
uted via university channels and across social media. As an incentive for taking part,
four vouchers, worth a total of $100, were raffled among all participants. I received 493
replies. Responses from participants who did not complete the experiment, finished in
an unrealistic time, or answered click-through questions incorrectly were removed from
further analysis, resulting in an effective sample of 450 respondents (66% female, Mage
= 29) with 113 in the visual feedback group, 111 in the numerical feedback group, 122
in the combined visual and numerical group, and 104 in the no gamified information
presentation control group. To assess their actual pro-environmental behavior, partici-
pants were invited to take part in a follow-up survey two weeks later. Therefore, a diary
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 86
approach was used to increase the reliability and validity of the answers [25]. Out of
these 450 participants, 146 responded in the follow-up survey two weeks later. The
participant distribution between the groups is similar to the initial distribution of the
sample.
In the experiment, first, participants were introduced to the topic of the experiment
and then rated their pro-environmental behavior for the last two weeks. Following, the
subjects were instructed to imagine themselves in a typical student's day with nine rou-
tine tasks, ranging from showering in the morning, how they travel to the university to
what they cook in the evening. Afterward, participants were randomly assigned to one
of four scenarios: visual feedback, numerical feedback, visual and numerical feedback
combined, or common information presentation. In the visual feedback scenario, par-
ticipants were informed that they have to choose between options on how to carry out
each of these nine routine activities. The participants were encouraged to base their
decision on their behavior in their own lives. For example, in the shower routine, the
subjects chose between a 15-degree Celsius (cold) and a 35-degree Celsius (warm)
shower. Based on their decision, they received visual feedback after each activity in the
form of a tree, which bloomed if the option selected generates less carbon dioxide emis-
sions or decayed if a less sustainable choice was made. The development of the tree
was dynamic and adapted after each answer. After all nine decisions were made, the
full spectrum of how the tree could have developed was revealed. The numerical feed-
back scenario was identical to the visual one, except participants were given feedback
in the form of a specific carbon dioxide emission figure, which was issued by the par-
ticipants' choices. The total carbon emissions were summed up after each decision.
Also, the participants were shown the emissions of the alternative choices and at the
end of all nine activities, the minimum and maximum of the carbon emissions were
displayed. The third scenario with visual and numerical feedback was a combination of
the two previous scenarios. Accordingly, the course was the same and the subjects re-
ceived feedback in the form of a changing tree and the number of caused carbon emis-
sions. The last scenario with no gamified information presentation served as a control
group. Here participants received the information about the different options on how to
perform the nine daily routines and how many carbon emissions each option causes,
but they didn’t choose between them. Thus, the subjects didn’t get specific feedback on
the choices they make in their daily life. After the scenarios, participants answered
questions concerning their perceived vividness, information quality, pro-environmental
behavior intentions, and several control variables (e.g., demographics and specific be-
havior habits). In the follow-up survey, the participants answered questions about their
pro-environmental behavior in the last two weeks based on their diary entries.
3.2 Measures
I used seven-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”) to
capture all items if not stated otherwise. I included the different gamified information
presentation types as dummy variables based on the assigned group. I measured vivid-
ness using six items (e.g., “The presentation of the information brought concrete images
or mental pictures to my mind.”; [13]) and information quality using twelve items as it
is a multidimensional construct (e.g., “The information is easy to understand.”; [20,
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 87
21]). To allow for independent mediators, I used regression-based factor scores to cap-
ture vividness and information quality. To measure pro-environmental behavior inten-
tion and actual pro-environmental behavior, I adapted three items (e.g., “I (intend to)
engage in environmentally friendly behavior.”; [26]). Cronbach’s alphas confirm high
reliability for all constructs (α ≥ .84). To eliminate confounds, I included controls for
individual-specific factors: previous pro-environmental behavior using three items
[26], age, and gender using single-items. Additionally, I controlled for a potential self-
selection bias by applying Heckman's two-step correction procedure [27]. Data and
items are available upon request.
4 Results
I adopted seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) to test the research model [28]. The
SUR method allows the estimation of direct and indirect effects of different regressions
simultaneously in order to assess mediation effects [29]. Table 1 presents the direct
effects estimated by the SUR. The results show positive and significant effects of visual
feedback and visual and numerical feedback combined on vividness in reference to no
gamified information presentation. Numerical feedback alone has no significant effect
on vividness. However, numerical feedback as well as visual and numerical feedback
combined have a positive and significant effect on information quality, while visual
feedback alone, in reference to gamified information presentation, has no effect on in-
formation quality. Further, both vividness and information quality show positive sig-
nificant effects on pro-environmental behavior intention. Also, all gamified information
presentation types (vs. no gamified information presentation) have positive and signif-
icant direct effects on pro-environmental behavior intention. Lastly, pro-environmental
behavior intention shows a positive and significant effect on the actual behavior.
To test the indirect effects of gamified information presentation on pro-environmen-
tal behavior, I estimated direct and indirect effects simultaneously. I employed boot-
strapped SUR (5,000 draws), building on an empirical sampling distribution of the in-
direct effects. The results provide significant evidence that visual feedback has a posi-
tive effect on pro-environmental behavior mediated by vividness (β1δ1𝜁1 = .05; 95%
confidence interval [CI]: lower-level confidence interval [LLCI] = .01, upper-level con-
fidence interval [ULCI] = .13), while numerical feedback has a positive effect on the
actual behavior mediated by information quality (γ2δ2𝜁1 = .03; 95% CI: LLCI = .00,
ULCI = .11). Visual and numerical feedback combined (vs. no gamified information
presentation) show an indirect positive effect on pro-environmental behavior mediated
by both vividness (β3δ1𝜁1 = .05; 95% CI: LLCI = .01, ULCI = .14) and information
quality (γ3δ2𝜁1 = .02; 95% CI: LLCI = .00, ULCI = .07). Further, chi-squared tests can-
not confirm that combined feedback in form of visual and numerical feedback increases
the pro-environmental behavior more than visual or numerical feedback alone (χ2(1) ≤
1.76; p > .05).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 88
Table 1. Results for the direct effects
VIV IQU PEI PEB
Independent variable Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE
Constant -.86*** .15 -.43* .17 3.93***.30 .65 .79
Gamified information presentation
Visual feedback .97*** .11 .01 .14 .54*** .16 .18 .22
Numerical feedback .12 .14 .79*** .13 .51*** .16 .03 .21
Visual and numerical feedback .92*** .11 .55*** .13 .44* .18 .08 .22
Mediators
Vividness .21*** .06 .10 .10
Information Quality .19** .06 .07 .10
Pro-env. behavior intention .22** .07
Controls
Age .01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 .01 .01
Female .39*** .09 .15 .10 .41*** .12 -.18 .16
Previous pro-environmental behavior .27*** .05 .57*** .07
Heckman correction factor .65 .79
Adj. R² .23 .11 .24 .49
Notes. VIV, IQU, PEI, PEB refers to vividness, information quality, pro-environmental behavior
intention, pro-environmental behavior. N = 450 (146) for the first three (last) equations. To ac-
count for heteroscedasticity, I estimated all models using robust standard errors.
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001.
5 Discussion
The results of the study are meaningful for policy makers and environmental organiza-
tions searching for a tool to effectively nudge pro-environmental behavior. First and
foremost, the results demonstrate that gamified information presentation (vs. common
information presentation) can enhance pro-environmental behavior and thereby sup-
ports findings of previous studies showing that gamification can positively influence
sustainable behavior [e.g., 4]. The effect can be explained by the reduction of psycho-
logical distance to the consequences of climate change, which is represented by in-
creased perceived vividness and information quality. By giving visual and numerical
feedback, gamification makes information tangible and expands one's perspective by
the reflection of personal behavior. While visual feedback increases the vividness of
information, people perceive higher information quality through numerical feedback.
However, the results show additional direct effects for all types of gamified information
presentation on pro-environmental behavior intention compared to conventional infor-
mation presentation, implying further differences.
5.1 Research and practical implications
The findings are relevant for gamification research in general and for sustainability re-
search in particular. First, by examining the impact of gamified information presenta-
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 89
tion on pro-environmental behavior in terms of different feedback types, the study ex-
pands the previous literature on gamification and sustainability [e.g., 4, 10]. The re-
search responds to the call for more reliable and valid studies [5] by investigating actual
pro-environmental behavior and not only the intention while simultaneously comparing
the effects with common information presentation. Second, drawing on CLT and psy-
chological distance, I introduce a new theoretical perspective on how gamification mo-
tivates behavior. While most gamification research applies traditional motivation theo-
ries, such as self-determination theory, goal setting theory or flow theory, CLT and the
examined constructs of vividness and information quality can broaden the findings of
psychological outcomes of gamification [9].
The findings suggest that public policy makers and environmental organizations
should rely on gamification to enhance pro-environmental behavior. The high psycho-
logical distance of people towards the effects of climate change can be lowered by using
gamification to alter information presentation and perception.
5.2 Limitations and further research
This research has some limitations that offer fruitful avenues for future research. In this
study, the participants only received gamified information presentation at one point in
time. It would be interesting to investigate how continuous feedback via a gamified app
affects pro-environmental behavior. Although this study captured actual behavior over
a period of two weeks, this does not indicate a long-term effect of gamification on pro-
environmental behavior. Further, the results suggest that gamified information presen-
tation triggers pro-environmental behavior intention through other psychological paths
than perceived vividness and information quality. Future research could tap into other
potential psychological outcomes, such as perceived playfulness.
References
1. Nations, U.: Climate Change, https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/,
last accessed 2019/10/20.
2. Gifford, R.: The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change
mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66, 290–302 (2011).
3. Duan, R., Zwickle, A., Takahashi, B.: A construal-level perspective of climate change
images in US newspapers. Clim. Change. 142, 345–360 (2017).
4. Ro, M., Brauer, M., Kuntz, K., Shukla, R., Bensch, I.: Making Cool Choices for
sustainability: Testing the effectiveness of a game-based approach to promoting pro-
environmental behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 20–30 (2017).
5. Johnson, D., Horton, E., Mulcahy, R., Foth, M.: Gamification and serious games within the
domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 73, 249–264 (2017).
6. Reeves, B., Cummings, J.J., Scarborough, J.K., Yeykelis, L.: Increasing Energy Efficiency
With Entertainment Media: An Experimental and Field Test of the Influence of a Social
Game on Performance of Energy Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 47, 102–115 (2015).
7. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification.” In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11. pp. 9–
15. , Tampere, Finland (2011).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 90
8. Huotari, K., Hamari, J.: A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service
marketing literature. Electron. Mark. 27, 21–31 (2017).
9. Koivisto, J., Hamari, J.: The rise of motivational information systems: A review of
gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 45, 191–210 (2019).
10. Wemyss, D., Cellina, F., Lobsiger-Kägi, E., de Luca, V., Castri, R.: Does it last? Long-term
impacts of an app-based behavior change intervention on household electricity savings in
Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 16–27 (2019).
11. McGonigal, J.: Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change
the World. , New York (2011).
12. Karlin, B., Zinger, J.F., Ford, R.: The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-
analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141, 1205–1227 (2015).
13. Müller-Stewens, J., Schlager, T., Häubl, G., Herrmann, A.: Gamified Information
Presentation and Consumer Adoption of Product Innovations. J. Mark. 81, 8–24 (2017).
14. Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychol. Rev.
117, 440–463 (2010).
15. Kardes, F.R., Cronley, M.L., Kim, J.: Construal-Level Effects on Preference Stability,
Preference-Behavior Correspondence, and the Suppression of Competing Brands. J.
Consum. Psychol. 16, 135–144 (2006).
16. Oxland, K.: Gameplay and Design. Addison-Wesley, Essex (2004).
17. Lipkus, I.M.: Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested
Best Practices and Future Recommendations. Med. Decis. Mak. 27, 696–713 (2007).
18. Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J.: Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2002).
19. Taylor, S.E., Thompson, S.C.: Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychol. Rev. 89,
155–181 (1982).
20. Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A., Wixom, B.H.: Antecedents of Information and System Quality:
An Empirical Examination Within the Context of Data Warehousing. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
21, 199–235 (2005).
21. Lee, Y.W., Strong, D.M., Kahn, B.K., Wang, R.Y.: AIMQ: a methodology for information
quality assessment. Inf. Manag. 40, 133–146 (2002).
22. Lee, B.-K., Lee, W.-N.: The effect of information overload on consumer choice quality in
an on-line environment. Psychol. Mark. 21, 159–183 (2004).
23. Fan, H., Poole, M.S.: What Is Personalization? Perspectives on the Design and
Implementation of Personalization in Information Systems. J. Organ. Comput. Electron.
Commer. 16, 179–202 (2006).
24. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211
(1991).
25. Bolger, N., Davis, A., Rafaeli, E.: Diary Methods: Capturing Life as it is Lived. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 54, 579–616 (2003).
26. Mancha, R.M., Yoder, C.Y.: Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent: An
environmental theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 145–154 (2015).
27. Heckman, J.J.: The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample
Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models. Ann.
Econ. Soc. Meas. 5, 475–492 (1976).
28. Zellner, A.: An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests
for Aggregation Bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57, 348 (1962).
29. Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F.: Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses:
Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42, 185–227 (2007).
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 91