A Motivationally Oriented Approach to Understanding ...

This article was downloaded by: [christothea herodotou] On: 05 December 2011, At: 09:00 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hihc20

A Motivationally Oriented Approach to Understanding Game Appropriation a

a

C. Herodotou , N. Winters & M. Kambouri

b

a

London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, UK

b

Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Available online: 24 Jun 2011

To cite this article: C. Herodotou, N. Winters & M. Kambouri (2012): A Motivationally Oriented Approach to Understanding Game Appropriation, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28:1, 34-47 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.566108

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 28: 34–47, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1044-7318 print / 1532-7590 online DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2011.566108

A Motivationally Oriented Approach to Understanding Game Appropriation C. Herodotou1, N. Winters1, and M. Kambouri2 1

Downloaded by [christothea herodotou] at 09:00 05 December 2011

2

London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, UK Institute of Education, University of London, UK

interesting insights (Ortutay, 2009). The age of the average gamer is 33 years old, whereas 24.2% of gamers are older than 50. Sixty-two percent of gamers are male and 38% are female. The appealing nature of digital games is evidenced by a 13% increase in video game sales (hardware, software, and accessories) in early 2009. A growth from 19% in 2008 to 25% in 2009 in online gaming activities in the United States is also reported (NPD Group, 2009). With respect to the latter, approximately 2.5 million North Americans, 2 million Europeans, and 5.5 million Asians subscribed to the MMORPG World of Warcraft (WoW) in April 2008 (Woodcock, 2008). Such widespread popularity raises questions regarding the appropriation of digital games by gamers, for instance, how and why games, such as MMORPGs, become appropriated by such a diverse sample of people and what features of the genre reinforce appropriation. Appropriation is defined as the process by which users adopt, adapt, and incorporate a technology in their practices, work, or leisure (Bar, Pisani, & Weber, 2007; Carroll, Howard, Peck, & Murphy, 2003; Carroll, Howard, Vetere, Peck, & Murphy, 2002; Dourish, 2003; Waycott, 2004, 2005). It is broader than single adoption (i.e., the decision to purchase a technology; see Rogers, 2003) or customization (Dourish, 1999, 2003) as it emphasizes not only the process by which technology is integrated into a user’s life but also their actual practice with it. Thus, through the process of appropriation “technologyas-designed” is transformed into “technology-in-use” (Carroll et al., 2003; Carroll et al., 2002). Although there has been much research on the process of technology appropriation generally, studies of game appropriation remain few and far between. From a review of the studies that have been undertaken, game appropriation has so far focused on gamers’ subversions of game code or actions that change gameplay, such as game content modifications (all of which were unintended by game designers). In particular, using the term “video game appropriation,” Postigo (2008) examined the conflicts between games’ copyright owners and fans of video games who implement changes to the game in order to modify the game experience. Postigo conceived appropriation

Game appropriation is currently not well conceptualized. What literature does exists (Griffiths & Light, 2008; Lowood, 2005; Postigo, 2008; Stalker, 2005) uses the term primarily to denote gamers’ practices beyond the designers’ original intentions, for instance, game content modifications. This article frames game appropriation in a different manner; unlike existing appropriation models, game appropriation is conceptualized as a motivational process underpinned by three primary factors: game design characteristics, social interaction, and the psychological characteristics of the gamer. The main contribution of this article is the development of the first model of game appropriation, the game appropriation model (GAM). GAM explains the process of digital games’ incorporation into gamers’ daily practices as well as the nature of their gameplay. Game appropriation recognizes the online–offline continuity; it contributes to understating gameplay as a long-term, dynamic activity, directly interrelated with a gamers’ everyday life rather than a set of defined moments of participation.

1. INTRODUCTION Over the past 25 years digital games have gradually transformed from single, colocated experiences into nonstop, socially oriented, multiplayer configurations (see section 4). The prominent genre reflecting this transformation is Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). MMORPGs constitute convenient spaces for ongoing, synchronous, social associations among a massive number of gamers. Their online implementation enables “endless” gameplay as they continue operating even when gamers’ engagement with them is interrupted (Newman, 2004). The production of gameplay is relational and contextual; it is mediated through gamers’ joint enterprise and the ever-changing situational conditions of other social agents and game structures. The widespread popularity of digital games is evident. A survey of game demographics in the United States presents some Address correspondence to N. Winters, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, 23-29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

34

35


UNDERSTANDING GAME APPROPRIATION

as gamers’ productive activities that lead to modifications of the game. Griffiths and Light (2008) adopted a similar perspective on appropriation when they examined the online play space, Habbo Hotel, and scamming practices within and around it. Appropriation is evidenced by the way some gamers attempted to steal other gamers’ account details (scamming). Game appropriation has also been approached from an artistic point of view (Lowood, 2005; Stalker, 2005). Here, art video games are the result of gamers’ alterations of the functions of the original game with associated implications on game interaction. Although unintended by game designers, these alterations comprise instances of the nature of game appropriation as captured by the game appropriation model (GAM; see sections 2 and 7). Although the aforementioned research is interesting, in particular for illuminating the nature of gamers’ practices, there remain two significant gaps in the literature. The first is research on the process by which games are adopted, adapted, and incorporated in gamers’ daily practices and the reasons reinforcing this process. The second is in-depth studies that investigate motivation as a key component of appropriation. This is important because in order to understand appropriation, we need to first understand the motivational processes that reinforce users’ gaming choices. In the current literature, motivation, though not well researched, is suggested as a potential driving force of appropriation: Researchers have commented on attractors and reinforcers as influencing the appropriation of technology (Carroll et al., 2002). In other cases, they have identified factors including, the structural features of the technology and users’ characteristics (see DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), and have utilized these as mediators of technology use (see section 5). Aspects of motivation, although not in the context of appropriation, have also been studied in order to understand engagement with online gaming (Yee, 2006, 2007a). Some of the motivational components found are advancement, socializing, and role-playing. This motivational analysis actually illuminates varied goals gamers may have during gameplay (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006), reflecting the structure and content of the game, rather than highlighting the underlying motives that promote participation in gaming (Rigby, 2004). Overall, however, the relationship between motivation and appropriation remains implicit and underexplored. In this article, motivation is presented as a core component of appropriation, thus producing a more comprehensive understanding of the appropriation process. Importantly, this moves research beyond the simple identification of how and why users choose to use a technology (see Carroll et al., 2003; Carroll et al., 2002; Waycott, 2004) to a more in-depth understanding of the set of motivations underlying the appropriation process. Moreover, this supports the development of a multifaceted account of the game experience, conceived of an integral part of gamers’ daily practices and simultaneously situated within a physical and virtual social context. Overall, this lack of research raised the need to develop the first model of game appropriation,

the GAM, in order to capture the complex nature of gameplay and explain the motivations reinforcing game use. 2. THE PRESENT EXAMINATION The objectives of this article are to (a) explain the procedure, (b) identify the factors, and (c) understand the nature of game appropriation (see Figure 1). In the next section, the concept of appropriation is critically analyzed, drawing from existing uses of the term in sociological and technological studies, in order to produce a clear definition of what constitutes appropriation. In section 3, the methodological design of the study is detailed. The way the current sociotechnological nature of gaming and existing models of appropriation, inform the exploration of game appropriation is discussed (sections 4 and 5). In sections 6 and 7, the key characteristics of game appropriation are detailed and framed into the GAM. This model thus presents the core components, and the process, of game appropriation. Section 8 summarizes the empirical validation of GAM. 3. CONCEPTS OF APPROPRIATION As Mackay and Gillespie (1992) underscored, users of the technology contribute actively and significantly to the shaping of technology through appropriation. Appropriation signifies the users’ negotiation of technology in the form of rejection, customization, and redefinition of purpose. Appropriation processes are identified at three phenomenal levels: the discursive level during which alterations are evident in language, grammar, and semantics; the institutional level in which new forms of organization and regulation are developed; and most relevant to this work, the practical level, which concerns changes to an individuals’ behavior and their procedures and routines concerning the use of the technology (Jamison & Hard, 2003). Changes at these levels can be expressed in three modes, each one indicating the degree of user conflict with designers. The first mode concerns the personalization designers allow users to make. The second mode refers to the restructure of technology’s

The nature of appropriation Actual uses

The process of appropriation • Procedure • Factors

FIG. 1.

The intersection between the process and nature of appropriation.


36

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.

elements by the users to create something new, and the third mode denotes the users’ destruction over technology to produce something new (Bar et al., 2007). Therefore, it is concluded that appropriation is implemented in various ways ranging from user-initiated personalization1 (Monk & Blom, 2007) to “unintended by designers” uses (see Griffiths & Light, 2008; Lowood, 2005; Postigo, 2008; Stalker, 2005). Appropriation is an individual phenomenon, as it is up to users to decide whether to follow designers’ suggestions or to create their own path of use. However, the concept of appropriation has been used inconsistently signifying either contextual changes (Carroll et al., 2002; Carroll et al., 2003; Jamison & Hard, 2003) or actual implementation practices (Bar et al., 2007; Brown & Perry, 2000; Degele, 1997). In this article, both perspectives are considered essential when defining appropriation as they provide exclusive information for better understanding the totality of appropriation. Appropriation is conceived in two ways, graphically represented here as two vertically intersected axes denoting the process of appropriation, on one hand, and the nature of appropriation, on the other (see Figure 1). Process is about the procedure by which a technology is appropriated by the user and the factors that reinforce the process. It answers the question of how technology is incorporated into people’s everyday activities. Thus, the process is the contextual framework of appropriation. On the other hand, the nature of appropriation stresses the actual uses of the technology or modes of use (see Bar et al., 2007) as shaped by the user. It is the “product” or “outcome” of the process of appropriation. In Jamison and Hard’s terminology, the nature of appropriation corresponds to the alterations implemented in the discursive, institutional, and practical level of technology’s use. The nature of appropriation is characterized by creativity (Degele, 1997). The division of appropriation into process and nature assisted in the exploration of game appropriation. In particular, it helped determine the suitability of existing models of appropriation for understanding game appropriation (see section 5). Furthermore, it facilitated the development of the GAM as this was structured upon the two axes shown in Figure 1. 4. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN The first step toward developing an initial model of game appropriation was the review of the current sociotechnological nature of gaming (see Table 1). This review helped to gain insights into the nature of game appropriation. The second step was to critically analyze existing models of appropriation 1 In the field of information and communication technology, personalization has been used to denote (a) the system-initiated provision of content (e.g., interface, information) tailored specifically for the user’s profile and (b) the user-initiated personalisation referring to the user’s act on the distinctiveness or appearance of a product/technology (Monk & Blom, 2007). The latter has also been identified under the terms customization or user initiated adaptability (Oppermann, Rashev, & Kinshuk, 1997; e.g., writing macros, reassigning keys).

TABLE 1 The current state of gaming Current state of gaming: characteristics 1. Open-ended, flexible game design 2. Endless gameplay: content is updated and renewed 3. Social praxis within and around the game: collective work and shared practice 4. Active role of the gamer: generator of gaming through social interaction 5. Variability in gamers’ preferences for play Note. Praxis refers to action; gamers’ collective work and communication is emphasized, which is more than the sharing of the same virtual or physical world.

in order to define their suitability for understanding game appropriation. Although there is a clear lack of specific research on game appropriation (see section 5), the ways in which current accounts may inform game appropriation can be determined. The objective was to identify if and how existing models of appropriation can explain the current nature of gaming, specifically defining which characteristics of the models map to game characteristics (see Table 2). Multiple relationships and commonalities were identified between certain aspects of each model and gaming. The overall outcome of this examination was that none of the models in isolation could explain the current nature of gaming. Therefore, a model for game appropriation was required. Working toward the development of this model, the third step was to define the key characteristics of game appropriation (see Table 3). These key characteristics were defined after considering how existing accounts of appropriation might explain the current nature of gaming (see Table 3). In particular, (a) when existing models could explain a specific feature of gaming, the feature of the model explaining gaming become a key characteristic of game appropriation and (b) when existing models failed to explain a specific feature of gaming, the specific feature become a key characteristic of game appropriation. The final step was then to analyze the key characteristics that emerged in order to assist in the development of a model for game appropriation. The next section details the first step of this examination—the analysis of the sociotechnological nature of gaming. 5. THE SOCIOTECHNOLOGICAL NATURE OF GAMES AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE GAMER In this section, the sociotechnological nature of games is analyzed to detail the current state of gaming. This analysis illuminates the context within which game appropriation is implemented and assists in evaluating existing models of appropriation and their potential to explain gaming (see section 5). MMORPGs have a distinct feature that justifies their endless nature: Game content is constantly updated by game designers offering gamers new quests to undertake, lands to

37


TABLE 2 The five models of appropriation and gaming Aspects from each model that potentially explain gaming Current state of gaming: characteristics


1. Open-ended, flexible game design 2. Endless gameplay: content is updated and renewed 3. Social praxis within and around the game: collective work and shared practice 4. Active role of the gamer: generator of gaming through social interaction 5. Variability in gamers’ preferences for play

AST Social interaction influence technology’s structures N/A

MTA Open design platforms permit greater experimentation N/A

CBAM

Instrumental Genesis

ASTAM

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Influence of the N/A group of users on how the technology is used

Social context: Collaboration when adopting an innovation

N/A

Sociocultural and individual factors explain appropriation

Active adoption and adaption of technology’s structures

Focus on the individual user

N/A

Focus on the individual user (changing process in cognition) Variation between users is implied

It is implied that appropriation is a personal phenomenon

Each user makes a distinct use of technology

Change in knowledge and skills thus use as a personal experience Change in knowledge and skills – depth of appropriation

explore, items to acquire, and monsters to kill. In particular, small-scale updates as well as expansion packages are periodically released enriching and renewing game experience. For example, three expansion packages have been released for the MMORPG, WoW (“The Burning Crusade,” “The Wrath of the Lich King,” “Cataclysm”; http://www.worldofwarcraft. com) increasing game levels from 60 to 85 and presenting new challenges for play. This design flexibility means that gamers’ choices for play are constantly evolving. Gamers can regularly alter their gameplay and structure their game experience anew. Overall, it is suggested that the current state of gaming features open-ended, flexible game designs and renewal of the game experience (see Table 1). This flexibility often leads to greater immersion as game affordances provide “a strong visceral and cognitive belief in what is experienced in the virtual context as physical reality” (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2009, p. 113). How games’ flexible design relates to existing accounts of appropriation is detailed in section 5. In addition, the role of the gamer has been altered. Gamers become actively involved in the construction of the game experience. Through constant social interactions, they generate

Variation in use due to the interaction of multiple factors

social forms of play and produce game material. Gameplay is shaped by gamers: their game choices (e.g., questing, raiding), the presence of other players, and the collaborative and competitive engagement. Gameplay is intensively social; sociality is identified within and around the game in collective sessions of gaming, online argumentations on game-related issues, the creation of intimate relationships, the exercise of existing emotional bonds and participation in communicative encounters of the physical world such as discussions with cogamers (see Carr & Oliver, 2008; Lindtner et al., 2008; Newman, 2004; Yee, 2007b). By being highly interactive, MMORPGs support a great number of user-generated experiences, which in turn sustain the intention for play and attract more users to start gaming (Lee & Tsai, 2010). The latter dimension of the constructive work of gamers stresses the creation of, for example, game guides, maps, play norms, modifications, and strategy guides (Taylor, 2006). The changing role of the gamer is exemplified by the fact that succeeding in these games is not feasible without first experiencing significant amounts of gameplay and participating in shared practice. The necessity for participation is overt in the

38

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.

TABLE 3 Existing models of appropriation and gaming Current state of gaming: characteristics (from Table 1)

Existing models of appropriation: mapping the aspects that potentially explain gaming

Key characteristics of game appropriation

1. Open-ended, flexible game design

AST: Social interaction influence technology’s structures. MTA: Open design platforms permit greater experimentation and innovation. N/A

Characteristic 1: Game design does not define gameplay


2. Endless gameplay: content is updated and renewed 3. Social praxis within and around the game: collective work and shared practice

4. Active role of the gamer: generator of gaming through social interaction

5. Variability in gamers’ preferences for play

AST: Influence of the group of users on how the technology is used CBAM: Social context: Collaboration when adopting an innovation ASTAM: Sociocultural and individual factors explain appropriation AST: Active adoption and adaption of technology’s structures MTA: Focus on the individual user CBAM: Change in knowledge and skills thus use as a personal experience Instr. Genesis: Focus on the individual user (changing process in cognition) ASTAM: It is implied that appropriation is a personal phenomenon AST: Each user makes a distinct use of technology CBAM: Change in knowledge and skills – depth of appropriation Instr. Genesis: Variation between users is implied ASTAM: Variation in use due to the interaction of multiple factors

Characteristic 2: Game design is requisite for game appropriation Characteristic 3: Social praxis configures game appropriation

Characteristic 4: Game appropriation is personal and individual-specific

Characteristic 5: Individual differences affect game appropriation

Note. AST = adaptive structuration theory; MTA = model of technology appropriation; CBAM = concerns-based adoption model; ASTAM = activity system tool appropriation model; Instr. = instrumental.

great discrepancy between the official descriptions of gaming for particular MMORPGs and actual game uses and practices (Jakobsson & Taylor, 2003). Social praxis within and around the game (i.e., collective work and shared practice) is a central characteristic of the sociotechnological nature of gaming (see Table 1). This feature will be also considered in assessing the suitability of existing models of appropriation in explaining gaming. Yee (2006, 2007a) analyzed MMORPGs and gamers’ preferences for play detailing 10 motivation subcomponents— advancement, mechanics, competition, socializing, relationship, teamwork, discovery, role-playing, customization, escapism— grouped into three main components: achievement, social, and immersion. Yee’s identification of game preferences suggests that MMORPGs offer to “different” people the potential to choose and customize their gameplay. By arguing that

MMORPGs are socially oriented, collectively created game spaces, it is not assumed that all gamers follow a similar collaborative pattern of play. On the contrary, while leveling up, gamers are more prone to solitary forms of play; even though they are surrounded by others, they act alone (Ducheneaut, Yee, Nickell, & Moore, 2006). MMORPG’s flexible design is a convenient platform for gamers to accommodate individual differences, that is, the psychological variation among gamers that explain behavioral discrepancies (see Cooper, 2002). Therefore, central to the current nature of gaming is the role of the gamer as the generator of gaming through social interaction as well as the potential of the game to accommodate various preferences for play (see Table 1). Table 1 outlines the main features of the current state of gaming. These characteristics will be used as criteria for evaluating existing accounts of appropriation and their potential to explain game use.



6. EXISTING MODELS OF APPROPRIATION AND THEIR RELATION TO GAMING In this section, existing approaches to appropriation are investigated with the dual objective of determining their suitability for helping to understand game appropriation and to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses in relation to game appropriation more generally. Considering this objective, these approaches are not exhaustively analyzed (Herodotou, 2009). The approaches are the adaptive structuration theory (AST), the model of technology appropriation (MTA), the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM), instrumental genesis, and the activity system tool appropriation model (ASTAM). The choice of these models was a result of a selective review of the literature. The models are discussed next in relation to the current state of gaming (see section 4) and their potential applicability to explaining game appropriation (see Table 2). Each model was evaluated using the core characteristics summarizing in Table 2. As any model needs to explain all game characteristics, certain aspects from each model were combined leading to the development of a theoretical account of game appropriation. This process is captured in Figure 2.

FIG. 2.

39

6.1. AST AST (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994) examines the organizational change triggered by the use of advanced information technologies. It extends Giddens’s (1979) theory by analyzing the interplay of social structures, human agents, and information technologies. AST criticizes technological determinism by stressing the influences of social groups on the use of a technology. Similar to Giddens, the process of producing and reproducing (not necessarily replicating) social structures during interaction is defined as structuration (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Structuration leads over time to institutionalization of social structures. “The immediate, visible actions that evidence deeper structuration processes” are conceived as appropriations (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, p. 128). Appropriations are not determined by technology but through the active adoption and adaption of technology’s structures through social interaction. AST and gaming. The importance of social interactions on technology’s structures as stressed by AST suggests that game design will neither be passively accepted by the gamer nor used in accordance to design principles. Instead, it is negotiated through gamers’ interactions that affect end-use (see Table 2).

The evaluation process of existing appropriation models (color figure available online).

40

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.


Moreover, by analyzing aspects of appropriation, AST proposes that each user makes a distinct use of technology. For gaming, this would imply that it is more likely that game choices are specific to each gamer: Thus, actual gameplay is the result of personal preferences for play. Furthermore, AST is also suitable for understanding game use from the perspective of the group. Gameplay is more likely influenced by the collaboration and competition with other gamers reinforcing game involvement. What raises concerns in applying AST to the case of games is the theory’s application to organizational settings. The analysis of DeSanctis and Poole (1994) corresponds to the function and elements identified within organized institutions. Gaming on the contrary, is an entertaining activity with a context that is much more fluid and defined subjectively by the gamer. 6.2. MTA MTA (Carroll et al., 2003; Carroll et al., 2002) moves beyond the organizational context to examine appropriation in leisure conditions through the analysis of young people’s attitudes and use of new technologies (information and communication technologies), in particular the use of mobile phones. It is a broad conceptual framework in which a technological artifact is designed, supplied, adopted, used, and integrated in daily use. Within this context, the process of appropriation indicates the transformation of technology as shaped by the designer to technology as modified by the user. It offers an explicit understanding of the process and the influential factors that lead people to make use of mobile phones. Factors including, for example, the expected cost and usefulness, fashion/style, and ease of use, shape the decision for purchasing the artifact. The process of appropriation begins with the decision to adopt and it is followed by the user’s deeper evaluation of the technology through usage. The technology is fully appropriated if its capabilities satisfy users’ needs. MTA and gaming. MTA investigates appropriation as emerging from the persistence use of an artifact. The application of the model is more akin to the use of games because it refers to leisure conditions and the use of new technologies at the level of the individual user. However, the factors mediating the process of appropriation are specific to mobile devices and thus of less relevance to gaming. The straightforward description of the appropriation process as facilitated or hindered by specific factors though could be applied in the case of game appropriation. In addition, MTA, by not considering the influence of social context, dismisses a crucial aspect of gaming—the existence and communication between social agents surrounding gaming (see Table 2). Finally, drawing from MTA, the appropriation of mobile phones ends when users incorporate mobile use in daily practices and persists as long as individual needs are satisfied through the use of this technology. It is therefore implied that the frequency of use of mobile phones is similar across users. The MTA does not consider the possibility of having degrees of appropriation after integrating an artifact in everyday practices. By assigning the characteristic of depth to the examination of game appropriation process, the variability observed between

gamers in terms of frequency and duration of gameplay (see Castronova, 2005; Yee, 2006) can be better explained. 6.3. CBAM CBAM (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973) constitutes a developmental, stage-defined model describing human change when adopting an innovation. Adoption denotes not only the decision to use an innovation but all actions aimed at the incorporation of the innovation into the structure of an organization. The use of the term innovation is not restricted to a newly introduced configuration; it broadly defines any process or program to be implemented (Hall & Hord, 1987). Innovation adoption is a change process that recognizes users’ influential role during this process. In CBAM, it has been described through the levels of use and the stages of concern. Eight hierarchically distinct levels for implementation characterize the different stages of use of the innovation. Each level defines the users’ depth of theoretical knowledge and degree of expertise when actually using the innovation (Hall et al., 1973). Briefly, the levels of use are Level 0: nonuse; Level I: orientation; Level II: preparation to adopt; Level III: mechanical, during which users experiment with innovation in order to become more efficient; Level IVA: routine, the use becomes stabilized because users have mastered innovation’s routines; Level IVB: refinement, users act in order to increase the effectiveness and impact of the innovation; Level V: integration, users through coordination with other users, attempt to achieve a collective impact when using the innovation; and Level VI: renewal, it is the level of major alterations to the innovation “by adding significant new and different components, or perhaps they [users] are exploring alternatives that could be used to replace it altogether” (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 86). The stages of concern refer to the concerns and problems that arise while using the innovation. At each stage of concern there is a need for resolution, that when implemented leads to a next level of use (Hall et al., 1973). In more detail, Stages 1 and 2 are self-focused; the user is interested in learning generally about the innovation (Stage 1: informational) and there is uncertainty in respect to the user’s role and demands when using the innovation (Stage 2: personal). Stage 3 (management) is task oriented; the user is engaged with the skills, materials, and time demands of the innovation. In Stages 4, 5 and 6, impact concerns evolve. Users are focused on the impact of the innovation (consequence), they coordinate with others for better and more beneficial use (collaboration), and they seek to implement major changes or effective alternatives (refocusing). CBAM and gaming. CBAM explains how users’ knowledge and skills grow while learning how to use an innovation. Its application to gaming assists in understanding game appropriation as a process of learning about games (acquisition of game knowledge) and becoming expert in gameplay (development of game skills) thus explaining the depth of appropriation. Also, it conceives change as a personal experience by acknowledging the individual user and his or her different skill levels and concerns, without ignoring the role of the social context and the



collaboration between users (see Table 2). This dimension of the model points to distinct game uses made by the single gamer as well as to the collaboration between gamers. It is thus indicating that game appropriation is both a social and personal process. CBAM’s straightforward application to the case of gaming though is not feasible due to context-specific discrepancies; CBAM has been developed to explain longitudinal processes of adoption mainly within organizational and educational settings and not a set of entertaining contemporary activities. 6.4. Instrumental Genesis Instrumental genesis originates from activity theory and Piagetian constructivist theory (Rabardel, 2002). It is structured upon the dichotomy between the tool or artifact and the instrument. A tool/artifact is any object used to carry out a task. Instruments are greater entities because they are composed simultaneously of tools and the person’s activity of using the tool. Instrumental genesis is the birth (genesis) of an instrument from a previous artifact. Tools become instruments via user’s mental utilization schemes. These cognitive schemes comprise the connection between the tool and the ways it can be used within a task, which results in the construction of instrumented action schemes (Andresen, 2005). The active psychological participation of the user is the transformation channel from tool to instrument. Appropriation is conceived as the action of “genesis.” It is focused either on the self or reality (Verillon & Andreucci, 2006). Self-oriented appropriation indicates the adaptation and integration of the tool in the user’s cognitive schemes and sequentially the evolution of the schemes. The innovative uses of a tool are the appropriation within an external context. In contrast to the design as a predetermined construction, genesis denotes the “exploratory trials submitted to partially unpredictable practical consequences” (Lorino, 2007, p. 28). When applied to education, for example, the appropriation of mathematic information and communication tools (ICT, e.g., the graphic calculator, computer algebra systems) is “a learning process of making sense of symbolizations by working with the tool in a socio-cultural praxis” (Gravemeijer, 2002, p. 19). Instrumental Genesis and gaming. Appropriation, as conceived within instrumental genesis, can be used to illuminate the process of game appropriation by the individual gamer (see Table 2). Thus the process of appropriation is an internal, personalized process that can be perceived of as the changing process in cognition resulting from game use. This is directly related to the nature of game appropriation and actual game uses. Instrumental genesis, though adequate for explaining the nature of appropriation, cannot explain the process of appropriation as no information is given with respect to the way artifacts are adopted and incorporated into the daily life of the user. 6.5. ASTAM ASTAM (Waycott, 2004) examined the way personal digital assistants are used in the workplace. Tool appropriation

41

is defined as a two-way process during which social factors influence the shaping of the tool while the use of the tool influences the formation of the activities within an activity system. ASTAM is developed upon the activity system framework. The process of tool appropriation is perceived as “an activity system in itself, where the objective of the activity is the tool being appropriated” (Waycott, 2004, p. 286). Tool appropriation is mediated by the resources in support of the activity (e.g., manuals), the existing artifacts within which the tool will be integrated, the subject’s previous experience and knowledge, the community (i.e., other people involved), and the rules and division of labor (i.e., expectations on how the tool is to be used and sharing of responsibilities to overcome technical problems). The outcome of this process is the integration of the tool into existing activities. ASTAM stresses the user’s active adaptation of the tool being evident in the various unique ways the tool is used in order to meet the user’s purposes (Waycott, 2005). ASTAM and gaming. In relation to game appropriation, ASTAM is a descriptive tool for understanding differences between individuals when appropriating games (see Table 2). The perception of tool appropriation as an activity system assists in understanding the process of game appropriation as the interaction of various sociocultural and individual factors leading to variation of use. It can thus be suggested that gaming is a personal activity situated within social conditions. ASTAM though detailing the factors influencing the process of appropriation does not explain the procedure per se.

7. FRAMING GAME APPROPRIATION The five models discussed in the previous section present both strengths and weaknesses when applied to the case of gaming. Therefore, the straightforward application of one of these models to describe game appropriation is not feasible. However, what was evident in the aforementioned analysis is that each model demonstrates certain characteristics that when combined have the potential to begin to explain game appropriation (see Table 2). In particular, complex relationships were identified between the characteristics of gaming and the models. Specific characteristics of the current state of gaming could be explained by multiple models, whereas others could not. For example, social praxis within and around gaming could be explained by AST, CBAM, and ASTAM, whereas endless gameplay could not be explained by these models. Table 3 (second column) outlines how existing models of appropriation explain the nature of gaming. The third column moves a step forward; it details the explicit relationships between the nature of gaming (column 1) and corresponding model characteristics (column 2) proposing five key characteristics of game appropriation. Each key characteristic is either (a) the outcome of the relationship between the nature of gaming and model characteristics or (b) where existing models fail to explain the nature of gaming, the specific key characteristic is derived directly from the nature of gaming. Overall, it is suggested that game


42

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.

design, social praxis, and the gamer as an individual2 motivate the process of game appropriation (see Table 3). In detail, the characteristics are as follows: Characteristic 1: Game design does not define gameplay. When released to the market, MMORPGs neither remain unchangeable nor are considered to be the final version of the product. On the contrary, game developers constantly contribute to the design reconfiguring game structures by updating content or releasing expansion packs with new content. Game appropriation differs from other technologies because the role of the game developers remains active throughout the usage of the game. For instance, the game WoW has been recently expanded with the release of the “Cataclysm,” an expansion package featuring new game content (e.g., land, quests, etc.), game characters, and five more levels for gamers to progress through. In addition, the choice of gameplay is up to the gamer and not predefined by the design. The proposed game structures are negotiated by the users within a socially abundant space. Commenting on his gameplay, a WoW gamer stressed, “When I am focus on a specific aspect, I pick up certain people with whom I know that I’ll win. . . . If you are grouped against the PC you prefer being with someone amusing” (Herodotou, 2010). In other instances, gamers take the initiative to organize events such as in-game dinners and weddings (see Figure 3). The game design is neither passively accepted nor used in accordance to design principles. The changing role of the game designers along with the active contribution of the gamers suggests that game appropriation moves away from determinism toward collaboratively defined forms of play. 2 The “gamer as an individual” refers to the examination of the gamer from a psychological point of view (e.g., personality).

FIG. 3.

The adversary relationship between technology and appropriation is also emphasized in existing models of appropriation (see section 5): Open design platforms permit greater experimentation and innovation (see Bar et al., 2007; Carroll et al., 2002). The material and technical potentials of a technology that are shaped during its production pertain to specific uses and constraints. For instance, when using a phone, little space is given for appropriation and creation by use, as a result of technology’s shaping (Degele, 1997). However, when an artifact is appropriated, it is implied that technological design does not fully define use. Instead, a reciprocal influence exists between social practice and design. Characteristic 2: Game design is requisite for game appropriation. By arguing that design does not define appropriation, it should not be assumed that the role of game design is peripheral. First, game structures provide the game choices based on which gamers configure gameplay, and second, regular updates and expansion packages provide new challenges and renew game experience. In particular for MMORPGs and their flexible game applications, it is implied that the extent of appropriation is greater than more traditional game forms, where a single pathway of gameplay is imposed. According to Dourish (2003), particular technological features encourage appropriation by breaking up the rigid boundaries of the application and allowing independency and creativity through which users are allowed to communicate their own meanings. More appropriable technologies can be designed when information and the structures and encodings become separate, offering users the potential to manage the information (Dourish, 2003). In the case of WoW, though, the potential for alterations does not include actual design parameters such as the construction of artifacts inside the virtual world (as in online social worlds

Weddings in World of Warcraft.



FIG. 4.

43

Character’s creation in World of Warcraft.

such as Second Life). The active role of the gamer is identified in defining in-game social relationships, personal forms of gameplay, and the production of game material such as game guides. In the case of WoW, the process of creating the game character (see Figure 4) is an indication of game’s flexibility; gamers can choose from a repertoire of classes, races, hair style, eye colors, and so on, and uniquely produce their game character. Also, meaningful relationships (e.g., friendships) can be created during gameplay; as stated by a WoW gamer, “After playing for a long time, we start trusting each other. . . . Sometimes we stopped playing to chat for our family, wife . . . ” (Herodotou, 2010). Affective social presence was found to promote participation in online communities (Shen & Khalifa, 2008). The role of design’s flexibility in appropriation is also stressed by AST. Drawing from AST, the design of an artifact can be analysed into “structural characteristics” and “spirit.” The former stresses the affordances of the design that enable certain actions by the user and the latter the “legitimate use”— how the artifact is expected to be used. Similarly, for gaming it is assumed that design affordances influence game appropriation by allowing or prohibiting specific actions in the game. Thus the more open-ended the design is, the greater the extent of appropriation evident in the plethora of game actions gamers can implement. Characteristic 3: Social praxis configures game appropriation. The community of gamers negotiates proposed game structures through collective practice. It is hypothesized that joint activities and constant interaction either within the virtual world or within its physical surroundings configure game appropriation. In particular for MMORPGs, it is postulated that game appropriation is socially configured

as influenced by other gamers leading to innovative forms of play. For example, colocated sessions of gaming are organized by groups of gamers because “it’s different when you have both screens in front of you. . . . You can see the view of the gamer next to you. . . . In doing instances the space is too big and the enemies may not be as close as you think . . . so it’s very useful to have the view of the person you play with” (Herodotou, 2010). In contrast to other leisure activities such as reading or listening to music, gaming is an activity not subjectively but collectively defined both online and offline. Social praxis is heavily considered in the case of game appropriation. Both AST and ASTAM stress the role of social praxis and social settings accordingly during appropriation. AST stresses the reciprocal influence between technology and social structures underlining that the structures of technology are appropriated via social interaction and reproduced over time. ASTAM refers to social settings such as technology users, designers, and implementers as influential during the appropriation process. Overall existing approaches emphasize that technological structures are adopted and adapted socially. In addition, CBAM refers to collaborative practices between users at the higher levels of use. Characteristic 4: Game appropriation is personal and individual specific. Following Yee (2006, 2007a), gamers’ preferences vary within MMORPGs. Gamers have the potential to actively engage with a rich and changing repertoire of game activities and thus appropriate games the way they prefer to. For instance, gamers can be focused on socializing, exploring the game content, competing with other gamers, working in a group, or role-play. In addition, Chen, Tu, and Wang (2008) showed that online gamers are more satisfied when playing


44

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.

games that accord with their personality characteristics. It is hypothesized that game appropriation is more likely differently shaped by each gamer. Thus it is an individual phenomenon implemented within social conditions. Further examination is required to identify whether the variability in the degree of use and personal preferences for play is associated with individual differences, specifically trait Emotional Intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2001) and basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These dimensions were chosen due to the potential to explain gamers’ preferences for play and thus the motivating nature of gaming (Herodotou, 2009). Great emphasis on the individual is given by MTA and instrumental genesis. CBAM, AST, and ASTAM also acknowledge the role of the individual when making use of a technology. Appropriation is perceived as a personal experience that varies among users. In accordance to CBAM and the levels of use, it is assumed that game use varies between nonuse and persistent use. Characteristic 5: Individual differences affect game appropriation. By arguing that game appropriation is personal, it is noted how the gamer as an individual (see footnote 2) influences the process and nature of game appropriation. In the field of games, the limited work examining the gamer as an individual have been focused on identifying different game preferences within MMORPGs (see Yee, 2006, 2007a) and investigating the role of gamers’ prior game experiences. In respect to the latter, the familiarity with specific genres and the quantity of prior game experience indicate different game preferences and consequently the necessity for a broad repertoire of game choices (Oliver & Pelletier, 2005). Such analyses, however, could penetrate deeper into understanding what underpins these choices for play by examining individual differences (see also Characteristic 4). Summarizing the five key components of game appropriation, the following is proposed: 1. Game appropriation works on two levels: the group level and the individual level (Characteristic 3: focus on social interaction, and Characteristics 4 and 5: focus on the gamer as an individual). Moving from the individual to the social level of use may have certain implications for gameplay. As stated by a WoW gamer, “It [the game] becomes boring if you don’t have someone to play with. . . . Everything is the same . . . arena, raids. . . . You get bored unless you have someone to talk with” (Herodotou, 2010). Social interaction may thus work motivationally reinforcing further gameplay. 2. Three factors influence game appropriation: game design (Characteristics 1 and 2), social praxis (Characteristic 3), and the gamer as individual (Characteristics 4 and 5). 3. The individual-specific, dynamic nature of game appropriation suggests that game appropriation is differently configured for each gamer (Characteristic 4); gamers are more likely identified to different phases of use in respect to frequency of gaming and game practices.

8. TOWARD A MODEL FOR GAME APPROPRIATION: GAM The identification of the key characteristics of game appropriation facilitated the development of a model explaining game appropriation, the GAM (see Figure 5). GAM graphically represents the main components of game appropriation: the gamer, game design, and social praxis, the levels they work on (gamer/game design: microlevel of use; social praxis: macrolevel of use), and the process of game appropriation (growth). In Figure 5, circles represent the microlevel of use. The process of game appropriation begins with the interaction between the gamer and a single game. It is hypothesized that distinct psychological characteristics of the gamer lead to specific game uses. Also, it is expected that flexible game designs will facilitate game appropriation. The “social praxis” rectangles denote the macrolevel of use. The nature of gaming changes; instead of being a solitary activity (microlevel of use), gaming moves to a higher level of use and becomes social in nature. It is characterized by constant social interactions and communication among gamers. The relationship between the micro- and macrolevels of use is an issue that requires greater elaboration in order to identify how gamers as individuals relate to the community of gamers involved in gameplay. The “growth” labels, as well as the growing size of the arrows, indicate that game appropriation develops over time and changes in nature. In particular, it is an infinite developmental continuum of use representing different degrees of involvement with games. The incorporation of games in daily practices is greater when the frequency and duration of gaming increases. In respect to the nature of game appropriation, gameplay is constantly renewed due to the changing relationships between gamers, their game choices, alterations in the design of the game (i.e., updates and expansion packages) and broadly the context within which gameplay is embedded. Thus, it is hypothesized that the nature of appropriation resembles iterative cycles of change during which new structures emerge (e.g., new forms of gaming, routines during gameplay) and old structures are transformed.

9. EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF THE GAM In this article, the theoretical development of the GAM was presented. Although, the empirical examination of the model is not a part of the current article, it is worth summarizing the process of its validation as been discussed elsewhere (Herodotou, 2009). Considering the lack of previous examinations of game appropriation, a short-scale exploratory study to test the validity of the main hypotheses of the model was conducted. Data were collected through questionnaires and in-depth interviews with a small sample of university students who gamed. Questionnaires served as screening instruments of gamers’ general involvement with gaming and their preferences while interviews gave more detailed information on the way gaming is incorporated



45

FIG. 5. The game appropriation model.

into gamers’ everyday lives. Results confirmed initial hypotheses stressing, however, that the social dimension of the GAM is far more complex than hypothesized. For instance, diverse social forms of play within gameplay as well as intense offline communication between gamers were observed. In addition, the genre-specific nature of game appropriation was revealed; game appropriation can be examined only when focused on a single game genre and the unique practices surrounding its use. This specificity is explained by the fact that game appropriation is a dynamic, contextual process influenced by the interactions between the gamer, game design, and social interaction. The second stage of examination was therefore focused on a single game genre, MMORPGs, and specifically the game WoW, being the top-selling MMORPG in the market and thus representative of the genre. The choice of MMORPGs was motivated by the recent sociotechnological transformation of games. GAM is hypothesized to be mostly applicable to MMORPGs, as the genre better manifesting these game alterations. Two complementary studies were conducted for further examination of the gamer as an individual, the social nature of gameplay, and the relationships between the main components of game appropriation. Study 1 was a large-scale online survey with 1,051 gamers of the game WoW. The aims were to identify gamers’ psychological characteristics in relation to game preferences and frequency of gaming and describe the social nature of gaming. Study 2 involved face-to-face and e-mail interviews with 13 gamers of the game WoW. The aim was the in-depth analysis of social interaction within and around gaming as well as the determination of the relationship between the gamer, social interaction and game design. Overall, drawing from the empirical iteration of the model, it was revealed that specific psychological, social, and technological factors influence in certain ways the process and nature of game appropriation. As a process game appropriation originates from the interaction between the gamer and a specific game. Design characteristics such as flexibility attract the gamer to

initiate the game experience. Social interaction is the factor that sustains involvement in gaming even when gaming becomes repetitive. Psychological characteristics of the gamer including trait emotional intelligence, and basic psychological needs determine the final social formation of gaming, which can be either social per se or instrumental serving personal ends. This process is progressively developed in terms of frequency of gaming and defined by distinct cycles of use (nature of game appropriation).

10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Our study has contributed data about the appropriation of digital games by developing the first model of game appropriation, the GAM. Specifically, game appropriation has been conceived as a dynamic, context-sensitive, and individual-specific phenomenon explained when analyzing (a) game design characteristics, (b) social interaction within and around the game, and (c) the gamer as an individual with distinct psychological characteristics. The concept of game appropriation can become a useful tool utilized by researchers involved in game analysis and situated play. The multilayered meanings accompanying the concept of situatedness ranging from “social-cultural forms” to “sensori-motoric activities” (Susi & Rambusch, 2007) have raised methodological concerns on how to capture the broad scope of gaming. Through the lenses of game appropriation, game use can be analyzed in a multidimensional way drawing from technological, social, and psychological classifications. The examination of game appropriation contributed also to debates around appropriation as a concept. The critical reviewing of existing appropriation accounts indicated that the concept was incosistently applied denoting different meanings at different contexts. Also the relationship between appropriation and motivation was relatively underexlpored. Therefore, a broader and more cohesive conceptualization of appropriation

46

C. HERODOTOU ET AL.

was proposed structured upon two axes: the process and nature of appropriation. The former indicates the process of adopting, adapting, and integrating artifacts in users’ everyday lives as well as the factors reinforcing this process, and the latter the actual uses of the artifact. Motivation is a core element of appropriation. Future work should move a step forward to more extensive empirical examinations of the concept of game appropriation, in particular, the GAM. Such examination should count for each component of game appropriation (i.e., game design, social praxis, and the gamer) and its role in appropriating games as well as identify the specific interelationships between these components.


REFERENCES Andresen, M. (2005). Instrumented techniques in the duality between tool and object perspective. In C. Winsløw (Ed.), Didactics of mathematics— The French way. Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen. Retrieved from http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob. aspx?feltid=52630. Bar, F., Pisani, F., & Weber, M. (2007, April). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: Baroque infiltration, Creolization and cannibalism. Paper presented at Seminario sobre Desarrollo Económico, Desarrollo Social y Comunicaciones Móviles en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved from http://arnic.info/Papers/Bar_ Pisani_Weber_appropriation-April07.pdf. Brown, B. A. T., & Perry, M. (2000). Why don’t telephones have off switches? Understanding the use of everyday technologies. A research note. Interacting with Computers, 12, 623–634. Carr, D., & Oliver, M. (2008, October). Tanks, chauffeurs and backseat drivers: Competence in MMORPGs. Paper presented at the Future and Reality of Gaming conference, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://fedora.phaidra.univie.ac.at/fedora/get/o:917/bdef:Content/get/ Carr-Oliver_Tanks,%20Chauffeurs%20and%20Backseat%20Drivers.pdf. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2003). From adoption to use: The process of appropriating a mobile phone. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 38–48. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002, January). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. The 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: Proceedings of a Conference, 131b. Retrieved from http://csdl2.computer. org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2002/1435/05/14350131b.pdf. Castronova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds. The business and culture of online games. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Chen, L., Tu, H., & Wang, E. (2008). Personality traits and life satisfaction among online game players. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 145–149. Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences (2nd ed.). London, UK: Arnold. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Degele, N. (1997). Appropriation of technology as a creative process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 6, 89–93. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147. Dourish, P. (1999). Evolution in the adoption and use of collaborative technologies. Position paper for the ECSCW’99 Workshop on Evolving Use of Groupware, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://doc.telin.nl/ dsweb/Get/Document-12930/Dourish.pdf. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 465–490. Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. J. (2006). “Alone together?” Exploring the social dynamics of Massively Multiplayer

Online Games. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of a Conference, 407–416. Retrieved from http://www.nickyee.com/pubs/ Ducheneaut,%20Yee,%20Nickell,%20Moore%20-%20Alone%20Together %20(2006).pdf. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London, UK: Macmillan. Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Preamble: From models to modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic pp. 7–24. Griffiths, M., & Light, B. (2008). Social networking and digital gaming media convergence: Classification and its consequences for appropriation. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 447–459. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www. eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/ 80/36/a3/68.pdf. Herodotou, C. (2009). Game appropriation: Where does the gamer fit? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Herodotou, C. (2010). Social praxis within and around online gaming: The case of World of Warcraft. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), 10–22. Jakobsson, M., & Taylor, T. L. (2003, May). The Sopranos meets EverQuest: Social networking in Massively Multiplayer Online Games. Paper presented at the Melbourne DAC Conference. Retrieved from http://hypertext.rmit. edu.au/dac/papers/Jakobsson.pdf. Jamison, A., & Hard, M. (2003). The story-lines of technological change: Innovation, construction and appropriation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15, 81–91. Lee, M. C., & Tsai, T. R. (2010). What drives people to continue to play online games? An extension of technology model and theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26, 601–620. Lindtner, S., Nardi, B., Wang, Y., Mainwaring, S., Jing, H., & Liang, W. (2008). A hybrid cultural ecology: World of Warcraft in China. Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 371–382. Retrieved from http://darrouzet-nardi.net/bonnie/fp559Lindtner.pdf. Lorino, P. (2007). The instrumental genesis of collective activity. The case of an ERP implementation in a large electricity producer (No. DR 07014). Cergy, France: ESSEC Research Center. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec. org/p/ebg/essewp/dr-07014.html. Lowood, H. (2005). Real-time performance: Machinima and game studies. The International Media and Art Association Journal, 1(3), 10–16. Mackay, H., & Gillespie, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping of technology approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 685–716. Monk, A. F., & Blom, J. O. (2007). A theory of personalisation of appearance: Quantitative evaluation of qualitatively derived data. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, 237–246. Newman, J. (2004). Videogames. London, UK: Routledge. NPD Group. (2009, March 10). Video games experience significant growth in online gaming activities [Press release]. Port Washington, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_090310a.html. Oliver, M., & Pelletier, C. (2005, June). The things we learned on Liberty Island: Designing games to help people become competent game players. Paper presented at the DiGRA Conference: Changing Views– Worlds in Play, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/3047/1/oliver2005The(online).pdf. Oppermann R., Rashev R., & Kinshuk (1997). Adaptability and adaptivity in learning systems. Knowledge Transfer, 2, 173–179. Retrieved from http:// www.fit.fraunhofer.de/~oppi/publications/kt97_gmd.pdf.


UNDERSTANDING GAME APPROPRIATION Ortutay, B. (2009). NPD: January video game sales jump 13 percent. Retrieved from http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090213/ap_on_hi_te/games_sales. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–448. Postigo, H. (2008). Video game appropriation through modifications. Attitudes concerning intellectual property among modders and fans. Convergence, 14, 59–74. Qin, H., Rau, P. L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring player immersion in the computer game narrative. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 107–133. Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology. Retrieved from http://ergoserv.psy. univ-paris8.fr/ unpublished manuscript. Rigby, S. (2004). Player motivational analysis: A model for applied research into the motivational dynamics of virtual worlds. Paper presented to the Motivation Research Group, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Ryan, R., Rigby, S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–363. Shen, K. N., & Khalifa, M. (2008). Exploring multidimensional conceptualization of social presence in the context of online communities. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24, 722–748. Stalker, P. J. (2005). Gaming in art. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www. selectparks.net/dl/PippaStalker_GamingInArt.pdf. Susi, T., & Rambusch, J. (2007). Situated play—Just a temporary blip. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2007 Conference, 730–735. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds. Exploring online game culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Verillon, P., & Andreucci, C. (2006). Artefacts and cognitive development: How do psychogenetic theories of intelligence help in understanding the influence of technical environments on the development of thought? In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education reviewing the past twenty years. (pp. 399–416). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Waycott, J. (2004). The appropriation of PDAs as learning and workplace tools: An activity theory perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University, UK.

47

Waycott, J. (2005). Appropriating tools and shaping activities: The use of PDAs in the workplace. In L. Hamill & A. Lasen (Eds.), Mobile world: Past, present and future (pp. 119–140). New York, NY: Springer. Woodcock, B. S. (2008). An analysis of MMOG subscription growth. Version 23.0. Retrieved from http://www.mmogchart.com. Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively-multiuser online graphical environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 309–329. Yee, N. (2007a). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 772–775. Yee, N. (2007b). The psychology of massively multiplayer online role-playing games: Motivations, emotional investment, relationships and problematic usage. In R. Schroder & A. S. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments. (pp. 187–207). London, UK: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.nickyee.com/ pubs/Yee%20-%20MMORPG%20Psychology%20(2006).pdf.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Christothea Herodotou holds a PhD in Digital Games and Psychology from the Institute of Education, University of London. Her main research interests relate to the multidisciplinary examination of digital games and their relation to motivation, behaviour, and daily practices. Dr. Niall Winters is a Senior Lecturer in Learning Technologies for Development at the London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London. His main research interest is in the participatory design of mobile applications and activities for education in developing regions. Dr. Maria Kambouri is a Lecturer in Research Methods in Psychology and Education at the Institute of Education, University of London. Her main research interests include the use of information and communication technologies such as computer based assessment, games, digital TV, both in learning and teaching.