Playing with Empathy

Digital Role-Playing Games in Public MeetingsEric Gordon

Emerson College

Gordon, E., & Schirra, S. (2012). Playing with Empathy: Digital Role Playing Games in Public Meetings. In Communities and Technologies 2011. Presented at the

Communities and Technologies 2011, Brisbane.

Public Meetings

While nearly all U.S. municipal officials value public

engagement...• 81% agreed processes typically attracted same residents who complained or promoted favorite issues

• 68% agreed cities would make more engagement efforts and be more effective if citizens participated more constructively Barnes, W., and Mann, B. Making local democracy work: Municipal officials' views about public

engagement. Research report from the National League of Cities Center for Research and Innovation, Washington, DC (2009).

Likewise, residents doubt impacts of their participation

McComas, K. Trivial pursuits: Participant views of public meetings. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 2 (2003), 91–115.

“Forget my question. Never mind. I wouldn’t

believe the answer anyway.”

—Opening public comment, public meeting in Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Games for constructive dialogue•Not a new concept: U.S. HUD's

Model Cities Program•Trade-Off (1967): Neighborhood

role-play

PublicProcess

Game

Augmented Deliberation

Case Study: Participatory Chinatown

Can games increase empathy? Broaden perspective?

Boston's Chinatown

•46 Acre Neighborhood in Boston•Updating Chinatown Master Plan•Challenging context: Gentrified,

unique identity, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse

What's LAN got to do with it?•Internet broadens access, but face-

to-face important•Challenge: design a multi-lingual,

networked game to reframe a master planning meeting

Designing with, not for, a community• 18 youth from A-VOYCE worked

as game designers• Characters: Interviews with

residents to determine types of characters

• 3D Environment: Capture real photos of Chinatown for the in-game model

• Opportunities: What opportunities for housing, employment, and socializing exist in neighborhood?

Part I: Gameplay•Select a character/quest

•Discover local opportunities (Decision Cards)

•Make the best decision as your character

Part II: In-Room

Part III: Personal Decisionmaking

•Priority Card Screen•Rank personal values and see a

related walkable, 3D scenario (residential, commercial, mixed-use)

•Discussion about the viability of the scenarios

Research Questions•Did the experience of playing a

character affect the participant's overall experience of the planning process?

•Did the experience of playing a character affect how players made decisions during the meeting?

Methods•Participatory Chinatown was used in two meetings due to popularity. Focus for this study is on the resident-only meeting, which had 48 attendees.

•Paper surveys after meeting ( n=38; 78% response rate)

•5-point Likert scale•Eight one-on-one interviews with

participants

Results: Meeting diversity•According to local planners, the

median age of Participatory Chinatown meeting, 30, was about half the median age of typical planning meetings

•90% of survey respondents had "little or no experience" with community planning processes

Results: Empathy for Characters

• “I consider Chinatown a community I'm familiar with, but I've never thought of it from the perspective of an elder. It's nothing I've really considered. I thought that was really interesting. Just for [my character] to find seniors to associate with and have a community with so she wouldn't have to live alone.”—High school student

• "The game for me was all the characters. I feel like I have a personal relationship with all of them because I’ve lived here for so long." —Resident

Response Statement Avg Std. Dev.

AgreeI thought about my character (resident) when I picked my first choice housing, employment, or

social space card3.61 1.23

AgreeMy character’s (resident’s) needs were on my mind when I picked my first choice housing, employment,

or social space card3.57 1.18

Agree Right now, I could tell you a lot about my character’s (resident’s) life and struggles 3.65 0.68

Results: Transfer to Personal Decisions

•“I understand what you’re trying to do, but . . .”

Response Statement Avg Std. Dev.

NeutralI thought about my character (resident) when

ranking the value cards to show my [own] top three priorities for Chinatown

3.44 1.18

NeutralI considered the conversation about all the characters’ needs during the second part of

thegame, even though I was playing as myself

3.13 1.10

Challenge: Role-play and personal decisions

• No immediate correlation between role-play and personal decisions

• Immediate translation of emotional experience into a rational conclusion = difficult and ambitious

• Difficult to stretch game beyond the "magic circle"

• Different sets of rules apply in decision-making (morals, peer pressure vs points, quests)

• However, games can reframe the processes by which people make decisions

• Changes the context for the decision, not the decision itself

THANK YOU.

Eric GordonEmerson College

Eric_gordon@emerson.edu@ericbot