Loss Aversion Explains Physical Activity Changes in a Behavioral Gamification Trial
Publication: Games for Health Journal
Volume 10, Issue Number 6
Abstract
Introduction: Loss aversion when using gamification is incompletely understood. The aim of this study was therefore to examine how participants alter their behavior vis-a-vis meeting a daily step goal based on the prospect of losing or gaining a gamification level.
Methods: We enrolled 602 participants across four arms who were given pedometers. In the three experimental arms, participants began at the medium level and were allocated 70 points each week, losing 10 points each day they did not meet their step goal. Having at least 40 points at the end of the week resulted in a level increase, otherwise they lost a level. We fit a generalized estimating equation, clustered on participants, modeling step goal attainment on day 7. Our primary predictor was a categorical variable simultaneously indicating what level the participants began the week in and whether they had more than, less than, or exactly 40 points after 6 days.
Results: Participants at risk of losing the highest level were 18.40% (confidence interval [95% CI]: 18.26–19.90) more likely to meet their step goal than those who had secured the highest level. Participants who could potentially move from the low to the medium level were 10.61% (95% CI: 9.98–11.24) more likely to meet their step goal than those in the Control group. Those in the Medium group were similarly more likely to achieve their step goal on day 7 (10.00%, 95% CI: 9.15–10.85) than those who had already secured an increase to the high level.
Discussion: We find that participants in this trial generally exhibit loss aversion so long as the loss relates to something that was earned rather than endowed. This knowledge can be incorporated in future interventions using gamification by requiring participants to earn all levels as they progress.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03311230
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185:1124–1131.
2. Gal D, Rucker DD. The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? J Consum Psychol 2018; 28:497–516.
3. Kristal AS, Whillans AV. What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 2019; 4:1–8.
4. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 1991; 106:1039–1061.
5. Sokol-Hessner P, Camerer CF, Phelps EA. Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases amygdala responses to losses. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 2012; 8:341–350.
6. Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 2007; 315:515–518.
7. Huotari K, Hamari J. Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference. 2012; pp. 17–22.
8. Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H, et al. Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2014; pp. 3025–3034.
9. Mukherjee S, Sahay A, Chandrasekhar Pammi VS, Srinivasand N. Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses. Judgm Decis Mak 2017; 12:81.
10. Bandeira Romão Tomé N, Klarkowski M, Gutwin C, et al. Risking treasure: Testing loss aversion in an adventure game. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 2020; pp. 306–320.
11. Reyna VF, Huettel SA. Reward, representation, and impulsivity: A theoretical framework for the neuroscience of risky decision making. In Reyna VF and Zayas V (eds.), The Neuroscience of Risky Decision Making, American Psychological Association, 2014; pp. 11–42.
12. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychol Bull 1997; 121:3.
13. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med 2012; 43:101–116.
14. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 1991; 5:193–206.
15. Arora R, Stoner C, Arora A. Using framing and credibility to incorporate exercise and fitness in individuals' lifestyle. J Consum Market. 2006; 23:199–207.
16. Patel MS, Small DS, Harrison JD, et al. Effectiveness of behaviorally designed gamification interventions with social incentives for increasing physical activity among overweight and obese adults across the united states: The step up randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179:1624–1632.
17. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol 1986; 15:413– 419.
18. Zeger SL, Liang K-Y, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988; 1049–1060.
19. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 57:6–15.
20. Radloff LS. The ces-d scale: A self-report depression scale for re- search in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977; 1:385– 401.
21. Duckworth AL, Quinn PD. Development and validation of the short grit scale (grit–s). J Pers Assess 2009; 91:166–174.
22. Buysse DJ, Reynolds III CF, Monk TH, et al. Quantification of subjective sleep quality in healthy elderly men and women using the pittsburgh sleep quality index (psqi). Sleep 1991; 14:331–338.
23. Winefield HR, Winefield AH, Tiggemann M. Social support and psychological well-being in young adults: The multi-dimensional support scale. J Pers Assess 1992; 58:198–210.
24. Hough LM. The'big five'personality variables–construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Hum Perform 1992; 5:139–155,.
25. Blais A-R, Weber EU. A domain-specific risk-taking (dospert) scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak 2006; 1:33–47.
26. Sardi L, Idri A, José Luis Fernández-Alemán. A systematic review of gamification in e-health. J Biomed Inform 2017; 71:31–48.
27. Gelman A, Pardoe I. 2. average predictive comparisons for models with nonlinearity, interactions, and variance components. Sociol Methodol 2007; 37:23–51.
28. Freedman DA, et al. Bootstrapping regression models. Ann Stat 1981; 9:1218–1228.
29. Sakamoto M, Nakajima T, Alexandrova T. Value-based design for gamifying daily activities. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. 2012; pp. 421–424.
30. Knetsch J, Thaler R. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 1991; 5:193–206.
31. Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, and Jonathan AC Sterne. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: A simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166:646–655.
32. Gächter S, Johnson EJ, Herrmann A. Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Theory and Decision, 2021; pp. 1–26.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Games for Health Journal
Volume 10 • Issue Number 6 • December 2021
Pages: 430 - 436
PubMed: 34860130
Copyright
Copyright 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published in print: December 2021
Published online: 1 December 2021
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure Statement
M.P. reported receiving personal fees as the owner of Catalyst Health LLC, stock options from LifeVest Health, personal fees, and stock options from HealthMine, Inc., personal fees from Holistic Industries, and personal fees from Deloitte Consulting LLP outside the submitted work. G.S. reported being employed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. J.G. reported receiving personal fees from Deloitte Consulting LLP during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. D.S. reported receiving personal fees from Deloitte Consulting LLP during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work and having a patent planned outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding Information
This work was funded by Deloitte Consulting LLC and the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.