Daniel J. Acland

I use data from a short, repetitive online game to explore the role of Flow Theory in motivation and game play. For each player, the Flow-Theory channel in which they are most likely to continue playing the game is identified, and players are categorized into types accordingly. Control, Boredom and Relaxation types are most common. Flow types are among the least common, making up 11% of players. Flow types have the lowest skill level, but challenge themselves the most, and are most likely to make use of self-control devices available within the game. Control types play most frequently and over a longer period of weeks. Apathy types are high skill but seek out low challenges and are least likely to make use of self-control devices. Flow and control types are more likely to play during the workday. Relaxation, boredom and apathy types are more likely to play during workday evenings.

We conduct an experiment on an online game, exploring the effect on
gameplay behavior of voluntary commitment devices that allow players to limit their gameplay. Approximately 25% of players use the devices. Median and 75th percentile device users use devices approximately 60 and 100% of the time, respectively. Players who chose to use the device were those who had previously played longer and more frequently than those who chose not to use the device. Offering the commitment devices decreased session length and session frequency by 2.8 and 6.1%, respectively, while increasing weeks of play by 5.5%. Our results are consistent with some players having self-identified self-control problems, leading to longer and more frequent play than they would prefer, and to demand for commitment, and also with commitment devices creating a more rewarding experience, leading to longerlasting involvement with the game. Our results suggest incentivizing or requiring commitment devices in computer games.

Party polarization is a central feature of American political life, and a robust literature has shown that citizens engage in partisan-confirmation bias when processing political information. At the same time, however, recent events have highlighted a rising tide of anti-government populism that manifests on both sides of the aisle. In fact, data show that large proportions of both Democrats and Republicans hold negative views of government. Using an original set of survey experiments, we examine the psychology of public-sector evaluation. We find that citizens engage in a process of confirmation bias when they encounter new information, which is driven not by party and ideology but by beliefs about the quality and efficiency of government. Taken together, our findings suggest important limitations to citizens’ capacity to learn about public administration, and expand our understanding of what drives confirmation bias with respect to public and private service provision.