skip to main content
10.1145/3313831.3376571acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Introducing Gamettes: A Playful Approach for Capturing Decision-Making for Informing Behavioral Models

Published:23 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Agent-based simulations are widely used for modeling human behavior in various contexts. However, such simulations may oversimplify human decision-making. We propose the use of Gamettes to extract rich data on human decision-making and help in improving the human behavioral aspects of models underlying agent-based simulations. We show how Gamettes are designed and provide empirical validation for using Gamettes in an experimental supply chain setting to study human decision-making. Our results show that Gamettes are successful in capturing the expected behaviors and patterns in supply chain decisions, and, thus, we find evidence for the capability of Gamettes to inform behavioral models.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper444pv.mp4

mp4

3.4 MB

References

  1. Nilesh Anand, David Meijer, JHR Van Duin, Lóránt Tavasszy, and Sebastiaan Meijer. 2016. Validation of an agent based model using a participatory simulation gaming approach: the case of city logistics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 71 (2016), 489--499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Nasrin Asgari, Ehsan Nikbakhsh, Alex Hill, and Reza Zanjirani Farahani. 2016. Supply chain management 1982--2015: a review. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 27, 3 (2016), 353--379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. William Sims Bainbridge. 2007. The scientifc research potential of virtual worlds. science 317, 5837 (2007), 472--476.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Olivier Barreteau, Martine Antona, Patrick D'Aquino, Sigrid Aubert, Stanislas Boissau, François Bousquet, William's Daré, Michel Etienne, Christophe Le Page, Raphaël Mathevet, and others. 2003. Our companion modelling approach. (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Olivier Barreteau, Pieter Bots, Katherine Daniell, Michel Etienne, Pascal Perez, Cécile Barnaud, Didier Bazile, Nicolas Becu, Jean-Christophe Castella, William's Daré, and others. 2017. Participatory approaches. In Simulating Social Complexity. Springer, 253--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Olivier Barreteau, François Bousquet, Michel Étienne, Véronique Souchère, and Patrick d'Aquino. 2014. Companion modelling: a method of adaptive and participatory research. In Companion Modelling. Springer, 13--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jim Blascovich and Jeremy Bailenson. 2011. Infnite reality: Avatars, eternal life, new worlds, and the dawn of the virtual revolution. William Morrow & Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eric Bonabeau. 2002. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 99, suppl 3 (2002), 7280--7287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sally Brailsford, Tillal Eldabi, Martin Kunc, Navonil Mustafee, and Andres F Osorio. 2018. Hybrid simulation modelling in operational research: A state-of-the-art review. European Journal of Operational Research (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Stefano Cacciaguerra and Matteo Rofflli. 2005. Agent-based participatory simulation activities for the emergence of complex social behaviours. Proceedings of Social Inspired Computing'05 (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Eduardo Calvillo-Gámez, Jeremy Gow, and Paul Cairns. 2011. Introduction to special issue: Video games as research instruments. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. PC Campo, François Bousquet, and TR Villanueva. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders within a development project. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 11 (2010), 1302--1321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. David E Cantor and John R Macdonald. 2009. Decision-making in the supply chain: examining problem solving approaches and information availability. Journal of Operations Management 27, 3 (2009), 220--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Adrien Treuille, Janos Barbero, Jeehyung Lee, Michael Beenen, Andrew Leaver-Fay, David Baker, Zoran Popovi´ c, and others. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 7307 (2010), 756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rachel Croson and Karen Donohue. 2006. Behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect and the observed value of inventory information. Management science 52, 3 (2006), 323--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Rachel Croson, Karen Donohue, Elena Katok, and John Sterman. 2014. Order stability in supply chains: Coordination risk and the role of coordination stock. Production and Operations Management 23, 2 (2014), 176--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defning gamifcation. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. ACM, 9--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ignacio X Domínguez, Rogelio E Cardona-Rivera, James K Vance, and David L Roberts. 2016. The mimesis effect: The effect of roles on player choice in interactive narrative role-playing games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3438--3449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Rozhin Doroudi, Rana Azghandi, Zlatan Feric, Omid Mohaddesi, Yifan Sun, Jacqueline Griffn, Ozlem Ergun, David Kaeli, Pedro Sequeira, Stacy Marsella, and others. 2018. An integrated simulation framework for examining resiliency in pharmaceutical supply chains considering human behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2018 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press, 88--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Magy Seif El-Nasr, Anders Drachen, and Alessandro Canossa. 2016. Game analytics. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michel Étienne. 2013. Companion modelling: a participatory approach to support sustainable development. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiara Franzoni and Henry Sauermann. 2014. Crowd science: The organization of scientifc research in open collaborative projects. Research policy 43, 1 (2014), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Paul Guyot and Shinichi Honiden. 2006. Agent-based participatory simulations: Merging multi-agent systems and role-playing games. Journal of Artifcial Societies and Social Simulation 9, 4 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Casper Harteveld, Nolan Manning, Farah Abu-Arja, Rick Menasce, Dean Thurston, Gillian Smith, and Steven C Sutherland. 2017. Design of playful authoring tools for social and behavioral science. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion. ACM, 157--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Casper Harteveld, Sam Snodgrass, Omid Mohaddesi, Jack Hart, Tyler Corwin, and Guillermo Romera Rodriguez. 2018. The Development of a Methodology for Gamifying Surveys. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. ACM, 461--467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Casper Harteveld and Steven Sutherland. 2014. Finding the Game in Decision--Making: A Preliminary Investigation. The Shift from Teaching to Learning: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning Through Gaming Simulation (2014), 199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Casper Harteveld and Steven C Sutherland. 2017. Personalized gaming for motivating social and behavioral science participation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Workshop on Theory-Informed User Modeling for Tailoring and Personalizing Interfaces. ACM, 31--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kristy L Hawley, Maryann Mazer-Amirshahi, Mark S Zocchi, Erin R Fox, and Jesse M Pines. 2016. Longitudinal trends in US drug shortages for medications used in emergency departments (2001--2014). Academic Emergency Medicine 23, 1 (2016), 63--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Akhmad Hidayatno, Rachel Giovani Hasibuan, Girindra Chaska Wardana Nimpuno, Arry Rahmawan Destyanto, and others. 2019. Designing a Serious Simulation Game as a Learning Media of Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Biofuel Production. Energy Procedia 156 (2019), 43--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Wander Jager and Gerben van der Vegt. 2015. Management of Complex Systems: Toward Agent-Based Gaming for Policy. In Policy Practice and Digital Science. Springer, 291--303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Robert E Kass and Adrian E Raftery. 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the american statistical association 90, 430 (1995), 773--795.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jack PC Kleijnen. 2005. Supply chain simulation tools and techniques: a survey. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling 1, 1--2 (2005), 82--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Christophe Le Page and Arthur Perrotton. 2017. KILT: a modelling approach based on participatory agent-based simulation of stylized socio-ecosystems to stimulate social learning with local stakeholders. In International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation. Springer, 156--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Michela Le Pira, Edoardo Marcucci, and Valerio Gatta. 2017. Role-playing games as a mean to validate agent-based models: An application to stakeholder-driven urban freight transport policy-making. Transportation Research Procedia 27 (2017), 404--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Hau L Lee, Venkata Padmanabhan, and Seungjin Whang. 1997. The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan management review 38 (1997), 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Charles M Macal and Michael J North. 2005. Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005. IEEE, 14--pp.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. David Massey, Ola Ahlqvist, Kiril Vatev, and Johnathan Rush. 2019. A Massively Multi-user Online Game Framework for Agent-Based Spatial Simulation. In CyberGIS for Geospatial Discovery and Innovation. Springer, 213--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Edward McAuley, Terry Duncan, and Vance V Tammen. 1989. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confrmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport 60, 1 (1989), 48--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sebastiaan Meijer. 2009. The organisation of transactions: Studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Vol. 6. Wageningen Academic Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Fabien Michel, Jacques Ferber, and Alexis Drogoul. 2018. Multi-Agent Systems and Simulation: A Survey from the Agent Commu-nity's Perspective. In Multi-Agent Systems. CRC Press, 17--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Arunachalam Narayanan and Brent B Moritz. 2015. Decision making and cognition in multi-echelon supply chains: an experimental study. Production and Operations Management 24, 8 (2015), 1216--1234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Joerg Nienhaus, Arne Ziegenbein, and Paul Schönsleben. 2006. How human behaviour amplifes the bullwhip effect. A study based on the beer distribution game online. Production Planning & Control 17, 6 (2006), 547--557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Afshin Oroojlooyjadid, MohammadReza Nazari, Lawrence Snyder, and Martin Takác. 2017. A Deep Q-Network for the Beer Game: A Reinforcement Learning Algorithm to Solve Inventory Optimization Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05924 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Nathan Partlan, Elin Carstensdottir, Sam Snodgrass, Erica Kleinman, Gillian Smith, Casper Harteveld, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2018. Exploratory Automated Analysis of Structural Features of Interactive Narrative. In Fourteenth Artifcial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Vincent Peters, Geert Vissers, and Gerton Heijne. 1998. The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming 29, 1 (1998), 20--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. David V Pynadath and Stacy C Marsella. 2005. PsychSim: Modeling theory of mind with decision-theoretic agents. In IJCAI, Vol. 5. 1181--1186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. John R Raser. 1969. Simulation and society: An exploration of scientifc gaming. (1969).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Christopher A Rates, Bridget K Mulvey, and David F Feldon. 2016. Promoting conceptual change for complex systems understanding: Outcomes of an agent-based participatory simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25, 4 (2016), 610--627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Stéphane Ross, Joelle Pineau, Sébastien Paquet, and Brahim Chaib-Draa. 2008. Online planning algorithms for POMDPs. Journal of Artifcial Intelligence Research 32 (2008), 663--704.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Richard M Ryan. 1982. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of personality and social psychology 43, 3 (1982), 450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Sidney Siegel. 1956. Nonparametric methods for the behavioral sciences. New York (1956).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Christophe Simon and M Etienne. 2010. A companion modelling approach applied to forest management planning. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 11 (2010), 1371--1384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Lawrence V Snyder and Zuo-Jun Max Shen. 2011. Fundamentals of supply chain theory. Wiley Online Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Véronique Souchère, Laurent Millair, Javier Echeverria, François Bousquet, Christophe Le Page, and Michel Etienne. 2010. Co-constructing with stakeholders a role-playing game to initiate collective management of erosive runoff risks at the watershed scale. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 11 (2010), 1359--1370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. John D Sterman. 1989. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management science 35, 3 (1989), 321--339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. John D Sterman. 2006. Learning from evidence in a complex world. American journal of public health 96, 3 (2006), 505--514.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. John D Sterman and Gokhan Dogan. 2015. "I'm not hoarding, I'm just stocking up before the hoarders get here.": Behavioral causes of phantom ordering in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 39 (2015), 6--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. K Thomas. 2017. A vital drug runs low, though its base ingredient is in many kitchens. New York Times (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Sean D Vermillion, Richard J Malak, Rachel Smallman, Brittney Becker, Michale Sferra, and Sherecce Fields. 2017. An investigation on using serious gaming to study human decision-making in engineering contexts. Design Science 3 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Alexey Voinov and Francois Bousquet. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 11 (2010), 1268--1281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2007. A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values. Psychonomic bulletin & review 14, 5 (2007), 779--804.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Günter Wallner. 2019. Data Analytics Applications in Gaming and Entertainment. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Kobchai Worrapimphong, Nantana Gajaseni, Christophe Le Page, and François Bousquet. 2010. A companion modeling approach applied to fshery management. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 11 (2010), 1334--1344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Introducing Gamettes: A Playful Approach for Capturing Decision-Making for Informing Behavioral Models

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2020
        10688 pages
        ISBN:9781450367080
        DOI:10.1145/3313831

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 April 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format