Trading Accuracy for Enjoyment? Data Quality and Player Experience in Data Collection Games
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Games have become a popular way of collecting human subject data, based on the premise that they are more engaging than surveys or experiments, but generate equally valid data. However, this premise has not been empirically tested. In response, we designed a game for eliciting linguistic data following Intrinsic Elicitation – a design approach aiming to minimise validity threats in data collection games – and compared it to an equivalent linguistics experiment as control. In a preregistered study and replication (n=96 and n=136), using two different ways of operationalising accuracy, the game generated substantially more enjoyment (d=.70,.73) and substantially less accurate data (d=-.68, -.40) – though still more accurate than random responding. We conclude that for certain data types data collection games may present a serious trade-off between participant enjoyment and data quality, identify possible causes of lower data quality for future research, reflect on our design approach, and urge games HCI researchers to use careful controls where appropriate.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Differences in the sequence of data pre-processing steps have been found to produce radically different ML results.
“Differences in the sequence of data pre-processing steps have been found to produce radically different ML results (e.g.correcting the data for missing values using imputation can affect outliers in the dataset) [27].”
From A Survey of Data Quality Requirements That Matter in ML Development Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
Persuasive System Design Does Matter: a Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-based Interventions
Kelders, S. M., Kok, R. N., Ossebaard, H. C., & Van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2104 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation
Furnham, A. (1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0 · Cited by 1,033 · see citing works
Lumsden, J., Edwards, E. A., Lawrence, N. S., Coyle, D., & Munafò, M. R. (2016) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/games.5888 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Shallow Gamification: Testing Psychological Effects of Framing an Activity as a Game
Lieberoth, A. (2015) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/1555412014559978 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Coutrot, A., Schmidt, S., Coutrot, L., Pittman, J., Hong, L., Wiener, J. M., Hölscher, C., Dalton, R. C., Hornberger, M., & Spiers, H. J. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213272 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing for Cognitive Science – The Utility of Smartphones
Brown, H. R., Zeidman, P., Smittenaar, P., Adams, R. A., McNab, F., Rutledge, R. B., & Dolan, R. J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100662 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Gamification of Mobile Experience Sampling Improves Data Quality and Quantity
van Berkel, N., Goncalves, J., Hosio, S., & Kostakos, V. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3130972 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Data Quality Requirements That Matter in ML Development Pipelines
Priestley, M., O’donnell, F., & Simperl, E. (2023) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3592616 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gundry, D., & Deterding, S.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Venue
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-04-27
- Pages
- 1-14
- OpenAlex
- W4225335161
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 4.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Research at York St John (York St John University) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L015846/1, EP/M023265/1)
- Arts and Humanities Research Council (EP/M023265/1)
- Innovate UK (EP/M023265/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Keywords
- gamification, data quality, language elicitation, accuracy trade-off, pre-registered replication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review