The Effect of Authentic Input Devices on
Computer Game Immersion
Daniel Pietschmann, Georg Valtin, Peter Ohler
Chair of Media Psychology and Media Sociology, University of Technology Chemnitz
Abstract
A key question in the field of computer game studies is the user experience during the
gameplay. One of the main factors influencing this experience is the control mechanism that
players use to interact with the game system. With the launch of the Wii Console in 2006,
Nintendo introduced an innovative concept of controlling computer games that allows users
to manipulate and to interact with game elements on the screen by moving and pointing the
input device. The usage of game controllers with a high degree of perceptual closeness
should influence the gaming experience in such a manner that the degree of immersion is
higher compared to the usage of a regular gamepad which eventually leads to a higher
entertainment value. We conducted a study to examine the influence of the input device
players use to control a game on the immersion and perceived entertainment value. The
results of the study show, in accordance with our assumptions, that a more authentic input
device results in a higher degree of immersion and entertainment value.
Keywords: immersion, input devices, user experience, Wii, study, entertainment value
Introduction: Computer Game Immersion and User Experiences
Computer games1 are nowadays considered as one of the most important forms of
entertainment. What has been despised as a nerdy waste of time some years ago has
meanwhile been developed into a major phenomenon with a strong economy and a
noticeable cultural impact. The increasing role of computer games raised the interest of
many researchers that use a wide array of approaches and methods to scientifically explain
the phenomenon. A key question in the field of computer game studies is the user
experience during the gameplay, thus the experience resulting of the interaction between the
player and the computer game. This has proven to be a difficult subject, because the rapid
development of gaming hardware and software constantly alters the user experience. One of
the latest major developments is the increased usage of new input devices. With the launch
of the Wii console in 2006, Nintendo introduced an innovative concept of controlling
computer games. The so called Wii-Remote and Nunchuk have a built-in motion sensing
capability that allows the player to manipulate and to interact with computer game elements
seen on the screen by moving and pointing the controllers.2 Most games for the Nintendo Wii
1
Computer games and video games are used synonymously in this paper, since the differences
between the two terms are merely technical in nature. However, the term “computer games” better
emphasizes the use of computer based hardware, whereas “video games” refer to the visual
presentation on a video monitor.
2 Basically, the Wii-Controllers use a build-in accelerometer and optical sensor-technology, for details
cf. e.g. Witzmann 2007.
have been designed in a way to fully support the new control mechanism. For example,
playing a bowling game requires moving the arm and hand similar to rolling a real bowling
ball while holding the controller. Likewise, a tennis game requires holding the controller like a
racquet and performing forehand and backhand swings.3 Without much doubt, this new way
of controlling computer games has a deep impact on the player experience. To be more
specific: In our opinion, the entertainment value (“Spielspaß”) of computer games is generally
increased by the usage of controllers that provide a more realistic (or to be precise: a more
authentic) experience. In this paper, we substantiate that assumption in consideration of the
relevant theories and discuss the results of an empirical study that was conducted to confirm
it.
Researchers suggested several concepts and determinants to comprehend and to explain
the user experience during the act of playing computer games, e.g. interactivity, effectance4,
self-efficacy, control, presence and immersion (e.g. Ryan 2001, Zimmerman 2004, Klimmt
2006, Tamborini/Skalski 2006, Murray 1997, McMahan 2003). Thereof, immersion is one of
the most discussed terms and topics in the field of computer game studies with many
different approaches, e.g. from literature studies (e.g. Murray 1997) or presence research
(e.g. Slater/Wilbur 1997). As a result of the heterogeneous approaches there is a lack of a
generally accepted definition of the term “Immersion” (cf. Pietschmann 2009: 76). In our
understanding, immersion has to be considered as a psychological state of the user, similar
to concepts like flow (cf. Csikszentmihalyi 1975/2005), presence (cf. Tamborini/Skalski 2006)
and cognitive absorption (Agarwal/Karahanna 2000). Several definitions of immersion relate
to focusing ones attention “on something other than the immediate surrounding reality” and
mean, that the user is “captured by and experience[s] a story and its world, shutting out the
‘real’ world around [her]” (Gander 1999:1).5
Independent of the approaches to conceptualize immersion, researchers agree on the
existence of different forms of immersion that contribute to the construct of immersion as a
whole. Examples include visual immersion (e.g. Held/Durlach 1992), social immersion,
temporal immersion, emotional immersion or sensomotoric immersion (e.g. Ermi/Mäyrä
2005). The last-mentioned is the most relevant form of immersion for our study. Björk and
Holopainen define sensomotoric immersion as “the result of feedback loops between
repetitious movements players make to perform actions in the game and the sensory output
of the game” (Björk/Holopainen 2004 :206). Accordingly, sensomotoric immersion is the part
of immersion that occurs as the consequence of the player interacting with the (game)
system interface. Considering this as one of the most fundamental parts of computer games,
sensoric immersion seems to be a core experience during gameplay episodes. It’s closely
linked to explicit interactivity (cf. Zimmerman 2004: 158) and the resulting experience of selfefficacy (cf. Klimmt 2006: 76). Ermi and Mäyrä (2005) suggest “sensory immersion”
(synonymous to visual immersion and in their terms part of sensomotoric immersion) as one
of three key dimensions of the gameplay experience. According to their understanding,
sensory immersion is a quality characteristic of the media: “Large screens close to player’s
face and powerful sounds easily overpower the sensory information coming from the real
3
There are lots of expansions and accessories that can be attached to the default controller to give
the gaming experience an even more realistic touch. Available expansions and accessories include
golf clubs, tennis racquets, guns and swords.
4
Effectance means the perceived influence on the game world.
For a comprehensive discussion of the term immersion and its various types see Pietschmann
(2009)
5
world, and the player becomes entirely focused in the game world and its stimuli”
(Ermi/Mäyrä 2005: 7). Sensomotoric immersion puts the focus on the sensory perception as
well as the player’s body movement during the gaming experience.
The well-established Virtual Reality-Research understands sensorimotor functions
(“Sensomotorik”) as the interactions of the multiple human sensory systems (cf. e.g. Steuer
1992, Heers 2005). One of the main goals of virtual reality technology is to achieve a high
level of authenticity by an adequate stimulation the human sensory systems (cf. Held/Durlach
1992), including visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and vestibular sensory stimuli.6 It is
generally assumed that a better interplay of the multiple stimuli leads to a higher degree of
authenticity, and this, in turn, causes the state of sensomotoric immersion. We agree with
this argumentation. Therefore, sensomotoric immersion relates to the interaction of
perception and bodily reactions to the perceived stimuli.
Given the fact that both concepts are refering to a psychological state during (digital) media
usage, immersion and presence are often used in similar contexts or even synonymously.
Whereas the term presence is usually associated with “serious” virtual reality environments,
“immersion” was applied accordingly from literature to digital entertainment. Both concepts
have been accounted for in our study.
Several methods exist to measure immersion and presence empirically. Especially in the
presence research, many instruments have been developed to proof the concept in scientific
studies. Currently available methods can be categorized in subjective (questionnaires,
online-ratings or qualitative explanatory discussions/interviews) and objective (behavioural,
physio-psychological or neurological) measurements. For a comprehensive overview over 69
different methods see Van Baren and IJsselsteijn (2004). Studies for evaluating immersion
also range from qualitative approaches (e.g. Brown/Cairns 2004), which identified important
barriers and prerequisites of computer game immersion to quantitative research, combing
subjective and physio-psychological (e.g. eye-tracking) measures (e.g.
Jennet/Cox/Cairns/Dhoparee/Epps/Tijs 2008).
Study: Sensomotoric Immersion
As computer games can be understood as a special form of virtual reality, it is reasonable to
apply the discussed theoretical principles: More realistic/authentic game interfaces (or
symbolic media systems in general) with ways of interaction drawn from life conciliate more
authentic and more “believable” stimuli and thus sensomotoric immersion. Other types of
immersion (e.g. emotional, social or narrative immersion) moderate the effect of
sensomotoric immersion, as they can intensify or weaken the immersive experience as a
whole. The more authentic the perceived interaction between the player and game system,
the higher is the sensomotoric immersion of the player. A higher degree of sensomotoric
immersion increases the fun and entertainment value of computer games. Let’s clarify this by
the example of playing a car racing game. If the player controls her vehicle with the
keyboard, the sensomotoric immersion should be very low, because she uses a rather
abstract input device for an activity that is performed completely different in the real world.
The procedure of driving a car is being reduced to simple keystrokes for accelerating,
breaking and steering, while only the visual and auditory sensory systems are being
stimulated in a realistic way – given the fact that actual racing games provide simulation-like
6
Not all of these sensoric stimuli must be present to cause sensomotoric immersion.
graphics and sounds. If the player uses a steering wheel and pedals instead of the keyboard,
the gaming experience changes significantly. In this given case, the tactile sensory system is
also stimulated in a realistic way, since using the steering wheel and pedals to control a car
appears natural and authentic. Although this is of course not a perfect simulation of driving a
racing car (e.g. there are no acceleration forces), the more authentic control is resulting in a
higher degree of sensomotoric immersion.7
A quantitative study was conducted to understand the user experience of sensomotoric
immersion during a play session using the Nintendo Wii console. The aim of the study was to
clarify how the input device (authentic/realistic input versus arbitrary/abstract input) is related
to immersion, presence and perceived entertainment value. Several existing questionnaires
were used to measure immersion and presence after the game session. We used different
questionnaires, because an important question regarding the relationship between presence
and immersion is not answered yet: Are the experiences of presence and immersion in
computer games two individual psychological states of mind, or different interpretations of
the same concept? By measuring both concepts, we were able to compare them directly.
Although various game relevant factors contribute to both concepts as a whole (e.g. visual
perspective, narrative, game tasks, audiovisual quality, single- or multiplayer, etc.), our focus
was on the input devices: The experimental group was given an (authentic) Wii-Remote
controller with a tennis racquet add-on to play a tennis computer game, whereas the control
group had to play the same game with a classic gamepad controller. No other changes were
made, thus the only difference in both groups’ game session was the input device and the
potential degree of sensomotoric immersion, respectively. In this paper we address the three
major hypotheses and their implications.
H1: Users perceive a higher degree of immersion and presence when using an
authentic game controller than when using an abstract gamepad controller.
According to their practical gaming experience, we divided our subjects into the groups “nongamer”, “casual gamer”, and “regular gamer”. Based on Schema Theory (cf. e.g.
Smith/Queller 2001), we suspected that experienced players grew so accustomed to playing
computer games with a gamepad controller, that they don’t need to think much about
controls (construct/create new schemes) while playing. For them, playing with a gamepad is
the “natural” way to interact with a console game. They focus their attention not on controlling
the game, but on the game (and the content) itself. Inexperienced players, however, need to
learn how to interact with the game before playing. Their attention is more likely to be
focused on the controls instead of the game’s content, as their cognitive system has no (or
not enough) pre-existing schemes to operate the interaction properly. If inexperienced
players could draw on a way of interaction with the game that they know from the real-world,
they would not need (completely) new schemes, but use existing schemes instead. When
playing a computer game with an authentic input device based on prior real-world
experiences, they should be more able to focus on the game content and thus potentially
experience a higher degree of immersion or presence. Inexperienced players should
therefore benefit greatly from the use of an authentic input device, because they don’t need
to learn an arbitrary way of interacting with the game and instead use a way they are already
familiar with.
7
Of course only under the condition that steering the car matches the expectations of the user. If the
car would understeer permanently or if pushing the throttle pedal would decelerate the vehicle, there
would be no authenticity and therefore low sensoric immersion.
H2: Experienced users do not benefit as much from authentic input devices in
terms of immersion and presence as casual players do.
The amount of real-world experience with the given task varies individually. In this study, the
subjects had to play a tennis computer game, so the degree of experience with real-world
tennis was also taken into consideration (dichotomously: low/high experience). Players who
never played real-world tennis before are considered to have other expectations towards the
interaction with the game than regular tennis players have. For the latter, the game has to
meet a high demand in realism and simulation accuracy; otherwise the players would feel
their interaction to be restricted. If they cannot use familiar movements from their practical
real-world experience in the game, their sense of immersion or presence could be hindered.
Inexperienced real-world tennis players, however, only base their expectations on the
observation of tennis players in the real world or the media. This usually leads to a lower
demand on simulation accuracy. In general, the perceived immersion should be higher for
real-world tennis players, if the game simulates tennis-playing accurately.
H3: Users with experience in real-world tennis score higher on immersion and
presence when using an authentic input device than users without real-world
tennis experience.
Methodology
Participants (N=136; male N=64; female N=72) were recruited through an opportunity sample
via online advertisement. Their ages ranged from 12 to 74 years (average: 24,15 years;
SD=7,91). 22% of the participants were non-gamers, 41% casual gamers and 37% regular
gamers. The study was conducted in a game lab at Chemnitz University of Technology,
using a darkened room with much space to move. The game console was connected to a
video projector using a big (several meters) projection screen and surround sound system to
minimize distractions and to provide optimal conditions for the formation of sensory
immersion. All subjects were asked to play a tennis game on the Nintendo Wii console, either
with a gamepad or a tennis racquet controller (see Fig. 1). We choose the game Sega
Superstar Tennis (Sega Enterprises 2008) for the study, a game that was unknown to all
participants (see Fig. 2). Hence, possible effects due to prior game experience could be ruled
out. A tennis game was chosen because – unlike narrative computer games (e.g. The
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Nintendo 1998, which offers complex narrative immersion
types) or MMOGs (e.g. World of WarCraft, Blizzard Entertainment 2004, complex social
immersion types) – sports games usually don’t mix several complex types of immersion and
focus on sensomotoric immersion in general or audiovisual in particular. Using a tennis game
allowed us to easily separate sensomotoric immersion from other types of immersion.
Furthermore, tennis being a popular sport, there were many games for the Wii console to
choose from. Billiard, Golf or Bowling were also considered but had to be dismissed as most
of these games varied too much in quality and complexity and furthermore did not sufficiently
support multiple input devices. Although Wii Sports Billiard uses very authentic input, it’s not
playable with a gamepad. Other tennis games considered were the Tennis game of Wii
Sports (Nintendo 2005), Top Spin 3 (2k Shanghai 2008) or Rockstar Games presents Table
Tennis (Rockstar Games 2007). They were deemed either too complicated, required too
much practice time or did not support different controller devices. Sega Superstar Tennis
scored reviews with an average (meta) score of 71%. It is suitable for beginners and relies
on relatively simple game mechanics, thus making it enjoyable not only for the hardcore, but
also for casual gamers.
The study is based on a between-subjects design: The participants were assigned randomly
to play with the classic gamepad or Wii-Remote tennis controller as independent variable.
Before the game session, each subject had to fill out a questionnaire to collect demographic
information and assess real-world tennis experience as well as general gaming experience.
The latter contained questions regarding for example the playing time per week and the
platforms used for gaming. In addition, participants had to complete the Immersive
Tendencies Questionnaire (Witmer/Singer 1998), which has not been evaluated further for
this paper.
Fig. 1: Input devices used for the study
Fig. 2: Screenshot from the game Sega Superstar Tennis (Sega Enterprises 2008)
Each game session lasted about 20 minutes, including a training session with an instructor to
get used to the game and the controls. After the game session, each participant had to
complete a questionnaire that comprised translated versions8 of two questionnaires used in
other studies (Immersion Questionnaire [IQ] from Jennet et al. 2008; Presence Questionnaire
[PQ] from Witmer/Singer 1998).9 The items consisted of questions or statements that had to
be rated on a 5-point Likert-Scale. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show sample items used for each
category of both PQ und IQ. Also, further demographic information was gathered, such as
participants’ game experience, real-world tennis experience, occupation, or level of
education. The factorial structures of the immersion and presence questionnaires were
validated using a factor analysis (principal axis factoring) which confirmed the factors
reported in the original studies: The items of the PQ constitute the factors “involvement”,
“interface quality”, “adaption/immersion”, and “visual fidelity”, whereas the IQ-items
accumulate to “motivation/fun”, “real world dissociation”, “achievement”, “cognitive
involvement”, and “challenge”. The data of the study were analyzed, using statistical
procedures in SPSS.
Presence Questionnaire (PQ)
factor
Involvement
Interface Quality
Adaption/Immersion
8
sample items
“Wie vertieft waren Sie in die Erfahrung der virtuellen Umgebung?”
„Wie stark haben Sie die Eingabegeräte beim Ausführen der
Aufgaben im Spiel behindert?“
„Waren Sie in der Lage vorherzusagen, wie die Umgebung auf Ihre
The original questionnaires are in English language and have been translated into German by
Pietschmann (2009:127) for this study.
9 See e.g. Insko 2003 for a detailed discussion on the use of questionnaires in presence and
immersion research.
Handlungen reagieren wird?“
Visual Fidelity
„Wie gut konnten Sie Objekte untersuchen?“
Fig. 3: Sample items and factors of the translated Presence Questionnaire (PQ)
Immersion Questionnaire (IQ)
factor
Motivation & Fun
sample items
„Inwieweit haben Sie es genossen, das Spiel zu spielen?“
„Wie groß war Ihr Interesse zu erfahren, wie das Spiel weitergeht?“
„Inwieweit haben Sie mitbekommen, was während des Spielens um
Sie herum passiert ist?“
„Wieviel Mühe haben Sie sich beim Spielen gegeben?“
„In welchem Maß hielt das Spiel Ihre Aufmerksamkeit?“
Real World
Dissociation
Achievement
Cognitive
Involvement
Challenge
„Empfanden Sie das Spiel als einfach?“
Fig. 4: Sample items and factors of the translated Immersion Questionnaire (IQ)
Results
The overall measures of immersion and presence were highly correlated (r=0.552, p <
0.0001, two-tailed).
The results of the study confirm H1: The use of the authentic game controller led to a
significant increase of perceived immersion (two-sample t-test, t=3.39, 134 d.f., p < 0.001)
and presence (two-sample t-test, t=2.84, 134 d.f., p < 0.005). The average amount of
immersion and presence measured was higher in players using the authentic game
controller. As the only difference between the experimental (N=63) and the control group
(N=64) was the usage of differing input devices – and thus, the potentially amount of
sensomotoric immersion – the differences measured in immersion and presence can only be
attributed to differences in perceived sensomotoric immersion DISCUSSION?. This could be
traced back to several factors, such as “visual fidelity” (Mann-Whitney-U-test, U= 1546.0, p <
0.001), “involvement” (Mann-Whitney-U-test, U= 1393.0, p < 0.0001), and “cognitive
involvement” (Mann-Whitney-U-test, U= 1660.0, p < 0.005). No differences were found
between groups regarding the factors “achievement” and “dissociation of the real world”.
Perceived “challenge” was only marginally significantly higher, when using authentic input
devices instead of the classic controller (Mann-Whitney-U-test. U=1909 p= 0.056). The factor
“motivation/fun” however increased significantly when using the authentic tennis controller
(Mann-Whitney-U-test, U= 1680.5, p < 0.01).
The results did not support H2: Just like casual gamers, the experienced regular gamers also
scored higher on immersion (two-sample t-test, t=2.15, 48 d.f., p < 0.05) when using the
tennis controller instead of the gamepad, but not in presence. Regular gamers using the
authentic input device also scored significantly higher on factors “involvement” (MannWhitney-U-test, U=173.5, p < 0.01) and “cognitive involvement” (Mann-Whitney-U-test,
U=98.5, p < 0.01) in comparison to non-gamers and casual gamers. Surprisingly, unlike the
group of regular gamers, there were no statistically significant differences in the immersion
and presence scores when using different input devices in the non-gamers and casual
gamers group in detail. Although just missing a statistical significance in the group of casual
gamers (immersion score: p= 0.07; presence score: p=0.06) NOT CLEAR!, the only
statistical relevant differences were the scores of “visual fidelity” (Mann-Whitney-U-test,
U=56.5, p < 0.03) and “challenge” (Mann-Whitney-U-test, U=56.6, p < 0.02) for non-gamers
and “involvement” (Mann-Whitney-U-test, U=232.4, p < 0.01) in terms of input devices.
The results supported H3: When using the tennis racquet controller, players with real-world
experience in tennis showed higher scores inimmersion (two-sample t-test, t=3.0, p < 0.01)
and presence (two-sample t-test, t=3.0, p < 0.005) than players without experience.
Discussion
Our study has shown that the usage of an authentic input controller considerably changes
the gaming experience or, to be more precise, enhances the gaming experience. While the
overall scores of immersion and presence fully support H1, it is worthwhile discussing some
factors in detail. According to theoretical considerations regarding the schema theory, the
usage of the authentic input device should cause the player to fall back on existing schemes
having more cognitive resources available for the actual gameplay. This has been confirmed
by the factors “visual fidelity”, “involvement” and “cognitive involvement” that scored
significantly higher in the experimental group. The usage of the authentic controller is more
natural, so that the game content gets the full attention of the player: The player is absorbing
the audiovisual stimuli to a higher degree, and therefore s/he is more involved in the
gameplay.
The significantly higher rating of the factor “motivation/fun” when using the authentic
controller leads to the conclusion, that it enables users to experience more fun while playing
the game, whereas the interdependence between immersion and fun has yet to be
determined. Since previous computer game studies have been unable to agree on a
theoretical model that can fully explain the entertainment value of computer games, we can
only intepret the underlying causality. From a media psychology point of view, a possible
explanation can be found in the model suggested by Klimmt (2006). This model explains the
entertainment value of computer games as the result of three mechanisms that constitute the
gaming experience: self-efficiacy, complex challenges in combination with narrative
information, and simulated lifelike experience. A higher degree of (sensomotoric) immersion
would increase the self-efficiacy as well as the lifelike experience (which in our case can be
described as the player’s feeling of actually playing tennis). In further studies, we want to
confirm the results of this study with various other game types. Those studies can also
contribute to the empirical validation of Klimmt’s model, because the use of different
controller types is a valid method to manipulate the self-efficiacy. Also, the long-term effects
of playing with the authentic controller needs to be researched, since one could argue that
the user experience of a higher entertainment value could also be moderated by the
fascination of using an innovative control method and the usage of the new device itself was
more fun.
Another interesting finding is that the factor “challenge” generally shows only a marginal
significance. If we compare only the subjects of the group of casual gamers, the factor
challenge was significantly higher when using the authentic input device. This finding can be
explained with the different skills that are required to handle the controllers. The abstract
input device (gamepad) demands a considerable amount of eye-hand coordination, whereas
the authentic controller (motion control) requires more complex actions with more parts of the
body being involved (like swinging the arm while performing a sidestep) – the requirements
regarding the players performance are higher in the latter. Related to the tennis game we
used in the study, it means that the players using the gamepad – on the most elementary
level of understanding – only had to hit the right buttons at the right time in order to
outmaneuver the opponent. When using the authentic tennis racquet, the player needed to
perform appropriate arm swings to hit the ball at the right time, with the right strength and in
the right direction. For inexperienced players, these rather complex actions appear more
challenging.
To profit from the new control mechanism, game designers have to ensure that the
interaction matches the user expectations. The usage of authentic input devices does not
automatically increase the entertainment value of a computer game for every player, since
they usually have subjectively different expectations regarding the interaction with the game
system. A notable difference between the game experience and the real-world experience of
the users can reduce or even destroy the sensomotoric immersion. That explains our
findings on subjects with great expertise in real-world tennis who did not benefit (in terms of
immersion and presence) from authentic input controllers as much as subjects with moderate
experience. Later interviews with some of the advanced tennis player participants suggested
that this can be explained with the fact that the demands of those players were not met by
the gaming system: Sega Superstar Tennis is not a high-fidelity simulation, but a game for
the target group of casual gamers with no to little gaming expertise – the group that the
majority of the subjects belong to. Advanced tennis players, on the other hand,did expect a
more accurate/authentic tennis-simulation which the game we used failed to deliver. There
are indeed tennis simulations that offer a high degree of authenticity and realism. The
complexity of those simulations overburdens the abilities of beginners and non-players in a
way that would totally prevent the experience of immersion or being entertained (at least in
the given time frame of 20 minutes). For further research it will nevertheless be necessary to
use more realistic games to evaluate the findings of this study. To avoid the problems with
the heterogeneous gaming experience, only regular gamers should be chosen as subjects.
WHY? IT IS MORE INTERESTING IF NON-GAMERS VERSUS EXPERIENCED-GAMERS
ARE COMPARED. In terms of game enjoyment from the use of authentic input controllers,
game designers need to clearly define the target group of their game, as it seems difficult to
maximize the effect of the authentic controller for both experienced and inexperienced
players simultaneously.
In the ongoing discussion concerning the degree of relationship between the concepts of
immersion and presence, the results of our study substantiate the position that they are
closely connected. The correlation between immersion and presence shows considerable
overlaps between the two concepts. However, the questionnaire used in the study (PQ) was
not specifically designed for the measurement of presence in computer games; therefore our
results cannot be generalized without further research.
Furthermore, we suggest differentiating the various uses of the term immersion in the field of
game studies. Immersion can concurrently be seen as one form of involvement, which is
defined as "a psychological state experienced as a consequence of focusing one‘s energy
and attention on a coherent set of stimuli or meaningfully related activities and events"
(Witmer & Singer 1998: 227). This is very similar to the definition of immersion shown above,
but more related to activities in general. Based on the assumptions of the schema theory (cf.
e.g. Smith & Queller 2001), Douglas and Hargadon (2000) distinguish between immersion
and engagement as modes of cognitive interaction with a medium. The difference between
both can be explained by the way the user engages with the medium: If she absorbs the
media (more or less) passively without actively reflecting the content (e.g. accepting the
stimuli without thinking about or questioning them), she is in a cognitive state of immersion. If
the user does actively deal with the content ( e.g. reflecting, analyzing or contemplating it),
she is in a cognitive state of engagement (cf. Pietschmann 2009: 73). “The pleasures of
immersion stem from our being completely absorbed within the ebb and flow of a familiar
narrative schema. The pleasures of engagement tend to come from our ability to recognize a
work’s overturning or conjoining conflicting schemes from a perspective outside the text”
(Douglas&Hargadon 2000: 155). Using these terms, immersion can be considered a more or
less passive and receiving cognitive state, where existing schemes are being processed.
This is contrary to other (broader) conceptions of immersion (e.g. Murray 1997, Gander
1999, Björk & Holopainen 2004), which mean basically the same as involvement in terms of
Witmer & Singer (1998). The broader concept of focusing one’s energy and attention on
specific activities and blocking out distractions or the immediate surroundings should
therefore not be called immersion, but rather involvement. This definition includes both
modes (using existing schemes and building new/combing existing schemes) of cognitive
interaction with the given set of stimuli.10
As a result, immersion and engagement can be understood as two oppositional cognitive
states within the broader concept of involvement (see Fig. 5). When playing a good computer
game, the user is involved with the game and switches between the underlying states of
immersion and engagement – based on the use of cognitive schemes.
Fig. 5: Involvement as generic term and immersion/engagement as modes of cognitive
interaction with a coherent set of stimuli
10
For example, Neitzel 2008 also prefers involvement instead of immersion in this context.
Literature Cited
AGARWAL, R./KARAHANA, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun:
CognitiveAbsorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24(4),
pp. 665–994
BJÖRK, S./HOLOPAINEN, J. (2004). Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media.
BROWN, E./CAIRNS, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of immersion in games. ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004 (pp. 1297-1300). ACM
Press
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (2005). Das Flow Erlebnis. jenseits von Angst und Langeweile:im
Tun aufgehen (9. ed.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
DOUGLAS, Y./HARGADON, A. (2000). The Pleasure Principle: Immersion,
Engagement,Flow. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia(pp.
153–160). San Antonio, TX: ACM.
ERMI, L./MÄYRÄ, F. (2005). Fundamental Components of the Gameplay
Experience:Analysing Immersion. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing
Views: World in Play (June 16th–20th). Vancouver: University of Vancouver.
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06276.41516.pdf <10. 05, 2009>
GANDER, P. (1999). Two Myths about Immersion in New Storytelling Media. Lund University
Cognitive Studies 80, pp. 1–16.
HEERS, R. (2005). Being There – Untersuchungen zum Wissenserwerb in virtuellen
Umgebungen. Tübingen, Dissertation an der Fakultät für Informations- und
Kognitionswissenschaften: Eberhard-Karls -Universität Tübingen.
HELD, R./DURLACH, N. (1992). Telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 1 (1), pp. 109–112.
INSKO, B. E. (2003). Measuring Presence: Subjective, Behavioral and Psychological
Methods. In G. RIVA/F. DAVIDE/W. IJSSELSTEIJN (Eds.), Being There: Concepts,effects
and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments (pp. 109–120). Amsterdam:
Ios Press.
JENNETT, C./COX, A./CAIRNS, P./DHOPAREE, S./EPPS, A./TIJS, T. (2008). Measuring
and Defining the Experience of Immersion in Games. International Journal of Human
Computer Studies.
KLIMMT, C. (2006). Computerspielen als Handlung: Dimensionen und Determinanten des
Erlebens interaktiver Unterhaltungsangebote. Köln: Halem.
MCMAHAN, A. (2003). Immersion, Engagement, and Presence. A Method for Analyzing 3-D
Video Games. In M. J. WOLF/B. PERRON (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader (pp. 67–
87). New York: Routledge.
MURRAY, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
NEITZEL, B. (2008). Medienrezeption und Spiel. In J. DISTELMEYER/C. HANKE/D.
MERSCH (Eds.), Game over!? Perspektiven des Computerspiels (pp. 95–115). Bielefeld:
transcript Verlag.
PIETSCHMANN, D. (2009). Erleben in virtuellen Welten. Boizenburg: Verlag Werner
Hülsbusch.
RYAN, M.-L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality. Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and
Electronic Media. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University.
SLATER, M./WILBUR, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environmnets (FIVE):
Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators &
Virtual Environments 6 (6), pp. 603–616.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cph&AN=9716&site=ehost-live <10.
10, 2009>
SMITH, E.R., / QUELLER, S. (2001). Mental Representations. In Tesser, A., & Schwarz, N.
(Eds.). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes. London:
Blackwell Publishers.
STEUER, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining Telepresence. Journal
of Communication 42 (4), pp. 73–93.
TAMBORINI, R./SKALSKI, P. (2006). The Role of Presence in the Experience of
ElectronicGames. In Playing Video Games. Motives, Responses, and Consequences (pp.
225–241). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
WITMER, B./SINGER, M. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence
questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 7 (3), pp.225–240.
VAN BAREN, J./IJSSELSTEIJN, W. (2004). Measuring Presence: A Guide to Current
Measurement Approaches. OmniPres.
WITZMANN, H. (2007). Game Controller: Vom Paddle zur gestenbasierten
Steuerung.Boizenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.
ZIMMERMAN, E. (2004). Narrative, Interactivity, Play, and Games: Four NaughtyConcepts in
Need of Discipline. In N. WARDRIP-FRUIN/P. HARRIGAN, First Person:New Media as
Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 154–164). Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
Software Cited
Rockstar Games presents table tennis. (2007). Rockstar Games. [Wii; Xbox 360].
Sega Superstar Tennis. (2008). Sega Enterprises. [Nintendo DS; PlayStation 2; PlayStation
3; Wii; Xbox 360].
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. (1998). Nintendo EAD. [Nintendo 64; Wii].
Top Spin 3. (2008). 2K Shanghai. [PlayStation 3; Xbox 360].
Wii Sports. (2005). Nintendo. [Wii].
World of WarCraft. (2004). Blizzard Entertainment. [Macintosh; Windows].