Play Across Boundaries:
Exploring Cross-Cultural Maldaimonic Game Experiences
Katie Seaborn

Satoru Iseya

Shun Hidaka

seaborn.k.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japaniseya.s.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japanhidaka.s.ad@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

Sota Kobuki

Shruti Chandra

kobuki.s.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

shruti.chandra@uwaterloo.ca
University of Waterloo
Toronto, Canada
IRFI, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT

1

Maldaimonic game experiences occur when people engage in personally fulflling play through egocentric, destructive, and/or exploitative acts. Initial qualitative work verifed this orientation andexperiential construct for English-speaking Westerners. In thiscomparative mixed methods study, we explored whether and how
maldaimonic game experiences and orientations play out in Japan,
an Eastern gaming capital that may have cultural values incongruous with the Western philosophical basis underlying maldaimonia.
We present fndings anchored to the initial frameworks on maldaimonia in game experiences that show little divergence between theJapanese and US cohorts. We also extend the qualitative fndings
with quantitative measures on afect, player experience, and therelated constructs of hedonia and eudaimonia. We confrm thisnovel construct for Japan and set the stage for scale development.

The feld of human-computer interaction (HCI) has long recognized the centrality of user experience (UX) in the design and studyof interactive experiences, including video games [3, 28, 30, 45].
While imprecise and far-reaching [20], UX can be defned as a person’s overall subjective experience, which may be more complex
than merely “positive” or “pleasurable” [28, 30, 30, 45, 78]. A usefuloperationalization has been found in the concepts of hedonia as
pleasure-seeking and eudaimonia as meaning-making [16, 37], entwined constructs that hail from ancient Greek philosophy. Whilemost work in the context of media and interactive experiences has
focused on hedonia [18, 26, 27, 32], a growing body of work has explored eudaimonia [6, 10, 14, 17, 49, 53, 55, 64, 66, 69, 76], indicatinga new focus on meaning and meaningful engagement.
Recently, the notion of maldaimonia was proposed as a subversive spin on eudaimonia: an orientation towards self-expressionthat is egocentric, exploitative, and/or destructive [74]. However, asa novel concept, it is not well understood in practice and has no construct validation or measure yet. Only one preliminary study has
explored maldaimonia empirically—in the context of games [65].
Similar concepts exist, from transgressive play [1, 42, 51, 67] todark play [52] to cruel play [68], and dark participation [46, 47, 70].
What seems to set the notion of maldaimonic game UX apart isits dual nature: self-focused or social, having been found in singleplayer contexts and with known others [65]. In kind, we approach
maldaimonia as an orientational frame characterized by positive,
meaningful, self-realizing, and self-actualizing play.
Maldaimonia is a concept created within the West and driven byWestern cultural roots. As such, it is potentially Western-centric or-centrized, limiting its generalizability and maintaining the WEIRD(Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) bias [33] in andbeyond HCI research [48]. A clear next step was to explore its
applicability—and potentially its variations—in other cultures. One
option was Japan, an Eastern nation known for its lively gaming
culture. Japan is home not only to heavyweights like Nintendo andSony, but also a large playership among the general population.
Statistics consistently place Japan at the top of user penetration lists,
with 58% user penetration in 20221 ; in comparison, the US ranks

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); Empirical studies in HCI; • Applied computing→ Computer games.

KEYWORDS
Maldaimonia, player experience, maldaimonic game UX, user experience, games, eudaimonia, hedonia, Japan, cross-cultural studies
ACM Reference Format:
Katie Seaborn, Satoru Iseya, Shun Hidaka, Sota Kobuki, and Shruti Chandra.
2024. Play Across Boundaries: Exploring Cross-Cultural Maldaimonic Game
Experiences. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA. ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642273
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor proft or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the frst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specifc permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0330-0/24/05
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642273

INTRODUCTION

1 https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/media/games/japan

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USAless than 45%2 . Japan and the US have also long been compared at
a grand cultural scale through Hofstede’s cultural dimensions [34].
Japan thus ofers an ideal context for exploring the Western notionof maldaimonia in games and comparing the fndings from thepreliminary study [65] on US players.
In this work, we conducted an online critical incident survey on
Japanese people’s experiences of maldaimonia in games, comparing
to the English data set captured by Seaborn and Iseya [65], whoused the procedures of Müller et al. [53] and Mekler and Hornbæk
[49] for eudaimonic UX. Our goal was to fnd further evidence of
maldaimonic game UX and establish its cross-cultural viability as
an experiential construct and orientation. Our overarching researchquestion (RQ) was: Is maldaimonic game UX a cross-cultural
phenomenon? Specifcally, we sought to answer: RQ1: Do Japaneseplayers have similar maldaimonic game experiences as US players?
and RQ2: Does maldaimonia map onto relevant theoretical, orientational, experiential, and game UX factors, notably hedonia andeudaimonia, player experience, and afect? We found that players inJapan have maldaimonic game experiences and orientations very
similar to those found among players in the English-speaking West,
with caveats. Our contributions are: (i) further empirical support
for maldaimonic game UX as an experiential construct and orientation; (ii) cross-cultural viability of the concept, despite its Hellenicroots; (iii) enriched fndings through validated measures of relevant factors; and (iv) implications for further theorizing and study.
This work adds a slightly diferent take to research on “dark” or“transgressive” play, brings in a crucial multicultural perspective,
and sets the stage for measure development.

2

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

We begin by outlining the theory behind maldaimonia and drawing
together adjacent concepts in the well-being and game UX literatures. We present an overview of how these concepts are connected
and diferentiated in Table 1.

2.1

From Eudaimonia to Maldaimonia

Waterman based the concept of maldaimonia on eudaimonia. Originating from Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics in the 4th century
BCE [74], eudaimonia refers to an inclination towards future happiness and present fourishing [16, 37, 39, 71–73]. This orientationaland experiential construct represents the pursuit of meaningful engagement and self-expression. Maldaimonia emerged from a criticalexamination of classifying ethically negative orientations, actions,and experiences as “eudaimonic.” Waterman argues that activities
characterized by egocentrism, destructiveness, exploitation, andharm cannot be considered virtuous, good, or desirable, i.e., ethically positive, even if maldaimonia is a type of “fourishing” [31]. As
Seaborn and Iseya [65, p. 2] ponder, “If eudaimonia is about virtue,
could maldaimonia be about vice?” Waterman ofers four characteristics of maldaimonia: (i) attaching positive value to self-centered,destructive, and exploitative actions; (ii) forming a basis for personal
identity; (iii) striving for excellence or mastery in these actions; (iv)
and aligning these actions with personal expressiveness. Consequently, in theory, maldaimonia is linked to eudaimonia through the
pursuit of afectively positive and meaningful engagement. Indeed,
2 https://www.statista.com/topics/3070/us-gamers

Seaborn et al.

this is what Seaborn and Iseya [65] found for English-speaking US
gamers. As such, we hypothesized that the baseline characteristics of eudaimonia as positive (H1) and meaningful (H2)would be found for maldaimonia, as well.
Still, there are two notable and interconnected omissions from
Waterman’s criteria. One is hedonia, which is always signifcantly
correlated with eudaimonia [38, 39] but has no theorized equivalent in the conceptualization of maldaimonia. Perhaps hedonia is
ethically neutral or ambiguous, without a counterpart for maldaimonia. We must consider, for instance, the value of confronting
painful truths and avoiding over-indulgence in life’s pleasures. Still,
we hypothesized that, if maldaimonia is the wicked twin of
eudaimonia, hedonia should be present, too (H3).
The other missing element is long-term meaning potential, which
has been associated with eudaimonia generally [38, 39] and eudaimonic UX specifcally [49]. Where hedonia relates to short-termgoals, eudaimonia has a longitudinal component: not only meaningful engagement in the now, but also an orientation towards future
happiness [37, 38, 72, 73]. We thus hypothesized that measuresof eudaimonia as a function of maldaimonia would relate tolong-term meaning potential but not hedonia (H4).

2.2

Maldaimonia-Adjacent Concepts in Gamesand Play

The notions of negative, transgressive, and subversive play are
not new. On the ethically negative front, Sutton-Smith long ago
recognized that even children engage in cruel play [68]. In games,
dark participation [46, 47] encompasses behaviours and experiencesof toxicity, trolling, bullying, deviancy, and harassment, where
player needs are satisfed through harming others. “Toxic gamer
cultures” represent a brand of experiences within gaming communities as well as within gameplay. This phenomenon is characterized by exclusion and hostility, if not outright harassment, via
anonymous actors who can shirk responsibility and hide behindanonymity [46, 70]. Such interactions are not necessarily tied to
the game itself, i.e., people doing bad things to each other because
these spaces allow for it to happen. That people may engage in solo
play or agree with others to have fun “being bad” in games is less
explored [65]. Moreover, an orientational perspective that speaks to
psychological needs, states, and cognitions, especially the meaning
behind such behaviours, is lacking. Maldaimonia could fll this gap,
bringing clarity to the diference between those agreeing to be badfor fun and a bad actor forcing an undesirable experience on others.
Transgressive play refers to several related ideas that broadly
capture acts of subversion (ethically ambiguous) or transgression(ethically negative) by the player or embedded in the gameplay [42].
Aarseth [1] presents the concept as player behaviour that refects
accidental or willful disregard of the “law” of the game, describing
scenarios of almost whimsical and unintended rebellion. Sidhu andCarter [67] proposed benevolent transgressive play as creative actsby the player that buck the rules of the game. On the fip side,transgressive play and dark play [51, 52] refer to cases where gamedesigners have orchestrated an experience that subjects the player
to play meant to provoke, disturb, and/or shock. The purpose andoutcomes run the moral gamut and so are ambiguous. Maldaimonia

Play Across Boundaries

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Table 1: Overview of concepts related to maldaimonia.
Concept
Maldaimonia
Eudaimonia

Hedonia
Transgressive play

Dark play

Cruel play,dark participation

Defnition
Personal fulfllment that is egocentric, exploitative, and/or destructive
Personal fulfllment that is allocentric(both egocentric and altruistic), reciprocal,
and/or constructive, with a view to future
happiness
Pleasure-seeking and pain-avoidanceDistinction
Orientations
and experiences
Orientations
and experiences

Orientations
and experiences
Acts of player rebellion against the in- Behaviour
tended experience of the game that may
be novel, subversive, or ofensive
Aspects of the game intentionally de- Stimuli
signed to provoke, shock, and/or disturb
the player
Player actions during gameplay that are Behaviours andharmful to others, often on purpose
experiences

relates to but is distinct from these concepts. It is ethically negative, the moral opposite of eudaimonia. It is not a stimulus or abehaviour, although it may be triggered by a stimulus or be observed through player behaviour. It is an orientation that may or
may not refect a rebellious spirit. Importantly, it may further our
understanding of transgressive game stimuli and player behaviours
from a psychological angle [65, 74]. We thus expect and hypothesize that maldaimonia and the experiences it occasions will
be associated with good player experience, satisfying player
functional, psychological, and social needs (H5).
Maldaimonic acts are not unprecedented in games. Cheating
is one form of maldaimonia posed by Waterman [74] with a long
history in game studies [11]. For instance, Passmore et al. [57]explored the afective and psychological benefts to cheating withinsolo gaming experiences. While many players felt frustration andshame, a comparative portion felt joy, agency, relief, surprise, andexcitement. Destructive acts have been less explored, even though
they are common in games: consider Catlateral Damage (2014)or any game with destruction built-in, like Gunstar Heroes (1993).
Pimentel and Kalyanaraman [58], for instance, explored how people
reacted to destroying NPCs customized to represent positive or
negative self-concepts. They found that destroying these charactersincreased negative afect when the player identifed with them more.
Grizzard et al. [24] explored whether games could be designed toinduce guilt, comparing the experiences of people who took on
the role of a terrorist, a potentially maldaimonic orientation, or a
UN soldier. They found that guilt-inducing experiences not only
occurred but increased moral sensitivity.
What this body of work and the preliminary fndings [65] suggest is that maldaimonic orientations and experiences exist acrossa variety of games, within and outside of multiplayer contexts,
and have implications for emotional, social, and ethical engagement. Still, we do not know its extent and presence in general or
across cultural contexts. Given the dearth of empirical work on
maldaimonia, we hypothesized that there would be no crosscultural diferences (H6), a baseline assumption to be confrmed

Ethics
Negative

SourceWaterman [74]Positive

Deci and Ryan [16], Huta and Ryan[38], Huta and Waterman [39]

Ambiguous

Deci and Ryan [16], Huta and Ryan[38], Huta and Waterman [39]Aarseth [1], Sidhu and Carter [67]Ambiguous

Ambiguous

Mortensen et al. [52], Mortensen and
Jørgensen [51]Negative

Kowert [46], Kowert and Cook [47],Sutton-Smith [68], Tang and Fox [70]or refuted [19]. In this work, we compared the Western context ofAmerica, which, like maldaimonia, has roots in Hellenic culture, tothe Eastern context of Japan: two diferent cultural contexts with ashared love of games that, when juxtaposed, could reveal whether
and where diferences in maldaimonic game UX occur.

3

METHODSWe carried out an online survey to capture the maldaimonic experiences of Japanese players, replicating the procedure of Seabornand Iseya [65] as registered on OSF3 . This study was approved by
the university ethics committee on August 9th , 2022 (#2022153).
We used the critical incident method [77], also called the critical incident technique (CIT)4 , which is a systematic qualitative
approach to collecting self-reports on signifcant incidents—events,
occurrences, and experiences—from individuals. Participants are
guided with clear instructions and prompts (refer to 3.2) to think
about and describe a single incident that they deem critical in someway. Here, “critical” is a property of the experience that the participant feels had a substantial impact on their attitudes or behaviour
in relation to the outcome of a given activity. In this research, theexperience was an instance of gameplay and the critical incident
involved maldaimonia afecting the nature or outcome of the playexperience. Given the nature of maldaimonia, we expect such experiences to be memorable and impactful. This method has long beenused in HCI and related areas [29, 49, 53, 77].
Except where noted, we translated the materials and instruments ourselves, following the ITC Guidelines for Translating and
Adapting Tests [41]. This meant: being knowledgeable about thesocio-linguistic context, i.e., Japanese, and the content, i.e., maldaimonia; forward-translation and backward-translation to ensure
retention of meaning; double-checking with native speakers andrunning pilot tests; using conventional response formats; sampling
an appropriate population; and providing evidence of reliability.
3 Registered before data collection on on July 5th , 2022: https://osf.io/7cvs9
4 https://www.nngroup.com/articles/critical-incident-technique/

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

3.1

Participants

Responses were collected via Yahoo! Crowdsourcing, an anonymous online recruitment service that guarantees unique identities and demographics using account verifcation5 . There were 59
Japanese adults aged 21+. This sample size falls within the range
appropriate for the critical incident method (e.g., N=45 [56]). 13(22%) women and 46 (78%) men participated, with none of anthergender identity. Most (58 or 98.3%) were East Asian, i.e., Japanese,and one (1.7%) was mixed East Asian and White. Most had at leasta high school education (58 or 98.3%). They were remunerated with
300 yen (USD ∼$2). A verifcation code was used to ensure that participants completed the full questionnaire. The study was approvedby the research institution’s ethics board on 9th August 2022.

3.2

Procedure

A link to a Google Form containing the survey was provided on
Yahoo! Crowdsourcing. The consent form was presented on the
frst page with an explanation of the study and a defnition of
maldaimonia to flter in participants:
マルダイモニアと は、「自己中心的、破壊的、搾取的な行為を通じて、楽しさや自己実現を感じることを しま す。ゲームでは、敵を殺す、人のものを盗む、街を破壊するなどがこれにあたります。これら は一例であり、他にもあるかもしれません。」“Maldaimonia” refers to feelings of enjoyment and selffulfllment through egocentric, destructive, and/or
exploitative acts. In games, this could include, for example, killing enemies, stealing from others, and destroying cities. These are just examples; there may be
more.
Participants then submitted their report and answered the rest of
the questionnaire, with demographics at the end. After submitting
their answers, they were given a code for Yahoo! Crowdsourcing
to receive compensation. The survey took about ∼15 minutes.

3.3

Qualitative Instrument

We asked participants to report a critical incident on a single maldaimonic experience using a series of prompts and open-ended
questions, as in previous research [49, 65]. As per the method [77],
we included all the prompts needed to elicit details about the experience, replicating the preliminary study [65]. Respondents were
prompted to bring to mind the experience, priming them to think
about it while completing the entire survey:
あなたがこれまでにゲームで体験した「マルダイモニア」を1つだけ思い浮かべてください。
あなたにとって「マルダイモニア」と思う体験を思い浮かべてください。スマートフォン、パ
ソコン、家庭用ゲーム機など、ゲームの種類やプラットフォームは問いません。ソロでもマルチでもOK。あなたが自発的にマルダイモニア的な行動を選んだものでも、他の誰かがしたもの
でも、ゲームプレイで要求されたものでもOKです。
5 https://crowdsourcing.yahoo.co.jp

Seaborn et al.

Bring to mind a single "maldaimonic" experience you’ve
had in a game. Think of "maldaimonia" in whatever
way that makes sense to you. You can choose any typeof game on any platform, including games played on asmartphone, a computer, a console, etc. You can sharea solo or multiplayer experience. It can be one where
you chose to act in a maldaimonic way or someone
else did, or it was required by the gameplay.
Next, we asked which platform they used, e.g., PlayStation, theirmotivation for playing the game, and who they played with, ifanyone. The last question was important for distinguishing maldaimonia as a positive solo or social activity from dark participation
as a negative social activity [46, 65]. They were then asked:
あなたがゲーム内で経験した『マルダイモニッ
ク』な体験を記述してください。ゲーム内での自己中心的、破壊的、搾取的な行為を通じて、どのような楽しさや自己実現の感情を抱いたかに着目してください。なるべく詳しくお願いします。
Describe the “maldaimonic” experience you had in
the game. Focus on how your experience involved
feelings of enjoyment and self-fulfllment throughegocentric, destructive, and/or exploitative acts in thegame. Please be as detailed as possible.
They were also asked to describe what motivated their behaviour,
i.e., their maldaimonic orientation or drivers behind the maldaimonic experience, as follows:
マルダイモニックな方法でゲームをプレイする
ことは、その動機は何ですか？
What was the motivation behind playing the game ina maldaimonic way?

3.4

Quantitative Instrument

All instructions referenced the single maldaimonic game experiencerather than gaming experiences in general.
3.4.1 Positive and Negative Afect (H1). As Waterman [74] outlined,
positive afect is important for the construct of maldaimonia. At
the same time, maldaimonia is premised on negative engagements
and orientations. We used the PANAS-X [75], a widely used andvalidated self-report instrument for capturing afective states. We
could not predict what kind of afective qualitative maldaimonicexperiences might have, so we included all terms from the basic
negative, basic positive, and other afective scales. These were presented in random order on 5-point Likert scales operationalized as a
0–4 scale (0=強くそう思う、4=強くそう思わない or 0=strongly
agree, 4=strongly disagree).
3.4.2 Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motivations (H2, H3). We used theJapanese translation [4] of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motivations for Activities (HEMA) scale [40] to evaluate meaning, in theabsence of a scale for maldaimonia (H2), as well as the role of hedonia (H3). This 9-item cross-culturally validated scale assesses
orientations to engage in an activity through a 1 (全くあてはまらない or not at all) to 7 (非常にあてはまる or very much) response
scale. Example items are: くつろぎを追求すること (seeking comfort) and 自分の信念に従った行動を追求すること (seeking

Play Across Boundaries

to do what you believe in). We excluded the extra items in Asanoet al. [4] so as to directly compare the English and US data sets.
Theoretically, there should be high levels of eudaimonia and thepresence of hedonia, given eudaimonia’s theorized connection tomaldaimonia [74] and how hedonia overlaps with eudaimonia [39].
3.4.3 Player Experience (H2, H5). We used the Player Experience
Inventory (PXI) [2] for measuring player experience, which has
been validated with over 64 games and 529 players. The instrument
was built around two theories: Means-Ends theory [25] and the
Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) model [36]. We used
the Psychosocial Consequences (H2) and Functional Consequences(H5) subscales. The frst is expected to link to eudaimonia andpotentially maldaimonia given conceptual overlap of the constructs
with respect to meaningfulness: Curiosity, Mastery, Immersion, andAutonomy. The second relates to matters of game usability andcontrol, which could inform positive or negative experiences, e.g.,
bad usability and poor control. A seven-point Likert scale of 0±3
was used as per the instructions [2].
3.4.4 Long-term Meaning Potential (H4). We evaluated the longterm meaning potential of the maldaimonic experience using a
one-item scale. Previous work [44, 49, 65] found that pleasure waspreferred sooner rather than later, while the opposite was true formeaningful experiences, which are enriched over time [44]. These
are correlates of hedonia and eudaimonia and may help make senseof maldaimonia in terms of temporal distance. We used a 7-point
importance scale (1=全く重要でない、7=とても重要である or
1=not important at all, 7=very important). The item was:
1年後の自分の人生を考えた場合、この体験はどの程度重要だと思いますか？
If you consider your life one year from now, howimportant will you fnd this experience?

3.5

Data Analysis

We carried out complementary qualitative and quantitative analyses. We provide our data set6 on the Japanese cohort (N=59) for
open science. We used the open data set7 on the US cohort (N=51)
provided by Seaborn and Iseya [65] in all comparative analyses
with our Japanese cohort for cross-cultural verifcation (H6).
3.5.1 Qalitative Analysis. We used hybrid thematic analysis [59],combining the deductive application of existing themes with inductive theme development.
For the motivations data, we applied the maldaimonic play motivations framework from Seaborn and Iseya [65] but expanded upon
it in two ways. First, we developed higher-order themes—Passivity,
Provocation, Mentalization, and Afective Drivers—in pursuit of aframework that could be used for future comparisons of maldaimonia to other concepts (Table 2). Second, we applied Waterman’s four
criteria, which should also describe motivations, being grounded in
one’s orientation [74]. For the experience data, we used the maldaimonic game experiences framework crafted by Seaborn and Iseya[65], without modifcations (Table 3).
We used inductive theme development to account for culturallysensitive ideas. The frst author considered how aspects of the
6 https://bit.ly/maldaimoniajp
7 https://osf.io/cpfzy

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

accounts unrelated to the deductive themes may be explained by
facets of Japanese culture. Notably, while advanced in Japaneseand having seven years of experience conducting research in theJapanese context, the frst author is not Japanese, thus limiting
their ability to identify new themes with fuency. First, they completed the deductive analysis, which led to the identifcation of newthemes, as per Braun and Clarke [9]. One new theme—Infuence—
was constructed for the maldaimonic play motivations framework.
They also found instances of this new theme in the US data set.
For the deductive analyses, four raters divided and separately
coded all experience accounts and motivation data. Three were
native Japanese speakers and one (the frst author) was advanced
in Japanese. Percentage agreement was used to evaluate inter-rater
reliability (IRR) between pairs of raters given the relatively small
samples and large number of possible themes and codes [8]. Whendisagreements occurred, the raters discussed and re-coded.
We analyzed the extent to which reports of experiences andmotivations mapped onto Waterman’s four criteria of maldaimonia,
aiming to determine how well actual accounts matched maldaimonia as theorized [74]. We generated counts and percentages forexperiences, motivations, and both together.
We used Chi-square tests to evaluate the diferences in relative
counts for each theme by country.
3.5.2 Qantitative Analysis. We conducted inferential analyses,
focusing on comparing the Japanese and US player measures andexploring the presence of relevant orientational, experiential, andgame UX factors, as per the sub-RQs. We assessed the distribution of quantitative data encompassing Hedonic and Eudaimonic
Motivations (HEMA), Player Experience (PXI), Positive and Negative Afect (PANAS-X), and Long-term Meaning Potential using
the Shapiro-Wilk test. All were non-normal (refer to the Supplementary Materials). As such, we opted for the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. We did not remove outliers as none were extreme:
all lay within the data range for each measure. Also, the MannWhitney, as a non-parametric test, is robust against outliers [79].
Although the presence of a large number of outliers may afectpower, this was not the case for our data [79]. We also employed
Kendall’s tau-b, Spearman’s rho, and Pearson correlations (as themore common statistic, with a view to future meta-synthesis work)
to explore the theorized connections between measures.
Due to a technical glitch in the online survey for US participants,
a few variables in the PANAS-X questionnaire were not recorded.
These variables were “upset” “distressed,” “active,” “inspired,” “interest,” “disgust,” and “dissatisfed.” Consequently, we have excluded
these variables for both countries in our analysis.

4

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

We now report our fndings, starting with the qualitative data describing the contexts of the experiences, the maldaimonic play motivations people had, and what maldaimonic experiences occurred.
We then explore the quantitative side: correlates of maldaimonic
UX among the measures captured. In each section, we compare
our Japanese cohort to the US one (N=51) captured by Seaborn and
Iseya [65] for our cross-cultural analysis of maldaimonic game UX.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Seaborn et al.

Table 2: Maldaimonic play motivations framework, an extended version from Seaborn and Iseya [65]. Criteria refer to the four
criteria proposed by Waterman [74] for maldaimonia; refer to the table notes for details.
Theme
Passivity
Provocation
Mentalization

Sub-Theme
Compliance
Revenge
Warmongering
Escapism
Moral Hall Pass
Extraordinarity

Afective Drivers
Extrinsic Drivers

Boredom
Amusement
DesiresInfuences

Description
Encouraged or forced by external factors, especially the game design.
Sought revenge due to a perceived wrong or wishing to “do unto others.”
Driven to carry out acts of violence and aggression.
Desired to escape the stresses and monotony of real life.
Took advantage of the game context a means of doing forbidden or socially
unacceptable things.
Desired to experience something extraordinary, something far outside thebounds of real life.
Sought a thrill due to boredom.
Seeking entertainment or an enjoyable time.
Sought extrinsic gratifcation, such as through acquiring money or goods, or
status, or praise, or to win.
Inspired by external forces, such as word-of-mouth or reputation.

Criteria(3)(2), (4)(1), (2), (4)(1), (2), (4)(1), (4)(1), (2), (3)(1)(1)(1), (2), (3), (4)(1), (2)(1) attaching positive valence to egocentric, destructive, and/or exploitative activities. (2) providing a basis of personal identity. (3) striving for excellence or mastery in these
activities. (4) aligning these activities as acts of personal expressiveness.

Table 3: Maldaimonic game experiences framework from Seaborn and Iseya [65]. Criteria refer to the four criteria proposed by
Waterman [74] for maldaimonia; refer to the table notes for details.
Theme
Transgressions

Sub-Theme
Murder & Mayhem
Chaos

Refections

Rule Subversion
HubrisVengeance

Feelings

Appreciations

Malight
Power
Mood Shifts
Extrinsic Appetite
Aesthetics

Description
Destructive acts, including killing, maiming, and harm, as well as destroying
property and/or environments.
Actions that lead to confusion, instability, or disorder, or have no point or
impetus.
Getting away with morally and/or ethically deviant actions, including exploitation, stealing, looting, cheating, insults, and shady deals.
Having pride and confdence, especially extreme pride and overconfdence.
Reacting to perceived or actual slights with vengeful acts, often of escalating
severity.
Malicious delight (“malight”) directly linked to the maldaimonic experience.
Expressions of power and invincibility, and the successful use of force.
Moods and afective states infuence or are infuenced by maldaimonia.
Satisfaction of needs and desires through external factors, such as rewards,
praise, fame, and collecting material goods.
Recognizing the visuals, sounds, animations, and other sensory features.

Criteria(1)(1)(1), (3)(2), (3), (4)(1), (4)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3), (4)(4)(1) attaching positive valence to egocentric, destructive, and/or exploitative activities. (2) providing a basis of personal identity. (3) striving for excellence or mastery in these
activities. (4) aligning these activities as acts of personal expressiveness.

4.1

Where and Who in Maldaimonic UX (RQ1)

4.1.1 Gaming Context. Respondents reported maldaimonic experiences in a variety of games: 44 unique games were mentioned by
59 participants. We use the game genre classifcation for games inJapan by NIHON KOGAKUIN8 . As such, genres included: adventure(15, 25%; e.g. Grand Theft Auto series, Resident Evil series, etc.),
RPG (13, 22%; e.g. Pocket Monster, Dragon Quest series), shooter(10, 17%; e.g. Splatoon, call of duty, etc.), simulation (7 respondents,
12%; e.g. SimCity), action (7 respondents, 12%; e.g. Super Mario, Super Smash Bros.), racing (4 respondents, 7%; e.g. Fall Guys), sandbox(Minecraft), and tabletop (Shogi). The platforms were PlayStation
8 https://www.neec.ac.jp/department/design/gamecreator/type/(22, 37%), PC (13, 22%) smartphones (7, 12%), Nintendo Switch (5,8%), Nintendo DS (5, 6%) and other (4, 6%).
The variety of platforms and game genres echoes that of the US
cohort. Notably, the top genres were action-adventure (US: 11, 23%),
RPG (US: 7, 15%; Japan: 13, 22%), and simulation (US: 5, 11%; Japan:
7, 12%). There were some diferences: MMO was a top genre for US
players (7, 15%), while shooters (10, 17%) and adventure (Japan: 15,24%) were top genres for Japanese players. Still, the spread of thenumbers suggests this could be a sample size issue.
4.1.2 Social Context (RQ1). The majority, 33 (56%), had maldaimonic experiences alone, 14 (23%) with two people, and 12 (20%)
with 2+ people. In 14 cases (23%), there were two players, and in
12 cases (20%), there were multiple players in multiplayer mode.

Play Across Boundaries

In terms of who, the majority played with known others: 15 (58%)
were with friends or family, nine (34%) with strangers, and two (7%)
with a mix of friends, family and strangers.
As with the US cohort, these patterns provide further support for
distinguishing maldaimonic game UX from dark participation [46,47]. The Japan and US (29, 57%) players characterized such eventsas individual experiences, in line with Waterman’s criteria for maldaimonia as a construct of identity formation and expression [74].
Moreover, when others were involved, they were known to theplayer, as was the case for the US cohort: 24 (44%) were social,
but all of these involved friends, family, or acquaintances, even
if strangers were sometimes involved. From a dark participation
perspective, this is unexpected, as bad actors tend to hide behindanonymity [54]. While some incidents could have been rare bad
events, as we fnd below, this was largely not the case, suggestinga level of social acceptability that could relate to the “magic circle”
of the game [35, 63] or “having fun being bad” among friends.

4.2

Why Play: Patterns of Maldaimonic
Orientations and Motivations (RQ1)

Motivations are presented in Table 4. 48 of 59 (81%) participants
provided an explanation of their maldaimonic play motivations.
These ran the gamut ofered by the framework. Most Japanese players were motivated to comply with the game rules. Others sought
an escape, amusement, or took advantage of the game context to
try something morally transgressive. Several were infuenced byexternal factors, especially suggestions by others or knowledgeof the game. For instance, respondents wrote about being curious
after witnessing others do similar things in videos or hearing about
it from friends. Some were seeking an extraordinary experience ordesired to satisfy non-social extrinsic needs. A few cited boredom
or were provoked into revenge or rampage by others.
Chi-squared tests found no statistically signifcant diferences
between Japanese and US players for any sub-themes.
In sum, Japanese players were motivated to play maldaimonicallyfor a variety of reasons that were similar in nature and frequency
to those of the US players.

4.3

What It Is: Maldaimonic Patterns in thePlayer Experience (RQ1)

In their critical incident accounts, Japanese players reported on
encountering or carrying out a vast array of maldaimonic game
experiences (Table 5), similar to US cohort [65].
A Chi-squared test comparing Japanese and US players founda statistically signifcant diference for Malight, � 2 (1, N =110) =24.30, p < .001, suggesting US players derived a greater sense of
malicious pleasure compared to Japanese players. US players alsosignifcantly more often characterized their experience in terms of
Aesthetics, or the visuals, sounds, animations and other visceralaspects of the experience, � 2 (1, N =110) = 4.65, p = .031. No otherdiferences were found.
As with the US cohort (8, 16%), very few (10, 17%) Japanese player
accounts could be classifed as dark participation, i.e., intent to doreal harm to (real) others (not NPCs). Also, there was no diference
found by country. These experiences were often implied to be good
fun among friends. P15, for example, described:

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

友達を倒して物資を奪ったり、家を破壊するイ
タズラしたり、死ぬ場所に誘導する罠を仕掛けたり
Beating your friends and taking their supplies, pranking them to destroy their houses, setting traps to leadthem to places where they will die, etc.
Some Japanese players sought vengeance (P9, P13, P48), others
wrought havoc (P54, P55), others cheated (P59), and still others
wished to prank their friends (P15, P53). Not all accounts were
frivolous. P29, for instance, expressed regret at their actions: むな
しさが残った (left me with a feeling of emptiness). Dark participation [46, 60] may bleed into aspects of these maldaimonic accounts,
but it appears to be a distinct facet of game experiences.

4.4

Theoretical Congruity: Mapping Onto
Waterman’s Four Criteria (RQ2)

Participants described motivations and experiences that could belinked back to Waterman’s four criteria for maldaimonia [74] by
way of our thematic analyses. Results are presented in 6. We haveindicated where no criterion was found, as well as where 75% were
found, as a baseline level of understanding the extent of attributions.
Since maldaimonia is orientational and experiential, in theory, weneed to consider both together. Results indicate that the majority ofaccounts (39 or 81.3%) satisfed the majority of Waterman’s criteria.
43.8% (or 21) accounts satisfed all criteria.

5

QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

We now report the quantitative fndings, measure by measure.

5.1

Positive and Negative Afect (PANAS-X) (H1)

We evaluated the PANAS-X scores for each subscale: 1) General Dimension scale (Negative Afect, Positive Afect); 2) Basic Negative
Emotion scale (Fear, Hostility, Guilt, Sadness); 3) Basic Positive Emotion scale (Joviality, Self-Assurance, Attentiveness); and 4) Other
Afective States (Shyness, Fatigue, Serenity, Surprise).
For the general dimension scale, the Mann-Whitney U score
related to negative afect showed statistically signifcantly higherscores for the Japanese participants (MD=2.0) compared to the US
participants (MD=1.6), U = 917.5, r = -.33, p < .001. However, theresults for positive afect showed statistically signifcantly higherscores for the US participants (MD=3.6) compared to the Japaneseparticipants (MD=3.17), U = 1050.5, r = -.25, p = .006 (Figure 2).
The results of the other subscales are shown in Table 7. While
there was no statistically signifcant diference for Joviality, all otherfactors showed a diference between the US and Japanese cohorts(Figure 3a). Japanese respondents expressed higher levels of basic
negative emotions, including Fear, Hostility, Guilt, and Sadness(Figure 3b). Meanwhile, US respondents expressed higher levels ofbasic positive emotions, including Self-assurance and Attentiveness,and other afective states, including Shyness, Fatigue, Serenity,
and Surprise (Figure 3c). In general, US respondents experienced
higher levels of emotion, especially positive afect, while Japanese
respondents experienced more negative afect.
In sum, we can partially accept H1: that maldaimonic game
experiences were often, but not always, or solely, positive.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Seaborn et al.

Table 4: Motivations for playing maldaimonically. JP n=48/59, US N=51.
Theme
Passivity

Sub-Theme
Compliance

Provocation

Revenge
Warmongering

Mentalization

Escapism
Moral Hall Pass

Extraordinarity
Afective Drivers

Boredom

Amusement
Extrinsic Drivers

DesiresInfuences

5.2

JP Example
P41: ゲームのルールに沿ってプレイした (played according to the rulesof the game)
P15: 同じことをやられたから、やり返したくてやった (they did it tome, so I wanted to do it back)P18: ストーリーで気に入らないキャラクターだったとき (when you
didn’t like a character in a story)
P37: 職場でのストレス (stress at work)
P68: ヒマな中学生の悪ふざけを、誰にも叱られずに行えたからだと思います (I was able to do the mischievous pranks of a junior high school
student without being scolded by anyone)
P39: 無敵になり、破壊力が増すことが快感だった為です (because it
was pleasurable to become invincible and more destructive)
P38: 普通に遊んでも面白くなくなってきて、よりスリリングな方法を選んだように思う (I think it became less interesting to play in a normal
way and I chose a more thrilling way)
P61: 敵の倒れる動作や弱っていく過程が面白かったため (because theprocess of dropping and weakening enemies was interesting)P49: 課金せずに効率よく強くなる方法はないかといろいろ探った結果ギルドのルールを無視しようと思った (after exploring ways to getstronger without paying, I decided to ignore the guild rules)
P23: 評判が良かったゲームだったため (the game had a good reputation)

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motivations(HEMA) (H2, H3)First, we ran Kendall’s tau-b and Spearman’s rho correlations todetermine the expected association between hedonia and eudaimonia. Japanese participants exhibited a moderate, statisticallysignifcant positive correlation (Kendall’s tau-b: � = .369, n = 59, p <.001; Spearman’s rho, � (57) = .498, p < .001). Thus, we can confrm
the theorized relationship between eudaimonia and hedonia
within the context of maldaimonia (H3).
Next, we ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine any diferences between the US and Japanese participants regarding theirhedonic and eudaimonic motivations (Figure 1). The hedonic scoresof the US participants (MD=6.2) were greater than the Japaneseparticipants (MD=5.2), U = 479, r = -.58, p < .001. However, the US
participants (MD=3.0) had lower eudaimonic scores compared toJapanese participants (MD=4.7), U = 715.5, r = -.45 p < .001. Thus,
we can confrm that players were meaning-oriented during
maldaimonic play, especially Japanese players (H2).

5.4

5.3

Player Experience (PXI) (H2, H5)JP
10 (21%)5 (10%)

3 (6%)

2 (4%)

1 (2%)

5 (10%)
4 (8%)

7 (15%)
7 (15%)

4 (8%)

5 (10%)

3 (6%)

2 (4%)

7 (14%)

8 (17%)

7 (14%)

4 (8%)

2 (4%)

7 (15%)

Long-term Meaning Potential (H4)

We ran Kendall’s tau-b, Spearman’s rho, and Pearson correlation
tests to determine the relationship between eudaimonic (MD = 4),
hedonic (MD=5.6), and long-term meaning potential scores (MD =3.5). The Kendall’s correlation test showed a weak, positive correlation for Japanese participants between their eudaimonic scores andlong-term meaning potential, which was statistically signifcant (�= .195, n = 59, p = .048). Similarly, the results for Spearman’s rho
showed a weak, positive correlation between eudaimonic scoresand long-term meaning potential, which was statistically signifcant (� (57) = .267, p = .041). However, the results of the Pearson
correlation were not statistically signifcant (r = .202, n = 59, p =.125). As predicted, no relationship was found with hedonia. No
statistically signifcant results were found for the US cohort, either.
While the theorized relationship between long-term meaning
potential and eudaimonia in the context of maldaimonia
appears to exist for Japanese players (H4), in light of the above,
we must interpret these results cautiously [43].

6
We conducted a Mann-Whitney U test to evaluate whether there
were diferences between the play experiences of US and Japanese participants. Participants from the US (MD=1.87) and Japan(MD=1.93) did not signifcantly difer in terms of psychosocial consequences, U = 1210, r = -.08, p = .07. Similarly, US players (MD=1.87)
did not seem to difer from Japanese players (MD=1.93) in terms offunctional consequences, U = 1362, r = -.16, p = .39. The generally
high, positive scores for both dimensions provides additional
support for H2 (meaning) and confrms H5 (good player UX).

US
18 (35%)DISCUSSION

Maldaimonia manifests within the realm of Japanese gaming inways similar but sometimes diferent to that which US players
experience. Here, we discuss the fndings, refect on theory andmethodology, and trace out paths for future work.

6.1

The Nature of Maldaimonic Play in Japan(RQ2)

Player accounts show that maldaimonic game UX is an experiential
and orientational construct engendered through a variety of motivations and experiences linked to Waterman’s four criteria [74]Play Across Boundaries

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Table 5: Maldaimonic game experiences found in the critical incident accounts. JP N=59, US N=51.
Theme
Transgressions

Sub-Theme
Murder & Mayhem
Chaos

Refections

Rule Subversion

HubrisVengeance

Feelings

Malight
Power

Mood Shifts

Appreciations

Extrinsic Appetite

Aesthetics

JP Example
P46: ノコノコを踏んで倒していくこと (stepping on Koopas andknocking them down)
P26: 都内の一般道を暴走して楽しむ (I enjoyed going out of control on ordinary city roads)
P15: 友達を倒して物資を奪ったり、家を破壊するイタズラしたり、死ぬ場所に誘導する罠を仕掛けたり (beating your friends
and taking their supplies, pranking them to destroy their houses,
setting traps to lead them to places where they will die, etc.)
P16: 現実では出来ないことを行える背徳感 (a sense of immorality
from doing things I can’t do in reality)
P48: 自分が助かることしか考えていない人がいたので、みんなで協力するふりをしてキルを奪い続けたこと (there werepeople who only thought about saving themselves, so we pretended
to work together and kept getting kills)
P19: 普段できない破壊行動で快感を感じた (I felt pleasure in
destructive behaviour that I wouldn’t normally be able to do)
P39: マリオが無敵になった際、ブロックを高速で多数壊せることに楽しみを感じました (when Mario became invincible, I
enjoyed being able to break many blocks at high speed)
P66: 平和にチャットなどをしてるところをいきなり殺したりすることで普段実生活では味わえない気持ちよさがあったよ
うに思う (the unusual, unreal feeling when you suddenly kill people
who are chatting peacefully)
P64: 敵キャラクターを倒すことで経験値が得られ、自分のキャラクターが成長することが楽しかった (I enjoyed gaining
experience and growing my character by defeating enemies)
P68: エンジン等の出力を最大にした車輌でオーバルコースの壁に向かってフルスロットルで横滑りさせながら走ると、1000km/hを超える速度が出て処理落ちが発生し紙芝居のようになったあと、本来走行できない壁の外を走ったり、コースの下へ無限に落ち続けたりした (I drove a vehicle, engine
to the max, and skidded at full throttle towards the wall, the speed exceeded 1000 km/h and a bug happened, it became like a paper screen,
I drove outside the wall and kept falling infnitely down in space)US
40 (78%)JP
41 (69%)9 (18%)

14 (24%)20 (39%)17 (19%)5 (10%)

6 (10%)

3 (6%)

2 (3%)

32 (63%)10 (17%)27 (53%)24 (41%)

12 (24%)22 (37%)17 (33%)14 (24%)6 (12%)

1 (2%)

Sig.

***

*

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Table 6: Frequency of the four criteria for maldaimonia foundin the motivation and experience themes.
Criteria Motivations
Count %
None
3
6.3%
1
15
31.3%
2
11
22.9%
3
10
20.8%
4
9
18.8%
3&4
19
39.6%

Experiences
Count %
1
1.4%
9
12.7%
20
28.2%
21
29.6%
8
11.3%
29
40.8%

Both
Count
0
2
7
18
21
39

%
0%
4.2%
14.6%
37.5%
43.8%
81.3%

(1) attaching positive valence to egocentric, destructive, and/or exploitative activities.
(2) providing a basis of personal identity. (3) striving for excellence or mastery in these
activities. (4) aligning these activities as acts of personal expressiveness.

and found across an array of games and gaming contexts. Furthermore, it exhibits connections, both anticipated and unexpected,
with its conceptual counterpart, eudaimonia (H2), eudaimonia’s
correlate, hedonia (H3), and various aspects of the gaming experience, including player experience (H5), notably functional andpsychosocial needs, positive emotional states (H1), and long-term
meaning potential (H4).
Few accounts had the combined purposive and social natureof cruel play [68] or dark participation in games [46, 47]. Most
were found in single-player contexts (33 or 56%) and social contexts
with known others (17 or 65%). Revenge and vengeance were rare,
while warmongering and acts of murder and mayhem were mostly
unconnected to real people (refer to Tables 4 and 5). Similarly, no
accounts connoted the conscious rebellion that Aarseth [1] articulates for transgressive play. The themes of moral hall pass (7 or15%), chaos (14 or 24%), and rule subversion (17 or 19%) speak to

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Seaborn et al.

Table 7: Statistical results for positive and negative afect via the three subscales of the PANAS-X.
Subscale

FactorBasic Negative Emotion Scales

Fear
Hostility
Guilt
Sadness
Joviality
Self-assurance
AttentivenessShyness
Fatigue
Serenity
Surprise

Basic Positive Emotion Scales

Other Afective States

Statistics
US MD JP MD
1.14
1.83
1.17
2.0
1.25
1.75
1.0
1.6
3.3
3.3
3.5
2.8
4.0
3.0
1.5
0
1.5
0
2.0
1.33
2.33
1.33

U
992.5
947.5
1061.5
827.5
1481
1012
417.5
264
280
891
814

r
-0.29
-.32
-.25
-.4
-.01
-.27
-.62
-.725
-.725
-.35
-.39

p
.002**.001**.006**< .001***.888.003**< .001***< .001***< .001***< .001***< .001****p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: Hedonic scores (left) were statistically signifcantly higher for US participants. Eudaimonic scores (right) were
statistically signifcantly higher for Japanese participants.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Positive afect scores (left) were statistically signifcantly higher for US participants. Negative afect scores (right)
were statistically signifcantly higher for Japanese participants.

Play Across Boundaries

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3: Basic positive emotion scores related to self-assurance and attentiveness were statistically signifcantly higher for US
participants (Figure 3a). All basic negative emotion scores were statistically statistically signifcantly for Japanese participants(Figure 3b). Other afective scores show higher values for US participants (Figure 3c).
rule-breaking within the game. Yet, these do relate to transgression
as characterized by Mortensen and Jørgensen [51]. Within eachof these modes of maldaimonia, we may fnd the two varieties oftransgression that they delineate: extraludic transgressions related
to norms in society and intraludic ones tied to the game itself. As
they note, there can be a fuzzy line between the two, since games
can be modelled on the real world or involve others who bring in
expectations around extra-game social norms. At the same time, thepresence of the compliance theme (10 or 21%) suggests the opposite
of rebellion against the game. This points to the notion of darkplay [51, 52], where the game design itself stimulated maldaimonic
play. While out of scope for this paper, future work could compareand contrast maldaimonic experiences resulting from games designed and not designed to be provocative. In sum, maldaimonic
game UX represents meaningful solo player experiences thatenable immersive self-expression through egocentric, exploitative, and/or destructive acts or multiplayer scenarios where thetransgressive elements tend to align with social norms among
peers and within social networks.
This juxtaposition to dark and transgressive play prompts us toconsider maldaimonia against the “magic circle” of the game. First
conceptualized by Huizinga [35] and later popularized by Salen
and Zimmerman [63] for digital games, the magic circle refers to
the artifcial space that we, the players, voluntarily cross into whenembarking on play journeys. Here, the rules we are familiar withmay be absent or reconfgured. Huizinga characterizes this spaceas unimpeded by “moral duty” [35, p. 8] and without “moral function” [35, p. 6]. Yet, we may fnd a contradiction when meaning andethics are considered together that would elude investigations on
eudaimonic engagement, which is ethically positive. Maldaimonic

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

engagement renders meaning conspicuous through negative moral
weight. Player accounts referencing the real world and especiallydefending maldaimonic pursuits refect this. Whether maldaimonia
creates a new and murky liminal space between real world consequences and the unreality of play or renders the magic circle
obsolete is a question we leave to future philosophers of play. Still,
multiplayer contexts may present a clearer picture. Disruption of
the magic circle for other players that is linked to a given player’s
maldaimonic excursions could draw the line between permissible
maldaimonia and cruel play [68] or dark participation [46].
Critical incidents were reported across a range of game genresand specifc titles, indicating that maldaimonic game UX is nottied exclusively to particular types of games, even violent ones,
contrary to Waterman’s contemplations [74] and the dark play
literatures. Indeed, respondents provided an array of malightful but
non-violent acts and orientations that point to need satisfaction
through extrinsic motivation [62], a key trajectory for future study.
One noteworthy deviation from the fndings for the US cohortand the requirements proposed by Waterman [74] related to positive
afect. This and several other nuanced results found on comparing the US and Japanese cohorts raise the possibility of culturaldiferences, to which we turn next.

6.2

Cultural Congruities and Caveats: The Caseof Japan vs. the US (RQ1)

The diferences for hedonia, eudaimonia, long-term meaning potential, and facets of afect highlight a current of meaningful play in
the Japanese cohort. Likewise, the focus on experiences of malight,
or malicious delight, by the US cohort, points to a pattern of shortterm maldaimonic satisfaction. Taken together, maldaimonic game
UX could be culturally-sensitive, driven to a greater degree byhedonic orientations for US players while fueled by eudaimonia
for those in Japan. These implications should be considered whendeveloping and validating a measure of maldaimonia.
Three dimensions from Hofstede’s model [34] may help explainsome of these diferences. Japan has generally been characterized asa collectivist culture, while the States has been cast as individualistic [50]. The higher rates of negative emotions alongside qualitative
insights, such as being inspired by external forces to try out maldaimonic acts, points to a more collectivist spirit, one that recognizes
and engages with others. The US has also been characterized as
indulgent and Japan a culture of restraint [7]. This touches on
the divide between these cohorts in terms of short-term hedonic
pursuits for the US and long-term meaning potential and eudaimonia for Japan. Finally, this last diference also matches greaterlevels of the Hofstedian long-term orientation value found inJapan [7]. These are admittedly broad strokes, patterns that shouldbe critically explored with further mixed methods work.
We can summarize the core similarities in maldaimonic game
UX between the US and Japanese cohorts as follows:• A similar range and degree of motivations (refer to 4.2) andexperiences (refer to 4.3), with caveats• A similar degree of functional and psychosocial consequences
in maldaimonic play (refer to 5.3)
• A similar range of afective states (refer to 5.1), with caveats

Seaborn et al.

We can then summarize the core diferences as follows:• Japanese players experienced comparatively less malight, or
malicious delight, and associated their experience less withaesthetics than US players (refer to 4.3)
• Japanese players were driven to a greater degree by eudaimonic orientations and, weakly, long-term meaning potential (refer to 5.2 and 5.4), while US players pursued hedonia
to a greater degree (refer to 5.2)
• US players experienced higher afective states overall andespecially greater positive afect, while Japanese players
experienced a higher degree of negative afect (refer to 5.1)

6.3

Methodology and Magic Circles

Maldaimonia is largely viewed as taboo. Social acceptability biases,
reputation management, observer efects, self- and other-deception... these and more are potential barriers for research [74], at least interms of accuracy. Yet, the magic circle of the game medium appears
to have been efective at nullifying these concerns. It is likely thatsome respondents held back, but the bold and unadulterated natureof the critical incident accounts is comforting. Still, though rare,
we should heed the accounts that involved maldaimonic behaviour
against other (human) players, as this could signpost antisocialand maladaptive personalities [22, 23]. Waterman also questioned
whether the game medium itself is a viable arena or simply a modeof symbolic expression. Yet, game experiences can be real for people.
People can and do get attached to NPCs [12] and develop close ties
with non/anonymous others [5], including in violent games [21].
Games are a facet of our multifaceted lives, and maldaimonia may
simply be one variety of the gaming facet.
Standardized methods of evaluating and/or measuring maldaimonia will also be needed. Waterman [74] proposed the development of a two-factor instrument, including personal expressivenessand ethicality scales. Schadenfreude, translated from the German
as “malicious delight,” has been included in previous game instruments [15]; items could be extracted and expanded upon to develop
a comprehensive scale. The present work contributes two thematic
frameworks on maldaimonic play motivations and experiences,
expansions of the original frameworks by Seaborn and Iseya [65].
These frameworks should be tested in future work and could seed
the creation of a quantitative instrument.
We will also need to revisit the maldaimonic game UX frameworks [65] when analyzing experiential accounts—and not just forcross-cultural work. While participants were asked to describe amaldaimonic experience and their motivations in line with Waterman’s proposed four criteria for maldaimonia [74], not all descriptions could be analyzed in a way that at least one sub-theme
covering the criteria applied. Specifcally, 56.3% of accounts did notmeet all four criteria and 33.9% did not meet three. This does notnecessarily mean that the thematic frameworks are unrepresentative of maldaimonia. Accounts were not substantial, with mostbeing one-liners of an average 33 characters for motivations and 40
for experiences. Prompting a thick description may be necessary.
We recognize that this may also be a feature of our methods, i.e.,use of an online survey. As such, we encourage follow-up work
using other methods suitable for critical incident techniques, i.e.,
face-to-face interviews [77], as well as force a minimum word countPlay Across Boundaries

when using online tools. We also raise the possibility of a scoping
issue: reports on self-actions vs. those on the actions of others.
Respondents on the receiving end do not necessarily know andmay be hesitant to make strong claims about the motivations ofothers. Also, those carrying out maldaimonic initiatives may not
be willing to admit their true feelings and motivations, even anonymously or with respect to solo play, due to the aforementioned
social biases. Future work can separate those who willingly partakein maldaimonic experiences and those who mete it out.

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

bolstered the richness of the accounts. While the results nonethelessappear solid, subsequent work should correct these methodologicalissues. Ideally, future work will involve the use of a validated instrument for quantitative measurements of maldaimonic orientations
and experiences. Finally, we conducted an exploratory analysis
because of the novelty of maldaimonia. Future work will need todevelop hypotheses and confrm the inferential statistics results forJapan, the US, and other cultural groups.

7
6.4

From Games to Maldaimonic UX

The concept of maldaimonia that we have explored here is tied
to the gaming context. Features such as malight and aesthetics
are certainly functions of the game experience. However, people
surely have maldaimonic experiences with other forms of interactive systems, environments, agents, and interfaces. We have all
experienced yelling at our computer screens in frustration, evenif we might not speak about it. Yet, we may be more open about
these experiences if there is a way to do so. For example, througha “Frustrometer” or “Squeezemouse,” modes of interaction clearlymarked as permissive of venting one’s frustration, have been foundefective [61]. Future work that moves maldaimonic game UX into a
more general maldaimonic UX for HCI experiences will be challenging. There may be greater viability through non-invasive or evendeceptive research approaches. This is not unprecedented; Wizardof Oz [13], for instance, is a widely used and accepted deceptive
approach to simulating in-progress prototypes, where a person
pretends to be the computer, unbeknownst to the user. We can also
take a cue from the distinction between maldaimonic game UX
and dark participation: focusing on experiences with computersthat do not involve other people. Despite these open questions andchallenges, examining UX from a maldaimonic perspective may
be fruitful for better understanding people’s orientations towards
and experiences with technology. Maldaimonia in games may be
special or transferable. Careful and clever research designs will beneeded to explore whether this is the case.

6.5

Limitations

Procedures that involve post hoc recall are limited [38, 44, 49]. However, we cannot predict when maldaimonic experiences will occur
in advance, so it is difcult to get around this challenge. The descriptions provided were not as substantial as prompted, potentially
an issue with the online format and/or the novelty of the maldaimonia concept. Future work should expand on our methods withmulti-tiered prompts, word limits, and supplementary approaches,such as interviews. The inductive analysis was carried out by a
non-Japanese researcher, albeit one experienced in this context andwith this method, and with input from Japanese researchers. Future
work should be conducted to confrm the emergent themes derived
from the Japanese data set and possibly identify new ones using
only inductive approaches and stronger involvement of Japanese
researchers. As mentioned, a Google Form error prevented us from
capturing all factors in the PANAS-X. This could have afected
the power of the instrument, especially the stability of each construct and its ability to capture the afective experience. Similarly,
a minimum character count was not used, where its use could have

CONCLUSION

Maldaimonic UX appears be a cross-cultural orientational and experiential construct in game contexts, adding to the existing literatures
on “dark” and “transgressive” play. We have shown how Japaneseplayer’s experiences of maldaimonia largely map onto those of a US
cohort—and where they do not. We ofer more robust empirical evidence of maldaimonia in gameplay through our qualitative analyses
and relevant instrumental measures. Now that we know maldaimonia crosses cultural boundaries, we can act on the implications of
its existence for other contexts: cultures but also HCI spaces andsites of play. The critical incident reports shared by participantsdetail maldaimonic encounters and drivers within games. These
insights can be applied in the development and examination of user
experiences in gaming and beyond. Notably, we can move towards
scale development in a culturally-sensitive way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by the department and in part by the World
Research Hub (WRH) Program of the International Research Frontiers Initiative (IRFI), Tokyo Institute of Technology. Our gratitude
to Peter Pennefather for years of engaging discussion on eudaimonia and more recent lively debates on maldaimonia. We used
ChatGPT to rewrite parts of the related work and discussion for distinction from the earlier work-in-progress paper [65]. Katie Seaborn
conscientiously dissents to in-person participation at CHI this year;
read their positionality statement here: https://bit.ly/chi24statement

REFERENCES[1] Espen Aarseth. 2014. I fought the law: Transgressive play and the implied player.
In From Literature to Cultural Literacy. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 180–188.
[2] Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin
Gerling. 2020. Development and validation of the player experience inventory:
A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial
consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 135 (March
2020), 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370[3] Stephen P. Anderson. 2011. Seductive Interaction Design: Creating Playful, Fun,and Efective User Experiences. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.
[4] Ryosuke Asano, Saori Tsukamoto, Tasuku Igarashi, and Veronika Huta. 2021.
Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic and eudaimonic orientationsin Japan: The HEMA scale. Current Psychology 40 (2021), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z[5] Jane Barnett and Mark Coulson. 2010. Virtually real: A psychological perspective
on massively multiplayer online games. Review of General Psychology 14, 2 (June2010), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019442[6] Anne Bartsch and Mary Beth Oliver. 2017. Appreciation of meaningful entertainment experiences and eudaimonic well-being. In The Routledge Handbookof Media Use and Well-being: International Perspectives on Theory and Researchon Positive Media Efects. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, US,
80–92.
[7] Erich B. Bergiel, Blaise J. Bergiel, and John W. Upson. 2012. Revisiting Hofstede’s
dimensions: Examining the cultural convergence of the United States and Japan.
American Journal of Management 12, 1 (2012), 69–79.
[8] John C. Birkimer and Joseph H. Brown. 1979. Back to basics: Percentage agreement measures are adequate, but there are easier ways. Journal of Applied

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Behavior Analysis 12, 4 (1979), 535–543.
[9] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.
1191/1478088706qp063oa[10] Tom Cole and Marco Gillies. 2021. Thinking and doing: Challenge, agency, andthe eudaimonic experience in video games. Games and Culture 16, 2 (March
2021), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019881536[11] Mia Consalvo. 2009. Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
[12] Mark Coulson, Jane Barnett, Christopher J. Ferguson, and Rebecca L. Gould.
2012. Real feelings for virtual people: Emotional attachments and interpersonal
attraction in video games. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 1 (2012), 176–184.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028192[13] N. Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies — why
and how. Knowledge-Based Systems 6, 4 (Dec. 1993), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0950-7051(93)90017-N[14] Rowan Daneels, Nicholas D. Bowman, Daniel Possler, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2021.
The ‘eudaimonic experience’: A scoping review of the concept in digital games
research. Media and Communication 9, 2 (May 2021), 178–190. https://doi.org/
10.17645/mac.v9i2.3824 Number: 2.
[15] Yvonne A.W. de Kort, Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, and Karolien Poels. 2007. Digital
games as social presence technology: Development of the Social Presence in
Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ). In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International
Workshop on Presence. Starlab, Barcelona, Spain, 195–203.
[16] Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2008. Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being:
An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, 1 (Jan. 2008), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1[17] Sebastian Deterding. 2014. Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamifcation. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2466374. Social Science Research Network,
Rochester, NY. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2466374[18] Sarah Diefenbach, Nina Kolb, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2014. The ‘hedonic’ in humancomputer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions.
In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM,
Vancouver, BC, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598549[19] Carol R. Ember. 2009. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. Rowman Altamira,
Lanham, MD, USA.
[20] Jodi Forlizzi and Katja Battarbee. 2004. Understanding experience in interactive
systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013152[21] Maria Frostling-Henningsson. 2009. First-person shooter games as a way ofconnecting to people: “Brothers in blood”. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, 5 (Oct.
2009), 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0345[22] Jeanette M. Gonzalez and Tobias Greitemeyer. 2018. The relationship between
everyday sadism, violent video game play, and fascination with weapons. Personality and Individual Diferences 124 (April 2018), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2017.11.045[23] Tobias Greitemeyer, Niklas Weiß, and Tobias Heuberger. 2019. Are everyday
sadists specifcally attracted to violent video games and do they emotionallybeneft from playing those games? Aggressive Behavior 45, 2 (2019), 206–213.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21810[24] Matthew Grizzard, Ron Tamborini, Robert J. Lewis, Lu Wang, and Sujay Prabhu.
2014. Being bad in a video game can make us morally sensitive. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking 17, 8 (Aug. 2014), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.
1089/cyber.2013.0658[25] Jonathan Gutman. 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46, 2 (April 1982), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600207[26] Peter A. Hancock, Aaron A. Pepe, and Lauren L. Murphy. 2005. Hedonomics:
The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonomics in Design 13, 1(2005), 8–14.
[27] Marc Hassenzahl. 2001. The efect of perceived hedonic quality on productappealingness. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 13, 4 (Dec.
2001), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_07[28] Marc Hassenzahl. 2008. User experience (UX): Towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of
the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine. ACM, Metz, France,
11–15.
[29] Marc Hassenzahl. 2010. Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons.
Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 3, 1 (Jan. 2010), 1–95. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00261ED1V01Y201003HCI008[30] Marc Hassenzahl and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. User experience – a research
agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25, 2 (2006), 91–97. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01449290500330331[31] Daniel M. Haybron. 2016. The philosophical basis of eudaimonic psychology. In
Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being, Joar Vittersø (Ed.). Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_2[32] Martin G. Helander. 2002. Hedonomics—afective human factors design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Vol. 46.

Seaborn et al.

SAGE, Baltimore, MD, 978–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204601209[33] Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest
people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2-3 (June 2010), 61–83.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X[34] Geert Hofstede. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Oliver’s Yard,
London, UK.
[35] Johan Huizinga. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.
Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA.
[36] Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A formal approachto game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on
Challenges in Game AI, Vol. 4. San Jose, CA, Washington, DC, USA, 1722. Issue 1.
https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf[37] Veronika Huta. 2013. Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on
Eudaimonia. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 139–158.
[38] Veronika Huta and Richard M. Ryan. 2010. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: Thediferential and overlapping well-being benefts of hedonic and eudaimonic
motives. Journal of Happiness Studies 11, 6 (Dec. 2010), 735–762. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4[39] Veronika Huta and Alan S. Waterman. 2013. Eudaimonia and its distinction
from hedonia: Developing a classifcation and terminology for understanding
conceptual and operational defnitions. Journal of Happiness Studies 15, 6 (Dec.
2013), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0[40] Veronika Huta and Alan S. Waterman. 2014. Eudaimonia and its distinction
from hedonia: Developing a classifcation and terminology for understanding
conceptual and operational defnitions. Journal of Happiness Studies 15 (2014),
1425–1456.
[41] International Test Commission. 2018. ITC guidelines for translating and adapting
tests. International Journal of Testing 18, 2 (2018), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15305058.2017.1398166[42] Kristine Jørgensen and Faltin Karlsen. 2019. Transgression in Games and Play.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
[43] Harry Khamis. 2008. Measures of association: How to choose? Journal of
Diagnostic Medical Sonography 24, 3 (2008), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/
87564793083170[44] Jinhyung Kim, Pyungwon Kang, and Incheol Choi. 2014. Pleasure now, meaninglater: Temporal dynamics between pleasure and meaning. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 55 (Nov. 2014), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.
018[45] Hannu Korhonen, Markus Montola, and Juha Arrasvuori. 2009. Understanding
playful user experience through digital games. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. ACM, New
York, NY, USA, 274–285.
[46] Rachel Kowert. 2020. Dark participation in games. Frontiers in Psychology 11(2020), 11 pages. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.598947[47] Rachel Kowert and Chrissy Cook. 2022. The toxicity of our (virtual) cities: Prevalence of dark participation in games and perceived efectiveness of reporting tools.
In Proceedings of the 55th Hawai‘i International Conference on System Sciences.
HICSS, Hawai‘i, 3180–3189. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/79724[48] Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus
Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI?. In Proceedings of the2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama
Japan, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445488[49] Elisa D. Mekler and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Momentary pleasure or lasting
meaning? Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4509–4520.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858225[50] Michael Minkov, Pinaki Dutt, Michael Schachner, Oswaldo Morales, Carlos
Sanchez, Janar Jandosova, Yerlan Khassenbekov, and Ben Mudd. 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index
from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 24, 3 (2017),
386–404.
[51] Torill Mortensen and Kristine Jørgensen. 2020. The Paradox of Transgression inGames. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367816476[52] Torill Elvira Mortensen, Jonas Linderoth, and Ashley M.L. Brown. 2015. The
Dark Side of Game Play: Controversial Issues in Playful Environments. Routledge,
Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England, UK.
[53] Livia J. Müller, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2015. Facets in HCI: Towards
understanding eudaimonic UX – preliminary fndings. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,2283–2288. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732836[54] Lewis Nitschinsk, Stephanie J. Tobin, and Eric J. Vanman. 2022. The disinhibiting
efects of anonymity increase online trolling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, andSocial Networking 25, 6 (June 2022), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.

Play Across Boundaries

0005[55] Mary Beth Oliver and Arthur A. Raney. 2011. Entertainment as pleasurable andmeaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment
consumption. Journal of Communication 61, 5 (Oct. 2011), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x[56] Timo Partala and Aleksi Kallinen. 2012. Understanding the most satisfying
and unsatisfying user experiences: Emotions, psychological needs, and context.
Interacting with Computers 24, 1 (Jan. 2012), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intcom.2011.10.001[57] Cale J. Passmore, Mathew K. Miller, Jun Liu, Cody J. Phillips, and Regan L.
Mandryk. 2020. A cheating mood: The emotional and psychological beneftsof cheating in single-player games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’20). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414252[58] Daniel Pimentel and Sri Kalyanaraman. 2020. Your own worst enemy: Implications of the customization, and destruction, of non-player characters. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI
PLAY ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93–106.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414269[59] Kevin Proudfoot. 2023. Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 17, 3 (July 2023), 308–326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126816[60] Thorsten Quandt. 2018. Dark participation. Media and Communication 6, 4 (Nov.
2018), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1519[61] Carson Jonathan Reynolds. 2001. The sensing and measurement of frustration
with computers. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.
mit.edu/handle/1721.1/29170[62] R.M. Ryan and E.L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Defnitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 1(2000), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020[63] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play. MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.
[64] Katie Seaborn. 2016. Evaluating hedonic and eudaimonic motives in humancomputer interaction. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference, HCIInternational 2016 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9735). Springer, Toronto,
ON, 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40397-7_47[65] Katie Seaborn and Satoru Iseya. 2023. Meaningful play and malicious delight:
Exploring maldaimonic game UX. In Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’23 Companion). ACM,
Stratford, Ontario, 174—-180. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573382.3616095[66] Katie Seaborn, Peter Pennefather, and Deborah I. Fels. 2020. Eudaimonia andhedonia in the design and evaluation of a cooperative game for psychosocial

CHI ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

well-being. Human–Computer Interaction 35, 4 (2020), 289–337. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07370024.2018.1555481[67] Premeet Sidhu and Marcus Carter. 2023. Benevolent transgressive play in Dungeons & Dragons [D&D]. Simulation & Gaming 54 (2023), 708–729. Issue 6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781231199824[68] Brian Sutton-Smith. 2001. The Ambiguity of Play (revised ed.). Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[69] Ron Tamborini, Nicholas David Bowman, Allison Eden, Matthew Grizzard, andAshley Organ. 2010. Defning media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic
needs. Journal of Communication 60, 4 (Dec. 2010), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x[70] Wai Yen Tang and Jesse Fox. 2016. Men’s harassment behavior in online video
games: Personality traits and game factors. Aggressive Behavior 42, 6 (2016),
513–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21646[71] Alan S. Waterman. 1990. Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Mind and Behavior 11, 1 (1990), 47–74.
[72] Alan S. Waterman. 1993. Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal
expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 64, 4 (1993), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.
678[73] Alan S. Waterman. 2008. Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 3, 4 (2008), 234–252.
[74] Alan S. Waterman. 2021. Toward a theory of maldaimonia. Journal of Theoreticaland Philosophical Psychology 42 (Dec. 2021), 202–219. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.
1037/teo0000198[75] David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development andvalidation of brief measures of positive and negative afect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (1988), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063[76] Werner Wirth, Matthias Hofer, and Holger Schramm. 2012. Beyond pleasure:
Exploring the eudaimonic entertainment experience. Human Communication
Research 38, 4 (Oct. 2012), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.
01434.x[77] Lorette K. Woolsey. 1986. The critical incident technique: An innovative qualitative method of research. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 20,
4 (1986), 242–254. https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/59733[78] Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Lisa Meekison. 2004. Making sense of experience. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, Mark A. Blythe, Kees Overbeeke,
Andrew F. Monk, and Peter C. Wright (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2967-5_5[79] Donald W. Zimmerman. 1994. A note on the infuence of outliers on parametricand nonparametric tests. The Journal of General Psychology 121, 4 (1994), 391–401.