# Socio-Economic Decision Making and Emotion Elicitation with a Serious Game in the Wild
## 4 Experiment
### Methodology  
We addressed the challenges mentioned in Section 1 mostly in the designing stage of this study. In order to ensure that the emotion and decision-making data collected during our experiment were primarily due to the players' interactions with our game, the player engagement was measured using the Game Engagement Questionnaire (GEQ) [67]. The full GEQ used for this study is provided in Figure A1 in Appendix A. A game designed for \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Feature** & **Description** & **Value Type** & **Value Range** \\ \hline Decision Type & These will be scenarios that will be supplied to our player during the gameplay and will consist of the different games we identified from the literature to be important for & Categorical & \(\bullet\) Ultimatum Game \(\bullet\) Dictator Game \(\bullet\) Trust Game \\ Decision & The decision taken by the player in the game & Categorical & Yes/No/ \(\text{Made\_offer}/\text{No\_offer}\) \\ \hline Resource & The type of an item of finite quantity that is exchanged during an interaction in the game & Categorical & Food/Money \\ \hline Integral Emotional Response & The emotion valence for the six basic emotions that is self-reported by the player & Continuous & Positive Real Numbers \\ \hline Reaction Time & Amount of time taken by the player to make a decision of interest in the game & Continuous & Positive Real Numbers \\ \hline Interaction Speech & A measure of how harshly the NPC & Discrete & Integer Numbers (\(-5\) = n = 5) \\ \hline Interaction & A measure of how negative or positive the NPC shows facial expressions to the player & Discrete & Integer Numbers (\(-5\) = n = 5) \\ \hline Prior Decision & The decision activity the player was involved in prior to the current one, i.e., its value will be NULL for the first & Categorical & \(\bullet\) Ultimatum Game \(\bullet\) Dictator Game \(\bullet\) Trust Game \(\bullet\) Prisoner’s Dilemma \(\bullet\) NULL \(\bullet\) Non-DoI \\ \hline Incidental & It is the integral emotional response for the emotional state of the player prior to & Emotion & Positive Real Numbers \\ Response & entering the current DoI interaction & Vector & Numbers \\ \hline Interaction Fairness & A measure of how fair the & Discrete & Integer Numbers (1 = n = 5) \\ \hline \hline Player Role & Whether the player is the initiator or the recipient of a decision in a DoI interaction & Categorical & \(\bullet\) Ultimatum Game \(\circ\) Responder \(\circ\) Proposer \(\bullet\) Dictator Game \(\circ\) Dictator \(\circ\) Responder \(\circ\) Trust Game \(\circ\) Trustor \(\circ\) Trustee \(\bullet\) Prisoner’s Dilemma \(\circ\) Prisoner \(\circ\) Jailer \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Interaction features and their details. emotion elicitation will involve several ethical considerations, primarily as player privacy and informed consent [74] and potential psychological harm [66]. In order to ensure no ethical considerations were overlooked, a formal ethics review was conducted by Queen Mary Ethics of Research Committee (QMERC) and they deemed the study to be low risk in nature, subsequently providing their approval for the experiment. More specifics for the said ethics review can be found under the \"Institutional Review Board Statement\" at the end of this paper. For our experiment, we used a \"within-subjects\" experimental design, which meant we did not have a control group as this approach has been found to be effective for conducting experiments in real-world settings, which was not controlled, hence the term 'in the wild' [177]. Most of the previous studies utilised socio-economic game paradigms in person gameplay arrangements, which can introduce some unavoidable contextual variability in the their studies (as discussed in Section 2).