# Engagement and Brand Recall in Software Developers: An Eye-Tracking Study on Adversames
## 3 Results
### Results of the Flow Measurement
The Challenge-Skill Balance dimension exhibited good reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.84) and acceptable reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.72). Conversely, the Action-Awareness Merging dimension displayed poor reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.56) and unacceptable reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.25). The Clear Goal dimension showed poor reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.57) but acceptable reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.74). The Feedback dimension demonstrated excellent reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.90) and good reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.88). The Concentration on Task dimension had poor reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.58) and acceptable reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.71). The Control dimension revealed acceptable reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.79) and good reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.85). The Loss of Self-consciousness dimension achieved acceptable reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.74) and good reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.84). The Transformation of Time dimension presented unacceptable reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.36) and poor reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.58). The Autotelic Experience dimension attained acceptable reliability for both Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.79) and Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.74). Overall, the Flow State Scale showed good reliability for Group 1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.84) and excellent reliability for Group 2 (\(\alpha\) = 0.94). The lower Challenge-Skill Balance dimension for Group 2 compared to Group 1 is attributed to the exclusion of several gaming elements. The Action-Awareness Merging dimension was considered unacceptable for both groups. The Clear Goals dimension for Group 1 was not only unacceptable but also lower than that for Group 2. The Feedback dimension scored higher for Group 1 than for Group 2, potentially influenced by the remaining time warning sound and task completion sound in Group 1. The Concentration on Task dimension was deemed unacceptable for Group 1 and was lower than that for Group 2, possibly affected by the removal of time limitation elements in Game 2. The Control and Loss of Self-consciousness dimensions were lower for Group 1 compared to Group 2. The Transformation of Time dimension was unacceptable for both groups. The Autotelic Experience dimension scored higher for Group 1 than for Group 2. Despite certain dimensions not meeting the acceptable standards, the overall Flow State Scale results indicated that both groups experienced flow. [PERSON]'s alpha values greater than 0.7 were analyzed for each flow dimension, complemented by Pearson correlation analysis, as detailed in Table 9 (for Group 1) and Table 10 (for Group 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Group 1** & & & **Group 2** & \\ \hline
**Dimension** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **a** & **Mean** & **SD** & **a** \\ \hline Challenge-Skill Balance & 22 & 13.95 & 3.86 & **0.84** & 14.50 & 2.82 & **0.72** \\ \hline Action-awareness merging & 22 & 12.82 & 3.03 & 0.56 & 12.86 & 2.32 & 0.25 \\ \hline Clear goals & 22 & 15.59 & 2.67 & 0.57 & 16.50 & 2.54 & **0.74** \\ \hline Feedback & 22 & 12.86 & 3.78 & **0.90** & 13.50 & 3.57 & **0.88** \\ \hline Concentration on task & 22 & 15.55 & 2.63 & 0.58 & 14.95 & 3.55 & **0.71** \\ \hline Control & 22 & 16.50 & 2.26 & **0.79** & 16.14 & 3.23 & **0.85** \\ \hline Loss of self-consciousness & 22 & 15.23 & 3.50 & **0.74** & 15.18 & 3.51 & **0.85** \\ \hline Transformation of time & 22 & 12.91 & 2.74 & 0.36 & 12.14 & 2.85 & 0.58 \\ \hline Autotelic experience & 22 & 16.73 & 2.51 & **0.79** & 16.00 & 2.69 & **0.74** \\ \hline Flow State Scale & 22 & 132.14 & 17.19 & **0.89** & 131.73 & 21.22 & **0.94** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
N: number of participants, Mean: mean of questions, SD: standard deviation, a: a value.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Mean, standard deviation, and reliability analysis. Table 9 shows the results of the correlation analysis for Group 1.