在遊戲情境中以沉浸經驗探討玩興對創造力的影響

Abstract

創造力的表現是受個體因素及其環境交互作用之影響，當不同的個體處在相同環境中會有不同的創造力表現。也因此過去多數有關人機互動的研究，都以個體差異來探討不同的個體在經歷遊戲情境後產生創造力的差異。然而在人機互動(遊戲)當中，個體會產生不同程度的沉浸經驗，本研究欲進一步探討個體的玩興是否透過在經歷遊戲情境後所引發的沉浸而影響到其創造力的表現，本研究認為沉浸度越高，對個體在創造力的表現越有正面的影響。

本研究是以沉浸經驗去探討從個體角度切入的創造力研究，將個體玩興視為內在動機的特質，遊戲情境視為外在動機的條件，去探討在人機互動中不同玩興特徵的個體經歷遊戲的沉浸經驗差異，以及在經歷遊戲後透過沉浸經驗對其創造力表現的影響。因此，推測個體有創意的表現，其共同點為受個體玩興所引發的沉浸經驗所影響。沉浸經驗(以中介變項操弄)是否就是連接玩興(以自變項操弄)與創造力(以依變項操弄)兩變項之間的關鍵因子呢？這是本研究想要探討的目的。

本研究採實驗相關研究法，研究樣本為四年級學童 (N=330)，以問題解決的單機電腦遊戲∼「機械反斗城」為情境。所有學童都經歷包含6個關卡的問題解決遊戲情境，以了解不同玩興的學童，在經歷6個不同挑戰度的問題解決遊戲情境時其沉浸過程(沉浸路徑)，以及經歷遊戲情境後的沉浸狀態，並進而瞭解學童創造力表現的程度，也就是本研究欲探討不同玩興的學童，透過在經歷遊戲情境之後產生的沉浸經驗，其創造力的表現差異。

在經歷遊戲前，以「玩興感受量表」來定義學童的玩興特徵。在經歷遊戲中，施以「活動期間的挑戰－技能探測」，以測量出學童經歷遊戲的沉浸過程(沉浸路徑)。在經歷遊戲後，先施以「活動之後的沉浸經驗調查」，以測量出學童經歷遊戲後的沉浸狀態；接著再以「問題情境科技創造力測驗」做為學童經歷遊戲情境歷程(發現問題、解決問題歷程及結果)之後的創造力評量。

根據實驗結果分析發現： 一、個體的玩興對於在遊戲情境中所產生之沉浸狀態有正向的影響。 二、個體在遊戲情境中所產生的沉浸狀態對於創造力有正向的影響。 三、個體玩興對對創造力表現的影響中，沉浸狀態是扮演「中介變項」的關鍵因子。 四、玩興構面對於個體的沉浸狀態有不同的顯著差異，亦即玩興構面對沉浸狀態有不同的影響力「動機與自主(β = .224**) > 幽默與歡樂(β = .043) > 冒險與熱情(β = .000)」。 五、沉浸狀態構面對個體的創造力有不同的顯著差異，亦即沉浸狀態構面對創造力有不同的影響力「專注(β = .272***) > 樂趣(β = -.073) > 控制(β = .017)」。 六、個體具有不同的沉浸路徑會有不同的創造力表現，亦即創造力的表現會受到沉浸過程的影響(沉浸型 > 無聊型 > 憂慮型)。 七、沉浸過程對沉浸狀態有正向的影響。 八、個體的玩興、沉浸狀態能有效預測其創造力，亦即創造力是受到玩興透過沉浸狀態的影響。

The behavior of creativity is affected by the interaction of individual factor and its environment. Different creativity behaviors are generated when different individuals are in the same environment. However, most of the researches also focus on the individual difference to probe into the differences on creativity generated by individuals after experiencing play situation. The effect of playfulness on creativity is further discussed in this research. We want to understand if the individual flow experience generated in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) can give rise to further positive effect.

This creativity research focuses on flow experience and discusses it through individual point of view. We take individual playfulness as the characteristic of internal motive and play situation as condition of external motive to probe the differences of flow experience that individuals with different playfulness characteristics experience from play situation. We also discuss the effect of creativity behavior from flow experience after individual experiencing play situation. Therefore, we presume individuals do have creativity behavior. But is the common point affected by the flow experience generated by individual playfulness? Is flow experience (manipulated as intervening variable) the key factor connecting the two variables of playfulness (manipulated as independent variable) and creativity (manipulated as dependent variable)? These are the purposes this research tries to study.

An experimental and correlational research method is used in this research. The research sample are fourth students (N=330). A play named “Machine-Rus” is used as situation. All the students have experienced problem solving play situations including six levels. This helps us to understand the flow process (flow path) for students with different playfulness in experiencing six different levels of problem solving play situations and the flow state after experiencing the play situations to further understand the degree of students’ creativity behaviors. Namely, this research tries to understand the differences of creativity behaviors from students with different playfulness through the flow experience generated after experiencing play situations.

Before experiencing the play situation, “Perception playfulness scale” is used to define the playfulness characteristics of students. To measure the flow process (flow path) students experienced during play situation, “challenge – skill probing” is applied in activity duration. After experiencing the play situation, “flow experience investigation after activity” is applied first to measure the students’ flow state after experiencing the play situation. Then, “question situation technology creativity test” is used to evaluate students’ creativity after the process of experiencing play situation (the process and result of discovering and solving question).

We discover the followings according to experiment result analyses: 1. The individual playfulness creates positive effect to the flow state generated in play situation. 2. The flow state generated by individual in play situation creates positive effect to creativity. 3. Flow state plays the key factor of “intervening variable” in the effect of individual playfulness to creativity behavior. 4. Playfulness facet can generate distinct notable differences to individual flow state (Adventure and Enthusiasm > Humor and Joyous > Motive and Autonomy). 5. Flow state facet can generate distinct notable differences to individual creativity (Attention > Enjoyment > Control). 6. Different creativity behaviors indicate different flow paths. In other words, the creativity behaviors are affected by flow processes (Flow type > Boredom type > Anxiety type). 7. Flow process creates positive effect to flow state. 8. Individual playfulness and flow state can effectively predict one’s creativity. That is to say, creativity behavior is affected by playfulness through flow state.