Happy Pets, Happy Players: Designing Virtual Pets to Foster Mindfulness and Collaborative Practices Gabriel Recchia 1 , Pía Mota 2 , Thomas Fennewald 1 , & Ellen Jameson 1 1 Indiana University, 107 S. Indiana Ave., Bloomington, IN, 47405 2 Unaffiliated Email: grecchia@indiana.edu, pmota@dreamkindlers.com, tfennewald@indiana.edu, ejameson@indiana.edu Abstract: Although the field of positive psychology has uncovered many principles and behaviors that individuals can employ to live with a greater sense of happiness and personal fulfillment, most of the "happiness habits" endorsed by the scientific research community are not widely practiced by the general public. We describe a computer-based virtual pet game in which players learn about specific practices drawn from the research literature on positive psychology and mindfulness that they can apply to their own lives if they so choose. As part of the game, players participate in activities that empirical studies have demonstrated support prosocial behavior, emotional self-regulation, and overall happiness. A related goal of the project is to teach community members habits that help them work well with each other to co- create and evaluate their contributions to online communities. Research in the field of positive psychology has clearly demonstrated that in addition to its inherent value, happiness is associated with creativity, workplace success, positive social relationships, and even health (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Vaillant & Mukamal, 2001; Achor, 2010). In fact, the last twenty-five years of research in positive psychology has confirmed that happiness actually leads to many of these positive characteristics (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005, p. 835). Perhaps most remarkably, the research literature has uncovered many simple exercises anyone can perform that lead to significant increases in overall happiness (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), some for many months after performing the activity (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). We may have more scientific evidence about the causes of happiness than at any time in history, but we sure aren’t smiling about it. In the U.S., depression has increased tenfold since 1960 despite a higher standard of living (Achor, 2010). The World Health Organization predicts that by 2020, depression will be the most prevalent cause of disability other than heart disease (Michaud, Murray, & Bloom, 2001). The gap between academic knowledge and common practice can be attributed to at least two causes: 1) Lack of knowledge. In contrast to widespread media coverage of some of the more sensational findings of positive psychology, scientifically validated steps for increasing one’s own happiness are not as widely reported. When they are, they often appear side-by-side with misguided happiness prescriptions (e.g. suppressing rather than acknowledging negative emotions; eliminating thoughts about all possible negative future situations) that experimental investigation has shown lead to negative, rather than positive, outcomes (Harris, 2010; Thomas, 2011). 2) Lack of action. Readers of books on positive psychology may be familiar with scientifically validated happiness exercises such as meditating or keeping a gratitude journal, but how many actually make habits of these activities? We don’t have any data on this point, but it would not be surprising if many readers were to make the same sheepish admission as T.J., a teaching student who engaged me enthusiastically in a conversation about the science linking meditation and emotional well-being: “I love this stuff. I don’t do any of it myself, but I love it.” (Recommending the use of positive psychology techniques to one London bank executive, psychologist Shawn Achor (2010) received a similar reaction: "That’s a great idea. I’ll never do it.") Why the resistance? For some, these exercises may feel forced and inauthentic, the equivalent of Saturday Night Live’s Al Franken repeating affirmations as Stuart Smalley, or the plastered-on smiles mandated by some retail chains. For others, they might feel too reminiscent of self-help prescriptions based on less sound science. Alternatively, they might seem like potentially valuable activities, but not so clearly valuable enough to merit a place in our busy schedules. If any of these are the case, we might benefit if happiness interventions were embedded in some activity that we already saw value in, an activity that didn’t feel like self-therapy, an activity in which we could do silly or unusual things without losing face—in a word, a game. Persuasive cases have been made for games as powerful forms of rhetoric (Bogost, 2007), as “equipment for living” (Gee, 2007), and finally, much more recently, as vehicles to engage players in activities that contribute substantially to life