Learning Through Dissonance: Modeling Cognitive Conflict in Narrative-Driven Educational Games

Abstract

In many serious games, psychological concepts function as narrative backdrop rather than as structures players can actively engage with. Cognitive dissonance is a clear example: players may sense the tension between belief and action, yet the dynamics through which that tension forms and resolves remain implicit in the mechanics. This work operationalises cognitive dissonance as playable dynamics within an interactive narrative system. Belief Strength tracks how firmly a player holds a declared stance, Cognitive Strain accumulates from the divergence between that belief and in-game actions, and three labelled reduction pathways (behavior change, belief revision, and justification) are instantiated as choosable options rather than abstract explanations. A Persona Dominance Ratio captures which coping pattern has stabilised across the session. The prototype examines whether experiencing dissonance through interactive decision-making supports conceptual understanding of the theory, and whether engaging with these mechanics prompts reflection on personal patterns of rationalization and belief change.