Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The role of culture and personality traits in board game habits and
attitudes: Cross-cultural comparison between Denmark, Germany, and USA
Amit Bar a, b, *, Tobias Otterbring a
a
University of Agder, Universitetsveien 17, Kristiansand, Norway
b
Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigated whether variations in personality traits are related to board game usage patterns and
Board games attitudes, and whether such associations are expressed differently across countries that reflect different cultural
Big five orientations and values. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed among 486 Danes, Germans, and
Personality traits
Americans, whose personalities were assessed through the NEO-FFI questionnaire. Participants also indicated
Cross-cultural comparison
Nordics
their liking levels, attitudes, and playing frequency of board games. Results showed significant associations
Toy industry between personality traits and board game-related attitudes and habits. However, these associations were
moderated by culture and primarily predicted responses among Danish participants, but not their American or
German counterparts. These findings have important implications for the board-game industry, a multi-billion-
dollar market worldwide. Furthermore, findings can shed light on how to better personalize and design board
games according to personality traits and culture-specific preferences, which should have a significant impact on
the user experience and ultimately increase sales.

1. Introduction more research in the consumer behavior literature on the generic topics
of play and games, but also specifically on board games (Argo, 2020;
Games are recreational activities that are characterized by several Högberg et al., 2019; Holbrook et al., 1984; Holt, 1995; Kim and Song,
features, such as organized play of two sides or more and an agreed upon 2020; Prentice, 2016). To address these calls for further research, the
set of rules. Board games are games that are played with a board, cards, primary purpose of the current study was to examine variations in
dice, and tokens. A board game limits the range of stimuli players are personality traits and their associations with board game usage patterns
exposed to. The board serves as the field of play as it establishes the and attitudes, and whether such associations are manifested differently
relevant space and objects. Board games fall into two categories: in countries characterized by different cultural orientations and values.
competitive games, in which players form strategies that oppose the
other players (Jones, 2000), and cooperative games, which model situ­
ations in which players have neither completely opposing nor 1.1. Cultural differences in consumer behavior
completely coinciding interests (Nasar et al., 2002).
Board games have been a subject of research for more than 100 To understand variations in consumer behavior across cultures, dif­
years; however, little is known regarding which specific factors influ­ ferences in cultural orientation need to be considered. The
ence people’s board game-related preferences, playing patterns, and Individualism-Collectivism model examines the way people evaluate
their propensity to engage in such social activities. Previous studies have personal and joint goals based on their cultural orientation (Singelis
shown that board games reflect people’s intellectual abilities and stra­ et al., 1995). Individuals from collectivistic cultures show high levels of
tegic thinking (Gobet et al., 2004), support collective creativity in motivation when achieving group goals (Niles, 1998), as they perceive
innovation activities (Parjanen and Hyypiä, 2019) and may facilitate themselves as a part of the group. While people in collectivistic cultures
relaxation by fostering a low-level attentional focus (Pham and Sun, value group goals over personal goals (Batson, 1993), people in indi­
2020). For these and other reasons, there have been multiple calls for vidualistic cultures seek self-actualization, and generally emphasize
autonomy and personal goals over the goals of the group (Otterbring and

* Corresponding author. Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Bar), [email protected] (T. Otterbring).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102506
Received 23 November 2020; Received in revised form 28 January 2021; Accepted 6 February 2021
Available online 24 February 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Lu, 2018). Furthermore, interpersonal relationships in individualistic inventory, a 144-item questionnaire assessing these three factors. In this
cultures involve cooperation only to the extent that cooperation benefits model, Neuroticism refers to an individual’s tendency to feel depressed,
the individual, and individual behavior is guided by personal attitudes anxious, and emotional; Extraversion refers to the individual’s tendency
rather than social norms (Singelis et al., 1995). However, there is some to be active, socially involved, and talkative; and Openness refers to
variation between individualistic societies, as studies have found that facets of curiosity, imagination, and creativity (Costa and McCrae,
American individuals tend to have the highest achievement values 1985). As the five-factor model of personality was fully established, the
(Feather, 1998), while other individualistic societies, such as the Nor­ questionnaire was expanded to also include items assessing Agreeable­
dics, were found to have different attitudes towards such achievement ness and Conscientiousness. The addition of these scales resulted in the
values. Swedes, for example, usually do not like to stand out (Daun, NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1985) and in the Revised
1991) and Danes tend not to value braggarts and extroverted success NEO Personality Inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Agreeableness
(Askgaard, 1992). refers to an individual’s tendency to be cooperative, kind, and empathic,
The Horizontal-Vertical model examines attitudes towards success while Conscientiousness is the tendency to be careful, systematic, effi­
and helps in understanding value structures in different individualistic cient, and responsible (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
and collectivistic cultures (Singelis et al., 1995). In horizontal societies, Researchers have explored which personality traits are related to the
equality is highly valued, while in vertical societies, inequality between tendency of playing games. Bilalić, Mcleod, and Cobet (2007) found that
people is based on hierarchy (Singelis et al., 1995). As such, individu­ children who play chess are more likely to score high on the Openness
alistic cultures can be divided into two distinct orientations: Horizontal and Extraversion scales, while children who score high on the Agree­
Individualism and Vertical Individualism (hereinafter referred to as HI ableness scale are less likely to play chess. In studies of online games,
and VI, respectively). HI is a cultural orientation that highlights the positive correlations were found between the tendency to play and
autonomy of the individual. Individuals are seen as independent of one Openness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion (Teng, 2008). In a later
another, but they are also perceived as equal to others. VI is a cultural study, Teng et al. (2012) found that online game usage during weekdays
orientation characterized by inequality between independent in­ is positively correlated to the degree of Openness and negatively
dividuals, with an emphasis on competition (Triandis and Gelfand, correlated with the degree of Neuroticism. Thus, the literature suggests
1998). The United States and the Nordics share similar approaches that personality traits can predict usage of online games.
regarding individualism, yet they tend to differ along the horizontal and
vertical measures (Hofstede, 1980). In one study, people in Scandinavia 1.4. The present study
showed antipathy towards extroverted successful people, while Ameri­
cans found them inspiring (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Danes have a Although board games are in use worldwide, research regarding
horizontal orientation, similarly to the Nordic culture they belong to personality traits that are characteristic for board game users is lacking.
(Singelis et al., 1995). This behavior in Nordic cultures could be related Since board game play can be influenced by both social values and
to Janteloven, a set of moral attitudes and behaviors first formulated in a personality traits, the current study aimed to examine whether the
satirical novel in the 1930s, which describe the tendency of people in relationship between board games usage patterns and personality traits
these cultures to think and behave equally to each other and discourage is expressed differently across Denmark, Germany, and USA. Such an
conflicting behavior. In contrast, the United States is considered a ver­ investigation is particularly relevant given the documented differences
tical society (Singelis et al., 1995). in the social structures of these cultures (cf. Nelson and Savitt, 2002).
While Denmark and USA were chosen due to their horizontal and ver­
1.2. Culture and gaming patterns tical cultures, respectively, Germany was selected for inclusion in the
study due to its centrality in the “board game scene.” Indeed, Germany is
Cultural orientation influences many aspects of life within each the place where European-style board games (Eurogames) were devel­
culture, possibly also gaming patterns, which are indirectly affected by oped and is one of the leading European countries in terms of sales of
measures of vertical and horizontal individualism–collectivism (Lee and board games. Moreover, games developed in Germany have become
Wohn, 2012). Indeed, different types of games have evolved in different some of the most popular games in the world (for example, Catan). As
countries: American-style and European-style games (“Eurogames”). such, Germany represents a culture in which board games constitute a
These game types indicate the origin of the game, but also describe the central pillar of social life. Taken together, the present study in­
mechanism of the system of play (Woods, 2012). In American games, corporates both internal (personality) and external (cultural) factors
luck tends to play an important role in winning, while European games associated with board game preferences and habits, thereby painting a
are designed to require strategic thinking and analysis (Mayer and more nuanced picture of board game play and the aspects that predict
Harris, 2010). Germany has led the board game industry for many years. individuals’ playing frequency, liking levels, and attitudes towards
In fact, traces of toy production have been found since the 14th century, board games. Based on the reviewed literature, the study tested whether
and Nuremberg is often considered the “toy capital of the world” board game usage patterns would be associated with personality traits,
(Woods, 2012). Following World War I and II, the German industries such that individuals who indicate frequent use of board games and
were transformed into military production factories, and Germany lost more positive perceptions towards such games in terms of liking levels
its lead in toy production (Burton, 1997). The history of board games is and attitudes would score higher on Openness, and potentially higher on
connected to the historical and political changes among the countries Conscientiousness and Extraversion, but lower on Neuroticism. The
where board games evolved, meaning that culture has a major contri­ study also explored whether culture and personality traits would
bution in forming gaming approaches and attitudes. Nevertheless, other interact to influence participants’ attitudes, usage frequency, and liking
factors may contribute to personal preferences and habits in board game levels of board games.
play, including personality traits.
2. Methodology
1.3. Personality traits and gaming patterns
2.1. Participants
Unlike learned behaviors, which are usually manifested in a specific
domain, personality traits are more general tendencies that are reflected A total of 486 individuals from Denmark, Germany, and USA
in various aspects of one’s life (Costa and McCrae, 1985). One of the participated in the study, which was conducted as a cross-sectional
most influential personality models is the Big Five model. McCrae and survey. Participants were recruited mainly via social networks (espe­
Costa (1983) created the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (NEO) cially in board game forums and groups) and consented to their included

2
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

in the study in the beginning of the survey. Eighteen participants were 1 (“Negative”) and 5 (“Positive”); see Table 1 for country-specific means
omitted from the statistical analyses because they completed less than and standard deviations on the key variables.
30% of the survey. Five participants were omitted since they completed
the survey in less than 40 s. After these omissions, the final number of 2.3. Procedure
participants was 463: 166 Danes, 151 Americans, and 146 Germans. Of
these, 57% were male, 41.7% were female, and 1.3% preferred not to The survey was built using the Qualtrics platform and accessed
declare their gender. The most frequent age category among participants through a website. Participants were asked to read the instructions and
(38.9%) was 35–49, with this mode age and the age distribution choose their mother tongue from the bar on the top right of the page.
reflecting a more diverse set of participants than the typical student The survey was offered in the three official languages of the countries
samples appearing in the majority of published articles in psychology, where the research was conducted: Danish, German, and English. It was
marketing, retailing, and service research (Cialdini, 2009; Otterbring, important to translate the survey to the participants’ native language to
2021; Pham, 2013). As such, the demographic profile of our participants get more valid results (Ellis et al., 2018). Participants were informed that
resembles data obtained from field settings and investigations based on this study examined attitudes toward playing board games. They
adult consumers (e.g., Ares et al., 2020; Machín et al., 2020; Otterbring, voluntarily participated in the survey by giving their consent.
2017; Otterbring et al., 2018; Rojas-Rivas et al., 2020). This means that The first part of the questionnaire covered demographics: age,
our sample should be less prone to the WEIRD bias; that is, the gender (male, female, prefer not to answer) and nationality (Danish,
over-reliance of data collected from people living in Western, educated, German, and American). The next part of the survey was the NEO-FFI
industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies (Henrich et al., Big Five personality traits questionnaire. Next, participants were asked
2010), with university students being the archetypical example of the questions about their consumption and usage of board games. The final
WEIRD bias. part of the survey was optional: participants could choose to participate
in a gift-card lottery and received a message thanking them for
2.2. Materials participating in the survey.

The NEO-FFI (Five Factors Inventory) was used (Costa and McCrae, 3. Results
1992) to measure participants’ personality traits. This is a short,
60-items version of the NEO-PI that has been used in numerous studies. 3.1. Personality traits and frequency of playing board games
This questionnaire examines personality over five dimensions: Neurot­
icism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. To test the relationship between the big five personality traits and
Each personality trait is assessed using 12 items. Participants rate the participants’ ratings on the statement “I often play board games,” a
degree to which each statement fits their experience over a scale of 1 multiple regression was used, where participants’ scores for the big five
(“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). An index was calculated personality traits were the predictors (Neuroticism, Extraversion,
for each personality trait. Indices were composed of a sum of the rating Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and board game usage
of each participant over the 12 items that represent each trait. frequency was the outcome variable. The overall model was significant
To measure board game-related constructs, participants were (F[5,457] = 4.013, p = .001), with roughly 4% of the variance explained
initially asked about their board game usage by indicating whether they by the predictors (R2 = 0.042). More specifically, Openness, Conscien­
play board games on a binary “Yes” or “No” question (i.e., “Do you play tiousness, and Agreeableness were found to significantly predict par­
board games?“). Virtually all (96.5%) answered affirmatively. Partici­ ticipants’ ratings on the frequency of playing board games. Openness
pants also replied to items measuring playing frequency, liking levels, was found to predict how often participants reported playing board
and attitudes towards board games. To measure playing frequency, games (p = .004), with people scoring higher on Openness playing board
participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with the games more frequently. Similarly, higher scores on the Conscientious­
statement “I often play board games” on a scale from 1 (“Strongly ness scale were also found to predict higher playing frequency (p =
disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). In order to assess liking levels of .020). Higher scores on Agreeableness, however, were associated with
board games, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they lower playing frequency (p = .029). A summary of these results is pre­
agreed with the statement “I like playing board games” on a scale sented at the left-hand side of Table 2.
ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). They
further rated their attitudes towards board games on a scale anchored at 3.2. Personality traits and liking levels of board games

Table 1
To investigate the associations between the big five personality traits
Overview of key variables. and participants’ liking levels of board games, a similar multiple
regression was conducted, with the big five personality traits as the
Americans Danes Germans
predictors and participants’ liking levels of playing board games as the
1
Personality Traits outcome variable. The overall model was significant (F[5,457] = 2.271, p
Neuroticism 30.15 (7.77) 29.58 (8.25) 31.64 (9.16)
= .047), with approximately 2% of the variance explained by the pre­
Extraversion 40.10 (6.74) 42.14 (6.89) 39.99 (7.51)
Openness 43.13 (5.51) 41.94 (5.44) 44.87 (8.83) dicting variables (R2 = 0.024). Two traits were found to significantly
Agreeableness 41.68 (4.43) 43.77 (5.58) 40.44 (5.11) predict the degree to which the participants liked board games:
Conscientiousness 43.09 (6.61) 43.65 (7.49) 42.96 (6.76) Neuroticism and Openness. For Neuroticism, the less neurotic the indi­
Board Game Variables2 vidual was, the more he or she liked playing board games (p = .013), and
Playing Frequency 4.36 (0.84) 3.58 (1.18) 3.44 (1.09)
Liking Levels 4.80 (0.50) 4.63 (0.66) 4.50 (0.71)
for Openness, the more open the individual was, the more he or she liked
Attitudes 4.87 (0.35) 4.66 (0.64) 4.54 (0.75) playing board games (p = .024; see the middle column of Table 2).

Notes: 1Means (and standard deviations), with each personality trait measured
3.3. Personality traits and attitudes towards board games
using 12 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly
agree) and captured through a sum score. 2 Means (and standard deviations),
with playing frequency (“I often play board games”) and liking levels (“I like Another similar multiple-regression was used to examine the re­
playing board games”) measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly lationships between the Big Five personality traits and participants’
disagree; 5 = Strongly agree) and attitudes towards board games measured using attitudes towards board games, with the big five personality traits again
a 5-point semantic differential scale (1 = Negative; 5 = Positive). serving as predictors and board game attitudes as the outcome variable.

3
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Table 2
The relationship between personality traits and ratings of playing frequency, liking levels, and attitudes towards board games.
Playing Frequency Board Game Liking Board Game Attitudes

B SE b t B SE b t B SE b t

Neuroticism − 0.009 0.007 − 0.068 − 1.301 − 0.010 0.004 − 0.131 − 2.503* − 0.005 0.004 − 0.067 − 1.284
Extraversion − 0.008 0.008 − 0.053 − 1.009 − 0.004 0.005 − 0.039 − 0.746 0.001 0.005 0.011 0.205
Openness 0.026 0.009 0.134 2.887** 0.012 0.005 0.106 2.258* 0.011 0.005 0.100 2.140*
Agreeableness − 0.022 0.010 − 0.103 − 2.193* − 0.004 0.006 − 0.030 − 0.634 − 0.006 0.006 − 0.051 − 1.073
Conscientiousness 0.019 0.008 0.117 2.339* 0.002 0.005 0.018 0.365 0.007 0.004 0.082 1.630

+p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

The overall model was significant (F[5,457] = 2.282, p = .046), with frequency (p < .001). For Neuroticism and Extraversion, however, in­
around 2% of the variance explained by the predictors (R2 = 0.024). dividuals who scored lower on these traits tended to play board games
Only the Openness score was found to significantly predict attitude to­ more frequently (p = .016; p = .004).
wards board games (p = .033), with higher scores being linked to more
positive attitudes towards board games (see the right-hand side of 3.5. Culture moderates the impact of personality traits on liking levels
Table 2).
A similar ANOVA was performed on participants’ liking levels of
3.4. Culture moderates the impact of personality traits on playing board games, where the predicting variables were the interaction terms
frequency between culture and each of the personality traits. Again, the overall
model was significant (F[15, 447] = 2.807, p < .001), as were two of the
To explore whether culture could moderate the impact of personality interactions: the interactions between culture and Neuroticism (F[3, 447]
traits in predicting participants’ playing frequency, we added culture as = 3.738, p = .011) as well as Openness (F[3, 447] = 4.546, p = .004). The
a variable in the playing frequency model described above. To this end, interaction between culture and Extraversion score was non-significant
we performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA), where the predicting (F[3, 447] = 1.279, p = .281). The same applied to the interactions be­
variables were the interaction terms between culture and each of the tween culture and Agreeableness (F[3, 447] = 0.284, p = .837) and culture
personality traits and the dependent variable was playing frequency of and Conscientiousness (F[3, 447] = 0.038, p = .990).
board games. The overall model was significant (F[15, 447] = 7.856, p < A follow-up analysis using a multiple regression was performed
.001). Furthermore, several of the interactions were significant, separately for each culture to better understand the nature of the in­
including the interactions between culture and participants’ Neuroti­ teractions. The personality traits served as predictors and participants’
cism scores (F[3, 447] = 3.522, p = .015), Extraversion scores (F[3, 447] = liking levels of board games acted as the outcome variable (see Table 4).
4.735, p = .003), and Openness scores (F[3, 447] = 7.924, p < .001), Once again, the overall model was non-significant for Americans
respectively. The interactions between culture and participants’ Agree­ (F[5,145] = 0.165, p = .975) and Germans (F[5,140] = 1.010, p = .414), and
ableness and Conscientiousness scores were not significant (F[3, 447] = none of the personality trait scores were found to significantly predict
0.430, p = .731; F[3, 447] = 2.255, p = .081). these participants’ liking levels of playing board games. For Danes,
Since some of the interaction terms were significant, a follow-up however, the overall model was significant (F[5,160] = 3.528, p = .005),
analysis was performed to better understand the nature of these in­ with roughly 10% of the variance explained by the predictors (R2 =
teractions. To this end, multiple regressions were performed separately 0.099). More specifically, Neuroticism and Openness were found to
for each culture, and scores for the personality traits served as pre­ significantly predict participants’ ratings. As the degree of Openness
dictors, while participants’ ratings on the playing frequency variable increased, so did the degree to which Danes liked board games (p =
acted as the outcome variable (see Table 3). Among Americans and .001). For Neuroticism, Danes who were less neurotic tended to like
Germans, the overall model was non-significant (F[5,145] = 1.259, p = board games more than those who were more neurotic (p = .015).
.285; F[5,140] = 2.205, p = .057) and none of the personality trait scores
were found to significantly predict participants’ playing frequency of 3.6. Culture moderates the impact of personality traits on attitudes
board games. towards board games
However, among Danes, the overall model was significant (F[5,160] =
5.072, p < .001), with approximately 14% of the variance explained by Another similar ANOVA was performed on attitudes towards board
the predictors (R2 = 0.137). Specifically, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and games, again with the interaction terms between culture and each of the
Openness significantly predicted Danish participants’ ratings on the personality traits as the predictors. The overall model was significant
playing frequency variable. As Openness increased, so did playing (F[15, 447] = 3.456, p < .001). Furthermore, there was a significant

Table 3
The relationship between country, personality traits, and playing frequency of board games.
Americans Danes Germans

B SE b t B SE b t B SE b t

Neuroticism 0.007 0.008 0.072 0.781 − 0.029 0.012 − 0.201 − 2.431* − 0.017 0.013 − 0.122 − 1.300
Extraversion 0.020 0.010 0.179 1.952+ − 0.043 0.014 − 0.250 − 2.950** − 0.006 0.015 − 0.037 − 0.397
Openness 0.012 0.012 0.082 0.995 0.063 0.016 0.289 3.861** − 0.032 0.017 − 0.161 − 1.921+
Agreeableness − 0.009 0.013 − 0.055 − 0.666 − 0.005 0.016 − 0.025 − 0.325 0.003 0.021 0.011 0.127
Conscientiousness 0.008 0.011 0.061 0.716 0.021 0.013 0.132 1.591 0.022 0.015 0.135 1.481

+p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

4
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Table 4
The relationship between country, personality traits, and liking levels of board games.
Americans Danes Germans

B SE b t B SE b t B SE b t

Neuroticism − 0.003 0.005 − 0.053 − 0.566 − 0.017 0.007 − 0.208 − 2.469* − 0.015 0.009 − 0.165 − 1.724+
Extraversion − 0.001 0.006 − 0.012 − 0.128 − 0.013 0.008 − 0.140 − 1.620 0.003 0.010 0.027 0.280
Openness 0.004 0.007 0.044 0.526 0.032 0.009 0.265 3.460** − 0.010 0.011 − 0.079 − 0.928
Agreeableness 0.003 0.008 0.035 0.416 − 0.003 0.009 − 0.028 − 0.351 0.003 0.014 0.018 0.205
Conscientiousness 0.001 0.006 0.015 0.174 0.004 0.008 0.046 0.542 − 0.004 0.010 − 0.037 − 0.393

+p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

interaction between culture and Openness score (F[3, 447] = 5.717, p = was associated with positive attitudes towards board games. These
.001). None of the other interactions between culture and personality findings are in line with previous studies, such as that of Bilalić et al.
traits were significant. (2007), which suggests that children with high levels of Openness and
The follow-up analysis, using three multiple regressions for each low levels of Agreeableness will have a preference towards playing
culture separately (see Table 5), revealed non-significant overall models chess. Further, the results parallel the findings of studies in the field of
for Americans (F[5,145] = 1.291, p = .271) and Germans (F[5,140] = 0.991, online computer games, which demonstrate that the tendency to play
p = .425), and none of the personality traits were found to significantly such games is related to higher levels of Openness and Conscientious­
predict these participants’ attitudes towards board games. For Danes, on ness, and lower levels of Neuroticism (Teng et al., 2012).
the contrary, the overall model was yet again significant (F[5,160] = One of the findings that is consistent with previous research is the
3.326, p = .007), with approximately 9% of the variance explained by importance of Openness in predicting positive attitudes towards games
the predictors (R2 = 0.094). Higher scores on Openness were found to generally, and towards board games specifically. Indeed, this personal­
significantly predict more positive attitudes towards board games (p = ity trait was found to significantly predict all board game-related pa­
.001), whereas higher Neuroticism scores were found to significantly rameters in the current study. These results suggest that individuals who
predict more negative attitudes towards board games (p = .025). score high on this trait generally enjoy playing board games more than
those who score low. Openness is related to the motivation to seek ex­
4. Discussion periences (Zuckerman, 1979) and the readiness to fantasize (McCrae
and Costa, 1986). Games, and especially board games, provide a variety
This study aimed to investigate whether variation in personality of experiences and can be played in different environments and with
traits is related to board game usage patterns and attitudes, and whether different partners. As such, people who do not demonstrate openness to
such assumed associations are expressed differently across countries participate in new experiences may not enjoy playing games as much as
that reflect different cultural orientations and values. The findings people who score high on this trait. Furthermore, board games often
indicate that both personality traits and their interplay with culture are encourage disconnecting from reality to engage in the “world” of the
important in affecting board game-related preferences and usage pat­ game. Thus, the enjoyment of fantasizing is a key factor that ultimately
terns. Our main findings suggest that Neuroticism, Openness, Agree­ contributes to individuals’ ability to enjoy such games. As Openness was
ableness, and Conscientiousness all play a significant role in predicting found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of usage pat­
liking levels, playing frequency, and attitudes towards board games. terns, liking levels, and attitudes towards board games, targeting in­
Among these traits, Openness was found to consistently predict each of dividuals high on this trait might be an effective and profitable way to
our three dependent variables, although the interplay between different promote sales not only of new board games, but also of novel products
personality traits and board game usage patterns and attitudes mainly and services with certain game elements and play-related aspects.
applied to Danes, but not to Americans or Germans. Another trait that was found as important in predicting frequency of
playing board games was Conscientiousness. A possible approach to
understanding the importance of this trait in predicting attitudes to­
4.1. Personality traits and board game patterns
wards board games is through the structure of the game. According to
Parlett (1999), the rules of the game are the game itself. Board games
Personality traits were found to predict individuals’ playing fre­
usually involve a set of rules and norms according to which players
quency, liking levels, and general attitudes towards board games. In­
comply (Salen et al., 2004). Individuals who are less likely to comply
dividuals with higher levels of Openness and Conscientiousness and
with social norms are also less likely to enjoy complying with games that
lower levels of Agreeableness reported playing board games more
rely on a complex set of rules, which is often the case for board games.
frequently. Low levels of Neuroticism and high levels of Openness were
The negative correlation found between Neuroticism and attitudes
also found to predict preferences of playing board games, and Openness

Table 5
The relationship between country, personality traits, and attitudes towards board games.
Americans Danes Germans

B SE b t B SE b t B SE b t

Neuroticism 0.001 0.004 0.038 0.409 − 0.015 0.007 − 0.191 − 2.257* − 0.006 0.009 − 0.066 − 0.691
Extraversion 0.008 0.004 0.161 1.756+ − 0.010 0.008 − 0.113 − 1.304 0.004 0.011 0.039 0.410
Openness 0.006 0.005 0.099 1.199 0.030 0.009 0.255 3.327** − 0.015 0.012 − 0.113 − 1.320
Agreeableness − 0.004 0.006 − 0.052 − 0.627 − 0.004 0.009 − 0.035 − 0.439 0.008 0.015 0.047 0.538
Conscientiousness 0.004 0.004 0.074 0.867 0.007 0.007 0.083 0.977 0.008 0.011 0.069 0.736

+p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

5
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

towards board games, particularly regarding liking of board games, may challenges associated with the specific environment and cultural context
result from the tendency of highly neurotic individuals to avoid playing in which individuals grow up (Wei et al., 2017), further studies can test
board games. Several inherent elements of board games may trigger theoretically derived predictions postulating a culturally contingent role
strong emotional responses, such as feelings of helplessness and a lack of of personality traits on individuals’ play- and game-related responses.
control, or frustration and/or embarrassment after losing. People who One of the personality traits that repeatedly was found to predict
tend to experience strong emotional reactions may find such games hard board game-related attitudes and habits in Denmark was Neuroticism.
to enjoy. Furthermore, the spectrum of emotions triggered by board This trait has been previously associated with theories on approach-
games, which are often played in groups rather than individually, may avoidance motivation. Approach motivation directs behavior towards
explain the negative association found between the frequency of playing positive, rewarding stimuli (Ariely and Loewenstein, 2006; Banovic and
board games and Agreeableness. This trait is linked to the tendency to be Otterbring, 2021), while avoidance motivation directs behavior away
liked and to be pleasant (Graziano and Tobin, 2009), and to the ten­ from negative or aversive stimuli (Elliot, 2006; Otterbring and Shams,
dency to avoid conflicts. Thus, individuals who are preoccupied with 2019). Individuals differ in their general tendency to experience positive
other peoples’ impressions of themselves and the way they are being affect in response to positive stimuli, or in their motivation to approach
perceived by others may prefer to avoid playing board games. such stimuli. Similarly, individuals differ in their tendency to experience
negative affect in response to aversive stimuli, or in their motivation to
4.2. The role of culture and its implications withdraw from such stimuli (Sutton and Davidson, 1997). Different
traits have been linked to the tendency to be particularly sensitive to
An examination of the explained variance of the models predicting rewarding or aversive stimuli (Otterbring, 2020). As neurotic in­
board game usage frequency, liking levels, and attitudes by personality dividuals tend to be more sensitive to negative stimuli (Carver et al.,
traits suggests that those traits explain only a small, yet significant 2000), such individuals may tend to avoid board games. This is in line
proportion of the total variance (2.4–4.2%). Thus, further explorations with the findings of the present study, as Neuroticism was negatively
of the interactions between personality traits and cultures were made. associated with overall attitudes toward board games. From a practical
Separate statistical models in each culture yielded significant results point of view, toy companies might specifically address individuals
specifically for Danes, in which Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Open­ higher on the neurotic scale to engage in board games by designing
ness were found to predict reported frequency of playing board games, games that stimulate less negative arousal and aversive properties.
while Neuroticism and Openness were found to predict both the ten­ Another possible implication of the results from this study could be
dency to like board games as well as overall positive attitudes towards gearing board games genres towards specific personalities. In a study by
board games. These results are in line with previous findings on the Braun et al. (2016), the authors found several relationships between
Nordic market demonstrating that the Negative Affectivity trait (a trait personality traits and video game preferences. For example, individuals
similar to Neuroticism) is related to Swedes’ tendency to gamble who scored low in Neuroticism were found to prefer role playing and
(Sundqvist and Wennberg, 2015). One possible explanation for these simulation games while individuals scoring high on Extraversion were
findings is that Denmark is a relatively homogenous culture, unlike the found to prefer action games. Therefore, by linking certain personality
American and German cultures. Previous research has found support for traits with people’s preferred game genre while taking cultural orien­
the notion that Nordic cultures are considered homogenous in terms of tation into consideration, manufacturers should be able to personalize
their population (Bengtsson et al., 2010) and demonstrate high genetic their offerings to the desires and key characteristics of their consumers.
homogeneity (Athanasiadis et al., 2016). Unlike the Nordic countries, However, the results reported herein suggest that design decisions
Germany and USA are countries with higher ethnic and cultural di­ regarding board games based on consumers’ specific personalities seem
versity. Consequently, individuals in these cultures demonstrate higher to be relevant for the Danish market, where there was generally a
individual differences and heterogeneity. consistent impact of personality traits on consumers’ board-game
The findings of the present study suggest that when considering related habits, attitudes, and liking levels. In the other countries
board game markets, conclusions may be drawn regarding the Danish examined, attempts to specifically tailor games that align with con­
market, and arguably other countries with high genetic homogeneity sumers’ personality traits may backfire, likely due to more heteroge­
and similar cultural characteristics as Denmark. However, the US and neous cultures with a greater diversity in ethnicity and cultural values.
the German markets are more complex and may need to be divided and As such, while our findings suggest a limited generalizability in where to
considered as several distinct markets. These results also suggest that the effectively use consumers’ personality traits for design decisions and
cultural orientations of HI and VI are important in predicting board promotional activities of board games, the present study paints a more
game habits, with liking levels, attitudes, and playing frequencies of nuanced picture of the specific cultural contexts that may benefit from
such games being easier to estimate for people from horizontal indi­ taking consumers’ personality traits into consideration when designing
vidualistic societies (e.g., Denmark), where equality is highly valued, and marketing such games.
but more difficult for people from vertical societies (e.g., USA), char­
acterized by competition and hierarchies. Furthermore, the obtained
differences across countries indicate that the concept of contextual 4.3. Conclusion
sensitivity is important to consider in research on board games and
scholarly studies on game-related aspects, since contextual factors may This study investigated cultural and personality-related influences
play a prominent role in determining the replicability of this stream of on board game playing patterns and preferences. The results revealed
research (Otterbring et al., 2021; Otterbring et al., 2020; Van Bavel, that addressing only the personality aspect had to some predictive value,
Mende-Siedlecki, Brady and Reinero, 2016). As an illustrative example but that the combination of both personality traits and cultural orien­
from the current investigation, there was a positive association between tation yielded more accurate information regarding individuals’ usage
participants’ Extraversion scores and their playing frequency of board frequency, liking levels, and attitudes towards board games. These
games at the borderline of statistical significance (p < .06) in the findings may influence marketing and audience-targeting strategies for
American sample, consistent with some prior related research findings board game companies. Thus, the current results have important im­
(Bilalić et al., 2007; Teng, 2008). However, for the Danish sample, this plications for the board-game industry, a multi-billion-dollar market
pattern was entirely reversed, with lower Extraversion scores predicting worldwide, and can shed light on how to better personalize and design
higher playing frequency of board games (p < .01). Certain regional board games according to personality traits and culture-specific pref­
differences could also exist even within a country. Thus, considering that erences. Such personalization and design should have a significant
personality traits appear to emerge as a response to address certain key impact on the user experience and ultimately increase sales.

6
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Acknowledgement Holt, D.B., 1995. How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices.
J. Consum. Res. 22 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/209431.
Jones, K., 2000. Non-predatory games. The Games Journal 8.
The first author collected the data and wrote the initial draft of the Kim, H.J., Song, H., 2020. Effort justification for fun activities? The effect of location-
manuscript. The second author acted as a supervisor and contributed based mobile coupons using games. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 54, 102029. https://
with the conceptualization, study design, and the writing of subsequent doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102029.
Lee, Y.H., Wohn, D.Y., 2012. Are there cultural differences in how we play? Examining
drafts. Both authors approved the manuscript prior to submission and cultural effects on playing social network games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (4),
jointly declare that they have no conflicts of interest. 1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.014.
Machín, L., Curutchet, M.R., Gugliucci, V., Vitola, A., Otterbring, T., de Alcantara, M.,
Ares, G., 2020. The habitual nature of food purchases at the supermarket:
References implications for policy making. Appetite 155, 104844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2020.104844.
Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Otterbring, T., Curutchet, M.R., Galicia, L., Moratorio, X., Bove, I., Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and the self: implications for cognition,
2020. Sick, salient and full of salt, sugar and fat: understanding the impact of emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98 (2), 224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
nutritional warnings on consumers’ associations though the salience bias. Food Qual. 295X.98.2.224.
Prefer. 103991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103991. Mayer, B., Harris, C., 2010. Libraries Got Game: Aligned Learning through Modern Board
Argo, J.J., 2020. A contemporary review of three types of social influence in consumer Games. American Library Association.
psychology. Consumer Psychology Review 3 (1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ McCrae, R.R., Costa Jr., P.T., 1983. Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: neuroticism,
arcp.1059. extraversion and openness to experience. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 4 (3), 245–255. https://
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., 2006. The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(83)90146-0.
sexual decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Making 19 (2), 87–98. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., 1986. Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult
Askgaard, H., 1992. As Denmark sees herself and is seen by others. Discover sample. J. Pers. 54, 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.
Denmark—On Denmark and the Danes: Past, Present and Future 7–26. x.
Athanasiadis, G., Cheng, J.Y., Vilhjálmsson, B.J., Jørgensen, F.G., Als, T.D., Le Nasar, S., Nash, J.F., Kuhn, H.W., 2002. The Essential John Nash. Princeton University
Hellard, S., Espeseth, T., Sullivan, F.F., Hultman, C.M., Kjærgaard, P.C., Schierup, M. Press, .
H., Mailund, T., 2016. Nationwide genomic study in Denmark reveals remarkable Nelson, M.R., Shavitt, S., 2002. Horizontal and vertical individualism and achievement
population homogeneity. Genetics 204 (2), 711–722. https://doi.org/10.1534/ values: a multimethod examination of Denmark and the United States. J. Cross Cult.
genetics.116.189241. Psychol. 33 (5), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005001.
Banovic, M., Otterbring, T., 2021. Athletic abs or big bellies: the impact of imagery, Niles, F.S., 1998. Individualism-collectivism revisited. Cross Cult. Res. 32 (4), 315–341.
arousal levels, and health consciousness on consumers’ attitudes towards plant- https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719803200401.
based protein products. Food Qual. Prefer. 87, 104067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Otterbring, T., 2020. Appetite for destruction: counterintuitive effects of attractive faces
foodqual.2020.104067. on people’s food choices. Psychol. Market. 37 (11), 1451–1464. https://doi.org/
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job 10.1002/mar.21257.
performance: a meta-analysis. Person. Psychol. 44 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/ Otterbring, T., 2021. Evolutionary psychology in marketing. Deep, debated, but fancier
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x. with fieldwork. Psychology & Marketing 38(2), 229–238.
Batson, C.D., 1993. Communal and exchange relationships: what is the difference? Pers. Otterbring, T., 2017. Smile for a while: the effect of employee-displayed smiling on
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19 (6), 677–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196002. customer affect and satisfaction. Journal of Service Management 28 (2), 284–304.
Bengtsson, B., Strömblad, P., Bay, A.H., 2010. Diversity, Inclusion and Citizenship in https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0372.
Scandinavia. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Otterbring, T., Festila, A., Folwarczny, M., 2021. Replication and extension of framing
Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., Gobet, F., 2007. Personality profiles of young chess players. Pers. effects to compliance with health behaviors during pandemics. Saf. Sci. 134, 105065.
Indiv. Differ. 42 (6), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105065.
Braun, B., Stopfer, J.M., Müller, K.W., Beutel, M.E., Egloff, B., 2016. Personality and Otterbring, T., Lu, C., 2018. Clothes, condoms, and customer satisfaction: the effect of
video gaming: comparing regular gamers, non-gamers, and gaming addicts and employee mere presence on customer satisfaction depends on the shopping situation.
differentiating between game genres. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 406–412. https:// Psychol. Market. 35 (6), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21098.
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.041. Otterbring, T., Ringler, C., Sirianni, N.J., Gustafsson, A., 2018. The Abercrombie & Fitch
Burton, A., 1997. Design history and the history of toys: defining a discipline for the effect: the impact of physical dominance on male customers’ status-signaling
bethnal green museum of childhood. J. Des. Hist. 10 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/ consumption. J. Market. Res. 55 (1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0247.
10.1093/jdh/10.1.1. Otterbring, T., Shams, P., 2019. Mirror, mirror, on the menu: visual reminders of
Carver, C.S., Sutton, S.K., Scheier, M.F., 2000. Action, emotion, and personality: overweight stimulate healthier meal choices. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 47,
emerging conceptual integration. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 (6), 741. https://doi. 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.019.
org/10.1177/0146167200268008. Otterbring, T., Sundie, J., Li, Y.J., Hill, S., 2020. Evolutionary psychological consumer
Cialdini, R.B., 2009. We have to break up. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4 (1), 5–6. https://doi. research: bold, bright, but better with behavior. J. Bus. Res. 120, 473–484. https://
org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01091.x. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.010.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory: Manual, Form S and Parjanen, S., Hyypiä, M., 2019. Innotin game supporting collective creativity in
Form R. Psychological assessment resources, Odessa. innovation activities. J. Bus. Res. 96, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the jbusres.2018.10.056.
NEO Personality Inventory. Psychol. Assess. 4 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040- Parlett, D., 1999. The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3590.4.1.5. Pham, M.T., 2013. The seven sins of consumer psychology. J. Consum. Psychol. 23 (4),
Daun, Å., 1991. Individualism and collectivity among Swedes. Ethnos 56 (3–4), 165–172. 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.004.
Elliot, A.J., 2006. The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv. Pham, M.T., Sun, J.J., 2020. On the experience and engineering of consumer pride,
Emot. 30 (2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.1991.9981433. consumer excitement, and consumer relaxation in the marketplace. J. Retailing 96
Ellis, C., Thierry, G., Vaughan-Evans, A., Jones, M.W., 2018. Languages flex cultural (1), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.003.
thinking. Biling. Lang. Cognit. 21 (2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Prentice, C., 2016. Leveraging employee emotional intelligence in casino profitability.
S1366728917000190. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 33, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Feather, N.T., 1998. Attitudes toward high achievers, self-esteem, and value priorities for jretconser.2016.08.011.
Australian, American, and Canadian students. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29 (6), Rojas-Rivas, E., Antúnez, L., Cuffia, F., Otterbring, T., Aschemann-Witzel, J.,
749–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198296005. Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2020. Time orientation and risk perception moderate the
Gobet, F., Retschitzki, J., de Voogt, A., 2004. Moves in Mind: the Psychology of Board influence of sodium warnings on food choice: implications for the design of
Games. Psychology Press, . communication campaigns. Appetite 147, 104562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Graziano, W.G., Tobin, R.M., 2009. Agreeableness. In: Leary, M.R., Hoyle, R.H. (Eds.), appet.2019.104562.
Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. The Guilford Press, New Salen, K., Tekinbaş, K.S., Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design
York, NY, US, pp. 46–61. Fundamentals. MIT press, .
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A., 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466 Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P., Gelfand, M.J., 1995. Horizontal and vertical
(7302). https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a, 29-29. dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement
Hofstede, G., 1980. Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories refinement. Cross Cult. Res. 29 (3), 240–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/
apply abroad? Organ. Dynam. 9 (1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616 106939719502900302.
(80)90013-3. Sundqvist, K., Wennberg, P., 2015. Risk gambling and personality: results from a
Högberg, J., Ramberg, M.O., Gustafsson, A., Wästlund, E., 2019. Creating brand representative Swedish sample. J. Gambl. Stud. 31 (4), 1287–1295. https://doi.org/
engagement through in-store gamified customer experiences. J. Retailing Consum. 10.1007/s10899-014-9473-2.
Serv. 50, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.006. Sutton, S.K., Davidson, R.J., 1997. Prefrontal brain asymmetry: a biological substrate of
Holbrook, M.B., Chestnut, R.W., Oliva, T.A., Greenleaf, E.A., 1984. Play as a the behavioral approach and inhibition systems. Psychol. Sci. 8 (3), 204–210.
consumption experience: the roles of emotions, performance, and personality in the https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00413.x.
enjoyment of games. J. Consum. Res. 11 (2), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1086/ Teng, C.I., 2008. Personality differences between online game players and nonplayers in
209009. a student sample. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 11 (2), 232–234 ().

7
A. Bar and T. Otterbring Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102506

Teng, C.I., Lo, S.K., Lin, Y.L., 2012. Online gamer personality and weekday gaming Wei, W., Lu, J.G., Galinsky, A.D., Wu, H., Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., et al., 2017.
tendency. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (2), 704–710. https://doi.org/10.5897/ Regional ambient temperature is associated with human personality. Nature Human
AJBM10.1610. Behaviour 1 (12), 890–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0240-0.
Triandis, H.C., Gelfand, M.J., 1998. Converging measurements of horizontal and vertical Woods, S., 2012. Eurogames: the Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board
individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 275–289. https://doi.org/ Games. McFarland.
10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118. Zuckerman, M., 1979. Sensation seeking and risk taking. In: Emotions in Personality and
Van Bavel, J.J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W.J., Reinero, D.A., 2016. Contextual Psychopathology. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 161–197.
sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 113
(23), 6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113.