http:\/\/1.usa.gov\/yArxrV<\/a>). \u201cWe have learned to use technology to capture people\u2019s attention and energy, and are now learning how to turn technology-based gaming to productive use,\u201d he said \u201cHumans are clever and inventive, and we will find and exploit many more ways to use games to further our goals.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\u201cOrganizations will become more sophisticated in its implementation,\u201d responded Perry Hewitt<\/b>, chief digital officer at Harvard University, \u201cand schools and governments in particular will use it to drive preferred activities in ways that benefit society as a whole. As social networks spread behaviors (and perhaps even moods and obesity) virally, the traditional public service announcement will be supplanted by gamification to drive \u2018nudge.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Robert Renaud<\/b>, a vice president at Dickinson Collage and a member of the EDUCAUSE Advanced Core Technologies Initiative Design Group, said, \u201cConsidering gamification in this broad framework, it will by 2020 be a more powerful force as a means to incentivize users to participate in services, to measure outcomes, and to help build social networks.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
Alan Bachers<\/b>, director of the Neurofeedback Foundation, said the interface capabilities of advanced digital game approaches will allow people to self-actualize. \u201cMovements like the Quantified Self will make everything we do into our own game of self-improvement, learning, and real-time advances uniquely crafted to how we learn and what we want to learn or become proficient at,\u201d he explained. \u201cPeople\u2019s ability to advance in any field will be self-controlled, automatically recorded, and unique skill sets will emerge as needed. People will morph themselves into whatever they want at will creating an infinitely diverse skill packet for jobs that emerge by the day, the tiniest number of which exist today.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
And Frank Odasz<\/b>, president of Lone Eagle Consulting and an expert on 21st century workforce readiness, predicted, \u201cAs we mature toward meaningful applications the game<\/i> will be how to make an exponential impact on real-world problems in collaboration with others. Serious games such as basic survival and making a real difference in the lives of others suffering desperate realities will become the measure of one\u2019s purpose in life, and value to the world. Self-actualization methodologies will replace much of the silly social fluff as people mature in their thinking about their responsibility to use well the power at their fingertips.\u201d An anonymous respondent wrote, \u201cHumanity likes to be drawn into games as \u2018distraction.\u2019 If more of what is made available is presented in game-like environments, more people will be involved, possibly creating crowd-sourced solutions to social, economic, and ecological problems.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
But some people in the trenches of education have their doubts. \u201cThe \u2018game theory\u2019 school is overblown,\u201d said Ron Smith<\/b>, bridge coordinator at Helen Bernstein High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District, \u201cIt suggests that because students of a certain age like to play games, they will like to play instructional games, ones that are designed to be fun, yet filled with curricular goals. I am not convinced that there is a correlation between gaming and academic success in low-achieving students, and high achievers will thrive anywhere.\u201d <\/p>\n\nGamification isn\u2019t easy; costs and people\u2019s personal time constraints will limit its practicality. Expect \u201cleaderboard fatigue\u201d<\/h3>\n\n
Gardner-Stephen and others pointed out that the planning and implementation of gamification can be costly. \u201cMany of these corporate games require the presentation of rewards that, if fully exploited, would be cost-negative for the enterprises,\u201d he said. \u201cThe growth of data sharing among citizens may produce coordinated mechanisms for exploiting these flaws in the games to the net detriment of the corporations, thus disrupting the games. For instance, if consumers in Australia coordinated to always purchase the maximum amount of fuel with their dockets, they would extract perhaps three times more discount from the game than if they continue to play individually. Combined with other game features that allow the discount to be doubled or tripled (e.g., spend $5 in store for another 4% off), resulting in total discounts that exceed the revenues used to fund them. Game theory can work both ways, a fact that corporations may come to regret.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
Kris Davis<\/b>, a user-experience designer for Webvisible, said it takes work to ramp up to gameplay and that will always limit participant buy-in. \u201cGames still are time-consuming in that you have to learn the game, play the game to understand the game, and keep playing the game to keep up. Gaming just is not something that works in absolutely every scenario.\u201d An anonymous respondent said, \u201cMost people will remain too overwhelmed by their schedules to have time or patience for many more games. The choice of games may change, but the amount of time people spend playing games probably will not. Attempts to interject gaming into many other daily activities would probably be seen by most people as an annoying intrusion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\u201cWhile gamification will continue to grow, there are limits to the amount of time and attention people will give to gamification systems,\u201d said Steven Swimmer<\/b>, a consultant who previously worked in digital leadership roles for a major broadcast TV network and a major museum. \u201cPeople will pick a few systems in which they are willing to \u2018play\u2019 but will ignore the rest. It will be difficult for people to enlist their friends to play along, except for a few of the most compelling services. People will have gaming fatigue and annoyance at being asked to jump through hoops for no real reason other than a \u2018badge.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent wrote, \u201cI expect scenario two, with only the note that it will not work nearly as well as people currently imagine it will, as the effects of novelty-seeking and leaderboard fatigue force gamified aspects of life into cycles of almost constant, short-term updating.\u201d Another said, \u201cThe challenge of gamification is that it requires opt-in, rule understanding, and active and continual engagement. That\u2019s a lot for the busy people of 2020 to take on in an every day, every activity, kind of way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Jon Lebkowsky<\/b>, Internet pioneer and principal at Polycot Associates LLC, said by 2020 the complexity and expense of game-type dynamics in online interactions will still be too high for gamification to become more prevalent. \u201cEffective and engaging games are expensive and difficult to produce, and this will limit the broad applicability of gamification. If I\u2019m wrong about this, it could be because so many minds have been shaped by game experiences that our thinking about the character of media will inevitably have gone there, in which case game structure may be so inherent that the cost and difficulty of production might be reduced. I don\u2019t think this will be the case; though I see intense game influence among some, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s pervasive. And I think there are whole populations that just don\u2019t \u2018get\u2019 games.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
Katrina Griffin<\/b>, e-marketing strategist for Medseek, said, \u201cI don\u2019t believe companies will be willing to put the budget dollars in this area just yet. Instead, budget dollars will be allocated towards big data and apps. I see this occurring farther into the future.\u201d \u00a0An anonymous respondent added, \u201cIt is much more difficult and expensive to \u2018gamify\u2019 things than most people realize. Besides, once someone builds a good system to game something we will by our natures become bored with it and want something different. It will take a long time.\u201d<\/p>\n\nThere\u2019s already too much pandering to people\u2019s passion to be entertained<\/h3>\n\n
Naomi S. Baron<\/b>, director of the Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning at American University was highly critical of gamification as applied to education. \u201c\u2018Engagement\u2019 and \u2018fun\u2019 are not the same concepts,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIn education, clearly we want students\u2014at all levels\u2014to take pleasure in learning. However, our education system is increasingly privileging \u2018fun\u2019 at the expense of serious discourse. The same type of shift can be seen in presentation of the news\u2014networks are replacing straightforward newscasts with human-interest stories and sensationalism. More broadly, gamification (at least in the United States) may be narrowing our understanding of what it means to learn and our spectrum of experience.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent wrote, \u201cIt is possible that people will fully buy into having their day-to-day behavior conditioned by electronic treats, like tall hamsters; no one who observes contemporary national politics could claim that Americans have too much native intelligence or innate dignity to submit to this sort of obedience training. But I cling to the hope that we are better than that.\u201d Another said, \u201cI fear we may be so ready to dumb down to the lowest common denominator that anything requiring attention and thought will be bypassed for the \u2018feed me\u2019 option.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Donald G. Barnes<\/b>, visiting professor at Guangxi University in China and former director of the Science Advisory Board at the US Environmental Protection Agency, agreed. \u201cGames are, and will continue to be, primarily for entertainment,\u201d he said. \u201cCertainly, gamification has a role in education, training, and work; but that role is limited, at best, and diversionary, at worst. Some people have learning and working styles that are positively affected by a limited amount of gaming. There are few, if any, examples of instances in which gaming\u2014as the major mode of instruction and work\u2014has produced sustained positive results over time.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent noted that some people like reward systems, writing, \u201cFor better or worse, it\u2019s becoming expected for normal activities to be fun, and people (especially Generation Y, downward) are used to being rewarded for every little thing they do.\u201d Another anonymous survey participant predicted, \u201cThere will be a rush to implement these technologies, leading to a backlash because the manipulative aspects where participation provides actual value only to the provider will become apparent to the user. Further, among those who buy in, its use will exacerbate the psychology of narcissism already seen in the young.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
M.C. Liang<\/b> of the National University of Kaohsiung in Taiwan expressed concern that some people will lose themselves in the enticing online game world, writing, \u201cFewer distinctions between virtual reality and reality will be identifiable. It is likely that a significant group of people will be \u2018trapped\u2019 in the communication network, especially teens.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
\u201cThe more realistic virtual reality becomes,\u201d responded Paul McFate<\/b>, an online communications specialist based in Provo, Utah, \u201cthe greater the toll on our real social connections, and the greater the impact on GDP through lost productivity. For some, assimilation will be inevitable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent made a reference to media theorist Neil Postman\u2019s well-known critique of popular culture\u2019s negative influences on people\u2019s information diets, citing his most famous work and writing, \u201cWe already are living in the world of Amusing Ourselves to Death<\/i>.\u201d Another anonymous survey participant wrote, \u201cFun, rewards, etc., to spur engagement? I worry what that does to our brains. I\u2019m sure there are addictive properties of games in terms of playing for reward, but what does that mean in terms of gratification? I will no longer be enough to learn something just to learn it? Or accomplish something just to accomplish it? I cringe a bit when I see that iPad commercial narrated by Peter Coyote, where we are told we can learn Chinese, watch TED videos, play piano, etc., all from our iPad. There is no need to touch or look at anything else. Should I have a bracket installed on my head, so that my iPad is in front of my face 24\/7?\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Ted Coopman<\/b>, a lecturer in the department of communication studies at San Jose State University and member of the executive committee of the Association of Internet Researchers, said game mechanics may be used effectively to flip \u201centertainment\u201d to good use for serious purposes. \u201cGamification plays to some very basic aspects of human nature and therefore has \u2018stickiness,\u2019 that is, it works well on variety of levels both cognitively and economically,\u201d he wrote. \u201cCommon impulses such as community and identity\u2014things we already know are effective in increasing and maintaining interest in many activities\u2014fit well with game-style pursuits. Gamification works and it can be a productive way of approaching life and work. Perhaps this will turn the idea of \u2018infotainment\u2019 into a positive as opposed to a negative force.\u201d <\/p>\n\nThis trend is still in its early stages; 2020 is too soon to expect a massive embrace of game-centered activities<\/h3>\n\n
A number of respondents who said gamification will not be prevalent by 2020 see its potential but say the technology will not yet be up to the standards necessary for wider adoption. \u201cI\u2019ve been interested in this for five years now, and worked on it some,\u201d said Microsoft principal researcher Jonathan Grudin<\/b>. \u201cIt\u2019s very slow going. It definitely won\u2019t be out there in 2020 for most people, most of the time.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
Jim Jansen<\/b>, an associate professor in the College of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State University sits on the boards of eight international technology journals. He said, \u201cI\u2019m not sure this will happen by 2020, but the idea of work, learning, and training as entertainment will certainly increase in usage.\u201d One anonymous respondent was certain it\u2019s too soon, writing, \u201cCurrent attempts at gamification are crude and not particularly effective. Game-like elements may be incorporated into an increasing number of daily activities, but gamification on the whole is too problematic to catch on in a big way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Kevin Novak<\/b>, co-chair of the eGov Working Group for the World Wide Web Consortium, commented, \u201cGamification has grown in use and in public knowledge over the past five years. Many have found success in specific applications in educational and other settings. Like medical research, a five-year span of findings and information, is not enough to judge whether it should become the predominant way of delivering, teaching, or digesting content available via the Web. The Web, although having changed in depth and capacity over the past ten years, still continues under the same basic premises. Options to display and interact with information and data have continued to evolve. Gamification will continue as an option where applicable but will not become the main connection point in 2020.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent remarked, \u201cLeaders\u2019 prejudice against fun will limit growth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Another anonymous participant said the timing will depend upon the uptake of these approaches by common cultural organizations, writing, \u201cHow much gamification we get and how much it influences widespread cultural trends will depend on how well game design is taken up by hosts and organizers of social and cultural institutions and built into their rituals. If churches and service clubs like Rotary and Kiwanis decide they can better carry out their mission by moving some playful donation activities onto their members\u2019 smart phones, we will have crossed an important cultural barrier.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\u201cGamification\u201d? Can\u2019t we come up with a better term for this?<\/h3>\n\n
Many people think the term gamification is awkward, misleading, or so difficult to define it obscures more than it describes. <\/p>\n\n
\u201cGamification describes a structure with accurate feedback,\u201d said Pamela Rutledge<\/b>, director of the Media Psychology Research Center at Fielding Graduate University. \u201cIt transfers motivation back to the individual by engaging fundamental human drives: curiosity, connection, accomplishment, and social validation. This is not a new idea\u2026It is not necessarily a gaming situation, but a transparent one, when you receive accurate feedback and rewards for your efforts and accomplishments, and it is more motivating and engaging (and effective) to give and get feedback sooner rather than later. I am grateful that gaming has reintroduced these concepts, but there will be significant advances when we quit referring to these basics of human motivation and transparent communication as \u2018gamification.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\u201cBy 2020, anyone who ever used the term \u2018gamification\u2019 will be embarrassed to admit it,\u201d wrote eminent Internet researcher Alex Halavais<\/b> of Quinnipiac University. \u201cBut that does not change the fact that most of these systems are already games of one sort or another. What motivates people to attend to and participate in a particular group will be an essential question for people working in a very wide range of fields.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
An anonymous participant noted, \u201cGamification will be everywhere, but it won\u2019t be called that. Perhaps \u201cinferential sociology\u201d or some other phrase. As computer power progresses, it makes sense this extra power will be used for inferential experiences, especially in education.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Daren C. Brabham<\/b>, a communications professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, commented, \u201cThough I can\u2019t stand this buzzword, I do believe the concept of gamification will continue to penetrate every aspect of our lives. Gamification will even shape our interactions with government. Crowdsourcing and other incentivized models for engagement will drive public participation programs for public issues (policy design, the planning of public space, etc.).\u201d <\/p>\n\n
Bryan Alexander<\/b>, senior fellow at the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education, said, \u201cLike \u2018Web 2.0\u2019, the term \u2018gamification\u2019 will fade away as the enormity of its success sweeps across the globe.\u201d And Vicki Suter<\/b>, director of the California Virtual Campus, said, \u201cGamification is a horrible made-up word. Just say games. Just say gaming interfaces. Just say game-design thinking.\u201d <\/p>\n\n
An anonymous respondent didn\u2019t like the use of \u201cgame\u201d in any form to represent finding the best way to design information interfaces to be highly effective, writing, \u201cWe are on the edge of using gaming\u2014bad term\u2014in personalizing learning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Another anonymous survey participant noted, \u201cWhat we are beginning to call \u2018gamification\u2019 really isn\u2019t new; we are just figuring out how to bring it into the realm of software more and more. It has been \u2018making waves\u2019 for centuries, at least. It isn\u2019t clear to me that this really deserves a label. It is better thought of as part of the broader picture of making software more adaptable to motivate people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
And another anonymous survey participant applied a more generalized term that may be more palatable than \u201cgamification\u201d\u2014interaction\u2014writing: \u201cThe one most easily drawn observation from study after study after study of how the Internet, technology, and social media are affecting the way we communicate is that people like interaction<\/i>. It\u2019s been counted as a benefit, metric, measurement, result, impact, and countless other Internet analytics results terms. Everyone sees interaction as a way of increasing communications, and therefore a way of increasing followers, loyalty, profit, etc. (whatever your specific goals are). Gamification is an easy way to spur interaction. This is an age driven by Facebook and blog comments, crowdsourcing, flash, participation, and more and more augmented reality, as we try to achieve the impossible.\u201d<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Respondents\u2019 thoughts There was a split verdict among experts about the scope and power of the gamification trend. Some 53% of the respondents to this survey said the use of game mechanics, feedback loops, and rewards to spur interaction and boost engagement, loyalty, fun, and\/or learning will continue to gain ground between now and 2020. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_crdt_document":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","bylines":[],"acknowledgements":[],"displayBylines":true,"relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"bylines":[],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[],"research-teams":[526],"class_list":["post-95028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","formats-report","research-teams-internet"],"label":false,"post_parent":95017,"word_count":8845,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification\/","art_direction":false,"_embeds":[],"table_of_contents":[{"id":95017,"title":"The Future of Gamification","slug":"the-future-of-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/the-future-of-gamification\/","is_active":false},{"id":95028,"title":"Main Findings: Getting into the gamification?","slug":"main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification\/","is_active":true},{"id":95033,"title":"About and Methodology","slug":"about-and-methodology-5","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/about-and-methodology-5\/","is_active":false}],"report_materials":"","report_pagination":{"current_post":{"id":95028,"title":"Main Findings: Getting into the gamification?","slug":"main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification\/","is_active":true,"page_num":2},"next_post":{"id":95033,"title":"About and Methodology","slug":"about-and-methodology-5","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/about-and-methodology-5\/","is_active":false,"page_num":3},"previous_post":{"id":95017,"title":"The Future of Gamification","slug":"the-future-of-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/the-future-of-gamification\/","is_active":false,"page_num":1},"pagination_items":[{"id":95017,"title":"The Future of Gamification","slug":"the-future-of-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/the-future-of-gamification\/","is_active":false,"page_num":1},{"id":95028,"title":"Main Findings: Getting into the gamification?","slug":"main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/main-findings-getting-into-the-gamification\/","is_active":true,"page_num":2},{"id":95033,"title":"About and Methodology","slug":"about-and-methodology-5","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2012\/05\/18\/about-and-methodology-5\/","is_active":false,"page_num":3}]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"The Future of Gamification","parent_id":95017},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Main Findings: Getting into the gamification?","description":"Respondents\u2019 thoughts There was a split verdict among experts about the scope and power of the gamification trend. Some 53% of the respondents to this survey said the use of…","og_title":"Main Findings: Getting into the gamification?","og_description":"Respondents\u2019 thoughts There was a split verdict among experts about the scope and power of the gamification trend. Some 53% of the respondents to this survey said the use of…","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":[],"custom_schema":[],"og_image":0,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95028","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95028"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95028\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132112,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95028\/revisions\/132112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=95028"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=95028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Tension](\"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/media\/4420D8CB3F1D4526A495A95D3B828C1F.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n