Stuart Hallifax
Audrey Serna
Jean-Charles Marty
ABSTRACT
Gamification is widely used to foster user motivation. Recent studies show that users can be more or less receptive to different game elements, based on their personality or player profile. Consequently, recent work on tailored gamification tries to identify links between user types and motivating game elements. However findings are very heterogeneous due to different contexts, different typologies to characterize users, and different implementations of game elements. Our work seeks to obtain more generalizable findings in order to identify the main factors that will support design choices when tailoring gamification to users' profiles and provide designers with concrete recommendations for designing tailored gamification systems. For this purpose, we ran a crowdsourced study with 300 participants to identify the motivational impact of game elements. Our study differs from previous work in three ways: first, it is independent from a specific user activity and domain; second, it considers three user typologies; and third, it clearly distinguishes motivational strategies and their implementation using multiple different game elements. Our results reveal that (1) different implementations of a same motivational strategy have different impacts on motivation, (2) dominant user type is not sufficient to differentiate users according to their preferences for game elements, (3) Hexad is the most appropriate user typology for tailored gamification and (4) the motivational impact of certain game elements varies with the user activity or the domain of gamified systems.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
pdf
fp5100aux.pdf (1.5 MB)
The attached PDF file contains the full set of storyboards used in our study, as well as the full data used to generate the various graphs presented in the main paper, and a few tables that provide extra context for the main paper.
- Ashton Anderson, Daniel Huttenlocher, Jon Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Steering user behavior with badges. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 95--106.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yigal Attali and Meirav Arieli-Attali. 2015. Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computers & Education 83 (April 2015), 57--63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris Bateman, Rebecca Lowenhaupt, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. Player Typology in Theory and Practice.. In DiGRA Conference.Google Scholar
- Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Biometrika 39, 3 (1952), 324--345.Google Scholar
- Marc Busch, Elke Mattheiss, Rita Orji, Peter Fröhlich, Michael Lankes, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016b. Player Type Models: Towards Empirical Validation. In CHI Extended Abstracts '16. ACM, 1835--1841. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892399Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marc Busch, Elke Mattheiss, Rita Orji, Andrzej Marczewski, Wolfgang Hochleitner, Michael Lankes, Lennart E. Nacke, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2015. Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions. In CHIPLAY '15. ACM, 811--816.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marc Busch, Elke E Mattheiss, Wolfgang Hochleitner, Christina Hochleitner, Michael Lankes, Peter Fröhlich, Rita Orji, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016a. Using Player Type Models for Personalized Game Design-An Empirical Investigation. IxD&A 28 (2016), 145--163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Geiser Chalco Challco, Dilvan A Moreira, Riichiro Mizoguchi, and Seiji Isotani. 2014. An ontology engineering approach to gamify collaborative learning scenarios. In CYTED-RITOS International Workshop on Groupware. Springer, 185--198.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Cheong, France Cheong, and Justin Filippou. 2013. Quick Quiz: A Gamified Approach for Enhancing Learning.. In PACIS. 206.Google Scholar
- Andrew P Clark, Kate L Howard, Andy T Woods, Ian S Penton-voak, and Christof Neumann. 2018. Why rate when you could compare - Using the - EloChoice " package to assess pairwise comparisons of perceived physical strength. PLoS ONE 13, 1 (2018), 1--16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190393Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Denny. 2013. The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In CHI '13. ACM, 763--772.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Denny, Fiona McDonald, Ruth Empson, Philip Kelly, and Andrew Petersen. 2018. Empirical Support for a Causal Relationship Between Gamification and Learning Outcomes. In CHI '18. ACM, 311. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173885Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human--Computer Interaction 30, 3--4 (2015), 294--335.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. ACM, 9--15.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tao Dong, Mira Dontcheva, Diana Joseph, Karrie Karahalios, Mark Newman, and Mark Ackerman. 2012. Discovery-based games for learning software. In CHI '12. ACM, 2083--2086.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradley Efron and R.J. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability.Google Scholar
- Carsten Eickhoff, Christopher G. Harris, Arjen P. de Vries, and Padmini Srinivasan. 2012. Quality through flow and immersion: gamifying crowdsourced relevance assessments. In SIGIR '12. ACM, 871--880.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Loria Enrica and Marconi Annapaola. Player Types and Player Behaviors: Analyzing Correlations in an On-the-field Gamified System. In Extended abstracts CHI Play (2018). 531--538. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3271526Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rosta Farzan and Peter Brusilovsky. 2011. Encouraging user participation in a course recommender system: An impact on user behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 1 (2011), 276--284.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rosta Farzan, Joan M. DiMicco, David R. Millen, Beth Brownholtz, Werner Geyer, and Casey Dugan. 2008. When the experiment is over: Deploying an incentive system to all the users. In symposium on persuasive technology.Google Scholar
- Lauren S. Ferro, Steffen P. Walz, and Stefan Greuter. 2013. Towards personalised, gamified systems: an investigation into game design, personality and player typologies. In Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death. ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David R. Flatla, Carl Gutwin, Lennart E. Nacke, Scott Bateman, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2011. Calibration games: making calibration tasks enjoyable by adding motivating game elements. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 403--412.Google Scholar
- Gustavo Fortes Tondello, Deltcho Valtchanov, Adrian Reetz, Rina R. Wehbe, Rita Orji, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2018. Towards a Trait Model of Video Game Preferences. (2018), 1--17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Borja Gil, Iván Cantador, and Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. Validating gamification mechanics and player types in an E-learning environment. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World. Springer, 568--572.Google Scholar
- Lewis R. Goldberg. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment 4, 1 (1992), 26.Google Scholar
- Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Swann Jr. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality 37, 6 (2003), 504--528.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott Grant and Buddy Betts. 2013. Encouraging user behaviour with achievements: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, 65--68.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph F Hair Jr, G Tomas M Hult, Christian Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Stuart Hallifax, Audrey Serna, Jean-Charles Marty, and Élise Lavoué. 2018. A Design Space For Meaningful Structural Gamification. In CHI '18 Extended Abstracts. ACM, LBW073.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juho Hamari. 2015. Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior (2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto. 2013. Social Motivations To Use Gamification: An Empirical Study Of Gamifying Exercise. In ECIS, Vol. 105.Google Scholar
- Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Tuomas Pakkanen. 2014a. Do persuasive technologies persuade?-a review of empirical studies. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Springer, 118--136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014b. Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 3025--3034.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael D. Hanus and Jesse Fox. 2015. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education 80 (Jan. 2015), 152--161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing Graphical Perception: Using Mechanical Turk to Assess Visualization Design. In CHI '10. ACM, 203--212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753357Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kai Huotari and Juho Hamari. 2012. Defining Gamification: A Service Marketing Perspective (MindTrek '12). ACM, 17--22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137Google ScholarDigital Library
- international hobo. 2010. BrainHex questionnaire. http://survey.ihobo.com/BrainHex/. (2010). Accessed: 2019-04.Google Scholar
- Shih-Ping Jeng and Ching-I. Teng. 2008. Personality and motivations for playing online games. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 36, 8 (2008), 1053--1060.Google Scholar
- Yuan Jia, Bin Xu, Yamini Karanam, and Stephen Voida. 2016. Personality-targeted Gamification: A Survey Study on Personality Traits and Motivational Affordances. In CHI '16. ACM, 2001--2013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858515Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karl M. Kapp. 2012. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maurits Kaptein, Boris De Ruyter, Panos Markopoulos, and Emile Aarts. 2012. Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 2, 2 (2012), 10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maurice G Kendall and B Babington Smith. 1940. On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 31, 3/4 (1940), 324--345.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janaki Kumar. 2013. Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software. In International conference of design, user experience, and usability. Springer, 528--537.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard N. Landers and Michael B. Armstrong. 2015. Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification: An empirical test of the Technology-Enhanced Training Effectiveness Model. Computers in Human Behavior (Sept. 2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.031Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard N. Landers, Kristina N. Bauer, and Rachel C. Callan. 2017. Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior 71 (June 2017), 508--515. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008Google ScholarDigital Library
- Élise Lavoué, Baptiste Monterrat, Michel Desmarais, and Sébastien George. 2018. Adaptive Gamification for Learning Environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2018).Google Scholar
- Tuomas Lehto and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2011. Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of medical Internet research 13, 3 (2011), e46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- FB Leloup, MR Pointer, Philip Dutré, and Peter Hanselaer. 2010. Geometry of illumination, luminance contrast, and gloss perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America 27, 9 (2010), 2046--2054.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jemma Looyestyn, Jocelyn Kernot, Kobie Boshoff, Jillian Ryan, Sarah Edney, and Carol Maher. 2017. Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review. PLOS ONE 12, 3 (2017), 1--19.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cathie Marache-Francisco and Eric Brangier. 2013. Process of gamification. Proceedings of the 6th Centric (2013), 126--131.Google Scholar
- A. C. Marczewski. 2015. Even Ninja Monkeys like to play. CreateSpace Indep. Publish Platform, Charleston, Chapter User Types, 69--84.Google Scholar
- Elisa D. Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Alexandre N. Tuch, and Klaus Opwis. 2015. Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior (Sept. 2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baptiste Monterrat, Michel Desmarais, Élise Lavoué, and Sébastien George. 2015. A player model for adaptive gamification in learning environments. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 297--306.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baptiste Monterrat, Élise Lavoué, and Sébastien George. 2014. Motivation for learning: Adaptive gamification for web-based learning environments. In CSEDU 2014. 117--125.Google Scholar
- Baptiste Monterrat, élise Lavoué, and Sébastien George. 2017. Adaptation of Gaming Features for Motivating Learners. Simulation & Gaming 48, 5 (Oct. 2017), 625--656. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878117712632Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alberto Mora, Gustavo F. Tondello, Lennart E. Nacke, and Joan Arnedo-Moreno. 2018. Effect of personalized gameful design on student engagement. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2018 IEEE. IEEE, 1925--1933.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lennart E. Nacke, Chris Bateman, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2011. BrainHex: preliminary results from a neurobiological gamer typology survey. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. Springer, 288--293.Google Scholar
- Scott Nicholson. 2012. A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Games+ Learning+ Society 8, 1 (2012), 223--230.Google Scholar
- Florin Oprescu, Christian Jones, and Mary Katsikitis. 2014. I PLAY AT WORK-ten principles for transforming work processes through gamification. Frontiers in psychology 5 (2014), 14.Google Scholar
- Rita Orji, Regan L. Mandryk, and Julita Vassileva. 2017. Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 24, 5 (Oct. 2017). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3119929Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Orji, Regan L. Mandryk, Julita Vassileva, and Kathrin M. Gerling. 2013. Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. In CHI'13. ACM, 2467--2476.Google Scholar
- Rita Orji, Lennart E. Nacke, and Chrysanne Di Marco. 2017. Towards Personality-driven Persuasive Health Games and Gamified Systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, 1015--1027. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025577Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Orji, Gustavo F. Tondello, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2018. Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types. In CHI ' 18, Vol. 61. 62.Google Scholar
- Rita Orji, Julita Vassileva, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2014. Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 24, 5 (2014), 453--498.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maria Perez-Ortiz and Rafal K. Mantiuk. 2017. A practical guide and software for analysing pairwise comparison experiments. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Scott Rigby and Richard M Ryan. 2011. Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound (New directions in media). Praeger Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
- David Robinson and Victoria Bellotti. 2013. A preliminary taxonomy of gamification elements for varying anticipated commitment. In CHI'13 Workshop on Designing Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences.Google Scholar
- R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist 55, 1 (Jan. 2000), 68--78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katie Seaborn and Deborah I. Fels. 2015. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of human-computer studies 74 (2015), 14--31.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nihar B. Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Joseph Bradley, Abhay Parekh, Kannan Ramchandran, and Martin J. Wainwright. 2016. Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 (2016), 1--47.Google Scholar
- David Thue, Vadim Bulitko, Marcia Spetch, and Eric Wasylishen. 2007. Interactive Storytelling: A Player Modelling Approach.. In AIIDE. 43--48.Google Scholar
- L. L. Thurstone. 1927. A law of comparative judgments. Psychological review 34 (1927), 273--286.Google Scholar
- Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2017. Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences. In CHIPLAY'17. ACM.Google Scholar
- Gustavo F. Tondello, Rina R. Wehbe, Lisa Diamond, Marc Busch, Andrzej Marczewski, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016. The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. In CHIPLAY'16. ACM, 229--243.Google Scholar
- Julita Vassileva. 2012. Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1 (2012), 177--201.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter. 2012. For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.Google Scholar
- Nick Yee. 2006. Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & behavior 9, 6 (2006), 772--775.Google Scholar
- Mark Mingyi Young. 2010. Twitter Me: Using Micro-blogging to Motivate Teenagers to Exercise. In Global Perspectives on Design Science Research, Robert Winter, J. Leon Zhao, and Stephan Aier (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 439--448.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Factors to Consider for Tailored Gamification
Recommendations
Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences
CHI PLAY '17: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in PlaySeveral studies have developed models to explain player preferences. These models have been developed for digital games; however, they have been frequently applied in gameful design (i.e., designing non-game applications with game elements) without ...
Disambiguating Preferences for Gamification Strategies to Motivate Pro-Environmental Behaviour
CHI PLAY '20: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in PlayMuch topical gamification research has focused on the application of personality trait models and the development of player typologies. These models are often applied under the assumption that personality or gamification user type reside as a stable ...
The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale
CHI PLAY '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in PlaySeveral studies have indicated the need for personalizing gamified systems to users' personalities. However, mapping user personality onto design elements is difficult. Hexad is a gamification user types model that attempts this mapping but lacks a ...
Comments