Factors to Consider for Tailored Gamification
summary
Crowdsourced experiment with 300 participants uses paired comparisons across 12 game elements (66 forced-choice pairs) and three user typologies, analyzed with partial least squares models. Results show concrete claims: different implementations of the same strategy produce different motivation effects; Hexad outperforms Big Five and BrainHacks for tailoring when using combined dimension profiles rather than a single dominant type; context shifts element effectiveness; points and timers rank lowest while badges and progress cues work broadly.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (10)
- 0:00Intro
- 0:36Introduction - background
- 2:28A large scale study to identify the motivational impact of game elements
- 3:05Paired comparison protocol
- 4:20Different implementations of game elements
- 6:02Different categorisations of users
- 7:50Dominant player types generally used
- 8:48Different domains and user activity
- 10:23Design recommendations
- 11:44Factors to Consider for Tailored Gamification
related talks
05mDisambiguating Preferences for Gamification Strategies to Motivate Pro-Environmental Behaviour
19mIs Difficulty Overrated? Measuring the Effects of Motivational Design Factors in an Educational Game
43mDesigning Better Quests Using Science.
03mThe Cost of Reward: A Critical Reflection on the `What', `How', and `Why' of Gamification for...
40mDesigning Gamification for Good
44mGamification without the Garbage
54mGoing Deep on Gamification
57mGame On! Gamifying Your Apps for Fun and Profit