User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 453–498 | Cite as

Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health

  • Rita Orji
  • Julita Vassileva
  • Regan L. Mandryk


Persuasive games for health are designed to alter human behavior or attitude using various Persuasive Technology (PT) strategies. Recent years have witnessed an increasing number of such games, which treat players as a monolithic group by adopting a one-size-fits-all design approach. Studies of gameplay motivation have shown that this is a bad approach because a motivational approach that works for one individual may actually demotivate behavior in others. In an attempt to resolve this weakness, we conducted a large-scale study on 1,108 gamers to examine the persuasiveness of ten PT strategies that are commonly employed in persuasive game design, and the receptiveness of seven gamer personalities (gamer types identified by BrianHex) to the ten PT strategies. We developed models showing the receptiveness of the gamer types to the PT strategies and created persuasive profiles, which are lists of strategies that can be employed to motivate behavior for each gamer type. We then explored the differences between the models and, based on the results, proposed two approaches for data-driven persuasive game design. The first is the one-size-fits-all approach that will motivate a majority of gamers, while not demotivating any player. The second is the personalized approach that will best persuade a particular type of gamer. We also compiled a list of the best and the worst strategies for each gamer type. Finally, to bridge the gap between game design and PT researchers, we map common game mechanics to the persuasive system design strategies.


Tailored persuasion Persuasive technology Persuasive game  Gamer types Persuasive strategies Health Player typology Serious games  Personalized persuasion Healthy eating BrainHex 



The first author of this paper is being sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Vanier Graduate Scholarship.


  1. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, G.W.: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 411–423 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew, A., Borriello, G., Fogarty, J.: Toward a systematic understanding of suggestion tactics in persuasive technologies. In: Persuasive Technology. Springer, Berlin pp. 259–270 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Arteaga, S.M., Kudeki, M., Woodworth, A.: Combating obesity trends in teenagers through persuasive mobile technology. ACM SIGACCESS Access. Comput. 94, 17–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arteaga, S.M., González, V.M., Kurniawan, S., Benavides, R.A.: Mobile games and design requirements to increase teenagers’ physical activity. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 8(6), 900–908 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Bang, M., Torstensson, C., Katzeff, C.: The PowerHouse: a persuasive computer game designed to raise awareness of domestic energy consumption. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 123–132 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51(6), 1173–1182 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartle, R.: Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit muds. J. MUD Res. 1(1), 19 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. Bateman, C., Boon, R.: 21st Century Game Design (Game Development Series). Charles River Media Inc., Independence, KY (2005)Google Scholar
  9. Bateman, C., Nacke, L.E.: The neurobiology of play. In: Future of Game Design and Technology, pp. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., Nacke, L.: Player typology in theory and practice. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play (2011)Google Scholar
  11. Bell, M., Chalmers, M., Barkhuus, L., et al.: Interweaving mobile games with everyday life. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 417–426 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., Coombe, M., Bhandari, D.: Recommender algorithms in activity motivating games. In: Recommender Systems—RecSys ’10. ACM Press, p. 175 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., Oinas-kukkonen, H.: Influencing individually. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bjork, S., Holopainen, J.: Game design patterns. In: Salen, A., Zimmerman, E. (eds.) The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Bogost, I.: Persuasive games on mobile devices. In: Fogg, B.J., Eckles, D. (eds.) Mobile Persuasion: 20 Perspectives on the Future of Behavior Change (2007)Google Scholar
  16. BrainHex. Accessed Sept 2012
  17. Brown, J.N.: Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. Shiken JALT Test. Eval. SIG Newsl. 13(3), 20–25 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Brown, B., Chetty, M., Grimes, A., Harmon, E.: Reflecting on health: a system for students to monitor diet and exercise. In: CHI’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1807–1812 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Brownson, R.C., Kumanyika, S. (eds.): Obesity prevention: charting a course to a healthier future. In: Handbook of Obesity Prevention. Springer, Berlin, pp. 515–528 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspecti. Psychol. Sci. 6(1), 3–5 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. Cameron, J., Pierce, W.D.: Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(3), 363 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, L.S.-L.: Subjective well-being: evidence from the different personality traits of online game teenager players. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 11(5), 579–581 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. Chin, W.W.: Frequently asked questions—partial least squares & PLS-graph. (2000). Accessed Dec 2012
  25. Cialdini, R.B.: The science of persuasion. Sci. Am. Mind 284, 76–84 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Colineau, N., Paris, C.: Can beneficial habits be induced through reflection? In: Workshop on User Models and Motivational Systems: the Effective and the Rational Routes to Persuasion, with UMAP’2010 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., Landay, J.A.: Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Human Factors in Vomputing Systems—CHI ’06. ACM Press, pp. 457–466 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. Costello, A., Osborne, J., Anna, B., Jason, W.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. 2005. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10, 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. Cullen, K.W., Watson, K., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J.H., ZakeriI, I.: Squire’s quest: intervention changes occurred at lunch and snack meals. Appetite 45(2), 148–151 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Dijkstra, A.: Technology adds new principles to persuasive psychology: evidence from health education. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 16–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Dixon, D.: Player types and gamification. In: CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Game Contexts, pp. 12–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. Drozd, F., Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Exploring perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system: a structural model. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 157–168 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. Echchakoui, S.: Personality traits and performance: the mediating role of adaptive behavior in call centers. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 3, 17–27 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2003)Google Scholar
  35. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 1 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fujiki, Y., Kazakos, K., Puri, C., Buddharaju, P., Pavlidis, I., Levine, J.: NEAT-o-games: blending physical activity and fun in the daily routine. Comput. Entertain. 6(2), 1–22 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Game Mechanics \({\vert }\) Accessed Sept 2012
  38. Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A.: Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Q. J. Econ. 115(3), 791–810 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldberg, L.R.: The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48(1), 26–34 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Government of Canada, Health Canada: Promotion and support of healthy eating: an initial overview of knowledge gaps and research needs. Summary report, March 2001. Health Canada. (2003). Accessed Dec 2012
  41. Grimes, A., Kantroo, V., Grinter, R.E.: Let’s play!: mobile health games for adults. In: Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 241–250. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  42. Grimes, A., Tan, D., Morris, D.: Toward technologies that support family reflections on health. In: Supporting Group Work. ACM, pp. 311–320 (2009)Google Scholar
  43. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Halko, S., Kientz, J.: Personality and Persuasive Technology: an exploratory study on health-promoting mobile applications. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 150–161 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. Harjumaa, M.: Understanding persuasive software functionality in practice: a field trial of polar FT60. In: Persuasive Technology (2009)Google Scholar
  46. Heer, J., Bostock, M.: Crowdsourcing graphical perception. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’10. ACM Press, pp. 203–212 (2010)Google Scholar
  47. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R.: The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 20(20), 277–319 (2009)Google Scholar
  48. Hinton, R.H., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., Cozens, B.: SPSS Explained. Routledge, London (2004)Google Scholar
  49. Hirsh, J.B., Kang, S.K., Bodenhausen, G.V.: Personalized persuasion: tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients’ personality traits. Psychol. Sci. 23(6), 578–581 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Holm, S.: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6(2), 65–70 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Hu, R., Pu, P.: A study on user perception of personality-based recommender systems. In: User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, pp. 291–302 (2010)Google Scholar
  52. Kaipainen, K., Payne, C.R., Wansink, B.: Mindless eating challenge: retention, weight outcomes, and barriers for changes in a public web-based healthy eating and weight loss program. J. Med. Internet Res. 14(6), e168 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaiser, H.F.: The appliation of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaiser, H.F.: A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35(4), 401–415 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Kaptein, M., Lacroix, J., Saini, P.: Individual differences in persuadability in the health promotion domain. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 94–105 (2010)Google Scholar
  56. Kaptein, M., De Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., Aarts, E.: Adaptive persuasive systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kato, P.M.: Video games in health care: closing the gap. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14(2), 113–121 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Khaled, R.: Culturally-relevant persuasive technology. A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington (2008)Google Scholar
  59. Khaled, R., Barr, P., Noble, J., Fischer, R., Biddle, R.: Fine tuning the persuasion in persuasive games. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 36–47 (2007)Google Scholar
  60. Kohn, A.: No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  61. Kupek, E.: Beyond logistic regression: structural equations modelling for binary variables and its application to investigating unobserved confounders. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 6(1), 13 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lau, D.C.W., Douketis, J.D., Morrison, K.M., Hramiak, I.M., Sharma, A.M., Ur, E.: 2006 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the management and prevention of obesity in adults and children [summary]. CMAJ 176(8), S1–S13 (2007)Google Scholar
  63. Lehto, T., Oinas-kukkonen, H.: Persuasive Features in Six Weight Loss Websites: A Qualitative Evaluation. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 162–173 (2010)Google Scholar
  64. Lelie, C.: The value of storyboards in the product design process. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 10(2–3), 159–162 (2005)Google Scholar
  65. Lewis, S., Dontcheva, M., Gerber, E.: Affective computational priming and creativity. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’11. ACM Press, p. 735 (2011)Google Scholar
  66. Li, K.A., Counts, S.: Exploring social interactions and attributes of casual multiplayer mobile gaming. In: Mobile Technology, Applications, and Systems and the 1st International Symposium on Computer Human Interaction in Mobile Technology—Mobility’07, p. 696 (2007)Google Scholar
  67. Lieberman, D.A.: Management of chronic pediatric diseases with interactive health games: theory and research findings. J. Ambul. Care Manag. 24(1), 26–38 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Maddock, J.: The relationship between obesity and the prevalence of fast food restaurants: state-level analysis. AJHP 19(2), 137–43Google Scholar
  69. Mason, W., Suri, S.: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1), 1–23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H.: Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Berrien Springs (1985)Google Scholar
  71. Nacke, L., Bateman, C., Mandryk, R.: BrainHex: preliminary results from a neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertain. Comput. ICEC 2011, 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  72. Nacke, L.E., Bateman, C., Mandryk, R.L.: BrainHex: a neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertain. Comput. 5(1), 55–62 (2014)Google Scholar
  73. Noar, S.M., Benac, C.N., Harris, M.S.: Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol. Bull. 133(4), 673–693 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 164–176 (2008)Google Scholar
  75. Ong, T.F., Musa, G.: Examining the influences of experience, personality and attitude on SCUBA divers’ underwater behaviour: a structural equation model. Tour. Manag. 33(6), 1521–1534 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Orji, R., Mandryk, R., Vassileva, J.: Towards a data-driven approach to intervention design: a predictive path model of healthy eating determinants. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 203–214 (2012)Google Scholar
  77. Orji, R., Mandryk, R.L., Vassileva, J., Gerling, K.M.: Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’13, pp. 2467–2476. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  78. Orji, R., Vassileva, J., Mandryk, R.L.: LunchTime: a slow-casual game for long-term dietary behavior change. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. (2012). doi: 10.1007/s00779-012-0590-6
  79. Peng, W.: Design and evaluation of a computer game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health Commun. 24(2), 115–127 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pollak, J., Gay, G., Byrne, S., Wagner, E., Retelny, D., Humphreys, L.: It;s time to eat; using mobile games to promote healthy eating. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 9(3), 21–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rigby, S., Ryan, R.: Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us in and Hold Us Spellbound. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport (2011)Google Scholar
  82. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.:—next generation path modeling. (2005). Accessed Dec 2012
  83. SCVNGR’s Secret Game Mechanics Playdeck \({\vert }\) TechCrunch. Accessed Sept 2012
  84. Setterstrom, A.J., Pearson, J.M.: Aleassa, H.: An exploratory examination of antecedents to software piracy: a cross-cultural comparison. In: System Sciences, pp. 5083–5092 (2012)Google Scholar
  85. Shegog, R.: Application of behavioral theory in computer game design for health behavior change. Serious Game Des. Dev. Technol. Train. Learn. 196–232 (2010). doi: 10.4018/978-1-61520-739-8.ch011
  86. Steinmetz, H., Schmidt, P., Tina-Booh, A., Wieczorek, S., Schwartz, S.H.: Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Qual. Quantit. 43(4), 599–616 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stewart, B.: Personality and play styles: a unified model. gamasutra The Art & Business of Making Games. (2011). Accessed Oct 2013
  88. Stokes, B.: Videogames have changed: time to consider ‘serious games’? Dev. Educ. J. 6–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  89. Sundar, S.S., Bellur, S., Jia, H.: Motivational technologies: a theoretical framework for desiging preventive health application. In: Persuasive Technology, vol. 7284, pp. 112–122 (2012)Google Scholar
  90. Sundar, S.S., Marathe, S.S.: Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Hum. Commun. Res. 36(3), 298–322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tan, C.S.S., Schöning, J., Barnes, J.S., Luyten, K., Coninx, K.: Bro-cam: improving game experience with empathic feedback using posture tracking. In: Persuasive Technology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 222–233 (2013)Google Scholar
  92. Teng, C.: Online game player personality and real-life need fulfillment. J. Cyber Soc. Educ. 2(2), 39–49 (2009)Google Scholar
  93. Thompson, D., Baranowski, T., Buday, R., et al.: Serious video games for health how behavioral science guided the development of a serious video game. Simul. Gaming 41(4), 587–606 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tinsley, H.E.A., Tinsley, D.J.: Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J. Counseling Psychol. 34(4), 414–424 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., Gandhi, M.P.: Chick clique: persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise. In: CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1873–1878 (2006)Google Scholar
  96. Truong, K., Hayes, G., Abowd, G.: Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In: DIS, pp. 12–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  97. Tsai, C.C., Lee, G., Raab, F., et al.: Usability and feasibility of PmEB: a mobile phone application for monitoring real time caloric balance. Mob. Netw. Appl. 12(2–3), 173–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vilozni, D., Barker, M., Jellouschek, H., Heimann, G., Blau, H.: An interactive computer-animated system (SpiroGame) facilitates spirometry in preschool children. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164(12), 2200–2205 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wansink, B.: Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Bantam, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  100. Wiafe, I., Nakata, K.: Bibliographic analysis of persuasive systems: techniques, methods and domains of application. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 61–64 (2012)Google Scholar
  101. Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L.: Online gaming motivations scale: development and validation. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2803–2806 (2012)Google Scholar
  102. Yee, N.: Motivations of play in MMORPGs. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  103. Yee, N.: The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 15(3), 309–329 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zammitto, V.L.: Gamers’ personality and their gaming preferences. Thesis Submitted to the School of Interactive Arts and Technology, University of Belgrano (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Orji
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  • Regan L. Mandryk
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations