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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Quotes from participants are included verbatim throughout the paper, including spelling and grammatical mistakes.

References

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartle, R.: Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit muds. J. MUD Res. 1(1), 19 (1996)

  8. Bateman, C., Boon, R.: 21st Century Game Design (Game Development Series). Charles River Media Inc., Independence, KY (2005)

  9. Bateman, C., Nacke, L.E.: The neurobiology of play. In: Future of Game Design and Technology, pp. 1–8 (2010)

  10. Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., Nacke, L.: Player typology in theory and practice. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play (2011)

  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)

  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)

  13. Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., Oinas-kukkonen, H.: Influencing individually. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1–8 (2012)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  16. BrainHex. http://blog.brainhex.com/. 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  21. Cameron, J., Pierce, W.D.: Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(3), 363 (1994)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336 (1998)

  24. Chin, W.W.: Frequently asked questions—partial least squares & PLS-graph. http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm (2000). Accessed Dec 2012

  25. Cialdini, R.B.: The science of persuasion. Sci. Am. Mind 284, 76–84 (2004)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  30. Dijkstra, A.: Technology adds new principles to persuasive psychology: evidence from health education. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 16–26 (2006)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  35. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 1 (1981)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Game Mechanics \({\vert }\) Gamification.org. http://gamification.org/wiki/Game_Mechanics. Accessed Sept 2012

  38. Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A.: Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Q. J. Econ. 115(3), 791–810 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Goldberg, L.R.: The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48(1), 26–34 (1993)

    Article  Google 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. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/res-rech/res-prog/eat-aliment/pro_sup_healthy_eating-pro_mes_saine_alimentation-eng.php (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)

  42. Grimes, A., Tan, D., Morris, D.: Toward technologies that support family reflections on health. In: Supporting Group Work. ACM, pp. 311–320 (2009)

  43. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)

    Article  Google 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)

  45. Harjumaa, M.: Understanding persuasive software functionality in practice: a field trial of polar FT60. In: Persuasive Technology (2009)

  46. Heer, J., Bostock, M.: Crowdsourcing graphical perception. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’10. ACM Press, pp. 203–212 (2010)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Holm, S.: A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6(2), 65–70 (1979)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google 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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kaiser, H.F.: The appliation of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kaiser, H.F.: A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35(4), 401–415 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Kaptein, M., Lacroix, J., Saini, P.: Individual differences in persuadability in the health promotion domain. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 94–105 (2010)

  56. Kaptein, M., De Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., Aarts, E.: Adaptive persuasive systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1–25 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kato, P.M.: Video games in health care: closing the gap. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14(2), 113–121 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Khaled, R.: Culturally-relevant persuasive technology. A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington (2008)

  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)

  60. Kohn, A.: No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2006)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  63. Lehto, T., Oinas-kukkonen, H.: Persuasive Features in Six Weight Loss Websites: A Qualitative Evaluation. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 162–173 (2010)

  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)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Maddock, J.: The relationship between obesity and the prevalence of fast food restaurants: state-level analysis. AJHP 19(2), 137–43

  69. Mason, W., Suri, S.: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1), 1–23 (2012)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 164–176 (2008)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rigby, S., Ryan, R.: Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us in and Hold Us Spellbound. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport (2011)

  82. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.: smartpls.de—next generation path modeling. http://www.smartpls.de (2005). Accessed Dec 2012

  83. SCVNGR’s Secret Game Mechanics Playdeck \({\vert }\) TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-game-mechanics/. 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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Stewart, B.: Personality and play styles: a unified model. gamasutra The Art & Business of Making Games. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1 (2011). Accessed Oct 2013

  88. Stokes, B.: Videogames have changed: time to consider ‘serious games’? Dev. Educ. J. 6–13 (2005)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

  92. Teng, C.: Online game player personality and real-life need fulfillment. J. Cyber Soc. Educ. 2(2), 39–49 (2009)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google 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)

  96. Truong, K., Hayes, G., Abowd, G.: Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In: DIS, pp. 12–21 (2006)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wansink, B.: Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Bantam, New York (2006)

  100. Wiafe, I., Nakata, K.: Bibliographic analysis of persuasive systems: techniques, methods and domains of application. In: Persuasive Technology, pp. 61–64 (2012)

  101. Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L.: Online gaming motivations scale: development and validation. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2803–2806 (2012)

  102. Yee, N.: Motivations of play in MMORPGs. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference (2005)

  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)

    Article  Google 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)

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rita Orji.

Appendix

Appendix

figurea

Storyboard Illustrating Comparison Strategy

figureb

Storyboard Illustrating Competition Strategy

figurec

Storyboard Illustrating Cooperation Strategy

figured

Storyboard Illustrating Customization Strategy

figuree

Storyboard Illustrating Personalization Strategy

figuref

Storyboard Illustrating Praise Strategy

figureg

Storyboard Illustrating Reward Strategy

figureh

Storyboard Illustrating Self-monitoring Strategy

figurei

Storyboard Illustrating Simulation Strategy

figurej

Storyboard Illustrating Suggestion Strategy

Each storyboard was followed by two comprehension questions (1) and (2) and questions for accessing perceived persuasiveness of the strategies (3):

  1. 1.

    In your own words, please describe what is happening in this storyboard ...

  2. 2.

    What strategy does this storyboard represent?—Participants were required to choose one out of the ten strategies.

    1. a.

      CUSTOMIZATION—(An application that allows user to customize its content (e.g., the appearance of avatar) to his/her choice).

    2. b.

      SIMULATION—(An application that provides the means for a user to observe immediate and projected outcome of his/her behavior).

    3. c.

      SELF-MONITORING and FEEDBACK—(An application that allows user to track his/her own performance or status. It provides information on both past and current performance).

    4. d.

      PRAISE—(An application that applauds its users for performing target behaviors via words, images, symbols, or sounds as a way of giving positive feedback to the user).

    5. e.

      SUGGESTION—(An application that recommends certain behaviors (for achieving a favorable/desired outcome) to its use).

    6. f.

      REWARD—An application that offers virtual rewards to users in order to give credit for performing the target behavior.

    7. g.

      COMPETITION—(An application that provides means for users to compete with others. It awards points (as virtual reward) to winner).

    8. h.

      COMPARISON—(An application that provides means for a users to view and compare his/her performance with the performance of other user(s)).

    9. i.

      COOPERATION—(An application that provides users opportunity to cooperate (work together) to achieve shared objectives. Users are rewarded if they achieve their collective goals).

    10. j.

      PERSONALIZATION—(An application that offers personalized content and services to its users. Recommendations are based on users’ personal characteristics).

  3. 3.

    Scales for accessing perceived persuasiveness of the strategies. Imagine that you are using the system presented in storyboard above to track your daily eating, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1-Strongly disagree and 7-Strongly agree), to what extend do you agree with the following statements:

    1. a.

      The system would influence me.

    2. b.

      The system would be convincing.

    3. c.

      The system would be personally relevant for me.

    4. d.

      The system would make me reconsider my eating habits.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orji, R., Vassileva, J. & Mandryk, R.L. Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Model User-Adap Inter 24, 453–498 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-014-9149-8

Download citation

Keywords

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