Combining Behavior Change Intentions and User Types to Select Suitable Gamification Elements for Persuasive Fitness Systems

  • Maximilian AltmeyerEmail author
  • Pascal Lessel
  • Linda Muller
  • Antonio Krüger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)


The motivational impact of gamification elements differs substantially across users. To account for these differences, we investigate Hexad user types and behavior change intentions as factors to personalize gamifed, persuasive fitness systems. We conducted an online study (N = 179), measuring the perceived persuasiveness of twelve gamification elements using storyboards. Results show the applicability of the Hexad user type in the Physical Activity domain. Besides replicating correlations between gamification elements and user types, we also found correlations which were hypothesized in literature, but not yet shown. Our main contribution is to show that behavior change intentions influence the perception of gamification elements in general and affect the set of relevant elements for each user type. Since a static set of elements has been suggested for each user type so far, this is an important finding, leading to potentially more effective personalization approaches.


Personalization Gamification Physical Activity 


  1. 1.
    Altmeyer, M., Lessel, P., Krüger, A.: Investigating gamification for seniors aged 75+. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS 2018), pp. 453–458. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birk, M.V., Friehs, M.A., Mandryk, R.L.: Age-based preferences and player experience: a crowdsourced cross-sectional study. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Böckle, M., Micheel, I., Bick, M.: A design framework for adaptive gamification applications. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018), pp. 1227–1236 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Böckle, M., Novak, J., Bick, M.: Towards adaptive gamification: a synthesis of current developments. In: Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deterding, S., Dixon, D.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, pp. 9–15. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drozd, F., Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Exploring perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system: a structural model. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Pakkanen, T.: Do persuasive technologies persuade? - A review of empirical studies. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 118–136. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamari, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3025–3034 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howell, D.: Statistical Methods For Psychology. Duxbury, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y., Voida, S.: Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2016, pp. 2001–2013 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaptein, M., De Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., Aarts, E.: Adaptive persuasive systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lessel, P., Altmeyer, M., Müller, M., Wolff, C., Krüger, A.: Measuring the effect of “bottom-up” gamification in a microtask setting. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Academic Mindtrek Conference, pp. 63–72 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcus, B.H., et al.: Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior Change. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 63, 93–109 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marczewski, A.: Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Game Thinking and Motivational Design (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mchugh, M.L.: Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22, 276–282 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mullan, E., Markland, D.: Variations in self-determination across the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motiv. Emot. 21(4), 349–362 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orji, R.: Exploring the persuasiveness of behavior change support strategies and possible gender differences. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1153, pp. 41–57. BCSS (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orji, R., Nacke, L.E., Di Marco, C.: Towards personality-driven persuasive health games and gamified systems. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2017, pp. 1015–1027 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orji, R., Tondello, G.F., Nacke, L.E.: Personalizing persuasive strategies in gameful systems to gamification user types. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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-Adapt. Interact. 24, 453–498 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oyibo, K., Orji, R., Vassileva, J.: The influence of culture in the effect of age and gender on social influence in persuasive technology. In: Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization - UMAP 2017, pp. 47–52 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F.: The transtheoretical change model of health behavior. Am. J. Health Promot. 12(1), 38–48 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajaratnam, S.M.W., Arendt, J.: Health in a 24-h society. Lancet 358, 999–1005 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55(1), 68–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seaborn, K., Fels, D.: Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Hum.Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tondello, G., Premsukh, H., Nacke, L.: A theory of gamification principles through goal-setting theory. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), January 2018Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tondello, G.F., Mora, A., Marczewski, A., Nacke, L.E.: Empirical validation of the gamification user types hexad scale in English and Spanish. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tondello, G.F., Mora, A., Nacke, L.E.: Elements of gameful design emerging from user preferences. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY 2017, pp. 129–142 (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tondello, G.F., Wehbe, R.R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., Nacke, L.E.: The gamification user types hexad scale. In: The ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Truong, K.N., Hayes, G.R., Abowd, G.: Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 12–21. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker, D.: Converting Kendall’s Tau for correlational or meta-analytic analyses. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Meth. 2(2), 525–530 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xiao, J.J., O’Neill, B., Prochaska, J.M., Kerbel, C.M., Brennan, P., Bristow, B.J.: A consumer education programme based on the transtheoretical model of change. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 28(1), 55–65 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximilian Altmeyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pascal Lessel
    • 1
  • Linda Muller
    • 2
  • Antonio Krüger
    • 1
  1. 1.German Research Center for AI (DFKI), Saarland Informatics CampusSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Saarland University, Saarland Informatics CampusSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations