=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2637/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=The relationship between player types and gamification feature preferences
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2637/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-2637
|authors=Lobna Hassan,Jere Rantalainen,Nannan Xi,Henri Pirkkalainen,Juho Hamari
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/HassanRXPH20
}}
==The relationship between player types and gamification feature preferences==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2637/paper2.pdf
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
The relationship between player types and gamification
feature preferences
Lobna Hassan 1,2, Jere Rantalainen1, Nannan Xi1, Henri Pirkkalainen1,
and Juho Hamari1
1Gamification Group, Faculty of Information Technology & Communications, Tampere
University
2Gamification Group, Faculty of Humanities, University of Turku
lobna.hassan@tuni.fi, jere.rantalainen@tuni.fi,
nannan.xi@tuni.fi, henri.pirkkalainen@tuni.fi,
juho.hamari@tuni.fi
Abstract. In this study, we investigate how users’ general gaming preferences
(i.e. on dimensions of achievement, immersion and social orientations) are re-
lated to their perception of the (enjoyment, usefulness, ethicalness motivationa-
bility and continued use) of different gamification features. The study was
amongst 144 students as a vignette study, framed in the context of gamification
of the Moodle educational platform. The results show that, while achievement –
orientation in gaming preferences is positively associated with perceptions of
achievement–related gamification features, immersion and social gaming orien-
tations had little, if any, positive associations with the different perceptions re-
lated to gamification features. While the results indicate that achievement-
related gamification may be preferred by achievement-oriented players, overall
players’ gaming preferences types may not be a comprehensive predictor for
gamification preferences.
Keywords: Gamification, personalization, player types
1 Introduction
Gamification research and practice have been growing since the beginning of the
2010’s. It has been introduced to various facets of life such as to education, health
management, crowdsourcing and political participation amongst other areas (see [13,
19, 21] for reviews). Gamification refers to designing systems, services, activities and
processes to afford engaging, gameful experiences similar to those afforded by games
[8]. Perhaps the most prototypical form of gamification are human-computer interfac-
es (such as in web services) that have been imbued with game mechanics (e.g., [4, 14.
19. 32]). While the majority of research seems to suggest that gamification can overall
be an effective method of user engagement, the literature, similarly, suggests that
preferences for gamification differ across individuals, depending on factors such as
personality, gender, or goal orientation [1, 9, 18, 19, 22].
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 11
Gamification, furthermore, is a ’dual-purposed’ technology, often considered a mo-
tivational technology that aims to not only facilitate usefulness/instrumentality, but to
also facilitate motivating hedonic experiences such as those of enjoyment [19, 20].
Moreover, gamification is related to attitude and behavior change, and therefore, how
ethically gamification is implemented is a crucial aspect against which gamification
should be evaluated [17, 27]. Furthermore, any gamification will ultimately fail unless
users are not willing to continue using it [10].
However, fairly little research exist on what user traits are associated with the dif-
ferent value gamification can afford. Accordingly, to facilitate the success of gamifi-
cation, its design should be attuned to the preferences of its expected users and it,
furthermore, should accommodate users’ perceptions of gamification enjoyment,
usefulness, ethicality, and motivationability while designing gamification. Although
gaming preferences and player types are considered a key way to segment gamifica-
tion users and designed for them, relatively little research has gone into investigating
player types in gamification. This research investigates the questions: What is the
relationship between gaming preferences of individuals (achievement, immersion and
social orientation) and intentions to use different gamification features (achievement,
immersion and social), as well as perception towards them; i.e. enjoyment, useful-
ness, ethicality, and motivationability?. The study was conducted amongst N=144
students as a vignette study, framed in the context of gamification of the Moodle edu-
cational platform.
2 Background
The practice of recognizing personal differences in design is not foreign to games
nor gamification. Player types abstract and capture individual qualities at a high level,
providing a way to largely design for different individuals [30]. Many, in game stud-
ies, have, hence, investigated differences in gaming preferences and preferred play
style [2, 12, 31, 33]. In the context of gamification, research has similarly investigated
different player orientations and their perceptions of and preferences for gamification
[30]. Being a technology that combines gaming (entertainment) and utility, gamifica-
tion researchers have also investigated user types, [23, 32], goal orientations [10], and
demographic differences [18], as ways to tailor gamification to its target user base.
Categorizations of gamification features and player/user types often tend to divide
both into categories that can be conceptualized as immersion, achievement, and social
interaction-related categories [11, 12, 19, 25, 28, 33, 34]. Not only are these categori-
zations established (e.g. [32, 35]), they reflect seminal psychology theory on motiva-
tion. Notably, the self-determination theory [26], which outlines that individuals have
three basic psychological needs that drive (intrinsic) motivation, the needs for; auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness, often stimulated by immersion, achievement, and
social interaction gamification features respectively [32]. Similarly, these categoriza-
tions reflect the understanding of goal-setting orientations, often categorized as
achievement, mastery and avoidance orientations, which have been investigated in the
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 12
context of gamification showing the ability of achievement and mastery-oriented
gamification in supporting most of these goal orientation [9].
Hence, the categorization of gamification players’ orientations and features as im-
mersion, achievement, and social interaction related categories is supported across
fields. Immersion-related features attempt to immerse players in self-purposeful activ-
ities, through e.g., avatars, narratives, and roleplay. Achievement-related features
attempt to foster a sense of accomplishment through e.g., badges, missions, and lead-
erboards. Social interaction-related features create interactive communities through,
e.g., teams, and chats [12, 19, 25, 28, 33, 34]. Individuals tend to differ in their per-
ception of these feature categories, often based on their own personal orientations [9,
23, 32, 30]. These differences across users with regards to gamification often pertain
to gamification use intentions and perceptions of its enjoyment, usefulness, ethicality,
and motivationability [10, 17, 19, 20, 27]. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H1: Achievement gaming preference of an individual is positively associated with
perceived H1a) enjoyment, H1b) usefulness, H1c) ethicality, H1d) motivation, of as
well as H1e) intention to use achievement related gamification features.
H2: Immersion gaming preference of an individual is positively associated with
perceived H2a) enjoyment, H2b) usefulness, H2c) ethicality, H2d) motivation, of as
well as H2e) intention to use achievement related gamification features.
H3: Social gaming preference of an individual is positively associated with per-
ceived H3a) enjoyment, H3b) usefulness, H3c) ethicality, H3d) motivation, of as well
as H3e) intention to use achievement related gamification features.
We additionally investigated all connections between the studied variables (Figure
1), as a precautionary measure to identify possible relationships outside hypothesized.
3 Data and methods
3.1 Procedure
This research was implemented as a questionnaire-based vignette study. Participants
were presented with imagined designs (see figures 2 & 3) for a learning platform and
asked to indicate their preference for having the designs, being evaluated, implement-
ed in for example the Moodle learning platforms that they were currently using. As
such, a qualifying question about participants’ previous experience with Moodle was
employed at the start of the questionnaire to filter out participants who have not had
any previous experience with Moodle. The questionnaire investigated 12 different
game elements belonging to the achievement, immersion and social interaction gami-
fication categories previously outlined. The investigated elements were leaderboard,
badges, challenges, quests, teams, sharing, social discovery, discussion forum,
roleplay, story, avatar and creative tools. The participants were asked to indicate, on a
bipolar scale, the extent to which they found these elements harmful VS beneficial,
ethical VS immoral, motivating, VS depressing, boring VS enjoyable, and whether
they would like to use a learning platform that includes the feature evaluated. Gaming
preferences (achievement, immersion and social interaction motivation orientation),
each measure the preference for a certain gaming style via the measurement of prefer-
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 13
ence of interaction with related game features or activities. The orientations were
measured by asking the participants to generally rate the importance of key aspects of
games to them, using items adapted from Yee et al. [34] on a 7-point likert scale.
Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses
Fig. 2. Imagined leaderboard Fig 3. Imagined roleplay scenario
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 14
3.2 Participants
The questionnaire was open from April 1st to the end of September 2019. 144 partici-
pants completed the questionnaire, passing the qualifying question. The questionnaire
distribution was mainly via social media, such as through Facebook, Telegram, etc.
General information of the respondents is presented in table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information of the participants
´Variable % Variable %
Gender Female 33 % Education Basic education 1%
Male 67 % Vocational School 1%
Age 18-21 6% High School 19 %
22-25 38 % Bachelor's degree 44 %
26-29 52 % Master's degree 35 %
30-33 3%
34-37 1%
3.3 Reliability and Validity
All item loadings, presented in table 2, are above Chin’s [3] threshold of 0.700, ex-
cept for ACH1. However, this indicator was retained in this model, as it had an ac-
cepted correlation level, whilst being over the suggested 0.400 acceptance threshold
[6]. Discriminant validity was also met as the HTMT values are lower than 0.85 [16].
In addition, we assessed the collinearity of indicators of the three dependent variables
as they represent a formative measurement model. The VIFs of the items ranged from
2.302 to 1.006, significantly below the common thresholds of 3 or 5 [5], which sug-
gests that multicollinearity is not a concern.
Table 2. Validity and reliability of reflective constructs
Items Outer loadings
Achievement-orientation (ɑ = 0.751, CR = 0.839, AVE = 0.574)
ACH1. Becoming more powerful. 0.535
ACH2. Winning. 0.752
ACH3. Getting the top score/level/points. 0.822
ACH4. Being the best. 0.877
Immersion-orientation (ɑ = 0.771, CR = 0.853, AVE = 0.593)
IMM1. Story and theme. 0.791
IMM2. Feeling that you are living the game. 0.681
IMM3. Exploring the game-world. 0.808
IMM4. Background and history of characters. 0.792
Social-orientation (ɑ = 0.911, CR = 0.938, AVE = 0.790
SOC1. Chatting with other players. 0.902
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 15
SOC2. Keeping in touch with your friends. 0.812
SOC3. Feeling connected to other people. 0.916
SOC4. Interacting with other players. 0.919
4 Results
The results (Table 3) show that achievement orientation was positively associated
with perceived enjoyment (β = 0.368**), usefulness (β = 0.396*), motivationability (β
= 0.358***) and use intention (β = 0.446***) of achievement-related gamification
features. Thus, H1a, H1b, H1d and H1e were not rejected. However, the relationship
between achievement-orientation and the perceived ethicalness of achievement-
related gamification features was statistically insignificant (β = 0.300), and, H1c was
rejected. Immersion orientation was positively associated with perceived usefulness
(β = 0.297**) and use intention (β = 0.288**) of immersion-related gamification fea-
tures. Therefore. hypotheses H2b and H2d were not rejected. However, associations
between immersion-oriented gamification features and perceptions of enjoyment (β =
0.188), motivationability (β = 0.115) and use intention (β = 0.214) were not statisti-
cally significant. Therefore, hypotheses H2a, H2c, H2e were rejected. Social orienta-
tion was not associated with any of the preferences related to gamification features.
Hence, H3a to H3e were rejected. Table 4 presents variance explained by the model.
Table 3. The full results of the structural equation model
CI
Relationship β P 2.5% 97.5% Hypothseses
ACH -> Enjoyment_ACHI 0.368** 0.009 0.028 0.579 H1a: supported
ACH -> Usefulness_ACHI 0.396 * 0.050 -0.359 0.554 H1b: supported
ACH -> Ethicality_ACHI 0.300 0.161 -0.373 0.483 H1c: not supported
ACH -> Motivation_ACHI 0.358*** 0.001 0.158 0.527 H1d: supported
ACH -> Use intentionsACHI 0.446*** 0.000 0.278 0.605 H1e: supported
ACH -> Enjoyment_IMM 0.151 0.413 -0.262 0.429 -
ACH -> Usefulness_IMM -0.189 0.226 -0.404 0.220 -
ACH -> Ethicality_IMM -0.144 0.425 -0.341 0.305 -
ACH -> Motivation_IMM -0.048 0.780 -0.348 0.332 -
ACH -> Use intentionsIMM 0.253 0.296 -0.367 0.460 -
ACH -> Enjoyment_SOC 0.006 0.980 -0.331 0.463 -
ACH -> Usefulness_SOC 0.102 0.598 -0.343 0.319 -
ACH -> Ethicality_SOC 0.267 0.358 -0.430 0.451 -
ACH -> Motivation_SOC 0.042 0.845 -0.366 0.389 -
ACH -> Use Intention SOC 0.021 0.902 -0.280 0.350 -
IMM -> Enjoyment_ACHI -0.018 0.906 -0.314 0.311 -
IMM -> Usefulness_ACHI 0.015 0.904 -0.218 0.282 -
IMM -> Ethicality_ACHI 0.000 0.999 -0.416 0.377 -
IMM -> Motivation_ACHI 0.044 0.743 -0.203 0.317 -
IMM -> Use IntentionACHI 0.043 0.687 -0.153 0.256 -
IMM -> Enjoyment_IMM 0.188 0.122 -0.073 0.399 H2a: not supported
IMM -> Usefulness_IMM 0.293** 0.033 -0.039 0.487 H2b: supported
IMM -> Ethicality_IMM 0.115 0.465 -0.244 0.360 H2c: not supported
IMM -> Motivation_IMM 0.288** 0.024 -0.013 0.473 H2d: supported
IMM -> Use IntentionsIMM 0.214 0.132 -0.079 0.429 H2e: not supported
IMM -> Enjoyment_SOC 0.100 0.454 -0.182 0.333 -
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 16
IMM -> Usefulness_SOC 0.198 0.407 -0.356 0.408 -
IMM -> Ethicality_SOC 0.104 0.524 -0.241 0.372 -
IMM -> Motivation_SOC 0.111 0.470 -0.204 0.358 -
IMM -> Use intentionsSOC 0.131 0.366 -0.188 0.378 -
SOC -> Enjoyment_ACHI -0.040 0.742 -0.294 0.184 -
SOC -> Usefulness_ACHI -0.074 0.536 -0.290 0.199 -
SOC -> Ethicality_ACHI -0.010 0.946 -0.238 0.321 -
SOC -> Motivation_ACHI 0.178 0.075 -0.045 0.344 -
SOC -> Use intentionsACHI -0.004 0.970 -0.213 0.161 -
SOC -> Enjoyment_IMM -0.047 0.775 -0.346 0.273 -
SOC -> Usefulness_IMM 0.083 0.595 -0.290 0.299 -
SOC -> Ethicality_IMM -0.049 0.788 -0.289 0.342 -
SOC -> Motivation_IMM 0.048 0.760 -0.300 0.288 -
SOC -> Use intentionsIMM -0.119 0.630 -0.429 0.426 -
SOC -> Enjoyment_SOC 0.237 0.313 -0.366 0.469 H3a: not supported
SOC -> Usefulness_SOC -0.151 0.486 -0.364 0.369 H3b:not supported
SOC -> Ethicality_SOC -0.182 0.409 -0.367 0.367 H3c: not supported
SOC -> Motivation_SOC 0.148 0.423 -0.275 0.398 H3d:not supported
SOC -> Use intentionsSOC 0.224 0.227 -0.279 0.463 H3e: not supported
β = standard regression coefficient, CI = confidence interval, *P<0.1, ** P<0.05 ***P<0.01
Table 4. Proportions of variance explained for dependent variables
Achievement- Rsquare Immersion- Rsquare Social interac- Rsquare
related related tion-related
Enjo- Enjo- Enjo-
yment_ACHI 0.125 yment_IMM 0.057 yment_SOC 0.081
Useful- Useful- Useful-
ness_ACHI 0.141 ness_IMM 0.117 ness_SOC 0.048
Ethicality_ACHI 0.088 Ethicality_IMM 0.034 Ethicality_SOC 0.074
Motivati- Motivati- Motivati-
on_ACHI 0.219 on_IMM 0.090 on_SOC 0.052
Intention to Intention to Intention to
use_ACHI 0.204 use_IMM 0.100 use_SOC 0.089
5 Discussion
The aim of this research is to investigate how the relationship between video gaming
preferences (achievement, immersion and social orientation) and perceptions of (use-
fulness, enjoyment, motivationability, ethicalness and use intentions) of gamification
feature categories (achievement, immersion and social interaction-related features).
Our results are overall in line with previous research. Even though we explored all
possible relationships between gaming preferences and all categories of gamification
features, no relationships, outside hypothesized based on previous literature, were
uncovered, Achievement-oriented players positively perceived achievement-related
gamification, immersion-oriented players, immersion-related gamification, while
social interaction-oriented players did not have statistically significant perceptions of
social or any of the investigated gamification feature categories.
Achievement-oriented players perceived achievement-related gamification as sig-
nificantly enjoyable, useful, motivating and intend to use its features if implemented
in Moodle. This is in line with previous research that has indicated this preference of
achievement-oriented individuals for achievement-based gamification [7, 9, 29, 30].
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 17
On the other hand, immersion-oriented players perceived immersion-related gamifica-
tion both as useful and motivating, while no significant associations were found be-
tween social preferences and enjoyable or ethical perceptions of any gamification
feature categories. While the results on motivation and use intentions for both,
achievement and immersion-oriented players are in line with previous research that
indicates that gamification features are motivating [4, 19, 35] and beneficial [14, 25,
35] which may encourage gamification use, our results suggest that more research is
needed to investigate whether the motivationability and benefits from gamification
coincide with experiences of enjoyment as is theoretically presumed [4, 8]. Recent
research specifically indicates that gamification features differ in their ability to facili-
tate gameful experiences [15] and related enjoyable experiences [22, 32, 25]. Hence,
it is possible that the feature categories investigated in our research were better able to
induce motivation and usefulness, compared to feelings of enjoyment.
As our results indicate, the investigated gamification feature categories are not sig-
nificantly associated with social preferences. While past research suggests that indi-
viduals may be likely to use gamification for social purposes [9, 10], research also
indicates that not all popular gamification features are equally able to induce positive
social experiences [15], some may negatively affect experiences of social feedback
[14] and inhibit personal freedoms [35]. These positive and negative social experience
from gamification are often influenced by factors such as perception of an application
during actual use [20] and whether an individual’s friends are using the same plat-
forms or if other like-minded individuals are present on it [9, 10, 14]. These factors,
amongst others, may not have been reflected by our study design that asked individu-
als to reflect on imagined additions to an application. Nonetheless, future research is
encouraged to investigate gamification designs for social players, especially in light
of the outlined contradictory results on social gamification from previous research.
Overall, as the variance explained by the model is relatively low, it appears that
perhaps the investigated gaming preferences (achievement, social and immersion-
oriented) may not be an ideal means to segmented gamification users. Player types,
indicated by gaming preferences may not yet be the most useful categorization as,
although there are many such categorizations, we still know relatively little about
which is more accurate in reflecting the complexity of individuals [12, 29, 30] and
most typologies are criticized for attempting to put individuals in narrow boxes that
may not reflect the reality of player preferences. While, this research examined player
orientations, rather than exclusive player types, meaning that participants could have
more than one orientation at a time, future research is encouraged to adopt different
player categorization and. to explore other means to personalize gamification such as
based on education, age, technical skills, needs, personality or lifestyle.
As this study employed a vignette-based questionnaire, data is self-reported and, as
is the case with survey-based research, might not reflect actual behavior and exhibit
self-selection bias [24]. Furthermore, this researched asked the participants to imagine
gamification overlayered on a tool they were familiar with, rather than investigate the
use of a gamified tool. We encourage future researchers to adopt different ways to
examine user preferences such as in combination with analysis of server log data or
through qualitative interviews that allow a nuanced understanding of users. Further-
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 18
more, the context of our study has been an educational platform. Future research is
encouraged to expand on this work and investigate player types in different contexts,
through different means and with perhaps different gamification implementations.
References
1. Alexandrova, A., Rapanotti, L. (2019). Requirements analysis gamification in legacy sys-
tem replacement projects. Requirements Engineering
2. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs.
3. Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,
MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management, 1–1.
4. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Hu-
man-Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335.
5. Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organ-
izational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of
Management, 17(4), 263-282.
6. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and re-
gression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Infor-
mation Systems, 4(1), 1–7.
7. Hakulinen, L., & Auvinen, T. (2014, April). The effect of gamification on students with
different achievement goal orientations. In 2014 international conference on teaching and
learning in computing and engineering (pp. 9-16). IEEE.
8. Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. In G. Ritzer & C. Rojek (Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclo-
pedia of Sociology. New York John Wiley & Sons.
9. Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social network-
ing? Matching users’ goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-
Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35–74.
10. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use gamification services? International
Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419–431.
11. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. & Sarsa, H. 2014. Does Gamification Work? — A Literature Re-
view of Empirical Studies on Gamification. 47th Hawaii International Conference on Sys-
tem Science
12. Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis. Transactions of the
Digital. Games Research Association, 1(2), 29–53.
13. Hassan, L., & Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification of e-participation A Literature Review. In
Proceedings of the 52ndHawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’52)
(pp. 3077–3086). Maui HI, USA.
14. Hassan, L., Dias, A., & Hamari, J. (2019). How motivational feedback increases user’s
benefits and continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self and social networking.
International Journal of Information Management, 46, 151–162.
15. Hassan, L., Xi, N., Gurkan, B., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful self-regulation:
A study on how gamified self-tracking features evoke gameful experiences. Proceedings of
53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’53), Hawaii, USA.
16. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discrimi-
nant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.
17. Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification.
Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 157-173.
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 19
18. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188.
19. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review
of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management.
20. Köse, D. B., Morschheuser, B., & Hamari, J. (2019). Is it a tool or a toy? How user con-
ceptions of a system’s purpose affect their experience and use. International Journal of In-
formation Management, 49, 461-474.
21. Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2016). Gamification in crowdsourcing: A re-
view. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-
ences (HICSS) (pp. 4375–4384). Hawaii, USA: IEEE.
22. Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design gamifica-
tion? A method for engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology,
95, 219–237.
23. Monterrat, B., Desmarais, M., Lavoué, E., & George, S. (2015, June). A player model for
adaptive gamification in learning environments. In International conference on artificial
intelligence in education (pp. 297-306). Springer, Cham.
24. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Peng, W., Lin, J. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Winn, B. (2012). Need satisfaction supportive
game features as motivational determinants: An experimental study of a self-determination
theory guided exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175-196.
26. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin-
sic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
27. Shahri, A., Hosseini, M., Phalp, K., Taylor, J., & Ali, R. (2014, November). Towards a
code of ethics for gamification at enterprise. In IFIP Working Conference on The Practice
of Enterprise Modeling (pp. 235-245). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
28. Snodgrass, J. G., Dengah, H. F., Lacy, M. G., & Fagan, J. (2013). A formal anthropologi-
cal view of motivation models of problematic MMO play: Achievement, social, and im-
mersion factors in the context of culture. Transcultural psychiatry, 50(2), 235-262.
29. Mora, A., Tondello, G.F., Calvet, L., González, C., Arnedo-Moreno, J., Nacke, L.E.
(2019). The quest for a better tailoring of gameful design: An analysis of player type pref-
erences. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, art. no. 1.
30. Tondello, G. F., Mora, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2017). Elements of Gameful Design Emerging
from User Preferences. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human In-
teraction in Play - CHI PLAY ’17 (pp. 129–142). Amsterdam, Netherlands: ACM.
31. Vahlo, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). Five-Factor Inventory of Intrinsic Motivations to Game-
play (IMG). In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Sys-
tem Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA.
32. Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship
between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction. International Journal of In-
formation Management, (46), 210–221.
33. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9
(6), pp. 772-775.
34. Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N. and Nelson, L. (2012). Online gaming motivations scale: Devel-
opment and validation. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Procee-
dings.
35. Wolf, T., Weiger, W. H., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2019). Experiences that matter? The
motivational experiences and business outcomes of gamified services. Journal of Business
Research.
GamiFIN Conference 2020, Levi, Finland, April 1-3, 2020 (organized online) 20