Designing tailored gamification: A mixed-methods study on expert perspectives and user behavior in a gamified app for sustainability at work Jeanine Krath 1, Ana Carolina Tomé Klock 2, Benedikt Morschheuser 3, Nikoletta-Zampeta Legaki 2, Solip Park 4, Harald F. O. von Korflesch 1 and Juho Hamari 2 1 University of Koblenz, Universitaetsstrasse 1, Koblenz, 56070, Germany 2 Tampere University, Kalevantie 4, 33100 Tampere, Finland 3 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schlossplatz 4, 91054 Erlangen, Germany 4 Aalto University, Otakaari 1B, 02150 Espoo, Finland Abstract The establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has put the transition to a sustainable society on the global agenda. In this respect, gamification has gained increasing attention as a tool for companies to motivate employees to adopt sustainable behaviors. Specifically, adapting gamification design to the preferences and needs of individual users has been strongly advocated. However, knowledge of personalized gamification design is largely based on conceptual assumptions and self-reported preferences. It remains thus unclear whether actual behavior of different user types matches theoretical conjectures and how user typologies can drive successful gamification design in sustainability contexts. This work addresses this gap by evaluating the design of a gamified app for sustainability at work by comparing expert evaluation (n=10) and analysis of actual user behavior (n=37) of different Hexad player types over a two-month period. In juxtaposing expert opinions and user behavior, our results reveal that actual user behavior greatly differs from expert suggestions and theoretical assumptions. Our results contribute to future research on tailored gamification by questioning the current state of tailored design theory mainly driven by self-report and pointing to the relevance of the context and non-stereotypical approaches for future personalization efforts. Keywords 1 Sustainability, tailored gamification, personalization, player types, behavior 1. Introduction that may be attributed to a lack of considering individuals’ motivational needs and preferences, Societies’ consumption and production as a single gamification design solution cannot be patterns (e.g., resource and energy efficiency) expected to suit every person and situation [5]. demand fundamental changes towards achieving While multiple studies investigated the effects of global sustainable development [1]. In this sense, tailored gamification, especially regarding play game-like experiences’ potential to motivate preferences (e.g., Hexad player types [6]) in individuals in adopting more sustainable ways of educational settings, these outcomes mostly rely living makes gamification a promising tool to on self-report through surveys, whose collected facilitate behavioral changes [2]. Still, previous data might be inaccurate or even missing [7]. studies have also pointed to mixed results [3,4] 7th International GamiFIN Conference 2023 (GamiFIN 2023), April 18-21, 2023, Lapland, Finland. EMAIL: jkrath@uni- koblenz.de (A. 1); ana.tomeklock@tuni.fi (A. 2); benedikt.morschheuser@fau.de (A. 3); zampeta.legaki@tuni.fi (A. 4); solip.park@aalto.fi (A. 5); harald.vonkorflesch@uni- koblenz.de (A. 6); juho.hamari@tuni.fi (A. 7) ORCID: 0000-0003-4996-1147 (A. 1); 0000-0003-3774-6511 (A. 2); 0000-0002-7665-8971 (A. 3); 0000-0002-2707-8364 (A. 4); 0000-0001-5581-435X (A. 5); 0000-0003-2087-471X (A. 6); 0000-0002-6573-588X (A. 7) ©️ 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) 1 Therefore, this work draws on two approaches The Hexad typology has received particular (expert evaluation and user behavior analysis) to attention in tailored gamification literature [7]. investigate the design of a gamified app for Unlike many others, such as Bartle’s typology sustainability at work. This mobile app was [21] that was built primarily for gaming contexts, developed based on design science [8] and the Hexad typology was developed explicitly for evaluated following the Hexad player typology on gamification [6]. Since notable efforts have been two levels (i.e., experts and employees). Our made to create a valid instrument to measure it research goal is to compare expert opinions and [22–25], the Hexad is gaining popularity in actual user behavior to derive triangulated practice. It distinguishes six types of players in insights into personalized gamification design for gamified applications [6]: Achievers, motivated sustainability in workplaces. Accordingly, the by competence and mastery; Free Spirits, driven research questions that guide this work are: RQ1) by exploration and autonomy; Philanthropists, How do gamification experts perceive different motivated by altruism and reciprocal support; game elements in a gamified app for sustainability Players, stimulated by extrinsic rewards; at work to appeal to Hexad player types? and Socializers, driven by social connections; and RQ2) How do employees, who have been Disruptors, motivated by change and questioning identified according to Hexad player types, use the system. Despite the clear distinction, these different game elements in a gamified app for player types overlap [6], and thus, each user is less sustainability at work? Our results provide a definite type and more each type to some degree. valuable insights into experts’ perceptions and While many studies are investigating the users’ behavior on designing tailored gamification relationship between Hexad types and preferences in sustainability contexts. At the same time, it also for specific game elements [23,26,27], previous discusses commonalities and differences between studies have relied on theoretical assumptions and these two levels to contribute to advancing the self-assessments. As a result, literature still needs field by linking existing theoretical knowledge on to understand how different player types actually tailored gamification and its practical observation behave in gamified apps and how their behavior in the sustainability context. matches existing theoretical knowledge towards successfully tailoring gamification for 2. Background sustainability, especially in workplaces. Gamification (using game elements to promote 3. Methods and material utilitarian goals by hedonic experiences [5]) has gained increasing attention as an approach to This study is part of a design science research encourage sustainable behavior [9]. Previous project on gamification for sustainability at work studies have shown that game elements can have [28]. The research project aims to design and a positive impact on energy conservation [10], evaluate a mobile app for encouraging sustainable public transportation use [11], water conservation employee behavior by employing different game [12] and recycling [13]. Moreover, serious games elements. By using the app throughout the and gamified apps for climate change engagement workday, employees would be encouraged to and sustainable lifestyles are growing [2,14]. change behavior patterns and habits in their daily However, studies are not unanimous on the work to reduce key sustainability measures in outcomes of gamified interventions, pointing to companies, such as energy consumption, water mixed effects on sustainable travel behavior [3,4] consumption and waste production. Following and long-term engagement [15], for instance. In recommendations from the design science this context, adapting game elements and content paradigm [8], theoretical insights informed the to individuals’ specific needs has been advocated gamified app design, which was evaluated for as an emerging research direction of personalized further iterative development. The main goal of or tailored gamification [7]. Among the diverse the current iterative cycle was to understand how characteristics analyzed by tailored gamification the gamified app design appeals to different (e.g., demographics [16], personality traits [17] Hexad types. and goal orientation [18]), player typologies have become the most popular one [7]. Using player 3.1. Participants typologies to personalize gamification design has Two samples of participants were recruited to led to better outcomes, such as system answer our research questions. For RQ1, the engagement [19] and task completion [20]. sample consisted of 7 experts with a particular 2 Table 1 Expert sample for the design evaluation Abbr. Age Gender Areas of Expertise Years of Experience in Gamification E1 32 Man Gamification in education, Game-based learning, Tailored 10 gamification E2 28 Man Gamification in education, Personalization, AIED, Data 4 mining E3 30 Man Tailored gamification, Educational technologies, Game- 10 based learning E4 41 Woman Gamification in education, UX 7 E5 31 Woman Gamification in education, HCI, Educational technologies 3 E6 30 Man Tailored gamification 8 E7 33 Man Gamification, Product development 4 focus on tailored gamification, who evaluated were introduced in the app as: a) individual goals how the gamified app design might appeal to (with progress bars), b) a personal sustainability different Hexad types. Table 1 presents the overview with points earned in different experts and their backgrounds. They had between categories of sustainable behavior, and personal 3 and 10 years of experience in gamification badges that can be earned through specific research, being 2 (28,6%) women and 5 (71,4%) milestones in sustainable behavior (Figure 1). men. On average, they were around 32 years old (min = 28, max = 41). For RQ2, the sample involved 37 employees from 5 German companies who pilot-tested the gamified app and served as the basis for evaluating how different Hexad types used the various game elements. The companies varied widely in their operations (from software development to industrial glass manufacturing to Figure 1: Achievement-related elements banking), but the employees we targeted can all Elements related to individual learning, be categorized as "white collar" office workers, as based on guided paths and multiple choices the gamified app was particularly focused on principles, were included as: a) personalized sustainable behavior in office spaces. Of these, 21 recommendations for actions that contribute to (56,7%) were women and 13 (35,1%) were men, one's goals, b) the ability to browse all actions, c) 3 (8,1%) did not provide information about their detailed information about the relevance and gender. The mean age was 40 (SD = 11.7, min = value of each action for sustainable development, 20, max = 63). and d) tips for sustainability in the form of push 3.2. Materials notifications outside the app (Figure 2). The proposed gamified app aims to motivate employees to adopt sustainable behavior at the workplace, such as reducing waste and optimizing electricity and water consumption. The applied game elements were based on existing design principles from the literature [29,30], detailed in Table 5 in the Appendix. As a result, we implemented a variety of individual and social Figure 2: Learning-related elements game elements, as described below. Elements related to exploration, based on the Elements related to the individual perception continuous excitement over new/hidden content of achievement, based on goal attainment, direct principle, were presented in the form of a) re-rolls feedback and positive reinforcement principles, for actions and goals (i.e., chance), and b) 3 unlockable actions. In addition, elements related be appropriate in light of previous to customization, based on the personalization of recommendations for sample sizes of 5 to 8 the system’s content principle, were available as: participants in homogeneous samples [31]. Then, c) the possibility of bookmarking actions, and d) Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was calculated to customizing the profile picture (Figure 3). operationalize their agreement on each game design element [32]. Regarding RQ2, participants used the gamified app at work over a two-month period (from September to October 2022), in which they completed a validated short version of the Hexad player type survey [33] and had their in-app behavior data collected through an interaction log. Representatives of the five companies invited Figure 3: Exploration- and customization-related employees via email and intranet messages to elements participate in the pilot and install the application Finally, social elements were based on social at the beginning of September 2022. Participation comparison and social norming principles. In this was voluntary and not incentivized, and case, a) a leaderboard, b) the opportunity to view employees were informed of the data collection other users' profiles for indirect competition, c) by both accepting the privacy policy in the app competitive goals for direct competition as a way and giving explicit consent in the survey. From to enable social comparison, and d) team goals to 7,262 event logs, we calculated the frequency of enable social collaboration towards sustainability use of the game elements for each of the Hexad were implemented (Figure 4). types. Afterwards, we performed a correlation analysis in Jamovi (an open-source application for data analysis and statistical tests) using Kendall’s τb (as Hexad typology has partial overlap [23,27]) between the participants’ player type scores and the game elements usage. 4. Results Figure 4: Social elements 4.1. Expert evaluation Moreover, we juxtaposed the app prototype Overall, the experts’ evaluation results (guided by the above principles) with previous (displayed in Table 2) show that their perceptions research that analyzed the preferences of Hexad differ regarding how the various game elements types for different game elements [7,23,26,27] of the gamified app for sustainability at work during the design process. More specifically, we address the Hexad types. For achievement- aggregated the insights from these studies to related elements, all experts agreed that ensure that the design appeals to all Hexad types individual goals and personal badges appealed to from a theoretical perspective, as shown in Table Achievers, while the personal sustainability 6 in the Appendix. overview was suggested by 6 experts to this type. Also, none of the experts recommended 3.3. Procedure achievement-related elements to Socializers. Still, experts were more undecided about whether they The process for the mixed-methods evaluation could also be enjoyed by the other player types, was twofold. Regarding RQ1, 10 relevant experts which lowered the overall agreement coefficient (out of which 7 participated) were invited via their (α = 0.464). e-mail and ResearchGate to answer an online For learning-related elements, 4 experts survey between August and September 2022, in indicated that action suggestions and tips for which they rated game elements from the sustainability appeal to Philanthropists, and developed gamified app (presenting all non- detailed action information to Achievers. functional interfaces of the final application) Furthermore, 6 experts suggested that browsing according to how they appeal to each of the Hexad actions appeals to Free Spirits. Yet, overall, there types. Although 3 experts did not respond to our was little agreement on which elements appeal request, we considered the sample of 7 experts to 4 Table 2 Expert evaluation of the relationship of game elements in the gamified app with Hexad types Game elements Achiever Disruptor Free Spirit Philanthropist Player Socializer Individual elements (achievement) Individual goals E1, E2, E4, E6 E1, E3, E3, E4, E5, E7 E5, E6, E7 Personal E1, E2, E1 E2, E4, E6 E2, E5, sustainability E3, E5, E7 overview E6, E7 Personal badges E1, E2, E5 E5 E2 E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 E5, E6, E7 Individual elements (learning) Action suggestions E2, E5, E6 E5 E1, E4, E6, E7 E2, E3 (Path to the goal) Action detail E1, E4, E3 E2, E5, E1, E5, information E5, E6 E7 Browse all actions E3 E1, E2, E3, E7 E4, E5, E6 Tips for E3 E1, E5, E6 E2, E4, E6, E7 E3, E7 sustainability Individual elements (exploration) Chance E1, E5, E6 E3, E4 E1, E2, E4, E2 E2, E3, E5, E6 E5, E7 Unlockable actions E1, E2, E3, E5 E5 E1, E2, E4, E5, E4, E5 E6, E7 Individual elements (customization) Actions E4, E5 E1, E4, E5, E2 E3, E7 bookmarking E6 Set profile picture E5 E2 E1, E2, E3, E4, E7 E4, E5, E6, E7 Social elements Team goals E4, E5, E1 E1, E2, E4, E5 E1, E4, E1, E2, E1,E2,E3,E4,E5 E6, E7 E5, E7 E3, E4, E5, E6, E7 Competitive goals E2, E3, E2, E4, E1, E4, E5, E6, E1, E2, E1, E6 E4, E5, E5, E7 E7 E3, E5, E6, E7 E6 Leaderboard E2, E4, E1, E2, E1, E3, E5, E7 E3, E4, E6 E5, E6 Other user profiles E1, E4, E5 E5 E5 E1, E3, E2, E4, E4 E5, E6, E7 5 more to which Hexad types (α = 0.219). the elements very differently. There are many logs For exploration-related elements, 6 experts related to learning-related elements (apart from agreed on using unlockable actions for Achievers, sustainability tips) and achievement-related 5 experts suggested chance for Free Spirits. These elements, while participants seemed to interact both elements were also suggested to Players by 4 less with exploration-related elements. For experts each. However, there was little agreement customization-related elements, the action on whether these game elements appealed to other bookmarking feature was used fairly frequently, Hexad types (α = 0.251). Meanwhile, for but there are only 12 logs related to setting the customization-related elements, all experts profile picture. Among social elements, it is suggested profile picture for Free Spirits and 4 of interesting that employees predominantly looked them recommended action bookmarking for this at the leaderboard and browsed other profiles, but same user type. Still, experts had little to no rarely set team or competitive goals (there was agreement regarding other user types (α = 0.345). only one person who set a competitive goal). Finally, for social elements, all experts agreed Due to the small sample in this pilot study, we that team goals appeal to Socializers, and 6 decided to conduct a one-tailed significance test experts suggested competitive goals to Achievers for positive correlation between Hexad types and and leaderboards to Players. Moreover, 5 experts game elements (as we wanted to focus on positive indicated that competitive goals are suitable for relationships and not examine negative or non- Philanthropists and Players, while viewing others’ existent relationships [34]). The correlation profile might be appropriate for Socializers. Yet, analysis (shown in Table 4) reveals some notable there was little agreement on social elements to correlations between Hexad types and interactions other user types (α = 0.317). with specific game elements, whereby a τb of |0.2- While none of the reliability coefficients were 0.29| represents a moderate association and a τb of higher than 0.8, all experts suggested individual ≥ 0.3 represents a strong association [35]. For goals and personal badges to Achievers, profile achievement-related elements, Free Spirits are |picture to Free Spirits, and team goals to positively associated with individual goals, and Socializers. Furthermore, personal sustainability Philanthropists show a positive (though not overview, unlockable actions and competitive significant) relationship with the personal goals were suggested to Achievers, and browsing sustainability overview. Regarding learning- actions to Free Spirits by 6 experts. Also, experts related elements that were heavily used by agreed that social elements and picture profile participants, we see positive correlations between were the only game elements that would appeal to action suggestions and Achiever and Free Spirit Socializers, but little agreement was found to types, but no significant correlations of action other user types (α = 0.335). detail information and browsing actions with any player types. Interestingly, there is a positive 4.2. User behavior significant correlation between Disruptors and Descriptive statistics of Hexad types, tips for sustainability, which were the only calculated by summing the scores of respective element that users interacted with in the form of a items [33] in the sample, show that Philanthropist push notification outside of the gamified was the most dominant type (M = 12.4, MD = 13, application. In addition, we see significant SD = 1.4), followed by Achiever (M = 12, MD = positive correlations between Free Spirits and 12, SD = 1. 69), Free Spirit (M = 11.7, MD = 12, exploration-related elements (i.e., chance and SD = 2.11), Socializer (M = 11.2, MD = 11, SD unlockable actions), as well as bookmarking = 1.99), Player (M = 10.3, MD = 11, SD = 2.72), actions as a customization-related element. and Disruptor (M = 7.38, MD = 7, SD = 2.61) as There is also a particularly significant correlation the least represented Hexad type. In total, between Philanthropists and setting the profile employees performed 7,262 events in the picture. Finally, for the social elements, we see gamified app, out of which 3,759 (51,7%) event that team goals are positively associated with logs were directly related to interaction with the Philanthropists and the leaderboard has a positive game elements (as opposed to events related to correlation with Free Spirits, while there are no opening or closing the app or completing significant correlations for viewing other users' sustainability actions). profiles. We refrain from interpreting the results From the descriptive statistics depicted in of competitive goals, since these are likely Table 3, it becomes evident that employees used 6 Table 3 Frequency of use of game elements in the gamified app during the pilot study Game elements Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum Sum Individual elements (achievement) Individual goals 9.65 5 15.6 0 74 357 Personal 9.00 6 8.28 0 36 333 sustainability profile Personal badges 2.65 2 2.95 0 11 98 Individual elements (learning) Action suggestions 7.08 3 10.8 0 46 262 (Path to the goal) Action detail 11.2 5 16.6 0 80 413 information Browse all actions 21.5 19 17.5 0 66 794 Tips for 0.757 0 1.40 0 5 28 sustainability Individual elements (exploration) Chance 1.62 0 2.60 0 9 60 Unlockable actions 3.81 3 3.81 0 16 141 Individual elements (customization) Actions 10.8 4 15.8 0 68 399 bookmarking Set profile picture 0.324 0 0.580 0 2 12 Social elements Team goals 1.30 0 3.41 0 15 48 Competitive goals 0.324 0 1.97 0 12 12 Leaderboard 16.4 11 15.7 0 54 607 Other user profiles 5.27 1 8.57 0 39 195 representative only of the player type profile of elements in an app for sustainability at work to the one individual who interacted with them. appeal to Hexad player types (RQ1). Although Overall, we can identify several user patterns there was little agreement on the suggested game that are characteristic of Free Spirit and elements (e.g., action suggestions) and some Philanthropist types, as well as some distinct Hexad player types (e.g., Disruptor), at least 5 out element interactions that characterize the behavior of the 7 gamification experts agreed that: of Achiever and Disruptor types. In our analysis, • Individual goals, personal badges, personal however, we cannot find any significant or even sustainability overview, unlockable actions, salient positive correlation between Player and and competitive goals appeal to Achievers; Socializer types and any game design element. • Browsing actions, chance, and setting profile picture appeal to Free Spirits; 5. Discussion and implications • Competitive goals appeal to Philanthropists; This study aimed to extend previous work on • Competitive goals and leaderboard appeal to tailored gamification and to present a new Players; perspective on tailored design evaluation by • Team goals and viewing others’ profiles comparing expert opinions and actual user appeal to Socializers. behavior to derive triangulated insights into Yet, when analyzing how the 37 employees, personalized gamification design for identified according to Hexad types, used sustainability in workplace environments. different game elements in a gamified app for Following the research questions, we identified sustainability at work (RQ2), the interaction logs how gamification experts perceive different game reported different results, as: 7 Table 4 Use of game elements in the gamified app by different Hexad types (τb ≥ |.200| are marked in color, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001) Game elements Achiever Disruptor Free Spirit Philanthropist Player Socializer Individual elements (achievement) Individual goals .055 -.217 .227* -.124 -.030 -.084 Personal .027 -.120 .171 .206 -.041 .128 sustainability overview Personal badges -.057 .068 .066 .113 .154 .169 Individual elements (learning) Action suggestions .215* -.130 .285* .088 .025 .037 (Path to the goal) Action detail -.145 .072 .081 .012 -.096 .037 information Browse all actions -.161 .022 .095 -.009 -.047 .111 Tips for -.023 .227* .088 .200 .095 .160 sustainability Individual elements (exploration) Chance -.098 -.098 .310* -.195 .115 -.202 Unlockable actions .003 -.028 .225* .036 -.052 .160 Individual elements (customization) Actions -.083 .010 .223* .015 -.293 .005 bookmarking Set profile picture .111 .044 -.058 .474*** -.066 .197 Social elements Team goals .164 -.186 .168 .314* -.031 .031 Competitive goals .199 .191 -.113 .211 .228 .222 Leaderboard .062 .047 .253* .053 -.137 .092 Other user profiles .154 .167 .009 .067 .004 .161 • There was no significant difference on the use Socializers, which also contrasts with experts’ of the game elements suggested by the perception. gamification experts to Achievers, but rather Thus, these analyses reveal more differences they interacted more with action suggestions; than commonalities between experts’ perceptions • While gamification experts did not agree on (RQ1) and participants’ usage (RQ2) of the game any game elements to Disruptors, this user elements implemented in a gamified app for type statistically interacted more with tips for sustainability at work. On the one hand, this sustainability; outcome might be influenced by the results found • Free Spirits interacted more with individual in existing studies on tailored gamification, as the goals, action suggestions, unlockable actions, gamification experts provided similar input as action bookmarking and leaderboards, which theoretical suggestions [7,23,26,27]. Still, as were not noted by gamification experts, and previously explained, literature mainly relies on did not interact as much with browsing actions self-reports, whose data might be inaccurate or and setting profile picture. However, chance even missing [7]. On top of that, existing research was indeed appealing to these users; of tailored gamification is mostly applied in other • Setting profile picture and team goals had great contexts than the one from this work, and our appeal to Philanthropists, but not competitive setting (as well as the focus on one gamified app goals (as suggested by experts); design) might also be responsible for some of the • There was no significant difference on the use discrepancies. On the other hand, we understand of the game elements for Players and that our pilot study can only provide preliminary 8 results, given the limited sample. Thus, some other self-reported categories to create more results might be a mere coincidence (e.g., the effective gamification interventions. relationship between using leaderboards and Free Spirits), and others might require more interaction 7. Acknowledgements to be properly interpreted (e.g., social elements This work was supported by Academy of such as team and competitive goals rely on Finland Flagship Programme (Forest-Human- multiple users). Their context might also have Machine Interplay (UNITE)) [grant No 337653]; affected the interaction with game elements, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research which could further explain discrepancies of these and innovation programme under the Marie users in face of experts’ perception given most of Sklodowska-Curie [grant No 101029543, them are focused on educational domains (Table GamInclusive]. 1). Still, our current results raise questions for future research directions on tailored 8. References gamification: How reliable are existing theoretical propositions, based on self-reports, in contrast to [1] UNEP, ABC of SCP: Clarifying concepts actual behavior in gamified apps? What is the on sustainable consumption and influence of context in tailored gamification and production, (2010). how generalizable can it be? Should experts tailor [2] G.M. Guillén, D.F. Galeote, N. Sicevic, J. gamification based on actual user data rather than Hamari, J. Quist, Gamified apps for theoretical concepts? Finally, should gamification sustainable consumption: A systematic researchers and designers aim to identify which review, CEUR Workshop Proc. 3147 player types (and other self-reported categories) (2022) 135–145. people belong to for defining appropriate game [3] S. Castellanos, Delivering modal-shift elements, or should we rather focus on less incentives by using gamification and stereotypical forms (e.g., the gameful experience smartphones: A field study example in during interaction) for tailored gamification? Bogota, Colombia, Case Stud. Transp. Policy. 4 (2016) 269–278. 6. Conclusion [4] F. Cellina, D. Bucher, J. Veiga Simão, R. Rudel, M. Raubal, Beyond Limitations of This work analyzed and compared the Current Behaviour Change Apps for preferences of Hexad player types for different Sustainable Mobility: Insights from a game elements in a gamified app for sustainability User-Centered Design and Evaluation at work. While this study answers research Process, Sustainability. 11 (2019) 2281. questions related to experts’ perceptions and [5] J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, The rise of participants’ usage of game elements, it also motivational information systems: A discusses commonalities and differences between review of gamification research, Int. J. Inf. these two levels, and potential reasonings for the Manage. 45 (2019) 191–210. current results. Yet, this study is the first step in a [6] A. Marczewski, User Types, in: Even long journey toward tailored gamification for Ninja Monkeys Like to Play, 1st ed., sustainability at work. The present work ends with CreateSpace Independent Publishing more questions than initially started, meaning that Platform, 2015: pp. 65–80. there are multiple paths to follow from here. From [7] A.C.T. Klock, I. Gasparini, M.S. Pimenta, a theoretical perspective, this study raised J. Hamari, Tailored gamification: A questions about the reliability of self-reported review of literature, Int. J. Hum. Comput. preferences for game elements as opposed to Stud. 144 (2020) 102495. actual behavior in gamified apps and about the [8] K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M.A. influence of context on tailored gamification that Rothenberger, A.S. Chatterjee, A Design requires more investigation from future research. Science Research Methodology for As a practical implication, we provide insights Information Systems Research, J. Manag. that game elements will likely appeal to different Inf. Syst. 24 (2007) 45–78. types of users in diverse ways. Still, future [9] D.F. Galeote, M. Rajanen, D. Rajanen, N.- research should also investigate alternative means Z. Legaki, D.J. Langley, J. Hamari, to tailor gamification (e.g., context-based, Gamification for climate change dynamic personalization based on interactions) engagement: review of corpus and future rather than relying solely on player types and agenda, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 9 63004. Should Gamification be Personalized? A [10] D. Oppong-Tawiah, J. Webster, S. Staples, Self- deterministic Approach, AIS Trans. A.-F.A.-F. Cameron, A. Ortiz de Guinea, Human-Computer Int. 13 (2021) 265–286. T.Y.T.Y. Hung, Developing a gamified [21] R. Bartle, Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: mobile application to encourage Players who suit MUDs, J. MUD Res. 1 sustainable energy use in the office, J. Bus. (1996) 19. Res. 106 (2020) 388–405. [22] G.F. Tondello, A. Mora, A. Marczewski, [11] M. Ferron, E. Loria, A. Marconi, P. Massa, L.E. Nacke, Empirical validation of the Play&Go, an Urban Game Promoting Gamification User Types Hexad scale in Behaviour Change for Sustainable English and Spanish, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Mobility, Interact. Des. Archit. J. 40 Stud. 127 (2019) 95–111. (2019) 24–45. [23] J. Krath, H.F.O. von Korflesch, Player [12] K. Koroleva, J. Novak, How to Engage Types and Game Element Preferences: with Sustainability Issues We Rarely Investigating the Relationship with the Experience? A Gamification Model for Gamification User Types HEXAD Scale, Collective Awareness Platforms in Water- in: X. Fang (Ed.), HCI Games Exp. Des. Related Sustainability, Sustainability. 12 Game Mech. HCII 2021. Lect. Notes (2020) 712. Comput. Sci. Vol 12789, Springer Nature, [13] L. Aguiar-Castillo, A. Clavijo-Rodriguez, 2021: pp. 219–238. P. De Saa-Perez, R. Perez-Jimenez, [24] N. Taşkın, E.K. Çakmak, Adaptation of Gamification as an approach to promote Modified Gamification User Types Scale tourist recycling behavior, Sustainability. into Turkish, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 12 11 (2019) 1–18. (2020) 1–17. [14] D. Fernández Galeote, J. Hamari, Game- [25] J. Ooge, R. De Croon, K. Verbert, V. based Climate Change Engagement, Proc. Vanden Abeele, Tailoring Gamification ACM Human-Comp. Int. 5 (2021) 1–21. for Adolescents: a Validation Study of Big [15] D. Wemyss, F. Cellina, E. Lobsiger-Kägi, Five and Hexad in Dutch, in: Proc. Annu. V. de Luca, R. Castri, Does it last? Long- Symp. Comput. Interact. Play, ACM, term impacts of an app-based behavior 2020: pp. 206–218. change intervention on household [26] A. Mora, G.F. Tondello, L. Calvet, C. electricity savings in Switzerland, Energy González, J. Arnedo-Moreno, L.E. Nacke, Res. Soc. Sci. 47 (2019) 16–27. The quest for a better tailoring of gameful [16] M. V Birk, M.A. Friehs, R.L. Mandryk, design, in: Proc. XX Int. Conf. Hum. Age-Based Preferences and Player Comput. Interact., ACM, New York, NY, Experience, in: Proc. Annu. Symp. USA, 2019: pp. 1–8. Comput. Interact. Play, ACM, 2017: pp. [27] G.F. Tondello, R.R. Wehbe, L. Diamond, 157–170. M. Busch, A. Marczewski, L.E. Nacke, [17] Y. Jia, B. Xu, Y. Karanam, S. Voida, The gamification user types Hexad scale, Personality-targeted Gamification, in: CHI Play 2016 - Proc. 2016 Annu. Symp. Proc. 2016 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Interact. Play. (2016) 229–243. Comput. Syst., ACM, 2016: pp. 2001– [28] J. Krath, Gamification for Sustainable 2013. Employee Behavior, in: Ext. Abstr. 2021 [18] T. Auvinen, L. Hakulinen, L. Malmi, Annu. Symp. Comput. Int. Play, ACM, Increasing Students’ Awareness of Their New York, NY, USA, 2021: pp. 411–414. Behavior in Online Learning [29] J. Krath, L. Schürmann, H.F.O. von Environments with Visualizations and Korflesch, Revealing the theoretical basis Achievement Badges, IEEE Trans. Learn. of gamification: A systematic review and Technol. 8 (2015) 261–273. analysis of theory in research on [19] E. Lavoué, B. Monterrat, M. Desmarais, S. gamification, serious games and game- George, Adaptive Gamification for based learning, Comput. Human Behav. Learning Environments, IEEE Trans. 125 (2021). Learn. Technol. 12 (2019) 16–28. [30] J. Krath, H.F.O. von Korflesch, Designing [20] M. Passalacqua, S. Sénécal, M. Frédette, gamification and persuasive systems: a L.E. Nacke, R. Pellerin, P.-M. Léger, systematic literature review, in: 5th Int. 10 GamiFIN Conf., CEUR Workshop Validating a Short Version of the Proceedings, 2021: pp. 100–109. Gamification User Types Hexad Scale, in: [31] A.J. Kuzel, Sampling in Qualitative Proc. 2023 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Inquiry, in: B. Crabtree, W. Miller (Eds.), Comput. Syst., Hamburg, Germany, 2023: Doing Qual. Res., Sage Publications, p. forthcoming. Newbury Park, CA, 1992: pp. 31–44. [34] H.C. Cho, S. Abe, Is two-tailed testing for [32] A.F. Hayes, K. Krippendorff, Answering directional research hypotheses tests the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure legitimate?, J. Bus. Res. 66 (2013) 1261– for Coding Data, Commun. Methods 1266. Meas. 1 (2007) 77–89. [35] R. Botsch, Chapter 12: Significance and [33] J. Krath, M. Altmeyer, G.F. Tondello, L.E. measures of association, Scopes Methods Nacke, Hexad-12: Developing and Polit. Sci. (2011). 9. Appendix Table 5 Theoretically informed design of the gamified application Theoretical principles [27] Design principles [28] Elements in our application Individual elements (achievement) Clear and relevant goals, Provide clear and meaningful Individual goals individual goals (self-) set goals, divide content into tasks and steps Immediate feedback Provide immediate positive Personal sustainability overview feedback, visualize progress, provide data for self-monitoring Positive reinforcement Introduce behavioral incentives Personal badges Individual elements (learning) Guided paths Guide users with persuasive Action suggestions (path to the messages goal), tips for sustainability at work Multiple choices Provide multiple paths to achieve Browse all actions, action detail a goal, offer informational information content, show how behavior related to the goals Individual elements (exploration) - Ensure continuous excitement Unlockable content, chance with new or hidden content Individual elements (customization) - Personalize the system contents Actions bookmarking, set and behavior profile picture Social elements Social comparisons Allow social comparisons, aloe Leaderboard, other user social competition, allow showing profiles, competitive goals status and gaining social recognition Social norming Encourage social collaboration, Team goals Connect users for social interaction 11 Table 6 Theoretical relationships of game elements in the gamified app with Hexad types Game elements Achiever Disruptor Free Spirit Philanthropist Player Socializer Individual elements (achievement) Individual goals [27], [7], [27], [7] [7], [23] [23] [27], [23] [23] [26], [7], [23] Personal [27], [7], [23] [27], [7], sustainability [23] [23] overview Personal badges [27] [27], [26], [7], [23] Individual elements (learning) Action [27], [7], [27], [7], [23] [7] suggestions (Path [23] [23] to the goal) Action detail [27], [7], [27], [7], [23] [7] information [23] [23] Browse all actions [27], [7], [27], [7], [23] [7] [23] [23] Tips for [27], [7], [27], [23] [7], [23] [23] sustainability [23] Individual elements (exploration) Chance [27], [7], [23] Unlockable [7], [23] [27], [7] [7], [23] actions Individual elements (customization) Actions [7] [27], [7], [23] [7] bookmarking [23] Set profile picture [7] [27], [7], [23] [7] [23] Social elements Team goals [26], [23] [26] [26], [23] [23] [27], [26], [23] Competitive goals [27], [23] [27], [7], [27] [27], [7], [27], [7], [23] [23] [23] Leaderboard [23] [26], [7], [23] [23] Other user [23] [27], [23] [27], [26], profiles [7], [23] 12