Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services Laura Sciessere University of Kassel Kassel, Germany 2015 22 nd October

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services Summary ABSTRACT... 3 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESES... 5 2.1 Problem statement... 5 2.2 Hypotheses... 5 2.2.1 Hypotheses about attitude toward the gamified service... 5 2.2.2 Hypotheses about continued use of the gamified service... 8 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 10 3.1 Hamari and Koivisto Model... 10 3.2 Marczewski user types... 10 3.3 Gamefulness concept... 11 4. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE... 12 5. METHODOLOGY... 14 6. PLAN OF WORK... 15 7. OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS... 16 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY... 17 9. APPENDIX... 19

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services ABSTRACT Background of the Study: in recent years, the use of gamification became widespread in many different contexts and, thanks to its applicability as a marketing strategy, it became quite popular in the economic field. In this study, we are going to focus on gamification as a tool to enhance the overall value of the In this context, the main difficulty is due to the consumer s subjective experience that leads to different perceptions of gameful experience. Therefore, it is quite complicated to design and develop an effective gamified service able to engage different types of user. Purpose: in this study we took into consideration Marczewski segmentation of users (Achiever, Socializer, Free Spirit, Philanthropist and Player) to understand which of the motivations that lead users to use gamified services are more effective on attitude toward and continued use of the We study this relevance for each of the segments. Hypotheses: we hypothesize that usefulness, recognition and social influence will have different impacts on attitude toward the gamified service, according to each segment. In the same way, we hypothesize that ease of use, enjoyment and gamefulness will have different impacts on continued use of the gamified service, according to each segment. Methods: for this study, we are going to develop a quantitative analysis through a questionnaire that will be spread online. Conclusions: at the end of the study, we should be able to better target gamified services by differentiating their design accordingly to the preferences of each segment.

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 3 1. INTRODUCTION The term gamification refers to the application of game design elements in a non-game context. Originally, the idea of gamification emerged in the digital media industry in 2008, but its application became widespread only in 2010 thanks to the growing attention that was given to this topic by industries and players. Nowadays, gamification is applied in several different contexts, such as educational, health, entrepreneurial, economic, governmental, etc. In this paper, we are taking into consideration gamification in an economic perspective, as it has been praised as a promising strategy. In particular, we are going to focus on the service context to analyse gameplay as a part of a service, in order to improve its value. Gamification from the service perspective is defined as the process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user s overall value creation (Houtari & Hamari, 2012, p. 19). This definition expand the meaning of gamification from a simple set of mechanics to a broad, complete process, in which the gamifier has to increase the gamefulness of the consumer s experiences by the implementation of the service with appropriate affordances, namely different qualities of the service system 1 that increase the gameful experience. In the field of gamification, many researches focus on the outcomes and effects of gamified services on people behaviours. However, there is a lack of empirical studies regarding the motivations that predict the use intentions and the attitude of people towards gamification services (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015). In the service context, the exploration of consumers attitudes and use intentions is crucial as it could lead to a better understanding of the users preferences and inner motivations. The possibility to predict the reasons that lead people to use gamified systems could be strategically important for service providers as it could be a great opportunity to widen the overall usage. There are many insights about the elements and mechanics of gamification that are able to keep the user engaged while using the gamified system (flow, leader-boards, points, scores, etc.), but only few about the reasons why people firstly choose to use (and continue to use) these systems. Gathering both these aspects could help providers in adjusting the gamification service design accordingly to users preferences and expectations, increasing the usage and adding value to the users experience. Nowadays, 1 Service system: an arrangement of resources (including people, technology, information, etc.) connected to other systems by value propositions (Huotari & Hamari, 2012).

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 4 the overall design in gamified services cannot be considered only as a minor problem: in 2012 Gartner predicted that by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives and specified that this was primarily driven by the lack of understanding of game design and player engagement strategies. However, the same author stated that gamification, applied with correct game design principles, will have a significant impact in many domains, and in some fields, the use of game mechanics will have a transformational impact (Gartner). Some problems emerge when designing gamified systems. The first difficulty to be faced is that, according to the service marketing theory, the value of a service (in this case, the value of a gamified service) depends exclusively on the customer s personal experience, as service providers can propose only value propositions (Huotari & Hamari, 2012). Consequently, as users have different preferences and inner motivations, what leads to and is perceived as a gameful experience by one user, could lead to a completely different perception in another user. This difficulty affects the capability of developing a fully effective gamification design that could support and enhance the value of the service from the users perspective. In addition to this main problem, we found a lack in the literature regarding the correlation between use intentions and attitude towards gamified services and different consumers/users types. Moreover, the few existing literature studies on this topic were all analysing different variables, thus a unified framework does not exist, yet. This is probably due to the novelty of the topic, as mentioned before, and especially to the recentness of the application of gamification as a tool in the marketing context. For this reason, this paper s purpose is to analyse the existing correlations and influences among the variables that define why people use gamified services (ease of use, usefulness, recognition, social influence, enjoyment and gamefulness) and the user types (Achievers, Socializer, Free Spirit, Philanthropist and Player) (Marczewski, 2015). The aim is to determine which of the previously mentioned variables are the most important in influencing the attitude and the continued use of a gamified service for each user type segment, in order to be able to adopt the most suitable gamification designs to differentiate gamified services according to the different user s targets. In order to reach the goal of the paper, a review of the previous literature was done. Building upon the research model proposed by Hamari & Koivisto, the study describes the variables that lead to an effective gamification service from the user s perspective (Hamari & Koivisto,

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 5 2015). Then, Marczewski s players types (2015) are take into consideration, and we hypothesize different correlations between these variables and the five user types. 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 Problem statement As mentioned in the introduction, the lack of literature concerning the topic (Conaway & Garay, 2014; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014) and the user s subjective perception of gameful experience lead to the incapability of developing an effective gamified service that could suit consumer s expectations and increase the service value. The main problem is that gamified solutions and designs that could be used as a tool to better engage customers and enhance the overall value are still quite non-specific. In other words, mechanics elements and gamification aspects such as attitude, use intentions and benefits are used generically without a clear understanding of what really motivates the targeted consumer. Therefore, gamified services do not tailor game design and engagement strategies to the users and this lead to counter-productive effects. Consequently, this paper aims at understanding the reasons why consumers use gamified services with a focus on the different aspects of gamification that most boost the usage of gamified services of each different user type in an effective manner. 2.2 Hypotheses 2.2.1 Hypotheses about attitude toward the gamified service We analyse the different characteristics, motivations and behaviour that belong to each of the user type in order to understand which of the Hamari & Koivisto model s variables are more effective than the others in positively influencing the attitude toward a Usefulness is defined as the perceived utility of a system and research suggests that it predicts the use intention in most of the cases where the system is used for utilitarian purposes (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015). As gamified systems contain both hedonic and utilitarian dimensions, we suppose that usefulness has an essential importance in positively influencing each user type s attitude toward the (Marczewski, 2015).

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 6 H1a: Usefulness will be effective in positively influencing Achiever s attitude toward the H1b: Usefulness will be effective in positively influencing Socializer s attitude toward the H1c: Usefulness will be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s attitude toward the H1d: Usefulness will be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s attitude toward the H1e: Usefulness will be effective in positively influencing Player s attitude toward the Social recognition is defined as the public acknowledge of a person status and merits. In the case of Achievers, behaviour is mostly driven by competition that is related with challenging others and domination. Socializers, as the name suggests, focus on socialization, relationships and interaction as the most important aspects within a game. However, social recognition from other players seems not to be an important influencing factor that drives their behaviour. In fact, their main goals within a game are helping others, making friends, collaborate and find/give support. They are more concerned about self-disclosure and self-actualization, rather than recognition from other players. Free Spirits behaviour is driven by autonomy and self-expression. They depend on their own preferences. Philanthropists are motivated by purpose and meaning. This group is altruistic and enjoy helping other users without expecting any reward. Finally, Players are only motivated by extrinsic rewards (Bartle, 1996; Marczewski, 2015). According to these statements, we formulate the following hypotheses: H2a: Recognition will be effective in positively influencing Achiever s attitude toward the H2b: Recognition will not be effective in positively influencing Socializer s attitude toward the H2c: Recognition will not be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s attitude toward the

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 7 H2d: Recognition will not be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s attitude toward the H2e: Recognition will not be effective in positively influencing Player s attitude toward the The third variable influencing user s attitude is Social Influence and it is defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). As one of Achievers characteristic is giving importance to other player s perception about them and about their status (especially from Socializers), we suppose that Social Influence will have a great effect in their attitude toward the As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Socializers commit themselves to socialization, relationships creation and teamwork. We then suppose that if important others believe that the Socializer should use a service system, he or she would be particularly keen on being influenced by them. Socialization and relationship building results quite important for Philanthropists, too. On the contrary, Free Spirits and Players does not consider this variable as fundamental as the first one is motivated mostly by autonomy and the second one focus is experience on rewards (Bartle, 1996; Marczewski, 2015). Consequently: H3a: Social Influence will be effective in positively influencing Achiever s attitude toward the H3b: Social Influence will be effective in positively influencing Socializer s attitude toward the H3c: Social Influence will not be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s attitude toward the H3d: Social Influence will be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s attitude toward the H3e: Social Influence will not be effective in positively influencing Player s attitude toward the

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 8 2.2.2 Hypotheses about continued use of the gamified service In this section, we analyse the different characteristics, motivations and behaviour that belong to each of the user type in order to understand which of the Hamari & Koivisto model s variables are more effective than the others in positively influencing the continued use of a Ease of use is the degree of ease associated with the use of the system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Achievers and Socializer tend to need a structure around them. Achievers prefer welldesigned and precise tasks while Socializers tend to give more importance to the social features, rather than the game itself. On the contrary, Free Spirits are driven by discovery motivations: they want to understand the game, discover hidden easter-eggs and unknown glitches and they see these actions as a challenge. For these reasons, we suppose that Explorers are not strongly influenced by the ease of use of a service. In the same way, also Philanthropists do not need a defined structure and, regarding Players, as we mentioned before they are mostly driven by the need of getting rewards (Chou, 2013; Marczewski, 2015). H4a: Ease of use will be effective in positively influencing Achiever s continued use of the H4b: Ease of use will be effective in positively influencing Socializer s continued use of the H4c: Ease of use will not be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s continued use of the H4d: Ease of use will not be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s continued use of the H4e: Ease of use will not be effective in positively influencing Player s continued use of the Enjoyment is part of the hedonic motivations and, as gamified services have an important hedonic dimension (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015), we suppose that it positively influences Socializers, Free Spirits and Philanthropists in the continued use of the Achievers and Players in this case are an exception as the first type persist in completing

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 9 routinized challenges that other players don t perceive fun at all and the second is only motivated by extrinsic rewards (Bartle, 1996; Marczewski, 2015). H5a: Enjoyment will not be effective in positively influencing Achiever s continued use of the H5b: Enjoyment will be effective in positively influencing Socializer s continued use of the H5c: Enjoyment will be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s continued use of the H5d: Enjoyment will be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s continued use of the H5e: Enjoyment will not be effective in positively influencing Player s continued use of the Gamefulness has a positive impact on continued use of the gamified service and it depends on the effectiveness of the game mechanics (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). We hypothesise: H6a: Gamefulness will not be effective in positively influencing Achiever s continued use of the gamified service H6b: Gamefulness will be effective in positively influencing Socializer s continued use of the H6c: Gamefulness will be effective in positively influencing Free Spirit s continued use of the H6d: Gamefulness will be effective in positively influencing Philanthropist s continued use of the H6e: Gamefulness will not be effective in positively influencing Player s continued use of the

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 10 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Hamari and Koivisto Model In Hamari & Koivisto s research model (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015), attitude toward a gamified service and continued use define an effective According to this model, attitude is positively associated with: Usefulness (belonging to utilitarian aspects) Recognition (belonging to social aspects) Social Influence (belonging to social aspects) Continued use is positively associated with: Ease of use (belonging to utilitarian aspects) Enjoyment (belonging to hedonic aspects) Playfulness (belonging to hedonic aspects) Attitude then positively influences continued use. In UTAUT and UTAUT2 models (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Viswanath Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012), that were developed to understand the use and acceptance of technology, Venkatesh specifies that these variables are moderated, and thus are influenced, by gender, age and experience. In particular: Utilitarian aspects such as performance expectancy (it could be considered as usefulness) is moderated by age and gender. Effort expectancy (it could be considered as ease of use) is moderated by age, gender and experience. Social aspects (Venkatesh focuses only on Social influence) are moderated by age, gender and experience. Hedonic aspects in general are moderated by age, gender and experience. In other words, all of these variables are strongly influenced by users demographic characteristics. For this paper, we first supposed that the over mentioned variables are influenced also by user types and not only by demographic aspects. 3.2 Marczewski user types Regarding personality types, we based our segmentation on Marczewski user types (Marczewski, 2015). This theory was in part developed in conjunction with Bartle, who

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 11 previously developed another segmentation of player types (Bartle, 1996). According to Marczewski segmentation, there are six different user types. In brief: Achievers are users driven by mastery motivations. They continuously need to improve themselves and are motivated by challenges. Socializers are users motivated by relatedness. They give importance to social aspects and seek to create social connections and relationships. Free Spirits are users motivated by autonomy and self-expression. They prefer to create and explore. Philanthropists are driven by purpose and meaning motivations. They are altruistic and seek to help other users without expecting any reward. Players are motivated by extrinsic rewards. They will use gamified services and do what is needed only if they expect a reward from the system. Disruptors are motivated by change and aim to disrupt and change the system both in a positive or negative way. They are categorized as a group of people that are not willing to play and thus use the system (Marczewski, 2015). As in this study we are focusing on the motivations that lead users to use gamified services, we are not taking into consideration this category. 3.3 Gamefulness concept In Hamari & Koivisto model, playfulness influence the continued use toward a gamification service. Game studies are usually based on the concepts of paidia ( playing ) and ludus ( gaming ). The former concept denotes a more freeform, expressive, improvisational, even tumultuous recombination of behaviours and meanings, while the latter captures playing structured by rules and competitive strife toward goals. Thus, game could be considered as a subcategory of play. Gamification is a tool that mostly focuses on game design elements that are regulated by rules and oriented toward goals with little space for free-form play. Therefore, the concept of gamification relates to game and not to play (Deterding et al., 2011). Consequently, we substitute the variable playfulness with gamefulness, as suggested from Deterding, restricting the wide field of play to the more specific and adapt field of game. Gamefulness of the user is influenced by game design and game mechanics. However, similarly to the other variables, the effect of game mechanics and design on continued use of the service depends on what is able to keep users motivated. Therefore, we suggested that the effectiveness of the game mechanics depend on the personality types.

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 12 4. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE TOPIC Acceptance and use of technology Acceptance and use of technology Design of gamification Design of gamification Gamification in service marketing TITLE User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective AUTHOR(S) and SOURCE Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. MIS quarterly, 425-478. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., & Xu, X. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178 Hamari, J. Electronic commerce research and applications, 12(4), 236-245. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). ACM Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17-22). ACM YEAR (2003) (2012) (2013) (2011) (2012) CONTENT Performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence determine behavioural intention to use a technology. Behavioural intentions and facilitating conditions determine technology use. Age, gender, experience and voluntariness moderate technology acceptance and use. In addition to UTAUT s variables, hedonic motivation, price value and habit are defined as important determinants of technology acceptance and use in a consumer context. Gender, age and experience moderate the effects on technology use and acceptance. The article analyses the effects of gamification mechanisms (badges and social comparison) on usage activity, quality and social interaction in a peer-topeer service. The article defines the concept of gamefulness and distinguishes between the idea of playing (paidia) and gaming (ludus). Identification of game elements for gamification design on different level of abstraction: Game interface design patterns Game design patterns and mechanics Game design principles and heuristic Game models Game design methods. Definition of gamification and service marketing. The sensation of gamefulness is not unique and it depends on users/gamers characteristics. Thus, gamification is not strictly connected to specific mechanics, but it s a process in which the gamifier attempts to increase the likelihood of gameful experiences by exploiting adequate affordances. Definition of four gamification providers: Core service Third parties

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 13 Gamification in service marketing Gamification Theory Gamification Theory Motivations to use gamification Motivations to use gamification User Types User Types Gamification and service marketing Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification Social Motivations To Use Gamification: An Empirical Study Of Gamifying Exercise Why do people use gamification services? Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Conaway, R., & Garay, M. C. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 653. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. Business Horizons. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. ECIS (p. 105). Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419-431. Bartle, R. Journal of MUD research, 1(1), 19 Marczewski, M.A.C. CreateSpace Independent (2014) (2014) (2015) (2013) (2015) (1996) (2015) The customer him/herself Another customer. The paper compare service marketing websites and characteristics of consumers who engage with gamification platforms. Four characteristics in gamification platforms attract consumers: Progress paths Feedback and reward Social connection Attractiveness Literature review that analyses motivational affordances and psychological and behavioural outcomes that derive from the application of gamification in different contexts. Gamification produces positive effects and benefits according to the majority of the analysed cases. Definition of gamification. Reasons why gamification is effective: reinforcement and emotions. Principles of gamification: Mechanics Dynamics Emotions Parties involved in gamification process: Designers Players Spectators Observer. The paper analyses how social motivations influence the attitude and the continued use of a The results suggest that social motivations (social influence, recognition, reciprocal benefits and network exposure) are strong predictors in this context. The article analyses the perceived benefits that motivate people in using gamified services, distinguishing between utilitarian, hedonic and social aspects. The results suggest that hedonic aspects drive the actual use of the service while utilitarian and social aspects influence the attitude towards gamified services, and through attitude, have an affect use intentions. Definition of four types of player: Achiever Socializer Explorer Killer Definition and theory about user types and motivations. Achiever Socializer

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 14 User Types Game Thinking and Motivational Design (1 edition). The HEXAD Gamification User Types Questionnaire: Background and Development Process Publishing Platform. Lisa Diamond, G. F. T. (2015) Free spirit Philanthropist Player Development of a model to classify users of gamified systems. 5. METHODOLOGY For this study we are going to effectuate a quantitative research. It will be implemented through an online questionnaire that will be spread online. Setting: the study will take place in Germany, but the questionnaire will be spread online. Therefore, different nationalities will be included in the research. Procedure: data will be collected through an online questionnaire, with close questions. The sample of the questionnaire will be composed by people that already use gamified services between 18 and 55 years old in order to take into consideration. Structure of the questionnaire: At the beginning of the questionnaire, we will try to understand if respondents already used or are using a For this purpose, a definition and some examples of the most famous gamified services will be given. Respondents will have to select which services they use. Only respondents that have experience with gamified services will be take into consideration for the study. In the second part of the survey, in order to analyse the attitude towards gamified services, we are going to ask questions about usefulness, recognition and social influence. For this purpose, we will use already existing scales (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015), adjusting them accordingly to our study. In the third part, continued use of the gamified service will be analysed. Once again, we are going to use the already existing scales to measure ease of use, enjoyment and gamefulness (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015). The aim of the fourth part of the questionnaire will be to understand the respondent s user type. Also in this case, an already existing scale will be used (Lisa Diamond, 2015).

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 15 Data analysis: quantitative research, close questions, scales. 6. PLAN OF WORK PERIOD ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 1.09.2015 TO 30.10.2015 Exposé Definition of the topic, literature review, hypotheses adjustment, development of the exposé 20.10.2015 TO 15.11.2015 25.11.2015 TO 1.01.2016 1.01.2016 TO 15.01.2016 Development of the research design Survey and writing Analysis of the results Design and test of the questionnaire Run the survey and writing of the first part of the thesis: introduction, problem statement and hypotheses, literature review and theoretical framework, research methodology Analysis of the results of the survey 1.01.2016 TO 15.01.2016 Results and conclusions Writing results and conclusions

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 16 7. OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS Abstract 1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT 3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Definition of gamification 3.2 Gamification in service marketing context 3.3 Hamari & Koivisto Model 3.3.1 Substitution of Playfulness and paidia vs. ludus theory 3.4 Marczewski user types 4. HYPOTHESES 4.1 Hypothesis 4.1.1 Achiever user type 4.1.2 Socializer user type 4.1.3 Free Spirit user type 4.1.4 Philanthropist user type 4.1.5 Player user type 5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5.1 Method: Questionnaire 5.2 Setup 5.3 Execution 6. RESULTS 7. CONCLUSION 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 17 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research. Chou, Y. (2013, June 6). User and Player Types in Gamified Systems. Retrieved from http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-study/user-types-gamified-systems/ Conaway, R., & Garay, M. C. (2014). Gamification and service marketing. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1 11. http://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-653 Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9 15). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040 Gartner. (n.d.). Gartner Says by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design. Retrieved 22 September 2015, from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015 Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419 431. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006 Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025 3034). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. http://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2014.377 Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining Gamification: A Service Marketing Perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 17 22). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 18 Lisa Diamond, G. F. T. (2015). The HEXAD Gamification User Types Questionnaire: Background and Development Process. Marczewski, M. A. C. (2015). Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design (1 edition). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425 478. Viswanath Venkatesh, Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2002388). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2002388

Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services 19 9. APPENDIX Usefulness Achiever Attitude Recognition Social influence Ease of use Socializer Free Spirit Continued use Enjoyment Philanthropist Gamefulness Player Complete model: adapted from Why do people use gamification services? Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. International Journal of Information Management, (2015) and Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design Marczewski, M.A.C (2015).