Uncovering the theoretical basis of user types: An empirical analysis and critical discussion of user typologies in research on tailored gameful design
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Gamification has become one of the main areas in information systems and human–computer interaction research related to users’ motivations and behaviors. Within this context, a significant research gap is the lack of understanding of how users’ characteristics, especially in terms of their preferences for gameful interaction (i.e., user typologies), moderate the effects of gamification and, furthermore, how gamification could be tailored to individual needs. Despite their prominence in classifying users, current typologies and their use in research and practice have received severe criticism regarding validity and reliability, as well as the application and interpretation of their results. Therefore, it is essential to reconsider the relationships and foundations of common user typologies and establish a sound empirical basis to critically discuss their value and limits for personalized gamification. To address this research gap, this study investigated the psychometric properties of the most popular player types within tailored gamification literature (i.e., Bartle’s player types, Yee’s motivations to play, BrainHex, and HEXAD) through a survey study (n=877) using their respective measurement instruments, followed by a correlation analysis to understand their empirical relations and an exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying factors. The results confirm that user typologies, despite their different origins, show considerable overlap, some being consistent whereas others contradicted theoretically assumed relationships. Furthermore, we show that these four user typologies overall factor into five underlying and fundamental dimensions of Socialization, Escapism, Achievement, Reward Pursuit, and Independence, which could be considered common concepts that may essentially reflect key determinants of user motivation in gamification. Our findings imply that future research and practice in tailored gamification design should shift the focus from developing and applying ever more nuanced typologies to understanding and measuring the key underlying determinants of user motivation in gameful systems. Moreover, given the considerable interrelationships between these determinants, we also argue that researchers should favor continuous representations of users’ motivations in specific situations instead of a dichotomous operationalization of user types as static manifestations of their preferences.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle