Gamification of Behavior Change: Mathematical Principle and Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people want to build good habits to become healthier, live longer, or become happier but struggle to change their behavior. Gamification can make behavior change easier by awarding points for the desired behavior and deducting points for its omission. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we introduced a principled mathematical method for determining how many points should be awarded or deducted for the enactment or omission of the desired behavior, depending on when and how often the person has succeeded versus failed to enact it in the past. We called this approach optimized gamification of behavior change. METHODS: As a proof of concept, we designed a chatbot that applies our optimized gamification method to help people build healthy water-drinking habits. We evaluated the effectiveness of this gamified intervention in a 40-day field experiment with 1 experimental group (n=43) that used the chatbot with optimized gamification and 2 active control groups for which the chatbot's optimized gamification feature was disabled. For the first control group (n=48), all other features were available, including verbal feedback. The second control group (n=51) received no feedback or reminders. We measured the strength of all participants' water-drinking habits before, during, and after the intervention using the Self-Report Habit Index and by asking participants on how many days of the previous week they enacted the desired habit. In addition, all participants provided daily reports on whether they enacted their water-drinking intention that day. RESULTS: A Poisson regression analysis revealed that, during the intervention, users who received feedback based on optimized gamification enacted the desired behavior more often (mean 14.71, SD 6.57 times) than the active (mean 11.64, SD 6.38 times; P<.001; incidence rate ratio=0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91) or passive (mean 11.64, SD 5.43 times; P=.001; incidence rate ratio=0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) control groups. The Self-Report Habit Index score significantly increased in all conditions (P<.001 in all cases) but did not differ between the experimental and control conditions (P>.11 in all cases). After the intervention, the experimental group performed the desired behavior as often as the 2 control groups (P≥.17 in all cases). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that optimized gamification can be used to make digital behavior change interventions more effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) H7JN8; https://osf.io/h7jn8.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".