User Types Test: Stats and conclusions

Card image User Types Test Stats and conclusions

Andrzej Marczewski

Gamification Expert, author, consultant and designer. I love to write about it, talk about it and bore people to death with it! If you really want to get to know me, check out the About page.

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Ana KlockAna Klock says:

    Hi Andrzej!

    I am a really big fan of your work!
    I am a Master student and my work intends to adapt the gamification based on the user type in an educational adaptive system. For this, I would like to implement this test in the system (I’ve already translated it for Portuguese) but I am not sure about the way the calculation is done. Would you mind sharing the formula?
    Thank you in advance,


  2. Dan HoffmanDan Hoffman says:

    I like your explanation of the connection between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards though I’m struggling with the concept that some players are their just for extrinsic rewards – i.e., the players. I believe all extrinsic rewards are simply a vehicle to enable intrinsic motivators. A badge is just a tangible way to allow the user a sense of accomplishment. Points help them track their progress en route to mastery. Without those items, there would be no end in sight and therefore no opportunity to accept and be proud of progress already made. Even if I’m solely trying to collect as many badges as possible, that’s still an intrinsic motivation for mastery at the game, right?

    Granted, an exception would be if those points can be exchanged for real world goods/services in which case that person might be exclusively motivated to earn points for a future purchase.

    • Hi

      The point is that not everyone needs to track progress. I don’t answer questions on quora to get told I’m great or see a reward. I do it because I hope it helps people.

      Points and the like are definitely a good marker of progress, yes. However, more commonly they are used as an incentive to perform an action. There is very likely no reason for me to click the like button on an article I have not interest in. However, if I like collecting badges and points – then maybe I will click it to rank up. Yes, there is ultimatly some intrinsic personal reading for that – but the motivation is still coming from this extrinsic means. I’m not clicking the butting because I want to click the button, I’m clicking it because I want the reward. That can be hard to sustain.

  3. yudashkaiyudashkai says:

    Haha, nice work. But with 6 more user-types that does not replace the previous 9, the context does get more complex, even though the goal is to simplify, haha 😉

    I’m working on pieces that introduce your player types, but I don’t know where to start now with a limited burst of info 😛

    • Haha. I knew you would comment. 😉

      Ok. Intrinsic types and extrinsic types don’t change. They are still fine. Number 9 is the disruptor – so you can ignore that in your motivations.

      The 6 types are the 4 intrinsic, the player (which if you remember is the group name for the extrinsic types when I first defined all of this) and disrupters.

      People got confuse over how rewards affect intrinsic types as I say that certain rewards and the like can help support them. The key being that the extrinsic group would stop being involved if you removed rewards, but the intrinsic group would stay regardless.


      Player in 1.5 represents the users that are there to play for pure extrinsic reasons. They tend to interact with both the users and the system. They will display traits of all the intrinsic types (creating our exploiter, networker, self seeker and consumer types), but be motivated primarily by rewards and extrinsic things. It is almost like a modifier in a game, acting on the other types.

      Disrupter types act on users and the system. They just want to destroy – but again may display other traits. Again, a modifier of sorts.

      For your purposes, use whichever makes most sense to you. I like the 6 types as it is less black and white – like reality 😉

      • yudashkaiyudashkai says:

        Haha – I need to become less predictable! (aka not commenting :P)

        Since everyone is motivated by some extrinsic means, I think it is tough to group all extrinsic types into “players.” And also the term “player” is a bit ambiguous, because the word “play” generally means doing things for intrinsic reasons…though if a person is a “player,” it could become extrinsic but not necessarily. Just because a bit more complex.

        Also, in motivational science we learn that the best way to get a person to stop doing something intrinsically is to give them money to do it, and then take the money away. In that case, a person can easily be converted from a regular player type into a “player” and get stuck there for a long time.

        Finally, random side note: the world Philanthropist is so long and a mouthful. Would it retain the meaning if it is called Altruist? No biggy if it doesn’t, but part of Bartle’s catchiness is each player type is distinct and easy to pull up ;P

        • So player comes from the original first definitions of my types. They are the group that are willing to play the game you have set up – ie, do things for the rewards you have added. Click like to get a cookie.
          As I say, they are a group, but only a group that do the same thing as the intrinsic types – but for cookies. Answer questions like a philanthropist, but for a cookie.

          As for the word philanthropist. I looked at altruist, but that tends to be more pasisive. Someone who puts the needs of others before them selves. Philanthropists go out of their way to help others – it is much more active. A great deal of thought went I to that one.

          As I said, this is generally about adding grey to the definitions. This makes them more actionable in real life rather than in theory.

  1. April 28, 2014

    […] User Types Test: Stats and conclusions […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

14 + 12 =