Gamification User Types HEXAD Validation Study

I thought it would be good to finally show you all the research results from Austrian Institute of Technology and HCI Games Group, Games Institute, University of Waterloo and of course Gamified UK around the User Types and the survey.

The link below will take you to a blog written by one of the researchers, Gustavo Tondello, who explains it all better than I can!

Several studies have indicated the need for personalising gamified systems to users’ personalities. However, mapping user personality onto design elements is difficult. To address this problem, Marczewski developed the Gamification User Types Hexad framework, based on research on human motivation, player types, and practical design experience. He also suggested different game design elements that may support different user types. However, until now we were still lacking a standard assessment tool for user’s preferences based on the Hexad framework. There was also no empirical validation, yet, that associated Hexad user types and game design elements. A collaborative research project by the HCI Games Group, the Austrian Institute of Technology, and Gamified UK sought to accomplish these two goals: (1) create and validate a standard survey to assess an individual’s Hexad user type and (2) verify the association between the Hexad user types and the game design elements they are supposed to appeal to.

So things for me to change a little in the mechanics list, based on the study results – but I always like to be proved right or wrong with solid evidence!!

Similar Posts:

Please wait...

4 thoughts on “Gamification User Types HEXAD Validation Study”

  1. Do you have any idea why design elements suggested for philantropist seems not to fit? I also wonder why “meaning/purpose” have been left out from the study (but appearing in your cards). That would seem quite obvious for philantropist. And I regard it as one of the most important aspects especially in “serious” applications. “Care-taking” was also replaced by “administrative roles” – you can ask which one is more “philantropic” way to phrase it?

    I also noticed that only one (or two?) disruptor participated in the study. I would not draw too much conclusions on that part of the study

    It is great to have this kind research anyway.

    • Hi.
      I have been wondering this. The simplest answer is how do you test for meaning and purpose. They are not mechanics, but more feelings and emotions that arise from context and personal circumstance. It is a limitation of this type of study I feel as I am not sure how you would test it!

      I fee that anecdotally I have seen enough to still consider the choices I made for philanthropists as valid for use – but that is no scientific measure!


Leave a Comment