Self Determination Theory Archives - Gamified UK

Introduction to Gamification Part 4: Motivation (R.A.M.P, Maslow, SDT and more)

August 4, 2020January 30, 2019 by Andrzej Marczewski

Warning, this is one of my longest blogs ever!

Now we know a bit about what games, gamification and game-based solutions are (and are not), it’s time to start to consider some of the non-game related topics you need to understand to be good at building game-based solutions. The first of these is motivation.

In gamification we tend to look at motivation in varying depths, starting from a very simple perspective with just two options. Intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation.

The most basic way to look at this is that activities that are intrinsically motivating are those that people will do because they want to or appreciate the benefits of doing them. Activities that require rewards, extrinsic motivation, people do because there is a reward, not because they want to do it. It is not quite as black and white as that, but it is a good starting point – read on!

The Definitions

Let’s look at the “proper” definitions of these as explained by researches Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, authors of Self Determination theory (SDT) – a paper you will become familiar with as you follow these blogs.

Intrinsic Motivation: “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” ¹

They identify three intrinsic motivators: competence (or mastery), autonomy and relatedness, forming the basis of their Self-Determination Theory

Extrinsic Motivation: is “a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable time” ²

In terms of gamification, this would be considered any reward that was given to a user as an incentive to do something, for example, badges or prizes.

Needs and Motivations

There are many theories and frameworks that look at how humans are motivated. Two of the most well-known are Maslow’s hierarchy of needs ³ and Self Determination Theory ¹.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

First, let’s look at Maslow. Now, a warning. Maslow is widely taught, but there are many who say that his work is not founded in good research, so must be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance, the top tier of his pyramid of needs is “self-actualization”, but there is very little in the way of proof of what that might be or how one might truly achieve it! ⁴ However, the hierarchy of needs is a useful aide-mémoire so to speak, as it helps to visualise what drives humans in a simple and approachable way.

Basically, the Hierarchy of Needs shows us that there are needs that must be fulfilled before other needs can be fulfilled. Whilst the order may be slightly different depending on context, generally, we need to have our physiological needs and safety covered before love and belonging are important. Then we can think about self-esteem and finally self-actualization.

Now it isn’t that simple really, for instance for some esteem might be more important than love and belonging, but you get the idea!

Self Determination Theory

Proposed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, Self Determination Theory is the result of many years of research and presents three basic needs of humans, Relatedness, Autonomy and Competence.

R.A.M.P

Relatedness

Relatedness is experienced when people feel they are socially connected to each other in some way. It is a sense of belonging, being wanted or needed. In the “real world” this is often satisfied by friendships and family. At work, this can be satisfied by working relationships and friendships with colleagues. In the virtual world, we must rely on social networks or tools that allow people to connect to each other. For instance, if you look at many of the best multi-player games, they have ways to communicate with others, create teams and teams.

In gamification, we often look to create environments that allow for collaboration, but also team competitions. This allows people to work together, but also to have a bit friendly challenge between teams. It is usually best to avoid one-to-one competitions, these can lead to unpleasant behaviours as individuals set out to “win” especially if there is a tangible and valuable reward on offer!

Another word on competition. You will read about how bad it can be. However, if you look at sports people, such as tennis players, they often form strong bonds with other players whom they are competing with. One of the reasons for this is that they have a shared interest. Not only this, they can relate to each other. Imagine how many people can relate to Andy Murray’s reality as a high-profile tennis player?

Autonomy

Autonomy is loosely defined as the ability to make free, independent choices without coercion, or agency. In R.A.M.P, I am using autonomy to refer the ability to make choices as well as the freedom for self-expression and creativity. If someone is fully autonomous, they are essentially free to do what they choose, when they choose, how they choose. Obviously, this is not always possible in the real world. Within a corporate setting, for instance, autonomy may look more like a lack of micro-management and the ability to choose one’s own solutions to problems. Steve Jobs famously said, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do”.

In a gamified solution, autonomy could look like several things. It could be that you create a learning experience that allows users to choose their own path through, giving them choices of how to progress. It could be that you include tools to allow the user to create an avatar, or even their own materials to share back to others (slipping into Altruistic Purpose a little).

Mastery (Competence)

Master, or competence as it is referred to in SDT (but RACP did not have as nice a ring to it as RAMP…), in motivational terms is the desire to be good at something, to overcome challenges, learn and improve and eventually master it. It is easy to imagine how this might work in education, be it school or corporate. There is an obvious learning objective! Anywhere you are learning a new skill are acquiring knowledge can fit within a path to mastery.

In games and gamification, the path to mastery is well laid out to the user. There are specific goals that they must achieve. As the user progresses, they are presented with new skills to learn, opportunities to practice their skills and usually a final test where they will be challenged to prove they have mastered those skills. In games this is often a “Boss Battle”, in education this will be an exam!

A key to making this enjoyable and accessible is to ensure that the learning objectives increase in their level of challenge as the users skill increases (Flow ⁵). If the challenges are too hard, the user will become frustrated. If they are too easy, they will become bored very quickly.

Purpose

So, now we know where Relatedness, Autonomy and Mastery have come from. But, why did I add purpose? Well, there are two answers, the first is because I saw it in Dan Pink’s drive⁶ where he used Purpose and ditched Relatedness. In his book purpose was focused on what I would define as meaningful purpose. This is a person’s need to feel that what they are doing fulfils a purpose in some way. It could be that they need to understand how the cog they make affects the overall system, it could be to know that adding that extra line to Wikipedia somehow improves human knowledge. There is a hideous phrase in gamification that covers this “Epic Meaning”. Deci and Ryan explain that for them, meaning is ingrained in all of the three needs defined in Self Determination Theory, not a separate need or motivation ⁷.

In RAMP I am focusing on Altruistic purpose. Altruism, the act of giving selflessly of oneself, in SDT is contained in Relatedness. However, my approach to this has always been related to making a usable set of tools that can help me create solutions for clients, trying to avoid the philosophical and focus on the practical. For this reason, I chose to separate Altruistic Purpose as the strategies to encourage altruism are slightly different to just those used to create social connectedness.

RAMP 2 0 500x453 Introduction to Gamification Part 4 Motivation R A M P Maslow SDT and more — R.A.M.P

Overjustification Effect

It is important to understand that neither intrinsic motivation nor extrinsic motivation is better than the other when used in balance and harmony. It is often viewed that intrinsic motivation is the good guy and extrinsic rewards are the bad guy. However, you often need a bit of both. It is important to remember that something that appears to be an intrinsic motivation, applied in the wrong way will be viewed as an extrinsic reward. For example, social recognition. It is often viewed as intrinsically motivating to be given an elevated social status for achievement. However, if the person who is being elevated is only doing an activity because they know it will bring them greater status, it is an extrinsic motivator! If the social status is bestowed upon them as unintended consequences of excellent achievement, then it is more intrinsic.

This is where something called “Overjustification” ⁸ effect needs to be considered. If an extrinsic reward overrides a person’s intrinsic desire to do something, then they are experiencing Overjustification effect.

For instance, if you enjoy painting and do it in your spare time, you are intrinsically motivated to paint. If you are creating art just for money, then you are extrinsically motivated. Studies have shown that this often leads to a poorer quality of work. ⁸

With this being the case, we often say that extrinsic rewards are great in a situation where RAMP cannot be utilised well. If your job is to stamp a hole in a piece of metal 10,000 times a day, it is hard to do much with intrinsic motivation! However, if you want people to produce high-quality content, paying them based on nothing more than how many words they write is not going to work very well. You will just get one word repeated a million times! You need to create review mechanisms and hook into autonomy and purpose as well as mastery (and potentially relatedness with peer reviewing).

Three Layers of Motivation

By way of a final summary, I have created the Three Layers of Motivation.

Layers of motivation 2017 1024x580 Introduction to Gamification Part 4 Motivation R A M P Maslow SDT and more — Three Layers of Motivation

This includes elements of RAMP, SDT and Maslow.

Base Needs

Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the Base layer considers physiological and safety needs. This includes needs such as health welfare, security, shelter, food and the like. I also include money, which whilst it seems a bit odd when that is obviously an extrinsic motivator, in the modern world it encompasses so much more! To be secure, to have a house, to provide for one’s family, you need money! We no longer hunt for food and live in caves after all.

Money leads to security. It provides you shelter, it keeps your family safe, it provides food for you all. Before money, jobs, and the like, this was all much more primal. You secured your family by physically protecting them. You hunted for food and you built shelters. For most, this is now taken care of by earning money. We do not need to hunt for food or build huts for shelter; we now buy all those things. To get money, we normally need a job. Whilst many enjoy their jobs, they are unlikely to say, “If I wasn’t paid, I’d still work here”.

Emotional / Intrinsic

Once our base needs and motivations are satisfied, we can focus on the other more emotional motivations. I describe these as our need for relatedness, autonomy, mastery and purpose (RAMP).

I will go into much more detail in the next section. These needs are referred to as intrinsic motivations and are much more important to our feeling of satisfaction than pure rewards can be.

Trivial / Extrinsic

A lot of gamification efforts sit in this area – often referred to as PBL gamification (Points, Badges and Leaderboards) ⁹. They have their place and I will be explaining a lot more about them as we go along.

For now, it is enough to understand that these types of incentives are only truly effective when the first two layers of motivation and needs are satisfied. We will cover a lot more of this later!

Key Learning Points

A person is intrinsically motivated when they are doing something without the need for extrinsic rewards such as money.
Extrinsic rewards are those rewards that are given to a person to encourage them to do an activity.
It is not that simple!
We are all different and have different needs – it takes time and research to understand how to motivate large groups towards a single goal!

References

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Maslow AH. A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION. Psychol Rev. 1943;50(4):370-396. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.
McLeofd S. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology.org. doi:10.1007/s11693-012-9098-7.
Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Performance.; 1990.
Pink DH. Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. Canongate; 2009. doi:10.1002/casp.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept. Psychol Inq. 2000. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03.
Lepper MR, Greene D, Nisbett RE. Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1973;28(1):129-137. doi:10.1037/h0035519.
Werbach K, Hunter D. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press; 2012. http://www.amazon.co.uk/For-Win-Thinking-Revolutionize-Business/dp/1613630239. Accessed May 29, 2015.

User Types HEXAD: What Links Philanthropists to Socialisers

October 26, 2018October 25, 2018 by Andrzej Marczewski

A new paper looking to validate the User Types HEXAD Survey has just been released from the HCI Games Group (Games Institute, and Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo). You can find it here Empirical validation of the Gamification User Types Hexad scale in English and Spanish or free… http://hcigames.com/download/empirical-validation-hexad-scale/

One of the findings is something that has been noted before and is not a surprise to me, but something I realise I have never explained. The finding is that the Philanthropist and Socialiser types are very closely linked when you look into them.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests there is a stronger correlation between the Philanthropist and Socialiser types than the theory anticipated, suggesting the possibility of an improvement to the theory itself, i.e., it should acknowledge that a person who is highly motivated by philanthropism will probably also be motivated by socialization in some degree, and vice versa. [1]

Now, as I say, this is not a surprise to me, but is something that I have never explained – which surprises me!

The Origin Story

If you look at the original User Types I created in 2012 or so, you will see that I had 4 types to start with, just the intrinsic types Socialiser, Achiever, Philanthropist and Free Spirit. This expanded into a 3D model and eventually contracted into the HEXAD for practical reasons!

The original 4 were based on two things initially. Self Determination Theory and Dan Pinks Drive. Both identify 3 key areas of motivation but differ slightly.

*Self-Determination* *Theory*	*Drive*
Competence	Mastery
Autonomy	Autonomy
Relatedness
	Purpose

When I started to dive into it I made a decision, I was going to combine them into what you know now as RAMP, Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. However, Purpose was focused on altruistic purpose rather than meaningful purpose. All types are driven by their own Purpose and meaning, but this specific group had a more focused purpose that was selfless in nature. I even asked Edward Deci about it and he pointed me to a paper [2] “The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept” where they discussed why meaning was not considered as a need in Self Determination Theory.

Social Philanthropists

However, and this is the important bit when you actually look into it carefully you will discover that relatedness and altruistic purpose are strongly linked. It makes sense, they both are about people and relationships. You can’t be altruistic if there is no one around to be altruistic towards! So it makes sense that a Philanthropic user would probably score highly on the Socailsiser scale.

Keep in mind, this was a tool built to help gamification designers. The reason I separated them was to help them with their thinking. Just because someone is looking for social mechanics, does not mean they will automatically be philanthropic in nature. So when building systems that require philanthropy I felt it was helpful to consider them slightly differently, hence I gave them their own sets of mechanics. In reality, those mechanics overlap slightly and that was to be expected, but it is interesting to see that proven now!

So, when building solutions that are aimed at Philanthropists, remember to think about Socialisers as well!

Citations

[1] Tondello, Gustavo F, et al. “Empirical Validation of the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale in English and Spanish.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Academic Press, 13 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581918306001

[2] Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. “The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept.” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, 2000, pp. 319–338., doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_03.

Intrinsic Motivation RAMP Misconceptions

December 15, 2017 by Andrzej Marczewski

As we head to the holidays I wanted to revisit an old “model” and just clarify a couple of items that have cropped up in conversation over the years. The item in question is RAMP. This, as you may remember, is my core intrinsic motivation model of Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. Obviously, based on Self Determination Theory, this has been a really handy tool in all of my gamification exploits over the years.

The basic idea is these are 4 motivations that are core to all people in some way. In self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan only speak about Relatedness, Autonomy and Competence (Mastery), as altruistic purpose is part relatedness. Whilst true, for gamification it is useful to separate this out into its own.

Anyway, I digress.

RAMP is not a taxonomy, people are not one or the other, they are a spectrum of all of the motivations, and much more! That said, depending on the context, one motivation may be more important to them than another.

For example, if generally a person is most interested in relatedness and you put them into an educational setting, at that moment mastery may be the most “active” motivation.

RAMP Relatedness 500x341 Intrinsic Motivation RAMP Misconceptions — RAMP Relatedness

RAMP Mastery 500x341 Intrinsic Motivation RAMP Misconceptions — RAMP Mastery

So What?

The point of this, just like the Player Type HEXAD, is to remember that all these motivations are at play in all of us but that we are all slightly different, just some are more active than others in different contexts. We will always be slightly more “weighted” towards one or two motivations day to day, but the rest will still be there.

The reason to keep RAMP in mind is to give some clues as to how to motivate people generally and especially towards certain types of behaviours – hence I create the Player Types based on these 4 motivations.

Oh and if you are interested, here is my full talk from Gamification Europe the other day!

The Intrinsic Motivation Fallacy

August 14, 2017 by Andrzej Marczewski

“All you need is autonomy to be happy in work”

This is a quote I have heard on more than one occasion in my life as a gamification consultant. I have even had a friend quote his boss to me saying the following:

“You don’t need a pay rise, I read a book that siad money isn’t a motivator. So with that, I will give you more autonomy and purpose in your role.”

This idea that intrinsic motivation is an alternative to money comes from a misunderstanding of several studies and pop psychology books around motivation. A key book that is often cited is that of Drive by Dan Pink. I have mentioned it in the past and when I first started in gamification it was a great jumping off point for me. In the book, he describes three intrinsic motivations that all people need to be happy in their lives and work: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. This is based on the work of Deci and Ryan around motivation called Self Determination Theory [1] – another text I have referenced often and of course the basis for my RAMP framework.

Now, the misunderstanding relates to how intrinsic motivation works. There is a general understanding that money is not a motivator for creative works, but that reward can dramatically increase productivity around more mundane, rote tasks. This has been shown in many studies. It forms the basis of Over Justification Effect [2], [3], where the reward becomes more important than the task, which kills creativity and the love of the process itself in many cases.

Firstly, there are many things that drive us beyond those mentioned here as well as many alternative theories on motivation: Hertzberg’s Two-Factor Theory [4], Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [5], Expectancy Theory [6] and much more. So, it is good to keep in mind that these three or four motivations are not all there is!

The second issue is that people misunderstand the difference between motivation in general. It works on many levels and in many ways. At a basic level, there are base motivations and emotional motivations. A base motivation is something that one must have to function correctly: food, water, money etc. Emotional motivation is more about one’s desires ultimately leading to quality of life rather than mere existence.

Layers of Motivation 500x233 The Intrinsic Motivation Fallacy — The Three Layers of Motivation

This is where the issue of money comes in and why Dan Pink often gets quoted out of context. The managers that say, “Money is not a motivator, you don’t need more” are not considering other things that Pink has said, crucially this from his Flip Manifesto [7],

“… often the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table—so that people can focus on the work rather than on the cash.”

In other words, all the intrinsic motivation in the world will not be enough to keep an employee happy if they are worried about money. People have the need to feel secure. In fact, Pink suggests that you pay over the odds! [8]

“And so I think you got to pay people enough. I would argue, pay people more than enough”

This is the big fallacy of intrinsic motivation and one that many people criticise gamification for. They seem to feel that the aim is to replace paying people fairly, which just is not the case. Good gamification is there to lower barriers, improve experiences, enhance learning and ultimately elevate engagement.

If I am not getting paid enough to cover bills and live in a way that I feel comfortable, then money will be my key need and thought. Adding gamification or other behavioural techniques to try and motivate me is likely to insult me more than motivate me! It is almost the opposite of Overjustification effect, a kind of underjustifcation effect if you will. It is not the fact that the desire for money has crowded out and lowered the intrinsic motivation it is that the need for reward/money is more important than any immediate intrinsic/emotional motivation!

That is not to say that just paying well will keep people in a boring dead end job. There comes a point where they do need to be intrinsically motivated as well, but you have to cover the base needs first. Intrinsic motivation is not a magic bullet, people need to feel secure and that requires fair pay before any other behaviour focused interventions can work. Once that is covered, intrinsic motivation and gamification hand in hand can do a great deal to improve happiness, engagement and ultimately performance – done right.

Intrinsic motivation, like gamification, does not replace the need to be paid and feel you are comfortable, appreciated and valued and never should be used as such!

Refrences

[1] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.,” Am. Psychol., vol. 55, pp. 68–78, 2000.

[2] M. R. Lepper, D. Greene, and R. E. Nisbett, “Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the ‘overjustification’ hypothesis.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 129–137, 1973.

[3] E. L. Deci, R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan, “A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 125, pp. 627-668-700, 1999.

[4] F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work, vol. 51 (4), no. 1. 1959.

[5] C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett, “A social^cognitive approach to motivation and personality.,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 95, pp. 256–273, 1988.

[6] R. L. Oliver, “Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s performance,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 243–253, 1974.

[7] Daniel Pink, “Flip Manifesto | Daniel H. Pink.” [Online]. Available: http://www.danpink.com/resource/flip-manifesto/. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2017].

[8] Katherine Bell, “What Motivates Us?,” Harvard Business Review, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2010/02/what-motivates-us. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2017].

Correcting the Misconceptions Around the Philanthropist User Type and Purpose

February 18, 2020January 23, 2017 by Andrzej Marczewski

One of the things that happens when you create popular frameworks and the like, is that people like to interpret them to fit their needs. This is why I created the User Types Hexad in the first place – so that I no longer had to interpret Bartle’s Player Types to fit my needs in gamification!

However, what can happen is that the interpretations become more popular than the original and if you are not careful the meaning of the original is lost. This is true of one of the types in my Hexad – and I am not innocent in the issue! I have allowed the change to happen, even integrating it into the types and my motivation framework RAMP. The type in question is the Philanthropist and the motivation Purpose.

When I first started, these both had a clear meaning, but I have allowed that to get diluted and confused, so I wanted to set the record straight and offer some reasoning behind it all.

Meaningful Purpose and Altruistic Purpose

First, we will tackle Purpose. When I speak about purpose in RAMP, I am specifically talking about altruistic purpose. This is the desire to help others in some way¹ – hence the type that evolved from that is the Philanthropist. You can define philanthropy on a basic level as “The desire to increase the well-being of humankind”. That is what I had in mind.

The other type of purpose, the one that I have allowed to creep into the definition is meaningful purpose. This is more a desire to understand the meaning of what you are doing. The analogy I use for this I call the little cog.

The Little Cog: By Andrzej Marczewski Age 38

There was once a little cog who spent all day spinning as fast as he could in a huge machine.
One day he rather sadly asked a bigger cog “Why am I doing this? Surely, I am of no importance to such a huge machine, especially compared to the likes of you larger cogs?”
The big cog smiled at him and replied: “Slow down a moment and see what happens to the rest of us.” The small cog slowed down and saw that every other cog began to slow down as well. He looked at the big cog as if to ask a question.
The big cog said to him “Every cog in this machine has a job and a significance. If one stops doing their job, the rest are no longer able to do theirs either. Every cog, no matter how big or little, is important to the machine.”
With that the little cog smiled, realising that his existence had a meaning. He had a purpose and without him, no other cog could fully achieve theirs.
From that day on, he happily span as fast as he could.

This type of purpose has been explored by Adam M. Grant in his paper The Significance of Task Significance: Job Performance Effects, Relational Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions ². In this paper, Grant concludes that job performance increases when people have a better understanding of its significance.

Task significance cues may thereby play an important role in contributing to the performance of employees and to the welfare of the individuals, groups, communities, and societies they serve

This type of meaningful purpose is experienced by everyone, it is not unique to Philanthropist types.

Philanthropists

When you look back at Self-Determination Theory ³, purpose is not included as a separate motivation. That was Dan Pink’s change for his book Drive ⁴. Deci and Ryan actually explain that altruistic purpose is part of relatedness ⁵. Recent data based on the User Type test would tend to agree with this. Socialisers and Philanthropists seem to share a lot of traits. Obviously, once the data is validated I will share it. When you think about it though, that makes a lot of sense. Philanthropists want to help people – you need people for that! The reason I separated them was because I felt that there is a difference between encouraging philanthropic behaviour and pro-social behaviour. This meant that these two types of users, though connected, are no identical. You can have a person who is motivated by social connectedness, but that does not see much joy in answering questions for others!

In a nutshell

Philanthropists are focused on altruistic purpose – a desire to improve the lives of others.
Purpose, as described in RAMP, is focused on altruistic purpose.
Meaningful purpose, the desire to understands one’s place in the world and derive meaning from that, is a universal motivation that is not specific to any one User Type.

Citations

Sigmund K, Hauert C. Altruism. Curr Biol. 2002;12(8):R270-R272. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00797-2.
Grant AM. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(1):108-124. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108.
Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:627-668-700. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
Pink DH. Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. Canongate; 2009. doi:10.1002/casp.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. “The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept.” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, 2000, pp. 319–338., doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_03.