The science of gamification - Michael Wu
Game dynamics often motivate people by positive feedbacks, such as accumulation of points, badges, status, progress, customization, pleasant surprises, etc.
How do game dynamics increase the ability for users to perform the target behavior? I’d like to clarify that, ability doesn’t always mean skills in this context. Ability can be time, attention, mental capacity, or any scarce resources that the user might need to complete the behavior
The usual way of increasing a users’ real or perceived ability is through practice and training. So their ability (in conjunction with the proper motivation) would exceed the activation threshold needed to perform the target behavior.
Another method of increasing a users’ perceived ability is to make the target behavior simpler so users require less ability to accomplish the behavior. This essentially lowers the activation threshold of the target behavior.
Despite the level of motivation and ability, a trigger at the appropriate time is necessary to bring about a behavior predictably. A trigger is simply something that prompts or tells the users to carry out the target behavior now. It can take any form as long as users are:
- Aware of the trigger
- And understand what the trigger means
The most important aspect for the trigger is timing. An appropriate trigger at the right moment (e.g. above the activation threshold) not only leads to the inception of the predictable behavior, it also makes the users feel good about doing it
So why do game mechanics/dynamics have the magical power to turn boring chores into desirable activities?
- Game dynamics use positive feedbacks (e.g. points, badges, status, progression, customization, surprises, social factors, etc.) to build up the users’ motivation.
- They increase the perceived ability of users by making difficult jobs simpler and more manageable; either through training/practice or by lowering the activation threshold of the target behavior.
- Game dynamics place triggers in the path of motivated users when they feel the greatest excess in their ability. That is, triggers that prompt the user for action are designed to bring about the convergence of motivation, ability, and trigger all at the same moment.
A behavior is perceived to be simple if the user can complete it with fewer resources than he expects. So behaviors that are perceive simple, may not be truly simple, they just need to be simpler than the expectation of the person who needs to perform them.
Many game dynamics are design to increase the perceived simplicity of the task. For example, cascading information and chained reward schedules can be use to guide and reward users through small steps of a complex task. Also behavioral momentum leverages people’s tendency to follow their personal norms (i.e. routines).
…we should be able to move users to the upper right of the ability-motivation axis above the activation threshold of the desired action. However, the user may still not take the action, even if he is motivated and has the ability.
There can be many reasons for the lack of action. Just to name a few examples, the user may be:
- Unaware of his ability (e.g. didn’t know that he can take such action, unaware of the simplicity of the task etc.)
- Hesitant (e.g. unsure if it is appropriate, unsure if it is the right time, question his motivation, etc.)
- Distracted (engaged in another routine activity due to behavior momentum)
A good trigger is designed to solve these problems. A trigger can take many forms but its function is simple. It prompts the user for action now. The only requirements are that the user must be aware of the trigger and understand what it means.
Since the trigger tells the user to do something, it must indirectly make the user aware of the fact that he can do what he was asked to do, and it is appropriate to do it now. Furthermore, it can even serve to interrupt other routines that the user has been engaged in.
Despite the simple function of triggers, there are actually many different types of triggers for people with different behavioral trajectories. This is because there are many possible behavioral trajectories to reach the activation threshold on the upper right of the motivation-ability plane.
If people already have the ability, but they are not motivated, then their behavioral trajectory may look like figure 1a. On the other hand, if they have the motivation but lack the ability, then they will probably reach the activation threshold as in figure 1b.There are also those who have the ability and motivation, but they are just waiting to be triggered to take some action
For these three types of behavioral trajectories, Prof. B. J. Fogg has outlined three types of triggers:
Spark: for trajectory 1a, people who have ability, but not motivated. This type of trigger is often built-in as part of the motivation mechanism. This is why some people are confused by the difference between motivation and trigger, but triggers are not inherently tied to motivation in FBM.
Facilitator: for trajectory 1b, people who are motivated, but lack ability (or perceived ability). This type of trigger often simplifies the task by highlighting its simplicity. It is often used with the progression dynamics to create anticipation as the user practice and improve his ability towards the final goal.
Signal: for people who have both the motivation and the ability. This type of trigger should only serve as a reminder. It shouldn’t try to motivate users who are already motivated. Otherwise it can easily turn into an annoyance. It shouldn’t simplify the task either. Doing so may actually make the task seem boring and not challenging enough.
Designing the proper triggers requires a good understanding of the users’ motivation level and ability. Although many gamification techniques focus on driving action through motivation, Prof. Fogg found that people are most receptive to facilitator and signal triggers. This is because spark triggers often aim to motivate people to take actions that they wouldn’t otherwise intend to take. This can be annoying when used in the wrong situation or too frequently.
The effectiveness of triggers may also depend on people’s gaming personality.
- For example, killers are extremely competitive. A trigger that challenges them can quickly launch them into action (provided that they have the motivation and ability).
- On the other extreme, socializers hate confrontation and tend to follow the crowd. So a good trigger for this type of personality would be something like “10 of your friends are doing this now, want to join?”
- Achievers are driven by status, so spark triggers that are associated with a raise of status could be very effective for this group.
- Finally, explorers are driven by discovery, the uniqueness of their contribution in a timeless and unbounded world. So a trigger that calls upon their unique skill for help without too much time pressure could be very appealing to them.
The action GAP tries to gamify is check-in, but do the consumers have all three factors necessary to drive this action?
-
Motivation: Winning a pair of free jeans
-
Ability: Not all consumers use Facebook Places or have a smartphone. However, if GAP only wants to gamify check-in for smartphone owners who also use Facebook Places, then sure, they have the ability to check-in
-
Trigger: The appointment dynamics has a built-in trigger (i.e. the appointment), which prompts consumers to check-in before “time’s up” at 9pm
What about the temporal convergence? Yes it exists, but only until they run out of jeans or the time limit is up. As soon as a consumer finds out that the 10,000th pair of jeans is gone, there is no more motivation for them to check-in. So they stop checking in. Thus, even if GAP only wanted their target audience (i.e. iPhone owners who use Facebook Places) to check-in during the appointment period, it will only be effective when there are free jeans. Clearly, this is not going to work after the campaign, and that is precisely what we saw: few people continue to check-in to GAP afterwards
Related
Three types of behaviour triggers
Gamification is a natural instinct to get by the boring
Gamification 101: The Psychology of Motivation
The difference between gamification, game mechanics and game dynamics
