skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174009acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Persuasive gameful systems are effective tools for motivating behaviour change. Research has shown that tailoring these systems to individuals can increase their efficacy; however, there is little knowledge on how to personalize them. We conducted a large-scale study of 543 participants to investigate how different gamification user types responded to ten persuasive strategies depicted in storyboards representing persuasive gameful health systems. Our results reveal that people's gamification user types play significant roles in the perceived persuasiveness of different strategies. People scoring high in the 'player' user type tend to be motivated by competition, comparison, cooperation, and reward while 'disruptors' are likely to be demotivated by punishment, goal-setting, simulation, and self-monitoring. 'Socialisers' could be motivated using any of the strategies; they are the most responsive to persuasion overall. Finally, we contribute to CHI research and practice by offering design guidelines for tailoring persuasive gameful systems to each gamification user type.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn3644.mp4

References

  1. Tuomas Alahäivälä and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2016. Understanding persuasion contexts in health gamification: A systematic analysis of gamified health behavior change support systems literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics 96: 62-- 70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ahmed Allam, Zlatina Kostova, Kent Nakamoto, and Peter Johannes Schulz. 2015. The effect of social support features and gamification on a Web-based intervention for rheumatoid arthritis patients: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 17, 1: e14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Darius Ašeriškis and Robertas Damaševičius. 2017. Computational Evaluation of Effects of Motivation Reinforcement on Player Retention. Journal of Universal Computer Science 23, 5: 432--453. Retrieved from http://www.jucs.org/jucs_23_5/ computational_evaluation_of_effectsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Gonçalves. 2017. Studying student differentiation in gamified education: A long-term study. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 550--585. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Frank R. Bentley, Nediyana Daskalova, and Brooke White. 2017. Comparing the Reliability of Amazon Mechanical Turk and Survey Monkey to Traditional Market Research Surveys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17, 1092-- 1099. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Shlomo Berkovsky, Mac Coombe, Jill Freyne, Dipak Bhandari, and Nilufar Baghaei. 2010. Physical activity motivating games: virtual rewards for real activity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 243--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Martin Böckle, Jasminko Novak, and Markus Bick. 2017. Towards Adaptive Gamification: a Synthesis of Current Developments. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M Buhrmester, T Kwang, and Gosling S. D. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 1: 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. Busch, E. Mattheiss, M. Reisinger, R. Orji, P. Fröhlich, and M. Tscheligi. 2016. More than sex: The role of femininity and masculinity in the design of personalized persuasive games. PERSUASIVE 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Joseph A Cafazzo, Mark Casselman, Nathaniel Hamming, Debra K Katzman, and Mark R Palmert. 2012. Design of an mHealth app for the selfmanagement of adolescent type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14, 3: e70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Yu Chen and Pearl Pu. 2014. HealthyTogether: exploring social incentives for mobile fitness applications. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Chinese CHI, 25--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. W. Wynne Chin. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research 292, 2: 298--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Aubrey C. Daniels. 2000. Bringing Out the Best in People: How to Apply the Astonishing Power of Positive Reinforcement. McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum, New York and London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tracy A. Dennis and Laura J. O'Toole. 2014. Mental Health on the Go: Effects of a Gamified Attention-Bias Modification Mobile Application in Trait-Anxious Adults. Clinical Psychological Science 2, 5: 576--590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart E Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining "Gamification." In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Filip Drozd, Tuomas Lehto, and Harri OinasKukkonen. 2012. Exploring perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system: A structural model. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E A Edwards, J Lumsden, C Rivas, L Steed, L A Edwards, A Thiyagarajan, R Sohanpal, H Caton, C J Griffiths, M R Munafò, S Taylor, and R T Walton. 2016. Gamification for health promotion: systematic review of behaviour change techniques in smartphone apps. BMJ Open 6, 10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ahmed Fadhil and Adolfo Villafiorita. 2017. An Adaptive Learning with Gamification & Conversational UIs: The Rise of CiboPoliBot. In Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization - UMAP '17, 408--412. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Oluwaseyi Feyisetan, Elena Simperl, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2015. Improving Paid Microtasks through Gamification and Adaptive Furtherance Incentives. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '15, 333--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Richard Filipcik and Maria Bielikova. 2014. Motivating Learners by Dynamic Score and Personalized Activity Stream. In 2014 9th International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization, 20--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Brian J. Fogg. 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Martin Franke, Bianca Zimmer, and Thomas Schlegel. 2015. An Adaptive, Structural and Content Gamification Concept for Regulated Daily Routines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Electronics and Devices, 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Konstantinos Giannakis, Konstantinos Chorianopoulos, and Letizia Jaccheri. 2013. User requirements for gamifying sports software. In 2013 3rd International Workshop on Games and Software Engineering (GAS), 22--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Borja Gil, Iván Cantador, and Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. Validating Gamification Mechanics and Player Types in an E-learning Environment. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World, LNCS vol. 9307. Springer, Cham, 568--572.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Carina S González, Pedro Toledo, and Vanesa Muñoz. 2016. Enhancing the Engagement of Intelligent Tutorial Systems through Personalization of Gamification. International Journal of Engineering Education 32, 1: 532--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Joe F. Hair, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19, 2: 139--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Joseph F. Hair Jr, G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sajanee Halko and Julie A Kientz. 2010. Personality and Persuasive Technology: An Exploratory Study on Health-Promoting Mobile Applications. In Persuasive Technology, 150--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Margeret Hall, Simon Caton, and Christof Weinhardt. 2013. Well-Being's Predictive Value: A Gamified Approach to Managing Smart Communities. In OCSC 2013: International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto. 2015. "Working out for likes": An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior 50: 333--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Tuomas Pakkanen. 2014. Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? - A Review of Empirical Studies. In PERSUASIVE 2014: International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 118--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025--3034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa. 2009. Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 24, 1. Retrieved September 8, 2017 from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol24/iss1/28Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Jacob B Hirsh, Sonia K Kang, and Galen V Bodenhausen. 2012. Personalized persuasion: tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients' personality traits. Psychological Science 23, 6: 578--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Astrid Jander, Rik Crutzen, Liesbeth Mercken, Math Candel, and Hein de Vries. 2016. Effects of a WebBased Computer-Tailored Game to Reduce Binge Drinking Among Dutch Adolescents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 18, 2: e29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Astrid Jander, Rik Crutzen, Liesbeth Mercken, and Hein De Vries. 2014. A Web-based computer-tailored game to reduce binge drinking among 16 to 18 year old Dutch adolescents: development and study protocol. BMC Public Health 14: 1054.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. J B Jemmott, 3rd, L S Jemmott, and G T Fong. 1992. Reductions in HIV risk-associated sexual behaviors among black male adolescents: effects of an AIDS prevention intervention. American Journal of Public Health 82, 3: 372--377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Yuan Jia, Bin Xu, Yamini Karanam, and Stephen Voida. 2016. Personality-targeted Gamification: A Survey Study on Personality Traits and Motivational Affordances. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Daniel Johnson, Sebastian Deterding, Kerri-Ann Kuhn, Aleksandra Staneva, Stoyan Stoyanov, and Leanne Hides. 2016. Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions 6: 89--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Henry F. Kaiser. 1970. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35, 4: 401--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Maurits Kaptein, Boris De Ruyter, Panos Markopoulos, and Emile Aarts. 2012. Adaptive Persuasive Systems: A Study of Tailored Persuasive Text Messages to Reduce Snacking. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 2, 2: 1-- 25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Rilla Khaled, Ronald Fischer, James Noble, and Robert Biddle. 2008. A qualitative study of culture and persuasion in a smoking cessation game. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being, 224-- 236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Emil Kupek. 2006. Beyond logistic regression: structural equations modelling for binary variables and its application to investigating unobserved confounders. BMC Medical Research Methodology 6, 1: 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Itaru Kuramoto, Takuya Ishibashi, Keiko Yamamoto, and Yoshihiro Tsujino. 2013. Stand Up, Heroes!: Gamification for Standing People on Crowded Public Transportation. In DUXU 2013: International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability, 538--547. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Tuomas Lehto and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2011. Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13, 3: e46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Corrie Lelie. 2005. The value of storyboards in the product design process. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 10, 2--3: 159--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham. 1994. Goalsetting Theory. In Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership, John B. Miner (ed.). Routledge, New York, NY, 159--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham (eds.). 2013. New developments in goal setting and task performance. Routledge, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Geke D. S. Ludden, Saskia M. Kelders, and Bas H. J. Snippert. 2014. "This Is Your Life!": The Design of a Positive Psychology Intervention Using Metaphor to Motivate. In PERSUASIVE 2014: International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 179--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44, 1: 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Elke Mattheiss, Marc Busch, Rita Orji, Gustavo F. Tondello, Andrzej Marczewski, Wolfgang Hochleitner, Michael Lankes, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. UMAP 2017 Fifty Shades of Personalization - Workshop on Personalization in Serious and Persuasive Games and Gameful Interactions: Organizers ' Welcome. In Proceedings of UMAP'17 Adjunct, 395--397. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Jo Mitchell, Kellie Vella, Daniel Johnson, Nicole Peever, Vanessa Wan Sze Cheng, Tracey Davenport, Jane Burns, Ian Hickie, Anne Kyle, Brent Hedley, and Brett Johnson. 2017. MindMax: Using Videogames and Sport to Engage Young Men and Improve Wellbeing. In 2nd Symposium Computing and Mental Health. Retrieved from http://mentalhealth.media.mit.edu/wp-content/ uploads/sites/46/2017/05/CMH_2017_paper_16.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Baptiste Monterrat, Élise Lavoué, and Sébastien George. 2015. Toward an Adaptive Gamification System for Learning Environments. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 115-- 129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Vandana Naik and Venkatesh Kamat. 2015. Adaptive and Gamified Learning Environment (AGLE). In 2015 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E), 7--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa. 2009. Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 24, 1: 28. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol24/iss1/28Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Rita Orji. 2014. Design for Behaviour Change: A Model-driven Approach for Tailoring Persuasive Technologies. University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10388/ETD-2014-06--1555Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Rita Orji, Regan L. Mandryk, and Julita Vassileva. 2017. Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 24, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Rita Orji, Regan L. Mandryk, Julita Vassileva, and Kathrin M. Gerling. 2013. Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '13, 2467--2476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Rita Orji and Karyn Moffatt. 2016. Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Informatics Journal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Rita Orji, Lennart E. Nacke, and Chrysanne DiMarco. 2017. Towards Personality-driven Persuasive Health Games and Gamified Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1015--1027. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Rita Orji, Julita Vassileva, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2014. Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 24, 5: 453--498. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ranilson Paiva, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, Thyago Tenório, Patricia Jaques, and Seiji Isotani. 2016. What do students do on-line? Modeling students' interactions to improve their learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior 64: 769--781. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Amon Rapp. 2017. From Games to Gamification: A Classification of Rewards in World of Warcraft for the Design of Gamified Systems. Simulation & Gaming 48, 3: 381--401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Ganit Richter, Daphne R. Raban, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. 2015. Studying Gamification: The Effect of Rewards and Incentives on Motivation. In Gamification in Education and Business, Torsten Reiners and Lincoln C. Wood (eds.). Springer, Cham, 21--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Christian M. Ringle, S. Wende, and J. Becker. SmartPLS: Next Generation Path Modeling. Retrieved September 9, 2017 from https://www.smartpls.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Silvia Riva, Anne-Linda Camerini, Ahmed Allam, and Peter J Schulz. 2014. Interactive sections of an Internet-based intervention increase empowerment of chronic back pain patients: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16, 8: e180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Selfdetermination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist 55, 1: 68--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Steven P Schinke, Traci M Schwinn, and Alfred J Ozanian. 2005. Alcohol abuse prevention among highrisk youth: computer-based intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 29, 1--2: 117--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Katie Seaborn and Deborah I. Fels. 2014. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74: 14--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. B. F Skinner. 1953. Science And Human Behavior. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Frank Spillers and Stavros Asimakopoulos. 2014. Does Social User Experience Improve Motivation for Runners? In DUXU 2014: International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability, 358--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. S. Shyam Sundar and Sampada S. Marathe. 2010. Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage. Human Communication Research 36, 3: 298--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Ana Carolina Tomé Klock, Lucas Felipe da Cunha, Mayco Farias de Carvalho, Brayan Eduardo Rosa, Andressa Jaqueline Anton, and Isabela Gasparini. 2015. Gamification in e-Learning Systems: A Conceptual Model to Engage Students and Its Application in an Adaptive e-Learning System. In International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies, 595--607.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2017. Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY '17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Gustavo F. Tondello, Rita Orji, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2017. Recommender Systems for Personalized Gamification. In Proceedings of UMAP'17 Adjunct. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Gustavo F. Tondello, Rina R. Wehbe, Lisa Diamond, Marc Busch, Andrzej Marczewski, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016. The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY '16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Khai N Truong, Gillian R Hayes, and Gregory D Abowd. 2006. Storyboarding: An Empirical Determination of Best Practices and Effective Guidelines. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06), 12--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Julita Vassileva. 2012. Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1--2: 177--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Oren Zuckerman and Ayelet Gal-Oz. 2014. Deconstructing gamification: evaluating the effectiveness of continuous measurement, virtual rewards, and social comparison for promoting physical activity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 7: 1705--1719. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2018
        8489 pages
        ISBN:9781450356206
        DOI:10.1145/3173574

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 April 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader