Perfectionism in Games - Analyzing Playing
Behaviors in an Educational Game
Greta Hoffmann
Institute of Information & Market Institute of Information & Market
Engineering (IISM) Engineering (IISM)
Karlsruhe Institute for Technology Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
Karlsruhe (KIT)
Germany
greta.hoffmann@kit.edu uuddl@student.kit.edu
Abstract — Perfectionism, if it is not pathological, can evoke
desirable playing behaviors for games and applications that aim
for high performance in their target audience. In a field trial of
an educational game about waste sorting that accumulated over
1600 players, we analyzed a cluster of players that achieved
perfect scores in terms of performance, effort and long-term
commitment. During the analysis a complementary player type
cluster emerged, that while seemingly not showing interest in the
score at all, showed higher long-term commitment. The findings
of our study suggest that perfectionism is a personality trait that
can be fostered with specific gamification-design elements
within a certain percentage of a user-base in order to optimize
user interaction with a platform, application or interface.
Keywords—Gamification, Games User Research, Educational
Games
I. INTRODUCTION
Since its introduction in 2002 [1] gamification as well as
serious games have shown great results as motivational
support tools for learning, behavioral change and
participation in fields of health, education and economics
[2]–[6]. One of the fields still lacking in services that
incentivize intrinsic, long-term participation is the topic of
domestic waste sorting. In its plan to raise EU-wide recycling
to 55% and decrease landfill use to 10% by 2025, the
European Union acknowledges the importance of waste
sorting in this process. However, many recycling and waste
sorting facilities are not yet able to reach their maximum
efficiency without pre-sorting measures, a problem that has
been tackled in countries like Germany, Austria and
Switzerland by making domestic pre-sorting a citizen’s
responsibility [7]. Achieving the necessary behavioral change
as well as providing an incentive to do so will be expensive
and unlikely to happen without fostering intrinsic motivation
[8] as well as teaching necessary information to citizens.
In an attempt to achieve both, we developed a serious
game that we tested in a field trial. We focused the design of
our core game mechanics on gameplay elements that support
training of declarative as well as procedural knowledge [9]
by incentivizing repetition as well as long exposure to the
content. We further targeted long-term commitment for
deeper involvement with the topic with explorative design
elements that include a storyline as well as side-quests
running parallel to the main gameplay (however, research on
long-term commitment is not part of this study).
With the aim to teach the correct waste-bin for 250
different waste items, we focused on design elements that are
meant to incentivize high/highest performances in the target
audience. Looking at studies where perfect or optimized play
was targeted, a consistent number of players emerged that
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Sonora. Downloaded on February 08,2024 at 21:51:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
978-1-7281-4540-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Raphael Martin Christof Weinhardt
Institute of Information & Market
Engineering (IISM)
Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
Karlsruhe (KIT) Karlsruhe (KIT)
Germany Germany
christof.weinhardt@kit.edu
would respond to the setup. Comparing our results to similar
studies, we found a consistent but smaller number of players
that were incentivized to aim for perfectionism (7% in
comparison to ~10-20% depending on the study). In the
course of the analysis we identified another corresponding
behavior pattern we named “rushers” (players that do not
correspond to any score optimizing game design elements).
Looking at performance, Perfectionists exceeded the Rushers
significantly. However, more Rushers continued to play the
game to the end. We derive from this data that the Rusher
group focuses on seeing more of the games content instead of
aiming its efforts on a high score. These insights lead us to
believe that there might be benefits in further reinforcing
affordances for both types of players.
With our study we hope to enrichen game-design as well
as gamification research by looking at emerging player
behaviors as a result of implementing specific design
elements targeting optimal result-oriented playing behavior.
II. LITERATURE
When designing the research artefact, in order to better
anticipate our target audience, we conducted an explorative
literature review on the topic of player types and playing
incentives. Our research yielded a large amount and a broad
variance of different types of playing incentives and
clustering suggestions [10], [11]. We found that many papers
that look at playing incentives originate from a player type
analysis approach. Since Bartle proposed his four player
types in 1996 [12], personality-related playing incentives
have dominated the research field [13]–[15]. Other
approaches derive playing incentives based on studies around
certain games [16], [17]. In the course of our research we
found that the most popular design elements seemed to
revolve around the themes of achievement, exploration and
social interaction. However, in the different definitions of the
Achiever-playertype and their corresponding incentives, we
did not find a type representing all the tropes we were looking
for. While an Achiever plays to collect, earn and achieve
points, badges and other rewards, a Perfectionist plays to
create states of perfection and/or completion [18], [19].
Since this was the type of play we aimed to incentivize,
we further extended our review towards studies looking at
perfectionistic traits in their target audiences. We used the
following search terms (perfectionis* OR idealism OR
compul* OR obsess* OR "perfect score" OR personality OR
"player type") AND ("design element" OR "game element"
OR "design mechanic" OR "game mechanic" OR "design
pattern" OR "game pattern" OR affordance OR "grading
system" OR "academic grading") looking on the following
platforms: ACM, IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, Web
of Science and Google Scholar. With a total of 1.198
examined titles (Title, Keywords & Abstract) we narrowed
the search down to 48 potential results. In the following we
will shortly elaborate on the three publications provided the
most relevant insights for our research.
The first key paper “Game Mechanics Used for Achieving
Better Results of Massive Online Courses” [20] consists of
three experiments with two of them investigating the effects
of perfectionism based on the participants performance in an
online course (n=11.319, n=417 finishing all exercises). The
course was designed allowing for penalty-free repetition to
reach a high or best score. The participants were clustered
with 13%, of the participants inherent of the idealist group.
When testing for studiousness of the participants the study
showed that participants, which finished an exercise with a
perfect score, did spend more time on the exercise, showed
more effort in looking for additional materials, as well as
more repeated attempts in order to achieve a better score.
In the second key paper “Gamification - using elements
of video games to improve engagement in an undergraduate
physics class” [21], different effects of game design elements
on student are measured in an online quiz with an a/b test.
The possibility to repeat penalty-free was implemented for
both groups. The results of the paper showed, that there was
a significantly higher number of participants in the research
group that repeated until they reached a perfect score,
demonstrating that the gamified version of the quiz improved
the participants’ dedication to accomplish a score of 100%.
The third key paper “To Three or not to Three: Improving
Human Computation Game Onboarding with a Three-Star
System” [22] analyzes the effects of a three-star reward
system implemented into the serious game Foldit [23]. The
experiment compared player behavior in three different
versions of the game: NO-STAR (basic game without three-
star system), 3-STAR (star rewards according to their number
of moves) and 3-STAR-R (star rewards according to their
number of moves including a forced reset after a specific
number of moves).
Significant differences were observed in the amounts of
extra moves (number of moves above the perfect value) and
time per move between the NO-STAR and the 3-STAR
version. In total, the three-star mechanism doubled the
amount of recompleted levels (Gaston & Cooper, 2017, p.
5037).
III. METHOD/CONDUCT
With the two main goals of the game, to effectively teach
waste sorting as well as foster long-term commitment to sort
at home, we translated all gathered insights of the
aforementioned literature review into in-game mechanics.
In order to ensure easy access, especially for young
participants, we designed an application for mobile devices,
developed for the three big platforms (Android, iOS,
Windows). For the core gameplay we chose a format that
underlies many currently successful game-applications – a
wave (or level)-based gameplay that doesn’t exceed playing
times longer than a few minutes.
According to gamification research, strong incentives for
continuous play (in a single player game) are mechanics that
afford for immediate feedback, a sense of growth and
accomplishment as well as curiosity and discovery [24]–[26].
Based on this, we divided the gameplay into two stages: 1.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Sonora. Downloaded on February 08,2024 at 21:51:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the core gameplay, where the players are tasked to sort a
certain number of incoming waste-items and 2. the game
world where after each level the players can solve quests and
play minigames.
In the core gameplay, a number of the waste items
(starting with 20 at the beginning of the game and ending with
35 items in the last waves) come in on a conveyer belt on the
right side of the screen and have to be dragged and dropped
onto the correct bin before they drop off the other side (in the
first waves the movement of one item from right to left is 15
seconds. A new item spawns every 4 seconds. Both spawn
speed and item movement speed increase by 1.2% per wave.
These parameters were chosen and tested beforehand to
afford for game-flow). To ensure training effectiveness, each
wave the educational material (waste items) are divided into
sets of new items and already learned ones. At the end of a
wave the players are shown the results of their sorting efforts
and are given the choice to repeat the wave without negative
consequences. We refer to this mechanic as the “repeat
option” in the course of this publication. If the wave is
finished perfectly, the player is rewarded with a “perfect!”-
stamp as well as a gratifying sound effect. In this case no
repeat option is offered, and the player moves straight on to
the next level. These elements were designed to encourage
repetition in case of non-perfection in order to raise the
mnemonical depth as well as ensuring the quality of the
memorized information. According to the elaborated
literature, we expect a certain number of players to be
effectively incentivized to aim for optimal play by the design
element of explicitly rewarding perfection (remunerated with
the animation of a perfect stamp as well as a gratifying piece
of music) made possible by the option of repetition without
negative repercussion.
To prevent a premature loss of interest due to potential
repetitiveness of the gameplay we added a game world (stage
2) with immersive, explorative design elements (a story, side-
quests, unlockable areas and minigames set to teach further
waste management related topics like garden-waste, glass- &
paper-recycling) that can be accessed after completing each
wave. Benefiting the story, the core gameplay is slightly
altered at some points of the game (we designed “special
waves” where e. g. the players have to play with a limited
amount of light due to a power outage). (Gameplay example:
http://tinyurl.com/appdx1)
To evaluate the success of our design decisions in terms
of our research goals - to incentivize perfect and prolonged
play - we published the game as a field trial. Beforehand, we
conducted a preliminary study (referred to as pretest in the
following publication), gathering 139 identifiable players and
118 sets of uncorrupted data over a time period of three
months. After fixing some design issues (visual work-overs,
adjusting the number of items per wave to grow instead of
staying the same number over all waves and reworking the
tutorial) we then launched the field trial that over a period of
six months received 799 downloads of which 743 data-sets
could be used in the analysis. Using Unity Analytics, we first
identified unique players by IDs and filtered out incomplete
or inconsistent data-sets, then we analyzed triggered events,
specifically wave repetition and performance per wave per
ID. The first 5 waves of the game were discounted as test
rounds as being part of the tutorial of the game. Players who
quit during this time have not been included in the analysis.
For the purposes of identifying and isolating playstyles we well as the Rushers were slightly higher in the field test
defined that players fall under the group of “Perfectionists” if compared to the pretest. In terms of long-term commitment -
their performance was 100% in more than 80% of the waves how long the players continued to interact with the game -
they played before quitting or finishing the game (we allowed more players in the Rusher group played the game from
for a 20% latitude due to the special waves mentioned earlier beginning to end (in absolute numbers). However, relatively
in this paper as well as an observable end-game effect [27]. speaking, we find more completionists within the
While looking deeper into the playing behavior of the perfectionistic behavior pattern (see table1).
Perfectionists (eye-balling the plots that compare score and
As suggested by literature, the game managed to incentivize
number of repetitions per wave per player (see:
a certain number of players to optimize their playing
http://tinyurl.com/appdx2& http://tinyurl.com/appdx3R) a
behavior. Even though the group of Perfectionists lacks in
second group of player type emerged, displaying the opposite
terms of quantity compared to the Rushers (consisting of only
playing behavior in regards to the repeat-option compared to
~5% to 7% of the total amount of players) it exceeds in terms
the Perfectionists (hereafter referred to as “Rushers”). We
of quality of performance (measured by looking at the
adapted our definition for the Perfectionists to afford for the
aggregated performance of the last repetition of each wave)
Rushers as follows: Players that have not used the repeat
as well as effort (measured by the aggregated number of
option in 80% or more of the waves they played. Here a 20%
repetitions per wave):
latitude was included affording for cases of unintentionally
hitting the repeat-button due to its suggestive design (see: TABLE II. COMPARISON OF PLAYING PERFORMANCE & EFFORT
http://tinyurl.com/appdx4).
In order to identify and analyze commitment in Perfectionists Rushers
relationship to playing behavior, we divided the players into average last repetitions average last repetitions
performance per wave performance per wave
groups according to exit peaks (waves after which a big group Pretest 99.9% 1.75 76.9% 1.43
of players left). With the 34 waves of the game the groups Field
99.0% 2.14 81.3% 1.74
were labelled “not interested” (left between wave 1-8), trial
“mildly interested” (left between wave 9-16), “interested” In a paired t-test the average last performance of the
(left between wave 17-26), “committed” (left between wave Perfectionists was significantly higher than that in the
27-34) and, as a subgroup of the “committed” group: Rushers in both the pretest (T = 3.83; p < .001) and the field
“completed” (finished the game: wave 34). A complete trial (T = -10.61; p < .001). The measured effort (repetitions
playthrough of the game takes an unexperienced player per wave) showed a significant difference between the groups
between 4-6 hours. in the field trial (T= -7.19; p < .001) but not in the pretest (T
IV. RESULTS/FINDINGS = 1.80; p = 0.085).

The findings of this study are based on the analysis of the V. DISCUSSION
aggregated, anonymized user data from a period of nine Considering that our study is a field trial, even though we
months (one batch of data from the pretest and one from the analized a considerably large set of data, the results can only
field trial). Of the total of 1660 downloads the game could be taken as indicators that should be isolated and tested in an
accumulate to the end of the trial, we received data of 1045 experimental setting in the laboratory to increase internal
players, of which 184 had to be discarded because of validation. Furthermore, since the transmission of our data
incomplete or inconsistent data-sets. The pretest accumulated depends on a reliable internet connection on the side of the
a total of 118 datasets and the field trial 743 players for the players, the actual percentages might vary (seeing that we lost
post-update version of the game. 179 data points from inconsistent data alone). While the
endgame effect we found in our plots is a researched
TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF PLAYING BEHAVIOR BY COMMITMENT
phenomenon in the field of economic science [27], there
Pretest (n=118) Field Trial (n=743) hasn’t been much research on the endgame effect in games.
Rushers: Perfection- Rushers: Perfection- This is something we want to look into more, because it isn’t
18 (15%) ists: 6 (5%) 142 (19%) ists: 55 (7%)
Exit-Groups clear if the adaptation can be made as linear as we did.
Not Looking at the percentages we were intrigued by the much
8 (44%) 2 (33%) 99 (70%) 31 (56%)
interested higher number of Rushers identified in the dataset in
Mildly comparison to the Perfectionists. An explanation might be
6 (33%) 2 (33%) 18 (13%) 11 (20%)
interested
Interested 3 (16%) 2 (17%) 14 (10%) 4 (7%) found by the suspected average age of the players (the game
Committed 1 (6%) 1 (17%) 11 (8%) 9 (16%) is designed to target children and youngsters). However,
(Completed) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (8%) 9 (16%) since the gathered data is anonymized (for reasons of data
privacy), the factor of age is one that should be tested for in
When analyzing the data-sets of the pretest, we found that
player behavior additional to personality traits.
a total of 5% of the players behaved according to the
Perfectionist pattern while 15% of the players could be VI. CONCLUSION / OUTLOOK
distinguished as Rushers. In the actual field trial both
numbers increased. Now 7% of the players could be With the aim of making a change in the domain of waste
identified as Perfectionists and 19% as Rushers. Even though sorting, it is most beneficial to the environment if players are
the pretest delivered a smaller set of data compared to the incentivized to aim for perfect performance. In our research
field trial, the same player behavior could be identified in we wanted to evaluate how effective our game design
both versions. The percentages of both the Perfectionists as decisions have been in terms of incentivizing perfect play.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Sonora. Downloaded on February 08,2024 at 21:51:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
While having managed to incentivize a consistent number of
players to aim for perfect play as well as long-term
commitment, the number of perfectionists we managed to
incentivize with the current gameplay did not meet our
expectations (compared to numbers from similar studies). In
the process we identified a secondary (larger) group that
seemed to be more incentivized to interact with the secondary
content of the game (explorative design elements like
minigames and side-quests all relating to the topic of waste
management). This group showed the opposite of the
intended behavior, not responding to our repetition
incentivizing design elements at all, however getting further
in the levels. After conducting some informal interviews with
playtesters that matched the perfectionist behavior, certain
statements indicated that the strive for perfection quickly
depleted the general motivation to follow through with the
whole game. The behavior appeared to be more compulsion
than motivation -based. We thus came to believe that aspects
of personality could be a strong influence on gameplay
behavior. With this indicator in mind it can be helpful for the
community to know that both behaviors might emerge in
similar proportions in similar kinds of games which would
allow for game designers of future learning-oriented serious
games to aim their nudges more precisely at the respective
player group. In a planned laboratorial experiment, we want
to try to quantify the role of personality in playing behavior.
Also, it is planned to compare the benefits of a breadth of
knowledge approach (seeing more of the games learning
content while not interacting with it in depth) to the depth of
knowledge approach we aimed for by measuring and
comparing the learning effect with an A/B test.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Werbach and D. Hunter, For the win : how game thinking can
revolutionize your business. Wharton, 2012.
[2] J. Hamari and J. Koivisto, “‘Working out for likes’: An empirical
study on social influence in exercise gamification,” Comput.
Human Behav., vol. 50, pp. 333–347, 2015.
[3] R. N. Landers and A. K. Landers, “An Empirical Test of the
Theory of Gamified Learning: The Effect of Leaderboards on
Time-on-Task and Academic Performance,” Simul. Gaming, vol.
45, no. 6, pp. 769–785, 2014.
[4] Y. Liu, T. Alexandrova, and T. Nakajima, “Gamifying intelligent
environments,” Ubi-MUI ’11 Proc. 2011 Int. ACM Work.
Ubiquitous meta user interfaces, no. June 2015, p. 7, 2011.
[5] P. Denny, “The effect of virtual achievements on student
engagement,” Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. -
CHI ’13, p. 763, 2013.
[6] G. Barata, S. Gama, J. Jorge, and D. Gonçalves, “Improving
participation and learning with gamification,” Proc. First Int.
Conf. Gameful Des. Res. Appl. - Gamification ’13, pp. 10–17,
2013.
[7] N. Buclet and O. Godard, Municipal Waste Management in
Europe : a Comparative Study in Building Regimes. Springer
Netherlands, 2000.
[8] E. L. Deci, R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan, “Extrinsic rewards and
intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again,” Rev.
Educ. Res., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2001.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Sonora. Downloaded on February 08,2024 at 21:51:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[9] J. R. (Carnegie M. U. Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and Its
Implications, 8th ed., vol. 53, no. 9. Worth Publishers, 2015.
[10] N. Yee, “PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
15, 309-329.,” Online, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 309–329, 2006.
[11] J. Tuunanen and J. Hamari, “Meta-synthesis of player
typologies,” Proc. Nord. Digra 2012 Conf. Local Glob. - Games
Cult. Soc., 2012.
[12] R. Bartle, “Richard A. Bartle: Players Who Suit MUDs,” MUSE
web site, April, 1996.
[13] K. P. Kallio, F. Mayra, and K. Kaipainen, “At Least Nine Ways
to Play: Approaching Gamer Mentalities,” Games Cult., vol. 6,
no. 4, pp. 327–353, 2011.
[14] P. Zackariasson, N. Wåhlin, and T. L. Wilson, “Virtual Identities
and Market Segmentation in Marketing in and Through
Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs),” Serv. Mark.
Q., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 275–295, 2010.
[15] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From game
design elements to gamefulness,” Proc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek
Conf. Envisioning Futur. Media Environ. - MindTrek ’11, pp. 9–
11, 2011.
[16] J. Jansz and M. Tanis, “Appeal of playing online First Person
Shooter Games.,” Cyberpsychol. Behav., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 133–
136, 2007.
[17] D. Williams, N. Ducheneaut, N. Yee, and E. Nickell, “The Social
Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft,” Games Cult., vol. 1, no. 4,
pp. 338–361, 2006.
[18] R. O. Frost, P. Marten, C. Lahart, and R. Rosenblate, “The
dimensions of perfectionism,” Cognit. Ther. Res., vol. 14, no. 5,
pp. 449–468, Oct. 1990.
[19] K. L. Bevins and C. D. Howard, “What we know about
gamification so far,” vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 58–84, 2018.
[20] L. S. Lisitsyna, A. A. Pershin, and M. A. Kazakov, “Game
Mechanics Used for Achieving Better Results of Massive Online
Courses,” Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 183–192.
[21] J. A. Rose, J. M. O’Meara, T. C. Gerhardt, and M. Williams,
“Gamification: using elements of video games to improve
engagement in an undergraduate physics class,” Phys. Educ., vol.
51, no. 5, p. 055007, Sep. 2016.
[22] J. Gaston and S. Cooper, “To Three or not to Three: Improving
Human Computation Game Onboarding with a Three-Star
System,” Proc. 2017 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. -
CHI ’17, pp. 5034–5039, 2017.
[23] “Foldit.” University of Washington Departments of Computer
Science & Engineering and Biochemistry, 2008.
[24] E. D. Mekler, F. Brühlmann, K. Opwis, and A. N. Tuch, “Do
points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?,” Proc.
First Int. Conf. Gameful Des. Res. Appl. - Gamification ’13, pp.
66–73, 2013.
[25] J. Hamari, “Computers in Human Behavior Do badges increase
user activity ? A field experiment on the effects of gamification,”
Comput. Human Behav., pp. 1–10, 2015.
[26] S. Deterding, “Gamification: designing for motivation,”
Interactions, vol. 19, pp. 14–17, 2012.
[27] R. Selten and R. Stoecker, “End behavior in sequences of finite
Prisoner’s Dilemma supergames A learning theory approach,” J.
Econ. Behav. Organ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 47–70, 1986.