پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,502 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,118,368 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,224,395 |
شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی پیشایندهای شخصیتی و جمعیت‌شناختی پذیرش سازوکارهای بازی‌گونگی، به‌منظور افزایش تعامل در باشگاه مشتریان بانکی (نمونه پژوهش: بانک حکمت ایرانیان) | ||
| مدیریت بازرگانی | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 2، 1399، صفحه 477-501 اصل مقاله (1.3 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jibm.2019.282060.3513 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمد فتحیان بروجنی* 1؛ الناز نصیرزاده2 | ||
| 1استاد، گروه مهندسی سیستم و تجارت الکترونیکی، دانشکده مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مهندسی سیستم و تجارت الکترونیکی، دانشکده مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: بازی‌گونگی به مفهوم استفاده از مؤلفه‌های انگیزشی بازی و روش‌های طراحی بازی در زمینه‌های غیربازی، توجه بسیاری از پژوهشگران را به خود جلب کرده است. با توجه به جدید بودن این مفهوم و پژوهش‌های کمّی که در این حوزه نوپا، به‌ویژه در صنعت بانکداری وجود دارد، هدف این پژوهش بررسی تأثیر مؤلفه‌های انگیزشی بازی‌گونگی بر میزان تعامل مشتریان در باشگاه مشتریان صنعت بانکداری (بانک حکمت ایرانیان) با مشاهده ویژگی‌های شخصیتی و جمعیت‌شناختی است. روش: پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی و از لحاظ روش اجرا در دسته پژوهش‌های توصیفی ـ پیمایشی قرار می‌گیرد. به‌منظور جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، پرسش‌نامه 32پرسشی تدوین شده است که در نهایت با روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای 384 پاسخ جمع‌آوری شدند. یافته‌ها: بر اساس ترجیحات گزارششده توسط مشتریان مشخص می‌شود که هر یک از اعضای باشگاه مشتریان با ویژگی‌های جمعیت‌شناختی و شخصیتی با چه نوع مؤلفه‌های انگیزشی بازی‌گونگی جذب و سرگرم می‌شوند و در ازای فعالیت‌های خود، انتظار دریافت چه پاداش‌هایی دارند. نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به یافته‌های پژوهش، برای طراحان سامانه‌های بازی‌گونگی، مجموعه راهکارها و رهنمودهایی ارائه شده است تا به‌کمک آن بتوانند ضمن شناسایی ویژگی‌های مشتریان بانکی به شخصی‌سازی مؤلفه‌های انگیزشی و در نهایت تأمین رضایت آنها از عضویت و فعالیت در باشگاه مشتریان بپردازند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بازی‌گونگی؛ مؤلفه‌های انگیزشی بازی؛ باشگاه مشتریان؛ شخصی‌سازی؛ بانک حکمت ایرانیان | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Identifying and Prioritizing Personality and Demographic Priorities in the Acceptance of Gamification Mechanisms in Order to Increase the Interactions in the Banking Loyalty Club (Case Study: Hekmat Iranian Bank) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Fathian1؛ Elnaz Nasirzadeh2 | ||
| 1Prof., Department of System Engineering and Electronic Commerce, School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Ph.D Candida, Department of System Engineering and Electronic Commerce, School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective The main issue in this study is to investigate the effect of different characteristics of individuals including demographic characteristics and personality traits on the motivational components of gamification design in loyalty club within banking industry. Innovation and the scientific contribution of the present study to gamification systems in the field of banking can be evaluated from two perspectives: determining how the customers with different demographic and personality traits are attracted by the motivational components of gamificatin by conducting a research, and what kind of reward do they expect to receive? This shows the importance of personalizing gamfication-based systems to increase customers’ satisfaction and loyalty. Moreover, based on the results, designing strategies and guidelines for gamification-based systems are provided so that designers can develop appropriate strategies to improve interaction with people. Identifying and applying different demographic and personality traits can increase motivation to participate in customer club activities. Methodology The present applied research is descriptive-survey in terms of data collection method. In this study, using mixed method approach through interviews with experts and specialists and using questionnaires, the effective components in personalizing gamification were determined and localized in order to biuld efficient interaction with bank customers. In the initial interview phase, 15 experts from related fields, 3 bank deputies, 3 bank managers, 5 faculty members of the Higher Education Institute of Banking and the Central Bank Monetary and Banking Research Institute, 2 banking experts and 2 from Specialists in the field of gamification were selected. It is worth mentioning that Hekmat Iranian Bank was selected as the study case for the present study. To calculate the scores of the five personality types, the standard ten-question version of the BFI questionnaire was used, in which two questions were assigned to identify each attribute, one considering the pros and one the cons of the personality type. It should also be noted that all the analyses and calculations were performed using SPSS v.23. Findings There is a significantly positive relationship between age and participation in the lottery, and the results of this study showed that older people are more likely to participate in the lottery. In contrast, such people are not interested in receiving cash. Older people tend to receive large money in a lottery at once, rather than earning cash steadily. It is also noteworthy that there is no significant difference between men and women accordingly. But in the case of "discounts on the purchase from chain store products" and "discounts on the use of leisure and tourism services", women are reported to be more likely to seek such rewards and the difference is statistically significant. Men, on the other hand, have higher scores in "benefiting from the priority of using banking services", which is why men are often interested in using banking facilities but women mainly welcome discounts and auctions. There is a significantly positive relationship between being an extrovert and the reward of "benefiting from the priority of using banking services". On the other hand, it has a relatively positive relationship with the “discounts of chain stores and recreational and tourism discounts”. It is worth noting that the extroverts in this study did not show any intention to participate in the lottery. In contrast, being compatible is significantly attributed to the lottery bonus. There is a significantly poisitive relationship between being conscientious and "discount on the purchase of chain store products" and there is a relatively positive relationship between being conscientious and the "discount on the use of recreational and tourism services". Interestingly, being psychoanalytic has a negative relationship with all the items except lottery and the use of the priority of using the bank services. It should be noted that most of the coefficients of this personality trait are at the moderate level. Conclusion Extroverts are more likely to prefer the motivational components of luck, privilege, and awareness. The results of this study show that people who are compatible are motivated by the motivational component of luck and lottery. On the other hand, due to their tendency to cooperate and being altruistic with others, there was a negative relationship between participants with a compatible personality type and the motivating component of social interaction and communication. Regarding people with conscientious personality trait, motivational components of the badge and ranking table will motivate them, which can be considered as a result of the sense of responsibility and conscientiousness to perform the assigned tasks and receive job completion marks. The results also show that people with psychotropic personality trait have a relatively strong relationship with various motivational components such as epic concepts, feedback, countdown and awareness. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no correlation between these motivational components and personality traits and these connections are mainly due to the small number of people with this personality type in this study. It should be noted that people with low mental health and high emotional stability have "emotional maturity, self-confidence and stability in their plans and emotions" and most people introduce themselves as a person with high emotional stability in the community because of their desire to show off. Respondents with a high level of imagination and experience were more interested in the motivational components of virtual rewards and competitions due to their sense of invention and curiosity. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Gamification, Game mechanism, Loyalty club, Personalization, Hekmat Iranian Bank | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
احمدیان، اعظم (1393). ارزیابی پویایی صنعت بانکداری ایران با تأکید بر رقابت‌پذیری. پژوهشکده پولی و بانکی بانک مرکزی ایران. یادداشت سیاسی 93013. ایزدی، حمید؛ بحرینی‌زاد، منیژه؛ اسماعیل‌پور، مجید (1398). بخشبندی مصرف‌کنندگان در شبکه‌های اجتماعی بر اساس انگیزه‌های اجتماعی مشارکت در ارتباطات دهان به دهان الکترونیک. مدیریت بازرگانی، 11(1)، 201-218. بحری نژاد، ریحانه؛ خانلری، امیر؛ حسنقلی پور یاسوری، طهمورث؛ حسینی، سید محمود (1397). شناسایی مهم‌ترین فرایندهای بازاریابی در صنعت بانکداری ایران به‌منظور توسعه مدل بلوغ بازاریابی بانکی. مدیریت بازرگانی، 10(4)، 795-814. جندقی، غلامرضا؛ سیف، یاسر؛ شجاعی، یاسر؛ (1397). بازاریابی مستقیم با استفاده از خوشه‌بندی فازی مشتریان (مطالعه موردی: یکی از شرکت‌های تلفن همراه). مدیریت بازرگانی، 10(4)، 855- 870. حکیمی، هاجر؛ دیواندری، علی؛ کیماسی، مسعود؛ حقیقی کفاش، مهدی (1398). ارائه مدل شکل‌گیری تجربه مشتریان بانکداری خرد از طریق عوامل تحت مدیریت سازمان با رویکرد مدل‌سازی ساختاری تفسیری. مدیریت بازرگانی، 11(3)، 565-584.
References Ahmadian, A. (2014). Assessment of the dynamics of Iran’s banking industry with an emphasis on competitiveness. Tehran, Monetary and Banking Research Institute of the Central Bank of Iran. (in Persian) Bahrinejad, R., Khanlari, A., Hasangholipor, T, Hosseini, S. M. (2018). Identifying the most important marketing processes in Iran banking industry to develop a banking marketing maturity model. Business Management, 10(4), 795-814. (in Persian) Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of mobile banking services. Internet Research, 27(2), 118-139. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research, 1(1), 19-46. Burke, B. (2011). Gamification Primer: Life becomes a game. Gartner Inc. Busch, M., Mattheiss, E. E., Hochleitner, W., Hochleitner, C., Lankes, M., Fröhlich, P., Orji, R., Tscheligi, M. (2016). Using player type models for personalized game design-An empirical investigation. IxD&A, 28, 145-163. Busch, M., Mattheiss, E., Orji, R., Marczewski, A., Hochleitner, W., Lankes, M., …. Tscheligi, M. (2015). Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Chou, Y.K. (2013). Octalysis: Complete gamification framework. Yu-Kai Chou & Gamification. Available in: https://yukaichou.com/. Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247-253. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. Dixon, D. (2011). Player types and gamification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamification. Ferro, L. S., Walz, S. P., & Greuter, S. (2013). Towards personalised, gamified systems: an investigation into game design, personality and player typologies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment. 30 September, Melbourne, Australia. Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., & Wyeth, P. (2011). Orientation passport: using gamification to engage university students. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer-human interaction conference. 28 November, Canberra, Australia. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games: CRC press. Gilpin, A. R. (1993). Table for conversion of Kendall's Tau to Spearman's Rho within the context of measures of magnitude of effect for meta-analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 53(1), 87-92. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist, 48(1), 26-34. Hakimi, H., Divandari, A., Keimasi, M., Haghighi kaffash, M. (2019). Development of retail banking customer experience creation model from manageable factors by organization using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). Business Management, 11(3), 565-584. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12(4), 236–245. Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association (ToDIGRA), 1(2), 29-53. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Paper presented at the 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). 6 January, Hawaii, USA. Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology: Cengage Learning. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference. Izadi, H., Behreynizad, M., Esmaeilpour, M. (2019). Segmentation of consumers in social networks based on social engagement participation in oral-to-mouth communication. Business Management, 10(4), 855-870.(in Persian) Jandaghi, G., Seif, Y., Shojaei, Y. (2018). Direct marketing using custom fuzzy clustering. Business Management, 10(4), 855-870.(in Persian) Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y., & Voida, S. (2016). Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education: John Wiley & Sons. Kaptein, M., Lacroix, J., & Saini, P. (2010). Individual differences in persuadability in the health promotion domain. Paper presented at the International Conference on Persuasive Technology. Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017). Toward meaningful engagement: A framework for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS quarterly, 41(4). Marczewski, A. (2015). Even ninja monkeys like to play: Gamification, game thinking & motivational design: Gamified UK. Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Werder, K., & Abe, J. (2017). How to gamify? A method for designing gamification. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, January 4-7, 2017. Orji, R. (2014). Design for behaviour change: a model-driven approach for tailoring persuasive technologies. University of Saskatchewan. Orji, R., Mandryk, R. L., Vassileva, J., & Gerling, K. M. (2013). Tailoring persuasive health games to gamer type. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Orji, R., Nacke, L. E., & Di Marco, C. (2017). Towards personality-driven persuasive health games and gamified systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(3), 598-609. Pavlenko, V., Chernyi, S., & Goubkina, D. (2009). EEG correlates of anxiety and emotional stability in adult healthy subjects. Neurophysiology, 41(5), 337-345. Pettey, C., & van der Meulen, R. (2012). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives. Gartner: USA. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. Rodrigues, L.F., Costa, C.J., Oliveira, A. (2016). Gamification: A framework for designing software in e-banking, Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 620-634. Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in human behavior, 25(2), 578-586. Technavio. (2015). Global Gamification Market 2015-2019. from https://www.technavio.com Tondello, G. F., Mora, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2017). Elements of gameful design emerging from user preferences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Tondello, G. F., Wehbe, R. R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2016). The gamification user types hexad scale. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Tseng, F.-C. (2011). Segmenting online gamers by motivation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7693-7697. Whang, L. S.-M., & Chang, G. (2004). Lifestyles of virtual world residents: Living in the on-line game "Lineage". CyberPsychology & behavior, 7(5), 592-600. Yee, N. (2015). Gamer motivation model overview and descriptions. Online: http://quanticfoundry. com/2015/12/15/handy-reference. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,218 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 766 |
||