ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 22 July 2020

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01307

Motivational Profiling of League of

Legends Players
Florian Brühlmann 1*, Philipp Baumgartner 1 , Günter Wallner 2,3,4 , Simone Kriglstein 5,6 and
Elisa D. Mekler 7
1
Human-Computer Interaction Research Group, Department of Psychology, Center for General Psychology and
Methodology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland, 2 Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology,
Eindhoven, Netherlands, 3 Faculty of Business and IT, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada, 4 Institute of Art and
Technology, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 5 AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna, Austria,
6
Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 7 Department of Computer Science, Aalto University,
Espoo, Finland

Player motivation is a key research area within games research, with the aim of
understanding how the motivation of players is related to their experience and
behavior in the game. We present the results of a cross-sectional study with data
from 750 players of League of Legends, a popular Multiplayer Online Battle Arena
game. Based on the motivational regulations posited by Self-Determination Theory
and Latent Profile Analysis, we identify four distinct motivational profiles, which differ
with regards to player experience and, to a lesser extent, in-game behavior. While
the more self-determined profiles “Intrinsic” and “Autonomous” report mainly positive
experience-related outcomes, a considerable part of the player base does not. Players of
Edited by:
the “Amotivated” and “External” profile derive less enjoyment, experience more negative
Z. O. Toups,
New Mexico State University, affect and tension, and score lower on vitality, indicating game engagement that is
United States potentially detrimental to players’ well-being. With regards to game metrics, minor
Reviewed by: differences in the rate of assists in unranked matches and performance indicators were
Magy Seif El-Nasr,
Northeastern University, United States
observed between profiles. This strengthens the notion that differences in experiences
Yubo Kou, are not necessarily reflected in differences in behavioral game metrics. Our findings
Pennsylvania State University (PSU),
provide insights into the interplay of player motivation, experience, and in-game behavior,
United States
contributing to a more nuanced understanding of player-computer interaction.
*Correspondence:
Florian Brühlmann Keywords: motivation, MOBA, game analytics, self-determination theory, latent profile analysis
[email protected]

Specialty section: 1. INTRODUCTION

This article was submitted to
Human-Media Interaction, For many people, playing games is one of the most rewarding and motivating activities. In turn,
a section of the journal
people’s motivation for playing games shapes their player experience and in-game behavior (e.g.,
Frontiers in Psychology
Yee et al., 2012; Canossa et al., 2013; Schaekermann et al., 2017; Melhart et al., 2019), as well
Received: 30 January 2020 as their well-being (Przybylski et al., 2009; Vella et al., 2013; Perry et al., 2018). However, while
Accepted: 18 May 2020
concepts from motivational psychology, particularly Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci and
Published: 22 July 2020
Ryan, 2000), commonly inform research on player experience (Tyack and Mekler, 2020) and game
Citation:
analytics (e.g., Canossa et al., 2013; Melhart et al., 2019), the notion of motivational regulation
Brühlmann F, Baumgartner P,
Wallner G, Kriglstein S and Mekler ED
(Deci and Ryan, 2000)has received limited attention in the context of games (Tyack and Mekler,
(2020) Motivational Profiling of League 2020). This is an unfortunate gap in our understanding of the player-computer interaction, as
of Legends Players. motivational regulations have been found to determine to what extent people experience positive
Front. Psychol. 11:1307. emotions and need satisfaction, as well as how persistently they engage in a behavior (Neys et al.,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01307 2014). Motivational regulations describe an underlying regulatory process of people’s motivation,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

which determine the quality of their behavior, the extent of need showcase that even when little to no behavioral differences are
satisfaction they experience, and the impact of these behaviors apparent, motivational regulations clearly color the quality of
on their well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Multiplayer Online player experience.
Battle Arena (MOBA) games pose a particularly intriguing
case. They enjoy enduring popularity, with a player base
2. RELATED WORK
ranging in the millions, despite often affording a range of
negative experiences (Johnson et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2016). In the following section, we first review research around the
Specifically, MOBA players report decreased autonomy and interplay of player motivation, experience, and in-game behavior,
increased frustration (Johnson et al., 2015), counter to SDT- after which we outline key motivational regulations posited by
based notions of positive player experience. Moreover, they afford SDT and research on motivational profiling. Finally, we focus on
complex, sometimes uncomfortable, social interactions amidst the unique properties of MOBA games.
a highly competitive gaming environment. Considering players’
underlying motivational regulations may hence provide a better 2.1. Player Motivation
understanding of the interplay of player experience and in-game Player motivation is a central research area in player-computer
behavior in MOBA games. interaction, where the goal is to gain a better understanding of
Identifying motivational profiles may enable us to study how motivational factors shape players’ experience and behavior.
similarities between players and to highlight differences in
experience, well-being, and behavior between these profiles. In 2.1.1. Motivation and Player Experience
that sense, this paper provides researchers and game designers Motivation is widely considered a key determinant of players’
with enhanced knowledge to better discern differing motivations gaming experiences and preferences. Early works primarily
and with it, experiences of their player basis. Building upon linked motivation to typologies of player preferences and were
previous workon player profiling (e.g., Drachen et al., 2014; not grounded in any established psychological frameworks
Chen et al., 2017; Nascimento Junior et al., 2017; Schaekermann or theories of human motivation. Bartle (1996), for instance,
et al., 2017), we present the results of a cross-sectional study identified four distinct player “types” with varying play
with self-report and behavioral data from 750 players of League preferences in Multi-User Dungeon games. Similarly, Yee
of Legends (LoL, Riot Games, 2009), a popular MOBA game. (2006) identified achievement, immersion, and social aspects of
Drawing from work on SDT-based motivational profiling (Pastor gameplay as key motivators for why people find playing online
et al., 2007; Howard et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Gustafsson games appealing.
et al., 2018), we identify four distinct motivational player profiles More recently, a growing body of player motivation research
(i.e., Amotivated, External, Intrinsic, and Autonomous) and has emerged around Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a major
compare these in terms of player experience and in-game psychological theory of human motivation (Deci and Ryan,
behavior. We provide empirical evidence of the relation between 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Notably, Ryan et al. (2006)
motivational regulation and player experience. Specifically, we criticized Yee’s player motivation typology for focusing only
show that despite overall high intrinsic motivation, players can on game content, rather than considering universal personal
be categorized into distinct motivational profiles, which affect factors that generalize across a variety of players and game
their quality of experience. Intrinsically and Autonomously genres. Instead, they demonstrated in a series of studies
motivated player profiles report consistently more positive player that satisfaction of innate psychological needs for autonomy,
experiences, as evidenced by high scores on enjoyment, need competence, and relatedness, predict game enjoyment and future
satisfaction, and harmonious passion. In contrast, already slight play across a variety of game genres. Indeed, this relation between
increases in amotivation and external motivation were related psychological need satisfaction and positive player experience
to reduced enjoyment, more tension, and less harmonious has been repeatedly demonstrated across several studies (e.g.,
passion, indicating game engagement that is potentially less Vella et al., 2013; Neys et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2015, see also
conducive to players’ well-being (Vella et al., 2013; Johnson Tyack and Mekler, 2020 for a recent overview). Moreover, need
et al., 2016). These findings extend our understanding of the satisfaction has also been linked to increased time spent playing
role of motivation for the player-computer interaction, as well (Johnson et al., 2016).
as provide context for conflicting results regarding the player
experience of MOBA games (Johnson et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2.1.2. Motivation and In-Game Behavior
2016). Second, we investigate how player motivation relates Digital games motivate a variety of goal-directed behaviors
to in-game behavior, where we observe only a few clear-cut (Przybylski et al., 2010), which may be reflected in players’ in-
differences between motivational profiles. As such, our findings game behavior (Schaekermann et al., 2017). As such, a growing
body of research has emerged around detecting player motivation
profiles from game metrics. Specifically, game analytics provide
Abbreviations: MOBA, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena; LoL, League of Legends; detailed and granular insights into players’ in-game behavior to
SDT, Self-Determination Theory; OIT, Organismic Integration Theory; EXT, identify hot spots or problem areas (e.g., Drachen and Canossa,
external regulation; INT, introjected regulation; IDE, identified regulation; INT,
integrated regulation; UMI, User Motivation Inventory; IMI, Intrinsic Motivation
2009; Wallner et al., 2014). Bauckhage et al. (2012), for example,
Inventory; PENS, Player Experience Need Satisfaction; PANAS, Positive and investigated behavioral telemetry data from five different games
Negative Affect Schedule. to understand how players engaged with these games over a

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

FIGURE 1 | The six types of motivational regulation as posited by Self-Determination Theory. Ranging from the least self-determined (amotivation) to the most
self-determined regulation (intrinsic motivation). Figure adapted from Deci and Ryan (2002), p. 16.

longer time period. Similarly, Harpstead et al. (2015) presented 2.2. Motivational Regulation
an approach for creating engagement profiles of game players. In Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), a mini–theory of SDT,
the context of massively multiplayer online role-playing games, differentiates six types of motivational regulations (Deci and
Feng et al. (2007) analyzed long-term player workloads and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). According to OIT, the
behavior in EVE Online (CCP, 2003). Suznjevic et al. (2011) underlying regulation of people’s motivation determine the
identified categories of player actions in World of Warcraft quality of their behavior, the extent of need satisfaction they
(Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), which formed the basis for experience and the consequences of these behaviors for their
creating a player behavior model and combined it with network well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
traffic models of the action categories. As depicted in Figure 1, these motivational regulations
However, while game analytics provide insight into range on a spectrum from non-self-determined (amotivation)
players’ in-game behavior, that is, what they are doing when to fully self-determined (intrinsic motivation). Set in context,
playing, consideration of motivational frameworks may help need satisfaction is an outcome of pursuing an activity (Deci
contextualize why players behave in such a way (Hazan, and Ryan, 2000), while the degree to which an activity (e.g.,
2013). Other works therefore attempted to link pre-defined playing a game) supports need satisfaction is determined by
motivational categories to in-game behavior. Yee et al. (2012), the underlying motivational regulation (e.g., why an activity is
for instance, found that players’ in-game behavior in World being pursued). Consequences (e.g., decreased need satisfaction)
of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004) was to some are more negative, the less self-determined the motivation for
extent predictive of their motivation (i.e., the aforementioned pursuing that activity is (Deci and Ryan, 2002). Specifically,
motives for immersion, achievement, and social interaction, OIT distinguishes three types of motivation: (1) Amotivation
Yee, 2006). Players motivated by achievement, for example, describes a lack or absence of motivation, hence being the
were more likely to engage in dungeoneering and Player least self-determined form of motivational regulation. (2)
vs. Player battles. In another study, Schaekermann et al. Extrinsic motivation refers to activity pursued for a separable
(2017) correlated self-reported player curiosity scores with outcome. More precisely, SDT distinguishes different types of
in-game behavioral metrics in Destiny (Bungie, Inc., 2014), extrinsic motivation comprised of four types of regulations:
with curiosity considered a motivational driver for playing external regulation (EXT), introjected regulation (INJ), identified
games. Among their results, they found that social curiosity was regulation (IDE), and integrated regulation (INT). EXT is the
positively correlated to players’ tendency toward exploratory least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation and occurs
behavior. Finally, some studies applied combined motivational in situations where people act to obtain a reward or avoid
psychology, data analysis, and machine learning techniques punishment (e.g., other players would pressure me if I perform
to better predict player engagement. Canossa et al. (2013), for badly at League of Legends). INJ regulation has been partially
example, investigated bivariate correlations and applied multiple internalized, but not truly accepted as one’s own. Such behaviors
supervised learning methods to identify relationships between are pursued to avoid guilt or shame or to achieve feelings of self-
in-game behavior in Minecraft (Mojang, 2011) and motivational worth or approval. IDE follows from the conscious valuing of an
factors, as measured by the Reiss Motivation Profiler (Reiss and activity as personally important, rendering the pursuit of such
Havercamp, 1998). Melhart et al. (2019), in contrast, employed an activity more self-determined. INT results when an activity
support vector machines to predict motivation in Tom Clancy’s: is congruent with personally endorsed values and goals, and
The Division (Massive Entertainment, 2016) based on game thus forms the most self-determined regulation among extrinsic
metrics. They found that both linear and non-linear models motivations. Finally, (3) intrinsic motivation refers to an activity
successfully predicted motivation with an average accuracy being pursued for its own sake, because it is experienced as
of 65.89 and 75.62% respectively. Notably, motivation was enjoyable and interesting (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
measured by the Ubisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire
(Azadvar and Canossa, 2018), a proxy for psychological need 2.2.1. Motivational Regulation in Human-Computer
satisfaction in games, as posited by SDT (Ryan et al., 2006). Interaction and Games
However, correlations between the self-reported measures and Motivational regulations, as posited by OIT, have also been
game metrics remained weak. explored within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

games research. In the context of general technology use, for of two samples of employees from different countries. They
instance, Brühlmann et al. (2018) developed and validated the found that autonomous forms of motivation support positive
User Motivation Inventory (UMI), an instrument that covers workplace-related outcomes, such as performance and well-
the whole spectrum of motivational regulation. Specifically, being. In another study, Wang et al. (2017) used LPA to identify
Brühlmann et al. (2018) found that respondents who reported four motivational profiles in secondary school students. Results
higher levels of amotivation and scored lower on more self- showed that students in the highly self-determined motivational
determined regulations (IDE, INT) and intrinsic motivation, profile reported more effort, higher competence, value, and
were more likely to consider to stop using a device. In time spent on math beyond homework, when compared to
contrast, participants scoring high on more self-determined the other profiles. In Pastor et al. (2007), LPA was used to
and autonomous motivations reported more positive user classify college students into different goal orientation profiles
experiences. Similarly, Peters et al. (2018) applied OIT to create a using 2-, 3-, and 4-factor conceptualizations of goal orientation.
model that describes and predicts the impact of technologies on The main goal was to show the advantages of LPA over other
technology adoption, engagement and well-being. Hence, a better clustering methods. By using LPA, they were able to apply stricter
understanding of users’ motivational regulations may help detect criteria when deciding upon the final cluster solutions, represent
and prevent user churn, as well as identify potential negative students’ cluster membership partially, and classify students from
effects of technology use on well-being. a different sample into clusters. This would not have been
The notions of need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation are possible to the same extent with multiple regression or cluster
also prevalent in player-computer interaction research (Tyack analysis. Therefore, a person-centered approach to the study of
and Mekler, 2020). However, OIT has received relatively little motivational regulations seems promising.
attention (Tyack and Mekler, 2020). A few works have employed
the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS, Guay et al., 2000), but 2.3. MOBA Games
report no results (Alexandrovsky et al., 2019; Johanson et al., Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games have been
2019). Birk and Mandryk (2018) used the SIMS to assess whether extremely popular throughout the years and are among the most
customization affected participants’ motivation and behavior profitable games on the market1 . Thus, it comes to little surprise
in a game-like self-improvement program taking place over 3 that a growing body of research has emerged around MOBA
weeks. Curiously, they found that while customization resulted players’ experience and behavior to better understand what keeps
in significantly less attrition and more login counts, participants’ them motivated to play (see Mora-Cantallops and Sicilia, 2018,
self-reported motivation remained unaffected. Finally, Lafrenière for a recent overview).
et al. (2012) developed the Gaming Motivation Scale (GAMS), Johnson et al. (2015), for instance, found that compared to
a questionnaire that assesses all six motivational regulations, other genres, MOBA players report increased frustration and a
specifically in the context of gaming. reduced sense of autonomy. The authors hypothesize that this
Of particular interest to the present work, OIT has also been may be due to the intense competition with others. Relatedly,
applied to study the player experience and gaming persistence Kou et al. (2018) identified streakiness, i.e., whether players had
of hardcore, heavy, and more casual players (Neys et al., winning or losing streaks—as crucial to player retention and
2014). Self-identified hardcore gamers reported the highest experience of League of Legends, potentially because it impacts
degree of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, but players’ sense of competence Kou et al. (2018). Indeed, a common
also slightly elevated levels of external regulation, compared reason to quit playing MOBAs is that players simply do not
to heavy and casual gamers. Curiously, while also scoring experience them as fun anymore (Tyack et al., 2016).
high on intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, casual Besides their competitive nature, MOBAs are also known for
gamers scored highest on amotivation. With regards to the complex social interactions they afford, with toxic player
playing persistence, immediate enjoyment was most predictive, behavior among the major sources of negative experiences (Kwak
but intrinsic motivation and external regulation were also and Blackburn, 2014; Kwak et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2016).
significantly associated with increased persistence. Tyack et al. (2016), for instance, identified deviant behavior
from teammates as a reason to abandon playing MOBA games,
2.2.2. Motivational Regulation Profiles although most players ultimately quit due to reasons unrelated to
More recently, works have drawn from OIT and attempted the game. In contrast, the opportunity to play with friends is a key
to profile people according to their motivational regulations. motivator to start and keep playing MOBAs. However, despite
Gustafsson et al. (2018) explored the link between elite athletes’ this growing body of work around player churn and retention,
motivational profiles and burnout. Using Latent Profile Analysis none of the aforementioned studies have examined how players’
(LPA), they identified five profiles with distinct patterns of experience relate to their in-game behavior.
motivational regulations. Athletes with high levels of amotivation With regards to players’ in-game behavior, works have
as well as moderately controlled regulation showed higher attempted to detect patterns in combat tactics of winning
burnout risk when compared to other profiles from the LPA. The teams (Yang et al., 2014) based on the game data from Dota
quality of athletes’ motivations might therefore be an important 2 (Valve Corporation, 2013), analyzed professional and public
factor in protecting them from negative outcomes related to
their health, performance and well-being. In the workplace 1 https://www.statista.com/statistics/505613/leading-digital-pc-games-by-global-

setting, Howard et al. (2016) identified four motivational profiles revenue/ (viewed: 28. Jan 2020).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

matches for classifying playstyles (Gao et al., 2013), as well We chose to focus on LoL, because it is to date one of the
as classified player behavior in order to identify roles within most played games in the world2 . Moreover, LoL is known
player teams (Eggert et al., 2015). However, none of these works to afford complex, sometimes negative social interactions (e.g.,
have considered players’ motivation to engage with MOBAs. Kwak and Blackburn, 2014), and is among the most studied
A notable exception is the work by Kahn et al. (2015), who games in the MOBA research literature (Mora-Cantallops and
developed a typology of player motives, similar to the work by Sicilia, 2018). Because of this complexity and the large player
Yee (2006), Yee et al. (2012). They validated their typology on a base, we expected that a variety of motivational regulations were
sample of over 18,000 League of Legends players and correlated present. Another advantage of LoL is the availability of a public
the questionnaire with various game metrics. The motive to Application Programming Interface (API), which allowed us to
socialize was correlated with the average percentage of teammates collect activity data to investigate player in-game behavior.
that players already knew, whereas the completionist motivation
was correlated with the number of different champions played. 3.2. Participants
Finally, competitiveness was positively correlated with the The survey was advertised on the League of Legends subreddit
number of kills and killing sprees. However, Kahn et al. (2015) on the American social news aggregation website reddit.com. A
did not explore how these motives relate to players’ experience, total of 2,056 people started the survey, of which 877 completed
nor is their typology grounded in any established framework of the survey. Forty-four participants were excluded for not passing
human motivation. the instructed response item (This is a verification Item. Please
choose “Strongly disagree”) (Brühlmann et al., 2020). We also
conducted a longstring analysis to detect repeated answering
3. METHODS schemes among the User Motivation Inventory (UMI) items (as
in Brühlmann et al., 2018). However, no additional cases were
The aim of this study was to explore how players’ underlying flagged for exclusion through this procedure. Of the remaining
motivational regulations relate to their experience and in-game 833 participants, 83 did not provide valid summoner names or
behavior in a MOBA game. In contrast to previous research showed incomplete data sets and were subsequently removed.
on predicting motivation from in-game metrics (Melhart et al., After data cleaning, 750 participants were included in the
2019), we present a novel, theory-driven approach for detecting analysis. Forty-five participants were women (6 percent), nine
motivational profiles, and compare these in terms of player participants identified as non-binary and 12 preferred not to
experience and in-game behavior. specify their gender. Participants’ age ranged between 18 and 65
years (M = 21.5 years, SD = 4.05 years). In total, participants had
3.1. League of Legends played between seven and 5,012 matches (M = 1577.3 matches,
League of Legends (LoL) (Riot Games, 2009) is a MOBA game SD = 860.5), with summoner levels ranging from 30 to 234 (M =
where players take on the role of summoners that control a 90.8, SD = 31.3).
single character (i.e., champion). Two teams of usually three or
five players compete against each other. The two teams start 3.3. Procedure
on opposite sides of a map near a main building called Nexus. Upon clicking the survey link, participants were introduced to
The goal of the game is to destroy the enemy’s Nexus. The the study. After providing consent, participants were asked to
Nexus is defended by the enemy team, computer-controlled provide basic demographic information (gender, age, experience
units (so-called “minions”) and towers. The minions are sent with MOBAs, experience with playing LoL), their summoner
in the direction of the enemy main building and follow certain name (i.e., the name the player is known in the game) and
paths (so-called “lanes”) and attack close enemies. By killing player region. The latter two were used to collect in–game data
minions, monsters, enemy champions, and destroying enemy through the API made available by Riot Games (Riot Games,
towers, the player’s own champion gains experience, i.e., they 2018). Participants then rated their motivation for playing LoL
reach a higher level where new abilities can be unlocked or and answered a variety of player experience measures (see
improved. These abilities are determined by the respective section 3.4). The individual measures were presented in a
champion and are not freely selectable. In addition, the player constant sequence, but the order of items was randomized for
who delivers the final deathblow to an enemy unit will receive each measure. Finally, participants were given the option to
a certain amount of gold. This gold can be used to purchase comment on the survey and asked to indicate whether they had
special items for the champion in the base, which improve answered questions conscientiously. Participants did not receive
various attributes (such as attack damage) or otherwise have any compensation for completing the survey, but were presented
positive effects. At the time of writing, there were a total of with a LoL “Player-Style” badge as a reward, similar to how
three maps with different game modes available. Among others, previous work (Schaekermann et al., 2017) provided Brainhex
LoL offers the game modes “ranked” and “unranked” matches. (Nacke et al., 2014) badges upon survey completion. On average,
Ranked matches are recorded in a central ranking system. Upon the survey took 12 min to complete.
winning, players ascend in the rankings, and move down when 2 100 million monthly active users in 2016 https://www.statista.com/statistics/
they lose. Ranked games resemble unranked games but require 317099/number-lol-registered-users-worldwide/ (viewed: 28. Jan 2020) and one
a summoner level of 30 and a minimum of 20 champions of the free-to-play games that generated the most revenue in 2019 https://www.
to participate. statista.com/statistics/346515/leading-f2p-mmo-games/ (viewed: 28. Jan 2020).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

TABLE 1 | Means (M), standard deviations (SD), medians (Mdn), Cronbach’s α, and hierarchical omega (ω) for all self-report measures over all participants (N = 750) and
for each profile.

M (SD) Mdn α ω Amotivated ( ) External ( ) Intrinsic ( ) Autonomous ( ) No. of items

n = 220 n = 329 n = 90 n = 111

UMI 18
IMO 5.31 (1.39) 5.67 0.86 0.88 5.11 (1.40) 4.97 (1.51) 6.34 (0.55) 5.92 (0.70) 3
INT 3.08 (1.48) 3.00 0.80 0.80 2.84 (1.47) 3.19 (1.49) 2.98 (1.59) 3.29 (1.28) 3
IDE 3.38 (1.39) 3.33 0.70 0.71 3.15 (1.40) 3.50 (1.42) 3.23 (1.44) 3.57 (1.16) 3
INJ 2.35 (1.55) 1.67 0.81 0.81 1.70 (0.80) 3.33 (1.75) 1.03 (0.10) 1.78 (0.64) 3
EXT 1.88 (1.22) 1.33 0.79 0.79 1.00 (0.00) 2.73 (1.37) 1.03 (0.09) 1.84 (0.47) 3
AMO 3.37 (1.91) 3.00 0.90 0.90 3.71 (1.81) 4.11 (1.86) 1.19 (0.33) 2.26 (1.02) 3
IMI 12
ENJ 5.23 (1.16) 5.43 0.86 0.87 5.01 (1.20) 4.99 (1.22) 6.07 (0.62) 5.72 (0.70) 7
TENS 3.65 (1.40) 3.60 0.81 0.82 3.48 (1.38) 4.10 (1.35) 2.81 (1.21) 3.31 (1.26) 5
PENS 10
REL 4.19 (1.63) 4.33 0.78 0.82 3.75 (1.60) 4.31 (1.69) 4.23 (1.58) 4.68 (1.38) 3
COM 5.05 (1.27) 5.00 0.79 0.80 4.98 (1.28) 4.91 (1.36) 5.37 (1.12) 5.34 (0.96) 3
AUT 4.96 (1.26) 5.00 0.75 0.76 4.72 (1.34) 4.78 (1.29) 5.67 (0.96) 5.38 (0.85) 4
ACH_GOAL 11
PerfAp 5.24 (1.58) 5.67 0.86 0.86 5.14 (1.66) 5.45 (1.52) 4.87 (1.61) 5.12 (1.47) 3
PerfAv 3 4.24 (1.71) 4.25 0.65 0.65 4.05 (1.79) 4.68 (1.62) 3.39 (1.62) 3.99 (1.54) 2
MastAp 4.86 (1.61) 5.00 0.82 0.82 4.65 (1.77) 4.98 (1.56) 4.85 (1.53) 4.91 (1.43) 3
MastAv 3.70 (1.78) 3.67 0.85 0.86 3.50 (1.78) 4.19 (1.77) 2.76 (1.59) 3.37 (1.5) 3
Passion 10
HP 4.06 (1.34) 4.20 0.79 0.79 3.83 (1.36) 3.98 (1.39) 4.38 (1.33) 4.46 (1.03) 5
OP 2.47 (1.42) 2.20 0.87 0.87 2.32 (1.44) 2.92 (1.48) 1.50 (0.75) 2.21 (1.04) 5
PANAS 20
PA 35.68 (7.17) 36 0.84 0.84 34.58 (7.69) 35.43 (7.13) 37.50 (6.85) 37.16 (5.96) 10
NA 22.14 (7.27) 21 0.81 0.81 21.51 (6.31) 24.98 (7.50) 16.38 (5.44) 19.68 (5.48) 10
VITALITY 3.59 (1.16) 3.57 0.78 0.89 3.37 (1.19) 3.55 (1.15) 3.87 (1.28) 3.92 (0.91) 7

3.4. Measures regulation (Lafrenière et al., 2012), which we expected to be

We collected subjective self-report measures and behavioral game particularly pertinent to the experience of playing LoL with
metrics. All self-report measures consisted of 7-point Likert others (Tyack et al., 2016; Mora-Cantallops and Sicilia, 2018).
scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7),
unless noted otherwise. Descriptive statistics and reliability scores 3.4.2. Player Experience Need Satisfaction (PENS)
(Cronbach’s α and hierarchical ω) for each measure are depicted Psychological need satisfaction is a core concept in SDT (Deci
in Table 1. and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000), and motivational
regulation is known to shape the extent to which experiences
satisfy people’s psychological needs of autonomy, competence,
3.4.1. User Motivation Inventory (UMI) and relatedness. Need satisfaction is also prevalent in player-
To measure the six motivational regulations outlined in computer interaction research (Tyack and Mekler, 2020), where
section subsection 2.2, we employed the User Motivation it has been consistently linked to positive player experience across
Inventory (UMI, Brühlmann et al., 2018). The UMI is a variety of genres (Ryan et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2015,
a validated 18-item questionnaire, which distinguishes 2016) and playing persistence (Neys et al., 2014). However, with
amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, regards to MOBA games, players have reported less autonomy
identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic satisfaction, as well as increased frustration (Johnson et al., 2015),
motivation in the context of technology use. While all hinting at a possible relation to competence. For these reasons, we
based on SDT, we chose the UMI over the SIMS (Guay included the Player Experience Need Satisfaction scale (PENS,
et al., 2000) and ACTA (Peters et al., 2018), as they do not Ryan et al., 2006) to assess players’ perceptions of autonomy,
assess introjected and integrated regulation or amotivation, competence, and relatedness when playing LoL.
respectively. We also considered the UMI more suitable
than the GAMS (Lafrenière et al., 2012). While it specifically 3.4.3. Interest-Enjoyment and Pressure-Tension (IMI)
measures motivational regulations in the context of gaming, it Intrinsically motivated behavior is characterized by the
does not account for social aspects of (external) motivational experience of interest and enjoyment (Deci and Ryan, 2000;

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

Ryan and Deci, 2000). Hence, we employed the dimension 3.4.7. Achievement Goals
interest-enjoyment of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI, The gameplay of LoL is performative and often highly
Ryan et al., 1983; McAuley et al., 1989) to assess self-reported competitive in nature. Therefore, we measured players’
intrinsic motivation. The IMI is commonly employed in achievement goals orientation. While not per se based on SDT,
player-computer interaction as a proxy for game enjoyment achievement goals orientation refers to how people approach
and positive player experience (Tyack and Mekler, 2020). competence-relevant behavior, such as studying or training
We also included the pressure-tension dimension of the (Elliot and McGregor, 2001), where different achievement goals
IMI, because it is a negative predictor of intrinsic motivation have been found to impact intrinsic motivation to varying
(Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000), and because it degrees (Chen et al., 2019). Specifically, Elliot and McGregor
commonly characterizes the experiences of MOBA players (2001) distinguish four related, albeit distinct achievement goals.
(Johnson et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2016). Mastery approach goal orientation refers to a focus on mastering
an activity and developing skills, whereas mastery avoidance
3.4.4. Positive and Negative Affect (PANAS) focuses on not losing previously acquired knowledge or skills.
Players of MOBA games, such as LoL, often experience Mastery approach, in particular, has been linked to intrinsic
pronounced positive and negative affect (Johnson et al., 2015; motivation and is associated with a wide range of positive effects
Tyack et al., 2016). Hence, we employed the PANAS by Watson in educational settings (Elliot and McGregor, 2001). In contrast,
et al. (1988) to assess positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). people oriented toward performance avoidance3 strive not to
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. underperform relative to normative standards or peers, while
performance approach is oriented toward performing better
than peers or externally imposed standards. Such a performance
3.4.5. Vitality orientation has been linked to extrinsic motivation and reduced
Mora-Cantallops and Sicilia (2018) called for more research intrinsic motivation. To measure these four orientations, we
into the impact of MOBA play on player well-being. Hence, employed the achievement goal questionnaire developed by
we measured vitality, an established well-being index in SDT- Elliot and McGregor (2001).
based research (Ryan and Frederick, 1997). Specifically, people’s
experience of vitality varies as a function of both contextual 3.4.8. Behavioral Game Metrics
and psychological factors, for instance, to the degree that one Using the summoner name and region provided by participants,
is unburdened by external pressures. We employed the vitality match histories and behavioral in-game data up until August, 16,
scale developed by Ryan and Frederick (1997). Item wording was 2018 were obtained from the API using Riot-Watcher (Przybylski
adapted to fit the survey context, for instance, “When I play LoL et al., 2018)—a Python wrapper for the Riot Games API. For
I feel alive and vital.” some matches, detailed data was not available or was incomplete.
These matches were excluded from subsequent processing. We
3.4.6. Harmonious and Obsessive Passion chose to focus on more recent matches played during Season
As we decided to advertise the survey on the League of Legends 7, as well as—at the time of data sampling—ongoing Season 8
subreddit, we expected that most participants would be very (including its preseason), i.e., matches played between January
passionate players of the game. However, passion to play can 30, 2017 and August 16, 2018. This procedure resulted in a
be harmonious or obsessive (Przybylski et al., 2009; Puerta- total of 1,179,828 matches. During this period, three game
Cortés et al., 2017; Schaekermann et al., 2017; Perry et al., 2018). maps with fundamentally different types of gameplay, strategy,
Hence, we included measures of harmonious and obsessive match length, and team size were available (Summoner’s Rift,
passion (Vallerand et al., 2003). Specifically, harmonious passion The Twisted Treeline, and Howling Abyss). To exclude possible
describes the autonomous and self-determined internalization of variability in the data due to these differences, the analysis
an activity into one’s identity (Vallerand et al., 2003), whereby was focused on the most popular game map, Summoner’s Rift
the activity is aligned with different areas of a person’s life (i.e., (973,564 [82.5%] of all matches). Two participants had to be
they have freely chosen to play LoL and the activity “harmonizes” excluded from the analysis because no data was available for
with other areas of their life, and does not interfere with their this map.
work or social life). In contrast, obsessive passion refers to non- In-game metrics for individual players derived from these
self-determined internalization of an activity due to external or matches were aggregated separately for ranked and unranked
internal pressure (i.e., the person feels compelled to play LoL, matches and, when appropriate, normalized to account for
for example, because of other players or personal dependencies; different numbers of matches.
Vallerand et al., 2003). As such, harmonious and obsessive Measures that were considered relevant for ranked and
passion are closely linked to motivational regulation and have unranked matches separately include time played, win rate,
also been found to impact the amount of play, game enjoyment, deaths, kills, assists (i.e., helping an ally to kill an opponent),
and tension following play (Przybylski et al., 2009). kda (describing the ratio of kills, deaths and assists), killing
We employed an adapted version of the Harmonious and sprees (requiring a player to kill a certain amount of enemies
Obsessive Passion for Gambling scale (Vallerand et al., 2003;
Przybylski et al., 2009). To match the context of the study, items 3 Note. Due to an error in the survey, the item “I just want to avoid doing poorly in

were re-worded by replacing “this activity” with “LoL”. LoL” had to be excluded from analysis.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

TABLE 2 | Description of in-game measures. between the different motivational regulations and in-game
behavior, ranging from small to moderate. For the sake of brevity,
Feature Description
only significant correlations with r ≥ |0.1| (Pearson correlation,
COMBINED bootstrapped p-values with 1,000 iterations) are reported here.
totalMatches Total number of matches (ranked and unranked) Individual p-values and the complete correlation matrix are
level The level of the summoner level included as Supplementary Material.
RANKED AND UNRANKED
Amotivation correlated negatively with assists in unranked
timePlayed Total time spent in matches [in hours]
(r = −0.13) and in ranked matches (r = −0.11) and positively
winrate Won matches/total matches [in %]
with goldSpent in ranked matches (r = 0.10). Put differently,
kda
P
(
P P
kills + deaths)/ assists
more amotivated players were less likely to assist other players
in kills but spent more gold in ranked matches.
deaths Avg. number of deaths per match
External regulation was only correlated positively with
kills Avg. number of kills per match
totalHeal unranked (r = 0.13). Introjected regulation, however,
assists Avg. number of assists per match
correlated positively with totalMatches (r = 0.10), level (r =
killingSprees Avg. number of killing sprees per match
0.11), timePlayed ranked (r = 0.11), winrate ranked (r =
totalDamageDealt Avg. total damage dealt per match
0.10), and championsPlayed ranked (r = 0.10). This suggests
totalHeal Avg. total heal per match
that players were more motivated to avoid feelings of guilt or
goldEarned Avg. gold earned per match
failure, spent more time playing LoL, especially ranked matches.
goldSpent Avg. gold spent per match
Moreover, introjected regulation was also positively correlated
championsPlayed Number of different champions played
with killingSprees (r = 0.11), as well as ranked (r = 0.11) and
unranked kills (r = 0.11).
For identified regulation, only two noteworthy correlations
without dying), total damage dealt, total heal (restoring one’s were observed: Players who considered playing LoL important,
own or an ally’s health), gold earned (gold as in–game currency had played more totalMatches (r = 0.11) and achieved a higher
can be earned either passively (i.e., automatically without player level (r = 0.15). Similar correlational patterns emerged for
interaction) or by actively performing certain actions, such as integrated regulation (r = 0.11 and r = 0.14, respectively).
killing units), gold spent (gold can be spent on items which Additionally, integrated regulation correlated positively
provide further benefits to the player) and champions played with timePlayed ranked (r = 0.14) and championsPlayed
(the number of different champions played). Moreover, players’ ranked (r = 0.13).
level (as a measure of experience) and total number of matches Finally, intrinsic motivation correlated positively with
played represent aggregated measures over ranked and unranked achieved level (r = 0.12) and assists in ranked matches
matches. In total, these measures account for broad information (r = 0.11). Intrinsic motivation was also negatively correlated
on time, performance, and economy related in-game behavior. with kills unranked (r = −0.10), killingSprees unranked
Note that the level of a summoner is roughly indicative of how (r = −0.11), totalDamage ranked (r = −0.10) goldEarned
much time a player spent playing a game and determines whether unranked (r = −0.11), goldSpent unranked (r = −0.12),
they can access some features of the game. Most prominently, a goldEarned ranked (r = −0.11), and goldSpent unranked
summoner level of 30 or higher is required to play ranked games. (r = −0.10). This suggests that intrinsically motivated players
The maximum summoner’s level cap was changed in the end of scored fewer kills in unranked matches, dealt less damage in
2017 from 30 to limitless. The constraint of level 30 to play ranked ranked matches, as well as earned and spent less gold overall.
games remained unchanged. See Table 2 for a description and Note that correlation analysis offers only variable-centered
Table 3 for descriptive statistics of each metric. insights into relationships between particular motivational
regulations and individual metrics. Recall that SDT instead
4. RESULTS conceptualizes motivation as a multi–dimensional construct,
spanning a continuum of self-determination (Deci and Ryan,
The results are structured as follows: First, we report correlations 2000). Hence, it is more insightful to study how combinations
between self-report player experience measures and in-game of motivation variables relate to experiential and behavioral
metrics. Second, we test the measurement model of the UMI and variables, rather than individual (cor)relations. Moreover, our
use the factor scores to identify distinct motivational profiles. goal was to go beyond variable-centered approaches and apply
Third, the different motivational profiles are compared in terms a person-centered method to identify qualitatively different
of player experience and in-game behavior. Descriptive statistics motivational profiles of LoL players.
for all self-report measures are presented in Table 1 and for all
behavioral metrics in Table 3. 4.2. Motivational Profile Analysis
4.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
4.1. Correlation Analysis To test the measurement model of the UMI, a six-factor
To assess to what extent motivational regulation was related to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. All items were
participants’ in-game behavior, we calculated a series of Pearson specified to load on their designated factor, and the loading of the
correlations. Overall, several significant correlations emerged first item was constrained to one. Multivariate normality was not

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

TABLE 3 | Means (M), standard deviations (SD), medians (Mdn) for behavioral metrics from the game map Summoner’s Rift over all participants and for each profile (N =
748).

M (SD) Mdn Amotivated ( ) External ( ) Intrinsic ( ) Autonomous ( )

n = 220 n = 329 n = 89 n = 110

COMBINED
totalMatches 1577.31 (860.47) 1455.50 1509.59 (808.3) 1596.26 (908.54) 1560.15 (828.52) 1669.96 (839.12)
level 90.75 (31.34) 88 86.31 (29.41) 92.62 (33.46) 90.38 (30.44) 94.33 (28.54)
RANKED
timePlayed 292.12 (291.92) 217.50 315.39 (293.98) 283.11 (302.02) 288.79 (289.26) 275.25 (258.32)
winrate 51.32 (7.93) 51.29 51.04 (6.56) 51.54 (8.49) 51.07 (6.2) 51.45 (9.79)
kda 2.78 (0.9) 2.70 2.68 (0.62) 2.74 (0.58) 2.82 (0.63) 3.04 (1.81)
deaths 5.28 (0.99) 5.22 5.38 (0.98) 5.3 (0.98) 5.2 (1.02) 5.09 (1)
kills 5.26 (1.88) 5.53 5.31 (1.77) 5.36 (1.91) 4.99 (1.85) 5.12 (2.03)
assists 8.83 (2.37) 8.39 8.6 (2.21) 8.78 (2.42) 9.16 (2.45) 9.18 (2.39)
killingSprees 1.15 (0.46) 1.22 1.17 (0.43) 1.16 (0.46) 1.09 (0.44) 1.11 (0.5)
totalDamageDealt 108736.02 (37386.71) 118687.60 110965.31 (36541.62) 110363.24 (36371.49) 104970.8 (40501.7) 102456.99 (39010.61)
totalHeal 5577.06 (2313.61) 5133.46 5602.27 (2212.22) 5622.33 (2390.04) 5418.86 (2293.13) 5519.25 (2320.58)
goldEarned 11079.72 (1199.34) 11276.85 11136.71 (1210.19) 11137.29 (1176.31) 10970.12 (1232.92) 10882.27 (1207.63)
goldSpent 10043.92 (1167.41) 10237.11 10115.51 (1175.32) 10099.83 (1141.06) 9917.16 (1194.8) 9836.08 (1190.54)
championsPlayed 45.82 (31.52) 39.50 49.82 (34.96) 44.18 (28.46) 44.2 (30.7) 44.02 (33.29)
UNRANKED
timePlayed 332.4 (281.74) 253.50 298.31 (281.84) 349.28 (283.64) 343.71 (281.26) 340.97 (273.95)
winrate 54.39 (7.32) 52.96 55.23 (9.37) 54.14 (6.31) 52.68 (4.97) 54.82 (6.87)
kda 2.69 (1.2) 2.47 2.76 (1.84) 2.65 (0.77) 2.55 (0.55) 2.78 (1.01)
deaths 6.14 (1.39) 6.07 6.21 (1.55) 6.14 (1.33) 6.17 (1.19) 5.98 (1.36)
kills 7.26 (2.24) 7.11 7.44 (2.3) 7.33 (2.25) 6.79 (2.19) 7.04 (2.07)
assists 8.25 (1.55) 8.13 8.04 (1.58) 8.19 (1.49) 8.47 (1.53) 8.64 (1.61)
killingSprees 1.54 (0.49) 1.52 1.58 (0.5) 1.55 (0.48) 1.47 (0.49) 1.51 (0.48)
totalDamageDealt 111332.13 (26068.91) 113456.90 111426.6 (26398.6) 112084.53 (24939.86) 110957.54 (29379.94) 109195.91 (26118.44)
totalHeal 5056.64 (1262.85) 4963.70 4914.68 (1225.82) 5123.63 (1234.24) 5023.89 (1276.16) 5166.66 (1394.35)
goldEarned 12075.91 (1396.49) 12053.52 12165.74 (1490.8) 12028.94 (1375.63) 12065.53 (1419.59) 12045.12 (1246.69)
goldSpent 10944.39 (1373.6) 10917.23 11042.02 (1486.24) 10895.64 (1350.68) 10912.57 (1319.88) 10920.7 (1252.36)
championsPlayed 85.65 (33.3) 88.50 84.15 (34.28) 86.36 (33.46) 84.88 (32.6) 87.13 (31.7)

given (Mardia tests: χ 2 = 4644.83, p < 0.001, Zk = 52.98, p < issues around correlation analysis. Although a relatively novel
0.001), hence a robust Maximum Likelihood Estimation method technique, it has previously been applied in SDT research to
with Huber-White standard errors and a Yuan-Bentler based study motivation in educational (Pastor et al., 2007; Wang
scaled test statistic was used4 . Results of the CFA suggested that et al., 2017), work (Howard et al., 2016) and athletic settings
the six factor model fits the data well [χ 2 = 257.21, p < 0.001, (Gustafsson et al., 2018).
χ 2 /df = 2.14, CFI = 0.972, SRMR = 0.050, RMSEA = 0.039, To assess whether the data exhibited distinct motivational
PCLOSE = 0.999]. profiles, we conducted an LPA using factor scores retained from
the CFA six factor model. Conducting an LPA with factor scores
4.2.2. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) instead of scale scores allows for partial control of measurement
Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) is a latent variable modeling errors by giving more weight to items (Howard et al., 2016; Kam
technique that detects clusters of observations with similar values et al., 2016). When determining the optimal number of profiles,
on cluster indicators (Pastor et al., 2007). In other words, it can it is key to consider not only the statistical adequacy of the
be used to identify combinations of motivation variables, which found solution, but also the theoretical conformity of the profiles
can then be related to other variables, such as player experience (Morin and Marsh, 2015; Howard et al., 2016). In deciding
and in-game behavior, while circumventing the aforementioned upon our final model, information-based methods like the
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Integrated Complete-
4 Note.
data Likelihood (ICL), as well as resampling methods, such as
We also conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and parallel
the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT), were considered
analysis, which proposed a five-factor model instead. However, a subsequent CFA
indicated that the five-factor model had a significantly worse fit (χ 2 diff. = 84.96, for each solution (Scrucca et al., 2016). Other indices, such as
p < 0.001). entropy, AIC, LMR, ALMR are not recommended for selecting

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

FIGURE 2 | Motivational pattern of the four profiles identified in the sample. The white lines in the boxplot indicate the median and the black rhombi indicate the mean
with bootstraped 95% confidence intervals (1,000 iterations).

the optimal number of profiles (Tofighi and Enders, 2008; Diallo However, what distinguishes Profile 2 from the other profiles,
et al., 2017). are the comparably higher scores on external and introjected
The estimated fit indices proposed a divergent optimal regulation (M = 2.73 and M = 3.33, respectively). Hence, we
number of profiles. The BIC, ICL, and investigation of the dubbed this the “External” profile.
Elbow plots indicated that four profiles were most appropriate Profile 3 (n = 90) scored above average on intrinsic
and parsimonious (BIC (VVV), five groups: −10652.0, ICL motivation, whereas the other motivational regulations were
(VVV), four groups: −10771.4). Visual interpretation of the at average or below average levels. In other words, players in
elbow plot for the BIC criterion also revealed four groups to this profile were predominantly intrinsically motivated, and
be most appropriate. In contrast, the BLRT found the optimal accordingly scored high on intrinsic motivation (M = 6.34).
group size to be seven, reflecting the data (Likelihood Ratio Hence, we refer to this as the “Intrinsic” profile.
Test 7 vs. 8 groups: −165.92, p = 0.996). After considering the Profile 4 (n = 111) scored above average on intrinsic
theoretical conformity of the profiles (i.e., resulting group sizes, motivation (M = 5.92), but less so than the “Intrinsic”
group specific motivational profiles), we deemed four profiles to profile. Moreover, it featured slightly above average levels
be optimal. on identified and integrated regulation, as well as average
Figure 2 shows the distribution of scores for all six levels of external regulation. In contrast to the “Intrinsic”
motivational regulations for each of the four profiles, where 0.0 profile, players in this profile were most characterized by
depicts the overall mean score for each latent variable (i.e., M = a blend of intrinsic motivation and slightly higher scores
5.31 for intrinsic motivation; M = 3.08 for integrated regulation, on the other motivational regulations. Nevertheless, as the
etc.). As listed in Table 1, participants overall reported high levels “autonomous” regulations (i.e., intrinsic motivation, identified
of intrinsic motivation (M = 5.31, SD = 1.39) and low scores on and integrated regulation, Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and
the remaining regulations, especially introjected (M = 2.35, SD = Deci, 2000) were more salient, we refer to this as the
1.55) and external regulation (M = 1.88, SD = 1.22). “Autonomous” profile.
Profile 1 (n = 220) was characterized by above average
amotivation. Compared to other players, participants in this 4.3. Player Experience
profile also reported below average intrinsic motivation and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were conducted to test whether
external regulation, while the other motivational regulations the four motivational profiles differed significantly with regards
scored close to 0.0 (i.e., average). This does not mean that this to the self-report player experience measures. Statistically
player profile lacked in intrinsic motivation. In fact, players significant differences were found for every measure at an
in this profile reported considerable intrinsic motivation (M alpha-level of .001. However, due to the exploratory nature
= 5.11, see Table 1). However, participants’ rather elevated of this study and the large number of variables, the results
amotivation ratings (M = 3.71, Table 1) were what primarily are interpreted based on descriptive statistics (means, medians,
differentiated Profile 1 from the other profiles. Based on the and distributions). Note also that statistical significance testing
motivational spectrum posited by SDT (see Figure 1), we between each pair of profiles for all measures would greatly
hence refer to Profile 1 as “Amotivated.” increase the likelihood of type 1 errors (i.e., false positives).
Profile 2 (n = 329) featured markedly above average scores Therefore, Figures 2, 3 include a bootstrapped (1,000 iterations)
on amotivation, external and introjected regulation, as well 95% confidence interval of the mean. If the proportion of
as slightly above average scores on identified regulation and overlap of 95% confidence intervals of two means is 0.5 or
integrated regulation. While still considerable (M = 4.97), less, they indicate statistical significance at an alpha-level of 5%
intrinsic motivation scores were below average, compared to (Cumming and Finch, 2005).
the overall sample. Similar to the “Amotivated” profile, players As pictured in Figure 3 (see also Table 1), all profiles reported
in this profile reported considerable amotivation (M = 4.11). high enjoyment, especially the Intrinsic player profile (M = 6.07,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

FIGURE 3 | Distribution of the values on the different player experience measures. The white lines in the box plot indicate the median and the black rhombi indicate
the mean with bootstraped 95% confidence intervals (1,000 iterations).

SD = 0.62). In contrast, the External profile scored highest on was rather pronounced for all profiles, but more so for the
tension. Moreover, all motivational profiles scored relatively high Autonomous and Intrinsic player profiles.
on relatedness, autonomy, and competence need satisfaction,
with relatedness being least salient. However, the Intrinsic and 4.4. Behavioral Game Metrics
Autonomous player profiles reported the highest levels of need An overview of all behavioral metrics is presented in Table 3, and
satisfaction for all three needs, where the latter scored highest Figure 4 includes confidence intervals for the means. Overall,
on relatedness. participants had played almost 1,600 matches on average between
With regards to achievement goals, participants overall January 30, 2017, and August 16, 2018. More time was spent
scored highest on performance approach, followed by mastery playing unranked than ranked matches. In the following, each
approach and performance avoidance. Looking at the individual metric will be compared between the four profiles. A series of
profiles, the External player profile reported the highest levels Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests was conducted to test whether
of performance approach and avoidance, as well as mastery there were overall significant differences in the behavioral data.
avoidance. In contrast, the Intrinsic profile scored lowest Results showed that winrate unranked, χ 2 (3) = 9.68 p < 0.05,
on avoidance for both performance and mastery. Mastery kda ranked, χ 2 (3) = 10.9 p < 0.05, and assists unranked,
approach was comparable between profiles, but lowest for χ 2 (3) = 14.64 p < 0.05, showed significant differences
Amotivated players. between profiles.
In general, participants scored low on obsessive passion and
around midpoint (M = 4.06) on harmonious passion. The 4.4.1. Number of Matches, Level, and Playtime
Autonomous and Intrinsic player profiles reported the highest For the total amount of matches and the average level of
levels of harmonious passion, with the Intrinsic profile scoring the players, a slight increase from the Amotivated toward the
particularly low on obsessive passion. In contrast, External Autonomous player profile is visible. Amotivated players spent
players reported markedly higher levels of obsessive passion the most time playing ranked matches and the least amount
compared to the other profiles. of time in unranked matches. These players seem to be more
Overall, vitality after playing LoL was slightly below midpoint ranked games oriented. However, they were on average on a lower
(M = 3.59, SD = 1.16), where the Autonomous and Intrinsic in-game level, whereas the Autonomous profile featured more
profiles experienced more vitality than the Amotivated and higher-level players.
External players.
Finally, with regards to affect, the Amotivated and especially 4.4.2. Performance Measures
the External profiles reported markedly increased levels of With players being keen on improving their performance, as
negative affect compared to the other profiles. Positive affect shown by the high scores on performance approach orientation,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

FIGURE 4 | Comparison of behavioral metrics between the four profiles. The white lines in the box plot indicate the median and the black rhombi indicate the mean
with bootstraped 95% confidence intervals (1,000 iterations). Asterisks highlight statistically significant differences with Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests and α = 0.05.

we were interested in exploring the relations between wins and are a outliers present who have very high kda values in
losses, as well as kills, deaths, and assists. unranked matches.
For unranked matches, Amotivated players showed a Taken together, the Amotivated profile’s champions die the
significantly higher winrate than the Intrinsic player profile most, but they also kill more opponents compared to both
(Z = 2.923, p < 0.05, Dunn’s multiple comparison with p- Intrinsic and Autonomous player profiles. This may suggest that
values adjusted with the Holm method), while the Autonomous Amotivated players exhibit a more “reckless” playstyle compared
and External profiles are in-between. In ranked matches, a to other profiles. However, this behavior appears less successful
comparison of the winrate reveals very similar means for all in ranked matches than in non-ranked ones, as indicated by the
profiles, slightly above 50% each, confirming the effectiveness of kda ratio and the winrate.
the LoL match-making mechanism.
However, in terms of the number of deaths in ranked matches, 4.4.3. Economy Related Behaviors
the more self-determined profiles “Intrinsic” and “Autonomous” Across all profiles the amount of gold earned and spent in both
show lower values, but they also score less kills in both ranked ranked and unranked matches is very similar, with only ranked
and unranked matches. Intrinsic and Autonomous players scored matches showing slight differences. With multiple sources and
more assists in ranked and unranked matches. For unranked ways to acquire gold, it is however difficult to determine how the
matches, post-hoc comparisons showed that Autonomous and motivational profiles relate to gold earned.
Intrinsic player profiles performed statistically significant more
assists than Amotivated profile (Z = 3.224, p < 0.05; Z = 2.794,
p < 0.05). 5. DISCUSSION
The kill-death-assist ratio (kda) in ranked matches suggests
that Autonomous players were the highest-performing profile, Playing games is commonly considered an enjoyable and
whereas the Amotivated profile performed worst (Z = 2.922, intrinsically motivating activity (Ryan et al., 2006; Przybylski
p < 0.05). Descriptively, the pattern is less clear for et al., 2010). League of Legends and other MOBA games, however,
unranked matches where intrinsically motivated players have are massively popular, despite players reporting comparatively
the lowest average value and amotivated and autonomous subpar experiences relative to other game genres (Johnson
players are on par. However, the differences between the mean et al., 2015). The present study shows that people’s underlying
and median values is relatively large, suggesting that there motivational regulations for playing LoL may play a crucial

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

role therein. Based on Organismic Integration Theory, a mini- if these players were already more amotivated and/or externally
theory of Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000), motivated when they started playing LoL—perhaps not to let a
we identified four distinct motivational profiles, which differed friend down Tyack et al. (2016),—or whether their motivation
markedly in their player experience and, to a lesser extent, in their shifted over time.
in-game behavior. The Intrinsic player profile reported overall Notably, our group size numbers are inconsistent with
the most positive experience. Contrary to previous findings that previous work on motivational regulation profiles. In their study
MOBA games afford less autonomy and more frustration than of elite athletes, Gustafsson et al. (2018) found that only 22% of
other game genres (Johnson et al., 2015), players in this profile participants fell into the amotivated and moderately controlled
experienced a considerable sense of autonomy and competence profile (i.e., they reported more external and introjected
when playing LoL, as well as reported low levels of tension regulation), with even fewer falling into the predominantly
and negative affect. In contrast, the Amotivated and External amotivated profile (6.9%). Similarly, in a study on work
player profiles seem to derive markedly less enjoyment from their motivation (Howard et al., 2016), between 13.1 and 27.6%
playing experience, as well as reported more tension and negative of participants were classified into the amotivated profile.
affect. They also scored lower on experienced autonomy and With regards to the Intrinsic and Autonomous profiles, our
competence need satisfaction—with autonomy ratings similar to findings are more comparable. The autonomous profiles in the
the ones reported by Johnson et al. (2015) (i.e., below M = 5.0). aforementioned studies (Howard et al., 2016; Gustafsson et al.,
As such, our findings are in line with OIT and previous 2018) encompassed 15.9–25.6% of all participants.
research on motivational regulations and technology use. As Importantly, our study showcases that participants’
posited by SDT, more self-determined player profiles (i.e., motivations for playing LoL are not mutually exclusive.
Intrinsic and Autonomous profiles) reported a more positive While some motivations were more salient for certain profiles
experiences (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and more harmonious (e.g., the Intrinsic profile), most profiles can be considered a
passion for play (Vallerand et al., 2003), compared to the motivational blend, where intrinsic motivation was reported
less self-determined profiles (Amotivated and External profiles). along amotivation and other motivational regulations. Indeed,
Moreover, recall that previous research found people reporting profiles share some considerable overlap, as intrinsic motivation
higher levels of amotivation to be more at risk of burn out was rather high across all player profiles. This is not surprising,
(Gustafsson et al., 2018), as well as more likely to consider as intrinsic motivation (i.e., seeking enjoyment in an activity)
abandoning a technology (Brühlmann et al., 2018). As such, and the experience of enjoyment are key motivators for play for
players in the Amotivated profile might be more inclined to quit casual, heavy, and hardcore gamers (Neys et al., 2014).
playing LoL. While participants in our sample may be considered In contrast to previous work on motivational profiles
dedicated players, as evidenced by their being active in the LoL (Howard et al., 2016; Gustafsson et al., 2018), we observed
subreddit, the Amotivated and External profiles enjoyed playing no “high” motivation profile, i.e., where people score high
substantially less. Indeed, lack of fun is one of the reasons players on all motivational regulations, except amotivation. At least
stop engaging with MOBAs (Tyack et al., 2016). with regards to highly involved LoL players (i.e., active on
Our results also support existing findings on motivation the subreddit), it seems that certain motivational regulations
and achievement goal orientation (Elliot and McGregor, 2001; are more salient (e.g., amotivation, intrinsic motivation).
Chen et al., 2019). Compared to the other profiles, the External Nevertheless, our findings suggest that even small increments
profile scored higher on performance approach and performance in amotivation, external and identified regulation are already
avoidance orientation. Recall that this profile is more motivated associated with a less positive experience (operationalized as
by external pressure and avoiding feelings of guilt. These players increased enjoyment, positive affect and need satisfaction, as well
may therefore feel particularly driven to perform well in LoL as lower levels of tension and negative affect).
relative to their peers. However, performance and mastery
approach orientation was rather high across all profiles, which is
not surprising, considering the highly competitive nature of LoL, 5.1. Motivation and In-Game Behavior
where players strive to improve their skills and perform well in Results indicate that motivational regulations shape patterns of
front of their teammates (Johnson et al., 2015; Kahn et al., 2015; need satisfaction and player experience. However, the four player
Tyack et al., 2016; Mora-Cantallops and Sicilia, 2018). profiles exhibited fairly similar in-game behavior overall. We
Next, the four profiles differ considerably in group size. Many found several statistically significant, albeit small to moderate
more players fell into the Amotivated (29.3%) and External correlations between game metrics and self-report measures.
(43.9%) profiles than the Intrinsic (12%) or Autonomous profiles These results indicate a slight linear relationships between certain
(14.8%). As such, it seems that a majority of players have a less behaviors and motivational regulation. This is not surprising,
positive experience when playing LoL and are not purely driven as previous research examining game metrics and self-reported
by intrinsic motivation. While Johnson et al. (2015) did not experience measures also reported low to medium correlations
recruit participants over Reddit, it could be that the majority of (Canossa et al., 2013; Schaekermann et al., 2017; Melhart et al.,
MOBA players in their sample also fell into the Amotivated or 2019). Among the 14 metrics we studied, the four motivational
External profiles, which might explain their more negative player profiles varied significantly in terms of their winrate and assists in
experience ratings. What is less obvious is why these players unranked matches, and kill-death-assist ratios in ranked matches
reported less self-determined motivations. As of now, it is unclear (see also Table 3 and Figure 4).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

For kill-death-assist ratios in ranked matches and assists outcomes and in-game behavior, whether players’ experiences
in unranked matches, the Amotivated profile showed the and behaviors impact their motivation, or—most likely—whether
lowest median sore, while the more self-determined player there are bidirectional effects. Repeated data collection of self-
profiles show slightly higher performance, especially in reported and logged behavioral data may provide more insights
unranked matches. into how different motivational regulations affect experience
In unranked matches, the Intrinsic player profile was and changes in behavior. It may also help mitigate certain
characterized by an increased number of assists and a low rate limitations inherent to retrospective self-reports (i.e., recall bias)
of won games on the Summoner’s Rift map. However, this profile (Solhan et al., 2009).
did not report higher levels of relatedness. Hence, it would be Second, due to the cross-sectional design of the study (i.e.,
misleading to claim that this profile featured more social or only one measuring point for self-reported motivation and
supportive players. Rather they seem to perceive their game experience), the present work cannot make any statements
play as highly autonomous and experience the most enjoyment about potential changes in motivation over time. Longitudinal
of all profiles. Thus, they may simply enjoy the game and studies are necessary to assess whether motivational player
care less about winning than the other players, as reflected profiles remain fairly stable, or fluctuate when players start
by the lower scores on performance approach and avoidance playing, have been playing for a long time already, or decide to
goal orientations. stop playing (Tyack et al., 2016). As such, future work should
However, behavioral metrics collected in this study are on consider how long players have already engaged with LoL or
a relatively high level of analysis (i.e., aggregated over all other MOBAs.
matches of a player) and findings need to be taken with Another promising avenue for studying motivational shifts
a grain of salt. Consider that the behavioral metrics in our over time is to consider the notion of internalization. Recall
sample constitute of data aggregated over a longer period that SDT posits motivational regulations may shift through the
of time, whereas the self-report survey only covers a single process of internalization, along the controlled-to-autonomous
measuring point. We examined metrics of LoL which reflect continuum (Deci and Ryan, 2000, see also Figure 2, from left
performance (e.g., winrate, kill-death-assist ratio), playstyle (e.g., to right). When people take up values, attitudes, or regulatory
killingSprees, totalHeal, championsPlayed), and engagement structures, initially externally regulated behaviors may become
(e.g., totalMatches, timePlayed) aggregated over a period of about internalized and then no longer require the presence of rewards
18 months. If the effects of motivational regulations change or pressure (Deci and Ryan, 2000). For instance, it could be
over time, behavioral differences between the four motivational that certain players are initially both intrinsically and externally
profiles may be only observable with detailed trend analyses. motivated. That is, they might choose to play LoL to experience
Further, the interplay of experience and behavior may be highly enjoyment, but also due to perceived pressure from friends and
game-specific; there may be only a limited number of ways teammates (Tyack et al., 2016). Over time, and over repeatedly
a game can be played. However, the few observed behavioral experiencing a sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness,
differences between the profiles show that similar behavior—with players might shift toward the Autonomous player profile,
different underlying motivational regulations—can lead to very because playing LoL becomes personally meaningful to them. Or
different experiences. they might perhaps shift to the predominantly Intrinsic player
profile, as they no longer feel pressured from others or themselves
5.2. Limitations and Future Work to play.
The present study is the first to apply OIT to better understand Longitudinal studies on players’ motivational regulations
the interplay of player motivation, experience and in-game could also provide insights into other aspects of MOBA play.
behavior in League of Legends. Specifically, we employed Latent For instance, whether professional esports athletes go through
Profile Analysis, a novel approach to profile players according different motivational shifts than more casual players, due to
to their motivational regulations. That said, our study comes experiencing more pressure to play or succeed (Deterding,
with several caveats and limitations. First, note that due to 2016; Peters et al., 2018). Or whether the experience of toxic
the LPA approach, differences between profiles are relative. social interactions (Kwak and Blackburn, 2014; Shores et al.,
For example, while participants in the External player profile 2014) result in initially intrinsically motivated players shifting
reported higher tension (M = 4.10), this is only slightly toward external regulation or even amotivation. Identifying such
above the scale midpoint (3.5). Similarly, in terms of obsessive contributing factors could facilitate the design of interventions to
passion and negative affect, all profiles scored below the counteract negative effects early on, as well as inform game design
scale midpoint on average (3.5 and 2.5, respectively). Overall, to promote mastery over performance orientation in players.
participants in our sample did not report negative experiences Third, note that the motivational profiles outlined in the
when playing League of Legends. Nevertheless, it seems that present study only represent a momentary snapshot, whereas
minor fluctuations in motivational regulations may already the processed behavioral data extend over a period of about
shape the player experience toward more adverse or more 18 months—over which League of Legends has undergone
positive outcomes. several patches and changes. As such, the collected data operate
That said, the exploratory nature of this study does not allow on two different levels of analysis. While rather challenging
for causal inferences. Although in line with SDT propositions, and time-consuming, it would be useful to collect self-reports
it is unclear whether motivational regulations shape experiential of motivational regulation and player experience after each

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

season or pre-season, or better yet, after individual matches. their actions as self-determined (Deci and Ryan, 2000). As such,
This would allow for a more tightly coupled and granular it is possible that some participants in our sample were broadly
analysis of the interplay of motivational regulation and in-game more Autonomy or Control oriented (i.e., more inclined toward
behavior, as well as help control for various changes due to autonomous or external regulations, respectively), or tended
patch updates and the introduction of new champions (Mora- toward amotivation, regardless of any situational factors. Finally,
Cantallops and Sicilia, 2018). It would also be interesting to OIT could be combined with other personality models, such
classify players based on their in-game behavior (e.g., as in as the Big Five model (Sheldon and Prentice, 2019), which
Melhart et al., 2019), and then compare them in terms of their has already been successfully combined with game analytics
motivational regulations. (Canossa et al., 2015).
Fourth, a sample selection bias toward highly engaged
players is likely, as participants were recruited from the LoL 6. CONCLUSION
subreddit. As such, participants were not only eager LoL
players, but clearly also invested in the metagame (Donaldson, We present findings from a theory-driven exploratory approach
2017), e.g., they read patch notes or discuss strategies with toward understanding player motivation and experiences in
other players. Future studies should therefore take into account League of Legends. Combining Self-Determination Theory,
whether participants identify as hardcore or more casual LoL Latent Profile Analysis and game analytics, we identified
players (Neys et al., 2014), as well as how they perceive four motivational profiles, which differ with regards to
their reputation within the player community, which may player experience and, to a lesser extent, player behavior. In
affect their motivational regulation (and vice versa). Conversely, particular, our findings highlight the importance of considering
novice players might be more oriented toward mastering the amotivation and extrinsic regulation types, which hitherto have
game mechanics, especially when playing with friends (Tyack received only scant attention in player experience research.
et al., 2016), and may not yet be as performance oriented As such, this paper provides researchers and game designers
(Elliot and McGregor, 2001). with a novel and theoretically grounded perspective on
Moreover, our sample is biased toward men, with only slightly player motivation.
over 6% of participants identifying as women or non-binary,
slightly less than the expected 10%5 . As gender stereotypes
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
are known to affect the in-game character design, players’
perception of abilities, and social conventions in LoL (Gao et al., The anonymized survey data can be accessed on the Open
2017), future studies should be mindful of the experiences and Science Framework https://osf.io/ue82s/. Anonymized
motivations of female, non-binary and trans players. aggregated behavioral metrics are available upon request.
It remains to be seen whether the present findings
generalize to other MOBAs or game genres. According to
SDT, the negative effects of less self-determined motivational ETHICS STATEMENT
regulations and amotivation on well-being are largely
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
context-independent (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Hence, we
human participants in accordance with the local legislation
expect that similar player profiles broadly manifest for other
and institutional requirements. The patients/participants
MOBAs and genres, and that motivational regulations may
provided their written informed consent to participate in
similarly shape players’ experience—although the number
this study.
and specific patterns of motivational profiles may vary to
some extent.
Lastly, it would be interesting to combine OIT with AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
other motivational frameworks or personality models. Indeed,
FB, GW, SK, and EM contributed the conception and design
recent works successfully combined game analytics and self-
of the study. PB prepared the survey. EM distributed and
report questionnaires of player typologies to profile players
collected the survey data. GW matched and prepared the
and identify game design improvements (Yee et al., 2012;
behavioral data. FB and PB performed the statistical analysis.
Canossa et al., 2013; Kahn et al., 2015; Schaekermann et al.,
FB, PB, and EM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. FB,
2017). According to SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000), all of these
PB, GW, SK, and EM wrote the sections of the manuscript.
motivational typologies describe “what” activity players seek to
All authors contributed to the article and approved the
pursue (e.g., curiosity, competition, socializing, etc.), whereas the
submitted version.
motivational regulations posited by OIT refer to the underlying
reasons “why” these activities are being pursued. Similarly,
according to causality orientation—another SDT mini-theory— SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
people differ in the extent to which they generally experience
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
5 https://www.statista.com/statistics/694381/gamer-share-world-genre-and- online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
gender/ (viewed: 28 Jan 2020). 2020.01307/full#supplementary-material

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

REFERENCES Drachen, A., and Canossa, A. (2009). “Analyzing spatial user behavior in
computer games using geographic information systems,” in Proceedings of
Alexandrovsky, D., Friehs, M. A., Birk, M. V., Yates, R. K., and Mandryk, R. L. the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous
(2019). “Game dynamics that support snacking, not feasting,” in Proceedings Era, MindTrek ’09 (New York, NY: ACM), 182–189. doi: 10.1145/1621841.16
of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI 21875
PLAY ’19 (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery), 573–588. Drachen, A., Yancey, M., Maguire, J., Chu, D., Wang, I. Y., Mahlmann,
doi: 10.1145/3311350.3347151 T., Schubert, M., and Klabajan, D. (2014). “Skill-based differences in
Azadvar, A., and Canossa, A. (2018). “UPEQ: ubisoft perceived experience spatio-temporal team behaviour in defence of the ancients 2 (dota
questionnaire: a self-determination evaluation tool for video games,” in 2),” in 2014 IEEE Games Media Entertainment (Toronto, ON), 1–8.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital doi: 10.1109/GEM.2014.7048109
Games (New York, NY: ACM), 5. doi: 10.1145/3235765.3235780 Eggert, C., Herrlich, M., Smeddinck, J., and Malaka, R. (2015). “Classification
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs. J. Virt. of player roles in the team-based multi-player game Dota 2,” in
Environ. 1:19. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Entertainment
Bauckhage, C., Kersting, K., Sifa, R., Thurau, C., Drachen, A., and Canossa, A. Computing, ICEC (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 112–125.
(2012). “How players lose interest in playing a game: an empirical study based doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24589-8_9
on distributions of total playing times,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Elliot, A. J., and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. J.
Computational Intelligence and Games, CIG (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 139–146. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 501–519. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
doi: 10.1109/CIG.2012.6374148 Feng, W., Brandt, D., and Saha, D. (2007). “A long-term study of a popular
Birk, M. V., and Mandryk, R. L. (2018). “Combating attrition in digital self- MMORPG.,” in Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network
improvement programs using avatar customization,” in Proceedings of the 2018 and System Support for Games, NetGames ’07 (New York, NY: ACM), 19–24.
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18 (New York, doi: 10.1145/1326257.1326261
NY: Association for Computing Machinery). doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174234 Gao, G., Min, A., and Shih, P. C. (2017). “Gendered design bias: gender differences
Blizzard Entertainment (2004). World of Warcraft. Game [PC]. Irvine, CA: of in-game character choice and playing style in league of legends,” in
Blizzard Entertainment. Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction,
Brühlmann, F., Petralito, S., Aeschbach, L. F., and Opwis, K. (2020). The quality of OZCHI ’17 (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery), 307–317.
data collected online: an investigation of careless responding in a crowdsourced doi: 10.1145/3152771.3152804
sample. Methods in Psychol. 2:100022. doi: 10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022 Gao, L., Judd, J., Wong, D., and Lowder, J. (2013). Classifying Dota 2 Hero
Brühlmann, F., Vollenwyder, B., Opwis, K., and Mekler, E. D. (2018). “Measuring Characters Based on Play Style and Performance. Salt Lake City, UT: University
the “why” of interaction: development and validation of the user motivation of Utah Course on ML.
inventory (UMI),” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., and Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18 (New York, NY: ACM), 106:1–106:13. situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale
doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173680 (SIMS). Motiv. Emot. 24, 175–213. doi: 10.1023/A:1005614228250
Bungie Inc. (2014). Destiny. Game [PS4]. Santa Monica, CA: Activision. Gustafsson, H., Carlin, M., Podlog, L., Stenling, A., and Lindwall, M. (2018).
Canossa, A., Badler, J. B., El-Nasr, M. S., Tignor, S., and Colvin, R. C. (2015). Motivational profiles and burnout in elite athletes: a person-centered approach.
“In your face (t) impact of personality and context on gameplay behavior,” in Psychol. Sport Exerc. 35, 118–125. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.11.009
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Harpstead, E., Zimmermann, T., Nagapan, N., Guajardo, J. J., Cooper, R., Solberg,
Games, (FDG 2015) (Pacific Grove, CA: Society for the Advancement of the T., and Greenawalt, D. (2015). “What drives people: creating engagement
Science of Digital Games). profiles of players from game log data,” in Proceedings of the 2015 Annual
Canossa, A., Martinez, J. B., and Togelius, J. (2013). “Give me a reason to Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’15 (New York,
dig Minecraft and psychology of motivation,” in 2013 IEEE Conference on NY: ACM), 369–379. doi: 10.1145/2793107.2793114
Computational Intelligence in Games (CIG) (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 1–8. Hazan E. (2013) “Contextualizing Data,” in Game Analytics, eds M.
doi: 10.1109/CIG.2013.6633612 Seif El-Nasr, A. Drachen, and A. Canossa, (London: Springer).
CCP (2003). EVE Online. Game [PC]. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4769-5_21
Chen, C., Elliot, A. J., and Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Psychological need Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J., and Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation
support as a predictor of intrinsic and external motivation: the profiles at work: a self-determination theory approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 95,
mediational role of achievement goals. Educ. Psychol. 39, 1090–1113. 74–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.004
doi: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1618442 Johanson, C., Gutwin, C., Bowey, J. T., and Mandryk, R. L. (2019). “Press pause
Chen, Z., Sun, Y., El-nasr, M. S., and Nguyen, T.-H. D. (2017). Player skill when you play: comparing spaced practice intervals for skill development
decomposition in multiplayer online battle arenas. arXiv arXiv:1702.06253. in games,” in Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human
Cumming, G., and Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: confidence Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’19 (New York, NY: Association for Computing
intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am. Psychol. 60, 170–180. Machinery), 169–184. doi: 10.1145/3311350.3347195
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170 Johnson, D., Gardner, J., and Sweetser, P. (2016). Motivations for videogame
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human play: predictors of time spent playing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 805–812.
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inquiry 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.028
doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Johnson, D., Nacke, L. E., and Wyeth, P. (2015). “All about that base: differing
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. player experiences in video game genres and the unique case of MOBA
Rochester, NY: University Rochester Press. games,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Deterding, S. (2016). “Contextual autonomy support in video game play: Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15 (New York, NY: ACM), 2265–2274.
a grounded theory,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702447
Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY: ACM), 3931–3943. Kahn, A. S., Shen, C., Lu, L., Ratan, R. A., Coary, S., Hou, J., Meng, J., Osborn,
doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858395 J., and Williams, D. (2015). The trojan player typology: a cross-genre, cross-
Diallo, T. M., Morin, A. J., and Lu, H. (2017). The impact of total and cultural, behaviorally validated scale of video game play motivations. Comput.
partial inclusion or exclusion of active and inactive time invariant covariates Hum. Behav. 49, 354–361. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.018
in growth mixture models. Psychol. Methods 22, 166–190. doi: 10.1037/ Kam, C., Morin, A. J., Meyer, J. P., and Topolnytsky, L. (2016). Are commitment
met0000084 profiles stable and predictable? A latent transition analysis. J. Manag. 42,
Donaldson, S. (2017). Mechanics and metagame: exploring binary expertise in 1462–1490. doi: 10.1177/0149206313503010
league of legends. Games Culture 12, 426–444. doi: 10.1177/15554120155 Kou, Y., Li, Y., Gui, X., and Suzuki-Gill, E. (2018). “Playing with streakiness in
90063 online games: how players perceive and react to winning and losing streaks

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

in League of Legends,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Riot Games (2018). Riot Developer Portal. Available online at: https://developer.
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18 (New York, NY: ACM), 578:1–578:14. riotgames.com/ (accessed Jan 28, 2020).
doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174152 Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
Kwak, H., and Blackburn, J. (2014). “Linguistic analysis of toxic behavior in classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67.
an online video game,” in International Conference on Social Informatics doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
(Barcelona: Springer), 209–217. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15168-7_26 Ryan, R. M., and Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health:
Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., and Han, S. (2015). “Exploring cyberbullying and subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529–565.
other toxic behavior in team competition online games,” in Proceedings of doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., and Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward
CHI ’15 (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery), 3739–3748. contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: a review
doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702529 and test using cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45:736.
Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Verner-Filion, J., and Vallerand, R. J. (2012). Development doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736
and validation of the gaming motivation scale (GAMS). Pers. Indiv. Differ. 53, Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., and Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of
827–831. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.013 video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot. 30, 344–360.
Massive Entertainment (2016). Tom Clancy’s The Division. Game [PC]. Montreuil: doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
Ubisoft. Schaekermann, M., Ribeiro, G., Wallner, G., Kriglstein, S., Johnson, D., Drachen,
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., and Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties A., Sifa, R., and Nacke, L. E. (2017). “Curiously motivated: profiling curiosity
of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: with self-reports and behaviour metrics in the game “Destiny”,” in Proceedings
a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Quart. Exerc. Sport 60, 48–58. of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY
doi: 10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413 ’17 (New York, NY: ACM), 143–156. doi: 10.1145/3116595.3116603
Melhart, D., Azadvar, A., Canossa, A., Liapis, A., and Yannakakis, G. N. (2019). Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B., and Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: clustering,
Your gameplay says it all: modelling motivation in Tom Clancy’s The Division. classification and density estimation using gaussian finite mixture models. R J.
arXiv 1902.00040. doi: 10.1109/CIG.2019.8848123 8, 289–317. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2016-021
Mojang (2011). Minecraft. Game [PC]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Studios. Sheldon, K. M., and Prentice, M. (2019). Self-determination theory as a foundation
Mora-Cantallops, M., and Sicilia, M.-Á. (2018). Moba games: a literature review. for personality researchers. J. Pers. 87, 5–14. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12360
Entertain. Comput. 26, 128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2018.02.005 Shores, K. B., He, Y., Swanenburg, K. L., Kraut, R., and Riedl, J. (2014).
Morin, A. J., and Marsh, H. W. (2015). Disentangling shape from level effects “The identification of deviance and its impact on retention in a multiplayer
in person-centered analyses: an illustration based on university teachers’ game,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
multidimensional profiles of effectiveness. Struct. Equat. Model. 22, 39–59. Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, MD: ACM), 1356–1365.
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.919825 doi: 10.1145/2531602.2531724
Nacke, L. E., Bateman, C., and Mandryk, R. L. (2014). Brainhex: a Solhan, M. B., Trull, T. J., Jahng, S., and Wood, P. K. (2009). Clinical assessment
neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertain. Comput. 5, 55–62. of affective instability: comparing EMA indices, questionnaire reports, and
doi: 10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002 retrospective recall. Psychol. Assess. 21:425. doi: 10.1037/a0016869
Nascimento Junior, F. F. d., Melo, A. S. d. C., da Costa, I. B., and Marinho, Suznjevic, M., Stupar, I., and Matijasevic, M. (2011). “MMORPG player behavior
L. B. (2017). “Profiling successful team behaviors in league of legends,” in model based on player action categories,” in Proceedings of the 10th Annual
Proceedings of the 23rd Brazillian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web, Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games, NetGames ’11
WebMedia ’17 (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery), (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 6:1–6:6. doi: 10.1109/NetGames.2011.6080982
261–268. doi: 10.1145/3126858.3126886 Tofighi, D., and Enders, C. K. (2008). “Identifying the correct number of classes in
Neys, J. L., Jansz, J., and Tan, E. S. (2014). Exploring persistence in gaming: the role growth mixture models,” in: Advances in Latent Variable Mixture Models, eds
of self-determination and social identity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 196–209. G. R. Hancock, and K. M. Samuelson (Charlotte, NC: Information Age).
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.047 Tyack, A., and Mekler, E. D. (2020). “Self-determination theory in hci games
Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B., and Davis, S. L. (2007). A latent profile research: current uses and open questions,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
analysis of college students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemp. Educ. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20 (New York, NY:
Psychol. 32, 8–47. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.003 ACM). doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376723
Perry, R., Drachen, A., Kearney, A., Kriglstein, S., Nacke, L. E., Sifa, R., Wallner, Tyack, A., Wyeth, P., and Johnson, D. (2016). “The appeal of MOBA games:
G., and Johnson, D. (2018). Online-only friends, real-life friends or strangers? what makes people start, stay, and stop,” in Proceedings of the 2016 Annual
Differential associations with passion and social capital in video game play. Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’16 (New York,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 79, 202–210. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.032 NY: ACM), 313–325. doi: 10.1145/2967934.2968098
Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., and Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C.,
engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Front. Psychol. 9:797. Léonard, M., Gagné, M., and Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’ame:
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797 on obsessive and harmonious passion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 756–767.
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., and Ryan, R. M. (2009). A motivational model doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.756
of video game engagement. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14, 154–166. doi: 10.1037/a00 Valve Corporation (2013). Dota 2. Game [PC]. Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation.
19440 Vella, K., Johnson, D., and Hides, L. (2013). “Positively playful: when videogames
Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., and Rigby, C. S. (2018). Having to lead to player wellbeing,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on
versus wanting to play: background and consequences of harmonious versus Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, Gamification ’13 (New York, NY:
obsessive engagement in video games. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 12, 485–492. ACM), 99–102. doi: 10.1145/2583008.2583024
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0083 Wallner, G., Kriglstein, S., Gnadlinger, F., Heiml, M., and Kranzer, J. (2014). “Game
Pseudonym117 (2010). Riot-Watcher. Available online at: https://github.com/ user telemetry in practice: a case study,” in Proceedings of the 11th Conference
pseudonym117/Riot-Watcher (accessed Jan 28, 2020). on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACE ’14 (New York, NY:
Puerta-Cortés, D. X., Panova, T., Carbonell, X., and Chamarro, A. (2017). How ACM), 45:1–45:4. doi: 10.1145/2663806.2663859
passion and impulsivity influence a player’s choice of videogame, intensity Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Nie, Y., Chye, Y. L. S., Lim, B. S. C., Liem, G. A., Tay,
of playing and time spent playing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 66, 122–128. E. G., Hong, Y.-Y., and Chiu, C.-Y. (2017). Latent profile analysis of students’
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.029 motivation and outcomes in mathematics: an organismic integration theory
Reiss, S., and Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of perspective. Heliyon 3:e00308. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00308
fundamental motivation: factor structure of the Reiss profiles. Psychol. Assess. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation
10:97. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.97 of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. J. Pers. Soc.
Riot Games (2009). League of Legends. Game [PC]. Los Angeles, CA: Riot Games. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307

Brühlmann et al. Motivational Profiling of LoL Players

Yang, P., Harrison, B. E., and Roberts, D. L. (2014). “Identifying patterns in Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
combat that are predictive of success in MOBA games,” in Proceedings of the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
9th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, FDG (Ft. potential conflict of interest.
Lauderdale, FL: Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games).
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 9, Copyright © 2020 Brühlmann, Baumgartner, Wallner, Kriglstein and Mekler. This
772–775. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772 is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., and Nelson, L. (2012). “Online gaming Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
motivations scale: development and validation,” in Proceedings of is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
CHI ’12 (New York, NY: ACM), 2803–2806. doi: 10.1145/2207676. academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
2208681 comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 July 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1307