# Designing Personalized Persuasive Game Elements for Older Adults in Health Apps
## 4 Results
### Conjoint Analysis Method to Analyze Gamification Elements
#### 4.3.3 Conjoint Analysis by Gender Classification  
In the male group, [PERSON]'s R = 0.860 and [PERSON]'s tau = 0.889, the two-tailed test significance was less than 0.05. In the female group, [PERSON]'s R = 0.975 and [PERSON]'s tau = 0.923, the two-tailed test significance was less than 0.05. This shows that the model had a good fit and the correlation coefficient between the two groups passed the statistical test.  
The questionnaire data were analyzed separately for males and females. As seen in Table 8, male and female older adults preferred winning status the most, and the winning status attribute was weighted more heavily in the male group than the female group. Males considered the reward attribute more important than the feedback attribute, while females held the opposite view. As can be seen from Table 8, among the feedback attributes, the male group focused more on graphic feedback, while the female group focused more on identity level. In terms of reward attribute, cash rewards were preferred by older adults, with utility values of 0.074 and 0.017 for males and females, respectively. However, the female group preferred the leaderboard element to demonstrate winning status, with a utility value of 0.034, whereas the male group preferred the social sharing and text congratulations elements with utility values of 0.089 and 0.052, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attribute**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Attribute Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Utility Value**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **(Age 55–70)** & **(Age > 70)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Feedback} & Visual feedback & \(-0.042\) & \(0.125\) \\  & Identity level & \(0.055\) & \(-0.139\) \\  & Graphic feedback & \(-0.013\) & \(0.014\) \\  & Relative importance & \(46.939\%\) & \(32.203\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Reward} & Cash reward & \(-0.021\) & \(0.250\) \\  & Point reward & \(0.025\) & \(-0.181\) \\  & Random gift reward & \(-0.004\) & \(-0.069\) \\  & Relative importance & \(22.449\%\) & \(52.542\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winning Status} & Social sharing & \(0.03\) & \(0.069\) \\  & Leaderboard & \(-0.038\) & \(-0.056\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Text congratulations & \(0.013\) & \(-0.014\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Relative importance & \(30.612\%\) & \(15.254\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winning Status} & Pearson’s R & \(0.740\) (\(p=0.011\)) & \(0.975\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Kendall’s tau & \(0.704\) (\(p=0.004\)) & \(0.889\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Utility value of attribute levels classified by age.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attribute**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Gamification**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Utility Value**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **(Male)** & **(Female)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Feedback} & Visual feedback & \(-0.022\) & \(0.011\) \\  & Identity level & \(0.000\) & \(0.017\) \\  & Graphic feedback & \(0.022\) & \(-0.029\) \\  & Relative importance & \(11.321\%\) & \(33.333\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Reward} & Cash reward & \(0.074\) & \(0.017\) \\  & Point reward & \(-0.044\) & \(-0.006\) \\  & Random gift reward & \(-0.030\) & \(-0.011\) \\  & Relative importance & \(30.189\%\) & \(20.833\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winning Status} & Social sharing & \(0.089\) & \(-0.006\) \\  & Leaderboard & \(-0.141\) & \(0.034\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Text congratulations & \(0.052\) & \(-0.029\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Relative importance & \(58.491\%\) & \(45.833\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winning Status} & Pearson’s R & \(0.860\) (\(p=0.001\)) & \(0.975\) (\(p=0.000\)) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Kendall’s tau & \(0.889\) (\(p=0.000\)) & \(0.923\) (\(p=0.001\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Utility value of attribute levels classified by gender.