Game Developer Motivation and Personality Type

1 Game Developer Motivation and Personality Type Adriana L. Clonts, Elizabeth Stringer Abstract Background Motivation is a subject of interest for the software and game development industry. Research suggests that motivation is an important contributing factor for maintaining rapid development speed, and ultimately, product quality. Because motivation is observed to be an effect generated by personality preferences, a study that investigates the impact personality type has on motivation is valuable. Aim The general goal of this investigation is to provide research on the background of motivation and personality type within the software and game development industry. Furthermore, this investigation seeks to explore the impact personality type has on motivation, theorizing that different personality types do have different motivation preferences. Method - A survey based on top software developer motivation factors was built and issued to a sample of 68 game developers. A test on the data from motivation survey responses and responses from a previously issued MBTI survey was run to determine if correlation values were present. Results & Conclusion - Once analyzed, the data generated from the survey resulted in minimal correlation, contradicting the hypothesis of this study, instead indicating that different personality types do not have different motivation preferences. Index Terms Motivation, Game Developers, Personality, MBTI, Intrinsic Motivation T I. INTRODUCTION his study seeks to determine if there is a link between motivation and the personality types of specific software developers, game developers. It reviews the relevant importance of motivation to software product schedules and quality in the general software industry, the research on situational nature of motivation driven by personality types, and the usage of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as source of insight into the link between general software developer personalities and motivation. This follow-on research study uses the Myers-Briggs personality types of game developers specifically and groups their two-letter dichotomies to correlate preferences to the generalized software developer motivators identified by previous research. First, it is necessary to give an overview and define the composition of the software industry and its sub-sector of game development. The service provided by the overall software industry includes development, maintenance, and Manuscript received December 2, 2012. Adriana L. Clonts, author, is a master s student at the Southern Methodist University Guildhall, Plano, TX, 75024, USA (phone: 254-541-1226; e-mail: aclonts@smu.edu). Elizabeth Stringer, thesis supervisor, is a faculty member at the Southern Methodist University Guildhall, Plano, TX, 75024, USA (e-mail: estringer@smu.edu). publishing of software that runs on electronic devices, with a workforce of 913,100 in the United States [1]. Within this realm, digital game development includes software for gaming platforms that include personal computers, dedicated consoles, stand-alone handhelds, and mobile devices. Game development is a growing sector of the software industry, employing an estimated 120,000 people in the United States alone, generating an estimated annual revenue of $25 billion [2]. The gaming segment is likely to share common personality types and motivational factors of the software industry; however, it is relevant to determine if there are differences. Moreover, it is important to note that motivation is a major factor of study within software development because it is frequently cited as a cause of failure for software development projects [3]. A secondary reason is highlighted by Steve McConnell, author of Rapid Development. McConnell observes that motivation has a strong influence on software development practices [4]. In order to fully understand the importance of software development a deeper exploration into one of the models for software development, rapid development, is needed. Software development projects today often need to emphasize development speed and use rapid development practices to improve development speed. McConnell finds that development speed is influenced by people s performance, work processes, product deliverables, and effectiveness of the development technology. Rapid development influences the product quality by improving the factors related to development speed. McConnell observes that of the factors that influence software productivity and quality, people issues have the most impact [4]. Along these lines, a study on NASA software engineers highlighted the most effective practices are ones which leverage the human potential of developers [5]. Similarly, several sources have concluded that within the people dimension, productivity among developers with similar levels of experience can vary greatly [6]-[12]. McConnell identifies the influence of people issues on a software development project to propose motivation as a focus for improvement of software development speed and quality. Further, Rehman, Mahmood, and Salleh describe the nature of motivation as situational and driven by personality characteristics [13]. They propose the idea that different motivation factors may exist for different individuals based on their situation, field, profession, or context. Due to this situational nature of motivation, individuals in the many varying roles and professions may have differing motivation factors. Thus, there are specific motivators that research has shown to work in a software development team made up

2 primarily of programmers [cite], yet even more differences are possible for a game development team due, in part, to the additional variety of specialized personnel beyond programmers required for a game development project. Typically, a game development team consists of producers, programmers, artists, and designers. The producer responsibilities include managing all aspects of the game development process in order to meet projected milestones on schedule and budget. The programmers are those within the development team whose duties include the coding of game engines with components such as artificial intelligence, physics, and user interfaces. The artists are developers who focus on generating the art style, visual assets, and animations for the game. The level designers are responsible for assembling the game by constructing the environment, adding story elements, and balancing the gameplay. Further extending beyond the core team, the game development industry also employs people for a number of supporting departments such as quality assurance, marketing, legal, finance, localization, and more. These departments provide crucial services needed to make sure the final product is of high quality and released to market. As outlined, the backgrounds and characteristics of individuals found in game development are varied in order to match all the required skill sets. Since motivation is described as being driven by personal characteristics [cite], it is important to study what the personal characteristics specific to game developers are in order to select appropriate motivators. Finally, one way to categorize personal characteristics is to test for personality types. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) categorizes personality types into four letter combinations that describe the manner by which an individual focuses, perceives, decides, and deals with the outer world [14]. Steve McConnell used the MBTI personality types of software developers to look for similar types as a source of insight into motivation [4]. In order to further understand personality type, motivation, and how they affect each other in the software development s game industry, this study was developed. In summary, this study reviewed previous research on motivation and personality type; constructed and administered surveys designed to capture data on motivation and personality type; analyzed results on developer motivation and personality type; and finally, provided suggestions for future research projects based on the results. Ultimately, these efforts sought to identify if game developers have differing significant preferences for specific software developer motivation factors based on their unique personal characteristics. The first step in identifying this is through the collection and understanding of previous research conducted on the major elements that support this study. II. RESEARCH REVIEW The research conducted for this study centers around three major elements: motivation, personality via the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and the combined subject of motivation and personality type. First, the motivation section of the research review discusses motivational models along with motivation within the software development industry. The motivation section is then followed by a second section discussing the MBTI in detail as well as the MBTI within software development. The last section of the research review concludes with a discussion on how motivation and personality are related and their importance to the development of this study. The first major element of this research review discusses motivation. A. Motivation The influence motivation has on human behavior has made it a subject of interest for study in many fields, including software development. Multiple theories have been developed to explain and foster motivation, including the motivatorhygiene model, job characteristics model, and top developer motivation factors. Motivation is found to be an influential factor for rapid development speed [4], which is often a key aspect of software and game development. In order to foster an understanding of motivation, it must first be defined. Motivation is defined as representing the forces that act on or in a person that cause the person to behave in a specific, goal-directed manner [15]. Because motivation is a factor that greatly influences people s behavior, many different motivational models have been developed over the years in order to understand it. The theory that this study focuses on is one developed by Steve McConnell which discusses top software developer motivation factors. However, in order to fully understand McConnell s theory a review of older motivational models on which McConnell s theory is based along with a review of motivation within the software development industry is needed. The research review starts with discussion on the foundational motivator-hygiene model, on which other theories are based. Next, the job characteristics model, which builds on the previous motivatorhygiene model, is reviewed. Finally, McConnell s theory, which was partially built from the job characteristics model, is discussed. The foundation that other theories build on is known as Herzberg s motivator-hygiene model. The motivator-hygiene model was developed by Frederick Herzberg and proposes the idea that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are influenced by two independent factors: motivators and hygienes [15]. Motivator factors are intrinsic and internal to the individual and contribute to the individual s positive perceptions of work. Motivator factors often include: the work itself, achievement, recognition, and work responsibility. Conversely, hygiene factors contribute to job dissatisfaction, promoting negative feelings rather than positive ones. Hygiene factors are extrinsic factors, remaining outside to the actual work itself. These motivators and hygienes provide the building blocks that form the foundation of later theories. Building on the earlier motivator-hygiene theory, the job characteristics model attempts to add motivators and minimize hygienes in order to motivate, and ultimately influence, employee behavior [15]. Developed by Hackman and Oldham, the job characteristics model proposes that the amount of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback be increased in a job. Hackman and Oldham suggest that the previously mentioned job characteristics influence internal motivation by affecting three important psychological sources: meaning in work, responsibility for work outcomes;

3 and the knowledge of the results generated from work performance. If skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback are present in the job, all three psychological sources are affected positively and a cycle of excellent work motivation is activated. Conversely, if the characteristics are lacking from the job, the psychological sources are negatively affected resulting in low employee motivation. Within the Job Characteristics Model, three of the five characteristics influence how meaningful individuals believe work is. These characteristic include skill variety, task identity, and task significance. McConnell provides insight into these characteristics in his publication Rapid Development. According to McConnell, skill variety is how much an individual s work makes the individual exercise a range of different skills, preventing boredom and promoting mental energy [4]. Even within menial tasks, individuals find meaning therein, provided that they are presented with work allowing the use of a wide variety of skills to complete tasks. Task identity is how much an individual s work allows them to complete a unified and tangible piece of work. Task significance is defined by the impact the said task has on others and how much the task contributes to the team. Individuals are more likely to be motivated when preforming tasks that are perceived as valuable to others. Autonomy helps create feelings of individual responsibility for work results, motivating the individual to generate high quality work. Job feedback provides visibility for actual work results, keeping the individual informed on the success level of work and allowing for the implementation of better work methodologies on future tasks. Now that foundational theories on motivation have been discussed, the importance of motivation within software development may be discussed. Motivation is important for software development as it is a major contributing factor influencing development speed. McConnell states that many software development projects today emphasize development speed [4]. McConnell s theory on rapid development conveys how motivation contributes to a software development project stating that every project has four crucial dimensions influencing development speed: people, process, product, and technology. People influence development speed by performing at high or low speeds. Process includes management and technical methodologies that influence development speed by leveraging or hindering people s time. Product contributes to development speed through size and characteristics. Technology influences development speed by the effectiveness of development tools. If a factor in one of these dimensions is being negatively affected, it impacts the project by slowing the development speed down. If all factors in all dimensions are positively affected, the development speed of the project is increased. In order to make a significant, positive impact on development speed, it is important to understand which dimension has the most influence. McConnell observes that of all the factors that contribute to software productivity and quality, people issues have the most impact [4]. Several studies indicate this in two different ways. The first indication comes from a study conducted by researchers at NASA s Software Engineering Laboratory in 1995 which concluded that practices which leverage the human potential of developers are the most effective [5]. The second indication draws from findings of multiple studies conducted from the 1960 s to the present. These studies all concluded that that productivity among programmers with similar levels of experience varies by a factor of 10 to 1 [6]- [12]. Within the people dimension of development speed, the importance of one influencing element is highlighted above others. McConnell highlights the theory that individual motivation is potentially the strongest ally on a rapid development project [4]. Of all the factors that influence the people dimension, motivation is the only factor that will drive a developer to work late without anyone asking them to do so. According to McConnell, there are five factors that influence developer motivation the most: achievement, possibility for growth, work itself, personal life, and technical-supervision opportunity. McConnell describes the factors that influence developer motivation the most in great detail, starting with achievement. McConnell suggests that achievement is composed of several elements: work environment, ownership, and goal setting [4]. Provision of an environment allowing individuals to achieve work motivates developers. Keys to achievement motivation include allowing developers to have ownership of their task assignment and giving them defined goals to try and achieve. Developers who personally picked the task they want to work on are much more driven to create a quality end product than developers who have tasks they are uninterested in assigned to them by management. Achievement is not the only motivating factor that excites developers. Possibility for growth is also a motivating factor, exciting developers to apply themselves to their job [4]. The excitement generated by this second motivation factor provided by McConnell may be fueled by the constant, changing nature of software development field due to the influence of new and frequent technology updates. McConnell suggests that because of the changing nature of their industry, it s not surprising that developers are often motivated by possibilities for growth. Developers highly value the prospect of being able to obtain new skills and polish old ones. McConnell suggests that if these desires for growth were fulfilled, they would indeed raise motivation. The excitement generated by possibility for growth can also be found in the third motivation factor provided by McConnell. Work itself is the third motivation factor that excites and influences developers the most [4]. This is where the job characteristics model is applied. This motivation factor is composed of the five core job characteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback. To make the work itself a motivational tool for developers the work itself needs to successfully fulfill the five core job characteristics. If these characteristics are met, developers will potentially be highly motivated by their work. Even though developers can be highly motivated and excited by work itself, it also seems to be the case that they are also motivated by factors outside the work environment. Because McConnell defines the fourth motivation factor is as personal life, he suggests the idea that developers are motivated by having time away from work [4]. McConnell continues by stating that one of the only ways to help use personal life as a motivator is to make sure team projects are

4 scheduled accurately and maintained well so crunch time can be avoided. This will allow developers to invest a normal amount of time in their personal life. Just as developers are motivated by spending time on their personal life, they are also motivated by the prospect of providing technicalsupervision opportunity to others. The fifth and final motivation factor for developers is technical-supervision opportunity which is driven by the desire developers have for obtaining high levels of expertise [4]. McConnell states that developers are prone to desire technical supervision opportunities more than their managers because technical-supervision suggests that the developer has achieved this high level of expertise, making them able to direct others. To apply this motivation factor, management could assign each individual on the team project to be the technical lead for a specific area or assign many developers the role of being a mentor in a specific area. Technicalsupervision opportunities, along with the other top four developer motivation factors highlighted by McConnell, provide valuable insights into motivation among software developers. Furthermore, the study of software developer motivation is also applicable to the developers of game software because they share common skillsets and often attract the same types of people. To solidify this information along with other research provided on motivation, a brief review is called for. In review, understanding previous research on motivation was critical for the development of the motivation survey used for this study. To facilitate this understanding, this study reviewed previous research on motivation that highlighted several key elements: the importance of motivation, theories developed to understand and leverage motivation, motivation in software development, and top software developer motivation factors. The next step in the search to identify if game developers have differing significant preferences for specific top five software developer motivation factors based on their personal characteristics is to review personality type and how it relates to software development. B. MBTI The second major element of this research review discusses personality, specifically; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI is a well-known instrument for measuring and understanding individual personality types [16]. Originally developed by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers during World War II to determine the best suited occupation for women new to the work force [14], the MBTI is one of the most prevalent indicators currently utilized in the workplace [16]. The MBTI defines personality type through the measurement of four dimensional dichotomies: Extraversion-Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking- Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving [14]. These dichotomies communicate how an individual focuses, perceives, makes decisions, and deals with the outer world. In order to fully understand the MBTI, the four dimensional dichotomies must be explored further. The Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) dimension establishes what an individual focuses energy towards [14]. Extraverts focus energy toward the outer world including people and objects. Extraverts are action oriented often needing breaks from time spent alone. Introverts focus energy toward the inner world such as concepts, ideas, and internal experiences. Introverts prefer time alone and need breaks from activity. Now that the focus of an individual has been summarized, the next dichotomy, centered around how an individual perceives, is reviewed. The Sensing-Intuition (S-N) dimension conveys individual perception of the world [14]. Perception is defined as the ways of becoming aware of things, people, events, or ideas, including individual information gathering, sensation seeking or inspiration, and concurrently the selection of what stimulus should be attended to. Sensing individuals observe facts and happenings though one or more of the five senses and often develop characteristics associated with awareness. Sensing individuals tend to display preference towards the present moment, have a strong sense of reality, and have amazing powers of observation. Conversely, Intuition individuals use meanings, relationships, and/or possibilities that have been worked out on a deeper, guttural level, beyond the power of the conscious mind. This intuitive form of perception from the sub-conscious often comes to the surface of consciousness in the way of a hunch- as a sudden discovery of a pattern in seemingly unrelated events. Intuition individuals are often highly imaginative, abstract, future oriented, and original; intent on pursuing possibilities while sometimes overlooking actualities. Now that the dichotomy based on perception has been reviewed, the next step is to discuss how an individual handles this perception. The Thinking-Feeling (T-F) dimension conveys the way a person passes judgment and is paradigm to how an individual comes to conclusions about what they have perceived [14]. Judgment includes evaluation, choice, decision making, and the selection of a response after perceiving a stimulus. Individuals who use Thinking to judge decide impersonally and on a basis of logical consequences and tend to be objective and impersonal when applying reason to a decision. Thinking judgment relies on being impartial and neutral when respecting desires of the decision maker and other parties who may be affected by the decision, Thinker individuals often have an analytical inclination, concern for justice and fairness, and a dispassionate demeanor. Individuals who use Feeling to judge come to a decision by weighing the relative values at hand, both personal and social, as well as the merits of those issues. Because values are subjective and personal, Feeling people are likely to be in highly attuned to, and understand, the values and feelings of others as well as themselves. These individuals are concerned with the human aspect of problems and desire affiliation, warmth, harmony, and enduring values. This thinking-feeling dichotomy discusses individual judgment and is used by judging individuals as described in the next dichotomy. The Judging-Perceiving (J-P) dimension conveys the orientation of a person and attitudes in relation to the external world [14]. People who use judging to relate to the external world often are concerned with making decisions, seeking closure, and planning or organizing operations and activities. Judging individuals tend to use either Thinking or Feeling (the Judging processes) when they have to deal with the external world. For Judging individuals, perception ceases as soon as they have observed enough information to form a decision.

5 Behaviors of Judging individuals often seem organized, purposeful, and decisive. Individuals who use the Perceiving function to relate to the external world often are concerned with gathering information. These Perceiving individuals tend to use either the Sensing or Intuition (the Perceiving processes) when they have to deal with the external world. Perceiving individuals often delay making a judgment, allowing them to gather as much information as they can before making a decision [3]. Behaviors of Perceiving individuals often seem spontaneous, curious, adaptable, and open to what is new and changeable. This discussion of the fourth dichotomy of Judging-Perceiving concludes the research on the MBTI as a tool, allowing for the discussion of the importance given to understanding developer personality type. Like motivation, the study of personality among software developers is applicable to the developers of game software because many of the same skillsets and types of people are found in both fields. The study of personality in software development is important because when narrowed down, the major issues in software engineering involve the software developers and their personality traits [16]. Myers-Briggs Personality Types in software development are discussed in several articles by Luiz Capretz. Capretz states that software engineers are often wrongly stereotyped as a single personality type by society, further suggesting that software developers are quite diverse [17]. Overall, the study conducted by Capretz indicates that the most prevalent Myers-Briggs personality types among software developers are ISTJ, ISTP, ESTP, and ESTJ. These findings indicate that although certain personality types are more represented in the field of software development, all psychological types are present among software engineers. This final overview of developer MBTI personality types concludes the research for the MBTI portion of the research review. In order to solidify this information, a brief review of this section is in order. To summarize, understanding previous research on the MBTI was critical because the MBTI was utilized to capture the personal characteristics of participants for this study. In order to contribute to a greater understanding of personality type, this study reviewed previous research highlighting several elements: the MBTI as a whole and the MBTI in software development. The last major element of the research review discusses the MBTI and how it is related to motivation. C. Motivation and MBTI This final major element of this research review explores the connection between motivation and personality type, specifically discussing the influence that one may have on the other. Due to the powerful influence motivation has on the people dimension of rapid development, and ultimately the project, understanding what drives motivation is crucial for game developers. Multiple authors have suggested that motivation is not only situational; it s effected by and driven by personality type as well [13]. This study reviews these possibilities by first discussing the situational nature of motivation. Rehman, Mahmood, Salleh, and Amin propose the idea that motivation is situational because individuals in different situations, fields, professions, or contexts, may have different motivation factors [13]. They explore research that suggests that motivators are oriented by personal characteristics which may be attributed to the fact that each individual is unique when compared to others and thus possesses different personal characteristics [3] [13]. Therefore, different individuals with unique characteristics will require unique motivation strategies [13]. Franca, Felix, Silva, Furnham, and Eracleous align with this theory, observing that since motivation seems to be affected by a diverse set of environmental conditions it is likely to be moderated by personality and individual values, beliefs, and needs [18]-[19]. The MBTI Manual supports these ideas by stating that motivation and behaviors are observed as effects that indicate fundamental personality preferences and attitudes [14]. McConnell hails the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a great source of insight when it comes to developer motivations [4]. McConnell observes that computer professionals are typically much more introverted than the general population and that developers are usually more interested in the possibility for growth and less interested in status or recognition. In order to fully grasp these ideas along with the other ideas presented in the other major elements of the research review, a summery is in order. In conclusion, the three major elements of this research review provide key insight into motivation, the MBTI, and the connection between motivation and personality type. First, motivation is regarded as having a strong influence on human behavior and ultimately, software development. Second, the MBTI is a tool that captures personal characteristics and is stated to be a great source of insight into software developer personality and motivation factors. Finally, motivation and the MBTI are related because the nature of motivation is observed as situational and driven by personal characteristics. These observations provide support and fuel for the exploration of the influence that personal characteristics found in game developers have on their preferences for motivation factors. III. METHODOLOGY Based on the previous research, an exploratory study was developed to identify if game developers have differing significant preferences for specific top five software developer motivation factors based on their personal characteristics, which are defined as being one of the two letters that make up each of the four MBTI dichotomies. In order to identify this, several steps were taken. First, quantitative data was collected through the use of two surveys designed to measure preferences for top five developer motivation factors and MBTI personality types. Second, the resulting data and analyzed to determine if a significant correlation existed between the preferences for motivation factors and the letters of each MBTI dichotomy. The hypothesis of this study is that game developers do have differing significant preferences for specific top five software developer motivation factors based on their personal characteristics. The first step in identifying the validity of the thesis is through the collection of quantitative data on motivation. To collect quantitative data on motivation, a modified likert scale survey based upon McConnell s top five software developer motivation factors was generated and issued to a sample of 68 game development students and alumni

6 professionals that were available through the SMU Guildhall network. To rate each motivation factor developers were presented with a statement and asked to rate their level of agreement with a motivation statement using a seven point modified likert scale; one being strongly disagree and seven being strongly agree. The motivation survey was built and administered digitally using a Google docs form and was composed of the following statements: Top Developer Motivation Factors Achievement General Ownership Goal Setting Possibility For Growth Expand Skill Set Beyond Specialization Expand Skill Set Within Specialization Work Itself Skill Variety Task Identity Task Significance Autonomy TABLE I MOTIVATION SURVEY QUESTIONS Motivation Statement when I am in an environment that makes it easy for me to focus on my work. I work harder to achieve goals that I have set for myself than goals others have set for me. when I have a goal I m trying to meet. to work on tasks that will expand my skill set beyond my specialization. to work on projects or tasks that will deepen my skill set within my specialization only. when my work requires me to use a variety of skills. when my job requires me to complete a whole, identifiable piece of work. when I have work that affects other people s social welfare. when I have control over the means and methods I use to perform my Feedback Personal Life General Supervision Opportunity Technical Supervision Mentoring work. when my job/task itself provides me with direct and clear information (feedback) about how effective I am. to work on a project is low profile as long as I don t have to sacrifice some of my personal life. when I am given an opportunity be a technical lead for a particular area of the project when I am given an opportunity to mentor another person on a project. Similarly, the quantitative data on for MBTI personality types of participants was obtained through the collection of previously generated MBTI survey responses resulting from a MBTI survey issued to all respondents during their first academic semester. The next step in identifying the validity of the thesis for this study is to analyze the qualitative data generated from the motivation and MBTI surveys. In order to compare personal characteristics and motivation factors, the MBTI personality types of participants were first broken down into the four MBTI dichotomies: E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P. Next, the data values from each dichotomy were transformed into a continuum in which positive and negative values represented the first and second letter of the dichotomy. This positive or negative value was the strength to which a participant adhered to either the first or second letter of the dichotomy. Finally, the resulting values from each of the four dichotomies was separately compared to the values generated by the motivation survey in order to determine if significant, or any, correlations existed between MBTI dichotomy and the thirteen motivator statements. This exploration, which sought to identify the influence that personal characteristics of developers have on their preferences for motivation factors, unearthed some surprising results. IV. RESULTS Once the motivation and personality data was collected and analyzed it provided some surprising results that deviate or conflict with previous research in several ways. First, the results of the study deviate from research by highlighting the fact that the most prominent MBTI personality types found among software developers differs from the most prominent

7 MBTI personality types found among game developers. Second, the results of the study conflict with previous research by showing that even though the MBTI is said to be a source of insight to software developer motivation factors, the MBTI does not seem to be a source of insight to game developer s motivation factors. In order to fully understand the differing MBTI personality types between software and game developers, as well as the deviation of game developers from software developer top motivation factors, an expanded set of result details are explored. The first way in which the results of this study deviate from previous research is the found in the makeup of MBTI personality types among developers. The results of this study highlight is that the most commonly found MBTI personality types among software developers differs from the most commonly found MBTI type among game developers. As game development is considered a subset of software development it was assumed that game developers would exhibit the same MBTI type statistical makeup as software developers. However, this survey of 68 game developers disproved this assumption by finding INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, and ENTP to be the most common MBTI personality types among game developers instead ISTJ, ISTP, ESTP, and ESTJ which, when last surveyed, were the most common types found among software developers. The following tables highlight the findings on game developer personality type. TABLE IV PARTICIPANT MBTI DICHOTOMY BREAKDOWN Type # of % of survey participants participants INTJ 13 19% ENTJ 12 18% INTP 10 15% ENTP 10 15% ISTJ 4 6% ESTJ 4 6% INFJ 4 6% INFP 3 4% ENFP 3 4% ENFJ 3 4% ISTP 2 3% ESTP 0 0% ISFJ 0 0% ISFP 0 0% ESFP 0 0% ESFJ 0 0% TABLE IV PARTICIPANT MBTI PERSONALITY TYPE BREAKDOWN Type # of % of survey participants participants Extraverted 32 47% Introverted 36 53% Sensing 10 15% Intuition 58 85% Thinking 55 81% Feeling 13 19% Judging 40 59% Perceiving 26 38% The different MBTI makeup between software developers and game developers was not the only conflicting indication between previous research and the results of this study. The second way the results contradict previous research centers on the idea that the MBTI is source of insight to developer motivation factors. Research highlights the MBTI as a source of software developer motivations and suggests five factors that can improve software developer motivations the most: achievement, opportunity for growth, work itself, personal life, and technical-supervision opportunity. As game developers are a subset of software developers, it was assumed that the MBTI would be the same source of insight to game developer motivation factors as it was to software developer motivation factors. Contrastingly, the results of the study indicate otherwise. It was found that when game developers expressed preference for top software developer motivation factors, there was no correlation to their MBTI dimensions. In fact, once analyzed, the data generated from the survey resulted in minimal correlation, and low significant correlation, between MBTI dichotomies and the top five developer motivations. All correlation values fell below 0.15 correlation (All correlation values reported use r-squared). The results found within the sample contradict the hypothesis of this thesis, instead indicating that different game developer MBTI dichotomies do not have significant preferences for specific top five software developer motivations: achievement, possibility for growth, work itself, personal life, and technicalsupervision opportunity. The resulting correlation values between the motivation survey statements and the MBTI dichotomies are outlined in the following table. Question # TABLE III RESULTING CORRELATION VALUES E/I S/N T/F J/P 1 0.001 0.0441 0.021 0.0297 2 0.0648 0.0711 0.0432 0.0185 3 0.0063 0.0004 0.0038 0.0432 4 0.0545 0.1074 0.0061 0.0004 5 0.0073 0.0105 0.0007 0.0198 6 0.0048 0.0197 0.0019 0.0013 7 0.0322 0.0106 0.0198 0.0021 8 0.0108 0.0013 0.1477 0.0118 9 0.0097 0.0463 0.0004 0.0119 10 0.0004 0.0343 0.0634 0.0029

8 11 5E-05 0.0024 0.017 5E-05 12 0.0273 0.0092 0.0056 0.0011 13 0.1254 0.0006 0.0044 0.0047 In summary, the results of the study first indicate that even though game developers are a subset of software developers, they cannot be assumed to show the same cluster of MBTI personality types. Second, the results of the study do not align with the hypothesis. This is indicated by the result of low correlation values between the data from the top five software developer motivation survey and the MBTI dichotomy data. These results clarify and support conclusions detailed in the following section. V. CONCLUSIONS To review, past research highlighted the importance of motivation and indicated that motivation was driven by personality preferences. Researchers used the most prevalent MBTI personality types of software developers to prescribe their most influential motivators: achievement, possibility for growth, work itself, personal life, and technical-supervision opportunity. However, the results generated from this survey of 68 game development students do not support the study s hypothesis that the general software industry top five motivational factors also apply to the game development subsector. The results also differ from previous research on the common software developer MBTI personality types. Thus, these conflicts must be examined in detail and question the use of MBTI as a source of insight into developer motivation preferences. The results generated from this study vary from indications from background research in multiple ways, the first being the personality makeup of developers. When last surveyed in 2003, software developers were of certain MBTI personalities. Though all MBTI personality types were represented among software developers, the most common types were found to be ISTJ, ISTP, ESTP, and ESTJ [17]. However, the 2012 survey for this study found that the most common MBTI personality types among game developers were INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, and ENTP. This result indicates that game developers as a subset of software developers cannot be assumed to show that same cluster of MBTI personality types. Along with differing personality type makeup of developers, the results of this study also conflict with indications from previous research that the MBTI is a source of insight for software developer motivations. McConnell suggested using the MBTI to select software developer motivational factors that improve motivations the most: achievement, opportunity for growth, work itself, personal life, and technical supervision opportunity [4]. However, when game developers were asked to express preferences for these top ranked motivation factors, there was no correlation to their MBTI dimensions. Therefore future research should examine factors other than MBTI personality type to find motivation preferences. Suggestions for future research focus on exploring software developer personality and game developer personality. The first suggestion for future research is to complete a more recent survey of software developers MBTI personality types. It is possible that the previous research on MBTI personality type of software developers is outdated. A newer survey would update this data by providing a more recent representation of MBTI personality types in the software development field. The next suggestion for future research would be to complete a survey of software developers using another personality measurement tool, such as the big five personality test. The big five personality test is a test that measures five personality factors of the individual: emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness [15]. A survey based on a new measurement tool would provide another insight into the personality of individuals in the software development field and may lead to correlations to motivation. These suggestions for exploring personality type of software developers then can also be applied to game developers to determine if there are significant similarities or differences between the two groups of individuals. As a consequence of the results of this study indicating that game developers may be different than software developers, future research should explore the personality type of game developers in more depth to examine just how extensive the differences are. The first suggestion for future research would be to complete a significant survey using the MBTI to identify what personality types are found in the professional game developers, not just game development students. This survey should ideally include over 400 participants in order to gain an accurate portrayal of the MBTI personality type breakdown found in the game development industry. The next suggestion for future research would be to complete a significant survey using another measurement tool, such as the big five personality test. A study using the big five personality test would provide new insight into the personality of individuals in the game development field, which is currently under studied. These options provided are only one way to interpret the results and other researchers may find other possible suggestions. In the end, this study identified the possibility that game developers do not have differing significant preferences for specific top five software developer motivation preferences based on their personal characteristics. The exploration conducted by the study highlights that game developers are likely different from software developers in two ways: the makeup of MBTI personality types found within each field and the use of the MBTI as a source of insight to top motivation factors. Future studies should explore personality type in both the software development field and game development field to shed light on the nature of people working in both industries, ultimately contributing to the understanding of personality and motivation for both software and game developers.

9 VI. REFERENCES [1] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 2012; http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/softwaredevelopers.htm [2] Entertainment Software Association, October 2012; http://www.theesa.com/facts/econdata.asp [3] H. Sharp, N. Baddoo, S. Beecham, T. Hall, H. Robinson, Models of motivation in software engineering (Periodical style Submitted for publication), Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, issue 1, pp.219-233, Jan. 2009. [4] S. McConnell, Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules (Book style). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press, 1996 [5] V. R. Basili, F. McGarry The experience factory: How tobuild and run one. Tutorial M1, 17 th International Conference on Software Engineering, April 1995. [6] H. Sackman, W.J. Erikson, E.E. Grant Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance. Communications of the ACM, vol. 11, issue 1, pp. 3-11, Jan. 1968. [7] J. Valett, F. E. McGarry A summary of software measurement experiences in the software engineering laboratory. Journal of Systems and Software, 9 (2): pp. 137-148, 1989. [8] D. N. Card A software technology evaluation program. Information and Software Technology, vol. 29, issue 6, pp. 291-300, July-Aug. 1987. [9] B. Curtis Substantiating programmer variability. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 69, issue 7, pp. 846, July 1981. [10] B. Curtis Software psychology: The need for interdisciplinary program. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 74, issue 8, pp. 1092-1106, Aug. 1986. [11] T. DeMarco, T. Lister Programmer performance and the effects of the workplace. Proceedings of the 8 th International Conference on Software Engineering: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 268-272, 1985. [12] H. D. Mills Software Productivity. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. pp. 71-81, 1983. [13] M. Rehman, A.K. Mahmood, R. Salleh, A. Amin Motivation in software engineering & personal characteristics of software engineers National Postgraduate Conference, pp.1-5, Sept 2011. [14] I. Briggs-Myers, M. H. CcCaulley, N. L. Quenk, and A.L. Hammer, MBTI Manual (Book style). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 1998. 2003, pp. 1 123. [15] Hellriegel, Slocum, Organizational Behavior (Book style). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011, 2009 [16] L. F. Capretz, F. Ahmed Making sense of software development and personality types (Periodical style Submitted for publication), IT Professional, vol. 12, issue 1, pp.6-13, Jan.-Feb. 2010. [17] L. F. Capretz, Personality Types In Software engineering (Periodical style Submitted for publication), International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, vol. 58, issue 2, pp.207-214, Feb. 2003. [18] A. C. C. Franca, A. L. C. Felix, F. Q. B. Silva, Towards an explanatory theory of motivation in software engineering: A qualitative case study of a government organization, Software Engineering 26 th Brazilian Symposium, pp.61-70, Sept. 2012. [19] A. Furnham, A. Eracleous, Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five, (Periodical style-submitted for publication), Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 24, issue 8, pp.765-779, Jan. 2009.