The ask
Does the design mechanic — not gamification broadly — determine whether users trust a FinTech application?
My role
Principal Investigator · Study Designer · Analyst
Timeline
2025 – 2026
Skills used in this study — tap to explore
“Designing with the user’s informational needs and autonomous decision-making at the center is not a concession to idealism, but a strategy with documented returns. Empathy pays for organizations through user retention, for consumers through access to clear and transparent information, and for the industry through trust building that sustained engagement requires.”
Synthesis · Empathy Pays · Final draft, 2026
Experimental conditions
Each participant saw exactly one condition and were instructed to apply a $10 "Welcome Bonus". Tap any card to experience it yourself.
Transparent information with compounding interest charts and explicit volatility warnings.
Social recognition mechanics — badges and a peer leaderboard.
A Mystery Growth Box with a variable ratio reinforcement mechanic.
Key findings
Condition C produced significantly lower dependability scores than both alternatives. Critically, this effect was specific to the uncertainty mechanic — the leaderboard condition did not differ meaningfully from UCD on this measure. The same pattern held for Perceived Clarity.
Dependability: F(2,84) = 11.96, p < .001, η² = .22 · Clarity: F(2,84) = 4.06, p = .021, η² = .09
UEQ Dependability by condition (1–7 scale)
C significantly lower than A and B, p < .001
N = 87 (1 excluded, listwise deletion)
The omnibus test was marginal, but the pre-specified planned contrast between UCD and Extrinsic Gamification was significant — participants in the transparent condition reported meaningfully higher intent to return than those in the leaderboard condition. This is a directional finding supported by theory-driven contrasts, not an omnibus effect.
Omnibus: F(2,84) = 3.02, p = .054, η² = .07 · Planned contrast A vs B: t(84) = 2.40, p = .019, g = 0.60
IMI Intent to Return by condition (1–5 scale)
A vs B: p = .019
Omnibus F marginal (p = .054). Finding supported by pre-specified planned contrast.
Condition C rated lowest on trust and clarity of any condition, yet 71.4% of those participants chose the speculative, higher-risk allocation anyway — nearly double the rate in Extrinsic Gamification (36.7%). Participants distrusted the interface and acted riskier regardless. Whatever the mystery-box mechanic is doing, it isn't routing through perceived trust.
χ²(2) = 7.04, p = .030, Cramér's V = .29 · B vs C significant after correction, p = .008, V = .35
% chose speculative/growth allocation
C vs B: p = .008 (Bonferroni-corrected)
Behavioral N = 86 (2 excluded, distractor response)
A parallel mediation model tested whether Interest/Enjoyment or Perceived Choice explained why condition affected return intent. Enjoyment predicted return intent strongly on its own — but it did not explain the condition effect. Direct effects of condition on return intent stayed significant even after controlling for both proposed mediators, and every indirect pathway's confidence interval crossed zero. Whatever is driving the condition effect on retention, it isn't routing through intrinsic motivation the way Self-Determination Theory would predict.
Path b, Enjoyment → Intent: b = 0.76, p < .001 · All four indirect effects: 95% bootstrap CIs include zero (10,000 resamples)
Study data · N = 88
Full statistical summary and de-identified participant-level data across the three experimental conditions. Toggle between views below.
Get your results
Want to know what your condition revealed about how you respond to design mechanics?
No spam. One email with your personalized findings.
Next project
Gen Z wants social input on their dating experience, but only on their own terms