Including Non-Users and Public Perception in Future Gamification Research Seamus F. Forde Abstract Center for Cognitive Current empirical research on gamification has mainly Psychology & Methodology focused on individual’s performance and motivation. University of Basel However, there are a number of social and ethical 4055 Basel, Switzerland aspects, which should be considered in future research. seamus.forde@stud.unibas.ch The workshop “Fictional Game Elements: Critical Perspectives on Gamification Design” would give us the possibility to outline possible side-effects of these social and cultural aspects. Author Keywords Gamification, motivation, self-determination theory ACM Classification Keywords J.4 [Social and Behavioral Sciences] Sociology, Psychology Introduction During the last two years I have been working on my master’s thesis examining the effects of different types of gamification on users [2, 3]. While research is starting to reveal the underlying psychological mechanisms of gamification on individuals, I have noticed that there are a number of cultural and ethical issues related to gamification, which should be looked gamified application does not necessarily lead to higher into so that we get an even better understanding on motivation than a nongamified application [3]. One how gamification works. In this paper I will highlight reason for this finding could be that the feedback was two points concerning gamifications’ side-effects in a not informational enough [3]. Hence, we are currently social and cultural setting which could help to broaden conducting a study with different kinds of (evaluative, future research. descriptive and comparative) feedbacks, which should help us to get a more nuanced understanding of how Gamification and Intrinsic Motivation gamification affects competence and intrinsic Most often self-determination theory [13] is used to motivation. In our upcoming studies, however, we explain how gamification works. According to self- would like to focus our research approach from effects determination theory intrinsic motivation (behaviour on individuals’ motivation to a more holistic approach which one pursues because it is enjoyable or by including different domains and gamification’s side interesting) leads to higher quality and extent of effects. I am convinced that this workshop would help people’s investment into a task. Intrinsic motivation me to get further insights in what I should take into can be increased by satisfying the psychological need considerations in our future work. for competence and autonomy. It is assumed that feedback (such as game elements), if perceived as Keeping Non-Users in mind informational, can increase competence, and therefore What has been disregarded by research until now is increase, intrinsic motivation. However, if the feedback how the interaction between a user and gamified is perceived as controlling perceived autonomy application affects other users’ need satisfactions and decreases, and therefore intrinsic motivation decreases. intrinsic motivation, particularly those using it without Hence, I have focused my research in the emerging gamification, and how organisations implementing body of empirical research (e.g., [4, 9] on how gamification are perceived by the public. gamification affects intrinsic motivation. In my first research paper [2] I highlighted which game mechanics The assumption in current studies (for an overview see from a self-determination perspective are expected to [14]) is that generally users of a gamified task perform increase competence (small tasks, positive better due to higher intrinsic motivation. Naturally, this informational feedback, informational wording) and implies that in the short term users not using the autonomy (choice between different levels, choice to gamified system would be less intrinsic motivated than receive feedback, choice of avatars) and therefore those using a gamified system. However, these should lead to higher intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, experimental studies do not take to account the real life I pointed out that identical game elements (e.g., situation in which a user knows about the gamified points) are expected to have different effects on system but does not use it. If a user knows about the intrinsic motivation depending if they are embedded in gamified version of an application further effects can be a controlling or informational style of feedback. More expected. recently, I showed in an experimental study that a If the default setting in a system is the nongamified motivated by the meaning of the task or if the version (e.g., one has to register to use version), it additional game elements make them believe that they may happen that only people who have a certain are motivated by the task. Therefore, game elements degree of intrinsic motivation or are tech-savvy will might undermine users’ free will of deciding if they register. According to Hwang [5] intrinsic motivation is sincerely want to do a task for its on sake or not. a crucial antecedent of accepting new technologies. Hence, users willing to accept a gamified application Furthermore, when outlining future scenarios of might already be more intrinsically motivated than gamification, we should take into consideration that those unwilling to use it. If the gamified application public perception might rather focus on the task and additionally boosts intrinsic motivation it could lead to the company than the individual's motivation when an invertible performance gap between users of deciding if a task is “explationware” or not. gamified application and nonusers. Especially in fields in which people usually can choose between a gamified For example, if a citizen science project (e.g., Phylo application and nongamified system (e.g., in a learning [6]) uses game mechanics to motivate people to do enviroment) and performance is important this could something good, one can assume that there will not be lead to ethical issues. Therefore, we should ask a public outcry. This might be quite different if big ourselves how we could make sure that gamification corporations use gamification to outsource specific does not discriminate anybody. tasks they do not have the capacity to do themselves. E.g., YouTube is currently using game elements to Including Public Perception encourage registered users to perform tasks such as The ethical discussion if gamification is adding subtitles and flagging videos. In return users “exploitationware” has been ongoing for a while [1, can gain points, reach different levels, which will enable 14]. Bogost [1] argues that gamification is them to get previews of new products and contact “exploitationware” because real incentives are replaced YouTube staff directly. Their effort to get new users for by fictional ones. Seaborn and Fels [14] claims that this their “YouTube Heroes” system might have backlashed assumption is only applicable if gamification focuses on as most viewers of their introduction video, extrinsic motivation (being motivated by a separable immediately, without knowing about the actual details outcome) and not intrinsic motivation. Firstly, it is of the system, perceived it negatively as they saw it as questionable that solely because users’ are motivated “exploitationware“ and were concerned that their intrinsically and not extrinsically a product cannot be autonomy as users would be violated [7, 10, 11, 12]. described as “exploitationware”. I argue, that if game elements are needed to get people intrinsically My assumption is that similar to digital games, gamified motivated in the first place the application might be applications can be shared or rejected with other equally manipulative and ethically questionable as people, therefore gamification should not only be extrinsic motivators. While using a gamified application, investigated in isolation, but in its social and cultural users will not be able to distinguish if they are context [8]. Therefore, future studies should consider the side effects of the cultural setting when examining Jerome Waldispühl et al. 2012. Phylo: A citizen gamification. science approach for improving multiple sequence alignment. PloS one 7, 3, e31362. Conclusion 7. Denise C. McAllister. 2016. YouTube’s Heroes Program Empowers The Speech Police. Retrieved Participating in the Workshop “Critical Perspectives on October 10, 2016 from Gamification Design” would give me the possibility to http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/27/youtubes- get a better understanding of further cultural effects heroes-program-empowers-speech-police/ gamification could have on individuals and what we 8. Frans, Mäyrä. 2007."The contextual game should keep in mind when examining those in the experience: On the socio-cultural contexts for future. meaning in digital play." Proceedings of DIGRA. 9. Elisa, D. Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis, References and Alexandre Tuch. 2013. Do points, levels and 1. Ian Bogost. 2015. Why gamification is bullshit 2. leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?: an The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, empirical analysis of common gamification Applications, 65. elements. In Proceedings of the First International 2. Seamus F. Forde, Elisa D. Mekler and Klaus Opwis. Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and 2015. Informational vs. Controlling Gamification: A Applications, ACM, 66–73. Study Design. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual 10. Raph’. 2016. Youtube Heroes, apologie de la Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in délation? Retrieved October 10, 2016 from Play (pp. 517-522). ACM. https://nigeekninerd.com/2016/10/04/youtube- 3. Seamus F. Forde, Elisa D. Mekler and Klaus Opwis. heroes-apologie-de-la-delation/ 2015. Informational, but not Intrinsically Motivation 11. Reddit. 2016. Youtube introduces a new program Gamification? Preliminary Findings. In Proceedings that rewards users with "points" for mass flagging of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer- videos. What can go wrong? Retrieved October 10, Human Interaction in Play (in press). ACM. 2016 from 4. Michael D. Hanus and Jesse Fox. 2015. Assessing https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/53wff the effects of gamification in the classroom: A b/youtube_introduces_a_new_program_that_rewar longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social ds/?st=1Z141Z3&sh=d22d0270&compact=true comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic 12. Reddit. 2016. We're some of the YouTube Heroes performance. Computers & Education 80, 152–161. (Trusted Flaggers) - AUA! Retrieved October 10, 5. Yujong Hwang, Y. 2005. Investigating enterprise 2016 from systems adoption: uncertainty avoidance, https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/54bp intrinsic motivation, and the technology acceptance uo/were_some_of_the_youtube_heroes_trusted_fla model.European journal of information systems, ggers/ 14(2), 150-161. 13. Richard Ryan and Edward Deci.2000. Intrinsic and 6. Alexander Kawrykow, Gary Roumanis, Alfred Kam, extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new Daniel Kwak, Clarence Leung, Chu Wu, Eleyine directions. Contemporary educational psychology Zarour, Luis Sarmenta, Mathieu Blanchette, 25, 1 (2000), 54–67. 14. Katie Seaborn and Deborah I Fels. 2015. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, 14–31.