=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1978/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=A Theoretical Perspective on the Inner Workings of Gamification in the Workplace
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1978/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-1978
|authors=Robin Brouwer,Kieran Conboy
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/mindtrek/BrouwerC17
}}
==A Theoretical Perspective on the Inner Workings of Gamification in the Workplace==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1978/paper3.pdf
A Theoretical Perspective on the Inner workings of Gamification in the
Workplace
Robin S. Brouwer Kieran Conboy
National University of Ireland Galway National University of Ireland Galway
robin@projectgamify.com kieran.conboy@nuigalway.ie
Abstract and motivation [4,9,61]. Early academic research into the
“simple“ relationship between the use of gamification
Typically, gamification intends to afford gameful design, defined as the application of game-design elements
experiences in non-game contexts with the goal of and game principles in non-game contexts [13], has
promoting desired behaviour. There are however supplied empirical support for the use of gamification
many gamified designs that fail to achieve these design elements and the increased performance and effort
goals and there is a lack of theory that can help to on work related tasks by employees [2,17,19,24]. The
explain why some gamified designs are effective simple view of gamification helped give rise to
while others are not. Within this paper a theoretical gamification applications and experiments in which game
perspective is proposed towards explaining the elements like points, badges and leaderboards where added
inner workings of gamification in the workplace. to work processes in order to increase performance. The
Specifically the theoretical model aims to explain majority of these applications and experiments only tested
how gamification design elements concurrently short-term effects and generally found a positive connection
affect motivation towards desired behaviour and between the application of game design elements and a
the experience of gamefulness. We draw on performance measure [27]. These types of gamification
expectancy theory to explain how gamification applications generating mainly short term effects received
design elements influence motivation and propose criticism for not driving sustained engagement, motivation
to measure the potential for a gameful experience or increased effort [7,53], while even risking long term
through the effect a design has on psychological, harm to intrinsic motivation for the tasks that were gamified
affective and consciousness altering states. [29]. Perhaps as a result of this criticism, or through its own
evolution, the view on what gamification is has changed in
Introduction recent years, and gamification evangelists like Yu-Kai
Chou and Gabe Zichermann started to refer to gamification
Gamification is becoming increasingly prevalent in the as behavioural design or behavioural engineering [11,12]
workplace as a means to increase organisational with a focus on utilising game techniques and game
performance while making the process of the work itself thinking in designing for sustained engagement and
more rewarding [10,14,15,42]. The market for gamification motivation.
technology in the workplace is expected to grow from USD Gamification was recently redefined by Huotari and Hamari
1.65 billion in 2015 to USD 11.10 billion in 2020. Some of [33] as a process of enhancing a service with affordances
the main drivers of this growth are the promise of for gameful experiences in order to support users’ overall
gamification technology to increase employee motivation value creation. Within this definition the main goal of using
and satisfaction, and as a result organisational performance a gamification design approach is to induce a gameful
[55]. Despite its recent upwards trend in adoption, and the experience. Furthermore game elements were not
increased research to investigate this new approach, little is specifically necessary in order for a design to be classified
known about the inner workings of gamification design [59] as gamified. Instead the intent of the designer in terms of
making it difficult to measure the effects of independent achieving a gameful experience took precedent over the
gamification design elements on its intended goals. Without shape of the design. Aside from the experiential goal of a
being able to measure these inner workings designers lack gamified design, it also has the goal of affecting behaviours
the data to make data-driven design decisions, or even as desired by the designer [42].
understand why certain gamification designs are effective in The current challenge in the field of gamification research
achieving their goals, while others are not. is to provide validated theoretical underpinnings as to how
Gamification design has often been introduced in gamification design elements lead to the achievement of
companies as a simple method to increase employee focus gamification goals, namely the gameful experience and
on high value activities and drive employee engagement affecting user behaviour [41,58,59].
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for Within this paper we address this challenge by taking a two
private and academic purposes.
In: M. Meder, A.Rapp, T. Plumbaum, and F. Hopfgartner (eds.): pronged approach. First, by placing gamification in the
Proceedings of the Data-Driven Gamification Design Workshop, Tampere, context of work design we review the available literature
Finland, 20-September-2017, published at http://ceur-ws.org that explains the inner workings of work design in relation
to employee behaviour. Based on this review we asses gamification design in relation to its effect on behaviour,
whether existing validated theories within the context of the the cognition based models are more suited as gamification
workplace can help to explain how the application of designs are consistently positioned to influence behaviour
gamification design elements can affect employee on a task level [59].
behaviour. Second, we review existing literature on While each of the cognition based models included are
gamification and psychology to understand how similar in terms of their ability to affect behaviour they are
gamification design elements induce a gameful experience different in terms of their inputs and explanation as to how
among the employees working with the gamified system. they affect behaviour. Upon closer examination some of the
The academic purpose of this paper is to provide a theories are closely related, for example the self-efficacy
theoretical framework grounded in theories that are already theory and the goal-setting theory both discuss how
validated within the context of work. From a practical motivation for a difficult task can vary according to its
perspective we expect that the measurement of the inner difficulty and the availability of constructive feedback. On
workings of gamification will provide data that helps the other hand theories like Self Determination theory and
designers to make data-driven design choices aimed at both Equity theory describe very different process and share no
experiential and behavioural goals. similarities.
While each of the individual theories provides valuable and
How Gamification Design Affects Behaviour in-depth insights into how changes in the work environment
affect employee behaviour, expectancy theory is the only
Gamification design approaches have been utilised in the theory that is able to encompass the other theories into an
workplace to achieve a variety of behavioural goals. inclusive model and provide directions as to how
including increased engagement & productivity [46,54], motivation to act can be measured [62].
change management [32] and organisational citizenship
behaviour [34,54]. While these goals are not exclusive to Expectancy Theory and Motivation to Act
gamification design approaches, they are recognised as
goals that are susceptible to be strongly and positively In expectancy theory Vroom proposes that wether or not an
affected by a gamification approach. The current challenge, employee will choose a specific course of action is the
as gamification is a relatively new field and theories about result of the motivational force associated with that specific
its inner workings are scarce and not yet validated [59], is course of action exceeding the motivational force
to understand the theoretical background as to why associated with other voluntary alternatives that the
gamification designs elements are adept at achieving these employee has. According to Vroom motivational force
behavioural goals. (MF) is a product of expectancy, instrumentality and
While the gamification design approach may be novel, the valence
general pursuit to influence employee behaviour to achieve
organisational goals has a long history in academics. (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence
Gamification design is similar to many earlier work design
models in that it explains how deliberate changes by the An individual’s expectancy is the cognitive belief that a
employer to the work environment affect the motivation of certain amount of effort will lead to the successful
the employee to perform work related tasks. Theories from performance of the intended task (e.g. I am able to meet the
the field of job design that fit within these criteria can be deadline). Expectancy has been likened to self-efficacy [23,
divided into two main areas. First, there are the need based 38] as both constructs discuss the relationship between self-
models like the Need theory [39] the Job Characteristics perceived capability of the employee in regards to the task
model [26], and the 4-Drive model [47] which focus on at hand and the amount of effort the employee expects to
fulfilment of biological or psychological needs through job need to invest into the task in order to be successful.
and workplace design in oder to increase overall motivation The instrumentality of successful performance lies in the
for the work. Within these theories motivation is defined as cognitive belief that performing the task will indeed lead to
the effort that an employee applies and maintains towards a desired result (e.g. meeting the deadline is likely to get
organisational goals [49]. Second, there are the cognition noticed). Instrumentality is closely related to distributive
based models in which motivation is defined as the and procedural justice as perceived fairness and
conscious decision to perform a behaviour as desired by the transparency of reward and resource distribution will
employer (instead of performing alternative available increase the belief that performance will actually lead to the
courses of action) [62]. Within this definition it is proposed expected result [3].
that an employee makes deliberate choices in terms of the Lastly the valence of a result lies in the value that a person
level of effort they plan to contribute on specific tasks. attributes to that result (e.g. meeting the deadline is
Theories that fit within this description include expectancy important for a coveted promotion) Valence is closely
theory [62], self-efficacy theory [5], equity theory [1], goal- related to both the self-determination theory and goal-
setting theory [38] and self-determination theory [56]. Each setting theory in that they propose that individuals decide to
of these theories propose that changes to the work enact a desired behaviour if that action can result in the
environment need to be made on a task level and take into attainment of intrinsically or extrinsically motivated goals
account contextual differences of the work environment. [38,56]. In other words, an individual that is faced with the
For the purpose of explaining the inner workings of option of performing an action will make a value judgement
on the desired outcomes that an action could potentially
deliver. As employers and designers we can influence this How Gamification Designs Induce Gameful
valuation by increasing awareness of existing motivational
affordances (rewards, benefits, compensations) that are Experiences
most likely to be valued by the employee, or add The term gamefulness was first suggested by McGonigal
motivational affordances to the design in the hopes that they [40] to describe the unique experiential condition of games.
are desired by the user. Rather than using the term gamification which was at that
time being criticised for the defining of a design approach
How Gamification Design Elements Can Positively by its shape (e.g. it looks like a game), she opted for the
Affect Instrumentality, Expectancy and Valence. term gameful design which would define the design
By using the expectancy theory it becomes possible to approach by its experience (e.g. it feels like a game). While
recognise how game design elements can have a positive the concept of a gameful experience has been accepted as
effect on motivation to perform a desired behaviour an adept way to describe the aim of gamification there is
through an increase on instrumentality, expectancy and still debate on what a gameful experience is and which
valence (Figure 1). For example, procedural justice and exact conditions are needed to label an experience as
perceived understanding of the performance appraisal gameful [33]. Furthermore the only valid way to measure a
gameful experience would be through self-reporting as
system have a positive effect on the instrumentality of
games and gamified designs can induce a gameful
performance through improved predictability and experience in one person, while failing to induce a gameful
controllability of the outcome resulting from successful experience in others. (e.g. through a difference in skill or
performance [31, 64]. Procedural justice is fostered when affect) [28].
decision-making processes adhere to a number of specific Within their paper on the definition of gamification, Huotari
rules [64]. As such game design elements like clear and and Hamari [33] propose a starting point towards describing
transparent game rule systems and transparent fixed ratio a gameful experience by referring to specific psychological
reward systems can through procedural justice lead to an factors/ experiential states associated with games. This
increase in instrumentality associated with a desired initial list, which is by no means proposed as all inclusive,
behaviour. can be divided into three distinct constructs (Table 1.). First,
Relationships between attributed valence and gamification it is possible to distinguish psychological states experienced
design elements are not deterministic as they are dependent during needs fulfilment the most commonly referred to in
on context and individual predispositions. There are gamification research being the psychological states
however tendencies for these relationships [30], and as such proposed in the self determination theory: mastery,
a variety of different design elements like quests, badges, relatedness, and competence [56.59]. Second, we can
character stats, etc, carry the potential to create valence for recognise affective states resulting from emotional arousal
several different salient goals and/ or needs [15]. (e.g. suspense [13]). Third, we can recognise psychological
Last, an example as to how game design elements can factors like immersion and flow which are best defined as
increase expectancy can be recognised in the common use an altered state of consciousness brought about by deep
of immediate positive feedback systems as a way to engagement with an activity [8,43].
increase self-efficacy [48].
Table 1. Experiential states characteristic for games, by
type
Experiential states [33] Type of state
Competence Psychological state
Relatedness Psychological state
Mastery/ achievement Psychological state
Hedonic pleasure Affective state
Suspense Affective state
Immersion Consciousness altering state
Flow Consciousness altering state
Figure 1. How Gamification Design Affects Behaviour
Adapted from Huotari & Hamari 2017, pp 23 [33].
In summary, there are no clear set of conditions that We have used the term consciousness alteration to describe
constitute a gameful experience, and as gameful the experience of detachment from the physical reality and
experiences are individualistic in nature it is impossible a sense of merging with the game environment by losing
toguarantee that a certain game or gamification design will awareness of the mediating technology [21]. The most
induce a gameful experience among all users. We can notable constructs describing such experiences are
however try to deduce what a gameful experience is by presence, immersion and flow, and while each of these
asking those that experienced them, and preliminary constructs have distinguishing factors, they share the
findings suggest psychological states experienced during experience of being “in the game environment”. There is a
need fulfilment, affective states experienced during broad understanding within the general game community
emotional arousal and altered states of consciousness about these constructs, but on an academic level there is
experienced during deep engagement with the gamified still an avid discussion about what causes these states and
environment. From a design perspective this means that what defines them [36].
adding game elements that create suspense, or conditions A starting point for explaining how the different states may
that facilitate flow or immersion are not guaranteed to be interconnected has been coined by Ermi and Mäyrä [18],
create a gameful experience, they are however more likely they propose that immersion is a manifold construct that
to do so than gamified environments in which the design can be conceptualised in terms of sensory immersion,
has not included elements that induce emotional arousal, closely resembling presence, challenge based immersion,
need fulfilment or immersion. closely resembling flow and imaginative immersion, which
shares similarities with narrative immersion [57]. Using this
How Gamification Design Elements Influence description of immersion Nacke and Lindley [43] suggested
Psychological States Through Psychological Need design criteria that could induce these different states of
Fulfilment. immersion including a complex and explorable virtual
environment in which the player needs to finds its own
A broad appeal of games is based on the ability of games to route, challenge levels in which adversaries increase in
fulfil the psychological needs of players. For example difficulty, sensory effects suitable for the environment
players can experience pleasurable feelings of competence (lightning, sounds, scripted and responsive animations),
through receiving informational performance feedback in feedback systems in the form of rewards, mood enhancing
the forms of points and levels [16,51]. Specifically aesthetics (variety of models, dynamic lighting and ambient
feedback that is made juicy, by for example providing sounds) and narrative framing. Initial experimental results
context in the form of a narrative emphasising meaning or indeed show an increase in experienced immersion when
significance, can create immediate pleasurable experiences these factors are present although no specific insight is
enhancing this experience of feeling competent [37]. available about which specific factors were more important
Aside from competence other psychological need fulfilment and whether they are influenced by individual
like the experience of relatedness or belonging can be predispositions of the players [43]. While the state of
induced by playing with others [51]. Psychological need immersion is viewed as critical to game enjoyment,
satisfaction occurs across different demographics of immersion being the outcome of a good game experience,
players, within a variety of genres and content, as such they the enjoyment from immersion can also be a result of
can be expected to generate a pleasure experience to allowing the user to momentarily lose self-consciousness
different player types and across different behavioural goals [44]. In a sense immersion allows a player to have a
[51]. pleasurable distraction in which they can detach themselves
When it comes to the pleasurable experience of autonomy from everyday worries and evaluation by others and escape
and control the negative effect of too little autonomy of for a period into the game or task environment. [36].
control is more visible than situations where control and
autonomy are present in the right amount. For example How Game Design Elements Influence Affective States
unintuitive designs or complex controls with which a user is by Eliciting Emotions.
not familiar mitigate the opportunity for a positive user
experience [45]. Furthermore, gamified environments in Another important reason for many players to engage in
which players make use of intuitive controls allowing them games is the ability of game environments and game play to
to focus on game play rather than game mechanics invoke strong emotional responses [52, 60]. Emotions
increased the potential for a user to experience presence. commonly associated with gameplay include suspense [13,
Presence is a state in which players feel immersed in the 35,37], frustration [22,50], thrill [25, 52] and relief [25, 63].
game environment and substitute the physical reality for the Emotions are typically described in terms of dimensions of
virtual reality. Players experiencing presence are desirable valence and arousal, where the valence dimensions
for game designers as it is directly related to how gameplay described the degree to which the affective experience is
itself satisfies psychological needs [51]. positive or negative and the arousal dimension indicates the
level of activation ranging from excited to to sleepy [6].
How Game Design Elements Alter Consciousness Within these emotional dimensions games are commonly
Through Deep Engagement. designed to elicit emotions higher on the arousal range with
valences related to both positive (e.g. thrill) and negative
There are several ways in which players that are deeply affects (e.g frustration).
engaged in a game can experience consciousness alteration. When designing a game, or gamified environment that
response to events (e.g. blurring, shaking screens when
Table 2. Sources that create emotional cues in games
recovering from a blast in a first person shooter) [20].
While research into affective design is relatively new its
Audience roles importance for a pleasurable game experience has long
been acknowledged among practitioners, as such it is
Type of emotion Observer Actor- expected to facilitate a gameful experience in gamified
participant participant environments as well.
In summary, gameful experiences are subjective and game
Ecological Sensory Proprioceptio
or gamified designs cannot be certain in inducing a gameful
environment n
experience in all users at all times. Gamification design
Narrative Narrative Role-play elements can however help to facilitate gameful
situations experiences through their ability to induce psychological,
affective and consciousness altering states (Figure 2).
Game Game events Gameplay
Conclusion
Artefact Design Creations by
player An increasing amount of organisations consider, or are
already, using a gamification design approach to increase
Adapted from Frome, 2007 [20] employee motivation towards specific tasks while providing
them with a gameful experience [55]. Gamification design
uses game design elements with the aim to achieve both
elicits emotion distinctions can be made in regards to the
behavioural and experiential goals concurrently [13,42,59]
type of audience (Table 2) as a player can receive emotional
allowing for task-level design that carries benefits for both
cues as an observer, or as an active participant [20].
the employer and employee. The current state of research
Furthermore the emotional cues can come from four distinct
about gamified designs has evolved from whether it works
sources of emotion within a game environment [20] (Table
to how or why it works [59]. Within this paper we outlined
2). The first proposed source is that related to the game
a theoretical proposal that aims to explain a potential
itself in terms of winning, losing, progressing. The second
answer to this question. Aside from providing a theoretical
source of emotional cues comes from the narrative related
perspective about the inner workings of gamification our
to the game and can be related to the protagonist, antagonist
focus has been on making use, where possible, of existing
or a representation of the players within the game (e.g. role-
validated theories that use measurable factors and
play). A third source for emotional cues comes from the
constructs.
artefacts in the game which can include the artful and
Within our model (Figure 3) the starting point of
aesthetic designs as created by the game designer but also
measurement are the gamification design elements that an
the creation made by the player him or herself. Lastly there
employee interacts with in the execution of a task. It is
are the emotional cues coming from the ecological
important to understand that the game design elements that
(sensory) environment of the player as observer and the
an employee interacts with include contextual and pre-
more visceral responses that they potentially elicit. From an
existing motivational conditions including for example
active participant perspective the player can experience
management feedback systems, compensation & benefits
emotional cues through proprioception where the player’s
schemes and cultural norms within an organisation. This is
mediated sensory input mimics a players physiological
in line with standard gamification design practices that
recommend contextual analysis of existing processes,
behaviours and cultures [42]. The model further proposes a
two-directional effect that the gamification design elements
have on the employee, on the one hand the design facilitates
the motivation to perform a desired action of the employee,
and on the other hand the design influences the gameful
experience the employee perceives.
A difficulty in creating consensus within the field of
gamification on any proposed theoretical model on the
inner-workings of gamification lies in the different
perspectives available on what constitutes a gameful
experience [33] or even what constitutes motivation [49].
Within this paper we pose that gamification design operates
on a task level, rather than on a job or workplace level, and
as such we explain motivation to perform a desired
behaviour from a task level perspective. We have not tried
to define gamefulness in this paper but have taken the
Figure 2. How Gamification Design Induces Gameful starting point from Huotari and Hamari [33] in terms of the
Experiences psychological factors commonly associated with games,
from this starting point we propose that a gameful consensus among different academics that gamified design
experience can be facilitated by affective, psychological facilitates and aims to induce this experience among its
and consciousness altering states. users. Whether or not an employee has a gameful
It is impossible to measure motivation to act without experience in a given design is subjective and varies per
looking into someones brain, as the motivation to act is a person [33], and as a result it is difficult to directly measure
force that is created before the actual behaviour takes place. a relationship between gamification design elements and
Despite this motivation is often measured in experiments by whether or not a user experiences gamefulness. Instead we
its outcome, i.e. the actual behaviour. The problem with propose to measure affective, psychological and
only measuring behaviour is that it only shows whether or consciousness altering states that are present before an
not the gamification design elements combined created existing system is enriched with a gamified design, and
more or less motivational force directed towards the desired again after the design has been implemented. Measuring the
behaviour compared to existing motivational force towards initial state and the state after the addition of gamification
any viable alternative behaviour. The expectancy theory design elements will enable researchers to understand
from Vroom [62] allows for measurement of motivation to through which states the design was most effective.
act on a task level before actual behaviour takes place Lastly, within this paper we do not propose exclusive
which enables measurement of motivation to act as a result relationships between individual gamification design
of the addition of gamification design elements to an elements and the different factors of the model (e.g.
existing system. Following this we propose that valence, expectancy, affective states, etc). While we have
gamification design is effective in changing behaviour by given examples of these relationships to provide support for
increasing the motivational force of a desired behaviour the model we have also recognised that many of the
(through an increasing of perceived valence, instrumentality gamification design elements described in literature affect
or expectancy), or by decreasing the motivational force of multiple factors in our model. For example virtual rewards
alternative behaviour. can affect valence, if the virtual reward is valued by the
Within this paper we did not do an exhaustive research on employee, at the same time it can affect expectancy through
what mediates the relationship between gamification design its function of providing a positive feedback to an action
elements and the factors of the expectancy theory (valence, and concurrently it can affect the affective state of the
instrumentality and expectancy), we did however do a employee through experiencing a win-state. Future
preliminary literature search and found suggestive evidence empirical research using this model is expected to provide
that describe how constructs like self-efficacy, potential for empirical evidence on relationships between specific
need or goal fulfilment and increases in procedural justice gamification design elements and the different factors
influence the factors of the expectancy theory while outlined in this model.
themselves being influenced by gamification design
elements [15,48,64]. References
As far as we are aware no-one has attempted to define what
constitutes a gameful experience, yet there seems to be 1. Adams, J.S. and Freedman, S., 1976. Equity theory
revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, pp.
43-90.
2. Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J. and
Leskovec, J., 2013, May. Steering user behavior with
badges. In Proceedings of the 22nd international
conference on World Wide Web (pp. 95-106). ACM.
3. Avery, D.R. and Quiñones, M.A., 2002. Disentangling
the effects of voice: the incremental roles of
opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting
procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), p.81.
4. Badgeville, Solutions for Enterprise Gamification,
2017. Retrieved August 18, 2017 from https://
badgeville.com/solution/
5. Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological review,
84(2), p.191.
6. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1999). The structure of
current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 10 –14
7. Bogost, Why Gamification is Bullshit, 2015 Retrieved
August 18, 2017 from http://bogost.com/blog/
Figure 3. Proposed model on the inner workings of gamification_is_bullshit/
gamification in the workplace. 8. Brockmyer, J.H., Fox, C.M., Curtiss, K.A., McBroom,
E., Burkhart, K.M. and Pidruzny, J.N., 2009. The consciousness development: A transpersonal
development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: perspective. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
A measure of engagement in video game-playing. 40(1).
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), pp. 22. Gilleade, K.M. and Dix, A., 2004, September. Using
624-634. frustration in the design of adaptive videogames. In
9. Bunchball, Nitro Gamification platform, 2017 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGCHI International
Retrieved August 18, 2017 from http:// Conference on Advances in computer entertainment
www.bunchball.com/products/nitro technology (pp. 228-232). ACM.
10. Cardador, M.T., Northcraft, G.B. and Whicker, J., 2017. 23. Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R., 1992. Self-efficacy: A
A theory of work gamification: Something old, theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
something new, something borrowed, something cool?. Academy of Management review, 17(2), pp.183-211.
Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), pp. 24. Grant, S. and Betts, B., 2013, May. Encouraging user
353-365. behaviour with achievements: an empirical study. In
11. Chou, Y., 2017, Retrieved August 18, 2017 from Mining Software Repositories (MSR), 2013 10th IEEE
https://www.socialandloyal.com/why-companies-need- Working Conference on (pp. 65-68). IEEE.
gamification-behavioral-design-yu-kai-chou-president- 25. Graesser, A., Chipman, P., Leeming, F. and Biedenbach,
the-octalysis-group/ S., 2009. Deep learning and emotion in serious games.
12. Coppens, A, Reflections on Gamification World Serious games: Mechanisms and effects, pp.81-100.
Congress, 2015, Retrieved August 18, 2017 from http:// 26. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation
gamificationnation.com/category/gamification-world- through the design of work: Test of a theory.
congress/ Organizational behavior and human performance,
13. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L., 16(2), pp.250-279.
2011, September. From game design elements to 27. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H., 2014, January.
gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of Does gamification work?--a literature review of
the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences
Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference
ACM. on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE.
14. Deterding, S., Björk, S.L., Nacke, L.E., Dixon, D. and 28. Hamari, J. and Tuunanen, J., 2014. Player types: A
Lawley, E., 2013, April. Designing gamification: meta-synthesis. Transactions of the Digital Games
creating gameful and playful experiences. In CHI'13 Research Association, 1(2).
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing 29. Hanus, M.D. and Fox, J., 2015. Assessing the effects of
Systems (pp. 3263-3266). ACM. gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on
15. Deterding, S, Eudaimonic Design, or: Six Invitations to intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction,
Rethink Gamification (July 1, 2014). Eudaimonic effort, and academic performance. Computers &
Design, or: Six Invitations to Rehtink Gamification. In: Education, 80, pp.152-161.
Rethinking Gamification. meson press 2014, pp. 30. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S. and Göritz, A., 2010.
305-323. Retrieved August 118, 2017 from https:// Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user
ssrn.com/abstract=2466374 experience. Interacting with computers, 22(5), pp.
16. Deterding, S., 2015. The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A 353-362.
method for gameful design. Human–Computer 31. Haworth, C.L. and Levy, P.E., 2001. The importance of
Interaction, 30(3-4), pp.294-335. instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of
17. Eickhoff, C., Harris, C.G., de Vries, A.P. and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Srinivasan, P., 2012, August. Quality through flow and Vocational Behavior, 59(1), pp.64-75.
immersion: gamifying crowdsourced relevance 32. Herranz, E., Palacios, R.C., de Amescua Seco, A. and
assessments. In Proceedings of the 35th international Yilmaz, M., 2014. Gamification as a Disruptive Factor
ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Software Process Improvement Initiatives. J. UCS,
in information retrieval (pp. 871-880). ACM. 20(6), pp.885-906.
18. Ermi, L. and Mäyrä, F., 2005. Player-centred game 33. Huotari, K. and Hamari, J., 2017. A definition for
design: Experiences in using scenario study to inform gamification: anchoring gamification in the service
mobile game design. Game Studies, 5(1), pp.1-10. marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), pp.
19. Flatla, D.R., Gutwin, C., Nacke, L.E., Bateman, S. and 21-31.
Mandryk, R.L., 2011, October. Calibration games: 34. Jacobs, H., 2013. Gamification: A framework for the
making calibration tasks enjoyable by adding workplace (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. dissertation).
motivating game elements. In Proceedings of the 24th 35. Järvinen, A, 2007 ¨ Introducing applied ludology:
annual ACM symposium on User interface software and Hands-on methods for game studies. In Proceedings of
technology (pp. 403-412). ACM. DiGRA 2007, pp. 134–144.
20. Frome, J., 2007, September. Eight Ways Videogames 36. Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps,
Generate Emotion. In Proceedings of the 2007 Digital A., Tijs, T. and Walton, A., 2008. Measuring and
Games Research Association Conference (pp. 831-835) defining the experience of immersion in games.
21. Gackenbach, J., 2008. Video game play and International journal of human-computer studies,
66(9), pp.641-661. Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-
37. Juul, J., 2010. The game, the player, the world: Looking computer interaction (pp. 339-347). ACM.
for a heart of gameness. PLURAIS-Revista 53. Rigby, C.S., 2015. Gamification and motivation. The
Multidisciplinar, 1(2). gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications, pp.
38. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P., 1990. Work motivation 113-138.
and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. 54. Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J.H., McCarthy,
Psychological science, 1(4), pp.240-246. I. and Pitt, L., 2016. Game on: Engaging customers and
39. McClelland, D.C., 1965. Toward a theory of motive employees through gamification. Business horizons,
acquisition. American psychologist, 20(5), p.321. 59(1), pp.29-36.
40. McGonigal, J., 2011. Reality is broken: Why games 55. Rohan, Gamification market by Solution, 2015.
make us better and how they can change the world. Retrieved August 18, 2017 from http://
Penguin. w w w. m a r k e t s a n d m a r k e t s . c o m / P r e s s R e l e a s e s /
41. Mekler, E.D., 2016. The motivational potential of gamification.asp
digital games and gamification-the relation between 56. Ryan R.M and Deci, E.L, 2000. The" what" and" why"
game elements, experience and behavior change of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
(Doctoral dissertation, University_of_Basel). determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4),
42. Morschheuser, B., Werder, K., Hamari, J., & Abe, J. pp.227-268.
(2017). How to gamify? Development of a method for 57. Ryan, M.L., 2003. On defining narrative media. Image
gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2017 50th & Narrative, 3(2).
Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1298-1307). 58. Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H. and Klevers, M., 2013.
IEEE. Psychological Perspectives on Motivation through
43. Nacke, L. and Lindley, C.A., 2008, November. Flow Gamification. IxD&A, 19, pp.28-37.
and immersion in first-person shooters: measuring the 59. Seaborn, K. and Fels, D.I., 2015. Gamification in
player's gameplay experience. In Proceedings of the theory and action: A survey. International Journal of
2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share Human-Computer Studies, 74, pp.14-31.
(pp. 81-88). ACM. 60. Tammen, H. and Loviscach, J., 2010. Emotion in video
44. Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2014. The games: quantitative studies. Emotion in HCI–Designing
concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive for People, pp.25-29.
psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer Netherlands. 61. Technology advice, What is Gamification software.
45. Naumann, A., Hurtienne, J., Israel, J.H., Mohs, C., 2015. Retrieved August 18, 2017 from http://
Kindsmüller, M.C., Meyer, H.A. and Hußlein, S., 2007, technologyadvice.com/gamification/
July. Intuitive use of user interfaces: defining a vague 62. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York:
concept. In International Conference on Engineering Wiley.
Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 128-136). 63. Yannakakis, G.N. and Paiva, A., 2014. Emotion in
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. games. Handbook on affective computing, pp.459-471.
46. Neeli, B.K., 2012, December. A method to engage 64. Zapata-Phelan, C.P., Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and
employees using gamification in BPO industry. In Livingston, B., 2009. Procedural justice, interactional
Services in Emerging Markets (ICSEM), 2012 Third justice, and task performance: The mediating role of
International Conference on (pp. 142-146). IEEE. intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and
47. Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. and Lee, L.E., 2008. Human Decision Processes, 108(1), pp.93-105.
Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard
Business Review, 86(7-8), pp.78-84.
48. Oprescu, F., Jones, C. and Katsikitis, M., 2014. I PLAY
AT WORK—ten principles for transforming work
processes through gamification. Frontiers in
psychology, 5.
49. Pinder, C.C., 2014. Work motivation in organizational
behavior. Psychology Press.
50. Poels, K., De Kort, Y. and Ijsselsteijn, W., 2007,
November. It is always a lot of fun!: exploring
dimensions of digital game experience using focus
group methodology. In Proceedings of the 2007
conference on Future Play (pp. 83-89). ACM.
51. Przybylski, A.K., Rigby, C.S. and Ryan, R.M., 2010. A
motivational model of video game engagement. Review
of general psychology, 14(2), p.154.
52. Ravaja, N., Salminen, M., Holopainen, J., Saari, T.,
Laarni, J. and Järvinen, A., 2004, October. Emotional
response patterns and sense of presence during video
games: Potential criterion variables for game design. In