=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3147/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Reflection on the Octalysis framework as a design and evaluation tool
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-3147
|authors=Philip Weber,Laura Grönewald,Thomas Ludwig
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/WeberG022
}}
==Reflection on the Octalysis framework as a design and evaluation tool==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper8.pdf
Reflection on the Octalysis framework as a design and
evaluation tool
Philip Weber 1, Laura Grönewald 1 and Thomas Ludwig1
1
Cyber-Physical Systems, University of Siegen, Germany
Abstract
The Octalysis framework is a gamification framework used for the design and evaluation of
“human-focused” systems. Although several practitioners have applied it within their daily
work, only a few academic articles have reflected on its applicability. With this study, we
present how and where the framework is currently applied based on a large-scale literature
study and reflect on the potentials and obstacles of using it within a Human Computer
Interaction (HCI) master’s class. Our empirical findings show that the use of the Octalysis
framework is often simplified and can also be overwhelming. The results further reveal that the
framework itself can be helpful in the creation and evaluation of concepts, especially when
extensive user research is not possible (e.g., due to time constraints). We contribute to the field
of gamification by critically reflecting on the use of the Octalysis framework.
Keywords
Octalysis framework, gamification frameworks, human computer interaction
1. Introduction see that this particular discourse currently plays a
rather underrepresented role in gamification
research, we would like to pave the way for
Even if there is no agreed definition of the term
fostering this discussion. We therefore examine
gamification, the most popular agreed definition
the Octalysis Framework as it gains a lot of
is ”the use of game design elements in non-game
attention among practitioners [28]. We ourselves
contexts” [7]. A great part of the academic work
have already used the framework a few times in
is aimed at making the effects of this “use”
projects and thus gained hands-on experience
measurable (e.g.: through increased user
with it.
satisfaction, retention rates, productivity,
Although the Octalysis framework is attracting
engagement) and thus informing the selection of
attention and adoption among practitioners
adequate design elements. It is common for
[27,40], we are not aware of any academic study
practitioners to use popular gamification
that has reflected on its usage and on its real-world
frameworks such as the “Octalysis Framework”
applicability as well as impact on the design of
[4] or the “Playful Experience Framework”
gamified systems. We consider this an important
(PLEX) [22] to decide which design elements are
research gap that we would like to address with
suitable for which kind of use case [28].
this paper.
With this paper we would like to focus more
on the design process of gamification using such
frameworks and investigate how one of these 2. Octalysis framework
frameworks translates into the “real world” as
well as which impact such a gamification The Octalysis framework is a gamification
framework has on the design practices. Since we framework developed by Yu-kai Chou [4]. The
6th International GamiFIN Conference 2022 (GamiFIN 2022),
April 26-29 2022, Finland
EMAIL: philip.weber@uni-siegen.de (A. 1);
laura.groenewald@uni-siegen.de (A. 2); thomas.ludwig@uni-
siegen.de (A. 3)
ORCID: 0000-0003-4020-6321 (A. 3)
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
75
framework is used to design gamified systems and which are labeled as Octalysis Level 2. In
evaluate applications in terms of their addition, if different needs of diverse target
motivational drivers, referred to as core drives groups are considered, Octalysis Level 3 can also
(CD) in the framework [4]. The framework be used, in which the four phases are linked to an
consists of eight core drives: (1) Epic Meaning individual user group [4].
and Calling, (2) Development and
Accomplishment, (3) Empowerment of Creativity 3. Methodology
and Feedback, (4) Ownership and Possession, (5)
Social Influence and Relatedness, (6) Scarcity and
To investigate the Octalysis framework from a
Impatience, (7) Unpredictability and Curiosity,
scientific point of view, we have chosen a two-
and (8) Loss and Avoidance.
step methodology. First, we present a large-scale
Chou identified and collected more than 100
literature review on the applicability of the
game design elements that he mapped to one or
Octalysis framework within different domains.
more core drives to increase the motivational
Here, we will outline why the framework was
affordances of specific core drives. As an
used (reasons for using the model) and summarize
example, the use of “Easter Eggs/Sudden
Rewards” addresses and increases the core drive the scattered articles on its usage. To better reflect
on the use of the framework, we then introduced
of “Unpredictability and Curiosity” (CD7). The
the Octalysis framework to a Human Computer
strength of the motivation based on the individual
Interaction (HCI) master’s course at our home
core is measured by the Octalysis Score ranging
university. The ten students of this course
from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates that the core drive
evaluated existing apps based on the Octalysis
is not addressed within a system and 10 means
framework and afterwards designed and justified
that there is no potential for further improving the
their own gamified app experience. Afterwards,
core drive. This results in differently shaped
students shared their experiences with the
octagons as the height of the Octalysis Scores can
framework in a focus group before handing in
be illustrated for each core drive (Figure 1). There
written reports, where we asked them to reflect on
are many other nuances that go beyond the scope
the role of the Octalysis framework during their
of this paper (e.g., a distinction between
design processes. Based on the students’
extrinsic/intrinsic motivation within the
experiences and our assessment of their created
individual core drives, black and white hat
designs, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of
gamification, implicit and explicit gamification,
using the Octalysis framework.
and a very briefly covered ninth “hidden” core
drive called “sensation”).
3.1. Literature review
To obtain a complete picture of the current use
of the Octalysis framework, we conducted a large-
scale literature review (Figure 2). For this
purpose, we examined in total 344 results found
in Google Scholar using the search term
“Octalysis framework” on October 1, 2020. After
excluding results that did not met minimum
academic standards (e.g., presentation slides), 280
results remained. We further excluded results that
we either could not understand due to language
barriers or that only mentioned the Octalysis
framework in passing (e.g., a mere explanation of
Figure 1: Visualization of the gamification the framework), resulting in 101 papers. As a final
restriction to increase scientific rigor, we
elements for the LinkedIn platform along the
excluded undergraduate theses, narrowing down
core drives [4].
our analysis to 67 academic publications (and an
additional four doctoral theses). We repeated the
The examination of the eight core drives can same steps again on November 10, 2021 for
be broken down into four phases of a user journey recently published papers, increasing the total
(Discovery, Onboarding, Scaffolding, Endgame)
76
number of papers by 22 to 366 and the relevant The course consisted of several introductory
papers by seven to a total of 78 publications. sessions to explain the Octalysis framework,
particularly the different core drives, levels 2 and
3 of the framework, and most of the major game
techniques [4]. The students were then given the
task of using the framework as a tool of analysis
to examine various food-related apps and identify
existing design patterns and potential design
spaces. The results of the analyses were discussed
by the entire group and were then made accessible
to all course participants.
Figure 2: Paper selection process of the literature Based on these discussions, all students had to
review develop their own idea, flesh out a concept with a
UX story [33], create a video prototype [23], and
The 78 papers were evaluated and analyzed by justify the key design decisions using the
the group of authors who collectively coded the Octalysis framework [4]. Subsequently, the
first papers, thereby inductively establishing a students presented the results and submitted a
coding system by mutual agreement. This was project report, which documented the project
followed by individual coding of the remaining work, outlined further developments of an idea,
papers and the subsequent reconciliation of the and, in particular, reflected on the use of the
results. Octalysis framework. In the last meeting, the
students discussed their experiences and opinions
3.2. Classroom study about the framework in a focus group moderated
by us.
To test the applicability, learnability, and This exercise was audio-recorded, and key
possible difficulties involved in the use of the passages were partially transcribed. The verbatim
Octalysis framework, we introduced the quotes used in this paper are attributed to the
framework to a group of 10 master’s students students (P01 to P10) and are taken from the
(seven males, three females) as part of an HCI project reports as well as from these
master’s course in summer 2020. The course, held documentations. The resulting material was
entirely in English, was an elective in the iteratively coded and verified in several meetings
respective HCI curriculum. Two of the authors among the authors.
prepared, taught, and supervised the course,
which was held from mid-April of 2020 to the end 4. Results of the literature study
of September 2020. Due to the ongoing Covid 19-
pandemic, the course was held remotely. To understand in detail how the Octalysis
Participating students had varying previous framework was previously utilized, we identified
experiences due to their different academic in the literature the different application domains
backgrounds. Most of the students came from the in which the Octalysis framework was used
fields of psychology, interaction design, and (Table 1). The framework is predominantly used
computer science. While some of the students had in the context of gamified educational
a basic knowledge of gamification as well as experiences. Examples are Rohr and Fischer [35],
motivation and design models, none knew or had who used the framework to generate qualitative-
used the Octalysis framework previously. Most of empirical user requirements from students to
them were aware of the difference between better understand the target group and derive
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and had a appropriate requirements for a gamified e-
general knowledge of the self-determination learning platform and Mårell-Olsson [25], who
theory of Ryan and Deci [36]. Thus, the students introduced the framework to university students,
could be described as “young professionals” who enabling them to act as cocreators to design
had already been exposed to related motivational gamified teaching activities for middle-school
and HCI topics due to their interest and expertise students.
but who were not yet familiar with the Octalysis
framework.
77
Table 1 Other specific topic areas were also identified,
Publications by application domain including social media [42], conversational agents
Application domain No. of [8], and promotion of pro-environmental behavior
publications (e.g., [32]), where only one to three publications
existed that were grouped under the label of “other
Education 35 domains”.
No specific domain 8
Healthcare 7
Marketing 6 4.1. Reasons for using the Octalysis
Organizational management 5 framework
Other domains 17
We analyzed how the Octalysis framework
Some of the papers we analyzed did not focus was approached and deployed within the
on a specific domain but rather investigated the reviewed studies. We discovered four primary
Octalysis framework and gamification from a practices (Table 2). Since the practices are not
rather holistic perspective. Tondello et al. [38] mutually exclusive, we marked in a few cases
used the framework as a starting point for the papers with more than one practice. In most cases,
development of their gameful design heuristics we identified a paper as addressing only one of the
and compared the Octalysis framework with other practices.
well-known frameworks and methods, such as the
“Hexad” framework by Marczewski [24], the Table 2
“Kaleidoscope of effective gamification" by Identified practices with the Octalysis framework
Kappen and Nacke [19], the motivational design Reasons No. of
lenses by Deterding [6], the six different publications
motivational dimensions for meaningful Create / Ideate / Justify new 31
gamification by Nicholson [29], or the “Super
systems
Better” design method by McGonigal [27].
Compare / Craft / Reflect on 22
Morschheuser et al. [28] interviewed 25
theory
gamification experts, in which four experts stated
that they made use of the Octalysis framework and Evaluate / Analyze existing 19
considered this and other gamification systems
frameworks to be important in their ideation Understanding users 10
phase.
Seven papers were related to the domain of The most common practice is using the
healthcare, where the Octalysis framework was Octalysis framework for designing new ideas,
used, for example, to increase the motivation of systems, and applications and justifying the
patients with physical disabilities to perform selection of game elements by assigning them to
exercises [9,10]. Six studies were in the area of core drives. The ideation process usually takes
marketing, e-commerce, and customer loyalty, an place within the author’s working group (e.g.,
example of which is the use of the Octalysis [5,9,15]); there was only one exception to the
framework by Fathian et al. [13] to develop a understanding that the design process is explicitly
model that maps the relationship between game a codesign process [25].
mechanics and elements of customer loyalty. Another common practice is to use the
Additionally, some papers address topics of Octalysis framework to align it with other models,
organizational management. For instance, frameworks, and methods, usually with the intent
Ellenberger et al. [12] used the Octalysis of deriving new methods (e.g., “gameful design
framework to analyze the integration of heuristics” [38], or “gamification characteristics
gamification in a company and its influence on measurement scale for mobile application users”
company culture. While Korn et al. [21] used the [1]), or more context-specific models (e.g., for
Octalysis framework as a foundation to develop a recrutainment applications [21], customer loyalty
model for the description and analysis of measures [13], or the smart home context [32]). It
recrutainment applications, Sanchez-Gordón et al. is striking here that either new approaches are
[37] investigated the compatibility of the developed based on the framework or that it is
Octalysis framework with the human factors of compared with existing models. However, no
ISO 10018.
78
reviewed paper dealt with the empirical validation evaluating gameful applications due to the high
with (sub)areas of the framework. level of needed familiarity with the frameworks.
Furthermore, the framework was used to
analyze existing applications, such as sports apps 5. Insights from the classroom study
[40] or video-sharing platforms [42]. More rarely,
the Octalysis framework was used to obtain
Within the classroom study, students identified
insights about users. Here, the most common
and communicated several advantages and
approach was to create questionnaires on the basis
disadvantages of using the Octalysis framework.
of the framework and use them to conduct
In addition, we as lecturers made some interesting
quantitative surveys (e.g., [1,26]). Less
observations, which will be subsequently shared.
frequently, it was used for qualitative studies,
The overarching design principle of the
such as focus groups or interviews (e.g., [14]).
Octalysis framework that puts human needs above
functional aspects was appreciated (P8). Through
4.2. Reflections on usage analysis of the three different Octalysis levels
(Levels 1, 2, and 3), one gets a new perspective on
The literature shows that reflections on the use human motivation and the user journey (P8). The
of the Octalysis framework as a methodology, the ideation phase appeared more structured; thus,
reasons for its selection, or remarks on the ideas could be brought up more easily (P1, P5).
exclusion of the framework are rare. Only 13 of The many different game techniques were
the 78 publications mentioned those reasons; but particularly helpful in generating ideas (P2, P8)
often only with a sentence or short paragraph. One and were easy to understand through real-life
reason to use the Octalysis framework could be its scenarios that seemed to be transferable to many
good reputation among gamification practitioners contexts (P5, P10). In addition, P4 and P10 said
[28], as it bridges psychology and game elements that the Octalysis framework made them aware of
[3]. Recently, the framework has also been used blackhat gamification techniques (such as “doom
in academic publications, which Karać and scrolling” [31]) and that they want to use them
Stabauer [20] mention as a reason for their choice. more consciously in their future designs. P5
On the other hand, the framework is describes the framework as a solid guideline that
sometimes criticized for not being context- can help inspire new ideas. In general, most
specific. Korn et al. [21], for example, see a lack students saw the usefulness of the framework for
of “‘serious’ business-related components” that developing new ideas instead of for evaluating
allow a proper evaluation of existing existing concepts and ideas. However, P7
recrutainment systems. Yfantis and Tseles [41] expressed a positive opinion of the framework for
argue that in the public sector, it might be useful evaluation purposes, emphasizing the objectivity
to consider additional right brain core drives to it provides: “Designing such an experience was
further boost intrinsic motivation. considered to be subjective but with the Octalysis
Another criticism is the strong influence of the framework you can somehow evaluate the
subjective perception when assessing core drives application.”
and game elements [3,12,30], which depends on However, students (P5, P8) criticized the
personal experiences and intuition [3], making apparent objectivity of the framework when
any objective comparisons between gamification evaluating other concepts. P5 considered that
approaches based on the Octalysis Gamification even similar concepts could not be meaningfully
Score rather difficult [12]. Similarly, it is not evaluated and compared with the framework. This
possible to estimate the extent to which a design is due to the subjective nature of quantifying the
element has an impact on the fulfillment of a individual design elements in a single
single core drive [3]. In addition, the framework gamification score, which was criticized by P8.
could lead to implementing rather “fashionable” In relation to the conceptualization of
game elements without a prior understanding of applications using the Octalysis framework,
customer needs through appropriate user research students found that it is too general and does not
[20]. sufficiently consider the design context (P2, P5).
Broer [2] criticizes the Octalysis framework P2, for example, would still prefer to use the 6D
for its lack of scientific evaluation, and Tondello framework [11] in the business context because it
[39] views gamification frameworks, including is specifically designed to be applied in this
the Octalysis framework, as unsuitable for domain. Other students (P8, P10) expressed their
79
fear that that the Octalysis framework could make observations. It is striking that most of the
them blind to key design challenges. In particular, students created their concepts only with the game
CD5, where intrinsic elements (social relatedness) techniques mentioned in the framework (even
and extrinsic elements (social pressure) are though we deliberately said that the core drives
combined under one core drive (“Social Influence are more relevant and that new game techniques
and Relatedness”), is a big concern as it can lead and ideas may also be explored and innovated
to an oversimplification of human motivations. within the course). In the end, this could lead to a
“Putting two very different types of motivation decrease in creativity and diversity in future
into the same category seems to oversimplify the designs, perhaps hindering the development of
nature of motivation and could lead to unintended novel approaches and thinking out of the box.
user experiences if a distinction is not drawn Although we were satisfied with the quality
during the design process” (P8). Furthermore, P5 and elaboration of the work, it was noticeable,
notes that the framework did not help her select an especially in the weaker projects, that students
appropriate number of game techniques or to link tried to incorporate as many game techniques as
them in a meaningful way, nor did it provide much possible into their own concept, that way hoping
particular guidance on how to design and to create an engaging experience. As a result, the
implement these elements. individual elements of the concept sometimes
Half of the students (P2, P4, P6, P8, P10) seemed somewhat detached. One specific
complained that the user perspective is not placed example is the game technique of mentorships,
in a key position within the framework when which was used in many concepts but was rarely
designing with it. In particular, a “practice-based conceived in a context-specific way or
user research study” is missing (P6); this could meaningfully integrated into the overall systems.
have been achieved by conducting interviews The idea that more design elements will lead to
beforehand (P2, P4) or by evaluating the more engagement might be a misconception,
prototype through usability tests (P6) and especially if the additional elements are poorly
improving it by other types of user feedback (P8, thought out.
P10).
One of the biggest criticisms mentioned by the 6. Discussion
students (P5, P8, P10) is the lack of scientific
grounding of the Octalysis framework. This is
Our classroom study confirmed all the
expressed by a statement of P5: “Scientific
mentioned criticisms from the literature review
approaches and references are seldom used
and portrayed them in greater detail. Only the
within the framework.” P10 criticized that many
statement that the framework is difficult to use for
passages in the book are either anecdotal or barely
the evaluation of gameful applications [39] was
cited. For example, P10 sees strong similarities
not apparent since all of the students were able to
with the different types of “nudges” described by
communicate and justify their concepts through
Thaler and Sunstein [34] and the game techniques
the lens of the Octalysis Framework very well.
of the Octalysis framework. P8 commented on the
However, this was probably due to the rather
individual core drives and considers core drives 2,
experienced participants and the teaching format,
5, and 7 to be particularly problematic for various
reasons, referring to the works of Ryan and Deci which entailed several sessions to introduce the
Octalysis framework to the students.
[36] and Hassenzahl et al. [18], which partly
In addition to the existing literature, we
overlap with the Octalysis framework.
identified some advantages and disadvantages of
Despite the criticisms mentioned, most
using the framework. We see it as problematic to
students concluded that the Octalysis framework
become less innovative if designers only follow
helped them better understand human motivation
the given structure of the Octalysis framework for
in their design practice. Even P8, who raised some
a project and does not think about other new game
concerns, concluded that: “Ultimately, however,
elements that are not (yet) included in the
the Octalysis framework can be a helpful tool, if
Octalysis framework. Here, other creative
used with critical reflection and in combination
techniques could continue to be used and we see
with motivation frameworks that are scientifically
the empirical investigation of user needs and the
more grounded.” (P8)
unconstrained analysis of the given design space
From the role of the lecturers and with a close
as highly important. Similar to [28], long-term
look at the concepts and prototypes that were
research on the design practices of gamification
created, we made two complementary
80
practitioners and academics would be required to With regard to other widely used gamification
understand this dynamic. frameworks, we also consider it useful to subject
Equally problematic is the potential these frameworks to methodologically similar
misconception that having as many gamification studies, in order to better understand and compare
elements as possible will necessarily result in the design practices that result from the use of the
higher engagement and a better user experience. respective frameworks. Only after extensive
To be fair, the gamification framework does not discussion along these lines it seem reasonable to
mention it [4], but it was misunderstood by us to derive practical implications and condense
several students in the classroom study and was them into design guidelines for the use of these
recognizable in the approaches of some academic frameworks.
publications. We are aware that this is in contrast
to a series of recent experimental studies by 8. Conclusion
Groening and Binnewies [17], which
demonstrated, in a small controlled setting, that
Since no academic studies on the use of the
motivation and performance tend to increase as
Octalysis framework as a design and evaluation
more game elements are added. In any case, we
see a need for empirical-based research in this tool exist, we have addressed this research gap in
this paper. Based on a comprehensive literature
area, with a particular focus on investigating
study and the application of the Octalysis
practice-oriented implications for the design of
framework in the context of a master’s program
gameful applications and systems.
course, we were able to show the challenges and
The Octalysis framework sensitizes for
the potential of the use of the Octalysis
elements of black hat gamification. Therefore, the
framework. We believe that the framework
Octalysis framework could potentially be used as
supports the design process, particularly for idea
a model to educate and raise awareness about
generation. However, there is an important need
black hat gamification elements and closely
for empirical-based validation of the Octalysis
related concepts such as dark patterns [16].
framework. We also see the need for ongoing
methodological reflections while using the
7. Limitations and future work framework to inform and guide the design
practice of researchers and practitioners; this also
It is important to point out some limitations of holds true for other gamification frameworks and
our work. These are mainly related to the methods. We hope that our study has contributed
conducted classroom study, in which we do not to making the applicability of the Octalysis
deal with objectively quantifiable outcomes, but framework academically plausible and, thereby,
rather with the articulation of subjective providing benefits in the selection of gamification
experiences of the participating students and our frameworks.
own perceptions. The style of didactic
presentation, especially in the case of complex 9. Acknowledgments
frameworks such as the Octalysis, definitely has
some influence on the appraisal of this
This work was carried out within the scope of
framework. With respect to this, we tried to
introduce the majority of the framework to the the project Rendezfood (EFRE-0801425), which
is funded by the European Regional Development
students and did this in a way that was as non-
Fund. We sincerely thank Lea Michel for her
judgmental as possible.
Furthermore, there was no control group in our contribution to this work and the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive feedback, which
study (e.g., a second course with students who
has improved our paper. Furthermore, we would
could have tackled the same challenge without the
like to thank all participants who took part in the
Octalysis framework). Also, in terms of
study.
fundamental understanding of gamification and
user experience, it was a rather homogeneous
group of HCI master’s students. It would be 10. References
interesting to examine the influence of the
Octalysis framework on the design practice of [1] Richard D’arc da Silva Brito, Luis Hernan
more digital-distant target groups and of Contreras Pinochet, Evandro Luiz Lopes,
gamification experts. and Mauri Aparecido de Oliveira. 2018.
81
Development of a gamification Transactions on Game-Based Learning 5,
characteristics measurement scale for mobile 16: 155085. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-
application users. Internext 13, 1: 01–16. 7-2018.155085.
https://doi.org/10.18568/1980-4865.1311- [10] Martina Eckert, Mónica Jiménez, María-
16. Luisa Martín-Ruiz, Juan Meneses, and Luis
[2] Jan Broer. 2017. The Gamification Inventory Salgado. 2018. Blexer-med: A Medical Web
An Instrument for the Qualitative Evaluation Platform for Administrating Full Play
of Gamification and its Application to Therapeutic Exergames. In Lecture Notes of
Learning Management Systems. University the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social
of Bremen. Informatics and Telecommunications
[3] Philipp Busch. 2018. „Spielerische Ansätze Engineering (LNICST), Barbara Guidi,
in der Internationalen Zusammenarbeit Laura Ricci, Calafate Carlos, Gaggi
Gamification und Serious Games als Ombretta and Johann Marquez-Barja (eds.).
Alternative zum traditionellen Springer International Publishing, 289–299.
Methodenportfolio?“. Johannes Gutenberg https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76111-
University Mainz. Retrieved from 4_29.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SskI0H [11] Karla L. Egan, M. Christina Schneider, and
Mwck4C&pgis=1. Steve Ferrara. 2011. The 6D Framework: A
[4] Yu-kai Chou. 2015. Actionable Validity Framework for Defining Proficient
Gamification. Octalysis Media, Fremont. Performance and Setting Cut Scores for
[5] Mário Cruz. 2018. “Chicos, Sacad El Móvil Accessible Tests. In Handbook of Accessible
De Vuestras Mochilas Porque Lo Vamos A Achievement Tests for All Students, Stephen
Usar”: Empowering Spanish As Foreign N Elliott, Ryan J. Kettler Kettler, Peter A.
Language Students Through Mobile Devices Beddow and Alexander Kurz (eds.). Springer
Mário. The Turkish Online Journal of Science+Business Media, New York, 275–
Educational Technology 1: 282–298. 292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-
[6] Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The Lens of 9356-4_16.
Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful [12] Thomas Ellenberger, Deane Harder, and
Design. Human–Computer Interaction 30, Brechbühler Pešková. 2020. Gamification in
3–4: 294–335. Unternehmen. In Digitale Transformation
https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.993 und Unternehmensführung, Jochen
471. Schellinger, Kim Oliver Tokarski and Ingrid
[7] Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Kissling-Näf (eds.). Springer Fachmedien
Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.
Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26960-9.
Defining “Gamification.” In Proceedings of [13] Mohammad Fathian, Hossein Sharifi, and
the 15th International Academic MindTrek Faranaksadat Solat. 2019. Investigating the
Conference on Envisioning Future Media Effect of Gamification Mechanics on
Environments - MindTrek ’11, 9. Customer Loyalty in Online Stores. Journal
https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040. of Information Technology Management 11,
[8] Ioannis Doumanis and Serengul Smith. 2015. 4: 1–23.
A Framework for Research in Gamified https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2019.287056.2
Mobile Guide Applications using Embodied 390.
Conversational Agents (ECAs). [14] Helge Fischer, Matthias Heinz, Lars
International Journal of Serious Games 2, 3. Schlenker, and Fabiane Follert. 2016.
https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v2i3.79. Gamifying Higher Education. Beyond
[9] Martina Eckert, Ignacio Gomez-Martinho, Badges, Points and Leaderboards. In
Cristina Esteban, Yadira Peláez, Mónica Workshop Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien
Jiménez, Maria-Luisa Martín-Ruiz, Maite (GeNeMe) 2016, 93–104.
Manzano, Alicia Aglio, Victor Osma, Juan [15] Sergio A. A. Freitas, Edna D. Canedo,
Meneses, and Luis Salgado. 2018. The Cristóvão L. Frinhani, Maurício F. Vidotti,
Blexer system – Adaptive full play and Marcia C. Silva. 2017. Evaluation of an
therapeutic exergames with web-based Automatic Essay Correction System Used as
supervision for people with motor an Assessment Tool. In Universal Access in
dysfunctionalities. EAI Endorsed Human–Computer Interaction, Margherita
82
Antona and Constantine Stephanidis (eds.). evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th
Springer International Publishing, 579–592. International Conference on Designing
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58700- Pleasurable Products and Interfaces - DPPI
4_18. ’13, 221.
[16] Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513530.
Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs. [23] Wendy E. Mackay and Anne Laure Fayard.
2018. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX 1999. Video Brainstorming and Prototyping:
Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Techniques for Participatory Design. In CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing ’99 extended abstracts on Human factors in
Systems, 1–14. computer systems - CHI ’99, 118.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108. https://doi.org/10.1145/632780.632790.
[17] Christopher Groening and Carmen [24] Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. User Types. In
Binnewies. 2021. The More, the Merrier? - Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play:
How Adding and Removing Game Design Gamification, Game Thinking and
Elements Impact Motivation and Motivational Design. CreateSpace
Performance in a Gamification Environment. Independent Publishing Platform, 65–80.
International Journal of Human–Computer [25] Eva Mårell-Olsson. 2019. University
Interaction 37, 12: 1130–1150. Students as Co-creators in Designing
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.187 Gamification Teaching Activities using
0828. Emergent Technologies in Swedish K-12
[18] Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Education. Interaction Design and
Anja Göritz. 2010. Needs, affect, and Architecture(s) 42: 47–69.
interactive products – Facets of user [26] Fitri Marisa, Sharifah Sakinah Syed Ahmad,
experience. Interacting with Computers 22, Zeratul Izzah Mohd Yusoh, Anastasia L.
5: 353–362. Maukar, Ronald David Marcus, and Anang
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.00 Aris Widodo. 2020. Evaluation of Student
2. Core Drives on e-Learning during the Covid-
[19] Dennis L. Kappen and Lennart E. Nacke. 19 with Octalysis Gamification Framework.
2013. The Kaleidoscope of Effective International Journal of Advanced Computer
Gamification: Deconstructing Gamification Science and Applications 11, 11: 104–116.
in Business Applications. In Proceedings of https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0111
the First International Conference on 114.
Gameful Design, Research, and [27] Jane McGonigal. 2015. SuperBetter: A
Applications, 119–122. revolutionary approach to getting stronger,
https://doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583029. happier, braver and more resilient. Penguin
[20] Jovana Karać and Martin Stabauer. 2017. Books, New York.
Gamification in E-Commerce A Survey [28] Benedikt Morschheuser, Lobna Hassan, Karl
Based on the Octalysis Framework. In Fiona Werder, and Juho Hamari. 2018. How to
Fui-Hoon Nah and Chuan-Hoo Tan (eds.). design gamification? A method for
Springer International Publishing, Cham, engineering gamified software. Information
41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- and Software Technology 95: 219–237.
58484-3_4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015.
[21] Oliver Korn, Florian Brenner, Julian Börsig, [29] Scott Nicholson. 2015. A RECIPE for
Fabio Lalli, Maik Mattmüller, and Andrea Meaningful Gamification. In Gamification in
Müller. 2018. Defining Recrutainment: A Education and Business. Springer
Model and a Survey on the Gamification of International Publishing, Cham, 1–20.
Recruiting and Human Resources. In https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-
Advances in Intelligent Systems and 5_1.
Computing, L.E. Freund and W. Cellary [30] Tania Ouariachi, Chih-Yen Li, and Wim J. L.
(eds.). 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- Elving. 2020. Gamification Approaches for
319-60486-2_4. Education and Engagement on Pro-
[22] Andrés Lucero, Jussi Holopainen, Elina Environmental Behaviors: Searching for
Ollila, Riku Suomela, and Evangelos Best Practices. Sustainability 12, 11: 4565.
Karapanos. 2013. The playful experiences https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114565.
(PLEX) framework as a guide for expert
83
[31] Jay Peters. 2021. Google is making it easier Systems. University of Waterloo. Retrieved
to doomscroll through search results . The from http://hdl.handle.net/10012/14807.
Verge. Retrieved December 1, 2021 from [40] Áron Tóth and Bálint Szabó. 2018. A Pilot
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/2272 Research on Sport application’s Usability
6625/google-search-results-continuous- and Feedback Mechanics. In 2018 9th IEEE
scrolling-mobile-doomscroll. International Conference on Cognitive
[32] Pedro Ponce, Alan Meier, Juana Isabel Infocommunications (CogInfoCom),
Méndez, Therese Peffer, Arturo Molina, and 000075–000080.
Omar Mata. 2020. Tailored gamification and https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2018.8
serious game framework based on fuzzy 639870.
logic for saving energy in connected [41] V. Yfantis and D. Tseles. 2013. Exploring
thermostats. Journal of Cleaner Production Gamification In The Public Sector Through
262: 121167. The Octalysis Conceptual Model.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12116 [42] Yuxiang Zhao and Jian Tang. 2016.
7. Exploring the Motivational Affordances of
[33] Whitney Quesenbery and Kevin Brooks. Danmaku Video Sharing Websites: Evidence
2010. Storytelling for User experience: from Gamification Design. In Masaaki
Crafting Stories for Better Design. Rosenfeld Kurosu (ed.). Springer International
Media, New York. Publishing, Cham, 467–479.
[34] Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39513-
2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about 5_44.
health, wealth, and happiness. Yale
University Press.
[35] Fabiane Rohr and Helge Fischer. 2014. Mehr
Als Spielerei! Gamedesign-Elemente in Der
Digitalen Lehre. In Proceeding, Workshop
on E-Learning, Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz,
1–9.
[36] Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000.
Self-Determination Theory and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
Development, and Well-Being. American
Psychologist 55, 1: 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
[37] Mary-Luz Sanchez-Gordón, Ricardo
Colomo-Palacios, and Eduardo Herranz.
2016. Gamification and Human Factors in
Quality Management Systems: Mapping
from Octalysis Framework to ISO 10018. In
Computer Standards and Interfaces, C.
Kreiner (ed.). Springer International
Publishing, 234–241.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44817-
6_19.
[38] Gustavo F Tondello, Dennis L Kappen,
Marim Ganaba, and Lennart E Nacke. 2019.
Gameful Design Heuristics: A Gamification
Inspection Tool. In Human-Computer
Interaction. Perspectives on Design. HCII
2019., Masaaki Kurosu (ed.). Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 224–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22646-
6_16.
[39] Gustavo Fortes Tondello. 2019. Dynamic
Personalization of Gameful Interactive
84