Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 1

Theorizing the Potential of Gamified

Activism: A Literature Review

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 2

Abstract

As an increasingly ubiquitous technique within online social networks, gamification has become

more frequently used to mobilize activists across a range of social movements. However, the

theoretical and empirical literature on the subject of gamified activism, or gactivism, is

surprisingly limited. This review seeks to advance research on digital gactivism, first by

contextualizing it within the digital activism literature; and second by developing an

understanding of gactivism’s potential contributions to, and role in, movement mobilization and

outcomes through a review of established and empirically grounded social movement theories.

Specifically, we focus on the political process approach, resource mobilization, and aspects of

the cultural turn in social movement studies, and argue that from a social movement perspective

gactivism offers high potential in contributing to mobilization and social change. Despite this

significant potential for online gactivism, the article concludes with warnings for the creation and

utilization of such social network games.

Keywords: gactivism, social network games, social media, gamification, mobilization, social

movement, collective action, framing

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 3

Introduction

Gamification refers to the infusion of processes and activities with game design elements

(Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). A game can be defined as

‘a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where

different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in

order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and

the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable’ (Juul, 2003).

These systems often incorporate reward allocation (Hamari & Eranti, 2011), narrative, and

competition (McCormick, 2013). Such an infusion has increasingly been used within online

social networks and has recently been introduced to the realm of social and political activism.

However, despite several interesting attemptsi to bridge engagement in collective action (see

Diani 1992) with this increasingly theorized and utilized aspect of online social interaction (Bista

et al 2012)ii, to date, there is limited literature on the gamification of activism (or gactivism).

This review seeks to expand on this literature by placing gactivism within the wider context of

activist gaming and digital activism, along with an exploration of the theoretical justifications for

increased research on gactivism by reviewing the social movement mobilization and outcome

literatures in order to gauge theoretical benefits of the tactic of gamification. In particular, this

review examines the political process approach, resource mobilization, and aspects of the

cultural turn in social movement studies. We will use those frameworks to argue that the

theoretical and empirical advances of social movement studies have provided a strong case for

the use of online gamification in spurring mobilization and its potential for influencing social and

political change. We first outline the landscape of gamified activism by briefly investigating the
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 4

role of games within social movements and then by situating gactivism within the larger changes

of an increasingly digitalized world.

Games, activism, and the role of gamified activism

Games have been used as tools for activism by social movements for many decades and new

activist games have continued to be developed and used for a wide range of purposes. Some of

these games were developed by social and political activists for the purpose of awareness- or

consciousness-raising. One classic, pre-digital example is the popular board game Monopoly.

Monopoly was an adapted version of Elizabeth Magie’s The Landlord’s Game which was born

out of Magie’s reading of Henry George’s Progress and Poverty. The Landlord’s Game had two

sets of rules, one under which the goal was to create monopolies (as in Monopoly), and another

in which all players were rewarded when wealth was created. According to Pilon (2015), ‘[h]er

dualistic approach was a teaching tool meant to demonstrate that the [latter] set of rules was

morally superior’iii.

Since Monopoly, other games have also been used as teaching tools. Digital games have been

developed to teach players about ecosystems (Games for Change, nd.a), energy and

environmental sustainability (CityOne), climate change solutions (CAMEL, 2012), the US Bill

of Rights (Games for Change, nd.b), other cultures (Games for Change, nd.c), neo-colonialism

(Games for Change, nd.d), and much more.

Some games have additionally been used to teach players skills that may help engage them in

activism. A Force More Powerful is a computer game that was developed using Gene Sharp’s

book Methods of Nonviolent Action (1973) which examines nonviolent revolutions and

movements. The game allows players to coordinate a social movement seeking to overthrow a
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 5

dictatorship, expel a foreign occupying power, or get rid of state corruption, for example. The

game was developed to help understand the processes involved in producing such large-scale

changes non-violently, based on historical case studies and comparative analysisiv. Another game

called Community Organizing Toolkit (http://organizinggame.org/) takes users through the

process of door-to-door campaigning, helping to induct new campaigners to basic aspects of the

work often used as a tactic across a range of social and political movements.

These types of games, particularly software-based games, form a large part of the ‘socially

responsible’ gaming sector (Polack-Wahl, 2007) which has expanded significantly in recent

years. For example, institutions such as Games for Change have developed. Games for Change is

an organization that ‘facilitates the creation and distribution of social impact games that serve as

critical tools in humanitarian and educational efforts’ (Games for Change, nd.e). In addition,

universities have also established research and design institutions that deal with the topic of

socially impactful gaming (for example, ASU Center for Games and Impact, Center for

Persuasive Play/Game Lab at American University, and Engagement Game Lab at Emerson

College).

The expansion of the field of activist gaming suggests the possibility of developing a currently

under-examined means of achieving social impact from gaming – the gamification of activism.

And with the ubiquity of online social networking, gamification today seems best placed within a

digital framework. The online gamification of activism would require the introduction of rule-

based systems into the processes that make up social or political activism. This can include

gamifying a range of mundane activities such as leaflet distribution or meeting participation to

other aspects of social movement participation such as demonstration attendance and even civil

disobedience. Individual activities can be gamified, or a whole range of activities can include a
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 6

game design. Regarding the latter, one example could be an online, digitized point system for

participation in various activities where the quantity of allocated points could differ based on

factors such as the amount travelled to ‘accomplish’ a task (e.g., attend a demonstration), the

difficulty of completing a task (e.g., attend a meeting vs. participate in nonviolent civil

disobedience), the amount of times a task was done previously, or the amount of times other

tasks were done for one organizationv.

Gactivism within the domain of digital activism

Gactivism operates within the larger context of changed activism practices, and in particular a

new type of activism that is demarcated by its use of digital networks and technologies for

activism, mobilisation, and political organisation. Literature on this topic often refers to these

new forms of activism as digital activism (i.e. Joyce 2010; ; Breindl 2010; Hands 2011; Murdoch

2010), online activism (Yang 2009; Postmes & Brunsting 2002; Meikle 2010; Hill 2010; Hwang

2010; Vegh 2003), internet activism (Kahn & Kellner 2004; Earl & Kimport 2011; Rutherford

2000; Tatarchevskiy 2011), cyberactivism (McCaughey & Ayers 2003; Illia 2003; Chamberlain

2004; Carty & Onyett 2006), and web activism (Dartnell 2006), netactivism (Dahlgren 2004;

Doctorow 2011).

While games have been used for activist purposes much earlier than the advent of digital

technology, digitalization and particularly the networked capacity of the internet have opened up

new dimensions for gactivism. Gactivism is largely marked by developments in digital and

networked technologies. As such, it suffers from many of the social costs and benefits from

many of the advantages that have been attributed to the utilization of new technologies for social

movement activism. Digitalized forms of activism have been praised for their wide reach (Gurak
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 7

& Logie 2003: 45; Salter 2003: 129) and interactive potential (Scholz 2010: 21; McCaughey &

Ayers 2003: 4), but also been criticized for their limited outcomes (i.e. Pemberton 2014; also see

Sharma 2014), and contribution towards political apathy or limited, ‘clicktivist’ engagement (see

Karpf 2010b for more on clicktivism). The potential of gactivism could therefore lie in its

interactive qualities or – particularly in the case of social movement organisations – capacity for

relationship-building (Uzunoglu & Kip 2014; Ingenhoff & Koelling 2009; Yang & Taylor 2010;

Waters et al 2009). As with ‘clicktivism’, however, it can be suggested that gactivism may

negatively affect social movements by trivializing activism or contribute to developing an

apolitical culture.

While the potential effects of digitally enabled activism have been contested, gactivism occupies

an interesting role within a growing form of contention which has been spurred by such

technological innovations. This new activism has been characterized as flexible and spontaneous

(Kavada 2010: 101, 113), decentralized (Kavada 2010: 101; Salter 2003: 129; Garrido &

Halavais 2003: 170; Gamson 2003: 258), ‘seemingly without leaders’ (Hwang 2010: 121) and

therefore relatively non-hierarchical (Gurak & Logie 2003: 31; Salter 2003: 129; Wellman in

Cullum 2010: 49), or at least allowing for horizontal organisation (Columbus 2010: 173) and a

diversity of power structures (Schultz & Jungherr 2010: 33). Digital space therefore offers the

potential for more participatory, deliberative, and open politics (Nielsen 2010: 182). Movements

can develop suddenly and spontaneously (Kavada 2010: 113), be viewed by a comparatively

large audience (Gurak & Logie 2003: 45), gain a ‘sense of continuity’ (Kavada 2010: 117), be

sustained over longer periods of time (Gurak & Logie 2003: 42), and remain – if for nothing else

– as ‘sites of memory’ (Kavada 2010: 117).

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 8

In many ways these new tendencies are suited to uses of gactivism. The decentralisation of

movements means that potential activists can now gain access to movements via different entry

points and different levels of engagement in what has been called the ‘engagement ladder’ (e.g.

James and Manilov 2011; Andersen 2010). In an engagement ladder, activism does not represent

one specific type of activity that is as a whole suitable for particular movements, but rather a

range of activities that depend on an individual’s engagement (James and Manilov 2011) and

may have different benefits for a movement. An engagement ladder includes a variety of

activities with different commitment levels. In that sense gactivism may directly represent

engagement on lower rungs of the ladder while promoting additional steps to movement

engagement. Integration and movement along the engagement ladder is further facilitated by the

flexible, spontaneous, participatory, and hierarchically flat nature of digital networks. Those

features allow users to explore movements through different contexts and audiences without an

initial formal commitment.

The potential of gactivism also lies – like with other forms of digital activism – in its integrated

uses. The networked capacity of online technologies allow for campaigns that are hybrid in the

sense that they combine online and offline elements, and to function within a media ecology.

While gamified activism could take on a variety of models and organizational types, the ways in

which gactivism is participative is inherently in line with other new tendencies in society that are

expanding with the support of digital technologies. Namely, the process of media convergence

(see Green 2010; Dwyer 2010; Lupton 2013) is helping to remove associational demarcationsvi

and practical limitations to the integration of a wide array of social phenomena. New

technologies are now enabled to interact with each other and as a result audiences often use

several technologies simultaneously (Lupton 2013: 3). That includes digital tools such as the
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 9

Wii, as discussed by Lupton (2013: 3), are now connected to the internet, transferable over

various new media devices, and enabled for social media interaction.

As games are integrated into the wider media landscape, gactivism becomes (like other types of

digital activism) more networked and therefore more embedded and valuable in activist pursuits.

Media convergence further means that new technologies and therefore also digitally enabled

forms of activism become more integrated into everyday life and more closely associated with,

for example, lifestyle, contemporary affairs, and entertainment. As a social practice which

integrates entertainment and politics by default, gactivism then carries considerable potential for

contemporary social movements in their activism pursuits.

Theorizing the impacts of gactivism

Movement Outcomes and Mobilization

For gactivism to become increasingly relevant within the processes of social movement

mobilization, it is beneficial to elucidate the theoretical benefits it could provide to movement

outcomes. By reviewing the social movement outcomes literature we can situate gactivism

amongst other movement strategies and tactics and highlight gamification’s specific

contributions to social and political activism. The outcomes literature within social movement

studies has drawn on a wealth of theoretical advances and empirical data from the last forty years

of research and has frequently found mobilization to play a role in social movement impact (for a

discussion, see Giugni 2004).

Increased levels of support for a cause that are demonstrated through participative acts, rather

than passive approval, signal to others a wider base of support for the cause. Under democratic

theory, self-interested policymakers in democracies would be motivated to align their positions

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 10

with movements if those movements demonstrate a sufficient electoral opportunity or threat.

Increased mobilization could therefore be used as an indicator of growing and perhaps already

widespread support for the movement’s position on the policy or policies in question. Evidence

has been found to support these arguments, with several studies setting out to test democratic

theory in the context of social movement pressure (Burstein, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2003; Burstein

and Linton, 2002). In addition, popular controls over the decision-making of authorities exist in

non-democratic contexts (Li, 2014; Lorentzen, 2013; Malesky & Schuler, 2010; Weeks, 2008;

Sharp, 1973), albeit through different mechanisms (Distelhorst & Hou, 2014a). Social change,

rather than just policy change, can also be accelerated by the presence of increased numbers of

participants (see Earl, 2006), particularly regarding novel concerns. Within democratic contexts,

scholars have found that social movements tend to mobilize in order to make public displays to

show others, including policymakers and other movement targets, their worthiness, unity,

numbers, and commitment – or WUNC displayed (Tilly 2003). In doing so, WUNC displays

help to fill out an implicit and standardized ‘scorecard for challenges’ by ‘authorities, allies,

repressive forces, allies, rivals, and spectators’ in which the product of worthiness, unity,

numbers, and commitment equal the strength of the movement (Tilly, 1999, p. 261). It is argued

that the stronger the movement, the greater capacity to generate desired outcomes (e.g. Kolb

2007; Giugni 2004).

Another line of research has posited that outcomes are more likely to be generated with

increased, and better utilized, resources. This ‘resource mobilization’ approach, in part, argues

that ‘human resources’ (Jenkins, 1983) should also be considered and that individuals engaging

actively in the process would benefit the movement (Ganz, 2000; McCarthy, 2005; Rabrenovic,

2009). In addition, other types of resources could be accumulated due to increased mobilization
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 11

through a variety of mechanisms, including personal financial contributions (Edwards &

McCarthy, 2004). These theoretical threads suggest the importance of mobilization. The next

section will be concerned with understanding the routes to mobilization and the opportunities for

the gamification of activism within these routes.

Routes to Mobilization: Collective Action Theory & Motivational Frames

The social movement literature provides a strong case for the use of online gamification in

generating mobilization. A range of theoretical developments backed by empirical findings,

ranging from collective action theory, to framing, to research on emotions, could be used to

justify the use of gamification with regards to increasing mobilization. The variety of these

evidence-backed theories suggests that digitally-enabled gactivism can generate additional and

sustained mobilization through various mechanisms.

Chong’s seminal 1991 text, Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, explores the

application of rational choice theory in explaining the ebbs and flows of the Black Civil Rights

Movement in the United States. A central argument in the text concerns the need for selective

incentives, or private goods available to those who engage in collective action, for mobilization

to occur when the objective of the mobilization is the creation of a public good (also see Olson

1965). This rational choice argument posits that individual participation in social movement

activities, particularly activities with relatively high costs, cannot be explained by the desire of

collective goods unless their individual participation was either understood to be a significant

enough contribution so as to facilitate desired outcomes, or that participation itself provided

other kinds of incentives (i.e., selective incentives). Whereas in the civil rights movement Chong

(1991) argued that social benefits such as community, respect in the eyes of others, and being en

vogue were advantages one could only get from the movement by participating in the
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 12

movement; gamification could provide the selective incentives of ‘gaining points’, ‘leveling up’,

outcompeting others, and achieving an ‘epic win’ for participants (Witt, Scheiner, & Robra-

Bissantz, 2011; Hamari & Koivisto, 2013; Huang & Soman, 2013). While the outcomes of the

collective mobilization may be public goods and therefore spread across individuals regardless of

whether they participate, the aspects of gamification described above can be used as selective

incentives for generating the participation of those who otherwise may not participate, and

thereby increase mobilization.

Since Chong’s work, others have contributed to our understanding of mobilization in social

movements through this rational choice lens. We shall refer here to two particularly interesting

accounts for the consideration of gactivism. First, Junker (2014) argued that ‘enchanted’

selective incentives also operate when it comes to movement participation. In his research,

Junker found that activism of the religious minority group Falun Gong was intrinsically linked to

the religious aspect of their movement and that the spiritual and metaphysical benefits promised

by the religion require participation. Such a selective incentive can conceivably be found across

religious movements and in movement participation by individuals who are similarly motivated

in their action. For our purposes however, these enchanted selective incentives operate not only

in a metaphysical realm, but also the ‘game world’. That is, benefits acquired within the game

world are themselves enchanted selective incentives and can encourage participation in the same

way material or metaphysical incentives do.

The cultural turn, and particularly the focus on emotions in recent social movement literature

(see Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2001), can also help contribute to our understanding of the

potential for gamifying activism. Calhoun (2001), for example, argues that ‘movements produce

emotions’ and that these emotions can serve as selective incentives where ‘[r]ecurrent occasions
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 13

for ‘peak’ emotional engagement may be more or less ritualized and more or less consciously

managed by movement leaders’ (Calhoun 2001, p. 55-6). These emotional incentives can also be

attempted within the realm of gactivism where narratives can be developed to highlight and

intensify the emotional stimulus of participation, bridging the roles of movement leader and

gamemaster.

Others who have critiqued notions of individual calculation-making have nevertheless expanded

on points made by Chong and others, arguing that people who participate in social movements

are often integrated into networks of other activists (Kim & Bearman, 1997). These social

networks can also exert selective incentives on individuals and therefore such social pressures

may operate through this same basic mechanism (Gould, 2003; Kitts, 2000; Passy, 2003). These

social pressures can be integrated into online gactivism by making it social and/or competitive.

In this case, online social networks can be cultivated through the game or existing social

networks can expand via the game. Social pressures can then be felt with ‘playing the game’ -

which should be intrinsically tied to and therefore necessitate movement participation.

The online gamification of activism can also provide a new discourse through which to appeal to

potential movement participants. According to collective action frame theory, motivational

frames are a ‘schemata of interpretation’ (Goffman, 1974, p. 21) that provide a reason and

motive to engage in collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 617). Gamification would

provide a new motivational frame for potential participants, using appeals such as 1) heroism

through ‘epic [activist] quests’ (Brownhill, 2013, p. 34), 2) self-development through activist

skill ‘level-ups’, 3) collaborative competition that provides small individual victories and

challenges within a wider collective endeavour, and 4) self-efficacy from the completion of
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 14

(small) challenges. These can be contrasted with more traditional motivational frames used in

activism and contentious politics.

Regarding heroism, motivational paths have been linked to heroism in ways quite different from

the idea of ‘epic quests’. For example, a study examining motivational frames in the Iranian

revolution and among terrorists found that the use of heroism through martyrdom had an impact

in movement recruitment (Snow & Byrd 2007; Salehi, 1996, p. 50). Others have found similar

reasons for engagement in more ubiquitious types of protest events (e.g. Gorringe & Rosie 2006;

Nash 2008).

While activists may get a sense of improved skills without gamification, skill development has

rarely been incorporated into the motivational framing of participation, particularly since it is not

often explicitly and purposefully developed within contexts of contentious practices. However,

some jobs within the ‘social movement sector’ (Everett, 1992) have used such motivations in

appealing for job or internship applications. Games typically identify skill development, even if

for the game-world character or avatar and thus can easily be fit into the framing used for

gactivism.

Competition may very well motivate social movement participants, particularly across social

movement organizations within the same movement (e.g., Jenkins, 1983, p. 541-2), but also

across movements (Strang & Soule, 1998) and within organizations (Deaux & Reid, 2000,

p.188). Nevertheless this is often as a result of already engaged activism, rather than motivation

for initial engagement and it is rarely used as a motivational frame. Again, gactivism allows for

the typical gaming element of competition to be applied strategically as a frame through which to

encourage movement participation.

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 15

Sustaining Mobilization

For social movements, sustained mobilization is crucial, partially because it increases the level

of ‘commitment’ found in the WUNC formula but also because it also allows for mobilization to

carry on even when movements are in decline or abeyance due to the closure of political

opportunities or changes in other external variables (Taylor, 1989). It has been argued that the

failure of some recent social movements was due to the lack of sustained mobilization, even

when the numbers that were mobilized were quite large – such as the anti-Iraq war movement

(Yeo, 2012). Therefore, sustaining mobilization may also be worth examining when discussing

gamification. This is particularly the case when a game ‘finishes’, or when point scoring is

suspended.

Although gamified activism may mobilize otherwise un-mobilized constituents, it could be

argued that the online gamification of activism could lead to the mobilization of less committed

activists who exit the movement when the gamified aspects of the social movement actions are

no longer available or no longer provide sufficient selective incentives. Such an exit could

quickly drain resources, both human and financial, from the movement and, if these resources

are relied upon and previously viewed as stable and consistent, this could damage the

movement’s organizations and groups more negatively than never having mobilized that

constituency.

If we briefly return back to motivational frames and rational choice theory however, we can see

that gactivism could be applied to mitigate this concern. One reason why sustaining mobilization

is difficult is that often selective incentives become present when movements are close to

achieving victory. It has been argued that as signals are given by authorities or social groups that

a movement is on the cusp of achieving its demand(s) people join the movement – both,
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 16

arguably, to ensure its success which would provide them with desired collective goods, but also

for the selective good of being a part of a successful campaign (see Chong, 1991) or feeling that

they were ‘being part of history’ (Gorringe & Rosie 2006). This allows mobilization to increase

significantly in those moments.

However, success can often be seen as close to unachievable and movement objectives are often

established as (relatively) distant goals and therefore fail to drum up participation through the

motivational frame of ‘accomplishment’ until accomplishment is felt to be in reach. This is

obviously problematic if mobilization is key for advancing towards outcomes.

The benefits that gamification could provide comes in the form of smaller level achievements

which would both motivate initial participation as well as maintain enthusiasm in continued

involvement. Such small accomplishments have also been found to motivate participation within

the empirical literature (e.g. Chong, 1991). Gactivist rules could allow individuals to feel a sense

of accomplishment in the game world through incremental and ongoing participation where

movements not utilizing such mechanisms may have difficulty mobilizing.

Therefore, despite some concerns around the longevity of mobilization through gactivism,

research within the social movement literature can again be used to support the use of

gamification when it comes to sustaining mobilization and social movement participation.

Discussion

While this essay lays out some of the theoretical benefits of gamifying activism with regards to

mobilization, we also acknowledge the possible drawbacks to such initiatives. Inevitably the

work of gamifying activism at a small or large scale, within movement organizations or across a
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 17

movement, and digitally or otherwise will require resources that could otherwise go to other

attempts at mobilization. If the theoretical support for the use of resources for gamifying

activism discussed above is strong, are there significant counterarguments to offset potential

benefits accrued through gamification? Indeed there may be reason for some concern even if we

relate back to some of the theoretical positions discussed above.

Regarding both WUNC displays and collective action frames, online gactivism could prove

ineffective even if mobilization improves. Firstly, let us recall the simplistic but conceptually

beneficial formula discussed above: Worthiness X Unity X Numbers X Commitment = strength

of the movement (Tilly, 1999, p. 261). While Numbers may go up in the equation as a result of

online gactivism, the fact that selective incentives are incorporated into the participation may

threaten Worthiness in the eyes of stakeholders or wider publics. If online gactivism increases

the appeal for participating, observers could see that the participants lack worthiness as they are

being driven to act not by their conviction or desires, but by the points and badges provided

within the game world. In this way, online gactivism provides ammunition for the construction

of oppositional frames (Benford & Snow 2000) arguing against a movement or movement

organization’s stance. Opponents can highlight the game and its designers as the reason for large

levels of participation and apply a digitized version of the ‘outside agitator’ label often levelled

at protesters (McCarthy & Zald, 1973, p. 1).

These brief points direct our attention to the problems of the process of gamification interacting

in the real-world of socio-political concerns. If politics is serious real-life activity with

potentially severe consequences, then maybe it should not be gamified. This type of argument

can be applied to other aspects of existing social movements. When juxtaposing serious politics

with a game we could assume that ‘fun’ and ‘festivity’ fits much more so with the latter than
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 18

with the former. However, the festive elements of existing movements that are on public display

in the form of dancing, music, costume, etc… at protests and demonstrations does not seem to

have generated that criticism. The entertainment and joy experienced at political events also

serve as selective incentives but that does not make them a target of attack. In fact, one study has

found that similar styles of protests, when mixed with traditional confrontational elements, have

the power to generate relatively positive media attention and therefore potentially generate

additional mobilization, at least while that style of protest is novel enough to entice media

coverage (Author 1, 2015; also see Gorringe and Rosie 2006). In addition, it may be more

difficult to make such an argument as all aspects of social life are increasingly mediated through

a gamified process on existing social media (e.g., Facebook post ‘Likes’, retweets, Foursquare

‘check-ins’).

This last point regarding the ubiquity of online gamification provides another basis from which

to critique gactivism. Points and badges within the realm of social movement mobilization may

further entrench gamification as a motivator in social contexts. Principally, the result of

introducing game elements into various aspects of social life is to reduce the importance of any

intrinsic benefits those behaviours or interactions would have elicited and instead bolsters the

idea that those acts do not have any value in themselves. Similar critiques have been levelled

against, for example, grades in schools (Kohn, 1993) and studies have shown that extrinsic

rewards undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). In the case of online

gactivism, the extrinsic rewards of points and badges could actually reduce the desire to engage

in activism as the intrinsic worth of participation in social movements is devalued in the process

of chasing points and levelling up. For those opposed to gactivism it is this argument that is

perhaps the strongest as it challenges the commitment levels that would develop through the
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 19

gamified process. This should caution movements and organizations interested in developing

online gactivist platforms. According to the research discussed above, the negative impact on

intrinsic motivation is greater for children than for adults (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

Therefore it may be wise not to target too young an audience with gamified activist platforms.

Likewise, those already engaged and participating may be discouraged in the long-run by

gamification while those who were not previously engaged, despite appeals to intrinsic

motivators, may be the target audience for online gactivist platforms.

We conclude that a social movement perspective shows strong potential of gactivism in routes to

mobilization, particularly in an age of media convergence. It bears the potential for additional

and perhaps sustained mobilization through selective incentives for collective action and

motivational frames through typical gaming design and presentation. This paper cautions,

however, that general pitfalls of digitalized activism such as low levels of commitment or

clicktivism apply to gactivism and that selective incentives could work to deemphasize the

motivation for social or political change.

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 20

References

Andersen, S. (2010) Engagement Ladders: Building Supporter Power. Frogloop [Online].

Available at: http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Andersen_Engagement

%20Ladders.pdf

Author. (2015) Media exposure of novel protests: domestic femininity in

news coverage of the Great Railway Adventure protests, Media, Culture and Society

37(6), 922-936.

Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview

and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611-639.

Bishop, J. (2014) My Click is My Bond: The Role of Contracts, Social Proof, and Gamification

for Sysops to Reduce Pseudo-Activism and Internet Trolling. In Bishop J. (ed.)

Gamification for Human Factors Integration: Social, Education and Psychological

Issues (pp. 1-16) Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Colineau, N., and Paris, C. (2012) Using gamification in an online

community. In Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications And Worksharing

(Collaboratecom) (pp. 611 – 618), Pittsburgh: IEEE.

Bogost, I. (2008) Video Games Go to Washington: The Story Behind The Howard Dean for

Iowa Game, Electronic Book Review. Available at:

http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/elective.

Brownhill, I. (2013) Does gaming have a role to play in employee engagement? Strategic HR
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 21

Review 12(1), 34-35

Breindl, Y. (2010) Critique of the Democratic Potentialities of the Internet: A Review of Current

Theory and Practice. Triplec, 8(1): 43-59.

Burstein, P. (1991) Policy Domains: Organization, Culture, and Policy Outcomes. Annual

Review of Sociology, 17, 327–50.

Burstein, P. (1998) Bringing the Public Back In: Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of

Public Opinion on Public Policy? Social Forces, 77(1): 27–62.

Burstein, P. (1999) Social Movements and Public Policy. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly

(Eds.), How Social Movements Matter (pp. 3–21), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Burstein, P. (2003) The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.

Political Research Quarterly, 56: 29–40.

Burstein, P. & Linton, A. (2002) The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social

Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical

Concerns. Social Forces, 81(2): 381–408.

Calhoun, C. (2001) Putting Emotions in their Place. In J. Goodwin, J. M. Jasper, & F. Polletta

(Eds.), Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements (pp. 45-57), Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 22

CAMEL Climate Change Education (2012) Game: CEO2: The Climate Business Game.

Available at: http://www.camelclimatechange.org/view/article/175295/.

Carty, V. and Onyett, J. (2006) Protest, Cyberactivism and New Social Movements: The

Reemergence of the Peace Movement Post 9/11. Social Movement Studies, 5(3): 229-249,

DOI: 10.1080/14742830600991586

Chamberlain, K. (2004), Redefining cyberactivism: The future of online project. Review of

Communication, 4(3-4): 139-146, DOI: 10.1080/1535859042000289397

Chong, D. (1991) Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Columbus, S. (2010) The New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution. In: Joyce, M. ed. Digital

Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 165-180), New York: International

Debate Education Association.

Cullum, B. (2010) Devices: The Power of Mobile Phones. In: Digital Activism Decoded - the

New Mechanics of Change (pp. 47-70), New York: International Debate Education

Association.

Dahlgren, P. (2004) ‘Civic Cultures and Net Activism: Modest Hopes for the EU Public Sphere’,

paper presented to Conference on One EU - Many Publics?, University of Stirling, 5-6

February 2004., (accessed 1 March 2016)

http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/projects/cidel/old/WorkshopStirling/PaperDahl

gren.pdf
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 23

Dartnell, M. Y. (2006) Insurgency online - Web activism and global conflict. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press.

Deaux, K., & Reid, A. (2000) Contemplating Collectivism. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens & R. W.

White (Eds.) Self, Identity, and Social Movements (pp. 172-190) Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological

bulletin, 125(6), 627-68.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011) From Game Design Elements to

Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”, presented in MindTrek’11, September 28-30,

Tampere, Finland.

Diani, Mario (1992) ‘The concept of social movement’, The Sociological Review, 40(1): 1-25.

Distelhorst, G. & Hou, Y. (2014) Constituency Service Under Nondemocratic Rule: Evidence

from China. APSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper; MIT Political Science Department

Research Paper No. 2014-12; Rotman School of Management Working Paper No.

2453574.

Dwyer, T. (2010) Media Convergence, Maidenhead, UK: Open University.

Doctorow, C. (2011) We need a serious critique of net activism. The Guardian. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusion
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 24

Earl, J. and Kimport, K. (2011) Digitally Enabled Social Change - Activism in the Internet Age.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Earl, J. (2006) The Cultural Consequences of Social Movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, &

H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 508–30), Malden:

Blackwell.

Edwards, B. & McCarthy, J.D. (2004) Resources and Social Movement Mobilization. In D. A.

Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements

(pp. 116-52) Malden: Blackwell.

Everett, K. D. (1992) Professionalization and protest: Changes in the social movement sector,

1961–1983. Social Forces, 70(4), 957-975.

EVOKE (2010a) About the EVOKE game. Available at:

http://blog.urgentevoke.net/2010/01/27/about-the-evoke-game/

EVOKE (2010b) What is an evoke? Available at: http://www.urgentevoke.com/page/how-to-

play

EVOKE (2010c) Social Innovation. Available at: http://www.urgentevoke.com/page/social-

innovation

EVOKE (2010d) Food Security – Act. Available at:

http://www.urgentevoke.com/page/food-
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 25

security-act-1

EVOKE (2010e) How to Play. Available at: http://www.urgentevoke.com/page/how-to-play

Games for Change (nd.a) Interview with Colleen Macklin, Director of Petlab. Available at:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/2010/12/interview-with-colleen-macklin-director-of-

petlab/

Games for Change (nd.b) That’s Your Right. Available at:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/thats-your-right/

Games for Change (nd.c) Mission US: A Cheyenne Odyssey. Available at:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/mission-us-a-cheyenne-odyssey/

Games for Change (nd.d) Neocolonialism. Available at:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/neocolonialism/

Games for Change (nd.e) About. Available at: http://www.gamesforchange.org/about/

Gamson, J. (2003) Gay Media, Inc.: Media Structures, the New Gay Conglomerates, and

Collective Sexual Identities. In: McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M. D. eds. Cyberactivism: Online

Activism in Theory and Practice (pp. 255-278), New York: Routledge.

Ganz, M. (2000) Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization of

California Agriculture, 1959-1966. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4): 1003-1062.

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 26

Garrido, M. and Halavais, A. (2003) Mapping Networks of Support for the Zapatista Movement:

Applying Social-Networks Analysis to Study Contemporary Social Movements. In:

McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M. D. eds. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and

Practice (pp. 165-184), New York: Routledge.

Giugni, M. (2004) Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace

Movements in Comparative Perspective. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. M., & Polletta, F. (Eds.) (2001) Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social

Movements, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gorringe, H. and Rosie, M. (2006) ‘Pants to Poverty’? Making Poverty History, Edinburgh

2005. Sociological Research Online. 11(1)

Gould, R. V. (2003) Why do Networks Matter? Rationalist and Structuralist Interpretations. In

M. Diani, and D. McAdam, (eds) Social Movements and Networks: Relational

Approaches to Collective Action (pp. 233-57) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gracesmom (nd.) Winners – ‘Your Story’ Awards. Available at:

http://worldwithoutoil.org/awards.aspx

Green, L (2010) The Internet: An Introduction to New Media, Oxford: Berg.

Gurak, L. J. and Logie, J. (2003) Internet Protests, from Text to Web. In: McCaughey, M. and

Ayers, M. D. eds. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice (pp. 25-46), New

York: Routledge.

Hamari, J & Eranti, V (2011) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Game Achievements.
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 27

Presented in DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play, 14-17 September. Hilversum,

Netherlands.

Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013) Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of

gamifying exercise. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information

Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, June 5–8, 2013.

Hands, J. (2011) @ is for Activism - Dissent, Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture.

London: Pluto Press.

Hill, S. (2010) Discussion paper on models of online activism and their implications for

democracy and climate change. London: Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable

Development.

Huang, W. H-Y and Soman, D. (2013) A Practitioner’s Guide to Gamification of Education,

Toronto: Rotman School of Management.

Hwang, T. (2010) Digital Transforms Activism: The Web Ecology Perspective. In: Joyce, M. ed.

Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 119-136), New York:

International Debate Education Association.

Illia, L. (2003) Passage to cyberactivism: How dynamics of activism change. Journal of Public

Affairs, 3(4): 326-337.

Ingenhoff, D. and Koelling, A. M. (2009) The potential of Web sites as a relationship building

tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relations Review, 35, 66-73.
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 28

James, T. and Manilov, M. (2010) Movement Building and Deep Change: A Call to Mobilize

Strong and Weak Ties. The Huffington Post. Available at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taj-james/movement-building-and-dee_b_765362.html

Jenkins, J. C. (1983) Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements. Annual

Review of Sociology, 9: 527-53.

Joyce, M. ed. (2010) Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change. New York:

Idebate Press.

Junker, A. (2014) The Transnational Flow of Tactical Dispositions: The Chinese Democracy

Movement and Falun Gong. Mobilization, 19(3): 329-50.

Juul, J. (2003) The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness, Conference

Keynote, Level Up conference in Utrecht, November 4th-6th.

Kahn, R. and Kellner, D. (2004) New Media and Internet Activism: From the 'Battle of Seattle'

to Blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1): 87-95.

Karpf, D. (2010) Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective: Looking

Beyond Clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(1): article 2.

Kavada, A. (2010) Activism Transforms Digital: The Social Movement Perspective. In: Joyce,

M. ed. Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 101-118), New York:

International Debate Education Association.

Kim, H., Bearman, P.S. (1997) The Structure and Dynamics of Movement Participation.
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 29

American Sociological Review, 62(1): 70-93.

Kitts, J A (2000) Mobilizing in Black Boxes: Social Networks and Participation in Social

Movement Organizations’, Mobilization, 5(2): 241-57.

Kohn, A. (1993) Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Kolb, F. (2007) Protest and Opportunities: The Political Outcomes of Social Movements,

Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Li, Y. (2014) Downward accountability in response to collective actions. Economics of

Transition, 22(1), 69-103.

Lorentzen, P. L. (2013) Regularizing rioting: Permitting public protest in an authoritarian

regime. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 127-158.

Lupton, D. (2013) Introducing digital sociology. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Malesky, E., & Schuler, P. (2010) Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in

an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review, 104(03), 482-502.

McCarthy, J. D. (2005) Velcro Triangles: Elite Mobilization of Local Antidrug Issue Coalitions.

In D. S. Meyer, V. Jenness and H. Ingram (Eds.) Routing the Opposition: Social

Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy (pp. 87-116) Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M.N. (1973) The Trend of Social Movements in America:

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 30

Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M. D. eds. (2003) Cyberactivism - Online Activism in Theory and

Practice. New York: Routledge.

McCormick, T. (2013) Anthropology of an Idea Gamification. Foreign Policy, 201: 26-27.

Murdoch, S. (2010) Destructive Activism: The Double-Edged Sword of Digital Tactics. In:

Joyce, M. ed. Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 137-147),

New York: International Debate Education Association.

Nash, K. (2008) Global citizenship as show business: the cultural politics of Make Poverty

History. Media, Culture & Society, 30(2): 167-181.

Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Passy, F. (2003) Social Networks Matter. But How? In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social

Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action (pp. 21-48)

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pemberton, M. (2014) 'Clicktivist' Protests Aim at the Wrong Targets. The Telegraph. Available

at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11126971/Clicktivist-protests-aim-

at-the-wrong-targets.html

Pilon, M. (2015) Monopoly’s Inventor: The Progressive Who Didn’t Pass ‘Go’, The New York
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 31

Times, 13 February, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/business/behind-

monopoly-an-inventor-who-didnt-pass-go.html?_r=0

Polack-Wahl, J.A. (2007) Work in progress’ Game development, social responsibility, and

teaching. Conference proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference - Global

Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, Milwaukee,

WI, 978-1-4244-1083-5.

Postmes, T. and Brunsting, S. (2002) Collective Action in the Age of the Internet: Mass

Communication and online Mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3): 290-301.

Rabrenovic, G. (2009) Urban social movements. In J. Davies and D. Imbroscio (Eds.), Theories

of Urban Politics (pp. 239-254) London: Sage.

Rutherford, K. R. (2000) Internet activism: NGOs and the Mine Ban Treaty. International

Journal on Grey Literature, 1(3): pp. 99-106, DOI: 10.1108/14666180010345528

Salehi, M. M. (1996) Radical Islamic Insurgency in the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979. In C.

Smith (Ed.), Disruptive Religion (pp. 47-63) New York: Routledge.

Salter, L. (2003) Democracy, New Social Movements, and the Internet: A Habermasian

Analysis. In: McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M. D. eds. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in

Theory and Practice (pp. 117-144), New York: Routledge.

Sharma, R. (2014) Stop Pouring Ice on Clicktivism. Huffington Post. Available at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ritusharma/stop-pouring-ice-on-click_b_5692555.html
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 32

Sharp, G. (1973) The Methods of Nonviolent Action - part two of: The Politics of Nonviolent

Action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.

Scholz, T. (2010) Infrastructure: Its Transformations and Effect on Digital Activism. In: Joyce,

M. ed. Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 17-32), New York:

International Debate Education Association.

Schultz, D. and Jungherr, A. (2010) Applications: Picking the Right One in a Transient World.

In: Joyce, M. ed. Digital Activism Decoded - the New Mechanics of Change (pp. 33-46),

New York: International Debate Education Association.

Smith, Heather (2016) Can you turn climate change activism into a game? Here’s how we’ll

find out, Grist. Available at: http://grist.org/climate-energy/can-you-turn-climate-change-

activism-into-a-game-heres-how-well-find-out/,

Snow, D.A. (1993) Shakubuku: A Study of the Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist Movement in

America, 1960-1975. New York: Garland Publishing.

Snow, D., & Byrd, S. (2007) Ideology, framing processes, and Islamic terrorist movements.

Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 12(2), 119-136.

Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998) Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From

hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual review of sociology, 265-290.

Tatarchevskiy, T. (2011) The ‘popular’ culture of internet activism. New media & Society, 13(2):

297–313, DOI: 10.1177/1461444810372785

 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 33

Taylor, V. (1989) Social movement continuity: The women's movement in abeyance. American

Sociological Review, 761-775.

Tilly, C. (1999) From Interacts to Outcomes in Social Movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam &

C. Tilly (Eds.), How Social Movements Matter (pp. 253-70) Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Tilly, C. (2003) The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uzunoğlu, E. and Kip, S. M. (2014) Building relationships through websites: A content analysis

of Turkish environmental non-profit organizations' (NPO) websites. Public Relations

Review, 40(1), 113-115.

Vegh, S. (2003) Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests against the

World Bank. In: McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M. D. eds. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in

Theory and Practice (pp. 71-96), New York: Routledge.

Waters, R. D., et al. (2009) Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit

organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35: 102-106.

Weeks, J. L. (2008) Autocratic audience costs: Regime type and signaling resolve. International

Organization, 62(01), 35-64.

White, M. (2013) ‘Gaming Activism’, Available at:

https://www.micahmwhite.com/adbusters-

articles/gaming-activism
 Theorizing the Potential of Gamified Activism 34

Witt, M., Scheiner, C. & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2011) Gamification of Online Idea Competitions:

Insights from an Explorative Case, presented in INFORMATIK 2011 - Informatik schafft

Communitie, 4.-7 October, Berlin.

World Without Oil (nd.) About World Without Oil, Available at:

http://worldwithoutoil.org/metaabout.htm

Yang, A. and Taylor, M. (2010) Relationship-building by Chinese ENGOs' websites: Education,

not activation. Public Relations Review, 36(4): 342-351.

Yang, G. (2009) Online Activism. Journal of Democracy, 20(3): 33-36.

Yeo, A. (2012) Moving On: The Anti-War Movement Ten Years Later, Mobilizing Ideas, 2

July, Available at: https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/moving-on-the-

anti-war-movement-ten-years-later/
i
For examples of the use of gamified activism, see EVOKE 2010a, EVOKE 2010b, Smith 2016, White

2013, World Without Oil nd. In addition, gamified activism was utilized within the online platform Ur

Turn which is no longer an active cite, while gamified political campaigning was utilized in the

Howard Dean democratic primary campaign (see Bogost 2008).

ii
For exceptions, see Bista et al 2012 and Bishop 2014
iii
The folk game became a hit with progressives and Quakers in America, but the game was then

modified by Charles Darrow and sold to Parker Brothers, with Magie receiving no credit for its

invention (Pilon, 2015).

iv
A newer version of the game was developed and it was retitled People Power.
v
For examples of how a variety of game mechanisms can be applied to social or political activism, see

EVOKE 2010c, EVOKE 2010d, EVOKE 2010e, and Gracesmom nd.

vi
This refers to such demarcations to cognitive constructs that ‘separate’ various social fields such as

‘news’, ‘entertainment’, ‘games’, ‘activism’, ‘social networking’ etc…