Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of

specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction
Michael Sailer a, *, Jan Ulrich Hense b, Sarah Katharina Mayr a, Heinz Mandl a
a
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita €t München, Empirical Education and Educational Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802, Munich, Germany
b €t Gießen, Higher Education Learning and Evaluation, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394, Gießen, Germany
Justus-Liebig-Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main aim of gamification, i.e. the implementation of game design elements in real-world contexts for
Received 1 August 2016 non-gaming purposes, is to foster human motivation and performance in regard to a given activity.
Received in revised form Previous research, although not entirely conclusive, generally supports the hypothesis underlying this
9 December 2016
aim. However, previous studies have often treated gamification as a generic construct, neglecting the fact
Accepted 14 December 2016
Available online 23 December 2016
that there are many different game design elements which can result in very diverse applications. Based
on a self-determination theory framework, we present the results of a randomized controlled study that
used an online simulation environment. We deliberately varied different configurations of game design
Keywords:
Gamification
elements, and analysed them in regard to their effect on the fulfilment of basic psychological needs. Our
Game design elements results show that badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs positively affect competence need
Psychological need satisfaction satisfaction, as well as perceived task meaningfulness, while avatars, meaningful stories, and teammates
Motivation affect experiences of social relatedness. Perceived decision freedom, however, could not be affected as
Self-determination theory intended. We interpret these findings as general support for our main hypothesis that gamification is not
Simulation effective per se, but that specific game design elements have specific psychological effects. Consequences
for further research, in particular the importance of treatment checks, are discussed.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. The promise of motivation through gamification The central idea is to take the ‘building blocks’ of games, and to
implement these in real-world situations, often with the goal of
Video games have become increasingly popular among all age motivating specific behaviours within the gamified situation. Many
groups and genders in recent years (Entertainment Software authors see gamification as an innovative and promising concept
Association, 2015), and are often considered one of the central that can be applied within a variety of contexts (Werbach & Hunter,
entertainment media of the future (cf. McGonigal, 2011). Without a 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Zichermann & Linder,
doubt, video games inherently possess a high level of motivational 2013).
potential (cf. Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Gee, 2007; Hense & The contexts in which gamification has previously been imple-
Mandl, 2014; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010; Rigby & Ryan, mented include the following: work (Arai, Sakamoto & Washizaki,
2011; Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006; Yee, 2006). Given this po- 2014; Fernandes et al., 2012), education (Landers & Landers, 2014;
tential, the idea of using the motivational power of video games for Shi, Cristea, Hadzidedic, & Dervishalidovic, 2014), crowdsourcing
real-world applications is not unreasonable (Rigby & Ryan, 2011). (Liu, Alexandrova & Nakajima, 2011; Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, &
This idea is at the root of current discussions concerning the Opwis, 2015), data-collection (Downes-Le Guin, Baker, Mechling,
concept of gamification. & Ruyle, 2012), health (Jones, Madden, & Wengreen, 2014), mar-
Gamification refers to the “use of game design elements within keting (Hamari, 2013, 2015), social networks (Farzan & Brusilovsky,
non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke, 2011, p. 1). 2011), and environmental protection (Gustafsson, Katzeff, & Bang,
2009). Within all these contexts, it is expected that gamification
can foster the initiation or continuation of goal-directed behavior,
* Corresponding author.
i.e. motivation (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2010).
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Sailer), [email protected] Although empirically the majority of studies indicate more
giessen.de (J.U. Hense), [email protected] (S.K. Mayr), [email protected] positive than negative or null effects of gamification on motivation,
(H. Mandl).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
0747-5632/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
372 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

the evidence base on its effectiveness is still lacking due to limi- meaning of the game (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011;
tations of study design and analysis strategies (Hamari, Koivisto & Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011).
Sarsa, 2014; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Additionally, there is a lack of (3) The term design contrasts game design elements with game-
theoretical foundation to explain these motivational effects based technologies. Whereas the underlying technologies of
(Seaborn & Fels, 2015); this means that the question how gamifi- the game include technological aspects such as game engines
cation motivates has not been addressed sufficiently until now. To or controllers, the definition of gamification refers explicitly
answer this question, and consequently advance gamification to a deliberate design process (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011;
research, psychological theories of motivation must be applied. Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011).
Another problem with the state of current research is that many (4) Finally, the term non-game contexts does not specify the
studies treat gamification as a uniform concept, while in practice, possible areas in which gamification could be applied, and
the specific designs and realizations of gamification environments thus leaves the definition open for potential usage scenarios.
can be quite diverse. Since gamification can take many forms and The only context excluded by definition is the use of game
can combine game design elements in many different ways, it is design elements either within the games themselves or in
inappropriate to study the motivational effects of gamification as a the game design process (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011).
generic construct. Instead, the impact of different game design el-
ements within a given context should be the focus of inquiry. To summarize, gamification is defined as “the use of design
Given the limitations of the previous research outlined above, (rather than game-based technology or other game-related prac-
the first goal of our paper is to apply a self-determination theory tices) elements (rather than fully developed games) characteristic for
framework (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002) in the context of games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game contexts
gamification, and to explain the motivational power of game design (regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or implementa-
elements according to the theory of psychological need satisfaction tion media)” (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011, p. 5).
(cf. Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The second goal is to Referring to this understanding of gamification, Werbach (2014)
investigate different game design elements, using an experimental claims that not every use of game design elements in non-game
study, in order to explain the specific effects of these game design contexts should be labelled gamification. He argues that,
elements on psychological need satisfaction. following the definition given by Deterding, Dixon, et al. (2011),
every single use of a particular game design element would have to
be called gamification, e.g. the display of progress bars in computer
2. Gamification programs. Since such progress bars are intended solely as a feed-
back device for the user, and have no gameful or playful intention,
The term gamification emerged in the early 2000s (Marczewski, they should not be termed gamification. This contrasts, for
2013), and has been the focus of increased attention since the example, progress bars in LinkedIn, which are intended to evoke
beginning of the 2010s (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Werbach & game-like user experiences (Werbach, 2014). Thus, Werbach (2014)
Hunter, 2012). The central idea behind gamification is to harness proposes to define gamification as “the process of making activities
the motivational potential of video games by transferring game more game-like” (p. 6). Within this definition, he focuses on prac-
design elements to non-game environments (Deterding, Khaled, tices that elicit user experiences typical of games. Accordingly, he
Nacke & Dixon, 2011). However, despite the increasing number of regards the essence of gamification to be the selection, application,
gamified applications, there is still no universally accepted scien- implementation and integration of game design elements, rather
tific definition of the term (Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011; Seaborn than simply the use of these.
& Fels, 2015; Werbach & Hunter, 2012). However, Werbach's definition lacks several of the specifica-
Described by Groh (2012) as “state of the art”, the most current tions discussed above, as it does not refer to any method or element
and widely used definition of gamification is the one already cited that could be used for creating user experiences characteristic of
above: “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” games. Therefore, it seems reasonable to connect the elemental
(Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011, p. 1). In order to avoid unnecessarily definition proposed by Deterding, Dixon, et al. (2011) with the
limiting the goals of gamification, this definition expressly omits process definition proposed by Werbach (2014), and in so doing
possible purposes. Instead, it relies on the four semantic compo- make use of their distinct advantages. Whereas Deterding, Dixon,
nents (1) game, (2) elements, (3) design, and (4) non-game contexts. et al. (2011) focus on the building blocks of gamification yet
disregard the user's experience, Werbach (2014) understands
(1) The term game is defined by Salen and Zimmerman (2004) as gamification as a process. He focuses on playful activities and on the
“a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, user experiences they trigger, yet remains vague in regard to how
defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (p. these experiences can be created. Thus, this paper draws on a
80). While the concept of game refers to rule-based forms of definition that combines both views. We define gamification as the
play activities, play refers to free and explorative activities process of making activities in non-game contexts more game-like
(Groh, 2012). Accordingly, gamification is related to the rule- by using game design elements.
based, goal-oriented nature of games (Deterding, Dixon,
et al., 2011). 3. Game design elements
(2) The term elements allows us to distinguish gamification from
serious games (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011). Whereas Game design elements are the basic building blocks of gamifi-
serious games are fully-developed games serving a specific, cation applications (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Werbach &
non-entertainment purpose (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Hunter, 2012). They are largely equivalent with game design pat-
Yongwen, Johnson, Moore, Brewer & Takayama, 2013), €rk & Holopainen, 2004; Kelle, Klemke, & Specht, 2013). In
terns (Bjo
gamification refers to the use of distinct game building the context of games and gamification, several authors have pro-
blocks embedded in real-world contexts. Deterding, Dixon, posed compilations of recurring game design elements (cf. Kapp,
et al. (2011) propose to define game design elements as 2012; Robinson & Bellotti, 2013; Werbach & Hunter, 2012, 2015;
those elements that are characteristic of games, i.e. that can Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Zichermann & Linder, 2010).
be found in many games, and that are significant to the Reeves and Read (2009), for example, propose “Ten Ingredients of
 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 373

Great Games”, which include representation of oneself through av- narrative meaning, and collecting them is not compulsory.
atars, narrative context, feedback, competition and teams. Werbach However, badges can influence players' behavior, leading
and Hunter (2012) identify 15 important components, among them to select certain routes and challenges in order to earn
them avatars, badges, leaderboards, points and teams. In particular, the badges that are associated with them (Wang & Sun,
they highlight the so-called “PBL triad” e the interplay of points, 2011). Additionally, as badges symbolize one's membership
badges and leaderboards, which they consider characteristic of in a group of those who own this particular badge, they also
gamified applications (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). can exert social influences on players and co-players (Antin &
Despite several parallels and overlaps between these lists, they Churchill, 2011; Hamari, 2013), particularly if they are rare or
are largely different. This difference reveals that the decision as to hard to earn.
which building blocks should be identified as characteristic game (3) Leaderboards rank players according to their relative success,
design elements is often somewhat arbitrary and subjective. In this measuring them against a certain success criterion (Costa,
paper, we do not aim to compile another list of characteristic game Wehbe, Robb & Nacke, 2013). As such, leaderboards can
design elements. Instead, our goal is to investigate the effects of a help determine who performs best in a certain activity
selection of specific game design elements, a selection that is not (Crumlish & Malone, 2009), and are thus competitive in-
exhaustive, but that represents some of the game design elements dicators of progress that relate the player's own performance
most often discussed. to the performance of others. However, the motivational
Among these typical game design elements, which we will potential of leaderboards is mixed. Werbach and Hunter
discuss in more detail below, are (1) points, (2) badges, (3) leader- (2012) regard them as effective motivators, if there are only
boards, (4) performance graphs, (5) meaningful stories, (6) avatars a few points left to the next level or position, but as demo-
and (7) teammates. Our focus on this selection of elements is based tivators, if players find themselves at the bottom end of the
on their direct visibility to the players, how easily one can activate leaderboard. Competition caused by leaderboards can create
or deactivate them in an experimental setting, and how strongly social pressure to increase the player's level of engagement,
they can be expected to address motivational mechanisms within and can consequently have a constructive effect on partici-
our theoretical framework (cf. next section). Whereas other game pation and learning (Burguillo, 2010). It should be noted,
design elements such as competition or progress depend not only on however, that these positive effects of competition are more
the perceptible design aspects of the application or the game but likely if the respective competitors are approximately at the
also on features of its underlying mechanics, the elements we same performance level (cf. Landers & Landers, 2014; Slavin,
discuss below are part of the game surface, and thus are easily 1980).
implemented by the game designers. This allows these elements to (4) Performance graphs, which are often used in simulation or
be manipulated independently of one another, which in turn en- strategy games, provide information about the players' per-
ables their specific effects to be detected within empirical research formance compared to their preceding performance during a
(Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012). Game design ele- game (Sailer et al., 2013). Thus, in contrast to leaderboards,
ments that are present at a surface level can be manipulated more performance graphs do not compare the player's perfor-
easily than game design elements that express functions of ele- mance to other players, but instead evaluate the player's own
ments or that trigger user experiences. performance over time. Unlike the social reference standard
of leaderboards, performance graphs are based on an indi-
(1) Points are basic elements of a multitude of games and vidual reference standard. By graphically displaying the
gamified applications (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). player's performance over a fixed period, they focus on im-
They are typically rewarded for the successful accomplish- provements. Motivation theory postulates that this fosters
ment of specified activities within the gamified environment mastery orientation, which is particularly beneficial to
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012, 2015), and they serve to numeri- learning (cf. Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984; Sailer et al., 2013).
cally represent a player's progress (Werbach & Hunter, 2012, (5) Meaningful stories are game design elements that do not
2015). Various kinds of points can be differentiated between, relate to the player's performance. The narrative context in
e.g. experience points, redeemable points, or reputation which a gamified application can be embedded contextual-
points, as can the different purposes that points serve izes activities and characters in the game, and gives them
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). One of the most important pur- meaning beyond the mere quest for points and achievements
poses of points is to provide feedback. Points allow the (Kapp, 2012). A story can be communicated by a game's title
players' in-game behavior to be measured, and they serve as (e.g. Space Invaders) or by complex storylines typical of
continuous and immediate feedback and as a reward (Sailer, contemporary role-playing video games (e.g. The Elder Scrolls
Hense, Mandl, & Klevers, 2013). Series) (Kapp, 2012). Narrative contexts can be oriented to-
(2) Badges are defined as visual representations of achievements wards real, non-game contexts or act as analogies of real-
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012), and can be earned and collected world settings. The latter can enrich boring, barely stimu-
within the gamification environment. They confirm the lating contexts, and, consequently, inspire and motivate
players' achievements, symbolize their merits (Anderson, players e particularly if the story is in line with their personal
Huttenlocher, Kleinberg & Leskovec, 2013), and visibly interests (Nicholson, 2015). As such, stories are also an
show their accomplishment of levels or goals (Antin & important part in gamification applications, as they can alter
Churchill, 2011). Earning a badge can be dependent on a the meaning of real world activities by adding a narrative
specific amount of points or on particular activities within ‘overlay’, e.g. being hunted by zombies while going for a run.
the game (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Badges have many (6) Avatars are visual representations of players within the game
functions, serving as goals, if the prerequisites for winning or gamification environment (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
them are known to the player, or as virtual status symbols Usually they are chosen or even created by the player (Kapp,
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2012). Avatars can be designed quite simply as a mere
2011). In the same way as points, badges also provide feed- pictogram, or they can be complexly animated, three-
back, in that they indicate how the players have performed dimensional representations. Their main formal require-
(Rigby & Ryan, 2011). In general, badges usually have no ment is that they unmistakably identify the players and set
374 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

them apart from other human or computer-controlled ava- implies that the course of action at hand conforms with one's
tars (Werbach & Hunter, 2015). Avatars allow the players to own goals and attitudes.
adopt or create another identity and, in cooperative games, (3) The need for social relatedness refers to one's feelings of
to become part of a community (Annetta, 2010). belonging, attachment, and care in relation to a group of
(7) Teammates, whether they are other real players or virtual significant others. It represents the basic desire of the indi-
non-player characters (NPCs), can induce conflict, competi- vidual for coherent integration with the social environment
tion or cooperation (Kapp, 2012). The latter can be fostered (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Deci &
particularly by introducing teams, i.e. by creating defined Vansteenkiste, 2004).
groups of players that work together towards a shared
objective (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). These three intrinsic psychological needs are motivational re-
sources that can be developed by modifying the environment. Thus,
motivational behavior patterns can be promoted to a significant
degree by deliberately addressing the human need for competence,
4. Psychological need satisfaction autonomy, and social relatedness (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

In order to analyze and investigate the motivational power of 5. Matching psychological needs to game design elements
the above-mentioned game design elements, we will now take a
closer look at motivation research. Within this field, six principal A basic assumption of this paper is that game design elements
perspectives can be distinguished that, to a certain degree, become can deliberately be used to modify non-game contexts such as
relevant in the context of gamification: the trait perspective, the working or learning environments, and thus can purposefully
behaviorist learning perspective, the cognitive perspective, the address motivational mechanisms. To investigate the effects of such
perspective of self-determination, the perspective of interest, and modifications, psychological need satisfaction theory can be
the perspective of emotion (cf. Astleitner, 2000; Krapp, 1993). applied. From a theoretical perspective, therefore, the emerging
Although all these perspectives have implications in regard to the question is which specific psychological needs can be addressed by
functions and possible effects of gamification (cf. Hense et al., 2014; which specific game design elements.
Sailer et al., 2013), it seems appropriate to focus on one specific Drawing on the list of game design elements discussed above,
perspective for the purposes of empirical investigation. In this pa- we assume that the need for competence can be addressed by points,
per, we have chosen the self-determination perspective, with performance graphs, badges, or leaderboards (Hense et al., 2014;
which we investigate the effects of the game design elements used Sailer et al., 2013). Points provide the player with granular feed-
in gamification. Our choice is based on the fact that the self- back, which can be directly connected to the actions of the player.
determination perspective encompasses a broad range of motiva- Performance graphs visually indicate the player's progress over
tional mechanisms which partly overlap with several of the other time, thereby providing sustained feedback. Badges and leader-
perspectives. boards assess a series of player actions and in doing so provide
Besides the fact that the perspective of self-determination has cumulative feedback (cf. Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Thus, essentially, it is
already been successfully applied in the context of games (cf. the feedback function of these game design elements that can
Przybylski, Ryan, & Rigby, 2009; Przybylski, Weinstein, Ryan, & evoke feelings of competence, as this directly communicates the
Rigby, 2009; Przybylski et al., 2010; Rigby & Przybylski, 2009; success of a player's actions.
Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan et al., 2006), it also emphasizes the The need for autonomy includes two aspects: experiences of
importance of the environment in fostering motivation (Deci & decision freedom, and experiences of task meaningfulness. In the
Vansteenkiste, 2004). Enriching the environment with game first aspect (autonomy in regard to freedom of decision), avatars are
design elements, as gamification does by definition, directly mod- relevant, as they offer the players freedom of choice (Annetta, 2010;
ifies that environment, thereby potentially affecting motivational Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn, 2012). In the second aspect (autonomy
and psychological user experiences. in regard to task meaningfulness), stories play an important role.
Within self-determination theory, three basic psychological and Stories can help players experience their own actions as meaningful
intrinsic needs are postulated: the need for competence, the need and volitionally engaging, regardless of whether or not choices are
for autonomy, and the need for social relatedness (Deci & Ryan, really available (Rigby & Ryan, 2011).
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Ryan, 1995). The need for social relatedness can also be affected by a story if it
offers a narrative frame in which the player is given a meaningful
(1) The need for competence refers to feelings of efficiency and role. Together with teammates, who can be real co-players or non-
success while interacting with the environment (Rigby & player characters, a sense of relevance can be evoked by empha-
Ryan, 2011; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; White, 1959). It is sizing the importance of the players' actions for the group's per-
assumed that every human strives to feel competent when formance (Groh, 2012; Rigby & Ryan, 2011). A shared goal, which
deliberately influencing the environment they interact with. can be conveyed within a meaningful story, can also foster expe-
(2) The need for autonomy refers to psychological freedom and to riences of social relatedness (Sailer et al., 2013).
volition to fulfill a certain task (van den Broeck, A summary of the above arguments concerning the question of
Vansteenkiste, Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010; Vansteenkiste, how different psychological needs can be addressed by specific
Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010; Vansteenkiste, Williams, & game design elements is shown in Table 1.
Resnicow, 2012). While psychological freedom refers to the Empirical research in regard to the effects of specific game
feeling of making decisions on the basis of one's own values design elements on psychological need satisfaction is still scarce
and interests (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002), voli- (Mekler et al., 2015; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). However, there are a
tion refers to the feeling of acting without external pressure number of studies that apply this concept, and that investigate the
or enforcement (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Therefore, au- effects of game design elements empirically.
tonomy refers both to experienced (a) decision freedom, In a series of four empirical studies, Ryan et al. (2006) show that
which implies being able to choose between several courses competence, autonomy, and relatedness independently predict
of action, and experienced (b) task meaningfulness, which both enjoyment and future game-playing behavior. Although this
 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 375

Table 1
Psychological needs with matching game design elements.

Psychological need Mechanism Game design element

Need for competence Granular feedback Points

Sustained feedback Performance graphs
Cumulative feedback Badges
Cumulative feedback Leaderboards
Need for autonomy (decision freedom) Choices Avatars
Need for autonomy (task meaningfulness) Volitional engagement Meaningful stories
Need for social relatedness Sense of relevance Teammates
Shared goal Meaningful stories

work demonstrates the relevant effects of applying the concept of feedback on their performance should evoke feelings of compe-
need satisfaction within the general context of games, it does not tence. Thus, we expected that badges, leaderboards, and perfor-
contrast different game design elements with one another, which mance graphs would foster experiences of competence. This led to
would be necessary for a gamification research perspective (cf. our following hypothesis:
Seaborn & Fels, 2015).
H1. Participants in a game condition with badges, leaderboards,
Peng et al. (2012) manipulated certain game features (auton-
and performance graphs (experimental condition 1) experience
omy-inducing vs. competence-inducing) in a 2
2 design and
higher levels of competence than participants in a control condition.
found corresponding main effects for the manipulated features.
Dynamic adjustment of difficulty level and badges led to increased RQ 2. To what extent do game design element groups affect au-
satisfaction of the need for competence. Freedom in regard to tonomy need satisfaction in regard to decision freedom?
avatar customization and choices in autonomous communication
One way of offering choices is by using avatars, which are
style with non-player characters led to increased satisfaction of the
included in a game condition together with a meaningful story, and
need for autonomy.
teammates. We expected that a game condition that includes av-
In contrast to these findings, Mekler et al. (2015) could not
atars can cause players to experience feelings of autonomy in re-
observe substantial effects of the game design elements of points,
gard to decision freedom. This led to the following hypothesis:
leaderboards, and levels on need satisfaction, although they could
observe effects on performance quantity. They explain their find- H2. Participants in a game condition with avatars, a meaningful
ings by arguing that the game design elements applied in their story, and teammates (experimental condition 2) experience higher
study mainly functioned as extrinsic incentives. levels of decision freedom than participants in a control condition.
Current research, which is still scarce, thus paints a mixed pic-
RQ 3. To what extent do game design element groups affect au-
ture in regard to the effects of game design elements on psycho-
tonomy need satisfaction in regard to task meaningfulness?
logical need satisfaction. Nevertheless, one can generally claim
there is a more positive than negative tendency concerning the One way of generating meaning within a game is to use a story
possibility of deliberately influencing need satisfaction with that embeds the game environment within a larger, fictional
gamification. narrative. Thus, a story can evoke volitional engagement and sub-
sequent experiences of autonomy in regard to task meaningfulness.
This led to the following hypothesis:
6. A simulation study on the effects of different game design
element groups H3. Participants in a game condition with avatars, a meaningful
story, and teammates (experimental condition 2) experience higher
To test the effects of specific game design elements, grouped in levels of task meaningfulness than participants in a control
varying configurations, on motivational need fulfilment, we con- condition.
ducted an experimental study in a digital simulation setting. The
RQ 4. To what extent do game design element groups affect social
content domain of the simulation was the internal handling of
relatedness need satisfaction?
materials and supplies at production or delivery sites. One central
process of internal material handling is order-picking, i.e. the Playing as part of a team can induce feelings of belonging, and
manual collection of delivery parts from a storage depot in thus contribute to the experience of social relatedness. A suitable
response to a customer's orders. Order-picking seemed a suitable story in addition can strengthen these feelings, if it stresses that
task with which to investigate gamification, since, as repetitive one's efforts are important to the team's success. This led to the
work, it is often perceived as neither stimulating nor motivating, following hypothesis:
and thus has potential for improvement (Hense et al., 2014).
H4. Participants in a game condition with avatars, a meaningful
story, and teammates (experimental condition 2) experience higher
6.1. Questions and hypotheses levels of social relatedness need satisfaction than participants in a
control condition.
The main research interest of our study was to better under-
stand how and to what degree certain game design elements affect
psychological need satisfaction. Referring to the above-mentioned 6.2. Design of the simulation environments
theoretical considerations, we investigated the following research
questions and hypotheses. The order-picking process was simulated in a computer-based,
cross-platform application, implemented in the Java program-
RQ 1. To what extent do game design element groups affect
ming language, and made available on the internet. Within the
competence need satisfaction?
game environment, players had to collect parts from a storage
All gamification elements that provide players with specific depot setting, similar to a real life order-picking task in internal
376 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

material handling. In total, five orders had to be fulfilled. Each order order picking, virtual teammates were visible as computer-
consisted of three to six parts, which had to be picked from the controlled NPCs.
right places. The simulated storage depot consisted of 10 aisles,
with 16 shelves in each aisle and 30 parts on each shelf. An over-
view of the game environment is shown in Fig. 1. Players see the 6.3. Methods
storage depot setting from a two-dimensional, top-down
perspective. Participants in the study were recruited online. A total of 699
Within the simulated game environment, it was possible to participants logged in to the online study. N ¼ 419 of them
activate various groups of game design elements according to the completed both the whole game and the whole questionnaire,
different experimental conditions. This allowed us to compare which was presented to them at the end of the game. Of the par-
these elements with a control condition, and consequently to ticipants, 204 (48.7%) were women and 215 (51.3%) were men. The
investigate the effects of specific configurations of game design average age was 22 years (M ¼ 22.39, SD ¼ 3.56).
elements. Three such configurations were implemented as exper- The questionnaire at the end of the game included items that
imental conditions, with participants being randomly assigned to assessed the psychological need satisfaction of the participants
one of these at the start of the game. while they were playing. Inspired by the intrinsic motivation in-
In the control condition, the only activated game design elements ventory (cf. Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983), we included scales to
were points. Points, which were also activated in all the other assess psychological need satisfaction in the areas of competence,
conditions, were deemed essential for the simulation to make any autonomy in regard to freedom of decision, autonomy in regard to
sense to the participants. The control condition is shown in Fig. 1. task meaningfulness, and social relatedness. Each of the four vari-
Experimental condition 1 included badges, a leaderboard, and a ables consisted of three to four items. The items used seven-point
performance graph. Badges could be earned, for example, for ful- Likert scales, each asking participants for their level of agreement
filling a certain number of orders within a given time, or for ful- with a given statement. Cronbach's a, the total number of items,
filling orders without making any errors. The leaderboard and a sample item for each variable, are shown in Table 2.
compared the player's actual score to those of previous players. We assumed that the specific gamified features of our simula-
Finally, performance graphs allowed players to compare their own tion could only evoke motivational effects if players were not
score over time. These graphs consisted of bar charts which rep- ignorant of their existence. A meaningful story, for example, which
resented the single orders the players had successfully fulfilled. is presented to induce feelings of social relatedness will fail to do so
Experimental condition 2 included avatars, a meaningful story, if players skip the relevant screen at the beginning of the game
and teammates. The avatar, which represented futuristic ware- without having read the story. So to ensure that participants were
house worker characters, had to be chosen at the beginning of the actually aware of all game design elements relevant to the corre-
game. After that, a short narrative story was presented. This sponding condition, we conducted a treatment check (or manipu-
embedded the role of the player in a fictional team that had to help lation check, Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991) for each element. Our
stranded people by supplying goods for a relief mission. During rationale here was that we were not interested in the effectiveness
of the gamified features in this particular application, but in

Fig. 1. Game environment, control condition with no game design elements except for points (“Punkte”).
 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 377

Table 2
Assessment of psychological need satisfaction.

Psychological need Cronbach's a Number of items Example item

Competence a ¼ .78 4 While playing I had feelings of success

Autonomy in regard to decision freedom a ¼ .90 3 While playing I could make my own decisions
Autonomy in regard to task meaningfulness a ¼ .81 3 It was worthwhile playing the game
Social relatedness a ¼ .79 3 While playing I felt I was part of a team

arriving at a more generalizable estimate of their potential effec- condition with badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs had
tiveness under the premise that players actually recognize them. significantly higher levels of competence need satisfaction than
This reasoning is in alignment with the idea of measuring the participants in the control condition. This result supports H1.
integrity of the independent variable, which argues that the
RQ2. Concerning autonomy need satisfaction in regard to decision
experimental manipulation of study participants often cannot be
freedom, there was no significant difference between participation
taken for granted (Peterson, Homer, & Wonderlich, 1982) and that it
in the three conditions (F(2,328) ¼ .65, p > .05). H2 could not be
is not enough to deliver a treatment but that one has to make sure
confirmed.
that it is also received (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Failing to
do so results in a loss of statistical power and the risk to underes- RQ3. Concerning autonomy need satisfaction in regard to task
timate the potential effectiveness of a treatment (Oppenheimer, meaningfulness, there was a significant effect of participation in the
Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). three conditions (F(2,328) ¼ 3.09, p < .05, h2p ¼ .018). The Scheffe
To implement the treatment checks, we asked participants in post-hoc test indicated a significant difference between partici-
the post-game questionnaire to what degree they had perceived pants in the control condition (M ¼ 3.65, SD ¼ 1.39) and partici-
each specific game design element relevant to their experimental pants in the experimental condition 1 (M ¼ 4.06, SD ¼ 1.13), but not
condition (e.g. “I read the short narrative introduction at the between the control and experimental conditions 2. Accordingly,
beginning of the game”). Participants rated these statements on a participants in the game design element condition with badges,
seven-point agree-disagree answering scale and were excluded leaderboards, and performance graphs had significantly higher
from further analysis if they chose the “completely disagree” op- perceived task meaningfulness than participants in the control
tion. This led to the exclusion of a total of 88 participants, leaving a condition, while those in the condition including a meaningful
sample of N ¼ 331 participants for statistical analysis, which could story did not. Thus, H3 could not be confirmed.
be assumed to have recognized the experimental manipulation to a
RQ4. Regarding social relatedness need satisfaction, there was a
minimal degree at least. Samples for the single groups were n ¼ 150
significant effect of participation between the experimental con-
participants for the control group, n ¼ 103 participants for the
ditions (F(2,328) ¼ 3.48, p < .05, h2p ¼ .032). The Scheffe
 post-hoc
experimental group 1 and n ¼ 78 participants for the experimental
test indicated a significant difference between participants in the
group 2. This indicates that our simulation was less successful in
experimental condition 2 (M ¼ 1.77, SD ¼ .98), in the control con-
implementing the gamified features than expected, which consti-
dition (M ¼ 1.49, SD ¼ .90), and in the experimental condition 1
tutes a limitation which we will discuss below.
(M ¼ 1.45, SD ¼ .74). Participants in the game design element
To analyze the effect of the three experimental conditions on
condition with avatars, meaningful stories, and teammates had
psychological need satisfaction, a single factor, multivariate anal-
significantly higher levels of social relatedness need satisfaction
ysis of variance (MANOVA) and post-hoc Scheffe -tests were
than participants in the control condition and participants in the
calculated.
experimental condition 1. Accordingly, H4 could be confirmed.
To sum up, the game design element group with badges, lead-
6.4. Results
erboards, and performance graphs (experimental condition 1)
fostered competence need satisfaction and autonomy need satisfac-
The results of the MANOVA are shown in Table 3. The effect size
tion reading task meaningfulness. The game design element group
h2p is reported in the last column. The results will be described in
with avatars, meaningful stories, and teammates (experimental
more detail for each of our research questions.
condition 2) fostered social relatedness need satisfaction. However,
RQ1. Regarding competence need satisfaction, there was a signifi- autonomy need satisfaction in regard to decision freedom was not
cant difference between the three conditions (F(2,328) ¼ 3.39, affected by any of the tested game design element groups.
p < .05, h2p ¼ .020). The Scheffe
 post-hoc test indicated a significant
difference between participants in the control condition (M ¼ 3.76, 6.5. Discussion
SD ¼ 1.36) and participants in the experimental condition 1
(M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 1.35) in regard to their competence need satisfac- The results of the study indicate that certain game design ele-
tion. Accordingly, participants in the game design element ments address specific psychological needs, inasmuch as they are

Table 3
Results.

Psychological need satisfaction Control condition (n ¼ 150) Experimental condition 1 (n ¼ 103) Experimental condition 2 (n ¼ 78) F(2,328) h2p
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Competence 3.76 (1.36) 4.19 (1.35) 4.10 (1.47) 3.39* .020

Autonomy in regard to decision freedom 3.10 (1.77) 3.16 (1.83) 2.87 (1.65) .65 .004
Autonomy in regard to task meaningfulness 3.65 (1.39) 4.06 (1.13) 3.91 (1.40) 3.09* .018
Social relatedness 1.49 (.90) 1.45 (.74) 1.77 (.98) 3.48* .032
*
p < .05.
378 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

actually recognized by the users. As expected, the group of game theory and psychological need satisfaction are suitable concepts for
design elements with badges, leaderboards, and performance investigating the effects of different aspects of gamification. The
graphs positively affected competence need satisfaction. This is concept of need satisfaction was able to be successfully applied to
consistent with theoretical considerations about the potential of the concept of gamification. The study also showed that it is
badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs to act as feedback worthwhile to investigate autonomy need satisfaction as a two-
elements and thereby address experiences of competence (cf. Peng dimensional construct in the context of gamification, since the
et al., 2012; Rigby & Przybylski, 2009; Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan game design elements in this study only affected certain aspects of
et al., 2006). autonomy.
Furthermore, badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs The study addressed the research gap of a lack of experimental
also seemed to contribute to an increase in perceived task mean- designs and the effects of individual game design elements or
ingfulness. One possible explanation for this unexpected result is groups thereof (Bedwell et al., 2012; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa,
that badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs can also create 2014; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). An additional differentiation of sin-
meaning at game level. The game design element group with av- gle game design elements should be applied in further studies.
atars, meaningful stories and teammates did not affect perceived Additionally, it is important to investigate game design elements at
task meaningfulness. It was expected that the story would render a surface level, where they can be manipulated independently of
the prescribed path within the game a volitionally engaging one another (cf. Bedwell et al., 2012).
experience and thus foster perceived task meaningfulness (cf. Rigby Although a simulation, as used in this study, can only represent
& Ryan, 2011). The story within the study was realized by adding a certain aspects of reality (Crookall & Saunders, 1989; Garris et al.,
pop-up with a short text and one comic-style picture. Conse- 2002; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004), results of such simulations can
quently, it could be speculated that this relatively weak ‘dose’ may be applied to real working or learning contexts (Rose & Ma €rz, 2011).
not have been sufficient to elicit the intended effects. The inter- Consequently, an investigation of certain game design element
pretation of results might also suggest that design implementation groups within real working or learning contexts would be a logical
aesthetics play a major role in the use of game design elements (cf. next step.
Mekler et al., 2015). Besides the fact that game design elements can address psy-
The game design element group with avatars, meaningful stor- chological need satisfaction, player awareness in regard to single
ies, and teammates, on the other hand, did successfully affect ex- game design elements must be ensured. Therefore, introductory
periences of social relatedness. The group of game design elements guides on where to find, how to use, and how to interact with single
with avatars, meaningful stories, and teammates introduced a game design elements could be helpful for certain target groups.
shared goal and led to feelings of relevance (cf. Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Besides this, the effect of game design elements on psychological
In accord with our theoretical considerations, experiences of social need satisfaction seems also to depend on the aesthetics and
relatedness were fostered. quality of the design implementations. In other words, the whole
The aspect of perceived decision freedom was not affected by process of implementing gamification plays a crucial role, as
any game design element group. The avatar system, which was emphasized by Werbach (2014). For this reason, gamification can
activated in the experimental condition 2, did not seem to give the be a powerful solution to address motivational problems within
players substantially more perceived choices. This unexpected learning or working contexts, as long as they are well designed and
result might also be explained by a relatively weak ‘dose’, since, are built upon well-established implementation models.
although the avatar symbol was displayed in the game, the choice
of an avatar did not affect the game process itself. Decision freedom References
seemingly depends on more important decision consequences (cf.
Peng et al., 2012). Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2013). Steering user
behavior with badges. Paper presented at the 22nd international conference on
Our results also demonstrate that the awareness of game design
World Wide Web, Rio de Janeiro.
elements is crucial and should not be assumed per se. Our treat- Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I's” have it: A framework for serious educational game
ment check ensured that all participants who were included in design. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0018985.
statistical analysis actually recognized all the relevant game design
Antin, J., & Churchill, E. F. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychological
elements to some minimal degree at least. Nevertheless, 88 out of perspective. Paper presented at the CHI 2011, Vancouver.
419 participants, who were consequently excluded from statistical Arai, S., Sakamoto, K., & Washizaki, H. (2014). A Gamified Tool for Motivating De-
analysis, were not aware of the game design elements in their velopers to Remove Warnings of Bug Pattern Tools. Paper presented at the
IWESEP 2014, Osaka. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IWESEP.2014.17.
particular condition. This leads to the conclusion that the game Astleitner, H. (2000). Designing emotionally sound instruction: The FEASP-
design elements were neither self-explanatory for all the partici- approach. Instructional Science, 28(3), 169e198.
pants nor did all the participants even recognize their presence. As Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3),
similar information on successful experimental manipulation is 497e529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
lacking in other gamification studies, it is hard to say if our simu- Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a
lation environment was particularly unsuccessful in this regard. It taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation &
Gaming, 43(6), 729e760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878112439444.
seems plausible to explain the results of our manipulation checks to €rk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2004). Patterns in game design. Boston, Mass: Charles
Bjo
some degree with (unobserved) player characteristics such as River Media.
concentration, individual preferences, or previous experience with van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010).
Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and
games. Nevertheless it should be considered a limitation of our initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of
findings that the effects might be impacted by shortcomings of the Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981e1002. http://dx.doi.org/
implementation of gamification in this particular environment. 10.1348/096317909x481382.
Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and Competition-based Learning to
stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55(2),
7. Outlook 566e575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018.
Costa, J. P., Wehbe, R. R., Robb, J., & Nacke, L. E. (2013). Time’s Up: Studying Lead-
The results of our study are relevant for gamification research in erboards For Engaging Punctual Behaviour. Paper presented at the Gamification
2013: 1st International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Appli-
that they address the issue of how different aspects of gamification cations, Stratfort. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583012.
actually affect different motivational outcomes. Self-determination Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. (1989). Towards an integration of communication and
 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 379

simulation. In D. Saunders (Ed.), Communication and Simulation: From two fields 1046878114563662.
to one theme (pp. 3e29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Gamifying intelligent environments.
Crumlish, C., & Malone, E. (2009). Designing social interfaces: Principles, patterns, and Paper presented at the 2011 international ACM workshop on Ubiquitous meta
practices for improving the user experience. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, Inc. user interfaces, Scottsdale. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2072652.2072655.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A simple introduction & a bit more - tips, advice
behavior. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7. and thoughts on gamification (2. ed.): self-published by Andrzej Marczewski.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal Pursuits: Human McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why games make us better and how they can
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), change the world. New York: Penguin Group.
227e268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2015). Towards understanding
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and
embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In performance. Computers in Human Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 1e59). Oxford: j.chb.2015.08.048.
Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
9780195399820.013.0006. experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328e346.
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.328.
satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Nicholson, S. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In T. Reiners, &
Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 23e40. L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1e20). New York:
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1.
to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. Paper presented at the 15th Inter- Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation
national Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experi-
2181037.2181040. mental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867e872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a j.jesp.2009.03.009.
Definition. Paper presented at the CHI 2011, Vancouver. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An in-
Downes-Le Guin, T., Baker, R., Mechling, J., & Ruyle, E. (2012). Myths and realities of tegrated approach. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
respondent engagement in online surveys. International Journal of Market Peng, W., Lin, J.-H., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Winn, B. (2012). Need satisfaction supportive
Research, 54(5), 1e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-54-5-613-633. game features as motivational determinants: An experimental study of a self-
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psycholo- determination theory guided exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175e196.
gist, 41(10), 1040e1048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.673850.
Entertainment Software Association. (2015). 2015: Sales, Demographic and Usage Peterson, L., Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity of independent
Data - essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Retrieved variables in behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 15(4),
from http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential- 477e492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-477.
Facts-2015.pdf. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video
Farzan, R., & Brusilovsky, P. (2011). Encouraging user participation in a course game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154e166.
recommender system: An impact on user behavior. Computers in Human Przybylski, A. K., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). The motivating role of violence in
Behavior, 27(1), 276e284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.005. video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 243e259. http://
Fernandes, J., Duarte, D., Ribeiro, C., Farinha, C., Pereira, J. M., & Silva, M. M. d (2012). dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327216.
iThink: A game-based approach towards improving collaboration and partici- Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). Having to versus
pation in requirement elicitation. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 66e77. http:// wanting to play: Background and consequences of harmonious versus obsessive
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.059. engagement in video games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 485e492.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0083.
research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441e467. http:// Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total Engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607. change the way people work and businesses compete. Boston: Harvard Business
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video School Press.
games, learning, and literacy. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2009). Virtual worlds and the learner hero: How
Publishers. today's video games can inform tomorrow's digital learning environments.
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization. Paper Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 214e223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
presented at the 4th Seminar on Research Trends in Media Informatics, Ulm. 1477878509104326.
Gustafsson, A., Katzeff, C., & Bang, M. (2009). Evaluation of a pervasive game for Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and
domestic energy engagement among teenagers. Computers in Entertainment hold us spellbound. Santa barbara: Praeger.
(CIE), 7(4), 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1658866.1658873. Robinson, D., & Bellotti, V. (2013). A Preliminary Taxonomy of Gamification Ele-
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field ments for Varying Anticipated Commitment. Paper presented at the CHI 2013,
experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Elec- Paris.
tronic commerce research and applications, 12(4), 236e245. http://dx.doi.org/ Rose, O., & Ma €rz, L. (2011). Simulation. In L. Ma€rz, W. Krug, O. Rose, & G. Weigert
10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004. (Eds.), Simulation und Optimierung in Produktion und Logistik (pp. 13e20). Ber-
Hamari, J. (2015). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the ef- lin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14536-0_2.
fects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
j.chb.2015.03.036. Journal of personality, 63(3), 397e427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? - A Literature 6494.1995.tb00501.x.
Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. Paper presented at the 47th Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa. http://dx.doi. organismic dialectial perspective. In R. M. Ryan, & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Handbook of
org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377. self-determination research (pp. 3e33). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Hense, J., Klevers, M., Sailer, M., Horenburg, T., Mandl, H., & Günthner, W. (2014). Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and
Using gamification to enhance staff motivation in logistics. In S. A. Meijer, & interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive
R. Smeds (Eds.), Frontiers in gaming simulation (pp. 206e213). Stockholm: evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736e750.
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04954-0_24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736.
Hense, J., & Mandl, H. (2014). Learning in or with games? Quality criteria for digital Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2006). The motivational pull of video
learning games from the perspectives of learning, emotion, and motivation games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4),
theory. In D. G. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler, J. M. Spector, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Digital 344e360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8.
systems for open access to formal and informal learning (pp. 181e193). Pira €us: Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H., & Klevers, M. (2013). Psychological perspectives on
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02264-2_12. motivation through gamification. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal,
Jones, B. A., Madden, G. J., & Wengreen, H. J. (2014). The FIT game: Preliminary 19, 28e37.
evaluation of a gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable con- Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game design fundamentals. Cam-
sumption in school. Preventive medicine, 68, 76e79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ bridge: Mit Press.
j.ypmed.2014.04.015. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2010). Motivation in education: Theory,
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods research, and applications (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Inter-
Kelle, S., Klemke, R., & Specht, M. (2013). Effects of game design patterns on basic national Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14e31. http://dx.doi.org/
life support training content. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006.
275e285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2011.045452. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
Krapp, A. (1993). Die Psychologie der Lernmotivation: Perspektiven der Forschung experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
und Probleme ihrer p€ adagogischen Rezeption. Zeitschrift für Pa €dagogik, 39(2), Shi, L., Cristea, A. I., Hadzidedic, S., & Dervishalidovic, N. (2014). Contextual gami-
187e206. fication of social interaction e towards increasing motivation in social e-
Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2014). An Empirical Test of the Theory of Gamified learning. In E. Popescu, R. H. Lau, K. Pata, H. Leung, & M. Laanpere (Eds.), Ad-
Learning: The Effect of Leaderboards on Time-on-Task and Academic Perfor- vances in web-based learning e ICWL 2014 (pp. 116e122). Tallinn: Springer.
mance. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769e785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09635-3_12.
380 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), Persuasive technology (Vol. 8462, pp.
315e342. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315. 266e272). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_23.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How game thinking can revolutionize
mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan, & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2015). The gamification toolkit - dynamics, mechanics, and
Ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (advances in components for the win. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
motivation and achievement (Vol. 16 A, pp. 105e165). London: Emerald Group White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psy-
Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/s0749-7423(2010)000016a007. chological review, 66(5), 297e333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040934.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying prin- 9(6), 772e777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772.
ciple. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263e280. http://dx.doi.org/ Yongwen, X., Johnson, P., Moore, C. A., Brewer, R. S., & Takayama, J. (2013). SGSEAM:
10.1037/a0032359. Assessing Serious Game Frameworks from a Stakeholder Experience Perspec-
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic inte- tive. Paper presented at the Gamification 2013: 1st International Conference on
gration between self-determination theory and motivational interviewing as Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, Stratfort. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or 2583008.2583018.
volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International Journal of Behav- Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing
ioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(23). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868- game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.
9-23. Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based Marketing: Inspire customer loyalty
Wang, H., & Sun, C.-T. (2011). Game reward systems: gaming experiences and social through rewards, challenges, and contests. New Jersey: Wiley.
meanings. Paper presented at the DiGRA 2011 conference: Think Design Play, Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The gamification revolution. New York: McGraw-
Hilversum. Hill Education.
Werbach, K. (2014). (Re)defining gamification: A process approach. In A. Spagnolli,