BUS HW Read the article in order to answer the questions which are related to it. lable at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e

BUS HW
Read the article in order to answer the questions which are related to it.

lable at ScienceDirect

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Assignment on
BUS HW Read the article in order to answer the questions which are related to it. lable at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e
From as Little as $13/Page

Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380
Contents lists avai
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-Universitat Mnchen, Empirical Education and Educational Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802, Munich, Germany
b Justus-Liebig-Universitat Gieen, Higher Education Learning and Evaluation, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394, Gieen, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 August 2016
Received in revised form
9 December 2016
Accepted 14 December 2016
Available online 23 December 2016

Keywords:
Gamification
Game design elements
Psychological need satisfaction
Motivation
Self-determination theory
Simulation
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [emailprotected] (M. Sa

giessen.de (J.U. Hense), [emailprotected] (S.K. Ma
(H. Mandl).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
0747-5632/ 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevie
a b s t r a c t

The main aim of gamification, i.e. the implementation of game design elements in real-world contexts for
non-gaming purposes, is to foster human motivation and performance in regard to a given activity.
Previous research, although not entirely conclusive, generally supports the hypothesis underlying this
aim. However, previous studies have often treated gamification as a generic construct, neglecting the fact
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
elements, and analysed them in regard to their effect on the fulfilment of basic psychological needs. Our
results show that badges, leaderboards, and performance graphs positively affect competence need
satisfaction, as well as perceived task meaningfulness, while avatars, meaningful stories, and teammates
affect experiences of social relatedness. Perceived decision freedom, however, could not be affected as
intended. We interpret these findings as general support for our main hypothesis that gamification is not
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

Video games have become increasingly popular among all age
groups and genders in recent years (Entertainment Software
Association, 2015), and are often considered one of the central
entertainment media of the future (cf. McGonigal, 2011). Without a
doubt, video games inherently possess a high level of motivational
potential (cf. Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Gee, 2007; Hense &
Mandl, 2014; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010; Rigby & Ryan,
2011; Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006; Yee, 2006). Given this po-
tential, the idea of using the motivational power of video games for
real-world applications is not unreasonable (Rigby & Ryan, 2011).
This idea is at the root of current discussions concerning the
concept of gamification.

Gamification refers to the use of game design elements within
non-game contexts (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke, 2011, p. 1).
iler), [emailprotected]
yr), [emailprotected]

r Ltd. This is an open access article
The central idea is to take the building blocks of games, and to
implement these in real-world situations, often with the goal of
motivating specific behaviours within the gamified situation. Many
authors see gamification as an innovative and promising concept
that can be applied within a variety of contexts (Werbach&Hunter,
2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Zichermann & Linder,
2013).

The contexts in which gamification has previously been imple-
mented include the following: work (Arai, Sakamoto & Washizaki,
2014; Fernandes et al., 2012), education (Landers & Landers, 2014;
Shi, Cristea, Hadzidedic, & Dervishalidovic, 2014), crowdsourcing
(Liu, Alexandrova & Nakajima, 2011; Mekler, Brhlmann, Tuch, &
Opwis, 2015), data-collection (Downes-Le Guin, Baker, Mechling,
& Ruyle, 2012), health (Jones, Madden, & Wengreen, 2014), mar-
keting (Hamari, 2013, 2015), social networks (Farzan & Brusilovsky,
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,
i.e. motivation (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2010).

Although empirically the majority of studies indicate more
positive than negative or null effects of gamification on motivation,
under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[emailprotected]

mailto:[emailprotected]

mailto:[emailprotected]

mailto:[emailprotected]

mailto:[emailprotected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033

M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380372
the evidence base on its effectiveness is still lacking due to limi-
tations of study design and analysis strategies (Hamari, Koivisto &
Sarsa, 2014; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Additionally, there is a lack of
theoretical foundation to explain these motivational effects
(Seaborn & Fels, 2015); this means that the question how gamifi-
cation motivates has not been addressed sufficiently until now. To
answer this question, and consequently advance gamification
research, psychological theories of motivation must be applied.

Another problemwith the state of current research is that many
studies treat gamification as a uniform concept, while in practice,
the specific designs and realizations of gamification environments
can be quite diverse. Since gamification can take many forms and
can combine game design elements in many different ways, it is
inappropriate to study the motivational effects of gamification as a
generic construct. Instead, the impact of different game design el-
ements within a given context should be the focus of inquiry.

Given the limitations of the previous research outlined above,
the first goal of our paper is to apply a self-determination theory
framework (Deci& Ryan, 1985; Ryan& Deci, 2002) in the context of
gamification, and to explain themotivational power of game design
elements according to the theory of psychological need satisfaction
(cf. Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The second goal is to
investigate different game design elements, using an experimental
study, in order to explain the specific effects of these game design
elements on psychological need satisfaction.
2. Gamification

The term gamification emerged in the early 2000s (Marczewski,
2013), and has been the focus of increased attention since the
beginning of the 2010s (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Werbach &
Hunter, 2012). The central idea behind gamification is to harness
the motivational potential of video games by transferring game
design elements to non-game environments (Deterding, Khaled,
Nacke & Dixon, 2011). However, despite the increasing number of
gamified applications, there is still no universally accepted scien-
tific definition of the term (Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011; Seaborn
& Fels, 2015; Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

Described by Groh (2012) as state of the art, the most current
and widely used definition of gamification is the one already cited
above: the use of game design elements in non-game contexts
(Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011, p. 1). In order to avoid unnecessarily
limiting the goals of gamification, this definition expressly omits
possible purposes. Instead, it relies on the four semantic compo-
nents (1) game, (2) elements, (3) design, and (4) non-game contexts.

(1) The term game is defined by Salen and Zimmerman (2004) as
a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict,
defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome (p.
80). While the concept of game refers to rule-based forms of
play activities, play refers to free and explorative activities
(Groh, 2012). Accordingly, gamification is related to the rule-
based, goal-oriented nature of games (Deterding, Dixon,
et al., 2011).

(2) The term elements allows us to distinguish gamification from
serious games (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011). Whereas
serious games are fully-developed games serving a specific,
non-entertainment purpose (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011;
Yongwen, Johnson, Moore, Brewer & Takayama, 2013),
gamification refers to the use of distinct game building
blocks embedded in real-world contexts. Deterding, Dixon,
et al. (2011) propose to define game design elements as
those elements that are characteristic of games, i.e. that can
be found in many games, and that are significant to the
meaning of the game (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011;
Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011).

(3) The term design contrasts game design elements with game-
based technologies. Whereas the underlying technologies of
the game include technological aspects such as game engines
or controllers, the definition of gamification refers explicitly
to a deliberate design process (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011;
Deterding, Khaled, et al., 2011).

(4) Finally, the term non-game contexts does not specify the
possible areas in which gamification could be applied, and
thus leaves the definition open for potential usage scenarios.
The only context excluded by definition is the use of game
design elements either within the games themselves or in
the game design process (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011).

To summarize, gamification is defined as the use of design
(rather than game-based technology or other game-related prac-
tices) elements (rather than fully developed games) characteristic for
games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game contexts
(regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or implementa-
tion media) (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011, p. 5).

Referring to this understanding of gamification, Werbach (2014)
claims that not every use of game design elements in non-game
contexts should be labelled gamification. He argues that,
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
programs. Since such progress bars are intended solely as a feed-
back device for the user, and have no gameful or playful intention,
they should not be termed gamification. This contrasts, for
example, progress bars in LinkedIn, which are intended to evoke
game-like user experiences (Werbach, 2014). Thus, Werbach (2014)
proposes to define gamification as the process of making activities
more game-like (p. 6). Within this definition, he focuses on prac-
tices that elicit user experiences typical of games. Accordingly, he
regards the essence of gamification to be the selection, application,
implementation and integration of game design elements, rather
than simply the use of these.

However, Werbach’s definition lacks several of the specifica-
tions discussed above, as it does not refer to anymethod or element
that could be used for creating user experiences characteristic of
games. Therefore, it seems reasonable to connect the elemental
definition proposed by Deterding, Dixon, et al. (2011) with the
process definition proposed by Werbach (2014), and in so doing
make use of their distinct advantages. Whereas Deterding, Dixon,
et al. (2011) focus on the building blocks of gamification yet
disregard the user’s experience, Werbach (2014) understands
gamification as a process. He focuses on playful activities and on the
user experiences they trigger, yet remains vague in regard to how
these experiences can be created. Thus, this paper draws on a
definition that combines both views. We define gamification as the
process of making activities in non-game contexts more game-like
by using game design elements.

3. Game design elements

Game design elements are the basic building blocks of gamifi-
cation applications (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Werbach &
Hunter, 2012). They are largely equivalent with game design pat-
terns (Bjork& Holopainen, 2004; Kelle, Klemke, & Specht, 2013). In
the context of games and gamification, several authors have pro-
posed compilations of recurring game design elements (cf. Kapp,
2012; Robinson & Bellotti, 2013; Werbach & Hunter, 2012, 2015;
Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Zichermann & Linder, 2010).
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-
atars, narrative context, feedback, competition and teams. Werbach
and Hunter (2012) identify 15 important components, among
them avatars, badges, leaderboards, points and teams. In particular,
they highlight the so-called PBL triad e the interplay of points,
badges and leaderboards, which they consider characteristic of
gamified applications (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

Despite several parallels and overlaps between these lists, they
are largely different. This difference reveals that the decision as to
which building blocks should be identified as characteristic game
design elements is often somewhat arbitrary and subjective. In this
paper, we do not aim to compile another list of characteristic game
design elements. Instead, our goal is to investigate the effects of a
selection of specific game design elements, a selection that is not
exhaustive, but that represents some of the game design elements
most often discussed.

Among these typical game design elements, which we will
discuss in more detail below, are (1) points, (2) badges, (3) leader-
boards, (4) performance graphs, (5) meaningful stories, (6) avatars
and (7) teammates. Our focus on this selection of elements is based
on their direct visibility to the players, how easily one can activate
or deactivate them in an experimental setting, and how strongly
they can be expected to address motivational mechanisms within
our theoretical framework (cf. next section). Whereas other game
design elements such as competition or progress depend not only on
the perceptible design aspects of the application or the game but
also on features of its underlying mechanics, the elements we
discuss below are part of the game surface, and thus are easily
implemented by the game designers. This allows these elements to
be manipulated independently of one another, which in turn en-
ables their specific effects to be detected within empirical research
(Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012). Game design ele-
ments that are present at a surface level can be manipulated more
easily than game design elements that express functions of ele-
ments or that trigger user experiences.

(1) Points are basic elements of a multitude of games and
gamified applications (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011).
They are typically rewarded for the successful accomplish-
ment of specified activities within the gamified environment
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012, 2015), and they serve to numeri-
cally represent a player’s progress (Werbach & Hunter, 2012,
2015). Various kinds of points can be differentiated between,
e.g. experience points, redeemable points, or reputation
points, as can the different purposes that points serve
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). One of the most important pur-
poses of points is to provide feedback. Points allow the
players’ in-game behavior to be measured, and they serve as
continuous and immediate feedback and as a reward (Sailer,
Hense, Mandl, & Klevers, 2013).

(2) Badges are defined as visual representations of achievements
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012), and can be earned and collected
within the gamification environment. They confirm the
players’ achievements, symbolize their merits (Anderson,
Huttenlocher, Kleinberg & Leskovec, 2013), and visibly
show their accomplishment of levels or goals (Antin &
Churchill, 2011). Earning a badge can be dependent on a
specific amount of points or on particular activities within
the game (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Badges have many
functions, serving as goals, if the prerequisites for winning
them are known to the player, or as virtual status symbols
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham,
2011). In the same way as points, badges also provide feed-
back, in that they indicate how the players have performed
(Rigby & Ryan, 2011). In general, badges usually have no
narrative meaning, and collecting them is not compulsory.
However, badges can influence players’ behavior, leading
them to select certain routes and challenges in order to earn
the badges that are associated with them (Wang & Sun,
2011). Additionally, as badges symbolize one’s membership
in a group of those who own this particular badge, they also
can exert social influences on players and co-players (Antin&
Churchill, 2011; Hamari, 2013), particularly if they are rare or
hard to earn.

(3) Leaderboards rank players according to their relative success,
measuring them against a certain success criterion (Costa,
Wehbe, Robb & Nacke, 2013). As such, leaderboards can
help determine who performs best in a certain activity
(Crumlish & Malone, 2009), and are thus competitive in-
dicators of progress that relate the player’s own performance
to the performance of others. However, the motivational
potential of leaderboards is mixed. Werbach and Hunter
(2012) regard them as effective motivators, if there are only
a few points left to the next level or position, but as demo-
tivators, if players find themselves at the bottom end of the
leaderboard. Competition caused by leaderboards can create
social pressure to increase the player’s level of engagement,
and can consequently have a constructive effect on partici-
pation and learning (Burguillo, 2010). It should be noted,
however, that these positive effects of competition are more
likely if the respective competitors are approximately at the
same performance level (cf. Landers & Landers, 2014; Slavin,
1980).

(4) Performance graphs, which are often used in simulation or
strategy games, provide information about the players’ per-
formance compared to their preceding performance during a
game (Sailer et al., 2013). Thus, in contrast to leaderboards,
performance graphs do not compare the player’s perfor-
mance to other players, but instead evaluate the player’s own
performance over time. Unlike the social reference standard
of leaderboards, performance graphs are based on an indi-
vidual reference standard. By graphically displaying the
player’s performance over a fixed period, they focus on im-
provements. Motivation theory postulates that this fosters
mastery orientation, which is particularly beneficial to
learning (cf. Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984; Sailer et al., 2013).

(5) Meaningful stories are game design elements that do not
relate to the player’s performance. The narrative context in
which a gamified application can be embedded contextual-
izes activities and characters in the game, and gives them
meaning beyond themere quest for points and achievements
(Kapp, 2012). A story can be communicated by a game’s title
(e.g. Space Invaders) or by complex storylines typical of
contemporary role-playing video games (e.g. The Elder Scrolls
Series) (Kapp, 2012). Narrative contexts can be oriented to-
wards real, non-game contexts or act as analogies of real-
world settings. The latter can enrich boring, barely stimu-
lating contexts, and, consequently, inspire and motivate
playerse particularly if the story is in linewith their personal
interests (Nicholson, 2015). As such, stories are also an
important part in gamification applications, as they can alter
the meaning of real world activities by adding a narrative
overlay, e.g. being hunted by zombies while going for a run.

(6) Avatars are visual representations of players within the game
or gamification environment (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
Usually they are chosen or even created by the player (Kapp,
2012). Avatars can be designed quite simply as a mere
pictogram, or they can be complexly animated, three-
dimensional representations. Their main formal require-
ment is that they unmistakably identify the players and set

M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380374
them apart from other human or computer-controlled ava-
tars (Werbach & Hunter, 2015). Avatars allow the players to
adopt or create another identity and, in cooperative games,
to become part of a community (Annetta, 2010).

(7) Teammates, whether they are other real players or virtual
non-player characters (NPCs), can induce conflict, competi-
tion or cooperation (Kapp, 2012). The latter can be fostered
particularly by introducing teams, i.e. by creating defined
groups of players that work together towards a shared
objective (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
4. Psychological need satisfaction

In order to analyze and investigate the motivational power of
the above-mentioned game design elements, we will now take a
closer look at motivation research. Within this field, six principal
perspectives can be distinguished that, to a certain degree, become
relevant in the context of gamification: the trait perspective, the
behaviorist learning perspective, the cognitive perspective, the
perspective of self-determination, the perspective of interest, and
the perspective of emotion (cf. Astleitner, 2000; Krapp, 1993).
Although all these perspectives have implications in regard to the
functions and possible effects of gamification (cf. Hense et al., 2014;
Sailer et al., 2013), it seems appropriate to focus on one specific
perspective for the purposes of empirical investigation. In this pa-
per, we have chosen the self-determination perspective, with
which we investigate the effects of the game design elements used
in gamification. Our choice is based on the fact that the self-
determination perspective encompasses a broad range of motiva-
tional mechanisms which partly overlap with several of the other
perspectives.

Besides the fact that the perspective of self-determination has
already been successfully applied in the context of games (cf.
Przybylski, Ryan, & Rigby, 2009; Przybylski, Weinstein, Ryan, &
Rigby, 2009; Przybylski et al., 2010; Rigby & Przybylski, 2009;
Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan et al., 2006), it also emphasizes the
importance of the environment in fostering motivation (Deci &
Vansteenkiste, 2004). Enriching the environment with game
design elements, as gamification does by definition, directly mod-
ifies that environment, thereby potentially affecting motivational
and psychological user experiences.

Within self-determination theory, three basic psychological and
intrinsic needs are postulated: the need for competence, the need
for autonomy, and the need for social relatedness (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Ryan, 1995).

(1) The need for competence refers to feelings of efficiency and
success while interacting with the environment (Rigby &
Ryan, 2011; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013; White, 1959). It is
assumed that every human strives to feel competent when
deliberately influencing the environment they interact with.

(2) The need for autonomy refers to psychological freedom and to
volition to fulfill a certain task (van den Broeck,
Vansteenkiste, Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010; Vansteenkiste,
Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010; Vansteenkiste, Williams, &
Resnicow, 2012). While psychological freedom refers to the
feeling of making decisions on the basis of one’s own values
and interests (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002), voli-
tion refers to the feeling of acting without external pressure
or enforcement (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Therefore, au-
tonomy refers both to experienced (a) decision freedom,
which implies being able to choose between several courses
of action, and experienced (b) task meaningfulness, which
implies that the course of action at hand conforms with one’s
own goals and attitudes.

(3) The need for social relatedness refers to one’s feelings of
belonging, attachment, and care in relation to a group of
significant others. It represents the basic desire of the indi-
vidual for coherent integration with the social environment
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Deci &
Vansteenkiste, 2004).

These three intrinsic psychological needs are motivational re-
sources that can be developed bymodifying the environment. Thus,
motivational behavior patterns can be promoted to a significant
degree by deliberately addressing the human need for competence,
autonomy, and social relatedness (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

5. Matching psychological needs to game design elements

A basic assumption of this paper is that game design elements
can deliberately be used to modify non-game contexts such as
working or learning environments, and thus can purposefully
address motivational mechanisms. To investigate the effects of such
modifications, psychological need satisfaction theory can be
applied. From a theoretical perspective, therefore, the emerging
question is which specific psychological needs can be addressed by
which specific game design elements.

Drawing on the list of game design elements discussed above,
we assume that the need for competence can be addressed by points,
performance graphs, badges, or leaderboards (Hense et al., 2014;
Sailer et al., 2013). Points provide the player with granular feed-
back, which can be directly connected to the actions of the player.
Performance graphs visually indicate the player’s progress over
time, thereby providing sustained feedback. Badges and leader-
boards assess a series of player actions and in doing so provide
cumulative feedback (cf. Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Thus, essentially, it is
the feedback function of these game design elements that can
evoke feelings of competence, as this directly communicates the
success of a player’s actions.

The need for autonomy includes two aspects: experiences of
decision freedom, and experiences of task meaningfulness. In the
first aspect (autonomy in regard to freedom of decision), avatars are
relevant, as they offer the players freedom of choice (Annetta, 2010;
Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn, 2012). In the second aspect (autonomy
in regard to task meaningfulness), stories play an important role.
Stories can help players experience their own actions asmeaningful
and volitionally engaging, regardless of whether or not choices are
really available (Rigby & Ryan, 2011).

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
role. Together with teammates, who can be real co-players or non-
player characters, a sense of relevance can be evoked by empha-
sizing the importance of the players’ actions for the group’s per-
formance (Groh, 2012; Rigby & Ryan, 2011). A shared goal, which
can be conveyed within a meaningful story, can also foster expe-
riences of social relatedness (Sailer et al., 2013).

A summary of the above arguments concerning the question of
how different psychological needs can be addressed by specific
game design elements is shown in Table 1.

Empirical research in regard to the effects of specific game
design elements on psychological need satisfaction is still scarce
(Mekler et al., 2015; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). However, there are a
number of studies that apply this concept, and that investigate the
effects of game design elements empirically.

In a series of four empirical studies, Ryan et al. (2006) show that
competence, autonomy, and relatedness independently predict
both enjoyment and future game-playing behavior. Although this

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

M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 375
work demonstrates the relevant effects of applying the concept of
need satisfaction within the general context of games, it does not
contrast different game design elements with one another, which
would be necessary for a gamification research perspective (cf.
Seaborn & Fels, 2015).

Peng et al. (2012) manipulated certain game features (auton-
omy-inducing vs. competence-inducing) in a 2 2 design and
found corresponding main effects for the manipulated features.
Dynamic adjustment of difficulty level and badges led to increased
satisfaction of the need for competence. Freedom in regard to
avatar customization and choices in autonomous communication
style with non-player characters led to increased satisfaction of the
need for autonomy.

In contrast to these findings, Mekler et al. (2015) could not
observe substantial effects of the game design elements of points,
leaderboards, and levels on need satisfaction, although they could
observe effects on performance quantity. They explain their find-
ings by arguing that the game design elements applied in their
study mainly functioned as extrinsic incentives.

Current research, which is still scarce, thus paints a mixed pic-
ture in regard to the effects of game design elements on psycho-
logical need satisfaction. Nevertheless, one can generally claim
there is a more positive than negative tendency concerning the
possibility of deliberately influencing need satisfaction with
gamification.
6. A simulation study on the effects of different game design
element groups

To test the effects of specific game design elements, grouped in
varying configurations, on motivational need fulfilment, we con-
ducted an experimental study in a digital simulation setting. The
content domain of the simulation was the internal handling of
materials and supplies at production or delivery sites. One central
process of internal material handling is order-picking, i.e. the
manual collection of delivery parts from a storage depot in
response to a customer’s orders. Order-picking seemed a suitable
task with which to investigate gamification, since, as repetitive
work, it is often perceived as neither stimulating nor motivating,
and thus has potential for improvement (Hense et al., 2014).
6.1. Questions and hypotheses

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
theoretical considerations, we investigated the following research
questions and hypotheses.

RQ 1. To what extent do game design element groups affect
competence need satisfaction?

All gamification elements that provide players with specific
feedback on their performance should evoke feelings of compe-
tence. Thus, we expected that badges, leaderboards, and perfor-
mance graphs would foster experiences of competence. This led to
our following hypothesis:

H1. Participants in a game condition with badges, leaderboards,
and performance graphs (experimental condition 1) experience
higher levels of competence than participants in a control condition.

RQ 2. To what extent do game design element groups affect au-
tonomy need satisfaction in regard to decision freedom?

One way of offering choices is by using avatars, which are
included in a game condition together with a meaningful story, and
teammates. We expected that a game condition that includes av-
atars can cause players to experience feelings of autonomy in re-
gard to decision freedom. This led to the following hypothesis:

H2. Participants in a game condition with avatars, a meaningful
story, and teammates (experimental condition 2) experience high

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *