english writing
only use the two files, i want you answer the HW with only only from journal article that given in the anther file. and i dont you to copy and paste, i want you to paraphrase.
Name and Surname: _______________________ ID Number: ___________ Section: ____
1. The journal article required to complete this homework can be found
on your Moodle page as a PDF in the same file as this word document
.
2. Please access the full article from your Moodle page and write your answers according to the article.
3. Due to copyright issues, please not copy and paste
any of the information from the article to this document. Everything should be
typed into this document
. The article should only be used as a reference.
There are
4 parts
below (A, B, C, & D). Please read each part carefully; all questions are related to the Journal Article you are given.
Instructions: Referring to the journal article, identify the necessary information from each relevant part of the article.
A. General Information.
The information in this section should be given as it is found in the journal article. (3 points X 5 = 15 points)
A1. Title of Journal Article:
A2. Name(s) of Author(s):
A3. Journal Name:
A4. Year of Publication:
A5. Page Range:
B. Find the answers for the following questions by referring to the relevant part of the journal article they are found.
The information in this section should paraphrase or summarize the necessary information. (6 points X 5 = 30 points).
B1. The importance of the study:
B2. Problem statement:
B3. Population of the study:
B4. Data collection tool or instrument:
B5. Method of data analysis:
C. Findings, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion: Based on the information provided in these parts of the journal article, make a list of
3 findings/results/discussions/conclusion of the study
. Briefly summarize or paraphrase what the author(s) found. (5 points X 3 = 15 points)
1.
2.
3.
D. Read through the research paper and identify five (5) in-text citations (ITC) that have been used.
Complete the table below by copying the text as it is seen in the research paper. Then provide the in-text citation information. An example has been given. (8 points X 5 = 40 points)
Text from article
In-text Citation
(Surname(s), Year, pg.)
Surname(s) (Year, pg.)
Ex.
Video games have become increasingly popular among all age groups and genders in recent years.
(Entertainment Software
Association, 2015)
ITC 1
ITC 2
ITC 3
ITC 4
ITC 5 Full length article
How gami
fi
cation motivates: An experimental study of the effects of
speci
fi
c game design elements on psychological need satisfaction
Contents lists available at
ScienceDirec
t
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage:
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbe
h
Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 37
1
e
38
0
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
372 M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380
M. Sailer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 371e380 373
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
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 potential, 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).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [emailprotected] (M. Sailer), [emailprotected] (J.U. Hense), [emailprotected] (S.K. Mayr), [emailprotected] (H. Mandl).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
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 implemented 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), marketing (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).
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/
).
Although empirically the majority of studies indicate more positive than negative or null effects of gamification on motivation,
the evidence base on its effectiveness is still lacking due to limitations 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 gamification 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 problem with 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 elements 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 the motivational 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 scientific 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 components (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 rulebased, 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 gamebased 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 practices) 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 implementation 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 feedback 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 practices 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 specifications discussed above, as it does not refer to any method 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 gamification applications (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011; Werbach & Hunter, 2012). They are largely equivalent with game design patterns (Bjork & Holopainen, 2004; Kelle, Klemke, & Specht, 2013). In the context of games and gamification, several authors have proposed 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 Great Games, which include representation of oneself through avatars, 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) leaderboards, (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 enables their specific effects to be detected within empirical research (Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012). Game design elements that are present at a surface level can be manipulated more easily than game design elements that express functions of elements 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 accomplishment of specified activities within the gamified environment (Werbach & Hunter, 2012, 2015), and they serve to numerically 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 purposes 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 feedback, 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 indicators 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 demotivators, 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 participation 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’ performance 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 performance 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 individual reference standard. By graphically displaying the player’s performance over a fixed period, they focus on improvements. 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 contextualizes activities and characters in the game, and gives them meaning beyond the mere 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 towards real, non-game contexts or act as analogies of realworld settings. The latter can enrich boring, barely stimulating contexts, and, consequently, inspire and motivate players e particularly if the story is in line with 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, threedimensional representations. Their main formal requirement is that they unmistakably identify the players and set them apart from other human or computer-controlled avatars (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, competition 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 paper, 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 selfdetermination perspective encompasses a broad range of motivational 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 modifies 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), volition refers to the feeling of acting without external pressure or enforcement (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Therefore, autonomy 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 individual for coherent integration with the social environment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004).
These three intrinsic psychological needs are motivational resources 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, 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 feedback, 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 leaderboards 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 as meaningful 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 nonplayer characters, a sense of relevance can be evoked by emphasizing the importance of the players’ actions for the group’s performance (Groh, 2012; Rigby & Ryan, 2011). A shared goal, which can be conveyed within a meaningful story, can also foster experiences 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
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 (autonomy-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 findings 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 picture in regard to the effects of game design elements on psychological 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 designelement groups
To test the effects of specific game design elements, grouped in varying configurations, on motivational need fulfilment, we conducted 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
