Article

Exploring the Impact of Gamification on Users’

Engagement for Sustainable Development: A Case
Study in Brand Applications
Hsi-Peng Lu and Hui-Chen Ho *
Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei 10607, Taiwan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 4 April 2020; Accepted: 13 May 2020; Published: 20 May 2020

Abstract: Game elements and mechanics have been widely applied as marketing strategies for
sustainable development. Seldom have studies explored the relationships between the components
of the game and consumer continuous usage with gamification. This study analyzed how game
mechanics impact users’ gaming behavior and awaken positive feelings so as to increase the
stickiness of the brand. This research model empirically surveyed 411 Nike Run Club (NRC) app
users, based on the Mechanics–Dynamics–Aesthetics (MDA) framework. The results show that the
self-challenge is a pre-factor that affects self-benefit, fun, and social interaction, while self-benefit
and social interaction affect fun. The results also show that fun is of primary importance among all
others, as it is a factor that affects brand attitude and sustained use. The results provide valuable
insights into sustainable strategies for industries related to the operation of an app-based brand.

Keywords: gamification; MDA model; brand attitude; continued intention to use; gamification
marketing

1. Introduction
Gamification is drawing growing attention from both researchers and practitioners [1–3]. For
the innovation and sustainable developments in related industries, combining game features and
game-thinking into non-gaming contexts, gamification can incentivize and motivate people, as well
as enhance their perception and engagement. Therefore, gamification as a powerful engagement tool
has been widely utilized in various fields, such as education, healthcare, entertainment, and non-
profit enterprises [1–6]. As reported in TechSci Research [7], the gamification market is estimated to
reach 40 USD billion by 2024. The emergence of gamification marketing not only changes business
marketing strategy, but also alters consumption behavior. As a marketing tool, gamification, apart
from aiming to boost sales and to increase profit, can improve customer engagement, enhance
product/brand identification, and build loyalty [8–11]. To further gain a competitive advantage, it is
of key importance for practitioners to identify the core elements and important attributes
contributing to most of the users’ experience and to boost engagement with gamification in
marketing.
Many companies or corporations have launched special apps and used gaming techniques, such
as competition, scoring systems, and incentives, to attract and retain customers, thus expanding their
brand reach and generating more sustainable development possibilities. One example of a major
business with successful gamification marketing is Nike. Launched in 2010, Nike Run Club (NRC)
(originally called Nike + Running App) has become a popular running app, which allows users to
personally monitor and record their workouts, and to socially share and compare accomplishments.
Besides gathering customers’ information and connecting them, NRC’s enticing features, including

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169; doi:10.3390/su12104169 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 2 of 20

immediate/daily feedback that fosters empowerment, ranking on leaderboards that encourages social
relatedness, as well as trophies and badges awarded that sustain engagement, has attracted millions
of players/users, who have turned into brand fans. As evident in the above example, gamification
enhances businesses’ competitive advantage in the market for sustainable development, and the key
lies in whether the tactics can foster engagement and sustain continued intention to use.
The diverse aspects and applications of gamification have been studied, including education and
learning [8,12,13], commerce [14,15], healthcare [4,16–18] and games themselves [5,19]. Moreover,
studies on gamification marketing have explored the impacts of game design on players’ motivation,
satisfaction, or behavioral intention [10,20]. Nevertheless, in the era of e-commerce, how gamification
marketing impacts or sustains continued intention to use has rarely been systematically examined.
Furthermore, examining the relationships between continuous usage of a brand app with
gamification and the component of the game would be of importance for market segmentation and
marketing strategy formulation.
To fill in the knowledge gap, this study explores, from the perspective of game design, how the
integration of game dynamics into a brand app contributes to better user experiences and boosts
engagement. The analytical tool adopted was the Mechanics–Dynamics–Aesthetics (MDA)
framework [20]. In contrast to other studies on gamification, the proposed model adopts the theory
of social comparison process proposed by Festinger [21] and identifies two constructs, i.e., self-
achievements and team-achievements, as the components of the game (Mechanics). Important
constructs related to dynamics and esthetic features of gamification are also established, such as self-
benefit, fun, and social interaction ties as the “Dynamics” features, and brand attitude and continued
intention to use as the “Aesthetics” features. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is applied to
investigate proposed models. Results provide reference for practitioners in mechanisms design to
encourage user engagement and to improve brand identity in the competitive environment.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Gamification
Gamification, a term coined by computer programmer/game designer Nick Pelling in 2002, is
defined as the use of game elements and mechanics in non-game contexts [1] for user engagement
and problem-solving [10]. On the other hand, Huotari and Hamari [2] emphasized the experiential
nature of gamification as a process to support users’ overall value creation. Hence, gamification
design is more than just games and fun, it serves specific goals, with the users enjoying the entire
process. Zichermann and Linder [11] expounded on how gamification revolutionizes business
thinking and practices and concluded that game mechanics, when integrated with business strategy,
serve as an invaluable change agent for the management to motivate employees and customers.
Regardless of how gamification is defined, its main purpose is to create fun, to stimulate significant
motivation, to enhance user experience, to encourage engagement, and to develop opportunities for
sustained engagement.
Conaway and Garay [22] highlighted that gamification, while sharing the same characteristics
of gaming such as points, tokens, badges, levels, rewards, and competition, must also involve fun for
the consumer. Palmer, Lunceford, and Patton [23] summarized four principal elements of
gamification; namely, (1) progress paths that use challenges and stories to motivate users to complete
tasks and to remain engaged; (2) feedback and rewards that motivate users to upgrade to a higher
level; (3) social connection that creates competition and cooperation through social networks; and (4)
an interface and user experience that allow users to have a fun and enjoyable experience. Behavioral
changes of consumers brought about by gamification may, in part, be attributed to the inherent
human tendencies to engage with competition, challenge, and social interaction [10]. In a game
design, the rules should be simple, allowing users to have a sense of control and to perceive fun in
achieving the goals through repetitive practice. In addition, upon completion of a small task, there
should be prompt feedback in the form of “Likes” on Facebook, points for accumulation, or
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 3 of 20

badges/awards. Finally, social interaction functions should be added, such as making new friends,
sharing, cooperating, and competing.
A game is a structured form of play with goals and rules [24], whereas gamification is a strategy
that utilizes game elements as well as mechanics [1] to enhance engagement and motivation through
the fun of the game. A game-like experience created by gamification [5] promises fun and makes
employees and customers enjoy what they are obligated to do, which smoothens and makes business
exchanges more appealing. Werbach and Hunter [6] proposed six steps of gamification design: define
the objectives of corporate, delineate target behaviours, give details about players, devise activity
loops, take into consideration the fun, and deploy appropriate tools.
To sum up, gamification integrates gaming elements, incentive mechanics, rule structure, and
feedback systems into non-game situations to attract and motivate people to engage, and then to
change their behavior.

2.2. Gamified Brand Marketing

Companies and brands are applying "gamification" to brand marketing strategies, focusing on
consumers and incorporating amusing elements into the Internet, social media, and daily operations
in an attempt to build a good interactive relationship with consumers, so as to increase the connection
between consumers and brands in a concerted effort for value creation [25]. Gamification is a process
that enables users to create overall value through various gaming experiences. The mechanics are
used to generate fun in the usage process to increase user engagement and loyalty [2].
The main focus of gamified marketing is (1) engagement is the consumer's performance and
investment in cognition, emotion, and behavior during their interaction with the brand or in other
relevant activities [26]. A consumer’s faith in brands can be considered cognitive engagement. A
consumer identifying with and developing a sense of belonging toward brands leads to an emotional
engagement with the brand. A consumer’s reaction toward brands is engagement through behavior
[27]. (2) Brand loyalty is divided into attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty is
an internal manifestation at a consumer’s psychological level. For example, a customer may
recommend focus products to another customer [28]. Behavioral loyalty is an external manifestation
and is about a consumer’s actual purchase behavior, and an example of behavioral loyalty is repeat
purchases [29]. (3) Brand awareness refers to the degree to which consumers can consider and
identify a brand when a certain category of products is mentioned [30]. Keller [31] pointed out that
brand awareness is related to how strongly a brand sticks to a consumer’s memory. It reflects the
ability of consumers to recognize the degree of a brand’s difference. This translates into stronger
brand connection or improves a brand’s foothold in a consumer’s memory. Analyzing consumer
brand attitudes and behavior can enable corporates to determine brand marketing strategies that can
be used to influence consumers to use sustainable services and goods [32]. Negruşa et al. [33]
examined the role of gamification and sustainable development from an economic, social, and
environmental perspective. Gamification is a way to achieve goals such as engagement, brand
loyalty, and brand awareness [34]. Gamified marketing can be an effective way to enhance service
value and the experience of consumers [22,35]. However, there are no current studies identifying the
core elements of gamification mechanics, which are important to the success of gamification as a
marketing strategy in sustainability development.

2.3. Mechanics–Dynamics–Aesthetics Framework

Figure 1 shows the MDA framework. As can be seen, this methodological architecture of game
design proposed by Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek [20] comprises three components: mechanics,
dynamics, and aesthetics, which complement each other.
The mechanics are the core of the game, and comprise the constructs of goals, rules, and feedback
loops with enticing features of points, leaderboards, levels, challenges, virtual treasures, and badges
[13] for active engagement. According to Lundgren and Björk [36], mechanics refers to part of a
game’s rule system or a summary of game rules and types of interactions that may occur in a game.
While a game can contain multiple mechanics, a mechanic can be used by multiple games.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 4 of 20

Dynamics refer to behaviors in the duration of the game. As the interaction between players and
the mechanics evolves over time, dynamics undergo changes as a function of user feedback, such as
what strategies are derived from the rules and how players interact with the game. Dynamics evoke
esthetic experiences such as: (1) challenge created under time pressure and competition against
opponents; (2) fellowship encouraged by sharing information or winning strategies with fellow
players; (3) expression allowing players to leave their mark on the game and to create a unique
personalized gaming experience; and (4) narrative/dramatic tension with suspense and release,
generating tension and a denouement [20]. Dynamics entail interpretation and prediction, i.e.,
understanding what is happening and guessing what will happen, and the uncertainty involved is
what makes a game fascinating and engaging.
Aesthetics describe the players’ overall feelings when interacting with the game. A well-
designed game can resonate strongly with players in terms of emotions, including fun, frustration,
fantasy, and friendship. Hunicke et al. [20] suggested a more directed vocabulary for describing the
aesthetics of a game, including (1) sensation, enabling players to have a stimulating experience with
the audio-visual game effects; (2) fantasy, creating an immersive experience with a make-believe
world; (3) narrative, engaging players with well-scripted plots; (4) challenge, posing obstacles to
boost mastery; (5) fellowship, promoting a social network for cooperation and interaction; (6)
discovery, exploring the unknown; (7) expression, fostering creativity; and (8) submission, pursuing
a pastime for enjoyment or alleviating boredom. Again, these emotional responses all contribute to
making the game “fun’,” thus enhancing engagement.

Figure 1. The Mechanics–Dynamics–Aesthetics (MDA) framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek,

2004 [20]).

Zichermann and Cunningham [10] believe that the so-called "game elements" refer to the basic
constituents that comprise a game, and are also the basis for guiding the entire gaming process; the
"gaming mechanic," on the other hand, is the design employed to optimize and strengthen the game
elements. The DMC pyramid system proposed by Werbach and Hunter [6] uses "Mechanics" to refer
to the basic process that drives the game’s progress and player engagement, including Challenge,
Chance, Feedback, Win states, etc., and "Components" describes the specific elements that make up
a mechanic, including Points, Badges, and Leaderboards, among others. After collating the relevant
literature, Hunicke et al. [20] reached a consensus on ten gamification elements: Leaderboards, Points,
Achievements/Badges, Challenges/Missions, Levels, Story/Theme, Feedback, Clear goal, Rewards,
and Progress.
Schell [37] also mentioned four gamification elements that can increase user immersion and
engagement, including Story, Mechanics, Aesthetics, and Technology. Story elements can enhance
user experience, while the mechanics should present the game’s flow and rules, so that users may
understand the game’s goals, how to accomplish the goals, and the expectations and feedback they
can expect to get when they give the game a try. Such game mechanisms make the game more
dynamic and create a specific user experience [2]. In terms of aesthetics, it can improve and deepen
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 5 of 20

the immersive experience of users. Finally, the technology elements play an intermediary role, which
can inspire users to enter the characters and plots, creating an immersive gaming experience.
As an example, for a monotonous activity such as running, Nike uses gamified data, levels,
feedback, interaction (Mechanics) to motivate users to invest more in fitness and jogging, thereby
making running fun (Aesthetics). Users have easy access to their running history through an app,
such as running distance and time (Feedback). The trajectories of their movement are displayed on a
map to create user favorite patterns or texts (Expression). Different awards are granted
(Accomplishment), and it is possible to challenge either oneself or to compete against a team at the
same time (Challenge). It is also possible to use the social network’s sharing function to let friends
know one’s running status (Social influence).
In addition, the Nike Run Club (NRC) app is characterized with various fascinating designs such
as a virtual "running buddy" avatar. The partner will be encouraged when one exercises regularly,
and will become disheartened when one slumps into sluggishness (Dynamics). Since the brand app
launched in 2006, the user base has been accumulated to include 250 countries and more than 3
million members. The above evidences that the success of gamification of Nike and the characteristics
fit the definition of the MDA framework. The derivation of constructs in the framework, as well as
the hypotheses, are further represented in Section 3.

3. Model and Hypotheses

Figure 2 depicts the model and constructs. On the basis of the MDA framework, it was analyzed
how a game’s mechanics changes the user’s behavior (Dynamics), which in turn evokes emotional
responses (Aesthetics). Specifically, the model shows that Self-Achievement (SA) and Team-
Achievement (TA) in the gamification design mechanism affect Self-Benefit (SB), Fun, and Social
Interaction Ties (SIT)—all three of which influence brand attitude and continued intention to use
(CIU). The following sections further define the interrelation of the research constructs.

Figure 2. Research model.

3.1. Mechanics
As mentioned in Section 2.3, a game’s mechanics are the core of entire operation and refer to the
game's procedures and rules, including how players achieve their goals and how to get rewards. In
a game, players gain instant feedback such as scores, badges, upgrades, and rewards by overcoming
obstacles such as levels, tasks, and challenges to perceive a sense of achievement, which allows them
to have a better experience of the game [38]. The desire for accomplishment is an inherent instinct in
human beings. Achieving challenging goals in gamification can generate strong incentivizing effects
[39]. In order to pursue the sense of accomplishment generated by success, people with a strong need
for achievement focus on overcoming challenges in the game and play for increased Self-Benefit. In
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 6 of 20

addition, users are able to engage with the community for entertainment and to receive increased
motivation for their engagement. Based on the work of Lungren and Björk [36] and Festinger [21],
two constructs, i.e., Self-Achievement and Team-Achievement, are identified as mechanics. In terms
of the case of Nike, the mechanics of the NRC app allow users to compete with themselves in its game
design. Users can track the distance and speed of each run, and they can also receive trophies and
badges when they reach milestones. Such a design not only encourages users to exercise and break
through their personal limits, but also promotes health and fitness, and makes monotonous running
fun. Among the designed mechanics, self-achievements encourage users to pursue better results than
in the past. The achievements of self-challenge could further lead to a fulfillment of a user’s pleasure
and fun. Based on social comparison theory [21], users are motivated to evaluate themselves by a
comparison with others for accurate self-evaluation when objective means are not available [40].
According to the above arguments, we hypothesize that:
H1a: Self-Achievement positively influences Self-Benefit.
H1b: Self-Achievement positively influences Fun.
H1c: Self-Achievement positively influences Social Interaction Ties.
Competition is a form of social interaction. In order to achieve better results, members of a
community increase their social interaction with others. A sense of accomplishment can be obtained
through actions such as conquest and challenge [17,18,41]. In addition, Prensky [42] pointed out that
there are conflicts, competitions, challenges, and oppositions in a game to excite and thrill players. It
is believed that the win state can generate self-satisfaction. When games are fun, challenging,
achievable, etc., it becomes easy to make participants compete and cooperate to obtain rewards. The
NRC app uses gamification to make running fun; it tracks a user’s running history (such as time,
distance, and speed), and measures their progress in achieving their goals [43]. In addition, it is
connected to social networking platforms, allowing users to show off to or compete with friends or
others, thus stimulating more user engagement. Through these runners’ data, Nike is able to
understand runners' behaviors and preferences, which is then used to improve products and to
promote sales. Competition can create a sense of belonging, while cooperation can promote players
to work together to achieve common goals [41].
The NRC app uses a comparison mechanism among team members in game design to motivate
users to exercise. Through achievable goals, progress indicators, and encouragement, it allows users
to have fun, thereby stimulating runners to increase their exercise volume [44]. Through the operation
of the comparison mechanism with team members, the NRC app allows users to easily share
achievements on Facebook and other social networking sites after each run. The purpose of this is not
complicated. A user may share his/her own practice results to let friends know the running status of
the day, which creates a competing mentality. Friends who run faster or more frequently may
encourage someone to find more time to run and to share the results with the community, creating
an atmosphere in which everyone feels motivated to increase their frequency of exercise and to
compete with friends to receive points. According to the above arguments, we make the following
hypotheses:
H2a: Team-Achievement positively influences Self-Benefit.
H2b: Team-Achievement positively influences Fun.
H2c: Team-Achievement positively influences Social Interaction Ties.

3.2. Dynamics
Dynamics is a process by which the gaming mechanics interact with a player during the game;
this is a dynamic system. A good gamification design should contain elements such as fun, challenge,
and entertainment. Lazzaro [45] puts forward four key points related to a player's emotions: (1) Easy
fun—players can play the game by following simple rules, and the game will be immersive and
amusing; (2) Hard fun—this is a kind of fun is generated by conquering challenges, surmounting
difficulties, completing tasks, and grasping the overall situation, which can bring people a sense of
accomplishment; (3) People fun—when others are playing with you, the sense of victory and failure
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 7 of 20

is stronger than when playing alone, and this kind of fun is generated through competition,
cooperation, communication, and leadership; and (4) Serious fun—a game that changes thinking,
feelings, and behaviors, for example, dissatisfaction with the boss being vented through shooting
games, losing weight through exercise, etc.
Keller [31] regards benefit as the consumer's comprehensive assessment of what he “obtains”
from the product or services. Puth, Mostert, and Ewing [46] describe benefits as what consumers are
pursuing when buying goods, which determines the final state or value that consumers seek. The
NRC app tracks the user’s running footprint through Global Positioning System (GPS), analyzes
speed and mileage, and counts the calories burnt, so that individual users can create their own
running records. Such features also improved users’ understanding of details within each run so as
to develop a regular exercise habit. In addition, the NRC app allows runners at all levels to receive
encouragement from Nike elite coaches and athletes during the running process. The Self-Benefit
effects provided help users to take advantage of the gamification process and to receive pleasant
feelings. According to the above arguments, the following hypothesis is made:
H3: Self-Benefit positively influences Fun.
People use social networking functions to interact with friends and to work together to solve
tasks. When consumers establish Social Interaction Ties with others, a greater sense of pleasure is
created for them, both physically and psychologically [47]. According to Lazzaro [45], gamers can
have fun by interacting with others. That is, the more people the gamers get to know in a brand app,
the more they will be encouraged by friends and the more they will become more immersed in the
game. Through social interactions such as communication, coordination, and collaboration, a player's
psychological immersion can be improved. When people have more Social Interaction Ties, they can
get more pleasure, both psychologically and physically [47]. Users of the NRC app can interact with
other running enthusiasts. For example, when one of user’s friends starts running, the user will
receive reminders and can determine whether to send messages or use cheering actions to encourage
each other. Social interactions can stimulate the interest and willingness of users to participate in
sports. According to the above arguments, we make the hypothesis:
H4: Social Interaction Ties positively influence Fun.
The entertainment effect provided by a gamified brand app allows users to have a pleasant
experience while using it, effectively increasing the appeal of the app and improving consumers’
attitudes towards the brand. When a consumers’ attitude turns more positive, they are more likely to
acknowledge the brand [2,9]. In a state of immersion, people show a high degree of attention, lose
the concept of time, and feel a considerable sense of happiness [48]. Thus, when consumers are
immersed in a brand app, a greater curiosity will lead them to explore the brand app further. At this
time, the sense of pleasure will also be transferred to the products or brands that they are in contact
with, resulting in a positive brand attitude [49]. Therefore, consumer willingness to establish and
maintain relationships with the brand will be increased, thereby developing an emotional
attachment. Davis [50] indicates that when users utilize information systems to help improve work
performance and efficiency, they will keep on using the system in the near future [18,50].
Bhattacherjee [51] states that when users think that they can get some help from using a product or
through doing a certain behavior, they will continue to use the product or stick to that behavior.
Much research has confirmed the positive impact of Self-Benefit on behavioral intentions, as well as
on actual behavior [19]. We make the hypotheses:
H5a: Self-Benefit positively influences Brand Attitude.
H5b: Self-Benefit positively influences Continued Intention to Use.
Choi and Kim [19] believe that once a player obtains the overall immersive experience, including
enjoyment or entertainment effects from the game, this experience will help them develop the
intention to continue playing the game. Many studies have found that the entertainment effect of
games is an important antecedent to players' continued intentions of use [9,19]. When information
technology becomes more entertaining, people will develop a positive attitude toward it [52].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 8 of 20

According to Prensky [42], a fun game can give users a sense of enjoyment and fun throughout the
duration, and can allow users to engage enthusiastically. Nike makes users realize that running sports
are like playing a game, guiding users to enjoy the process of running, thus creating dependence on
its products, improving user stickiness, and making fun the driver of users’ long-term engagement.
The gaming mechanics induce increased user engagement, and also enhance brand awareness.
Therefore, we make the following hypotheses:
H6a: Fun positively influences Brand Attitude.
H6b: Fun positively influences Continued Intention to Use.
Past studies have concluded that social interaction is a significant factor affecting user
engagement in a community [17,18,41,53,54]. A study by Yang et al. [9] pointed out that when a gamer
plays with a group of friends, the gamer will be affected by the community and will immerse
themselves in an interactive relationship with the others. Members will share their experience of self-
efficacy and improvement to assist other members, and community members will think that they
belong to the same brand community, that is, they develop a sense of belonging to the community.
Gamification generates new marketing tactics in which users share and interact with friends to
increase their recognition of the brand, and of the brand community at large [2,8,9]. This results in a
dependence on the product. Nike allows users to see their running history (creation) and receive
different medals (achievements). When a runner shares their running status with friends (community
impact), they gradually help others develop a habit of exercise, and in the process increases their own
running mileage and number of runs. As a result, they will perhaps purchase more sportswear,
sneakers, etc., which will boost Nike sales. It is undeniable, however, that this does also strengthen
their willingness to run. Therefore, we make the following hypotheses:
H7a: Social Interaction Ties positively influence Brand Attitude.
H7b: Social Interaction Ties positively influence Continued Intention to Use.

3.3. Aesthetics
Aesthetics refers to the ultimate goal of participating in the game experience. When a user
interacts with the game system, aesthetics involve desirable emotional responses evoked in the player
[20,55]. Through a gamified experience, customers resonate with the values and concepts conveyed
by the brand, build a relationship with it, and eventually become a brand enthusiast. In this study,
the “Aesthetics” dimension consists of attitude and continued intention to use.
Attitude is mainly an expression of emotion, and brand attitude is the feeling that consumers
have toward a brand. Brand attitude denotes how favorably customers view a particular brand [56].
Keller [31] thinks that brand attitude is the basis of consumers brand behavior, that is, consumers’
evaluation of brand integrity. When consumers feel favorable toward a brand, the likelihood of using
that brand increases. Kotler [57] also mentioned that a better brand image of a product leads to lower
perception risk of consumers, which means that the consumer has a higher sense of trust in the brand,
i.e., the brand attitude toward the product is positive. Hamari and Koivisto [18] mentions that a good
attitude toward gamification has led to the intentional continued usage of gamification services. The
study argues that the positive attitude of the NRC app users has demonstrated the relationships
between attitude and continued use based on [17,18]. According to the above arguments, we make
the following hypothesis:
H8: Brand Attitude positively influences Continued Intention to Use.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Data Collection and Sampling

This study used the survey questionnaire, conducted on NRC app users. NRC is currently one
of the largest running communities in the world. The respondents were those who have experienced
the NRC app. An online questionnaire was used to collect sample data, and information about the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 9 of 20

questionnaire was posted on Facebook, the NRC community, and the largest BBS forum in Taiwan.
During the formal questionnaire survey conducted from May 1 to May 30 2018, a total of 425 samples
were obtained. After deleting the incomplete and repeated responses, a total of 411 questionnaires
were applied for analyzing the data. Table 1 shows sample demographics.

Table 1. Sample demographics (n = 411).

Percentage
Measure Item Frequency
(%)
Female 227 55.2
Gender
Male 184 44.7
Less than 20 41 9.9
21–30 200 48.6
Age 31–40 97 23.6
41–50 52 12.6
More than 51 21 5.1
High school and below 32 7.7
Education College/University 249 60.5
Master’s/Ph.D. 130 31.6
Less than 6 months 164 39.9
6 months–1year 64 15.5
Running Experience 1–3 years 84 20.4
3–5 years 46 11.1
Over 5 years 53 12.8
Almost every day 40 9.7
About 2 or 3 times per
11 2.6
Nike Run Club (NRC) app week
usage frequency About once per week 112 27.2
Once a month 3 0.7
Irregular 245 59.6

4.2. Measurement
The questionnaire and operational definitions were designed with reference to previous research
(Table 2), and the content of the questions was adjusted based on Nike's gamification context. The
questions of continued intention to use were based on studies by Bhattacherjee et al. [58]; the
questions on brand attitude were revised from the studies by Holbrook and Batra [59]; Self-
Achievement (SA) and Team-Achievement (TA) questions were revised from the study by Vogel et
al. [60]; Self-Benefit questions were revised from the study by Koivisto and Hamari [44]; questions on
Fun were revised from Chiu et al. [53]; and Social Interaction Ties (SIT) were revised from Feng et al.
[61]. The questionnaire was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =
strongly agree). Details are listed in Appendix A.
A pre-test was conducted to attain questionnaire effectiveness. Five doctoral candidates from
information management were invited to review the questions, amend the wording, clarify the
meaning of the questions, and remove any confusion. Then, a pilot test was performed on 82 users of
the NRC app to verify the reliability and validity. The formal survey was conducted after a reliability
and validity analysis.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 10 of 20

Table 2. Operational definitions of the constructs.

Constructs Definition Reference

The game design mechanism encourages users to
Self-Achievement Vogel et al. [60]
pursue better results than those in the past
The game design mechanism encourages users to
Team-Achievement Vogel et al. [60]
pursue better results as compared to other members
The extent to which users feel the benefit from NRC Koivisto and
Self-Benefit
usage Hamari [44]
The extent to which users feel NRC is interesting
Fun Chiu et al. [53]
and fun
Social Interaction The extent to which users can interact with members
Feng et al. [61]
Ties using NRC
Holbrook and
Brand Attitude Whether the user is in favor of Nike
Batra [59]
Continued Bhattacherjee et al.
Users’ intention toward continuous usage of NRC
Intention to use [58]

5. Results
This study employed the statistical application technology of Structural Equation Modeling,
adopted AMOS 22.0 (Analysis of Moment Structure) for data analysis, and took a two-step approach
to test the appropriateness of the research architecture model [62]. First, a Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) was performed on the questionnaire table in order to test the reliability and validity
of the questionnaire. Second, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was employed to examine the fit of
the model and to perform path analysis.

5.1. Measurement Model

This study examined the reliability and validity of each research aspect, and the measurement
items were verified to develop a stable test mode. The model-fit indices of the model in this study
(χ2/df = 2.177(≤3), GFI = 0.91 (≥0.9), AGFI = 0.88 (≥0.8), NFI = 0.96 (≥0.9), CFI = 0.98 (≥0.9), RMSEA =
0.054 (≤0.08)) all show a good fit and meet the standard values based on Hair et al. [63].
In order to check the stability and consistency, this study employed the alpha value (Cronbach's
alpha) and Composite Reliability (CR) to evaluate the internal consistency of the model. Table 3
shows the results of discriminant validity testing. The Cronbach ’s α coefficients of each construct lie
within 0.922 and 0.966, which are higher than the threshold of 0.7 suggested by scholars [64]. In
addition, the CR value is between 0.924 and 0.967, which is also higher than the 0.7 suggested by
scholars [65], showing that each construct exhibits a high level of reliability.
In terms of validity verification, this study employed Convergent Validity and Discriminant
Validity. Convergent Validity measures whether multiple questions are developed by a variable
falling in the same expected construct. The measurement uses Factor Loading and Average Variance
Extracted (AVE). The factor loading threshold of each construct should be greater than 0.7, and the
average variable extraction rate greater than 0.5 [65], in compliance with the suggestion made in
previous studies [66]. Table 3 shows that the factor loading of each item in this study is greater than
0.7, and the AVE value is greater than 0.5. The above results show good Convergent Validity.
Discriminant validity was further utilized to measure the degree of discrimination between the
different constructs. The square root of good Discriminant validity AVE should not be smaller than
the correlation coefficients between this and the other constructs [65]. For example, Table 4 shows the
matrix of the correlation coefficients of all of the constructs, and the results demonstrate that each
construct in the scale performs Discriminant validity against each other.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 11 of 20

Table 3. Composite reliability and average variance extracted.

Constructs Items FL CR AVE Cronbach’s α Mean SD

SA1 0.885
SA2 0.905
Self-Achievement 0.950 0.825 0.950 3.982 0.764
SA3 0.920
SA4 0.923
TA1 0.913
TA2 0.946
Team-Achievement 0.967 0.879 0.966 3.682 0.846
TA3 0.951
TA4 0.939
SB1 0.925
SB2 0.921
Self-Benefit 0.946 0.815 0.945 4.054 0.754
SB3 0.925
SB4 0.837
FUN1 0.901
Fun FUN2 0.953 0.948 0.860 0.947 3.929 0.766
FUN3 0.927
SIT1 0.940
Social Interaction Ties SIT2 0.958 0.963 0.896 0.963 3.608 0.857
SIT3 0.942
BA1 0.911
Brand Attitude BA2 0.851 0.924 0.801 0.955 4.159 0.796
BA3 0.922
CIU1 0.945
Continued Intention to use CIU2 0.946 0.963 0.896 0.922 4.058 0.771
CIU3 0.948

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Construct SA TA SB FUN SIT BA CIU

SA 0.908
TA 0.655** 0.937
SB 0.703** 0.577** 0.903
FUN 0.692** 0.592** 0.737** 0.927
SIT 0.497** 0.666** 0.559** 0.574** 0.947
BA 0.501** 0.412** 0.555** 0.548** 0.362** 0.895
CIU 0.542** 0.455** 0.511** 0.572** 0.485** 0.595** 0.946
Note: ** = p < 0.01. Abbreviations: SA, Self-Achievement; TA, Team-Achievement; SB, Self-Benefit;
FUN, Fun; SIT, Social Interaction Tie; BA, Brand Attitude; CIU, Continued Intention to Use. The
square root of AVE is shown in bold (at diagonal) and factor correlation coefficients.

5.2. Structural Model

From the perspective of overall model-fit indices, the structural model shows a good fit (χ2/df =
2.41 (≤3), GFI = 0.90 (≥0.9), AGFI = 0.87 (≥0.8), NFI = 0.96 (≥0.9), CFI = 0.97 (≥0.9), RMSEA = 0.059
( ≤ 0.08)). The results of the structural model of this study (see Figure 3) are as follows: Self-
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 12 of 20

Achievement (SA) versus Self-Benefit (SB) (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), Fun (β = 0.32, p < 0.001), and Social
Interaction Ties (SIT) (β = 0.11, p < 0.05) show a significant positive impact and support H1a, H1b,
and H1c. Team-Achievement (TA) shows a significant positive influence on SB (β = 0.17, p < 0.01) and
SIT (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), supporting H2a and H2c. However, TA did not reach a significant level of
effect on Fun, so it rejects H2b. SB (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) and SIT (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) have a significant
positive impact on Fun, supporting H3 and H4. Fun (β = 0.39, p < 0.001) and SIT (β = 0.21, p < 0.001)
have significant positive impacts on Brand Attitude (BA), supporting H6a and H7a. However, the
attitude of SB toward the brand, BA, did not reach a significant level, and thus H5a is rejected. SB (β
= 0.14, p < 0.05), Fun (β = 0.54, p < 0.001), SIT (β = 0.10, p < 0.05), and Continued intention to use (CIU)
have a significant positive impact, thus supporting H5b, H6b, and H7b. BA (β = 0.10, p < 0.05) has a
significant positive impact on CIU, supporting H8.
In addition, the variance explained (R2) of each dependent variable is the explanatory power of
BA (R2 = 0.4), CIU (R2 = 0.6), Fun (R2 = 0.66), SB (R2 = 0.56), and SIT (R2 = 0.48), indicating that the
research model has good explanatory capabilities.

Figure 3. Results of the structural model.

5.3. The Influence on Different Groups

The sample was further divided into two groups in accordance with the running age to
understand whether there is a significant difference in the path relationship between novice runners
(less than 1 year) and experienced runners (more than 1 year). The results are shown in Table 5; Table
6. Other than H2a, H2b, H5a, H5b, and H7b, all other hypothetical tests are valid; for experienced
runners, all hypothetical tests are valid, except for H2b, H5a, and H8.
Among the novice runners, Self-Achievement (SA) was shown to be of significance to Self-
benefit (SB) and fun. However, SA did not achieve significance in relation to Social Interaction Ties
(SIT), showing that the novice runner's circle of friends is not closely connected, and the self-challenge
mechanism only allows runners to improve their running ability. Conversely, among experienced
runners, SA achieved significance in relation to SB, Fun, and SIT, showing that experienced runners
can challenge themselves and allow themselves to constantly break their own records, to experience
the fun of running, and to improve health from the activity. Novice runners pay more attention to
the pursuit of fun than experienced runners (novice runners p < 0.001; experienced runners p < 0.01),
showing that novice runners value the fun experience in the gamification process.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 13 of 20

Of the two groups, Team-Achievement (TA) has a significant impact on SIT, showing that the
mechanism of competing amongst team members allows more interaction between them. The
closeness of the community motivates the intention to run, increasing confidence and connection.
However, the mechanism for TA does not have an impact on Fun, which is achieved through SB and
SIT. Running is a monotonous sport, and encouragement from like-minded friends is needed to
motivate users to exercise more. Through achievable goals, progress indicators, and encouragement,
runners can generate more possibilities for breakthroughs. Experienced runners can enjoy the
benefits of sports more than novice runners.
Of the two groups, Fun and SIT achieved significance in relation to Brand Attitude (BA).
However, the attitude of SB toward BA did not reach a significant level. In addition, Fun for
Continued Intention to Use (CIU) did not achieve significance in either group. Among experienced
runners, SB, SIT, and CIU achieved significant levels. Conversely, among novice runners, SB, SIT,
and CIU did not achieve significance. BA for CIU achieved significance among novice runners (p <
0.05), but did not achieve significance among experienced runners.

Table 5. Comparison of the corresponding path coefficients.

Hypothesis Relationship Novice Runner Beta (n = 228) Experienced Runner Beta (n = 183)
H1a SASB 0.649*** 0.615***
H1b SAFUN 0.367*** 0.248**
H1c SASIT 0.089 0.162*
H2a TASB 0.133 0.190*
H2b TAFUN 0.018 0.063
H2c TASIT 0.609*** 0.601***
H3 SBFUN 0.378*** 0.433***
H4 SITFUN 0.198** 0.171*
H5a SBBA 0.112 0.145
H5b SBCIU 0.145 0.150*
H6a FUNBA 0.383*** 0.373***
H6b FUNCIU 0.501*** 0.541***
H7a SITBA 0.229** 0.217**
H7b SITCIU −0.027 0.245***
H8 BACIU 0.171* 0.015
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

Table 6. Testing results.

Hypothesis Relationship All Results Novice Runner Result Experienced Runner Result
H1a SASB Supported Supported Supported
H1b SAFUN Supported Supported Supported
H1c SASIT Supported Non-Supported Supported
H2a TASB Supported Non-Supported Supported
H2b TAFUN Non-Supported Non-Supported Non-Supported
H2c TASIT Supported Supported Supported
H3 SBFUN Supported Supported Supported
H4 SITFUN Supported Supported Supported
H5a SBBA Non-Supported Non-Supported Non-Supported
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 14 of 20

H5b SBCIU Supported Non-Supported Supported

H6a FUNBA Supported Supported Supported
H6b FUNCIU Supported Supported Supported
H7a SITBA Supported Supported Supported
H7b SITCIU Supported Non-Supported Supported
H8 BACIU Supported Supported Non-Supported

6. Discussion

6.1. Implications for Theory and Research

To enhance the competitive advantages for sustainable development, marketing activities are
designed based on creating communicating, and delivering superior value to targeted consumers.
The importance of sustainability marketing should emphasize building and maintaining sustainable
relationships with consumers and the social environment. Gamification motivates consumers to
become more sustainable while entertaining them. In other words, companies are turning to
gamification to enhance their sustainability efforts and to try to generate behavior change in
consumers and thus increase the stickiness of the brand. This study fills in the knowledge gap and
explores how the integration of game dynamics into a brand app contributes to improve users’
experience and to boost engagement from the sustainable perspective point of view.
This research adopted the MDA framework as theoretical basis to analyze how game mechanics
influence users’ gaming behavior (Dynamics) and awaken positive feelings (Aesthetics), so that the
stickiness of the brand increases. The main contributions are the following: first, the MDA results
show that the features of Self-Achievement (SA) and Team-Achievement (TA) are identified as
important indicators of well-designed gamification. Challenges allow users to get instant feedback
such as scores, badges, upgrades, and rewards for overcoming obstacles such as levels, tasks, and
challenges to perceive a sense of not only self-achievement, but also of Team-Achievement, thus
allowing users to have the best experience in the game [38]. Second, the user’s game behaviors
(Dynamics) are instant responses made after receiving feedback from their gaming operations, which
are connected to other game mechanisms to generate different game behaviors (Dynamics).
Zichermann and Linder [11] pointed out that the gamification mechanism must establish three
foundations: feedback (to let users know their own progress), friends (users' links amongst
communities), and fun (entertainment or an amused feeling). The design of Self- and Team-
Achievement has various impacts on Fun, Self-Benefit, and Social Interaction Ties. In the gamification
design, adding Self- and Team-Achievement will allow users to have fun; additionally, interactions
with friends and substantial feedback on Self-Benefit (e.g., gaining health and slimming effects) are
all appealing elements in the gamification process.
Aesthetics is the overall feeling that the game presents to the player, which can help the player
develop a strong emotional connection with the brand. In this research, we found that fun is the most
important factor affecting users’ engagement with the gamification process, and entertainment is the
most important factor that motivates users. These results are in keeping with the study by Yang et al.
[9], in which Fun is influenced by Self-Benefit and Social Interaction Ties. In the context of gamified
marketing, a fun-filled experience improves user stickiness; it also affects Brand Attitude and
Continued Intention to use. These results agree with the views of Hamari and Koivisto [17,18].
This study investigated the impacts of groups with various levels of experience (running age)
on continuous usage of the brand app, and outlined a preliminary image. The results can provide
reference for the company to segment the market and to formulate marketing strategies.
Bhattacherjee [51] stated that when users believe that they can gain benefits from using a product or
through doing a certain behavior, they will continue to use the product or adopt the behavior. This
argument was explored by this study and many fundamental insights were provided. The results of
this study found that for novice runners, challenging themselves is the main factor that allows them
to gain Self-Benefit and Fun. Competing with team members is also an important factor affecting
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 15 of 20

Social Interaction Ties, showing that members of the community, in order to strive for better results,
will increase social interaction with other community members. These results are consistent with the
views of [17,18,41]. For experienced runners, well-designed Self- and Team-Achievement mechanics
reinforce Self-Benefit, Fun, and Social Interaction experiences. However, the results show that Team-
Achievement does not directly generate fun, but rather produces fun through Self Benefit and Social
Interaction Ties. Therefore, gamified marketers should design mechanisms such as comparison,
sharing, and ranking to encourage user engagement and to improve brand identity.
Novice and experienced runners attach great importance to the entertainment effects obtained
during gamification. This part is consistent with the views of Choi and Kim [19]. In the gamification
design, it is necessary to integrate players into the game. The more fun and interesting the game is,
the more users will continue to use the brand app. Experienced runners are more likely to be affected
by Self-Benefit, Fun, and Social Interaction Ties than novice runners and are more likely to continue
using the brand app. The continued use intention of novice runners mainly comes from brand
attitude. This may be because novice runners have a preconceived bias for the brand. In addition, it
may be that their engagement with the brand's app is relatively recent, and they are still in the
exploration stage. Therefore, their interaction behavior with the game’s mechanics has not yet
produced a significant effect. Experienced runners have been engaged in the brand game for a while,
and understand the various features of the brand game. Therefore, experienced runners are more
likely to gain a sense of accomplishment and to continue to use the brand app.

6.2. Implications for Practice

If gamified marketing can be effectively implemented, the brand stickiness of consumers will be
increased. However, the success of gamification is not just to increase the fun of the game, but to give
equal weight to the elements of gamification, mechanics, and feedback. Fun is the most basic and
important element of gamified marketing; in the activities thereof, the content and rewards launched
by salespersons must hold consumers’ immediate interest, and then allow consumers to indulge in
the activities. The design of the mechanics must create incentives, such as fun and appeal, and
provide unique feedback, so that consumers can not only enjoy an interesting game, but can also
enter into competition unknowingly in pursuit of glory. Only in this way can the stickiness of the
brand app be improved to create business benefits, and to contribute to sustainable corporate
development.
The era of mobile commerce requires good gamification design mechanics. Each game mechanic
implements one or more dynamics elements to stimulate users to make investments, helping them to
obtain an inspiring entertainment experience, or in other words, aesthetics. Gamification marketing,
when introduced in corporate brand management, deepens the sense of engagement by game
playing, and the fun generated attracts more people to choose the brand. This has important
implications on the sustainability of corporate brand gamification marketing. The design of
gamification mechanics can benefit from these next views. First, the design of different challenge
mechanics allows users to gain a sense of accomplishment by comparing themselves to team
members. Achievement is the inherent driving force for people to want to make progress, improve
their skills, and overcome challenges. In addition, using social features helps create sustainable and
engaging gamification. Finally, gamification should create opportunities for Social Interaction Ties
and provide immediate feedback and support. Gamification marketing does not just mean designing
a game, but also means a way to give users a novel and interesting experience that resembles playing
a game. This is also a kind of brand marketing-oriented "gamification." Applying gamified thinking
to business marketing strategies can remove many of the negative impacts of promotional advertising
on users, thereby improving the consumer experience, driving users to understand brands and
products, and enabling users to enjoy the experience.

6.3. Limitations and Suggestions

The main limitation of our study lies in the study’s sample, with questionnaires intended for 411
NRC app users. Although the NRC app has a wide range of users around the world, due to the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 16 of 20

different features of each app, the users show different considerations in their choices. Future studies
may apply the model to different companies, as well as brand apps. Such studies should validate,
through well-designed experiments, whether the results of this study still hold. Engagement in
gamification should take into account internal and external motivations, which were not included in
this study. This study was aimed at groups with various running experiences, and explored the
differences between various impacts. Although the criteria for separating runner groups are
commonplace and conventional, they lack a rigorous academic theoretical basis. In this study, users
who had running experience and who used the NRC app were taken as test participants; therefore,
the conclusion of this study should not be overgeneralized. With regard to suggestions for future
research, since this study explored gaming mechanics from the perspective of making comparisons
between Self- and Team-Achievements, discussions around other aspects are therefore found
wanting. It is recommended that follow-up studies consider factors such as the influence of feedback,
reward, and other variables on game behavior, which is expected to improve the comprehensiveness
of this study’s research model. Such research should verify whether the results of this study are still
held through well-designed experiments.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.-P.L. and H.-C.H.; methodology, H.-P.L. and H.-C.H.; software,
H.-C.H.; validation, H.-C.H.; formal analysis, H.-C.H.; investigation, H.-C.H.; resources, H.-C.H.; data curation,
H.-C.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-C.H.; writing—review and editing, H.-P.L. and H.-C.H.;
visualization, H.-C.H.; supervision, H.-P.L.; project administration, H.-P.L. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Construct
Definition and Items
Sources

SA1. The Nike Run Club (NRC) app provides me the function of
"Comparison with past running results."
SA2. The NRC app provides me the function of "Breaking past running
Self-Achievement records."
(SA) SA3. The NRC app provides me the function of "Continuously surpassing
past running results."
SA4. The NRC app provides me the function of "Refreshing past running
records."

TA1. The NRC app provides me the function of "Comparison with friends’
running results."
TA2. The NRC app provides me the function of "Surpassing friends’ running
Team- results."
Achievement (TA) TA3. The NRC app provides me the function of "Continuously exceeding
friends’ running results."
TA4. The NRC app provides me the function of "Refreshing friends’ running
records."

SB1. The NRC app helps me stay healthy.

SB2. The NRC app helps me maintain a good comportment.
Self-Benefit (SB)
SB3. The NRC app helps me improve my fitness.
SB4. The NRC app helps me increase my training volume for running.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 17 of 20

Fun1. The NRC app makes me happy.

Fun Fun2. The NRC app allows me to have fun.
Fun3. I think the NRC app is interesting.

SIT1. The NRC app keeps up my social ties with friends.

Social Interaction
SIT2. The NRC app keeps me in touch with friends.
Ties (SIT)
SIT3. The NRC app helps me maintain communication with friends.

BA1. I like the Nike brand (like/dislike).

Brand Attitude
BA2. The Nike brand has left a good impression on me (positive/negative).
(BA)
BA3. The Nike brand is attractive (appealing/not appealing).

Continued CIU1. I plan to continue using the NRC app.

Intention to use CIU2. I will still use the NRC app.
(CIU) CIU3. I will continue to use the NRC app in the future.

References
1. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining
gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future
Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September 2011, doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040.
2. Huotari, K.; Hamari, J. A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing
literature. Electron. Mark. 2016, 27, 21–31, doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.
3. Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. Int.
J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 45, 191–210, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013.
4. Berger, V.; Schrader, U. Fostering Sustainable Nutrition Behavior through Gamification. Sustainability 2016,
8, 67, doi:10.3390/su8010067.
5. Robson, K.; Plangger, K.; Kietzmann, J.; McCarthy, I.P.; Pitt, L.F. Is it all a game? Understanding the
principles of gamification. Bus. Horiz. 2015, 58, 411–420, doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006.
6. Werbach, K.; Hunter, D. For the win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business; Wharton Digital
Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012.
7. TechSci Research. Global Gamification By Solution (Enterprise Driven & Consumer Driven), By
Deployment (On-premise & Cloud), By Organization Size (SME & Large Enterprise), By Application
(Human Resource, Marketing, Sales & Others), By End-User Vertical (Retail, Banking & Others), By Region,
Competition, Forecast & Opportunities 2024. Available online:
https://www.techsciresearch.com/report/global-gamification-market/3892.html (accessed on 28 April 2019).
8. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J.; Sarsa, H. Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on
gamification. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6–9 January
2014, pp. 3025–3034, doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
9. Yang, Y.; Asaad, Y.; Dwivedi, Y. Examining the impact of gamification on intention of engagement and
brand attitude in the marketing context. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 73, 459–469,
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.066.
10. Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile
Apps; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2011.
11. Zichermann, G.; Linder, J. The Gamification Revolution: How Leaders Leverage Game Mechanics to Crush the
Competition; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
12. Kyewski, E.; Krämer, N.C. To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of
badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an online learning course. Comput. Educ. 2018, 118, 25–
37, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006.
13. Simoes, J.; Redondo, R.P.D.; Fernandez-Vilas, A. A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning
platform. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 345–353, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007.
14. Hamari, J. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a
utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 236–245,
doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 18 of 20

15. Hsu, C.-L.; Chen, M.-C. How gamification marketing activities motivate desirable consumer behaviors:
Focusing on the role of brand love. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 88, 121–133, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.037.
16. De Marcos, L.; Domínguez, A.; Saenz-De-Navarrete, J.; Arévalo, C.P. An empirical study comparing
gamification and social networking on e-learning. Comput. Educ. 2014, 75, 82–91,
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012.
17. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J. “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise
gamification. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 333–347, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018.
18. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J. Why do people use gamification services? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 419–431,
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006.
19. Choi, D.; Kim, J. Why People Continue to Play Online Games: In Search of Critical Design Factors to
Increase Customer Loyalty to Online Contents. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2004, 7, 11–24,
doi:10.1089/109493104322820066.
20. Hunicke, R.; LeBlanc, M.; Zubek, R. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In
Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, San Jose, CA, USA, 25–26 July 2004.
21. Festinger, L. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7, 117–140,
doi:10.1177/001872675400700202.
22. Conaway, R.; Garay, M.C. Gamification and service marketing. SpringerPlus 2014, 3, 653, doi:10.1186/2193-
1801-3-653.
23. Palmer, D.; Lunceford, S.; Patton, A.J. The engagement economy: How gamification is reshaping businesses.
Deloitte Rev. 2012, 11, 52–69.
24. Barr, P.; Noble, J.; Biddle, R. Video game values: Human–computer interaction and games. Interact. Comput.
2007, 19, 180–195, doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.08.008.
25. Dubois, D.J.; Tamburrelli, G. Understanding gamification mechanisms for software development. In
Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013). Saint
Petersburg, Russia, 18–26 August 2013, doi:10.1145/2491411.2494589.
26. Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization,
Scale Development and Validation. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 149–165, doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
27. A Fredricks, J.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the
Evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109, doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
28. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand
Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93, doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
29. Silva, F.J.C.; Revilla-Camacho, M.; Vega-Vázquez, M.; Palacios-Florencio, B. Value co-creation and
customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1621–1625, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.028.
30. Shocker, A.D.; Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30, 256, doi:10.2307/3172832.
31. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57,
1–22, doi:10.1177/002224299305700101.
32. Kuchinka, D.G.J.; Balazs, S.; Gavriletea, M.D.; Djokic, B.-B. Consumer Attitudes toward Sustainable
Development and Risk to Brand Loyalty. Sustainability 2018, 10, 997, doi:10.3390/su10040997.
33. Negruşa, A.L.; Toader, V.; Sofică, A.; Tutunea, M.F.; Rus, R.V. Exploring Gamification Techniques and
Applications for Sustainable Tourism. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11160–11189, doi:10.3390/su70811160.
34. Lucassen, G.; Jansen, S. Gamification in Consumer Marketing - Future or Fallacy? Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2014, 148, 194–202, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.034.
35. Kuo, M.-S.; Chuang, T.-Y. How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic
dissemination—An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 16–27, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025.
36. Lundgren, S.; Björk, S. Game Mechanics: Describing Computer-Augmented Games in Terms of Interaction.
In Proceedings of the 2003 Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment Conference
(TIDSE 2003). Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.13.5147 (accessed
on 2 May 2019).
37. Schell, J. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses (Vol. 1); Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier: Burlington,
MA, USA, 2008.
38. Wan, C.-S.; Chiou, W.-B. Psychological Motives and Online Games Addiction: ATest of Flow Theory and
Humanistic Needs Theory for Taiwanese Adolescents. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2006, 9, 317–324,
doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.317.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 19 of 20

39. Phillips, J.M.; Gully, S. Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the
self-efficacy and goal--setting process. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 792–802, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.792.
40. Chan, K.; Prendergast, G. Social comparison, imitation of celebrity models and materialism among Chinese
youth. Int. J. Advert. 2008, 27, 799–826, doi:10.2501/s026504870808030x.
41. Sailer, M.; Hense, J.U.; Mayr, S.K.; Mandl, H. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the
effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69,
371–380, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.
42. Prensky, M. Fun, play and games: What makes games engaging. Digit. Game Based Learn. 2001, 5, 5–31.
43. Aymard, T.; Stacey, P. The influence of gamification on intrinsic motivation: The case of Nike+ 2018.
Available online:
http://www.academia.edu/35426528/The_influence_of_gamification_on_intrinsic_motivation_the_case_of
_Nike (accessed on 22 May 2019).
44. Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2014, 35, 179–188, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007.
45. Lazzaro, N. Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion without Story. Available online:
http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2019).
46. Puth, G.; Mostert, P.; Ewing, M.T. Consumer perceptions of mentioned product and brand attributes in
magazine advertising. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 1999, 8, 38–50, doi:10.1108/10610429910257977.
47. Cohen, S.; Wills, T.A. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 310–357,
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.
48. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
49. Landers, V.M.; Beatty, S.E.; Wang, S.; Mothersbaugh, D.L. The Effect of Online versus Offline Retailer-
Brand Image Incongruity on the Flow Experience. J. Mark. Theory Pr. 2015, 23, 370–387,
doi:10.1080/10696679.2015.1049681.
50. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.
MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319, doi:10.2307/249008.
51. Bhattacherjee, A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance.
Decis. Support Syst. 2001, 32, 201–214, doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00111-7.
52. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the
Workplace1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132, doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
53. Chiu, C.; Wang, E.T.; Shih, F.-J.; Fan, Y.-W. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities.
Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 134–153, doi:10.1108/14684521111113623.
54. Gallaugher, J.; Ransbotham, S. Social media and customer dialogue management at starbucks. MIS Q. Exec.
2010, 9, 197–212.
55. Xu, F.; Weber, J.; Buhalis, D. Gamification in Tourism. In Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism 2014; Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2013;
pp. 525–537, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_38
56. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888–918, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
57. Kotler, P. Marketing Management: Analysis Planning Implementation, and Control, 10th ed.; Prentice-Hall Inc.:
Sadeliver, NJ, USA, 2000.
58. Bhattacherjee, A.; Perols, J.; Sanford, C. Information Technology Continuance: A Theoretic Extension and
Empirical Test. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2008, 49, 17–26, doi:10.1080/08874417.2008.11645302.
59. Holbrook, M.B.; Batra, R. Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to
Advertising. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14, 404, doi:10.1086/209123.
60. Vogel, E.A.; Rose, J.P.; Roberts, L.; Eckles, K. Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychol.
Popul. Media Cult. 2014, 3, 206–222, doi:10.1037/ppm0000047.
61. Feng, Y.; Ye, H. (Jonathan); Yu, Y.; Yang, C.; Cui, T. Gamification artifacts and crowdsourcing participation:
Examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 81, 124–136,
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.018.
62. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-
step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423.
63. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: London, UK,
1998.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4169 20 of 20

64. Hundleby, J.D.; Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1968, 5, 431, doi:10.2307/1161962.
65. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error:
Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388, doi:10.1177/002224378101800313.
66. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94.
doi:10.1007/BF02723327.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).