International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between T

gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction
Nannan Xia,b, , Juho Hamaria,b
⁎

a
Gamification Group, Faculty of Humanities, University of Turku, Finland
b
Gamification Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communications, Tampere University, Finland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Gamification is increasingly used as an essential part of today’s services, software and systems to engage and
Gamification motivate users, as well as to spark further behaviors. A core assumption is that gamification should be able to
Intrinsic motivation increase the ability of a system or a service to satisfy intrinsic needs, and thereby the autotelicy of use as well as
Persuasive technology consequent change in beneficial behaviors. However, beyond these optimistic expectations, there is a dearth of
Social networking
empirical evidence on how different gamification features satisfy different dimensions intrinsic needs. Therefore,
Motivational information system
in this study we investigate the relationships between the user (N = 824) interactions with gamification features
(immersion, achievement and social -related features) and intrinsic need satisfaction (autonomy, competence
and relatedness needs) in Xiaomi and Huawei online gamified communities that represent two large technology
product-related online brand communities in China through a survey-based study. The results indicate that
immersion-related gamification features were only positively associated with autonomy need satisfaction.
Achievement-related features were not only positively associated with all kinds of need satisfaction, but also the
strongest predictor of both autonomy and competence need satisfaction. Social-related gamification features,
were positively associated with autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The results imply that
gamification can have a substantially positive effect on intrinsic need satisfaction for services users.

1. Introduction Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014; Hamari & Keronen, 2017; Koster, 2005;
Lo, Wang, & Fang, 2005; Malone, 1981; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan,
Intrinsic motivation is commonly considered as the most productive 2010; Vesa, Hamari, Harviainen, & Warmelink, 2017). As inspired by
force behind people’s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, these positive observations of games, gamification (Deterding, Dixon,
2000). However, it is often observed that people lack intrinsic moti- Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Huotari &
vation towards different activities they would like to undertake. Thus, Hamari, 2017) has emerged as a technology trend that attempts to
many companies, educational institutions and workplaces are com- further transfer these benefits to a variety of services and systems, and
peting for these people’s motivational resources. In an educational to further increase their autotelic affordance of “non-gaming” contexts
context, intrinsic motivation and the autotelicy of learning are con- (See Koivisto & Hamari, 2019), such as health (Alahäivälä & Oinas-
sidered as one of the highest pinnacles of successful education (Deci, Kukkonen, 2016; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Jones, Madden, &
Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Malone, 1981; Niemiec & Ryan, Wengreen, 2014), education (Christy & Fox, 2014; Filsecker & Hickey,
2009). In the marketing context, the main goal of customer relationship 2014; Simões, Díaz Redondo, & Fernández Vilas, 2013), work (Dale,
building is to develop a customer who loves the product and is a fan of 2014; Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2016), crowd-
the brand (Aroean, 2012; Hollebeek, 2011). Similarly, in the workplace, sourcing (Lee, Ceyhan, Jordan-Cooley, & Sung, 2013; Morschheuser,
an employee who enjoys work and is more productive as a result is Hamari, Koivisto, & Maedche, 2017), marketing management (Huotari
considered to be a success by any HR department (Amabile, Hill, & Hamari, 2017; Lucassen & Jansen, 2014; Xi & Hamari, 2019) as well
Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Isen & Reeve, 2005). as science (Morris, Croker, Zimmerman, Gill, & Romig, 2013; Sørensen
In games, however, it is generally observed that we are often riv- et al., 2016).
etingly engaged and intrinsically motivated, as well as being able to Not surprisingly as a consequence, in 2017, the global gamification
derive cognitive, emotional and social benefit (Chou & Ting, 2003; market was valued at USD 2.17 billion and is estimated to reach USD

⁎
Corresponding author at: Gamification Group, Faculty of Humanities, University of Turku, Finland.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Xi), [email protected] (J. Hamari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.002
Received 18 July 2018; Received in revised form 21 November 2018; Accepted 6 December 2018
Available online 03 January 2019
0268-4012/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

19.39 billion by 2023 (Mordor Intelligence, 2018). However, the developer repertoire of understanding of how different game designs
practical failures have made many firms lose confidence in gamifica- can affect their users. Secondly, the study provides an example of how
tion. Especially in the business domain, 80% of current gamified ap- to reach a balance between the more economic approach of treating
plications were estimated to fail to meet their objectives due to poor gamification systems as single stimuli or investigating each gamifica-
design (Gartner, 2012). Because of these doubts, practitioners have tion feature independently through a full experimental design which
started to question the effectiveness of gamification. Therefore, in the would normally be an unrealistic undertaking.
practitioner realm, a looming question is still relevant as to how com- This paper is structured as follows. The next section covers the lit-
panies and organization should implement gamification for it to have erature review including the theoretical background of gamification
the positive effect it is hyped to have - be it on users, consumers, stu- and intrinsic need satisfaction which support the three hypotheses in
dents or employees. this study. Section 3 includes the empirical study, explaining the re-
The majority of studies and reviews of empirical studies on gami- search methodology and analyzing structural equation models. Section
fication indicate that in the majority of cases, gamification has had a 4 provides a detailed discussion of the results, theoretical contributions
positive effect on motivations and behaviors (Hamari et al., 2014; and practical implications. The last section makes the conclusion for
Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Sailer, Hense, Mandl, & Klevers, 2013; Su & this study and points out the future research areas based on the lim-
Cheng, 2015). However, more granular research on how different ga- itations.
mification features affect certain motivations has been slow to emerge
(Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). 2. Background and hypotheses
Currently, there still has been a “black box” surrounding the under-
standing of the mechanisms of how gamification affects our motivations Gamification is a rapidly growing area of research and has enjoyed
and behaviors (Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). One of widespread prominence since around 2011 (Hamari et al., 2014;
the main theoretical lenses adopted in gamification research is that of Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Nacke & Deterding, 2017; Seaborn & Fels,
self-determination theory (Rigby, 2015; Huotari & Hamari, 2017; 2015). Gamification refers to designing systems, services, organizations
Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Seaborn & Fels, 2015) which posits that sa- and activities in a way that they may bring about similar experiences
tisfaction of three primary intrinsic needs (autonomy, competence and and motivations as games, with the added goal of affecting user beha-
relatedness) can lead to autotelic behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & vior (Huotari & Hamari, 2017). This is usually pursued by taking in-
Deci, 2000, 2008; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006; Baard, Deci, spiration from game design and implementing game mechanics or other
& Ryan, 2004; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & game-like designs in the target environment (Deterding et al., 2011). In
Lens, 2010). However, only a few studies exist that investigate the re- the literature, definitions of gamification commonly focus on either the
lationship between different categories of gamification and intrinsic experiential aspect (the gameful experience - i.e. the pursuit of sa-
need satisfaction. tisfying the intrinsic need: Huotari & Hamari, 2017) or the game design
Thus, in this study we aim to fill this theoretical and practical gap by (i.e. what elements of design can be used in gamification: Deterding,
investigating the relationships between the user (N = 824) interaction 2011). Nevertheless, across the literature and regardless of whether the
with gamification features (immersion, achievement and social-related focus is on the motivational aspects of game mechanics, the premise has
features) and intrinsic need satisfaction (autonomy, competence and been that gamification can satisfy intrinsic needs of the users and
relatedness) in Xiaomi and Huawei online gamified communities that consequently lead to autotelicy, as well as on activities which are re-
represent two large technology product-related online brand commu- levant to the gamification target (Malone, 1981; Huotari & Hamari,
nities in China through a survey-based study. The study’s main con- 2017; Granic et al., 2014; Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006).
tributions are two-fold: firstly, the study provides sought-after results In the past empirical literature on gamification and intrinsic need
about the relationship between gamification and intrinsic motivations, satisfaction, however, there have been relatively few studies that have
contributing to both the body of gamification literature as well as to the empirically investigated their relationship (summarized in Table 1

Table 1
The empirical studies on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic motivation and need satisfaction.
Source Method Gamification features Results Aspect of intrinsic motivation

Bormann and Greitemeyer (2015) Experiment In-game & storytelling/ Positive Autonomy,
narrative competence and relatedness
Hanus and Fox (2015) Experiment Leaderboard Negative Intrinsic motivation
& badges
Kim et al. (2015) Experiment Customization Positive Autnomy
Mitchell, Schuster, & Drennan (2017) Experiment Gamification Null Intrinsic motivation
Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis (2017) Online Experiment Points, level & leaderboard Null Competence & intrinsic motivation
Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn (2012) Experiment Mission choices, skills & character Positive Autonomy
customization
Dynamic difficulty mechanism, Positive Competence
a heroism meter
& achievement
badges
Sailer, Hense, Mayr, & Mandl (2017) Experiment Badges, leaderboards, & Mixed + Competence need satisfaction and perceived task
performance graph meaningfulness (one dimension of autonomy need),
but not related to perceived decision freedom (the
other dimension of autonomy need)
Avatar, Mixed + Relatedness, with no effect on autonomy
meaningful stories
& teammates
Thom, Millen, & DiMicco (2012) Experiment Points & Badges Positive Intrinsic motivation
van Roy and Zaman (2018) Survey, focus group Weekly challenges, badges Positive Foster feelings of autonomy, competence and
group competition relatedness.

211
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

below). The studies that exist thus far seem to indicate positive re- dimensions (Hamari & Tuunanen, 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Peng
lationships between different gamification features and intrinsic need et al., 2012; Snodgrass, Dengah, Lacy, & Fagan, 2013; Yee, 2006; Yee,
satisfaction (van Roy & Zaman, 2018; Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn, 2012; Ducheneaut, & Nelson, 2012). Analogously, although not quite directly
Bormann & Greitemeyer, 2015), however, they paint only a very partial comparatively, the prominent literature in motivational psychology
picture in the sense that most studies investigate either a very limited (and especially self-determination theory: Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan &
set of gamification features and/or a part of intrinsic needs. Accord- Deci, 2000) commonly make a distinction between competence, au-
ingly, past studies essentially have shown that some gamification fea- tonomy and relatedness need, which may help us understand the re-
tures are related to some intrinsic need satisfaction. For example, in- lationship between gamification and intrinsic need satisfaction. A keen
game storytelling/narrative can support players in perceiving oppor- observer can immediately recognize the commonality between these
tunities for meaningful choices and relations (Bormann & Greitemeyer, classifications of player/design types in the realms of game research,
2015); and weekly challenges, badges and group competition can and certain aspects of intrinsic need satisfaction (Dickey, 2007; Malone,
support users in one or two of the feelings of autonomy, competence 1981; Rigby, 2004; Yee, 2006). Therefore, it is no surprise that in ga-
and relatedness (van Roy & Zaman, 2018). We deduce from prior em- mification literature, gamification (and games) are commonly believed
pirical studies on the relationship between gamification and intrinsic to have a special effect on our intrinsic need satisfaction (Deterding
need satisfaction that gamification features across categories are likely et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2012, 2017; Ryan et al., 2006; Peng
to be associated with all of the types of intrinsic needs. However, the et al., 2012; Sailer et al., 2013, 2017; Francisco-Aparicio, Guti’errez-
question remains what types of gamification are more strongly related Vela, Isla-Montes, & Sanches, 2013; Yang, Asaad, & Dwivedi, 2017).
to which intrinsic need. The need for autonomy refers to the desire for a sense of self-di-
Existing studies have mainly been experiment-based studies fo- rection (Wei, Shaffer, Young, & Zakalik, 2005), a person’s actions based
cusing on single or few gamification elements, and this has prevented on their own volition (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004;
them from casting a more holistic view on how gamification can more Rigby & Ryan, 2011) or willingness when completing specific tasks
broadly affect a full range of intrinsic need satisfaction. On one hand, (Ryan et al., 2006). To be more precise, it is the subjective experience of
the lack of controlled experiments and systematic empirical studies on psychological freedom and choice when participate in activities (Van
the effects of gamification has been identified as one of the gaps in den Broeck et al., 2010). According to the self-determination theory,
current body of literature (Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, when the person has the freedom to pursue an optimal outcome or
2019; Seaborn & Fels, 2015), and therefore, the current approaches can engage in an activity without any external control, the person’s sense of
be considered suitable. However, it has also been observed as proble- autonomy is high and thus increases intrinsic motivation (Peng et al.,
matic that while controlled experiments are good for investigating the 2012). Thus, we can deduce and argue based on prior research (e.g.
effects of a singular gamification mechanic, these studies can lack ex- Sailer et al., 2017) that affordances that provide users more freedom of
ternal validity as gamification implementations are commonly more choices and more opportunities to express themselves are likely to sa-
nuanced and complex assemblages of stimuli (Hamari et al., 2014; tisfy autonomy need.
Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Therefore, it can be As discussed above, immersion-related features which mainly in-
noted from the extant body of studies on the topic that while singular clude e.g. avatar, roleplay mechanics, storytelling, narrative structures,
studies exist to investigate the relationships of some (often seemingly customization, etc. and primarily attempt to immerse the player in a
random) gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction, no prior self-directed inquisitive activity (Bormann & Greitemeyer, 2015; Kim
study has taken a more holistic approach and investigated the re- et al., 2015; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Peng et al., 2012; Schneider,
lationships between all of the gamification categories (immersion, Lang, Shin, & Bradley, 2004). Those immersion-related features can
achievement and social) and intrinsic need satisfaction (autonomy, usually induce higher psychological investment in autonomous
competence and relatedness). thinking (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). Avatars
Second, whereas some scholars correctly recognize that intrinsic (Annetta, 2010; Peng et al., 2012) and customization (Kim et al., 2015)
motivation is related to the internalization of activities into the realm of can offer the game players freedom of choice and produce stronger
autotelicy, some papers assume that any object or artifact existing ex- feelings of autonomy; in-game storytelling or narrative help players to
traneous to the actor (such as badges and points or any gamification) is experience meaningfulness of their own actions and the feeling of vo-
automatically an extrinsic motivator. Herein lies one of the dividing luntary participation (Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Sailer et al., 2017). We can,
lines of conceptualization in gamification research - a gamification therefore, deduce that when users interact with immersion-related
feature is considered to be an extrinsic stimulus decreasing intrinsic features, they are more likely to perceive higher feelings of freedom,
motivation (Hanus & Fox, 2015), or there is no relationship between involvement and engagement in the gamified system. Therefore, the
gamification and intrinsic motivation (Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & following hypothesis can be put forward:
Opwis, 2017; Mitchell, Schuster, & Drennan, 2017). However, ac-
H1. Autonomy need satisfaction is more strongly predicted by
cording to the self-determination theory, extrinsic motivation can be
immersion-related gamification features than achievement or social-
internalized and integrated when there are ambient supports for feel-
related gamification features.
ings of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000)
which will further facilitate self-motivation and effective functioning The need for competence refers to a desire to feel self-mastery and
(Baard et al., 2004). That is, if users can feel the fulfillment of such growth (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan et al.,
needs when they interact with gamification features, they are likely to 2006; White, 1959). Individuals has natural tendency to manipulate the
be intrinsically motivated to engage in the gamified system or service. environment, overcome different challenges and develop their own
Thus, gamification features can satisfy human beings’ needs and drive skills (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Combined with the viewpoint of
their intrinsic motivation (Sailer, Hense, Mayr, & Mandl, 2017; Thom, prior studies (e.g. Peng et al., 2012; Jung, Schneider, & Valacich, 2010),
Millen, & DiMicco, 2012). Based on past empirical literature alone, we argue that affordances which can provide players the chance to
however, it still seems difficult to form a clear picture on what kinds of learn new skills, set clear goals and receive feedbacks are likely to in-
gamification would lead into what kinds of intrinsic need satisfaction. crease the satisfaction of competence need as these features and clearly
Stepping outside the directly similar research, the literature related showcase their achievement and thus competence.
to playing games, gamification, game design categories and player In the gamified system, points are often used to measure players’ in-
motivations, a distinction is often made between three primary cate- game behavior (Sailer et al., 2013) and provide granular feedback
gories that reflect key elements of game design, as well as the moti- (Sailer et al., 2017); level reflects player’s advancement in the game by
vational orientations of players: immersion, achievement and social accumulating points or conducting specific actions (Gatautis, Banyte,

212
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Table 2
Demographic and use information of respondents (n = 824).
N % N %

Gender Education
Male 427 51.8% Middle school 8 1.0%
Female 397 48.2% High school/ Vocational 41 5.0%
education/technical school
Age Associate’s degree 66 8.0%
Less than 20 16 1.9% Bachelor’s degree 539 65.4%
20-29 338 41.0% Master’s degree and above 170 20.6%
30-39 321 39.0%
40-49 149 18.1% Tenure
Less than 3 months 6 0.7%
Occupation 3-6 months 44 5.3%
Student 166 20.1% 6-9 months 67 8.1%
Self-employed 45 5.5% 9-12 months 110 13.3%
Paid Employment 410 49.8% 12-15 months 258 31.3%
Military/Government 77 9.3% 15-18 months 103 12.5%
Professional/technical 94 11.4% 18-21 months 83 10.1%
Unemployed 18 2.2% 21-24 months 53 6.4%
Others 14 1.70% More than 2 years 100 12.1%

Income per month (RMB) Time spendper week

Less than 2500 25 3.0% Less than 15 minutes 23 2.8%
2500-4999 200 24.3% 15-30 minutes 113 13.7%
5000-7499 167 20.3% 30-45 minutes 165 20.0%
7500-9999 223 27.1% 45-60 minutes 302 36.7%
10000-12499 116 14.1% 1-3 hours 87 10.6%
12500-14999 53 6.4% 3-6 hours 94 11.4%
15000-17499 27 3.3% 6-9 hours 26 3.2%
17500-19999 6 0.7% 9-12 hours 7 0.8%
20,000 or more 7 0.8% More than 12 hours 7 0.8%

Piligrimiene, Vitkauskaite, & Tarute, 2016); the collection or unlock of the same gamified system or service. The third hypothesis is put for-
badges can increase goal-related behavior (Hamari, 2017; Hamari, ward as follows:
Hassan, & Dias, 2018; Wang & Sun, 2011); leaderboard is the compe-
H3. Relatedness need satisfaction is more strongly predicted by social-
titive indicator of progress (Sailer et al., 2017), which determine the
related gamification features than achievement and immersion-related
player’s performance in activity. Both badge and leaderboard provide
gamification features.
cumulative feedback (Rigby & Ryan, 2011). Game features such as
tasks, quests and missions provide the players with the possibility of
learning new skills and clear goals which can foster the transparency of 3. The empirical study
a possible success of action (Sailer et al., 2013). Therefore, we can put
forward the second hypothesis: 3.1. Procedure
H2. Competence need satisfaction is more strongly predicted by
Aligned with the focus of the study, we attempted to find gamified
achievement-related gamification features than immersion and social-
communities that employ a large set of gamification mechanics. It was
related gamification features
determined that the Xiaomi and Huawei online communities represent
The need for relatedness refers to a feeling of belonging in a social two of the largest technology communities in China and are both lar-
environment (Ryan et al., 2006) and making meaningful social con- gely gamified to engage users (http://bbs.xiaomi.cn/; http://club.
nections with others (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; huawei.com/). After careful analysis and cross-referencing with game
Sailer et al., 2017). Individuals expect to be integrated in the social design and gamification literature, it was observed that both commu-
matrix (Bowlby, 1969; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Thus, when people nities employ a similar set of thirteen gamification mechanics (albeit
experience a sense of communion and develop close relationships with slightly differently implemented in design). These include immersion-
others, they can get higher relatedness need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, related features (avatar/virtual identity/profile, customization/perso-
2000). nalization features and narrative/story); achievement-related features
Gamification features such as groups, messages, blogs, connection (badges/medals/trophies, virtual currency/coins, points/score/experi-
to social networks and chat can provide players a stronger feeling of ence points, status bar/progress, level, leaderboards/rankings/high-
connectedness and belonging due to high-frequency communication, score lists and increasingly difficult tasks); and social-related features
idea sharing and reciprocity (Francisco-Aparicio et al., 2013). Those (team/cooperation, social competition, and social network features).
social network-related features can effectively reinforce interpersonal The gamification elements of the two communities are described in
relationships and strengthen social participation (Shiau, Dwivedi, & Lai, Appendix A.
2018). Further, building strong relationships with other group team- A link to this survey was posted on the websites and social media
mates can drive player’s desire to perform well (Peng et al., 2012). To pages of the two communities. From December 2017 to February 2018,
be more specific, competition can create the feelings of belonging to a 1306 people started to fill out the questionnaire. Users were omitted
group (van Roy & Zaman, 2018) while cooperation can foster players who had never visited the Xiaomi or Huawei online brand communities,
work together towards a shared objective (Sailer et al., 2017; Werbach who had limited variability across their responses, or who had failed
& Hunter, 2012). Thus, we can deduce that social-related features such the filter questions. This resulted in a final total of 824 respondents
as group/cooperation, and social network can satisfy the relatedness (464 respondents from the Xiaomi community and 360 respondents
need by helping users to build social relationships with others within from Huawei community).

213
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Table 3
The measurement items.
Construct No. Item

Source: Division of items corresponding to different gamification features, with the three constructs of game design was based on Yee (2006); Koivisto and Hamari (2019)
Interaction with FIF1 The frequency of interacting with avatar/virtual identity/profile
immersion-related features FIF2 The frequency of interacting with customization/personalization
FIF3 The frequency of interacting with narrative/story
IIF1 The importance of interacting with avatar/virtual identity/profile
IIF2 The importance of interacting with customization/personalization
IIF3 The importance of interacting with narrative/story
Interaction with FAF1 The frequency of interacting with badges/medals/trophies
achievement-related FAF2 The frequency of interacting with virtual currency/coins
features FAF3 The frequency of interacting with points/scores/experience points
FAF4 The frequency of interacting with status bars/progress bars
FAF5 The frequency of interacting with avatar/virtual identity/profile levels
FAF6 The frequency of interacting with leaderboards/rankings/highscore lists
FAF7 The frequency of interacting with increasingly difficult tasks
IAF1 The importance of interacting with badges/medals/trophies
IAF2 The importance of interacting with virtual currency/coins
IAF3 The importance of interacting with points/scores/experience points
IAF4 The importance of interacting with status bars/progress bars
IAF5 The importance of interacting with avatar/virtual identity/profile levels
IAF6 The importance of interacting with leaderboards/ rankings/ highscore lists
IAF7 The importance of interacting with increasingly difficult tasks
Interaction with FSF1 The frequency of interacting with competition
social-related features FSF2 The frequency of interacting with team/cooperation
FSF3 The frequency of interacting with social networking features
ISF1 The importance of interacting with competition
ISF2 The importance of interacting with team/cooperation
ISF3 The importance of interacting with social networking features
Autonomy AN1 I feel free to visit this online community
need satisfaction AN2 I feel free to express my ideas and opinions in the online community
Source: adapted from Standage et al. (2005); Shen et al. (2013) AN3* When I visit online community, it is because I want to visit it
AN4 I feel free from outside pressures when I am visiting the online community
AN5 I feel I can be myself when I visit online community
Competence CN1 I feel like a competent person when I visit the online community
need satisfaction CN2 I am satisfied with my performance when I visit the online community
Source: adapted from McAuley et al. (1989); Standage et al. (2005) CN3 I feel like an expert in the online community
CN4 I think that I am pretty good when I visit the online community
Relatedness RN1 When I visit the online community, I feel supported by other users
need satisfaction RN2 When I visit the online community, I feel that I am understood
Source: adapted from Standage et al. (2005); Shen et al. (2013) RN3 When I visit the online community, I feel that I am a valuable person to others
RN4 When I visit the online community, I feel like other people care what I have to say and what I
do

* deleted item.

3.2. Participants 3.3.2. Dependent variables: Intrinsic need satisfaction

The measurement of the satisfaction of participants’ intrinsic needs
Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents for autonomy and relatedness was adapted from Standage, Duda, and
and information about their participation in the brand communities. Ntoumanis, (2005), and Shen, Liu, and Wang, (2013). Satisfaction of
The gender distribution of the sample is roughly equal with male re- the need for competence was measured using four items from the
spondents representing 51.8% and female respondents representing Perceived Competence Subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
48.2%. Regarding age, most of the respondents were between the ages (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989; Standage et al., 2005). All de-
of 20 and 39, accounting for 80% of the respondents. Most respondents pendent variables were measured on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1
had completed a bachelor’s degree (65.4%); 49.8% were in paid em- (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
ployment, and 20.1% were students. 97% of the respondents had a
monthly income higher than 2499 RMB and 0.8% over 19,999 RMB. 3.3.3. Control variables: Tenure and time spent per week
More than 70% of the respondents had belonged to the community for As use of the service outside the scope of interacting with the ga-
more than a year, and about 27% used or visited the community for mification features may also affect intrinsic need satisfaction, it was
more than 1 h per week. controlled for. The following two questions were set to measure the
general volume of use: tenure (“How long have you been a registered
3.3. Measurement member of this community”) and weekly use (“How much time do you
usually spend during a normal week visiting this service”) (see Table 3
3.3.1. Independent variables: Interaction with gamification features for all measure items).
Participants were asked to estimate the average frequency and the
importance of interaction with three dimensions of gamification fea- 3.4. Validity and reliability
tures (3 immersion-related, 7 achievement-related, and 3 social-related
features) in the Xiaomi and Huawei online brand communities. We The measurement and path model were analysed using the com-
measured all of the items using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at ponent-based PLS-SEM.
all important) to 7 (extremely important), or from 1 (never) to 7(every The model includes both formative (interaction with gamification
time). features) and reflective constructs (intrinsic need satisfaction). First of

214
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Table 4 Cronbach’s alpha: Bagozzi, 1994; Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer,

Loadings, weights and VIF of formative measurement models. 2001), thus this study assessed the validity of formative constructs by
Independent variables Items Loadings t value Weights T value VIF evaluating indicator weights and loadings. Indicators of well-specified
formative constructs should have statistically significant weights
Interaction with FIF1 0.750 12.682 0.170 1.425 1.936 (Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009), but indicators with statistically non-
immersion-related FIF2 0.722 11.405 0.174 1.555 1.667
significant weights but high loadings have high absolute (though low
features FIF3 0.756 12.353 0.156 1.246 2.031
IIF1 0.815 15.139 0.290 2.274 2.068
relative) influence on the construct and should therefore be retained in
IIF2 0.826 15.727 0.420 4.055 1.539 the model (Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates, 2013). Even though some in-
IIF3 0.687 10.462 0.068 0.590 1.847 dicators have low weights and are non-significant, all of the indicators
Interaction with FAF1 0.786 20.651 0.136 1.525 2.290 have high loadings (above 0.640) and are significant, which indicates
achievement-related FAF2 0.640 13.839 0.092 1.312 1.582
an acceptable external validity.
features FAF3 0.733 17.721 −0.014 0.171 2.322
FAF4 0.761 17.552 0.183 2.226 1.908 Next, we assessed the validity and reliability of the reflective mea-
FAF5 0.832 23.992 0.275 3.274 2.133 surement model. To check the properties of the measurement scales, we
FAF6 0.682 15.819 0.112 1.596 1.665 conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the reliability,
FAF7 0.734 18.315 0.069 0.874 2.151
convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scales. We assessed
IAF1 0.797 20.917 0.22 2.683 2.085
IAF2 0.720 17.584 0.046 0.592 2.046
convergent validity (Table 5) through average variance extracted
IAF3 0.706 16.665 0.048 0.588 1.994 (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s Alpha, making sure
IAF4 0.646 13.801 −0.021 0.270 1.857 that all items loadings highest with their intended construct. Only Item
IAF5 0.724 17.603 0.022 0.266 2.205 AN3 (When I visit the online community, it is because I want to visit it)
IAF6 0.700 16.743 0.083 1.157 1.870
was omitted for having a loading lower than 0.6. Otherwise, the con-
IAF7 0.722 16.228 0.065 0.774 2.033
Interaction with FSF1 0.765 18.106 0.236 3.003 1.739 vergent validity was met (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant va-
social-related FSF2 0.757 16.932 0.168 1.933 1.878 lidity was also met as no inter-correlation of the constructs exceeds the
features FSF3 0.751 18.406 0.21 2.904 1.708 square root of the AVE of either of the compared constructs (See
ISF1 0.841 24.278 0.356 4.299 1.963 Table 6).
ISF2 0.838 24.386 0.186 2.000 2.457
ISF3 0.669 14.037 0.118 1.575 1.584

3.5. Results
Table 5
Validity and reliability of reflective measurement models.
The model explained 28.6% (R2 = 0.286) of the variance for au-
tonomy, 24% (R2 = 0.240) of the variance for competence, and 24.8%
Variables Items Loadings Cronbach’s α CR AVE (R2 = 0.248) of the variance for relatedness need (Fig. 1). Thus, the R²-
Autonomy AN1 0.804 0.817 0.879 0.645 values for the forms of need satisfaction each explained a substantial
need AN2 0.809 amount of variance.
AN3 Omitted As per the relationship between interaction with three categories of
AN4 0.806 gamification features and autonomy need satisfaction, the results show
AN5 0.795
that interactions with all gamification features were positively asso-
Competence need CN1 0.813 0.824 0.883 0.655
CN2 0.840 ciated with autonomy need satisfaction. However, interaction with
CN3 0.782 achievement-related features was unexpectedly more strongly asso-
CN4 0.800 ciated with autonomy needs satisfaction (β = 0.314, P < 0.001) than
Relatedness need RN1 0.817 0.829 0.887 0.662
immersion-related features (β = 0.236, P < 0.001). Thus, H1 was re-
RN2 0.854
RN3 0.772 jected in this study. Competence need satisfaction were positively as-
RN4 0.809 sociated with achievement and social-related gamification features and
is more strongly predicted by achievement-related gamification fea-
tures (β = 0.349, P < 0.001), thus supporting H2. Moreover, there
all, we assessed the collinearity and external validity of the formative were positive relationships between both achievement-related
measurement model. The variance inflation factors (VIF) for each in- (β = 0.216, P < 0.001) and social-related gamification features
dicator indicate the possible presence of collinearity. For formative (β = 0.393, P < 0.001) with relatedness satisfaction. Obviously, so-
measures, VIF values greater than 3.3 indicate a high level of multi- cial-related features had the stronger association with relatedness need
collinearity (Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, satisfaction, which supported H3. Although immersion-related features
2006). According to Table 4, all VIFs range from 2.457 to 1.539 (lower were negatively associated with relatedness satisfaction, the relation-
than 3), which suggests that multicollinearity is not a threat. Some ship was rather weak and not significant (β = - 0.012, P = 0.726).
authors suggest testing the external validity of a formatively measured Neither of the control variables had a positive association with any
construct instead of undertaking internal consistency examinations (e.g. dimensions of need satisfaction (for full results, refer to Table 7).

Table 6
Discriminant validity.
Achievement Immersion Social Autonomy Competence Relatedness Weekly use Tenure

Achievement N/A
Immersion 0.297 N/A
Social 0.283 0.277 N/A
Autonomy 0.434 0.377 0.335 0.803
Competence 0.427 0.209 0.346 0.353 0.809
Relatedness 0.323 0.166 0.449 0.308 0.365 0.814
Weekly use −0.013 −0.059 0.028 0.030 0.028 −0.032 N/A
Tenure 0.026 −0.046 0.017 −0.004 0.004 −0.046 0.184 N/A

Note: The diagonal means the square root of AVE. AVE is irrelevant for formative or single-item constructs.

215
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Fig. 1. Structural model findings.

β= standard regression coefficient, R2 = coefficient of determination
P < 0.05*; P < 0.01**; P < 0.001 ***.

Table 7 In addition, in order to test if there are significant differences be-

Full results. tween the two data groups (Huawei community vs Xiaomi community)
Path Coefficients β p value 95% CI in their group-specific path coefficients, we also conducted multi-group
analysis in this study. According to the result of Table 8, there was no
Immersion →Autonomy 0.236*** 0.000 0.175 0.299 significant difference of path coefficients (all p values were between
Immersion →Competence 0.042 0.187 −0.017 0.108 0.05 and 0.95). In addition, the multi-group analysis results presented
Immersion →Relatedness −0.012 0.726 −0.071 0.060
Achievement →Autonomy 0.314*** 0.000 0.252 0.383
the similar results which supported H2 and H3 and rejected H1
Achievement →Competence 0.349*** 0.000 0.292 0.413 (achievement-related features had the highest path coefficients towards
Achievement →Relatedness 0.216*** 0.000 0.159 0.283 autonomy need in both Huawei and Xiaomi community: β = 0.322 and
Social →Autonomy 0.179*** 0.000 0.114 0.242 β = 0.322, respectively), the same as the full model analysis results did
Social →Competence 0.234*** 0.000 0.169 0.295
in Table 7 above. For the control variables, only tenure was sig-
Social →Relatedness 0.393*** 0.000 0.331 0.449
Control: Tenure →Autonomy −0.013 0.663 −0.07 0.045 nificantly related to relatedness need satisfaction in Xiaomi online
Control: Tenure →Competence −0.013 0.664 −0.072 0.047 community (β = -0.083, p value = 0.047).
Control: Tenure →Relatedness −0.053 0.097 −0.116 0.010
Control: Weekly use →Autonomy 0.045 0.115 −0.013 0.101
Control: Weekly use →Competence 0.031 0.319 −0.030 0.092 4. Discussion
Control: Weekly use →Relatedness −0.031 0.308 −0.091 0.028
This study investigated the relationships between the users’ inter-
β = standard regression coefficient, CI =confidence interval. actions with three different kinds of gamification features and intrinsic
P < 0.05*; P < 0.01**; P < 0.001 ***. need satisfaction based on the data (N = 824) collected in Xiaomi and

Table 8
Multi-group analysis between Huawei and Xiaomi online brand community.
Huawei N = 360 Xiaomi N = 464 Huawei vs Xiaomi

Path Coefficients β p value β p value β-difference p value

Immersion →Autonomy 0.276*** 0.000 0.226*** 0.000 0.050 0.216

Immersion →Competence 0.063 0.208 0.021 0.628 0.042 0.265
Immersion →Relatedness 0.005 0.920 −0.029 0.513 0.034 0.304
Achievement →Autonomy 0.322*** 0.000 0.322*** 0.000 0.000 0.496
Achievement →Competence 0.395*** 0.000 0.342*** 0.000 0.053 0.203
Achievement →Relatedness 0.223*** 0.000 0.222*** 0.000 0.001 0.491
Social →Autonomy 0.141** 0.006 0.199*** 0.000 0.058 0.805
Social →Competence 0.170** 0.002 0.277*** 0.000 0.106 0.937
Social →Relatedness 0.393*** 0.000 0.411*** 0.000 0.018 0.612
Control: Tenure →Autonomy −0.023 0.605 −0.005 0.900 0.018 0.626
Control: Tenure →Competence −0.027 0.570 −0.008 0.839 0.019 0.620
Control: Tenure →Relatedness −0.003 0.954 −0.083* 0.047 0.081 0.102
Control: Weekly use →Autonomy 0.033 0.481 0.052 0.149 0.020 0.630
Control: Weekly use →Competence −0.019 0.682 0.069 0.084 0.089 0.923
Control: Weekly use →Relatedness −0.027 0.550 −0.036 0.381 0.010 0.437

β = standard regression coefficient, P < 0.05*; P < 0.01**; P < 0.001 ***.

216
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Huawei online gamified communities. According to the empirical re- the result shown in Tables 7 and 8, it seems that in online gamified
sults shown in Table 7, immersion-related features can be the predictor systems or communities, control variables such as weekly use (how long
of autonomy need satisfaction, but not the strongest. As for achieve- have you been a registered member of this community) and tenure
ment and social-related features, they had the strongest relationship (how much time do you usually spend during a normal week visiting
with achievement need satisfaction and social need satisfaction, re- this service) cannot affect any of three intrinsic needs satisfaction. In
spectively. The results imply that gamification can have a substantially other words, those experienced members or users probably don’t have
positive effect on intrinsic need satisfaction for services users, especially strong internal motivations to participate in online communities or use
the achievement and social-related features. online services, which may help us understand why many companies
However, there are some findings which are not directly in ad- face the challenge of engaging users and increase loyalty. Expectedly,
herence with the hypotheses and afford further points of discussion. As gamification can meet intrinsic needs to a certain extent. For example,
seen in Table 7, the main deviation from our expectations was that in social media marketing, marketers can use mechanisms such as
rather than immersion-related features being the strongest predictor of customization, interactivity and digital community to engage their
autonomy (H1), achievement-related features were empirically sup- customers (Alalwan, Rana, Dwivedi, & Algharabat, 2017), which can
ported as the most key predictor of autonomy need (β = 0.314). We easily be achieved through gamification.
believe that this may be because when users interact with some
achievement-related features like tasks, virtual currency/coin, points 4.1. Theoretical contributions
and levels in the two communities, they usually can select/accept/give
up different tasks, freely use virtual currency/coin to exchange for what This study made considerable theoretical contributions to the
they want as well as earn points/upgrade levels in different ways. overlapping research area of information systems, games and gamifi-
Therefore, when users visit or use these types of gamified services, they cation by contributing holistic results on the relationship between ga-
can achieve greater autonomy need satisfaction through interacting mification / motivational information systems and intrinsic need sa-
with these achievement-related features compared with interacting tisfaction. According to the largest review of gamification literature
with immersion-related features. (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019), gamification literature has thus far lacked
Another interesting aspect of the results was that interactions with investigation on what kind of gamification does afford gameful ex-
achievement and social-related features were positively associated with perience including intrinsic need satisfaction. Instead of discussing a
all dimensions of intrinsic need satisfaction and all relationships were singular or limited numbers of gamification features as many previous
significant (all p values < 0.001). However, interaction with immer- literature did, as indicated in the literature review of the present paper,
sion-related features was only associated with autonomy need sa- such as customization (Kim et al., 2015), badges (Hanus & Fox, 2015;
tisfaction. Therefore, it appears that in gamified services, achievement Sailer et al., 2017; Thom et al., 2012), points (Mekler et al., 2017; Thom
and social-related features command much more power in terms of et al., 2012), storytelling/narrative (Bormann & Greitemeyer, 2015),
intrinsic need satisfaction. However, it remains an elusive point as to leaderboards (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Mekler et al., 2017; Sailer et al.,
why immersion-related features show a more modest effect on the ga- 2017), this study examined the role of three holistic categories of ga-
meful experience. We believe that this may be for three reasons. Firstly, mification features which consisted of total of thirteen more specific
web services differ drastically in nature from e.g. 3d game environ- gamification elements. Second, this study did more granular analysis
ments where there are much more affordances for immersion and story- compared with prior literature in terms of the intrinsic need satisfac-
driven experiences, whereas goal structures and social interaction may tion, which can help explain the mechanisms of how gamification af-
perhaps be more fully provided for on even simple web-based solutions. fects our motivations and which of the gamification features. As shown
Secondly, these interesting results might also be related to the essence in Table 1, there has been several studies that only investigate a in-
of an ‘online brand community’, which refers to a “specialized, non- trinsic motivation/needs satisfaction as a one-dimensional construct
geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social (see Thom et al., 2012; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2017).
relations among admirers of a brand” (Muniz & O’guinn, 2001). In the However, as indicated in the present study and prior agenda-shaping
Xiaomi and Huawei gamified communities, most achievement and so- reviews, there has been a gap in our understanding of finer granularity
cial-related gamification features are more easily designed based on of need satisfaction stemming from gamification. In order to have a
brand information, and this can be more attractive to users when deeper understanding of intrinsic motivation, this study investigated
compared with immersion features. Thus, they might gain more psy- the relationships between gamification and three kinds of intrinsic need
chological satisfaction due to a more active and high-frequent interac- satisfaction (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Moreover, this
tion with those elements relating to the brand. study also alleviated the concerns related to the possible negative effect
Thirdly, it is not hard to understand that both achievement and on motivation stemming from the argumentation that gamification
social-related features are positively associated with all of the aspects of would provide extrinsic motivations which many believe to be detri-
intrinsic need satisfaction. For example, badges, leaderboards, levels, mental for intrinsic motivation (although not much evidence for such
tasks, etc. offer not only immediate feedback (which can engage users doubt has been put forward in prior research – Koivisto & Hamari,
and generate flow experience: Panigrahi, Srivastava, & Sharma, 2018) 2019). (Christy & Fox, 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Orosz, Farkas, &
and skill development, but also help users to understand others in a Roland-Levy, 2013). Thus, the present study investigated this exact gap
gamified service or system. Social-related features, as an important part in the current literature and was able to provide perhaps the most
of social media, facilitate the low-cost information exchange (Dwivedi, holistic answer to this question on the relationship between gamifica-
Kapoor, & Chen, 2015), where users can acquire more skills and tion and intrinsic motivation as well as to provide a psychological
knowledge to achieve a sense of accomplishment. Not only that, users theoretical basis for future research on gamification and behavioral
can easily get relatedness need satisfaction by communicating, talk and outcomes. Finally, the survey method in this study supplements the
connecting with others in the gamified service. However, on the other existing research on gamification elements which is usually based on
hand, users have more incentive to make progress and develop skills experimental methods. An obvious limitation of the present study is
when they can build stronger social relationships with others by using that it measures self-reported preferences of game features, albeit that it
these social-related features. manages to cover a full spectrum of common gamification im-
Last but not least, even though the relationships between gamifi- plementations in contemporary web communities. Whereas fuller ex-
cation features and intrinsic need satisfaction were not very strong periment designs may be better equipped to infer causality during in-
(none of β values was higher than 0.4), the importance of gamification teracting with gamification and the user experience, as seen in the
in increasing psychological needs is still worth emphasizing. Based on literature review of this study (Table 1), it is usually impossible to

217
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

address more than a couple of mechanics or a couple of versions of the a substantially positive effect on intrinsic need satisfaction for services
same mechanic in a single study. Thus, this article provides more re- users, especially the achievement and social-related features. The main
ferences for scholars on research methodology of game/gamification contribution of this study is to provide the theoretical explanation for
study. why gamification can satisfy users’ intrinsic needs. According to the
empirical result, immersion-related features are only positively asso-
4.2. Practical implications ciated with autonomy need satisfaction. Achievement-related features
are not only positively associated with all kinds of need satisfaction, but
From the practical perspective, this study revealed the relationships also the strongest predictor of both autonomy and competence need
between different gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction, satisfaction. As for social-related features, it has positive associations
which provide guidance for designing gamification services. When with autonomy, competence and related need satisfaction and can sa-
users interact with different types of gamification elements in an online tisfy the relatedness need to the largest extent. In addition, this study
gamified community, three intrinsic needs are affected to varying de- also provides useful guidance for gamification services designer and
grees depending on the category of applied gamification. In accordance social media marketers, which can help practitioners to increase the
to the results found in the present study it can be concluded that when effectiveness of gamification in non-game context.
users interact with achievement and social-related features, their in-
trinsic needs related to autonomy, competence and relatedness seem to 5.1. Limitations and future research
be more likely to be satisfied. But, when they interact with immersion-
related features, only autonomy need satisfaction was shown to be Even though this paper empirically studied the relationship between
improved. According to these findings, organizations should select gamification and need satisfaction, there are still some limitations
different gamification features according to their own business objec- which could be considered in future research. The main limitation of
tives and target them to satisfy different intrinsic needs of consumers. this study is that its generalizability weakens when taken beyond the
On the other hand, this study can also give more inspiration to online gamified community. Thus, the findings in this study may only
practitioners in social media marketing. Social media has been largely be applicable to similar online communities, especially those which are
realized as an effective mechanism that contributes to the firms’ mar- based on an online brand. Accordingly, future research may select
keting aims and strategy (Alalwan et al., 2017), the ineffectiveness of different gamified services as their research contexts. In addition, this
social media marketing often causes issues for companies, such as high study measured three types of gamified interaction, mainly from the
marketing cost and customers’ negative attitudes (Zhu & Chen, 2015). directions of interaction frequency and the importance of gamification
One way to increase the effectiveness of social media marketing is to be features. Future researchers could also use other indicators such as in-
congruent and aligned with the different needs of social media users, teraction length and interaction quality for measuring different gami-
addressing areas such as their autonomy, competence, relatedness, se- fication features. Moreover, a more rigorous way to conduct the mea-
curity, self-esteem, etc (Zhu & Chen, 2015). Given that enjoyment and surement of independent variables would have been to run the study as
fun experienced by consumers are important motivators for purchasing an experiment, however, given the large amount of gamification fea-
(Mäntymäki & Salo, 2015), firms who want to engage customers should tures communities have, the amount of treatment conditions would
adopt several strategies to satisfy their three basic needs of autonomy, render such an approach highly impractical if not impossible given that
competence and relatedness (Li & Zhang, 2017), which can make the the communities in question had thirteen gamification features.
use of these services more autotelic. We have reasons to believe that if Thirdly, this study employed self-report questionnaires to gather data,
customers can perceive satisfaction of their basic psychological needs in which might cause problems such as response bias, misunderstanding of
a marketing environment, this will positively influence marketing questions, and a dependence on the respondent’s introspective ability.
outcomes. According to the results in this study, interactions with dif- Furthermore, the data was only collected in two successful gamified
ferent gamification features were associated with need satisfaction in online brand communities in China. Therefore, we suggest that future
online brand communities, which implies that gamification features in research should also consider the differences between successful and
a marketing environment can undoubtedly satisfy the basic psycholo- failed gamified services. Last but not least, future research can in-
gical needs of customers. Thus, enterprises can effectively achieve vestigate whether the relationship between gamified interaction and
marketing performance (e.g. improve customer and brand manage- need satisfaction is moderated by other user characteristics variables,
ment) by developing a gamification strategy that combines different such as demographics, user personality and cultural difference (Ngai,
gamification features with their traditional marketing strategies. Tao, & Moon, 2015). For example, previous studies of gamified services
or systems have shown that age (Bittner & Schipper, 2014; Koivisto &
5. Conclusion Hamari, 2014), gender (Koivisto & Hamari, 2014), prior gaming ex-
perience (Bittner & Schipper, 2014; Terlutter & Capella, 2013), and
Gamification has increasingly been used as an essential part of to- consumer types (Robson et al., 2016) can positively moderate the re-
day’s services, software and systems to engage and motivate users, as lationship between gamification features, and user psychology and re-
well as to spark further behaviors. A core rationale behind this wave of sultant behaviors.
gamification has been that by increasing the ability of a system or a
service to satisfy intrinsic needs, and thereby the autotelicy (i.e. en- Declaration of interest
joyment) of use. However, beyond optimistic expectations, there has
currently been a dearth of empirical evidence on whether gamification No conflicts of interest exist.
satisfies these intrinsic needs. As previous reviews of the field have
often commented that gamification research is lacking in studies that Acknowledgements
systematically investigate the effect of different game mechanics on
user psychology and behavior (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Huotari & This work has been supported by Business Finland (5479/31/2017,
Hamari, 2017; Nacke & Deterding, 2017), this study is perhaps the first 40111/14, 40107/14 and 40009/16) and participating partners,
empirical study that has managed to holistically measure and in- Zhongnan University of Economics and Law (Wuhan, China),
vestigate the effect of a variety of gamification features and user ex- Satakunnan korkeakoulusäätiö and its collaborators, and Academy of
periences. More precisely, this study implies that gamification can have Finland (Center of Excellence - GameCult).

218
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

Appendix A. Brief description for gamification features in this study

Category Features Description Source

Immersion-related ga- Avatar Avatars are visual representations of players within the game or gamification environment, which are Werbach and Hunter
mification features chosen or even created by the player. (2012); Kapp (2012)
Customization/ Customization has been defined as activities where users themselves modify some aspect of an interface to
Marathe and Sundar
Personalization a certain degree so as to increase its personal relevance (2011)
Narrative/Story Stories are also an important part in gamification applications, as they can alter the meaning of real-world
Sailer, Hense, Mayr, &
activities by adding a narrative ‘overlay’ Mandl (2017)
Achievement-related g- Badges Badges are visual representations of achievements, which can be collected within the gamification Sailer, Hense, Mandl, &
amification features environment. Klevers (2013)
Virtual currency Virtual currency can be earned through environmentally desirable activities. Participants can also use this
Liu, Alexandrova, &
virtual currency to buy virtual items Nakajima (2011)
Points Points can be accumulated for certain activities within the gamification environment Sailer, Hense, Mandl, &
Klevers (2013)
Progress bars Performance graphs are often used in simulation or strategy games, and provide information about the Sailer, Hense, Mandl, &
players' performance compared to their preceding performance during a game Klevers (2013)
Levels A system of advancing in the game by collecting a certain amount of points or carrying out specific actions Gatautis et al. (2016)
Leaderboards Leaderboards rank players according to their relative success, measuring them against a certain success Costa, Wehbe, Robb, &
criterion Nacke (2013)
Tasks Quests are little tasks, players have to fulfil within a game. Sailer, Hense, Mandl, &
Klevers (2013)
Social-related gamifica- Social network Messages, blogs, chat and connection to social networks Aparicio, Vela, Sánchez,
tion features features & Montes (2012)
Cooperation/Team Cooperation by introducing teams, i.e. by creating defined groups of players that work together towards a Werbach and Hunter
shared objective (2012)
Social competition The desire to challenge and compete with others, leading to the possibility for a player or a group of Gatautis et al. (2016)
players to win while others lose

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.002.

References and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185.
Alahäivälä, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2016). Understanding persuasion contexts in Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need sa-
health gamification: A systematic analysis of gamified health behavior change sup- tisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di
port systems literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 96, 62–70. Psicologia, 27(1), 23–40.
Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and edu-
marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics, cation: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4),
34(7), 1177–1190. 325–346.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual
inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of model. Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts, a Workshop
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950–967. at CHI. Presented at CHI 2011.
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105–112. gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
Aparicio, A. F., Vela, F. L. G., Sánchez, J. L. G., & Montes, J. L. I. (2012). Analysis and MindTrek Conference.
application of gamification. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in
Interacción Persona-Ordenado 2012, Article No. 17. organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British
Aroean, L. (2012). Friend or foe: In enjoying playfulness, do innovative consumers tend to Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
switch brand? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(1), 67–80. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative in-
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational dicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2),
basis of performance and weil‐being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social 269–277.
Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research: Basic principles, multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation.
Principles of marketing research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing317–385. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273.
Bittner, J. V., & Schipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamifi- Dwivedi, Y., Kapoor, K., & Chen, H. (2015). Social media marketing and advertising. The
cation in product advertising. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400. Marketing Review, 15(3), 289–309.
Bormann, D., & Greitemeyer, T. (2015). Immersed in virtual worlds and minds: Effects of Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external
in-game storytelling on immersion, need satisfaction, and affective theory of mind. rewards on elementary students’ motivation, engagement and learning in an educa-
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 646–652. tional game. Computers & Education, 75, 136–148.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment, attachment and loss, Vol. I. New York: Basic Books. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of formative measurement in in- observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
formation systems research. MIS Quarterly, 689–707. 39–50.
Chou, T. J., & Ting, C. C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. Francisco-Aparicio, A., Guti’errez-Vela, F., Isla-Montes, J., & Sanches, J. (2013).
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 663–675. Gamification: Analysis and application. In V. Penichet (Ed.). New trends in interaction,
Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype virtual reality and modeling, human computer interaction series (pp. 113–126). London:
threat and social comparison explanations for women’s math performance. Computers Springer-Verlag.
& Education, 78, 66–77. Gartner (2012). Gartner says by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to
Costa, J. P., Wehbe, R. R., Robb, J., & Nacke, L. E. (2013). Time’s up: Studying leader- meet business objectives primarily due to poor design. Stamford, CT, November 27, 2012.
boards for engaging punctual behaviour. In Proceedings of the First International Available athttp://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2251015.
Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, 26–33. Gatautis, R., Banyte, J., Piligrimiene, Z., Vitkauskaite, E., & Tarute, A. (2016). The impart
Dale, S. (2014). Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work? Business of gamification on consumer brand engagement. Transformation in Business &
Information Review, 31(2), 82–90. Economics, 15(1), 173–191.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-de- Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. The
termination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need

219
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two beha- Human Behavior, 71, 450–454.
vioral contexts. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 131–148. Ngai, E. W. T., Tao, S. S. C., & Moon, K. K. L. (2015). Social media research: Theories,
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on effects of constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478. Management, 35(1), 33–44.
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125–141. classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field,
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social 7(2), 133–144.
influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 333–347. Orosz, G., Farkas, D., & Roland-Levy, C. (2013). Are competition and extrinsic motivation
Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis. Transactions of the reliable predictors of academic cheating? Frontiers in Psychology, 4(87), 1–16.
Digital Games Research Association, 1(2), 29–53. Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, con-
Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social net- tinuance, and learning outcome - A review of literature. International Journal of
working? Matching users’ goals with motivational technology. User Modelling and Information Management, 43, 1–14.
User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35–74. Peng, W., Lin, J., Pfeiffer, K., & Winn, B. (2012). Need satisfaction supportive game
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review features as motivational determinants: An experimental study of a self-determination
of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Hawaii theory guided exergame. Media Psychology, 15, 175–196.
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3025–3034. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166.
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and Rigby, S. (2004). Player motivational analysis: A model for applied research into the moti-
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. vational dynamics of virtual worlds. Motivation research group. Rochester, NY:
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty University of Rochester.
nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 785–807. Rigby, S. (2015). Gamification and motivation. In S. P. Walz, & S. Deterding (Eds.). The
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification – A service marketing perspective. gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 113–137). MIT Press.
In Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 17–22. Rigby, S., & Ryan, R. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in spellbound. Santa Barbara, CA, US: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.
the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game on:
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic Engaging customers and employees through gamification. Business Horizons, 59(1),
motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self- 29–36.
control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 295–323. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
Jones, B. A., Madden, G. J., & Wengreen, H. J. (2014). The FIT Game: preliminary eva- trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist,
luation of a gamification approach to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in 55(1), 68–78.
school. Preventive Medicine, 68, 76–79. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A
Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.
of information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal set- Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H., & Klevers, M. (2013). Psychological perspectives on
ting in group collaboration environments. Management Science, 56(4), 724–742. motivation through gamification. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 19,
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and 28–37.
strategies for training and education. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An
Kim, K., Schmierbach, M. G., Chung, M. Y., Fraustino, J. D., Dardis, F., & Ahern, L. (2015). experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological
Is it a sense of autonomy, control, or attachment? Exploring the effects of in-game need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380.
customization on game enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 695–705. Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How story
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. video games. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 361–375.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International
of gamification literature. International Journal of Information Management, 45, Journal of Human-computer Studies, 74, 14–31.
191–210. Shen, C. X., Liu, R. D., & Wang, D. (2013). Why are children attracted to the Internet? The
Koster, R. (2005). A theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press. role of need satisfaction perceived online and perceived in daily real life. Computers in
Lee, J. J., Ceyhan, P., Jordan-Cooley, W., & Sung, W. (2013). GREENIFY: A real-world Human Behavior, 29(1), 185–192.
action game for climate change education. Simulation & Gaming, 44(2-3), 349–365. Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Lai, H. H. (2018). Examining the core knowledge on
Li, X., & Zhang, H. (2017). The psychological mechanism of customer brand engagement facebook. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 52–63.
behaviors: A self-determinant theory perspective. Tourism Tribune, 32(7), 57–68. Simões, J., Díaz Redondo, R., & Fernández Vilas, A. (2013). A social gamification fra-
Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Gamifying intelligent environments. In mework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353.
Proceedings of the 2011 International ACM Workshop on Ubiquitous Meta User Interfaces, Snodgrass, J. G., Dengah, H. F., Lacy, M. G., & Fagan, J. (2013). A formal anthropological
7–12. view of motivation models of problematic MMO play: Achievement, social, and im-
Lo, S. K., Wang, C. C., & Fang, W. (2005). Physical interpersonal relationships and social mersion factors in the context of culture. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(2), 235–262.
anxiety among online game players. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 15–20. Sørensen, J. J. W., Pedersen, M. K., Munch, M., Haikka, P., Jensen, J. H., Planke, T., et al.
Lucassen, G., & Jansen, S. (2014). Gamification in consumer marketing-future or fallacy? (2016). Exploring the quantum speed limit with computer games. Nature, 532,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 194–202. 210–213.
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2013). The impact of shaping on knowledge reuse Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self‐determination theory in
for organizational improvement with wikis. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 455–469. school physical education. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3),
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive 411–433.
Science, 5(4), 333–369. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting au-
Mäntymäki, M., & Salo, J. (2015). Why do teens spend real money in virtual worlds? A tonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and
consumption values and developmental psychology perspective on virtual con- ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.
sumption. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 124–134. Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the
Marathe, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). What drives customization?: Control or identity? In learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3),
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 781–790. 268–286.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the in- Terlutter, R., & Capella, M. L. (2013). The gamification of advertising: Analysis and re-
trinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor search directions of in-game advertising, advergames, and advertising in social net-
analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 20–32. work games. Journal of Advertising, 42(2-3), 95–112.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise
effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. SNS. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534. Work, 1067–1070.
Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., & Drennan, J. (2017). Understanding how gamification influ- Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010).
ences behaviour in social marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 12–19. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial
Mordor Intelligence (2018). Gamification market size - segmented by deployment mode (On- validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational
premises, cloud), size (Small and medium business, large enterprises), type of solution and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002.
(Open platform, closed/ enterprise platform), end-user vertical (Retail, banking, govern- van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2018). Unravelling the ambivalent motivational power of
ment, healthcare), and region - growth, trends, and forecast (2018-2023)Available gamification: A basic psychological needs perspective. International Journal of Human-
athttps://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/gamification-market. computer Studies in press.
Morris, B., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013). Gaming science: The Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J. T., & Warmelink, H. (2017). Computer games and
“Gamification” of scientific thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 607. organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(2), 273–284.
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Maedche, A. (2017). Gamified crowdsour- Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and so-
cing: Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda. International Journal of cialmeanings. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play.
Human-computer Studies, 106, 26–43. Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, shame,
Muniz, A. M., & O’guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. The Journal of Consumer depression, and loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological needs sa-
Research, 27(4), 412–432. tisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 591.
Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your

220
N. Xi, J. Hamari International Journal of Information Management 46 (2019) 210–221

business. Philadelpha: Wharton Digital Press. Human Behavior, 73, 459–469.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6),
Review, 66(5), 297–333. 772–775.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). The relationship between gamification, brand engagement Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., & Nelson, L. (2012). Online gaming motivations scale:
and brand equity. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Development and validation. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS). Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Yang, Y., Asaad, Y., & Dwivedi, Y. (2017). Examining the impact of gamification on in- Zhu, Y. Q., & Chen, H. G. (2015). Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications
tention of engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context. Computers in for social media marketing. Business Horizons, 58(3), 335–345.

221