Gamification as Amplifier for Users' Motivation and Action by Stefanie Hermann

Stefanie Hermann

Master of Science in International Management

2010/2011

Extract: Research Results – Empirical Data Ascertainment Adjusted for the interview experts

ANYTHING CAN BE FUN

GAMIFICATION AS AMPLIFIER FOR USERS’ MOTIVATION AND ACTION - With reference to the online-based innovation platform

Swisscom Labs

Gamification as Amplifier for User’s Motivation and Action

Stefanie Hermann 2

6 EMPIRICAL DATA ASCERTAINMENT AND EVALUATION

This paragraph shall investigate prior developed research questions by conducting an

empirical ascertainment. Before the results of the investigation will be presented, an

overview of the applied research methodology will be given.

6.1 Research Methodology

Herein the research objective, research design and research method of the following

primary research will be described in detail and topped off with a critical review.

6.1.1 Objective

The objective of the subsequent primary research is to examine previously established

gamification theory and to gain further profound insights into gamification as

amplifier for users’ motivation and action and its proper application by testing prior

developed research questions. In this context, explorative research will be applied.

Explorative market research compensates a lack of knowledge by gaining insights

into a problem area (Buber 2009, Kuß and Eisend 2010). Although, gamification

recently undergoes more and more investigation in form of books and conferences,

the topic is still quite recent and lacks profound and proven popular theory or long-

term experience. Thus, the primary research is based on data gained from secondary

research (Kuß and Eisend 2010) and follows explorative patterns to examine

previously formulated research questions.

6.1.2 Research design

Explorative research rather refers to qualitative than quantitative research design. This

is because qualitative research seeks diverse and profound insights into the objective

of the study (Kuß and Eisend 2010) and seeks to understand phenomena in context-


Stefanie Hermann 3

specific settings (Golafshani 2003). Moreover, qualitative research delivers

comprehensive data and gains importance for academic and commercial market

research (Buber 2009).

Therefore, qualitative research is applied to gain profound and diverse insights into

the research area of gamification and to analyze the connection between theory and

reality (Kuß and Eisend 2010). In contrast to quantitative research, the following

explorative qualitative research involves less quantifiable statements and small and

less representative samples. Moreover, findings will not allow hard and rapid

conclusions (Kuß and Eisend 2010).

6.1.3 Research method Since the particular objective of the primary research constitutes an explorative

qualitative approach, expert interviews are conducted, as they are the most convenient

method in the context of explorative conversations (Buber 2009). Experts are

particularly capable in the field of research to receive desired information (Kuß and

Eisend 2010). They are equipped with comprehensive and accurate knowledge within

a particular area and they offer principal problem solutions (Buber 2009). Moreover,

within expert interviews, bibliography and thus the interviewee take a backseat, as the

objective is the inquiry and pursuit of expert knowledge (Mey and Mruck 2011).

Thus, the following primary research involves interviews of experts in the field of

gamification and game design to receive profound insights and to explore arguments

and explanations, whereby prior established research questions are clarified and

investigated. A heterogeneous group of experts was selected throughout secondary

research. The chosen experts have different educational and practical backgrounds.

Thus, the selection involves game designers, self-appointed gamification experts and

experts with a psychological background. Moreover, while some experts have


Stefanie Hermann 4

profound theoretical knowledge about gamification, others have practical knowledge

and experience in the field of study. In this way, different trains of thoughts regarding

gamification can be revealed.

6.1.3.1 Expert interview guideline

The interview guideline and questions were developed by the author and

simultaneously researcher of this Master thesis. After a first draft of the interview

guideline had been developed, it was discussed with the supervisors of the Master

thesis in hand. At the same time, colleagues were asked to give their feedback on the

understanding and formulation of particular themes and questions. After all feedback

had been considered, the final version of the expert interview guideline was

developed, taking account of the scientifically correct formulation of questions, which

properly circle around the particular research questions to be investigated.

During the design of the interview guideline, its explorative intention to winkle out as

many profound insights and information as possible had to be considered. The final

version of the interview guideline is semi-standardized, giving both interviewee and

interviewer freedom of speech (Mey and Mruck 2011). The guideline is subdivided

into five themes, each relating to a particular research question. The themes are fixed

to examine the research questions (Buber 2009), but must not follow a specific order.

Moreover, the guideline involves neither fixed question formulations nor

predetermined answer opportunities. The interview questions serve as a means for the

interviewer to guide the expert through each particular theme. They follow an open

style, providing no restrictions on the content to enable the interviewee to participate

actively into the conversation (Buber 2009). Thus, depending on the course of the

interview, additional unplanned questions may be asked to follow up on what the

experts say (Robson 2011).


Stefanie Hermann 5

The expert interviews are estimated at 30 minutes. The length of time is justified by

the fact, that sessions less than 30 minutes may not be valuable and sessions longer

than 60 minutes may be too time-consuming for busy interviewees (Robson 2011).

The identified gamification experts are very busy with projects and speeches of their

own and a limited time frame increases the likelihood of their participation.

Moreover, since the experts come from different countries, the majority of interviews

was conducted via telephone and thus had to be relatively short, whereby 30 minutes

are a recommended time frame (Robson 2011).

6.1.3.2 Execution of expert interviews

The expert interviews were conducted verbally in form of individual interviews either

face-to-face or via telephone, depending on the location or schedule of the experts.

Moreover, the interviews took place within a timeframe of two weeks, between the 4th

of August 2011 and 16th of August 2011. Altogether ten experts were interviewed.

Due to privacy reasons, the names of the ten experts are not disclosed in this extract.

The interviews were conducted on workdays only, whereby time differences had to be

considered in selected cases. To fully exploit the short 30-minute time frame per

session, the experts received the topic overview beforehand to be prepared. However,

the 30 minutes were not treated as strict deadline, so that the interviews were gladly

extended as far as the experts agreed.

All of the experts had been contacted and asked to participate in written form.

6.1.4 Critical review

Looking critically at the data ascertainment, it must be admitted that it underlies

certain limitations.


Stefanie Hermann 6

First of all, the amount of conducted interviews may meet criticism concerning

insufficient statistical representativity. However, different from quantitative research,

statistical representativity is not the focus within explorative qualitative research as it

emphasizes on the discovery of profound insights regarding the object of study (Kuß

and Eisend 2010). Moreover, the explorative qualitative research usually involves

small and less representative samples of informants, mostly less than ten in number

(Kuß and Eisend 2010).

One must take into account that the expert insights rest upon assumptions, personal

research and experience only. This is due to the recency of the topic, which hampers

long-term experience as well as quantitative proofs at that moment. Thus, the results

will not allow hard conclusions. This may imply that the experts will not directly

validate the research questions but rather enhance them and jointly derive new ones to

be tested in the future.

Moreover, the experts may treat the discussion themes differently. On the one hand,

the research questions may turn out to be overbroad, leaving room for too much

interpretation. On the other hand, different educational and practical backgrounds of

the heterogeneous expert group may lead to different opinions and mindsets towards

gamification, resulting in varying conversational depth within the topics.

Additionally, varying interview length will also reflect in the conversational depth

among certain topics, so that some experts may spawn more detailed information than

others. Besides, the open question design of the interview guideline may have limiting

effects, so that the course of conversation may differ among the experts, restricting

the egality of the interviews.


Stefanie Hermann 7

Moreover, it may occur that the expert insights, especially of game designers, are too

closely connected to games. In this case, one must keep in mind that gamification

applies to real world problems and thus, the taxonomy and experience from games is

not one-to-one transferrable to gamification.

Potential bias emerging from telephone interviews is avoided as effectively as

possible, by recording all interviews with a dictating machine. The recordings also

serve as proof for the researcher’s objectivity and the study’s quality, trustworthiness

and credibility (Golafshani 2003).

Finally, one needs to consider the so-called interviewer-bias, which occurs within

qualitative interviews when the potential influence of an untrained interviewer may

lead to distorted results (Robson 2011, Kuß and Eisend 2010). Contortions may occur

when the interviewer influences the interviewee’s answer behavior through his or her

personality or behavior. Also, if the interviewer himself has a prominent opinion

towards the object of study, his or her perception may be selective. In this context, the

interviewer has a tendency to perceive answers in a way that fits his or her

expectations and thus distorts them (Kuß and Eisend 2010).

6.2 Research results

In the following, prior developed and operationalized research questions will be

examined concerning their validity by analyzing and summarizing the results obtained

from the ten expert interviews. In this context, the recorded interviews serve as source

of information. To start with, chapter 6.2.1 presents the experts’ general

understanding and definition of gamification. Subsequently, chapter 6.2.2 depicts the

experts’ experiences and knowledge about the themes surrounding the five research


Stefanie Hermann 8

questions to either verify or falsify them. Finally, chapter 6.2.3 reveals some

additional remarks of the experts regarding gamification in general.

6.2.1 An introductory definition of gamification

The majority of experts agrees on a general definition of gamification, which is in line

with the definition given in the theoretical work-up in chapter 3. The experts define

gamification as the use of game elements, such as game mechanics, game design

principals and game psychology, in non-gaming contexts. Thus, success factors of

games are isolated and integrated into other areas, making ordinary tasks more playful

and fun. In the experts’ opinion, gamification follows the objective to drive user

behavior, whereby engagement and motivation were predominantly mentioned. This

insight corresponds to the identified purpose in chapter 3.1. However, gamification

has other positive side effects. In this context loyalty, satisfaction, user experience,

product awareness and increased consumption were mentioned.

Moreover, the experts highlight that gamification applies in several industries,

whereby it depicts an objective tool that allows better decision-making, as it enables

transparency through user tracking.

However, besides praise gamification also meets criticism. Not any given product or

service can be made a game, as its application is not appropriate in each case. This

statement adds to the criticism introduced in chapter 3, saying that gamification

cannot solve profound business problems (Zichermann and Cunningham 2011). A

minority of experts perceives the term gamification as misleading, because one

automatically thinks of games, whereby applied game-stimuli do not necessarily

transform activities into games. Instead, it makes them more enjoyable and thus the

terms “game-thinking” or “gamefulness” were proposed.


Stefanie Hermann 9

6.2.2 Creating and applying proper gamification

In the following, the experts’ insights into the five prior established research questions

will be revealed and the research questions will be investigated concerning their

validity.

6.2.2.1 Gamification in online and offline environments

The majority of experts is convinced that the environment, whether online or offline,

is irrelevant regarding the success of gamification. That is because gamification is not

tied to digital or network technology, as games are a trans-media phenomenon.

Moreover, success rather depends on the context, the target audience and the proper

usage of motivational incentives, making the environment less important.

However, the experts termed advantages and disadvantages for each environment.

Offline environments enable particular emotional dimensions, such as sensuality and

physicality that online environments lack. Nevertheless, gamification is difficult to

perform in offline environments, because it is challenging to move people. Moreover,

people may be annoyed by artificial rules and memberships. On the contrary, in

online environments gamified applications are cheaper to conduct as they reach a

larger base audience and spread virally. Moreover, more scalable interaction enables

user tracking and monitoring to understand user behavior and to realize and visualize

success. In this context, competition and cooperation is encouraged, as users compare

themselves with a large group of other players. However, the experts highlight that

the distinction between online and offline environments becomes increasingly

obsolete, as people are constantly using the Internet and due to the increasing

prominence of mobile devices and GPS functions.

Thus, a combination of both environments’ properties may provide the key to success.

In this way user behavior can be quantified in the real world and synchronized to


Stefanie Hermann 10

computers to evaluate and compare the generated data. Still, a minority of experts

assumes that a higher degree of connection to the Internet provides more

opportunities for success, because it enables more networking and interaction.

Moreover, since gamification evolved from the social and digital media industry, the

majority of the experts agrees that most current gamified applications apply online

and one can assume that all current offline applications will be transferred to online

environments in the future.

As most experts perceive the environment as irrelevant regarding the success of

gamification, the research question Gamification is equally successful in online and

offline environments can be verified. This result explains why both, gamified

applications tied to the online or offline world, as mentioned in chapter 3, can perform

equally successfully. Moreover, the result is in line with the findings throughout the

best practice examples (chapter 5). However, the best practice examples demonstrate

and several experts highlight the growing predominance of the Internet and the

increasing prominence of mobile devices and GPS functions, making the inclusion of

online environments more and more essential.

6.2.2.2 Considering social player motivation

The experts’ opinions are divided concerning the importance of social player

interaction. To start with, almost half of all experts argue that all games are at the core

social, providing people with a context to hang out, socialize and to have fun.

The minority of the experts questioned is convinced that gamified applications must

involve social interaction to be successful, as they perceive sociability as strong

motivation mechanism and single most important form of interaction. In their opinion,

a lot of experience fails because it is not social enough. Thus, focusing on social


Stefanie Hermann 11

interaction and building other motivations like achievement and exploration around it

to activate other players, is most likely the key to success. In contrast to that the vast

majority of experts is confident that gamification must not involve social gameplay to

be successful, as various gamified applications prove. However, most of them admit

that it depends on the application’s context and the audience’s motivation whether

social interaction is important. Moreover, most experts of the vast majority admit that

people are social beings, so that social interaction provides an advantage that creates

value for the platform.

The experts’ opinions differ strongly regarding the utilization of social interaction in

form of cooperation and competition within gamified applications. One assumption is

that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. Another assumption

implies that the target audience and the underlying application determine whether

cooperation or competition should be applied. Moreover, disagreement exists whether

cooperation or competition is more likely to achieve sustainable user engagement.

However, the application of social interaction meets criticism, implying that

gamification does not play a decisive role within cooperative environments and that

competition must be more playful than business contexts often allow. Moreover, the

media overvalue social interaction, making it over-used soon as already numerous

platforms enable social interaction.

As the vast majority of experts is convinced that social interaction must not

necessarily be part of gamification to make it successful, the research question

Successful gamified applications must involve social gameplay motivations can be

falsified. This result lurked already in the best practice examples, because “Miles &

More” is successful without targeting social interaction. However, since the majority

of experts perceive the significance of sociality among humans and most best practice


Stefanie Hermann 12

examples (chapter 5) demonstrate successful utilization of social gameplay, the

inclusion of social interaction appears to be an advantage.

6.2.2.3 Proper alignment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

The vast majority of experts is convinced that intrinsic motivators are more effective

than extrinsic motivators in sustaining user engagement. This is because games in

general are a voluntary action, which is performed when it embodies relevance and

value for users, making the activity inherently enjoyable. Although, extrinsic

motivation can be powerful, some experts argue that focusing on extrinsic motivation

only will fail, because they cannot turn boring activities into fun and, referring to the

over-justification effect, extrinsic motivation may decrease initial intrinsic motivation.

Thus, the majority of experts explains that intrinsic motivation is stronger and more

valuable by providing an epic meaning, such as being part of a larger mission or

making the world a better place.

Although the minority of the experts questioned states that intrinsic and extrinsic

motivators are equally important and effective, because one cannot neglect the

importance of extrinsic motivation as a result of the extrinsically driven economic

system, almost half of the experts claim that it eventually depends on the target group,

the underlying application and the company goal whether intrinsic or extrinsic

motivation is more effective. In this context, the majority of the experts perceives

extrinsic motivation as short-term effective and intrinsic motivation as long-term

effective.

However, the majority of the experts concludes that a combination of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation makes up the key to success. In their opinion, extrinsic

motivators must be properly aligned to users’ intrinsic motivation, being a

reinforcement of it. This way, extrinsic motivators activate intrinsic motivation,


Stefanie Hermann 13

whereby the adjusting screws must be watched narrowly regarding the over-

justification effect.

The results from the expert interviews partly verify the research question Intrinsic

motivators are more effective than extrinsic motivators within gamification. This

result is in line with the gamification theory (chapter 3.4.1) and the assessment of the

best practices (chapter 5). However, the theory, the best practices and the experts

clarify that a proper combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators is the key to

success. This is because extrinsic motivators can reinforce intrinsic motivation,

whereby a proper weighing of the two motivators is crucial to prevent the over-

justification effect, which was elucidated in chapter 2.2.3. Moreover, the underlying

application, its target group and the particular company goal must be considered.

6.2.2.4 Quest for properly designed challenges

The expert interviews reveal that challenges within gamified applications cannot be

generalized and no one-size-fits-all exists. In this context, the majority of the experts

questioned is convinced that the challenge setup must be tailor-made depending on

the context and the target audience.

However, the experts introduced a few rules that serve as guideline for an appropriate

challenge set-up. First of all, besides being solvable, challenges must build on the

flow theory (chapter 2.3.2.2). Thus, to match user capability at any time, being neither

too difficult nor too simple, challenges must be progressive and evolve over time in

line with player skill level and motivation. However, a single opinion expresses that

flow-like experiences, such as control, arousal and relaxation (chapter 3.4.2), are

likewise effective. Moreover, in line with the flow theory, the set-up of challenges

depends on the users’ stage within the player life cycle, so that people at different


Stefanie Hermann 14

stages demand different challenges. While onboarding challenges should be rather

simple, they must become more difficult and complex when users progress. In

addition, challenges must be constantly accessible to support players’ achievement

behavior. In this context, players receive challenges either passively or they actively

choose to take new challenges or even customize challenges themselves. Finally,

challenges must be agile and need constant update and refreshment to add new

functionality and avoid users hacking the system and to keep pace with changing user

behavior and new technologies.

The results from the expert interviews falsify the research question To engage broad

audiences, gamification must involve diverse challenges, because challenges cannot

be generalized and the term “diverse” itself is too universal in this context. Diversity

should rather refer to the approach to the challenge set-up. In this context flow theory,

player life cycle, accessibility and refreshment play an important role. Although

within the presented best practice examples (chapter 5) the challenges vary in

complexity, content, level of difficulty and customizability, they are tailor-made for

each specific underlying context and target group. Thus, already within the best

practice assessment one could have recognized that challenges must not be diverse to

attract broad audiences but rather be tailor-made to properly address the desired target

group.

6.2.2.5 Significance of the player life cycle As the expert interviews reveal the critical edge among the player life cycle depends

on the underlying application, the target audience and the business goal. Concerning

the latter, to attract a large audience to increase user numbers, priority is given to

novices. In contrast to that, when focusing on small committed target groups to


Stefanie Hermann 15

sustain user engagement, priority is given to experts and masters. Thus, to sustain user

engagement, masters are most valuable, being creative, moderating systems, attracting

and supporting novices without producing costs for the company.

While a single opinion views onboarding as obviously necessary step, the vast

majority agrees that the novice stage is critical, because the application must be

perceived as joyful to attract, excite and convince people. Many companies fail to

convert non-users into novices.

However, a minority of experts perceives the transition stage from novice to expert as

equally crucial, because this moment decides whether user engagement will be

sustainable. In this context, another minority highlights that each transition between

stages within the player life cycle is risky, because most players are lost throughout

their progression when it becomes too difficult or getting onto the next level in the

reward system is too laborious.

Although the interviews reveal that a proper onboarding set-up is context and target

group specific, some general recommendations were given. First of all, to attract

users, the gamified application’s value and uniqueness must be immediately

graspable. Next, interactive tutorials, enabling “learning by doing” rather than being

explained, help users to understand the system. Moreover, simplicity constitutes a key

component, meaning that cascading information series reveal system functionalities

on an “as-need basis” so that at the beginning only core functions are introduced.

Moreover, rewarding users early and often and giving them immediate feedback

increases their motivation. Finally, failure is destructive and must be prevented by

offering alternatives, such as side quests to advance and eventually succeed.

However, it should not go unmentioned that the three-stage player life cycle,

introduced in chapter 3.4.3 meets criticism, as a minority of experts perceives it as


Stefanie Hermann 16

over-simplified and context-specific, arguing that more than three stages exist.

However, they admit that it serves as initial guidance to understand players.

The results from the expert interviews verify the research question if the onboarding

process is flawed, gamified applications fail, which is in line with the results from the

best practice examples (chapter 5). Both, the experts and the best practices reveal that

no role model for successful onboarding exists, because it depends on the underlying

application, the target group and the business goal. However, besides onboarding, the

transitions between player life cycle stages must not be neglected. This becomes even

more important for companies, targeting sustainable and valuable user engagement.

6.2.3 Concluding remarks about gamification Apart from the discourse concerning the research questions, the experts revealed

additional insights. In line with the theory illustrated in chapter 3, several experts

mentioned that gamification is not new, as the influence of user behavior has already

been applied for several years. Simply innovative technology turned it into a hot

topic, enabling cheap registration and evaluation of human behavior. In this context,

the usage of mobile applications in the field of gamification becomes increasingly

important.

Throughout the discussion of social player motivation, some experts agreed that the

player typology frameworks, introduced in chapter 3.3, are overrated and incomplete

and cannot be mapped to the context of gamification. Still, the majority of experts is

convinced that player typology frameworks might serve as initial guidance. This is in

line with the insights of chapter 3.3, which reveal that player typology frameworks are

not one-to-one applicable to gamification. While some experts recommend focusing


Stefanie Hermann 17

on one player type only to address it properly, others recommend targeting different

player types to reach a broader audience and to create a holistic experience. However,

the vast majority of experts highlights that one best understands the potential target

group and their motivation by conducting comprehensive market research and

creating personas rather than referring to player types only.

Moreover, a minority of experts recommends the consideration of the so-called

motivation-ability-trigger model for the set-up of an appropriate gamification design.

All three components, motivation, ability and trigger underlie human behavior and

must be properly aligned or happen at the same time. While motivation depicts a

person’s willingness to perform, ability means that a person can do it and trigger

means that the person is told to do it.

Finally, a minority of experts expresses criticism, saying that the gamification trend

will not last too long, because of the increasing social media opportunities, which start

to overwhelm and annoy people, as they cannot process the plentitude of information

anymore.

6.3 Summary of research results

Chapter 6.2 disclosed expert insights regarding pre-determined topics within the field

of gamification and in this context prior established research questions were examined

concerning their validity. Summarizing, it can be said that the most striking insight is

that any gamification set-up, involving the environment, user motivation, player type,

challenge design or player progression, cannot be generalized and always depends on

the context of the underlying application, the target audience and the business

objective. Thus, no role model for gamification exists, which is one-to-one


Stefanie Hermann 18

transferrable, because gamification is most likely to succeed if it is tailor-made, taking

account of the above-mentioned dependencies.

Figure 41 summarizes the results from the conducted research question validation.

Figure 41: Results from research question investigation

Source: Own illustration

Date post:	02-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ivan-kuo
View:	6,901 times
Download:	0 times

Gamification as Amplifier for Users' Motivation and Action by Stefanie Hermann

Documents