Exploring persistence in gaming: The role of self-determination and social identity

Full text

Exploring persistence in gaming: The role of self-determination
and social identity
Joyce L.D. Neys
a,
⇑
, Jeroen Jansz
a
, Ed S.H. Tan
b
a
Erasmus Research Centre for Media, Communication and Culture (ERMeCC), Erasmus School for History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, NL-3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
b
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
article info
Article history:
Available online 27 May 2014
Keywords:
Video games
Motivation
Persistence
Self-determination theory
Social Identity Theory
Enjoyment
abstract
The question of why players of video games persist gaming in the face of what seems to be insufficient
reward has not yet been properly answered. This paper approaches the issue by combining two general
psychological theories: Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and Social Identity Theory (Tajfel
& Turner, 1986). A large scale survey (N= 7252) enabled a comparison of three groups which differed in
terms of their Gamer Identity Strength (GIS), namely the degree to which players define gaming as part of
their social identity. GIS is highest in Hardcore gamers and lower for Heavy and Casual gamers. GIS was
positively, and uniformly, related with needs for Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness. Meanwhile,
regulation was greater and more internal in the higher GIS groups. Finally, persistence was found to
increase with GIS. The structure of needs and regulation modes underlying persistence was compara-
tively analyzed for the three groups; similarities between GIS groups were more frequent than differ-
ences. Most importantly, results indicated that Casual and Heavy gamers were motivated to continue
to play as a result of both the feelings of enjoyment and a sense of connectedness. Hardcore gamers were
more intrinsically motivated through enjoyment enhancing their levels of persistence accordingly.
Ó2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Games can make a better world. McGonigal (2011) describes
how experienced gamers are extremely self-motivated and always
seem to have a reasonable expectation of success when playing an
online game. What’s more, after playing, social bonds tend to
strengthen and gamers are happy to work hard to achieve
meaningful goals, such as an epic win, namely a typical situation
encountered by experienced gamers where they complete a certain
task which was initially perceived to be all but impossible.
Outsiders are often struck by the amount of energy that these
aficionados put into playing video and computer games.
Frequently, players spend many hours on a particular game level.
Finding the solution may require a multitude of attempts, and
observers taking the perspective of the player are struck by the
latter’s seeming resistance to frustration and their subsequent
persistence in play. To the outsider, the persistent player’s efforts
look more like labor than gaming. So, how can the aficionado’s
persistence be understood? Part of the answer can be found in
the fact that games offer intermediate rewards on the road to the
ultimate goal (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Gee, 2007; Loftus
& Loftus, 1983), since they are comprised of levels that players
have to achieve serially to get there. However, when these inter-
mediate rewards are not achieved after repeated efforts, players
must inevitably feel frustrated.
For some, this will result in them exiting the game altogether,
while for others this is an incentive to try again. What accounts
for the difference? In this paper, we propose an explanation of
persistence in gaming which is theoretically embedded in two gen-
eral psychological perspectives. Firstly, Self-determination Theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2000) provided an account of the underlying, motiva-
tional deep-structure of persistence in a task. Secondly, we used
Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) Social Identity Theory to account for dif-
ferences between groups of gamers, i.e. those who identify with
being a gamer and those who do so to a lesser extent, as gaming
is a salient element of self-perceived identity. This gamer identity
was conceptualized by introducing the variable Gamer Identity
Strength (GIS) which enabled comparison regarding motivational
structures and persistence between different gamer groups.
Our research was guided by two general research questions. The
first focused on how different levels of GIS are related to the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.047
0747-5632/Ó2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 10 408 9111; fax: +31 10 408 9135.
E-mail address: neys@eshcc.eur.nl (J.L.D. Neys).
Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

proposed motivational structure, while the second was aimed at
unraveling whether differences between the gamer identity groups
in levels of persistence when gaming can be explained by differ-
ences in their motivational structures.
2. Literature review
2.1. Explaining persistence when playing video games
The popularity of video and computer games among an expand-
ing demographic raises the question of why so many people devote
substantial amounts of time, energy and, often, money to this
pastime. The issue is particularly pressing when we compare
games to other forms of media. Unlike entertainment media such
as television and film, experiencing the actual content of a game
requires a continuous flow of active input from the player. In other
words, when a player stops pushing the appropriate buttons, the
unfolding of the game simply ends (Tan & Jansz, 2008). The player’s
investment of effort is thus understood in this paper as a form of
motivated action.
The theoretical framework of most of the previous studies into
motivations for gaming was drawn from the Uses and Gratifications
approach in communication research. This theory focuses on the
selection of games, or particular game genres, from a variety of
entertainment sources, including television and film (Rubin,
2002; Sherry, Lucas, Greenberg, & Lachlan, 2006). Its fundamental
assumption about the agency of media users is particularly
applicable to consumers of interactive media, including games
(Ruggiero, 2000). The approach is based on the notion that people
purposively select games in their media diet to satisfy certain
needs (Sherry et al., 2006). Indeed, empirical research has shown
that particular games or genres have been chosen to satisfy such
needs as diversion, fantasy, arousal, challenge, immersion, compe-
tition and social interaction (Jansz & Tanis, 2007; Lucas & Sherry,
2004; Sherry et al., 2006; Yee, 2006).
The emerging catalogue of motivations partly coincided with
the results from media-psychological research on motivations for
gaming. In psychological models of entertainment, it has recently
been proposed that the most general motivation for gaming
probably is simply enjoyment. From this perspective, gamers play
games for their own sake, that is, for the pleasures engendered by
playing (Boyle, Connolly, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012; Tan, 2008;
Vorderer, Hartmann, & Klimmt, 2003; Vorderer, Klimmt, &
Ritterfeld, 2004; Yee, 2006). Following this premise, it is thus
possible to assume that having fun when playing video games is
closely related to persistence in play. However, it has been con-
vincingly argued by Tamborini, Bowman, Eden, Grizzard, and
Organ (2010) that enjoyment has so far been defined in a vague
and circular way, and that as such it is a much better option to
regard enjoyment as the outcome of need satisfaction. If this is
so, persistence in gaming should be explained by satisfaction of
needs rather than by the mere experience of pleasure, that is by
underlying motivations.
Research starting from the premise that persistence in gaming
is related to motivations within the academic field of gaming is still
rare. This is in part because significant effort in psychological
research into gaming is devoted to investigating the effects of
playing violent games on levels of aggression and other socially
undesirable forms of behavior, feelings and thoughts (Anderson
et al., 2010). As a rule, these effect studies do not address player
motivations directly. If they do, they tend to only deal with aggres-
sive motivations and thus offer a somewhat limited contribution to
more general accounts of motivation and persistence in gaming.
The studies referred to are particularly criticized for ignoring the
social motivations for (and the effects of) gaming (e.g. Williams,
2006), which have been argued and demonstrated to be separate
and key incentives for playing violent games (Griffiths, Davies, &
Chapell, 2004; Jansz, 2005; Yee, 2007). Overall, the emerging tradi-
tion of research on motivations for gaming lacks the integration of
findings into an encompassing and coherent, theoretical frame-
work. This state of affairs has inspired us to adopt a broader moti-
vational perspective on gaming, using Self-determination Theory
as a general theory of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Another
striking limitation of the available psychological studies of the
motivations for gaming is that they have failed to incorporate the
perspective of devoted gamers into their framework. Indeed, it
can be argued that the outsider’s curiosity about the aficionado’s
tenacity needs to be complemented by an insider’s perspective to
account for the doggedness that is encountered.
The present study sought to specify what it means to be a gam-
ing ‘‘aficionado’’, and proposes that this relates to a particular
gamer identity, namely that of the ‘‘Hardcore gamer.’’ We also
attempted to identify specific, and possibly unique, motivational
features related to this type of aficionado player in comparison
to those with ‘‘weaker’’ gamer identities. In adopting this approach,
the motivational issue in this paper goes beyond the question of
game selection as stipulated by the Uses and Gratification perspec-
tive, and beyond the idea that persistence is related to enjoyment
in a simple and straightforward manner.
2.2. Persistence and Self-determination Theory
Playing games has much in common with other goal-directed
leisure activities. The example of sports illustrates this well. Like
gamers, sportspeople must train to perform and learn how to per-
sist in the face of disappointing results (Joesaar, Hein, & Hagger,
2011; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001). In addition to
leisure, persistence has been studied in a variety of positive and
negative contexts, for example, developing a career or dropping
out of school (Cech, Rubineau, Silbey, & Seron, 2011; Vallerand,
Fortier, & Guay, 1997). In most studies, persistence is conceptual-
ized as a personality trait concerned with mastery, self-control
and focused attention, in particular when individuals are con-
fronted with distractions (Andersson & Bergman, 2011; Shiner,
1998). In the explanatory models used, individual differences in
persistence were assumed to contribute to, if not cause, individual
differences in task performance.
The present study takes a different perspective. Instead of con-
ceptualizing persistence as a possible causal agent of playing
games, we see persistence as an outcome of other motivational
determinants. In our study, persistence refers to a manifest, behav-
ioral pattern that is concerned with persisting to play video games,
despite setbacks, frustration of goals and insufficient reward. It is
similar to what Cech et al. called ‘‘behavioral persistence’’ (2011,
p. 644) as it is the actual execution of an activity, which sets it
apart from ‘‘intentional persistence’’ (ibid.) which is concerned
with planning an activity.
To conceptualize the possible motivational determinants of per-
sistence in play we used Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan,
2000), or SDT. SDT is a widely researched theory of motivation that
is applicable to activities in the major spheres of life, such as work,
love and play (Thaggard, 2010). It holds that human behavior is
determined by three basic psychological needs: Autonomy, Compe-
tence and Relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy refers to the
desire to self-organize experiences and behavior and act in accor-
dance with one’s own sense of self. Competence, meanwhile, is
the need for challenge and to experience one’s own effectiveness.
Finally, Relatedness refers to the need to experience community
and be connected to other individuals and collectives in some form
or another. The individual’s self-determined motivations are the
result of the satisfaction of these needs in a particular social context.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 197

Positive motivational consequences result from circumstances that
allow the satisfaction of basic needs, while negative consequences
are due to situations that prevent this sense of satisfaction.
In addition to the three basic needs already referred to, Deci and
Ryan (2000) defined four modes of regulation that can be ordered
along a self-determination continuum. The most self-determined
form is Intrinsic Motivation, which is associated with the truly free,
intentional choice of activities for their own sake, i.e. for the intrin-
sic pleasure and satisfaction that is derived from them. Identified
Regulation, meanwhile, occurs in situations where behavior is per-
ceived and valued as self-chosen, but is still motivated extrinsically
since the activity is performed as a means to an end and not for its
own sake (which is the case with Intrinsic Motivation). External
Regulation refers to activities that are regulated by external
rewards or the avoidance of negative consequences. Finally, Amo-
tivation is characterized by a lack of any motivation or intention
and, hence, an absence of self-regulation; there is no sense of pur-
pose and no expectation of reward or the opportunity to change
the course of events. Previous studies have shown that Intrinsic
Motivation, followed by Identified Regulation, predict positive
behavioral outcomes (i.e. the successful completion of tasks). In
contrast, amotivation and external Regulation are said to predict
negative behavioral outcomes, i.e. the failure to complete tasks
successfully (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, 1997).
SDT has been used previously to explain the motivations of
gamers. Wang, Liu, Chye, and Chatzisarantis (2011), for example,
applied it when investigating the role of passion and gamer moti-
vation. Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski’s (2006) empirical investigation
of what they call ‘‘the motivational pull of video games’’ is seminal
to the present study on persistence in gaming. These authors
hypothesized that ‘‘games are primarily motivating to the extent
that players experience Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness
while playing’’ (Ryan et al., 2006, p. 348). Their results indicate that
in-game satisfaction of all three basic needs predicted persistence
in play, whereas frustration of the same needs predicted a lack of
persistence in play. We expect to replicate these findings, which
we will refer to as supporting the ‘‘direct needs-effect’’ explanation
of Persistence when playing video games. This is because Ryan
et al.’s explanation does not include SDT’s proximal motivation,
namely the regulation variables. Our study aims to complement
Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski’s work in this respect by including in
it the different modes of regulation postulated by SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). As mentioned earlier, enjoyment is often considered
to be the reason underlying gaming. This is why we include an
intervening emotional effect, Enjoyment, between the perceived
need satisfaction and regulation modes. Enjoyment has recently
been successfully defined within the framework of SDT as ‘‘the sat-
isfaction of a cluster of connected needs’’ (Tamborini et al., 2010, p.
773). Supported by empirical evidence, Tamborini et al. argue con-
vincingly that enjoyment should be demarcated to have a more
functional role instead of being relied on purely in terms of the
hedonistic characteristics of the concept. We subscribe to the
authors’ explanation that enjoyment is not the primary motivation
of gaming activity; it is rather the result of satisfaction of basic
needs. Enjoyment can be said to signal the fulfillment of the needs.
We expect that as a signal of need satisfaction enjoyment may
strengthen intrinsic regulation, which in turn positively affects
persistence in gaming. We propose in other words a variant of
the direct needs model with enjoyment intervening as a signal,
between basic need fulfillment and persistence in gaming.
Finally, we complement the motivational model of persistence
in gaming based on SDT by proposing a relationship of both need
satisfaction and the regulation modes to an important individual
and gaming specific trait, namely gamer identity. In the next sec-
tion we explain how this trait acts as a possible determinant of
Persistence.
2.3. Gamer identity
Social Identity Theory (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1986) stipulates that
people shape their identity according to their social group.
Moreover, the ties between identity and social groupings have a
bi-directional association with motivation. On the one hand,
engaging in activities that are characteristic of the group makes
you feel that you are a member of it. On the other, categorizing
yourself as a member motivates you to do the things the group
does. ‘Being a gamer’ can become a salient aspect of an individual’s
social identity, much like being a (passionate) football fan
(Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Jansz & Tanis, 2007). This
enables gamers to identify with their own social group and distin-
guish themselves from others, in particular those who do not play
digital games.
This process of social comparison also occurs within the com-
munity of gamers when they self-categorize their level of expertise
by comparing themselves to other players (Ellemers et al., 2002). It
can be predicted that when gaming increasingly becomes a part of
one’s identity, the more likely one is to tend to persist in playing
games, in spite of any frustration experienced. In other words,
the strength of an individual’s identity as a gamer, or their Gamer
Identity Strength (GIS), is proposed here as a contextual determi-
nant of their persistence. GIS complements SDT in providing an
insider’s view of what it means to play games and to persevere
in the face of frustration. More particularly, we intend to explain
persistence in gaming on the basis of the player’s psycho-social
identification with his or her pursuit: the more a player feels that
he or she is a real gamer, the stronger the search for satisfaction of
the needs that are fulfilled by gaming and the stronger the urge to
persist in the activity.
Gamer identity is a social identity that is in part rooted in an
awareness of participation in a particular community, and it is here
that we find the starting point for operationalizing gamer identity
and its strength. In such a community, the self-ascribed gamer
identity label of ‘‘Hardcore gamer’’ is widely employed by those
who want to (proudly) express the strongest identification possible
with gaming and gamers, while the ‘‘Casual gamer’’ is an acknowl-
edged label for those who do not regard gaming as a major element
of their identity. The term ‘‘Casual gamers’’ originates in the game
industry, and those who do not regard playing games as very
important may believe that the label is appropriate in terms of
their time expenditure and choice of games, but not as a proper
marker of their identity. We assume that the people who regard
this label as being applicable to them are less aware of the commu-
nity they are a part of than is the case for Hardcore gamers,
although they do distinguish themselves from those who never
play games or even dislike doing so.
1
A third label is currently being
used in the industry, namely that of ‘‘Heavy gamers’’. This tag is used
to distinguish those who spend a maximized number of hours gam-
ing from those who play less. Since the Heavy gamer label is less
meaningful and common in gamer communities than the term Hard-
core gamer, this category of player can be assumed to adopt a middle
position on the GIS continuum. Gamer Identity Strength is thus com-
prised of three groups: Hardcore gamers, Heavy gamers, and Casual
gamers. These groups will be compared regarding their motivational
structures leading to their relative persistence levels where we
expect Hardcore gamers to persist in playing the most, followed by
their Heavy and Casual gamer counterparts. The Hardcore gamer
1
To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that the game industry also uses
the terms hardcore and casual games to denote game genres, the former requiring a
huge amount of effort from players, the latter much less so. The genres can be
assumed to be related to identity, but we did not test any specific hypotheses on these
relationships. For research into the games played by Hardcore and Casual gamers, see
de Schutter (2011).
198 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

thus constitutes our identity specification of what may be termed as
an aficionado from the outsider perspective on gaming and
persistence.
2.4. Hypotheses
Fig. 1 sets out an overview of our hypotheses embedded in the
motivational mechanism as proposed by SDT. With regard to Deci
and Ryan’s (1985) three basic needs, we expect to replicate the
direct needs-effect on Persistence in line with the results obtained
by Ryan et al. (2006) for all three GIS groups. When it comes to the
relative influence of these basic needs on a player’s motivation
for gaming, Competence is the prime need satisfied in video gam-
ing, as argued by many researchers (e.g. Klimmt & Hartmann,
2006; Vorderer, Bryant, Pieper, & Weber, 2006). A primary role is
also reserved for the need for Relatedness in various social-
psychological studies: communicating with other gamers is often
essential for the gaming experience (e.g. Durkin, 2006; Hoffman
& Nadelson, 2010; Jansz & Martens, 2005). However, there are also
good reasons to consider the need for Autonomy as a prime moti-
vator of gaming. This is because, as Ryan et al. (2006) argue, enter-
tainment is one of the rare domains of life where people can act
autonomously; no one needs to tell you what to do as a diversion.
Overall, we chose in this study to deal with the issue of the ranking
of the needs of Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy as an open
empirical question. It should be noted that as explained above, we
expect that effects of basic need satisfaction will be mediated by
enjoyment.
When it comes to the differences between the different GIS
groups in terms of need satisfaction, we expected that, with
increased experience of gaming, players will be proficient enough
to realize their needs for Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness
throughout the game, as they have developed the skills required to
succeed and fulfill these needs. We assume a positive relationship
between GIS and experiences with gaming, and therefore we
expect Hardcore gamers to feel the highest degree of fulfillment
of the three basic needs in their games, and Casual gamers the low-
est, with Heavy gamers somewhere in between (H1). We regard it
as an open question whether any of the three need satisfactions is
stronger than the others between the three GIS groups.
We model the central role of Enjoyment as a set of general rela-
tionships with joint need satisfactions on the one hand, and joint
motivating effects on the other. First, in line with Tamborini
et al. (2010), satisfaction of all three needs will positively affect
Enjoyment, (H2a), for all three GIS groups leaving open the
question of their ranking. Second, we propose that there is a direct
relationship between Enjoyment and all forms of regulation. If
Enjoyment results from having basic needs fulfilled, or even is a
response signaling that this is the case, then intrinsic motivation
is increased. This is because in Deci and Ryan’s SDT theory the basic
needs are the basis for intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, Boyle
et al. (2012) have shown that experiencing enjoyment has been
shown to be key in understanding gaming engagement. Thus, we
expect that internal and identified regulation, but not external
and amotivation will be positively affected by enjoyment (H2b).
It will be obvious that all three forms of regulation but not amoti-
vation will increase Persistence in gaming (H2c).
Finally, while there may be differences in strength, we expect
the overall motivation structure to be the same across the three
groups (H2d). When it comes to the differences between the GIS
groups in terms of regulation level rather than regulation patterns,
we anticipate that the Hardcore gamers group will be associated
with the more self-determined modes of regulation. There is at
least one empirical study supporting this expectation. Barnett
et al. (1997) found that the most frequent video game players
hardly differed from others with respect to interests and personal-
ity features, but did differ in the degree to which video game play-
ing was pursued and evaluated as a stimulating leisure activity.
Seeing their activity as nothing but a pastime that is not too deeply
rooted in their identity, Casual gamers may be expected to get
stuck, for instance, at amotivation or external regulation (playing
a game because they do not know what else to do, because their
friends want them to play, or because they may win a prize). In
contrast, Hardcore gamers may regard themselves as devoted play-
ers who owe it to themselves to engage with the most complex and
challenging games. They are, in other words, keen to achieve epic
wins. Heavy gamers, meanwhile, may see themselves as ‘‘gamers’’
and will, on the one hand, be aware of the considerable efforts that
their status demands, which is more of an Identified Regulation,
but on the other do not regard themselves as someone aiming
for the ultimate challenge. Hence, we hypothesize that Intrinsic
Motivation will be at its height in Hardcore gamers and at its low-
est in Casual gamers, with Heavy gamers being in between these
extremes (H3). Following the same line of reasoning, we expect a
reverse ranking for the other two regulation modes, because they
are not fuelled by, or even alien to, a specific gamer identity.
The expected ranking of the three GIS groups with regard to the
criterion of Persistence follows from the two hypotheses on moti-
vational structure differences. Persistence will be at its height
when gamers feel confident that playing will satisfy their need
Fig. 1. Structural model explaining persistence with SDT.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 199

for Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness. This will also be the
case when regulation is at its most intrinsic, i.e. in circumstances
where gamers are playing for the fun of the game itself, or because
of its meaning to their social identity. Thus, Hardcore gamers will
exhibit the greatest Persistence, followed by their Heavy and
Casual gamer counterparts (H4).
3. Method
An online survey (N= 7252) was posted on IGN.com and
Gamer.nl and made available for four weeks. Respondents were
asked to think of their favorite game or, if they did not have one,
the game they played last. They were then invited to answer ques-
tions about need satisfaction, motivation, enjoyment and persis-
tence. The survey additionally included questions about general
demographic variables.
3.1. Measures
3.1.1. Motivational structure: Needs and regulation
Ryan and Deci (2000) have noted that studies of motivation eas-
ily invite a blurring between needs (i.e. Autonomy, Competence
and Relatedness), regulations (e.g. Intrinsic Motivation or Amotiva-
tion) and responses (or consequences, in our case Enjoyment and
Persistence). In this study, needs and regulation modes are
distinctly measured by the use of the Player Experience of Needs
Satisfaction (PENS) scale and the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS)
respectively. The PENS instrument, which was developed by Ryan
et al. (2006), measured in-game satisfaction of Autonomy, Compe-
tence and Relatedness, whereas the SIMS, which is an SDT based
questionnaire developed by Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard
(2000), was used to measure the regulation modes: Intrinsic Moti-
vation, Identified Regulation, External Regulation and Amotivation.
Persistence and Enjoyment were measured by a separate set of
items. The need satisfaction, regulation, Persistence and Enjoyment
questions all employed a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(totally disagree)to7(totally agree).
Ryan et al.’s (2006) Player Experience of Need Satisfaction scale
was employed to measure the needs element of the motivational
model. This instrument, derived from SDT, has been developed
especially for digital games, making it particularly suitable for
our current research. All of the PENS-items were adopted unal-
tered. Competence was measured using a 4-item scale, e.g. ‘‘I felt
very capable and effective’’ and ‘‘The game kept me on my toes
but did not overwhelm me’’. The measure of Autonomy consisted
of four items asking for the degree to which the respondents felt
free, and perceived that they had opportunities, to do activities
that interest them. Items such as ‘‘I did things in the game because
they interested me’’ and ‘‘I felt controlled and pressured to be a
certain way (reverse scoring)’’ were included. Relatedness was
measured using three items which assessed how connected the
respondents felt to other players, e.g. ‘‘I find the relationships I
form in the game fulfilling’’. Following Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski,
we averaged the items for every scale to create a total score.
Guay et al. (2000) elegantly adapted Deci and Ryan’s (2000) SDT
approach to measure situational motivation. Their Situational Moti-
vation Scale (SIMS) aims to assess the constructs of Intrinsic Moti-
vation, Identified Regulation, External Regulation and Amotivation.
Their validation study (Guay et al., 2000) indicates that the SIMS is
composed of four internally consistent factors, while the construct
validity is also supported. As a probable good multi-dimensional
measure of situational motivation, the SIMS was adapted to the cir-
cumstances of digital gaming by the present authors. Intrinsic
Motivation was measured using four items such as ‘‘I feel good
when playing video games’’ and ‘‘I think playing video games is
interesting’’. Identified Regulation was assessed using four items
such as ‘‘I feel playing video games is important for me’’ and ‘‘I
think playing video games is good for me’’. External Regulation
was measured by four items like ‘‘I am supposed to do it’’ and ‘‘I
feel that I have to play video games’’. Finally, Amotivation was
measured using four items, e.g. ‘‘There may be good reasons for
playing video games, but personally I don’t see any’’ and ‘‘I play
video games, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue’’.
3.1.2. Gamer Identity Strength
Gamer Identify Strength had to be operationalized in line with
the subjective nature of the identity concept. Although a free text
label response option could have been chosen, we preferred to
present the respondents with a selection of three of the most con-
ventional identity descriptors, because these are the ones com-
monly used within the community. The terms Hardcore, Heavy
and Casual were intended to indicate the top, middle and lower
positions on the Gamer Identity Strength continuum. To investi-
gate our premise on gamer identity, the respondents were asked
with an open question to briefly explain their choice. Additionally,
we added the time spent on gaming as an external, quasi-behav-
ioral measure of engagement in gaming. On the basis of available
studies, we expected time investment to correlate with Gamer
Identity Strength (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010; Jansz & Martens,
2005). To date, there is no shared or uniform vocabulary or mea-
surement for these self-reported measures of media consumption,
in this case games (Poels, De Kort, & IJsselsteijn, 2008). For exam-
ple, some researchers prefer to use hours played per day or in the
previous seven days, while others use average play per month as
an indicator of levels of expertise. In our study, however, we used
the typical number of days and hours played per week.
3.1.3. Enjoyment
We measured the concept of Enjoyment following the approach
of Ryan et al. (2006) using four items, e.g. ‘‘I enjoy playing the game
very much’’ and ‘‘Playing the video game is fun to do’’. These were
then averaged to form a scale.
3.1.4. Persistence
Persistence in gaming is defined as the actual experience of
wanting to continue playing a particular game in the face of insuf-
ficient reward. We measured this concept using two items (‘‘Given
the chance I will play this game in my free time’’ and ‘‘I want to fin-
ish the game no matter what’’). These were then averaged to form a
scale. It was anticipated that Persistence would correlate with time
spent on gaming and, more particularly, with the duration of the
game sessions.
3.1.5. Demographic variables
When it comes to demographics, gender, age and level of edu-
cation were included as our control variables.
4. Results
Respondents were aged between 10 and 69 years (M= 20.55,
SD = 5.539). More than 95% were male. The majority of the partic-
ipants indicated that they were from Western countries: 56%
claimed to be American and 24% said they were from Western Eur-
ope. Asian respondents made up 13% of the sample. More than
88.7% of the participants said they had at least finished secondary
school. The reported hours spent playing video games in a typical
week ranged from one to 100 h (M= 18.09, SD = 14.626); a typical
gaming session took between half an hour and 6.5 h (M= 2.76,
SD = 1.39). Finally, respondents indicated that they played a little
over five days a week on average (M= 5.10, SD = 1.893).
200 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

4.1. Validating PENS and SIMS
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using LISREL to
validate PENS and SIMS. As expected, both models fit the data well.
The models, including the significant coefficients in standardized
form, are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively. Measurement
invariance between the three groups was examined by using
D
CFI
tests and was found to be satisfactory below the cut-off point of
0.01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Finally, the reliability coefficients
of all of the scales were satisfactory, with a Cronbach’s
a
P.69.
2
These results demonstrate that the PENS and SIMS measurements
are robust and appropriate indicators of the concepts.
4.2. Validating gamer identity strength
We investigated the relationship of self-ascribed gamer identity
with time spent on gaming. Using ANOVA we compared our three
groups (Hardcore, Heavy and Casual) in respect of their indications
of the time they spend gaming in a typical week. A one-way ANOVA
(F(2, 7250) = 647.37, p< .001,
g
2
= .15) and three subsequent Sche-
ffé tests yielded significant differences in the average number of
hours played in a typical week between the three groups. Hardcore
gamers played the most in an average week, followed by their
Heavy and Casual gamer counterparts (see Table 1). The figures
exceeded by some distance those found in earlier research (Jansz
& Martens, 2005) in respect of all three categories. Among Casual
gamers, the maximum number of hours played on average in a typ-
ical week was 70, which contrasts with the 100 h indicated by the
other two groups.
Similar, significant differences were found in the number of
days played during the week immediately prior to the survey
(F(2, 7250) = 922.92, p< .001,
g
2
= .20), and all three Scheffé tests
were significant: Heavy and Hardcore gamers had played on the
majority of days in the week before the survey, whereas Casual
gamers indicated that they had only played on half of the days.
These results suggested that the three groups could indeed be
regarded as significantly different from each other following the
self-applied identity labels of Hardcore gamers (n= 1605), Heavy
gamers (n= 3909) and Casual gamers (n= 1738). However, since
this differentiation was purely based on time spent measures,
and did not relate to the question of identity specifically, we also
investigated the reasons given for group choice by the respondents.
This process aimed to further validate the self-applied identity
labels in terms of the gaming identity of the participants. The rea-
sons given for a particular GIS label were classified using system-
atic content analysis (with a randomized sample of all of the
respondents, including every 100th case). The results revealed that
Hardcore gamers identified themselves very specifically as a
gamer, and often referred to the time they spend playing. More
importantly, they take gaming seriously. Many of them made it
clear that they organize significant parts of their daily life around
gaming, often joining their friends in playing or discussing game
content. They also keep themselves informed about the latest
games and hardware. In summary, gaming plays a prominent role
in the life of Hardcore gamers.
Fig. 2. CFA with standardized significant coefficients for PENS – needs.
2
a
Intrinsic motivation
= .74;
a
Identified regulation
= .69;
a
External regulation
= .77;
a
Amotivation
=
.81;
a
Competence
= .73;
a
Autonomy
= .68;
a
Relatedness
= .70.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 201

In contrast to Hardcore gamers, their Casual and Heavy gamer
counterparts most commonly referred to reasons related to time
and money spent on gaming. Furthermore, Casual gamers empha-
sized that gaming is just a leisure activity and certainly not their
only priority in life; they have other hobbies and pursuits that they
want to spend time on as well.
Based on the previous results, we concluded that the three
levels of Gamer Identity Strength were sufficiently related to both
differences in behavior (namely time spent on gaming) and
differences in identity recognition. Meanwhile, the demographic
characteristics of the three GIS groups revealed that Hardcore
gamers were the youngest (M= 19.87, SD = 5.336), followed by
Heavy (M= 20.50, SD = 5.343) and Casual gamer respondents
(M= 21.10, SD = 6.013).
4.3. Need satisfaction
As all need satisfaction measures were found to be normally
distributed (skewness and kurtosis within acceptable ranges) an
ANOVA was conducted on the PENS scores with the three need
Fig. 3. CFA with standardized significant coefficients for SIMS – regulation modes.
Table 1
Frequency of play per GIS group.
Hours spent playing games in a typical week (M(SD)) Days spent playing games last week (M(SD))
Hardcore gamers (n= 1605) 26.22 (18.206) 6.02 (1.471)
Heavy gamers (n= 3909) 18.58 (12.939) 5.37 (1.644)
Casual gamers (n= 1738) 9.57 (8.082) 3.65 (1.956)
Total (n= 7252) 18.09 (14.526) 5.10 (1.893)
ANOVA F(647.37, df =2,p< .001) F(922.92, df =2,p< .001)
202 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

satisfactions as a repeated measure (with Greenhouse–Geisser
sphericity corrections) and the three GIS groups as a between fac-
tor. In order to eliminate the influence of slight differences in the
composition of the three groups, gender and age were taken into
account in the analysis as covariates. The need satisfactions gave
rise to a significant, main effect (F(1721) = 168.73, p= .000,
g
2
= .02). Autonomy produced the highest overall scores, closely
followed by Competence and, at some distance, Relatedness. All
three within-subject contrasts were significant (Table 2). A main
effect for GIS was also observed (F(2) = 370.36, p= .000,
g
2
= .09).
As Hypothesis 1 predicted, Hardcore gamers scored highest on all
three need factors, whereas Casual gamers produced the lowest
scores, with the Heavy gamers in between. All of the pair-wise con-
trasts were significant. The order of the PENS scores was identical
for all three groups, with Autonomy receiving the highest scores
followed by Competence and Relatedness. A significant interaction
between need satisfaction type and GIS was observed (F
(4) = 10.04, p= .000), but the size of this effect was marginal
(
g
2
= .003). This may be explained by the slightly higher Autonomy
scores of Casual gamers relative to the linear GIS trend (Fig. 4).
4.4. Enjoyment
The GIS groups differed significantly (F(2, 7250) = 221.48,
p= .000,
g
2
= .06), and all of the pair-wise comparisons were also
significant. Hardcore gamers reported the greatest feelings of
Enjoyment (M= 6.32, SD = .720), followed by Heavy gamers
(M= 6.10, SD = .691) and, lastly, their Casual gamer counterparts
(M= 5.80, SD = .780).
Following Tamborini et al. (2010), Enjoyment was modelled
with need satisfaction (i.e. Autonomy, Competence and Related-
ness) for all three GIS groups. All of the models were significant.
These results are in line with H2a. However, in contrast to Tambo-
rini et al., Relatedness had only a small, and non-significant, effect
on Enjoyment (b< .08) in all of the GIS groups in our study. We
took these results into account when modelling our final model
by omitting a direct relationship between Relatedness and
Enjoyment.
4.5. Behavior regulation
Our regulation scores were subjected to the same analysis as
the need satisfaction scores. The regulation measures were found
to be normally distributed. Significant main effects were found
for needs (F(2.29) = 314.21, p< .000,
g
2
= .04) and the GIS groups
(F(4.57) = 259.58, p< .000,
g
2
= .07). All of the pair-wise contrasts
between levels of both regulation and GIS were significant. Across
the GIS groups, Intrinsic Motivation obtained the highest overall
score, followed by Identified Regulation, Amotivation, and, lastly,
External Regulation (Table 2). A significant interaction was also
found between need satisfaction and GIS (F(6, 14426) =
157.62.12, p< .000,
g
2
= .06). As Hypothesis 3 predicted, Hardcore
gamers scored higher for Intrinsic Motivation and Identified Regu-
lation than for External Regulation and Amotivation. The two other
GIS groups exhibited the same order of regulations. Amotivation
was the exception in that it was lower than External Regulation
in Hardcore gamers, while it exceeded External Regulation in
Heavy gamers and even more so in Casual gamers (Fig. 5).
4.6. Persistence
The two items measuring Persistence correlated satisfactorily
3
(r= .38, p< .001), and their average correlated significantly with
both the number of hours spent playing in a typical week (r= .29,
p< .001) and Enjoyment (r= .48, p< .001). A univariate ANOVA, with
gender and age as the covariates, revealed a main effect of Gamer
Identity Strength (F= 297.79, df =2, p= .000,
g
2
= .06). As expected
from Hypothesis 4, Hardcore gamers exhibited a higher level of Per-
sistence (M= 5.80, SD = 1.123) than Heavy (M= 5.39, SD = 1.114) and
Casual gamers (M= 4.95, SD = 1.153). Furthermore, persistence lev-
els of Heavy gamers were higher than those of Casual gamers, and
all of the pair-wise comparisons were significant.
4.7. Motivational structure and persistence
In order to explore the motivational structure underlying
Persistence, associations between need satisfaction, modes of reg-
ulation, Enjoyment and Persistence were highlighted through
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Since our data did not reveal
any direct relationship between Relatedness and Enjoyment, we
did not model it. We tested our hypothesized models against fully
saturated models to determine whether Enjoyment partially or
fully mediated the relationships. This showed that paths needed
to be included for all groups between Competence and Persistence
and Autonomy and Persistence. Furthermore, for Hardcore gamers
a direct effect was included between Competence and Internal
Motivation. Enjoyment turned out to only partially mediate
Persistence.
Standardized parameters of separate models for each of the
three groups are presented in Table 3, while an overview of
standardized indirect and total effects is presented in Table 4.
The model fit for all of the models was overall good. It is striking
to see that for all three GIS groups, the direct effect of Enjoyment
on Persistence is relatively high. The effect is greatest for Casual
gamers, followed by their Heavy gamer and Hardcore gamer
Table 2
Mean scores and standard deviations for need satisfaction, regulation mode, enjoyment and persist ence per GIS.
Hardcore gamers Heavy gamers Casual gamers Overall
M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)
NEED SATISFACTION
Autonomy 5.89 (.895) 5.60 (.865) 5.31 (.881) 5.59 (.897)
Competence 5.78 (.921) 5.45 (.869) 5.05 (.888) 5.42 (.920)
Relatedness 4.48 (1.314) 4.05 (1.221) 3.65 (1.122) 4.05 (1.251)
REGULATION MODES
Intrinsic motivation 6.45 (.619) 6.21 (.637) 5.80 (.730) 6.16 (.695)
Identified regulation 5.25 (.977) 4.87 (.898) 4.42 (.885) 4.84 (.956)
External regulation 2.64 (1.367) 2.42 (1.111) 2.17 (1.008) 2.41 (1.161)
Amotivation 2.36 (1.157) 2.74 (1.118) 3.16 (1.116) 2.76 (1.158)
Enjoyment 6.32 (.720) 6.10 (.691) 5.80 (.780) 6.07 (.730)
Persistence 5.80 (1.123) 5.39 (1.114) 4.95 (1.153) 5.38 (1.130)
3
Regarding reliability measures for scales with two items only Briggs and Cheek
(1986) argue that the optimal range of the correlation between two items lies within
the range of .20 to .40. Alternatively, Eisinga, te Grotenhuis, and Pelzer (2013) argue
for the use of Spearman–Brown in these situations, which in this case is .452.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 203

counterparts, although the differences are modest at best. This
result is rather obvious: if you enjoy yourself while playing a video
game, you will persist with the activity (H2 confirmed). The differ-
ence between Hardcore gamers on the hand and Heavy and Casual
gamers on the other becomes clear when we investigate the total
effects. While for the latter two groups Enjoyments has the great-
est total effect to persistence in gameplay, for Hardcore gamers
Competence has the greatest total effect. To explain these differ-
ences between Hardcore versus Casual and Heavy gamers, we need
to scrutinize the results in more detail.
When comparing the Enjoyment effects of the three need
satisfactions (see Figs. 6–8), it was found that Autonomy has the
strongest effect on Enjoyment, and mostly so for Casual gamers,
although the differences between the groups are small. Compe-
tence is the second best predictor of Enjoyment and of equal
importance for this response across the three GIS groups. While
Relatedness had no effect at all on Enjoyment for any of the three
GIS groups, it did have direct effects on Identified Regulation and
External Regulation in all three groups. This suggests that having
a sense of social connectedness directly influences regulation
modes, and is not linked to Enjoyment per se. More specifically,
for Casual and Heavy gamers (Figs. 7 and 8 respectively), part of
the motivational mechanism becomes apparent because Identified
and External Regulation are intermediate toward Persistence.
External Regulation specifically seems to moderate Persistence
having the largest effect in both groups, whereas Identified
Regulation has a very small, yet still significant, effect (b< 0.06)
on Persistence. Furthermore, there are substantial significant direct
effects of Competence (b
Casual
= .213; b
Heavy
= .198) and Autonomy
(b
Casual
= .110; b
Heavy
= .114) on Persistence.
The motivational mechanism explaining Persistence for all
three groups is guided to some extent by an intrinsic motivation
(Fig. 8). It can be seen in Table 3 that Enjoyment predicted behavior
regulation exactly as predicted in H2b: Enjoyment showed the
highest positive influence on intrinsic motivation for all three
groups, a somewhat lower one on identified regulation, no
Gamer type
hardcore gamerheavy gamercasual gamer
Estimated Marginal Means
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SIMS
1: Intrinsic Motivation
2: Identified Regulation
3: External Regulation
4: Amotivation
Fig. 4. Mean structure of regulation modes (SIMS) per GIS Group.
Gamer type
hardcore gamerheavy gamercasual gamer
Estimated Marginal Means
6,0
5,5
5,0
4,5
4,0
3,5
2
1
PENS
1: Competence
2: Autonomy
3: Relatedness
Fig. 5. Mean structure of need satisfaction (PENS) per GIS group.
204 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

influence on external regulation. It even had a negative influence
on amotivation. However, the three forms of regulation did not,
or contributed very little to Persistence (H2c rejected).
In summarizing the motivational structures, it is clear that
Enjoyment is the most important contributor for the two lower
GIS groups (Casual and Heavy gamers) when it comes to explaining
Persistence, while for Hardcore gamers Persistence mostly
explained, next to Enjoyment, by Competence. Not only does this
particular need satisfaction have a direct effect on Persistence it
is also mediated via Intrinsic Motivation. While Enjoyment does
contribute to the regulation modes, the regulation part of the
model does not predict Persistence in gaming to a large extent.
The immediate effect of enjoyment is larger than that of regulation,
and this is a finding that is unexpected. If it is not the feeling of joy
per se that makes gamers persist but rather the intrinsic motiva-
tion fuelled by basic need satisfactions met while playing, we
would have expected considerable correlations between intrinsic
motivation and identified regulation on the one hand and Persis-
tence on the other. The results point in the direction that the joys
of gaming do reflect basic need satisfactions, and contribute to
internal regulation, but this regulation fails to boost persistence.
The pattern found here justifies prolonged testing of the hypothe-
sis that just the fun of gaming makes for persistence (Vorderer
et al., 2003; Vorderer et al., 2004), in spite of the vagueness of
the concept of fun and its modest explanatory force (Tamborini
et al., 2010). The differences between the three groups in the pat-
tern of relationships between Enjoyment, the regulation modes
and Persistence are rather small (H2d confirmed).
5. Discussion
The aim of our research was twofold. First, by grounding this
study in the general motivational framework of Self-determination
Theory (SDT), we wanted to gain insight into the so-called paradox
of gaming: gamers tend to persist with playing even when they are
not immediately sufficiently rewarded. Second, we aimed to inte-
grate a contextual determinant, the player’s identity as a gamer,
into our SDT-account of persistence in gaming.
Some remarks concerning the generality of our findings and
conclusions seem to be appropriate at this point. The sample of
gamers was recruited through gaming websites. These are usually
visited by a select group of people with an interest in gaming.
However, taking the size of the sample into consideration, along
with its demographic similarity with samples used in other game
studies, we do not feel that this is a serious shortcoming. In addi-
tion, the sampling method has favored the representativeness of
those who more or less regularly play video games and seems to
be adequate. Since we were interested in the role of gamer identity
in terms of motivation and persistence, gathering data from gam-
ing communities was, we feel, the correct choice. In future
research, however, it may be valuable to include a group of Casual
Gamers that hardly ever play, because their activities could provide
us with a baseline, that is, GIS intensity levels which tend toward
zero. Finally, we admittedly used a somewhat crude two-item
measure for Persistence. Future research might want to include a
more complex and refined measurement.
5.1. Need satisfaction and GIS
We found support for Hypothesis 1, namely that all three basic
needs are satisfied to a greater extent in those with a more
pronounced gamer identity. Hardcore gamers exhibited the
highest level of satisfaction of the need for Competence,
Relatedness and Autonomy, followed by their Heavy and Casual
gamer counterparts. Enjoyment followed the same trend, and this
Table 3
Standardized parameter estimates of motivational structures for gamer identity strength groups.
GIS group
a
Enjoyment Intrinsic motivation Identified regulation External regulation Amotivation Persistence
123123123123123123
Autonomy .365 .359 .426 .157 .114 .110
Competence .266 .272 .263 .198 .208 .198 .213
Relatedness .220 .171 .165 .238 .242 .293
Enjoyment .399 .457 .522 .231 .266 .236 ns .092 .152 .305 .302 .276 .237 .303 .325
Intrinsic Motivation .077 .041 ns
Identified Regulation ns .051 .053
External Regulation .089 .101 .134
Amotivation ns ns ns
Note: All parameters are significant with p< .01 except where otherwise noted; Model fit statistics: Hardcore gamers: CFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.06. Heavy gamers: CFI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.08. Casual gamers:
CFI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.07.
a
Group 1 = Hardcore gamers (n= 1605); group 2 = Heavy gamers (n= 3908); group 3 = Casual gamers (n= 1738).
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 205

is explained by assuming, as we did, that enjoyment signals to
players that basic needs have been satisfied. Differences between
the three need satisfaction strengths were uniform across the GIS
groups, suggesting similar patterns of reward. We propose that
the effect of GIS on the level of basic need fulfillment may be
explained by: (1) differential experience with games; and (2) a
history of success. As to experience: high gamer identity requires
more time to be spent on the pursuit. Exercise enables players to
get everything out of what a game has to offer. Furthermore, it is
to be expected that players with a higher GIS would choose more
challenging games which afford stronger experiences of Auton-
omy, Competence and Relatedness. As Competence was seen to
Table 4
Standardized direct, indirect and total effects on persistence per GIS.
GIS group
a
Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects
123123123
NEED SATISFACTION
Autonomy .157 .114 .110 .098 .117 .135 .254 .232 .245
Competence .208 .198 .213 .087 .089 .083 .296 .287 .297
Relatedness .000 .000 .000 .021 .033 .048 .021 .033 .048
REGULATION MODES
Intrinsic motivation .077 .041 .000 .000 .000 .000 .077 .041 .000
Identified regulation .000 .051 .053 .000 .000 .000 .000 .051 .053
External regulation .087 .101 .134 .000 .000 .000 .087 .101 .134
Amotivation .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Enjoyment .237 .303 .325 .031 .023 ns .268 .326 .318
Note: All parameters are significant with p< .01 except where otherwise noted;
a
Group 1 = Hardcore gamers (n= 1605); group 2 = Heavy gamers (n= 3908); group 3 = Casual gamers (n= 1738).
Fig. 6. Standardized regression weights for motivational mechanism hardcore gamers.
Fig. 7. Standardized regression weights for motivational mechanism for heavy gamers.
206 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

have a direct effect on Intrinsic Motivation as well as Persistence
for Hardcore gamers evidence is provided for this claim even
though previous studies, including the one by Ryan et al. (2006),
do not allow for an immediate comparison of need satisfaction
strengths due to differences in the difficulty of game titles. This
needs to be further investigated and addressed in future research.
Rigby and Ryan (2011) argued that it might be the case that for a
small group of gamers gaming might be a particularly highly satis-
fying activity as they experience very low need satisfaction outside
of games. We consider this to be an interesting notion as it sheds a
different light on problematic kinds of gaming, including game
addiction. Comparing need satisfaction inside and outside games
is a timely topic worth to be addressed in future research.
The homogenous need satisfaction results may perhaps best be
accounted for by a variant of the ‘‘success story’’: success increases
a general gamer self-awareness, developing into a (proud)elite
identity. The better a gamer you are, the more you feel (and are told
by your peers to feel) that you: (1) chose your pursuit yourself
(Autonomy); (2) owe your success to yourself (Competence); and
(3) are chosen to be part of a highly select group (Relatedness).
The self-perceived Gamer Identity Strength then affects the search
for and finds positive satisfaction experiences in gaming, priming
the three needs equally. Experiencing satisfaction may in turn
enhance these needs, ultimately lifting them to the level where
epic wins are desired, and again increasing the need for Autonomy,
Competence and Relatedness. Additional research should include
measures of attitudes toward gaming and actual success in gaming
(for instance Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010), which would enable
researchers to determine to what extent the self-perceived elite
identity is based upon these factors. Some first explorations have
been made (Dindar & Akbulut, 2014) with promising results.
The ranking of the need satisfactions that we obtained clearly
answered our open research question: Autonomy was ranked the
highest followed by Competence and then Relatedness. This result
exactly replicates the pattern reported by Ryan, Rigby and
Przybylski (2006, Study 4). The findings are also in line with
previous studies which illustrate not only the importance of the
need for self-efficacy and Competence in gaming (Hartmann &
Klimmt, 2006; Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006; Vorderer et al., 2006),
but also the value of integrating these needs within the broader
framework of SDT. The top position of the fulfillment of Autonomy
that is found in gaming illustrates the added value of the SDT
framework for understanding the motivations behind this pursuit.
It is not only the experience of being good at the job, but also the
experience of self-determined performance and acting freely that
is sought and found in this pastime. In particular, Autonomy adds
to the central status of competition as a motivation for playing, as
established in the Uses and Gratifications research tradition
(Sherry et al., 2006). To beat other players is one source of satisfac-
tion, but enjoying one’s self-regulated activity independent of a
comparison with others is quite another. Relatedness was clearly
a third gratifying experience, and our SDT approach opens the
researcher’s eyes to the social needs hidden in individual activities.
It has proved to be perfectly appropriate to include Relatedness in
the need satisfaction inventory, with its average level exceeding
the midpoint of the scale. One could argue that gaming is
ultimately an individual activity, because all games, including mul-
tiplayer examples, still require an autonomous, personal contribu-
tion. Apparently, individual or solitary play also activates feelings
of connectivity and endows the regular player with a powerful
means for socializing. The growing body of empirical research on
the social aspects of gaming seems to corroborate this interpreta-
tion (Durkin, 2006; Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010; Jansz & Tanis,
2007; Ryan et al. 2006; Yee, 2007).
5.2. Enjoyment and GIS
Overall Enjoyment levels were relatively high across all of the
GIS groups and displayed a clear ranking between them: Hardcore
gamers had the highest scores, followed by Heavy gamers and,
lastly Casual gamers. This result highlights that Hardcore gamers
experience more pleasure from the activity of gaming per se when
compared to those who identify themselves less as a gamer. In line
with Tamborini et al. (2010) the explanation is that Hardcore
gamers meet with more satisfaction of basic needs. The fact that
they have more experience helps them to pick the right game to
satisfy their needs in comparison to Casual gamers who play more
as a diversion or pastime without building up knowledge of what
games suit them the best. Furthermore, Hardcore gamers are argu-
ably more embedded in game culture, and thus have more knowl-
edge of the gaming landscape compared to the other two groups.
Finally, recent findings by Przybylski, Weinstein, Murayama,
Lynch, and Ryan (2012) may provide additional depth to this
explanation involving not only the role of expertise but also of
the self-concept. Having measured the general ideal self-concept
of gamers and the self-concept during gaming, they observed that
the convergence between ideal self and game self-predicted
enjoyment and intrinsic motivation. It can be argued that in
Fig. 8. Standardized regression weights for motivational mechanism for casual gamers.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 207

self-declared Hardcore gamers in particular the general ideal self is
already more strongly associated with competence and pleasure in
gaming so that convergence during gaming is higher than it is in
gamers who do not associate their ideal self with gaming qualities,
or less so.
Contrary to our expectations (H2a), not all of the three needs
affected Enjoyment; Relatedness had no direct relation to it, which
is in contrast to the results reported by Tamborini et al. (2010).
Instead, we found that Relatedness affects Identified and External
regulation. The differences between the Enjoyment potential of
Competence vs. Autonomy satisfaction were small but consistent
over the identity groups, with the latter outperforming the former.
5.3. Regulation and GIS
The effects of GIS on regulation were as expected (H3 sup-
ported), with Hardcore gamers exhibiting the greatest Intrinsic
Motivation followed by their Heavy and Casual gamer counter-
parts. This contributes to the integration of gaming motivation into
a general psychological framework. SDT’s theoretical ranking of the
regulation modes from most to least intrinsic, is pretty close to
what was observed here: first Intrinsic Motivation, followed by
Identified Regulation, then Amotivation and, lastly, External Regu-
lation. Yet, SDT would predict that if gaming is a highly self-deter-
mined activity, Amotivation would rank the lowest. This one
deviation from our expectations could be explained by a significant
and considerable interaction effect of regulation with GIS; in con-
trast to the Casual and Heavy gamers, their Hardcore counterparts
regulated their efforts in the predicted way.
We conclude that this first attempt to apply the regulation com-
ponent of SDT to play and gaming has proved to be very useful. It
has satisfactorily highlighted the self-determined nature of gaming
activities, since the Intrinsic Motivation of those who play them
came unequivocally to light. The overall similarity across the three
GIS groups with respect to the hierarchy in regulation can be inter-
preted using Self-determination theory (SDT) as well as Social
Identity Theory (SIT). As long as gaming is a form of entertainment,
gamers play for the sake of pleasure (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010;
Pagulayan, Steury, Fulton, & Romero, 2005; Sherry, 2004; Tan,
2008; Tan & Jansz, 2008; Vorderer et al., 2004; Wu & Liu, 2007).
The more a person identifies with the activity, the ‘‘purer’’ their
fun-orientation will become while playing, and the more fun they
will experience (as the Enjoyment results indicated). It may then
also be expected that Amotivation, the least self-determined form
of regulation, would be unusual in the highest GIS group. A strong
sense of Amotivation in gaming is almost pointless, as it would
amount to making ritualistic, mindless moves. It is hard to imagine
Hardcore gamers engaging in that type of ‘play’ without the pros-
pect of any long-term reward. Casual gamers, however, may expe-
rience Amotivation, as they often play at a low intensity to just kill
time, or they try to combine playing with entirely unrelated
activities.
5.4. Persistence in gaming: A motivational explanation
The pattern of the effects found in terms of Persistence is only
partly in line with the results of earlier applications of SDT to gam-
ing. Here again, the entire patterns of the relationships between
Enjoyment, behavior regulation and Persistence were surprisingly
stable across the gamer identities. One explanation for the
observed similarities may be that a considerable number of the
Casual gamers are, or have been, Hardcore gamers (Veugen,
2007). Another is that levels of Enjoyment, behavior regulation
and Persistence all rise with increasing gamer identity, but not in
terms of the ways in which the processes involved are psycholog-
ically organized. In other words, Casual gamers are mini-versions
of Hardcore gamers. Our finding that Persistence depends linearly
on Gamer Identity Strength, as predicted by Hypothesis 4, is unsur-
prising in this light.
The most convincing result though was that Enjoyment was
directly related to Persistence for all three GIS groups, while the
four modes of regulation affected Persistence much less than
Enjoyment did. This is in line with previous studies (Boyle et al.,
2012) and shows the central role of enjoyment regarding persis-
tence. It may be that the pure fun orientation just mentioned
escapes regulation efforts. Only two out of the four regulation
modes had effects on Persistence, but these were minor and the
differences between them seemed to be negligible. Relatedness
did not have a direct effect on Enjoyment. It did, however, have a
positive, direct impact on Identified and External Regulation. This
makes sense because experiencing Relatedness with other gamers
may function as an internalized version of encouragement by one’s
peers. The major direct effect of Enjoyment on Persistence seems to
be pretty straightforward: if you enjoy yourself, you continue the
activity, confirming H2c. However, when trying to explain the
differences between the three GIS groups, we need to take the indi-
rect effects into account as well.
While for Hardcore gamers the motivational mechanism is
similar to that of the other two groups, there is an important differ-
ence; for these players, next to Enjoyment, experienced Compe-
tence also greatly affects their behavior regulation. This is in line
with recent findings by Przybylski, Deci, Rigby, and Ryan (2014)
who observed that perceived competence predicted a behaviorally
measured motivation to play a game. In our study the effect of
Enjoyment on Persistence is much less for the Hardcore group
compared to Heavy and Casual gamers. This indicates that, even
though experiencing Enjoyment when playing games is important,
it is not what explains the persistence of the most dedicated group.
Hardcore gamers, by experiencing Enjoyment are indirectly
encouraged to persist in playing by the experience of an Intrinsic
Motivation to do so. This behavioral regulation is more directly
and greatly affected by the experience of Competence. Outsiders
can understand the persistence of this group by bearing in mind
that what seems to be a repetitive and boring exercise to them,
is an activity that is a meaningful and key element of the social-self
for the most persistent gamers. The bit more enjoyment they get
from gaming may be due to its anchoring in their ideal selves
(Przybylski et al., 2012). And it is also an aspect of themselves that
these aficionados are proud to share with others.
Finally, with respect to theory development, the results of our
study demonstrate that the inclusion of Enjoyment, along with
the regulation aspects discussed, yields a much more refined appli-
cation of the theoretical framework underlying the model. With
the application of both needs and regulation modes, the complete
motivational mechanism proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000) is
described for the specific instance of gaming. This has resulted in
a successful application of Self-determination Theory to video
gaming, in particular to persistence in play, while also showing
the fruitfulness of incorporating Gamer Identity Strength as a con-
textual determinant of persistence.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks and sincere appreciation goes out to Scott Rigby,
who kindly allowed us to use the Player Experience of Need Satisfac-
tion (PENS) questionnaire. Additionally, we are very grateful and
very much appreciate the encouraging feedback and comments
of the reviewers and audience at the ICA Boston 2011 Conference
where an earlier version of this paper received the Best Paper
Award of ICA’s Game Studies SIG. Furthermore, we greatly appreci-
ate and want to thank the reviewers and editors at Computers in
Human Behavior for making some excellent suggestions and by
208 J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209

doing so improving this paper significantly. Finally, we want to
thank Gamer.nl and IGN.com for helping us distribute the survey,
especially Ryan Geddes.
References
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al.
(2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial
behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/20192553>.
Andersson, H., & Bergman, L. R. (2011). The role of task persistence in young
adolescence for successful educational and occupational attainment in middle
adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 950–960.
Barnett, M. A., Vitaglione, G. D., Harper, K. K. G., Quackenbush, S. W., Steadman, L. A.,
& Valdez, B. S. (1997). Late adolescents’ experiences with and attitudes toward
videogames. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(15), 1316–1334.
Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). Engagement in digital
entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(2), 771–780.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148.
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and
gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5),
641–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420815.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
de Schutter, B. (2011). Never too old to play: The appeal of digital games to an older
audience. Games and Culture, 6(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1555412010364978.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. London: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227–268.
Dindar, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2014). Motivational characteristics of Turkish MMORPG
players. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 119–125.
Durkin, K. (2006). Game playing and adolescents’ development. In P. Vorderer & J.
Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games – Motives, responses, and consequences
(pp. 415–428). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale:
Pearson, Cronbach or Spearman–Brown? International Journal for Public Health,
58(4), 637–642.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 161–186.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A
research and practice model. Simulation and Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy
(revised and updated ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chapell, D. (2004). Online computer gaming: A
comparison of adolescent and adult gamers. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1),
87–96.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS).
Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175–213.
Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). The influence of personality factors on computer
game choice. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games. Motives,
responses and consequences (pp. 115–131). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A
mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58,
245–270.
Jansz, J. (2005). The emotional appeal of violent video games for adolescent males.
Communication Theory, 15, 219–241.
Jansz, J., & Martens, L. (2005). Gaming at a LAN event: The social context of playing
video games. New Media & Society, 7, 333–355.
Jansz, J., & Tanis, M. (2007). The appeal of playing online first person shooter games.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 133–136.
Joesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2011). Peer influence on young athletes’ need
satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and persistence in sport: A 12-month
prospective study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(5), 500–508.
Klimmt, C., & Hartmann, T. (2006). Effectance, self-efficacy, and the motivation to
play video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games – Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 133–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1983). Mind at play: The psychology of video games. New
York: Basic Books.
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-
based explanation. Communication Research, 31(5), 499–523.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. London: Penguin Press.
Pagulayan, R. J., Steury, K. R., Fulton, B., & Romero, R. L. (2005). Designing for fun:
User-testing case studies. In M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C.
Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 137–150). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations
among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence:
A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279–306.
Poels, K., De Kort, Y., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2008, 7–8 February 2008). How does it feel to
play games? Towards a comprehensive categorisation of digital game experience.
Paper presented at the Etmaal van de Communicatiewetenschap 2008,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding
electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 441–457.
Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Murayama, K., Lynch, M. F., & Ryan, R. R. (2012). The
ideal self at play: The appeal of video games that let you be all you can be.
Psychological Science, 23, 69–76.
Rigby, C., & Ryan, R. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us
spellbound (New directions in media). Santa Barbara, CA, US: Praeger Publishers.
Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J.
Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. LEA’s
communication series (2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications in the 21st century. Mass
Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68–78.
Ryan, R., Rigby, C., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A
self-determination theory approach. Motivation & Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.
Sherry, J. L. (2004). Flow and media enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4),
328–347.
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and
gratifications as predictors of use and game preferences. In P. Vorderer & J.
Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games – Motives, responses, and consequences
(pp. 213–224). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle
childhood? A preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 308–332.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In
S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining
media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of
Communication, 60(4), 758–777. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2010.01513.x.
Tan, E. S. H. (2008). Entertainment is emotion: The functional architecture of the
entertainment experience. Media Psychology, 11(1), 28–51.
Tan, E. S. H., & Jansz, J. (2008). The game experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P.
Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 531–556). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Thaggard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-Determination and persistence
in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161–1176.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 271–360). New York: Academic Press.
Veugen, C. (2007, May 24). Mythen over girls en games: Ook vrouwelijke alfa’s
spelen computergames. Studium Generale Gaming, Girls can play the Game!
Amsterdam: IBM/VHTO.
Vorderer, P., Bryant, J., Pieper, K. M., & Weber, R. (2006). Playing video games as
entertainment. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 1–7). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vorderer, P., Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2003). Explaining the enjoyment of playing
video games: The role of competition. In D. Marinelli (Ed.), Proceedings of the
2nd international conference on entertainment computing (ICEC 2003), Pittsburgh
(pp. 1–8). New York: ACM.
Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388–408.
Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Chye, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2011). Understanding
motivation in internet gaming among Singaporean youth: The role of passion.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1179–1184.
Williams, D. (2006). A brief social history of game play. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant
(Eds.), Playing video games – Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 197–212).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wu, J., & Liu, D. (2007). The effects of trust and enjoyment on intention to play
online games. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(2), 128–140.
Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of
massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators &
Virtual Environments, 15(3), 309–329.
Yee, N. (2007). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
9(6), 772–775.
J.L.D. Neys et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 196–209 209