![Design Science Research project based on [26,27]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benedikt-Morschheuser/publication/310501114/figure/fig2/AS:430134814613509@1479563539271/Design-Science-Research-project-based-on-26-27_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Benedikt Morschheuser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benedikt Morschheuser on Jul 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
Designing Cooperative Gamification:
Conceptualization and Prototypical Implementation
Benedikt Morschheuser
CR, Robert Bosch GmbH
Renningen, Germany
benedikt.morschheuser@kit.edu
Alexander Maedche
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Karlsruhe, Germany
alexander.maedche@kit.edu
Dominic Walter
CR, Robert Bosch GmbH
Renningen, Germany
Dominicwalter@web.de
ABSTRACT
Organizations deploy gamification in CSCW systems to en-
hance motivation and behavioral outcomes of users. How-
ever, gamification approaches often cause competition be-
tween users, which might be inappropriate for working envi-
ronments that seek cooperation. Drawing on the social inter-
dependence theory, this paper provides a classification for
gamification features and insights about the design of coop-
erative gamification. Using the example of an innovation
community of a German engineering company, we present
the design of a cooperative gamification approach and results
from a first experimental evaluation. The findings indicate
that the developed gamification approach has positive effects
on perceived enjoyment and the intention towards
knowledge sharing in the considered innovation community.
Besides our conceptual contribution, our findings suggest
that cooperative gamification may be beneficial for coopera-
tive working environments and represents a promising field
for future research.
Author Keywords
CSCW systems; gamification; cooperation; collaboration;
design research; innovation community; experiment.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Group and Organization Interfaces - computer-supported
cooperative work
INTRODUCTION
During recent years, information systems have been increas-
ingly enriched with design features originating in the field of
computer games. This rising phenomenon is typically called
gamification and has raised significant interest in industry
[30] and academia [24,28,47]. For instance, business ana-
lysts have estimated that over 50% of organizations manag-
ing innovation processes will gamify their business by 2015
[15]. Reviews of scientific gamification studies [24,47,60]
have shown that gamification is applied in various contexts,
specifically including computer supported cooperative work
(CSCW) systems, such as crowdsourcing approaches [47],
online communities [18,19] and intranets [48]. Typically,
gamification is used with the intention to positively influence
human motivation and behavior [10,24,47,60]. Numerous
empirical studies provide indicators for the effectiveness of
different gamification implementations, however the under-
standing of the phenomenon is still in its infancy [24,47].
Most of the research that has been conducted on gamification
has focused on studying approaches that motivate users by
social comparison and competition or by setting personal
goals (e.g. [5,18,33,37,44,48,74]). Gamification approaches
that engage individuals to cooperate and, therefore, to strive
toward a shared goal or purpose [11,65] have been of minor
focus in gamification [5,7,17] and game-design research [40]
thus far. This is somewhat surprising, since information sys-
tems that support users to cooperatively create joint out-
comes, such as crowd-creation platforms [16], innovation
communities [3,29] or co-creation approaches, are rising and
demand incentive approaches that promote cooperation, ra-
ther than competition. The joint development of ideas [3,29],
the creation of wiki contents [61], open source development
projects [1] and many more group work scenarios may profit
from incentives that engage individuals to form groups and
support collective intentions [64]. On the other hand, mas-
sive multiplayer online games (MMOG) and cooperative
video games demonstrate that people enjoy playing together.
Many of these games show that design features, such as team
challenges or complementary abilities, can engage millions
of players to form virtual teams, guilds or clans in order to
exchange game-related knowledge, develop shared strate-
gies and cooperate to achieve common goals
[6,8,13,31,50,58,70].
Thus, we are aiming to understand the design of cooperative
gamification for CSCW systems.
In this paper, we are drawing on the social interdependence
theory [11,32] and previous work on gamification [9,28] to
propose a novel classification framework for gamification
features, to characterize cooperative gamification features
and to conceptualize cooperative gamification. Using the ex-
ample of an innovation community of a large German engi-
neering company, we present an exemplary design of a co-
operative gamification approach and results from a first ex-
perimental evaluation. Finally, we close with a discussion on
our findings, gathered insights on the design of cooperative
gamification and an outlook on future planned studies.
COOPERATIVE GAMIFICATION
Classification of gamification features
Looking at incentive mechanisms in the information systems
field, gamification is one of the most popular developments
in recent years [20,24]. Especially, in context of CSCW sys-
tems, such as crowdsourcing approaches or innovation com-
munities, gamification is used to increase motivation and
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
participation [24,47,73]. Following Huotari & Hamari [28],
gamification can be considered as the use of design features
known from (video) games with the aim to give rise to simi-
lar experiences as games commonly do. In order to explain
the effects of gamification, gamification is often conceptual-
ized as the enriching of a system or service with motivational
affordances [71,72] for gameful experiences [9,28,33]. In the
HCI field the term affordance has become established and
refers to "the actionable properties between an object and an
actor" [71,72]. Motivational affordances comprise features
of an object that can stimulate certain motivational needs of
an actor [71,72]. The conceptualization of gamification fea-
tures as motivational affordances highlights several im-
portant characteristics of gamification: (1) the offering of
stimuli designed with the intent to address motivational
needs and invoke mental states such as flow experience; (2)
the possibility to influence behavior; (3) and that the adop-
tion is always voluntary and influenced by subjective percep-
tions [28]. Several studies indicate that gamification af-
fordances can increase intrinsic motivation of actors in a
given activity and influence behavior (see [24,47,60] for an
overview).
Although many empirical studies have shown positive ef-
fects of various gamification features in different contexts,
science has just begun to understand gamification in more
detail [9,24,28,47,60]. Publications that have focused the
conceptualization of the gamification phenomenon or the ef-
fects of gamification in a specific context, highlight that the
setting of goals and the providing of immediate, positive
feedback about the achievement of these goals are essential
characteristics of gamification implementations
[5,10,20,24,33,42,44,53,74]. Therefore, the goal-setting the-
ory [41] has often been applied in order to explain and ana-
lyze the effects of gamification features, such as points,
badges or leaderboards [18,21,33,36,44,53]. On the other
hand, several empirical studies indicate that considerable dif-
ferences exist between cooperative, competitive and individ-
ualistic gamification features, such as leaderboards, badges
or team challenges [7,17,37,43,44]. However, frameworks to
explain and compare the effects of different gamification fea-
tures are missing. Based on the insight that the setting of
goals is obviously a fundamental part of gamification and a
possible reason for the effects of different gamification fea-
tures, we propose to classify gamification features along
their applied goal structures. We assume that this could help
to understand and describe the differences of various gami-
fication features more precisely.
The social interdependence theory [11] has often been used
to explain and study the effects of different goal, task and
reward structures on psychological and behavioral outcomes
[32,62,63]. The theory with an external validity and general-
izability rarely found in the social sciences [32] has also been
adapted to the context of video games to differ between in-
dividualistic, cooperative, competitive and cooperative-com-
petitive game designs [40]. Following the theory, game
designs can be seen as individualistic when individual ac-
tions have no effect on others (no interdependence), cooper-
ative when individual actions promote the goals and actions
of others (positive interdependence) or competitive when in-
dividual actions obstruct the goals and actions of others (neg-
ative interdependence) [40]. In individualistic games the
players commonly compete against given or self-defined
goals and constraints (e.g. unlock a badge, reach the next
level, achieve a better result than in the last round, solve a
puzzle with a maximum number of moves, beat the time),
whereas in cooperative, competitive or cooperative-compet-
itive game designs players interact with other players and try
to achieve goals that are related to the multiplayer environ-
ment (e.g. surpass the result from another player or achieve
a shared goal). Since gamification approaches apply the
same goal and reward structures as games commonly do
[10], the social interdependence theory is highly compatible
to conceptualizations of gamification and can provide a con-
tribution to the classification of gamification approaches.
Drawing on the social interdependence theory [11,32,62] we
propose to classify gamification features into: (1) individual-
istic gamification features, which provide motivational af-
fordances for gameful experiences without creating interde-
pendence between goals of individuals (e.g. by the setting of
independent goals); (2) cooperative gamification features,
which provide motivational affordances for gameful experi-
ences by using goal structures that invoke positive goal in-
terdependence (e.g. the setting of shared goals); and (3) com-
petitive gamification features, which provide motivational
affordances for gameful experiences by using goal structures
that invoke negative goal interdependence (e.g. the setting of
competitive goals). In accordance with Liu et al. [40], we
also adopted the concept of (4) cooperative-competitive
gamification features that provide motivational affordances
for gameful experience based on groups, with positive goal
interdependence within and negative goal interdependence
between the groups (e.g. a team competition) [40,63] (Figure
1). Numerous psychological studies that have been con-
ducted with the aim to analyze situations with individualistic,
cooperative or competitive goal structures (e.g. [63] see [32]
for an overview) indicate that cooperative structures can pro-
mote greater efforts than individualistic or competitive ap-
proaches. Furthermore, these studies indicate that group
work scenarios with positive goal interdependence can pro-
mote the creation of positive relationships and support psy-
chological health [32]. Therefore, we assume that gamifica-
tion approaches, which promote cooperation rather than
competition, can be of particular interest for the use in
CSCW systems that support cooperative work and the crea-
tion of joint outcomes, such as crowd-creation platforms, in-
novation communities or co-creation approaches.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
Figure 1. A classification of gamification features
Design characteristics and requirements of cooperative
gamification features
The above conceptualization of cooperative gamification
features implies two essential design characteristics of coop-
erative gamification features:
First, cooperative gamification features apply goal structures
that can invoke positive goal interdependence between two
or more individuals. Second, in accordance with the general
conceptualization of gamification [9,24,28], cooperative
gamification features offer motivational affordances for
gameful experiences [28]. The combination of both describes
cooperative gamification features as a unit consisting of the
cooperative nature and the expected effects. These character-
istics can also be seen as requirements for the design of co-
operative gamification features. Existing research on coop-
eration, cooperative games and motivational affordances can
help to further understand these characteristics and support
the design of cooperative gamification features.
Previous research in context of the social interdependence
theory identified that situations in which individuals cooper-
ate require positive goal interdependence between two or
more individuals or in other words that the “amount or prob-
ability of a person’s goal attainment is positively correlated
with the amount or probability of another obtaining his goal”
[12]. In such situations individuals can benefit, if they com-
bine their efforts and cooperate. As described above, gamifi-
cation commonly uses the setting of goals and immediate
feedback as mechanism to influence behavior and psycho-
logical outcomes [18,24,33,44,74]. Studies that have been
conducted in the context of sports [63] or education [32,45]
indicate that situations with positive goal interdependence
can be designed by setting shared goals or by creating posi-
tive correlation between individual goals. Research on coop-
erative game design [13,55] found that cooperative video
games typically implement shared goals by providing quests
or challenges to many players simultaneously that can be
completed through cooperation in a group. In addition, sev-
eral design patterns for creating positive correlations
between individual goals and for stimulating promotive in-
teractions can be found in cooperative video games [13,55].
These patterns include e.g. special abilities (abilities that can
only be used to support other players), complementarity be-
tween players (e.g. abilities that complement each other),
special rules for teams (e.g. rules that protect users who co-
operate), limited resources (limitations that encourage shar-
ing) or intertwined goals (the setting of different goals,
which require mutual support for their achievement) [13,55].
Empirical studies on the effects of these patterns indicate that
most of them, but especially the setting of shared goals, can
have strong effects on enjoyment, excitement and coopera-
tive behavior (expressed in form of active knowledge ex-
change, mutual assistance, as well as the development of
shared strategies) in several popular cooperative video
games [13]. Similar results have been found by psychologi-
cal studies about the effects of cooperative goal structures on
perceived enjoyment and performance [63]. Therefore, we
assume that design patterns of cooperative games, but espe-
cially the setting of shared goals, are promising approaches
to design cooperative gamification features. The positive ef-
fects of the above mentioned cooperative game design pat-
terns on enjoyment [13] indicate that the application of these
patterns may be suitable to invoke gameful experiences in
gamified applications. However, since cooperative game de-
sign in general [40] and cooperative gamification in particu-
lar [5,7,17] has been studied less to date, little thoughts were
made on the motivational affordances of cooperative gamifi-
cation features.
The theory of motivational affordances has often been used
in context of gamification to conceptualize and design gam-
ification approaches [9,24,28,33]. This conceptualization
highlights that gamification affords a subject: the opportuni-
ties to experience the satisfaction of motivational needs when
interacting with a gamified artifact. Based on this theoretical
consideration, gamification literature recommends to design
gamification features with the intention to satisfy needs in
the way as games commonly do (e.g. focus on mastery, curi-
osity or competence satisfaction) [10,28,33]. One possible
approach to design motivational affordances has been sug-
gested by Zhang [71,72]. His work proposes 10 design prin-
ciples related to five different motivational sources for the
design of motivational affordances. These principles focus
the fulfilling of basic human needs and include the design for
(1) autonomy and the self; (2) competence and achievement;
(3) social relatedness; (4) power, leadership, and follow-
ership and (5) emotion and affect. Previous research on gam-
ification identified competence satisfaction as a core factor
for the experience of enjoyment in individualistic and com-
petitive gamification approaches [10,22,33,53]. The setting
of challenging goals and instant feedback are part of Zhang’s
design principles for competence and achievement and have
often been applied by designers of gamification approaches
with the aim to create motivational affordances for gameful
experiences [5,10,24,25,28,33,42,53]. In cooperative video
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
games, challenging goals are often designed as team chal-
lenges that can only be overcome or lead to better results by
cooperation and mutual support [13,54,55]. Research on mo-
tivational factors in online multiplayer games indicate that in
addition to competence, cooperative games can satisfy the
need for social relatedness (4) [54,56]. Especially, socializ-
ing with other players, the desire to form meaningful rela-
tionships with others, as well as satisfaction from being part
of a group effort have been identified as important motiva-
tional gratifications of players of online games with cooper-
ative features [58,70].
Consequently, we assume that cooperative gamification fea-
tures may provide motivational affordances for gameful ex-
periences through both, competence satisfaction by the set-
ting of goals and instant feedback, as well as the experience
of social relatedness by its social aspects. Therefore, it could
be recommended that designers of cooperative gamification
features should focus Zhang’s [71,72] design principles for
competence satisfaction (2), but also the principles for social
relatedness (3), which include the support of human-human
interaction and the representation of social bounds.
Cooperative gamification approaches
Our classification above helps to identify and describe dif-
ferent features of gamification approaches. However, a re-
cent review of gamification implementations [47] indicates
that gamification approaches may contain manifold gamifi-
cation features, including combinations of cooperative, com-
petitive and individualistic features that in sum motivate spe-
cific behavior. On the basis of the literature discussed above
and considering the behavior that causes a gamification ap-
proach, we define cooperative gamification, as the use of
gamification features that promote cooperation. This does
not exclude the use of different features in a cooperative
gamification approach. However, based on the social inter-
dependence theory that identified positive interdependence
as essential requirement for every cooperative behavior
[11,32], we postulate that the core of every cooperative gam-
ification approach is a cooperative gamification feature that
invokes positive goal interdependence.
Innovation communities as exemplary application area
for cooperative gamification
Innovation communities are typical CSCW systems that sup-
port the collaborative creation of ideas in organizations. Typ-
ically, competitions and incentives such as prizes or career
opportunities are used in innovation communities to engage
participants to share and discuss ideas [38]. With the rise of
gamification, the use of competitive gamification approaches
is gaining popularity in innovation communities
[29,33,46,59,73]. However, empirical studies indicate that
strong competitive configurations can have negative effects,
such as a decrease of peer feedback, perceived enjoyment or
quality of ideas [3,17]. On the other hand, gamification fea-
tures with a social and more cooperative character seem to
be particularly suitable for increasing participation [59] and
idea quality [29] in innovation communities. For example,
Scheiner [59] found that social points, which allow users to
reward the contributions of others, are more important for
long-term motivation and participation in an innovation
community than other individualistic and competitive gami-
fication features. The study emphasizes that a reason for their
positive effects may be the motivational affordances cooper-
ative gamification features provide, especially those that are
based on the fulfilling of social needs, such as the need for
social belonging. Several studies indicate that cooperative
gamification may be particularly useful to engage peer feed-
back (comments from other users) in corporate innovation
communities (cf. [29,34,73]), which in turn can positively
impact the quality of user-generated ideas [2,3,69]. There-
fore, it could be expected that further knowledge on the de-
sign of cooperative gamification approaches that motivate
knowledge exchange, will provide a contribution to the de-
sign of successful innovation communities [3,29,59,73] and
similar CSCW systems.
RESEARCH DESIGN
With the aim to investigate the design of cooperative gami-
fication approaches and their practical application in modern
CSCW systems, we apply the design science research (DSR)
methodology [27,52]. Its key characteristic is that it seeks to
extend boundaries of current research by creating new and
innovative artifacts that solve practical problems based on
theoretical and conceptual knowledge [27]. Hevner [26,27]
describes DSR projects as an “embodiment of three closely
related cycles” (Figure 2). First, the relevance cycle that in-
puts practical problems of a contextual environment and pro-
vides opportunities for field tests. Second, the rigor cycle that
provides grounding theories as well as existing design
knowledge and adds new design knowledge from the re-
search to the growing scientific knowledge base. Third, the
design cycle, which is the core of every DSR project and
compromises the iterative construction, evaluation and re-
finement of a design artifact. Our project focuses on the prac-
tical problem of low cooperation and participation in CSCW
systems. Drawing on the above described conceptualization
of gamification and the social interdependence theory, we
suggest that cooperative gamification may be an appropriate,
innovative solution to motivate cooperation in CSCW sys-
tems. According to DSR we build an exemplary instantiation
of a cooperative gamification approach as DSR artifact and
evaluate it in two design cycles [26,27]. In the following we
describe our first DSR cycle, which encompasses the instan-
tiation of the above specified theoretical concept of coopera-
tive gamification, as well as a first evaluation of the thus de-
veloped prototype with users of the contextual environment
(Figure 2). Whereas this first cycle focuses the theoretical
conceptualization and investigation of the design of cooper-
ative gamification, the empirical effects of cooperative gam-
ification will be mainly investigated in the second cycle.
Based on the insights we gather in the first cycle; we will
refine the artifact in the second cycle.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
Figure 2. Design Science Research project based on [26,27]
We have chosen an innovation community of a large German
engineering company with around 1.400 active members as
practical object for our research. This community has been
selected for three reasons: First, innovation communities can
be found in many large organizations and are typically used
as platforms to support the cooperative development of new
innovations [2,33,73]. Second, during the last years, the ac-
tivity in this community decreased noticeably from around
498 comments on ideas in 2013 to 279 comments in 2014.
Third, previous research on cooperation identified peer feed-
back and knowledge exchange (such as comments in an in-
novation community) as a typical form of cooperative inter-
action [32,51]. The innovation community we selected for
this research provides employees the possibility to submit
new ideas and evolve those over four stages from ideation to
realization. By using a comment feature members of the
community can discuss ideas, exchange knowledge and rate
ideas. Previous studies on innovation communities showed
that cooperation of participants in form of constructive dis-
cussions and the sharing of knowledge is crucial for the out-
put quality of such systems [3,14,57,69]. Therefore and un-
der consideration of previous research on gamification in in-
novation communities [29,34,59,73], we assume that a coop-
erative gamification approach, which increases the motiva-
tion to exchange knowledge and to provide peer feedback,
can be beneficial for the investigated community. In the fol-
lowing we describe the design of a cooperative gamification
approach for this community.
DESIGNING A COOPERATIVE GAMIFICATION FEATURE
FOR AN INNOVATION COMMUNITY
In order to design a cooperative gamification feature, we fol-
lowed a two-step approach. First, we conducted interviews
with active users of the innovation community, to better un-
derstand the context and the target group. Second, we de-
signed a cooperative gamification feature for the considered
community that instantiates the above defined design char-
acteristics of cooperative gamification features.
The majority of methods on the design of gamification (see
[10] for an overview) suggests a detailed analysis of the con-
text and the users in order to understand the problems and
opportunities of the given situation. Therefore, we conducted
semi-structured interviews with active users of the innova-
tion community. The system administrator carefully selected
15 participants from different hierarchical levels and with
different age, gender and experience in using the system, in
order to represent the entire population of users. The inter-
views were conducted in German during working hours on a
voluntary basis and took 26 minutes on average. The inter-
view guideline was grounded in goal-setting [33,36,41] and
knowledge-sharing [4] theories, contained open questions
and focused concrete use cases in the system. Here, we took
a specific look on experiences, individual motivations and
personal problems, related to the sharing of knowledge and
discussion of ideas within the innovation community. The
results indicate that almost all interviewees that have pub-
lished ideas wish to get more peer feedback on their ideas,
especially in the first stages of the stage-based ideation pro-
cess. We also identified that the lack of motivation to provide
feedback on ideas of others relies mainly on the following
perceptions: (1) that inputs are not recognized by others; (2)
that feedback has no or little influence on ideas; (3) that using
the system is boring and work-related. During our analysis
we identified 3 different types of users: (I) users that are gen-
erally not interested in supporting ideas of others, (II) users
that are motivated to give peer feedback but expect that their
contribution will not be recognized and (III) users that often
give feedback and like the possibility to share thoughts, help
others and enjoy socializing in the community. A more de-
tailed analysis of these different user types showed that
community members who are intrinsically interested in an
idea are also generally willing to provide a contribution to
this idea. Furthermore, the interviews indicate that users who
provided feedback in the past, did that with the intention to
support the success of ideas and to help the inventors. How-
ever, we also recognized that several users of the system,
which have given feedback, did often not perceive them-
selves as part of a team that develops the idea.
Guided by our theoretical approach and based on the insights
from the interviews, we designed a cooperative gamification
feature for the considered innovation community. Several
interviewees reported that their contribution behavior is
positively linked with the goal to support the success of an
idea. Therefore, we decided to choose the success of an idea
as the core of our gamification feature. Inspired by the idea
that a rocket development could be used as visual metaphor
for the development and success of an idea, we created a set
of graphics that could be used to visualize the success of an
idea in the four-stage ideation process of the community. For
stage 0 (initial setup of a new idea) we used the visualization
of an inventor’s garage, for stage 1 (ideation) the develop-
ment of the rocket engine, for stage 2 (maturation) the devel-
opment of the main body and finally, for stage 3 (project
preparation) the nose and the launch of the rocket (Figure 3,
Figure 4). Furthermore, we designed a set of different un-
lockable visual objects for each of these four visual scenes.
We linked the unlockable visual objects of each stage with
the writing of comments. If no comments were provided the
visualization of the rocket was “naked”, but by writing com-
ments, members of the community got the possibility to
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
unlock various visual rocket elements, such as color strips,
engines, wings, windows etc. and background elements such
as planets, UFOs, a mobile sculpture, robots etc. (see Figure
4).
Figure 3. Screenshot of an idea within the gamified innovation
community
Figure 4. Examples of unlockable elements
In other words, we have created a mechanism that rewards
the writing of comments for an idea, by unlocking visual ob-
jects for the visualization of an idea. We assume that the pos-
sibility to achieve a “rich” visualization for an idea could act
as a challenge and shared goal for users that are interested in
the success of this idea. The implementation of our mecha-
nism ensured that the contribution of different users is re-
quired to unlock all visual features of an idea rocket (cf. spe-
cial abilities pattern of Rocha et al. [13,55]). Consequently,
a rich visualization can only be achieved through coopera-
tion. Based on [32] positive goal interdependence exist when
individuals perceive that they “can attain their goals if and
only if the other individuals with whom they are coopera-
tively linked attain their goals“. Therefore, we expect that
our gamification feature, which defines a rich visualization
of an idea as a clear and explicit (shared) goal and creates
mechanism-based mutual dependences between the users,
could arouse positive goal interdependence. Especially,
among users who share an affinity for a particular idea and
are interested in the public representation of this idea.
Furthermore, we followed Zhang’s principles [71,72] with
the aim to design an approach that provides motivational af-
fordances. Zhang recommend the use of challenging goals
and instant, positive performance feedback in order to extend
information systems with motivational affordances for com-
petence satisfaction. Previous research on knowledge shar-
ing indicates that helping others by providing valuable
knowledge can be challenging and a source for competence
satisfaction, especially in organizational contexts [39,67].
Our approach attempts to support this by providing instant
positive performance feedback after submitting a comment
to an idea. This feedback appears in form of a popup with a
short ‘thank you’ message and the option to unlock one of
three randomly selected visual elements for the correspond-
ing idea rocket. Research has shown that the use and promo-
tion of unlockable visual objects as reward for performing
specific activates is a common goal setting practice of gami-
fication [18,19]. Furthermore, the study of Jung et al. [33]
shows that such gamification-based positive performance
feedback related to the submitting of comments provides a
suitable approach to create motivational affordances for
competence satisfaction in innovation communities. We
therefore assume that unlocking visual features by writing
comments may offer motivational affordances for compe-
tence satisfaction.
In order to address the need for social relatedness, our gami-
fication feature was designed with the intent to make the co-
operative behavior more clear and tangible. Following
Zhang’s [71,72] design principles we designed the coopera-
tive rocket graphic as a visualization, which demonstrates
that each individual contribution is part of a group effort. Pre-
vious research emphasizes that the perception to be part of a
cooperative effort may cause experiences such as social re-
latedness, social relevance and again, competence satisfac-
tion [54,56]. Therefore, we expect that our approach may
provide a motivational affordance for the experience of so-
cial relatedness, similar to other cooperative game designs
with shared goals [54,56,58].
To summarize, grounded on the above described theories we
assume that the presented gamification approach fulfils both
requirement of cooperative gamification features (Table 1).
Consequently, we expect that the designed cooperative gam-
ification feature may increase cooperation in form of
knowledge exchange and peer feedback in the considered
community.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
Theoretical
justification
Derived
requirements
Design decisions
Social interde-
pendence the-
ory [32]
Cooperative gamifica-
tion features should
create situations with
positive goal interde-
pendence.
Setting of a shared goal
that can be achieved by
cooperation and visuali-
zation of the coopera-
tion progress.
Motivational
affordance the-
ory [71,72]
Gamification features
should provide moti-
vational affordances
for gameful experi-
ences.
Providing opportunities
for competence satisfac-
tion, as well as the expe-
rience of social related-
ness.
Table 1. Meta-requirements and design decisions
Instantiation of the feature as part of a cooperative gam-
ification approach
In cooperation with our partner company, we developed an
instantiation of the proposed cooperative gamification fea-
ture as a plugin for the innovation community. As described
above, a cooperative gamification approach may contain dif-
ferent types of gamification features. A recent, comprehen-
sive review of the use of gamification in crowdsourcing rec-
ommends the use of manifold gamification features in
crowd-creation approaches that seek for creative and hetero-
geneous contributions [47]. Therefore, we assume that a
combination of the presented cooperative gamification fea-
ture with e.g. individualistic gamification features, such as
private badges or a level system, might invoke stronger and
more appealing gameful experiences and increase the overall
effects. Badges seems to be an appropriate addition, since
they also utilize the setting of challenging goals in order to
provide motivational affordances for competence satisfac-
tion [18,19]. Following previous research, which found that
badges can positively influence contribution behavior in
communities [19], we defined several goals related to contri-
bution and helping behavior and linked them with several
unlockable private (by default not visible to other users)
badges, such as a badge for writing more than 5 comments.
EVALUATION
With the aim of investigating the effectiveness of the de-
signed gamification approach for the considered community,
we conducted a simple experiment in a field setting. Follow-
ing the gamification conceptualization of Hamari [24,28] and
the concept of motivational affordances [33,71,72], gamifi-
cation features influence motivation and behavior of users.
Therefore, we selected both, an indicator to operationalize
the psychological outcomes and an indicator to operational-
ize behavioral intentions. Several studies found positive ef-
fects of gamification on perceived enjoyment [24,47,49] and
positive correlations between enjoyment of gamification ap-
proaches and behavioral outcomes [23,24]. Recent reviews
of empirical studies on gamification [24,47] found that per-
ceived enjoyment is typically considered as an indicator for
the motivational affordances a gamification approach pro-
vides. Especially, motivational affordances that satisfy hu-
man needs, such as the need for competence or social relat-
edness, have been identified as source of enjoyment
[28,56,70]. Our prototype was designed with the intention to
provide motivational affordances that target these needs.
Therefore, we assume that perceived enjoyment is higher
with the developed gamification approach than without (H1).
In order to operationalize the intention to cooperate we meas-
ured the intention to share knowledge in the considered in-
novation community. Several empirical studies indicate that,
generally, gamification approaches can have positive effects
on participation behavior [17,33,37,43,47] and knowledge
sharing [66] in similar CSCW systems. On the other hand,
previous studies in organizational [51] and educational [32]
contexts indicate that promotive interactions, such as
knowledge sharing [51], are typical outcomes of positive
goal interdependence. The gamification approach that is pre-
sented in this paper has been designed with the intention to
support positive goal interdependence and engage coopera-
tive behavior in form of peer feedback and knowledge ex-
change. Therefore, we propose that the developed coopera-
tive gamification approach will increase the intention to
share knowledge in the considered innovation community
(H2).
Experimental Design
We developed a complete new user interface for the consid-
ered innovation community to minimize novelty effects of a
solely gamification plugin. Based on this interface we cre-
ated two versions, one with gamification (treatment T) and
one without (control C). The experiment was carried out in a
meeting room at our partner company with current users of
the innovation community. 50 users have been selected by
the system administrator and were invited to participate in
voluntary individual sessions of 60 minutes during the work-
ing hours. Finally, 42 participated. We randomly divided the
participants into a treatment and a control group, 21 partici-
pants each. The experiment was performed on a computer,
where we opened one of the two implemented versions. Par-
ticipants of the treatment group, started with a predefined set
of ideas on the screen. They were asked to select an interest-
ing idea and to provide a comment to that idea. In this con-
text, the cooperative gamification feature (the rocket) was
visualized beside the idea. After posting a comment, the par-
ticipants were informed by a popup about the unlocked
rocket feature and were able to witness the sequence-change
of the rocket visualization. During the experiment this task
was repeated with other ideas, in order to demonstrate that
further parts can be unlocked for the rocket. Next, the partic-
ipants of the treatment group were asked to submit a new
idea. Finally, the profile page was shown to the user, where
in the gamified version, the personal achievements (e.g.
overview of supported rockets, a score that represents the
personal contribution performance and unlocked badges)
could be explored. Participants of the control group followed
a comparable process, in which they searched for an idea,
selected an idea, left a comment to this idea and submitted a
new idea. Finally, also their profile pages in the new interface
design were demonstrated. All data were collected using a
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
digital questionnaire immediately after the simulation. We
collected demographic information, level of experience with
the analyzed community (five-point Likert scale very low –
very high) and frequency of use (five-point Likert scale very
seldom - very often) as control variables. In order to validate
the realism of the experiment, we asked the participants to
rate the perceived realism of the experiment with two items
“I think the simulation was realistic” and “I believe it is likely
that I execute the simulated activities during work” [68] on a
seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree - strongly agree).
Differences between the two groups were measured by eight
items in the questionnaire (Table 2), which asked for per-
ceived enjoyment (four items) and knowledge sharing inten-
tion (four items) on seven-point Likert scales (strongly disa-
gree - strongly agree). All items were based on previously
published research and were asked in random order.
Perceived enjoyment
based on [23]
“I find the experience of using the innovation community en-
joyable.”
𝛼
0.792
“I find the experience of using the innovation community
pleasant.”
“I find the experience of using the innovation community ex-
citing.”
“I find the experience of using the innovation community in-
teresting.”
Knowledge sharing intention
based on [4]
“I intend to provide my information about manuals, methodol-
ogies and models for members of the innovation community
more frequently in the future.”
𝛼
0.917
“I intend to share my experience or know-how with other
members of the innovation community more frequently in the
future.”
“I intend to provide my ‘know-where’ or ‘know-whom’ to
other members of the innovation community more frequently
in the future.”
“I will try to share my expertise from my education or training
with other members of the innovation community more often.”
Table 2. Questionnaire constructs, corresponding items and
reliability of the constructs
Age
<30
30-39
40-49
50-60
>60
#
C:2 T:2
C: 9 T:
13
C: 6 T: 6;
C: 4 T: 0
0
Table 3. Age of the participates
Results
Age (Table 3), gender (each group 4 female, 17 male), level
of experience with the analyzed community (mean C: 3.09
T: 3.14), as well as the frequency of use (mean C: 2.83 T:
2.85) was homogeneous distributed in both groups. The ap-
plication of Pearson’s Chi-Squared tests found no significant
difference between the two groups.
We conducted Mann-Whitney tests to investigate the effects
of gamification on the dependent variables, according to our
hypotheses H1 and H2. For perceived enjoyment and
knowledge sharing intention the medians were higher in the
group with gamification and the tests showed one-tailed sig-
nificant differences between the control and the treatment
group (Table 4).
The realism of the experiment was rated high with a median
value of six for each group and item, which is equal to “I
agree”. This gives an indication that the participants have
perceived the experiment as realistic, which supports the ev-
idence of the measured effects. We assessed the internal con-
sistency of the dependent variables by computing
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each of the constructs.
Both (0,792 and 0,917) showed an acceptable internal con-
sistency (Table 2).
Dependent
variables
Perceived Enjoyment
Knowledge sharing in-
tention
n
M
SD
p
M
SD
p
Control
21
5
1.4
.0003**
4
1.4
.001*
Treatment
21
6
1.1
5
0.9
M=median (1=low; 7=high); *exact p < .01; **exact p < .001 (1-tailed)
Table 4. Results
DISCUSSION
The findings indicate that the analyzed gamification ap-
proach may increase the perceived enjoyment of users of the
innovation community (H1). This result is in line with nu-
merous gamification studies (e.g. [23,35,49], cf. [24,47]) and
typically interpreted as an indicator for the motivational af-
fordances a gamification approach provides [24,28,47]. Con-
sequently, we assume that the presented cooperative gamifi-
cation approach enriches the innovation community with
motivational affordances. We also measured a significant in-
crease in the intention to share knowledge within the consid-
ered innovation community by the use of gamification (H2).
This indicates that the developed gamification approach has
the potential to increase motivation of community members
to exchange knowledge, provide peer feedback and support
other community members in the development of their ideas.
Previous research in context of the social interdependence
theory found that such kind of promotive interaction (e.g.
knowledge exchange or mutual assistance) is an essential as-
pect of cooperation and a result of positive goal interdepend-
ence [32]. Therefore, our findings indicate that the presented
gamification approach may, increase the behavioral intention
to cooperate.
Based on these findings, we assume that the presented gam-
ification approach fulfills the derived meta-requirements
(Table 1) and represents an example of cooperative gamifi-
cation. Furthermore, our results give an indication that coop-
erative gamification meets the expectations. Although no
comparison between different gamification features has been
conducted in this research project so far, our results show that
both, perceived enjoyment as typical psychological outcome
of gamification features, as well as behavioral intentions can
be influenced by cooperative gamification approaches.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
LIMITATIONS
Although our study provides some reasonable indications for
the possible effects of cooperative gamification, the small
sample size, the operationalization with only two variables,
the measurement of perceptions and intentions, the short du-
ration, the selected evaluation method and the generalizabil-
ity of our experiment are strong limitations of the presented
evaluation. As described above, we see this experiment as a
first cycle of an ongoing design science research project
(Figure 2). In the next cycle we will roll out different ver-
sions of the developed gamification prototype in the innova-
tion community of our industry partner to conduct a large
field experiment. Our goal is to offset the limitations of the
preliminary evaluation and to derive empirically tested de-
sign propositions about the design of cooperative gamifica-
tion. Additionally, we will examine the differences of several
gamification features, in order to determine whether more
manifold cooperative gamification approaches, as high-
lighted by Morschheuser et al. [47], will increase the out-
come and effectiveness of gamification solutions that try to
engage creative and heterogeneous contributions. Neverthe-
less, we are convinced that the theoretical contribution and
the empirical insights provided in this paper extends the
boundaries of current gamification research (cf. [5]) and may
already help designers of CSCW systems to design coopera-
tive gamification approaches.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we conceptualize cooperative gamification and
provide theoretical foundations for the design of cooperative
gamification approaches. Furthermore, we present a novel
classification framework for gamification features, which al-
lows to subdivide gamification elements along their applied
goal structures into individualistic, cooperative, competitive,
and cooperative-competitive gamification features. In order
to investigate the design of cooperative gamification and to
examine the practical applicability of the proposed frame-
work, we developed an exemplary cooperative gamification
approach for an innovation community of a large German
engineering company. We demonstrate that design patterns
of cooperative video games, such as the setting of shared
goals, as well as design principles for the design of motiva-
tional affordances can support the development of coopera-
tive gamification features. As part of an ongoing research
project on the effects of cooperative gamification, this paper
also reports the results from a first experimental evaluation
of the developed approach. Our results indicate that the de-
veloped approach can have positive effects on perceived en-
joyment and the intention towards knowledge sharing in the
considered innovation community. This encouraged our in-
dustry partner and us to further investigate the empirical ef-
fects of cooperative gamification in future research. Based
on this study and previous research [5,7,17], we can summa-
rize that cooperative gamification is a less researched but
promising research field. Compared to typical competitive or
individualistic gamification approaches, cooperative gamifi-
cation seems to be an interesting alternative, especially for
crowdsourcing platforms, innovation communities, co-crea-
tion approaches and other CSCW systems. We are confident
that our classification and the derived design principles for
cooperative gamification features will help designers of
CSCW systems to design more effective and purposeful in-
centive mechanisms. We hope that this paper will encourage
other researchers to develop and investigate cooperative
gamification approaches and that our contribution provides a
foundation to guide future research in this new direction.
REFERENCES
1. Richard P. Bagozzi and Utpal M. Dholakia. 2006. Open
Source Software User Communities: A Study of
Participation in Linux User Groups. Management
Science 52, 7: 1099–1115.
http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0545
2. Jennie Björk, Fausto Di Vincenzo, Mats Magnusson,
and Daniele Mascia. 2011. The Impact of Social
Capital on Ideation. Industry & Innovation 18, 6: 631–
647. http://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.591976
3. Ivo Blohm, Ulrich Bretschneider, Jan Marco
Leimeister, and Helmut Krcmar. 2010. Does
Collaboration among Participants Lead to Better Ideas
in IT-Based Idea Competitions? An Empirical
Investigation. In Proceeding of the 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, 1–
10. http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.157
4. Gee-Woo Bock, Robert W. Zmud, Young-Gul Kim,
and Jae-Nam Lee. 2005. Behavioral Intention
Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles
of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces,
and Organizational Climate. MISQ 29, 1: 87–111.
5. An Bui, Daniel Veit, and Jane Webster. 2015.
Gamification – A Novel Phenomenon or a New
Wrapping for Existing Concepts? In Proceedings of the
36th Int. Conference on Information Systems, 1–21.
6. Chien-Hsun Chen, Chuen-Tsai Sun, and Jilung Hsieh.
2008. Player Guild Dynamics and Evolution in
Massively Multiplayer Online Games.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 11, 3: 293–301.
http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0066
7. Yu Chen and Pearl Pu. 2014. HealthyTogether:
exploring social incentives for mobile fitness
applications. In Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium of Chinese CHI on - Chinese
CHI ’14, 25–34.
http://doi.org/10.1145/2592235.2592240
8. Helena Cole and Mark D Griffiths. 2007. Social
Interactions in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-
Playing Gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 4:
575–583. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9988
9. Sebastian Deterding. 2011. Situated motivational
affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. In
CHI 2011, ACM, 1–4. http://doi.org/ACM 978-1-4503-
0268-5/11/05
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
10. Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The Lens of Intrinsic Skill
Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design. Human–
Computer Interaction 30, 3–4: 294–335.
http://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.993471
11. Morton Deutsch. 1949. A Theory of Co-operation and
Competition. Human Relations 2, 2: 129–152.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204
12. Morton Deutsch. 2006. Cooperation and competition.
In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and
practice, Morton Deutsch, Peter T. Coleman and E. C.
Marcus (eds.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 23–42.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_2
13. Magy Seif El-Nasr, Bardia Aghabeigi, David Milam, et
al. 2010. Understanding and evaluating cooperative
games. In Proceedings of the 28th international
conference on Human factors in computing systems -
CHI ’10, ACM Press, 253–262.
http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753363
14. Nikolaus Franke and Sonali Shah. 2003. How
communities support innovative activities: an
exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users.
Research Policy 32, 1: 157–178.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9
15. Gartner. 2011. Gartner says by 2015, more than 50
percent of organizations that manage innovation
processes will gamify those processes. Retrieved July
6, 2012 from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?
id=1629214
16. David Geiger and Martin Schader. 2014. Personalized
task recommendation in crowdsourcing information
systems - Current state of the art. Decision Support
Systems 65: 3–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.007
17. Dion Hoe-Lian Goh and Chei Sian Lee. 2011.
Perceptions, quality and motivational needs in image
tagging human computation games. Journal of
Information Science 37, 5: 515–531.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511417786
18. Juho Hamari. 2013. Transforming homo economicus
into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification
in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 12, 4: 236–245.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004
19. Juho Hamari. 2015. Do badges increase user activity?
A field experiment on the effects of gamification.
Computers in Human Behavior.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036
20. Juho Hamari, Kai Huotari, and Juha Tolvanen. 2015.
Gamification and economics. In The Gameful World:
Approaches, Issues, Applications, Steffen P. Walz and
Sebastian Deterding (eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, USA, 139–161.
21. Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto. 2014. Measuring
flow in gamification: Dispositional Flow Scale-2.
Computers in Human Behavior 40: 133–143.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.048
22. Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto. 2015. “Working out
for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in
exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior
50: 333–347. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018
23. Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto. 2015. Why do people
use gamification services? International Journal of
Information Management 35, 4: 419–431.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006
24. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014.
Does gamification work? - A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the
47th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, IEEE, 3025–3034.
http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
25. Juho Hamari, David J. Shernoff, Elizabeth Rowe,
Brianno Coller, Jodi Asbell-Clarke, and Teon Edwards.
2016. Challenging games help students learn: An
empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in
game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior
54: 170–179. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
26. Alan R Hevner. 2007. A Three Cycle View of Design
Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems 19, 2: 87–92.
27. Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and
Sudha Ram. 2004. Design science in information
systems research. MISQ 28, 1: 75–105.
28. Kai Huotari and Juho Hamari. 2016. A definition for
gamification: anchoring gamification in the service
marketing literature. Electronic Markets 26.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
29. Katja Hutter, Julia Hautz, Johann Füller, Julia Mueller,
and Kurt Matzler. 2011. Communitition: The Tension
between Competition and Collaboration in Community-
Based Design Contests. Creativity and Innovation
Management 20, 1: 3–21. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8691.2011.00589.x
30. IEEE. 2014. Everyone’s a Gamer – IEEE Experts
Predict Gaming Will Be Integrated Into More than 85
Percent of Daily Tasks by 2020. Retrieved April 1,
2014 from http://www.ieee.org/about/news/2014/
25_feb_2014.html
31. Carolina Islas Sedano, Maira B. Carvalho, Nicola
Secco, and C. Shaun Longstreet. 2013. Collaborative
and cooperative games: Facts and assumptions. In 2013
International Conference on Collaboration
Technologies and Systems (CTS), IEEE, 370–376.
http://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2013.6567257
32. David W Johnson. 2003. Social Interdependence:
Interrelationships Among Theory, Research, and
Practice. American Psychologist 58, 11: 934–945.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.934
33. J. H. Jung, Christoph Schneider, Joseph Valacich, and
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
J. Valcich. 2010. Enhancing the Motivational
Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of
Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in
Group Collaboration Environments. Management
Science 56, 4: 724–742.
http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1129
34. Maya Kavaliova, Farzad Virjee, Natalia Maehle,
Ingeborg Astrid Kleppe, and Tahir Nisar. 2016.
Crowdsourcing innovation and product development:
Gamification as a motivational driver. Cogent Business
& Management 3, 1: 1128132.
http://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1128132
35. Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari. 2014. Demographic
differences in perceived benefits from gamification.
Computers in Human Behavior 35: 179–188.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
36. Richard N. Landers, Kristina N. Bauer, and Rachel C.
Callan. 2015. Gamification of task performance with
leaderboards: A goal setting experiment. Computers in
Human Behavior Article in: 1–8.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008
37. Tak Yeon Lee, Casey Dugan, Werner Geyer, et al.
2013. Experiments on motivational feedback for
crowdsourced workers. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media, ICWSM 2013, AAAI Press, 341–350.
38. Jan Marco Leimeister, Michael Huber, Ulrich
Bretschneider, and Helmut Krcmar. 2009. Leveraging
Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for
IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management
Information Systems 26, 1: 197–224.
http://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108
39. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2007. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions.
Journal of Information Science 33, 2: 135–149.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506068174
40. De Liu, Xun Li, and Radhika Santhanam. 2013. Digital
Games and Beyond: What happens when players
compete? MISQ 37, 1: 111–124.
41. Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham. 1990. A theory of
goal setting and task performance. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
42. Thomas W. Malone. 1981. Toward a Theory of
Intrinsically Motivating Instruction. Cognitive Science
5, 4: 333–369.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2
43. Elaine Massung, David Coyle, Kirsten F. Cater, Marc
Jay, and Chris Preist. 2013. Using crowdsourcing to
support pro-environmental community activism. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’13, 371–380.
http://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470708
44. Elisa D. Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis, and
Alexandre N. Tuch. 2013. Do points, levels and
leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? In Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Gameful
Design, Research, and Applications - Gamification ’13,
66–73. http://doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583017
45. Debra Mesch, David W. Johnson, and Roger Johnson.
1988. Impact of Positive Interdependence and
Academic Group Contingencies on Achievement. The
Journal of Social Psychology 128, 3: 345–352.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1988.9713751
46. Ali Moradian, Maaz Nasir, Kelly Lyons, Rock Leung,
and Susan Elliott Sim. 2014. Gamification of
collaborative idea generation and convergence. In
Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on
Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’14,
1459–1464. http://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581253
47. Benedikt Morschheuser, Juho Hamari, and Jonna
Koivisto. 2016. Gamification in crowdsourcing: A
review. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),
IEEE, 4375–4384.
http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.543
48. Benedikt Morschheuser, Christian Henzi, and Rainer
Alt. 2015. Increasing intranet usage through
gamification – insights from an experiment in the
banking industry. In Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences - HICSS,
IEEE, 635–642. http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.83
49. Benedikt S. Morschheuser, Verónica Rivera-Pelayo,
Athanasios Mazarakis, and Valentin Zacharias. 2014.
Interaction and Reflection with Quantified Self and
Gamification: an Experimental Study. Journal of
Literacy and Technology 15, 2: 136–156.
50. Bonnie Nardi and Justin Harris. 2006. Strangers and
Friends: Collaborative Play in World of Warcraft. In
Proceedings of CSCW’06, ACM.
51. Loo Geok Pee, Atreyi Kankanhalli, and Hee-Woong
Kim. 2010. Knowledge sharing in information systems
development: a social interdependence perspective.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11,
10: 550–575.
52. Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A.
Rothenberger, and Samir Chatterjee. 2007. A Design
Science Research Methodology for Information
Systems Research. Journal of Management Information
Systems 24, 3: 45–77. http://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-
1222240302
53. Scott Rigby. 2014. Gamification and Motivation. In
The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications,
Steffen P. Walz and Sebastian Deterding (eds.). MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 113–137.
54. Scott Rigby and Richard M. Ryan. 2011. Glued To
Games - How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us
Spellbound. ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbara,
California.
Pre-print. Please find the original paper at https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998272
55. José Bernardo Rocha, Samuel Mascarenhas, and Rui
Prada. 2008. Game Mechanics for Cooperative Games.
In ZON Digital Games, Nelson Zagalo and Rui Prada
(eds.). Universidade do Minho, 72–80.
http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1920-10.2010
56. Richard M. Ryan, C. Scott Rigby, and Andrew
Przybylski. 2006. The Motivational Pull of Video
Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach.
Motivation and Emotion 30, 4: 344–360.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
57. Mohanbir Sawhney, Gianmario Verona, and Emanuela
Prandelli. 2005. Collaborating to create: The Internet as
a platform for customer engagement in product
innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 19, 4: 4–
17. http://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20046
58. Michael Scharkow, Ruth Festl, Jens Vogelgesang, and
Thorsten Quandt. 2015. Beyond the “core-gamer”:
Genre preferences and gratifications in computer
games. Computers in Human Behavior 44: 293–298.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.020
59. Christian W. Scheiner. 2015. The Motivational Fabric
of Gamified Idea Competitions: The Evaluation of
Game Mechanics from a Longitudinal Perspective.
Creativity and Innovation Management 24, 2: 341–352.
http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12115
60. Katie Seaborn and Deborah I Fels. 2015. Gamification
in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 74: 14–31.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
61. Xiao-Liang Shen, Matthew K.O. Lee, and Christy M.K.
Cheung. 2014. Exploring online social behavior in
crowdsourcing communities: A relationship
management perspective. Computers in Human
Behavior 40: 144–151.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.006
62. Mary Beth Stanne, David W. Johnson, and Roger T
Johnson. 1999. Does competition enhance or inhibit
motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin 125, 1: 133–154. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.125.1.133
63. John M Tauer and Judith M Harackiewicz. 2004. The
Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic
Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 86, 6: 849–861.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849
64. Hsien-Tung Tsai and Richard P Bagozzi. 2014.
Contribution Behavior in Virtual Communities:
Cognitive, Emotional, and Social Influences. MISQ 38,
1: 143–163.
65. Raimo Tuomela. 2000. Cooperation. Springer-
Science+Business Media Dordrecht, Dordrecht.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9594-0
66. Bogdan Vasilescu, Alexander Serebrenik, Prem
Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2014. How social Q&A
sites are changing knowledge sharing in open source
software communities. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM
conference on Computer supported cooperative work &
social computing - CSCW ’14, ACM, 342–354.
http://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531659
67. Molly McLure Wasko and Samer Faraj. 2005. Why
Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and
Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of
Practice. MISQ 29, 1: 35–57.
68. Cynthia Webster and D.S. Sundaram. 1998. Service
consumption criticality in failure recovery. Journal of
Business Research 41, 2: 153–159.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00004-0
69. H Ye, A Kankanhalli, U Bretschneider, et al. 2012.
Collaboration and the Quality of User Generated Ideas
in Online Innovation Communities. In Proceedings of
the 72nd Annual Meetings of the Academy of
Management.
70. Nick Yee. 2006. Motivations for Play in Online Games.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 9, 6: 772–775.
71. Ping Zhang. 2008. Motivational Affordances: Reasons
for ICT Design and Use. Communications of the ACM
51, 11: 145–147.
http://doi.org/10.1145/1400214.1400244
72. Ping Zhang. 2008. Toward a positive design theory:
Principles for designing motivating information and
communication technology. In Designing Information
and Organizations with a Positive Lens, Michel Avital,
Richard J. Boland and David L. Cooperrider (eds.).
Elsevier Ltd, 45–74. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-
9152(07)00204-9
73. Eric Zimmerling, Patrick J. Hoflinger, Philipp Sandner,
and Isabell M Welpe. 2016. Increasing the Creative
Output at the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation -- A
Concept for a Gamified Internal Enterprise Ideation
Platform. In 2016 49th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE, 837–
846. http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.108
74. Oren Zuckerman and Ayelet Gal-Oz. 2014.
Deconstructing gamification: evaluating the
effectiveness of continuous measurement, virtual
rewards, and social comparison for promoting physical
activity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 7:
1705–1719. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0783-2
