Conference PaperPDF Available

Gamification in marketing: reality or fiction?

February 2019

Conference: 48th EMAC Conference
At: Hamburg (Germany)

Authors:

Sandra Tobon

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Ruiz-Alba Robledo José L

University of Westminster

Jesus Garcia-Madariaga

Complutense University of Madrid

Gamification, to use game elements in non-game context, in marketing has become one of the more successful strategy of business- consumer interaction in the e-commerce context. On the other hand, gamification applied to education and health services are the most studied subject according to Scopus (2018) database. This research analyzes the more important literature, reported in Scopus and Web of Science, about gamification in marketing to demonstrate which mechanisms, elements, and theories explain how gamification in marketing works on consumer engagement with products or services in the digital era. Results evidence that rewards and challenges are the more effective mechanisms and it is associated with points and budget gamification’ elements. Moreover, the Theory of Self-Determination is the better explanation why gamification works in marketing contexts. Academic future lines of research and practitioner’s application have been provided.

The strategic diagram of gamification and online consumer decisions (SciMAT output).

…

continued)

…

Main gamification definitions, elements and citations.

…

Figures - uploaded by Sandra Tobon

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Sandra Tobon

Content may be subject to copyright.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Decision Support Systems

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

Gamiﬁcation and online consumer decisions: Is the game over?

Sandra Tobon

a,⁎

, José L. Ruiz-Alba

, Jesús García-Madariaga

Faculty of Economics and Business, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain

School of Management and Marketing, Westminster Business School, University of Westminster (London, UK)

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Gamiﬁcation

Online consumer decisions

Elements

Mechanisms

Self-Determination Theory

Systematic review

ABSTRACT

Consumption can be more than just a necessity; it can become a leisure activity. With the emergence of e-

commerce and social media, products and services are just one click away; a trend that is further driven by

gamiﬁed systems. This research aims to systematically analyze the most relevant academic literature on gami-

ﬁcation, to establish if it inﬂuences online consumer decisions and, if so, which elements, mechanisms, and

theories can explain it. After a thorough search from Web of Science and Scopus databases using SciMAT, 257

papers were analyzed. Twenty-nine (29) of the 36 papers found show empirical evidence that the inclusion of

game elements in non-game activities has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on consumer engagement and online consumer

decisions in digital contexts. Moreover, rewards and challenges were identiﬁed as the two most used mechan-

isms, with points, badges, and leaderboards being the most tested gamiﬁcation elements. The Self-Determination

Theory (SDT) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) are the two most common theoretical explanations

for why gamiﬁcation works. Lastly, possible future studies to include thematic, methodological and theoretical

agendas were discussed.

1. Introduction

Gamiﬁcation is the incorporation of game mechanisms into non-

game contexts to promote behavioral changes. To date, it has been

applied primarily to education, to improve the autonomous e-learning

process [1–3], and to promote healthy [4–10] or environmentally

friendly behaviors [11,12]. For practitioners, designing digital plat-

forms that are easier to use and more interactive has become a proﬁt-

able way to engage consumers and to make boring and repetitive ac-

tivities more fun [13,14].

According to Markets and Markets [15], the gamiﬁcation industry

will grow by 46.4% from 2015 to 2020, with total investment reaching

$11.1 billion. As companies are investing in e-commerce platform de-

signs, applications, and consumer loyalty programs [16], recent studies

have analyzed the inﬂuence on online consumer decisions [17–19].

Today, gamiﬁcation is more than a strategic decision. It seems to have

become a basic tool for businesses that have to deal with digital con-

sumers who spend almost two and half hours per day on the Internet or

check their smartphone an average of 80 times per day [20,21].

Online stores have already used gamiﬁcation. For example, the

Starbucks rewards card is a prime example of the use of gamiﬁcation to

create consumer loyalty to the brand [22]. The launch of Amazon Prime

in the United Kingdom featured a promotion for one free delivery in

exchange for signing up for a free one-month trial of their streaming

services, in an attempt to expand their services portfolio and retain

their current customers [23]. Moreover, almost every bank in the world

has an application (app) for customers to manage their money, and 55%

of European online banking users conﬁrm that they had also used

mobile banking services [24].

The most common previous use of gamiﬁcation applied to consumer

contexts has been loyalty or rewards programs [25], where consumers

obtain points that they can redeem for products. These programs thus

focus exclusively on applying the gamiﬁcation mechanism of the re-

ward.

Loyalty programs have been widely used as marketing strategies to

generate brand loyalty. Keh and Lee [26] found that the level of con-

sumer satisfaction is a predictor of the eﬀect of such programs on brand

loyalty and Koo et al. [27] demonstrated that the perceived value of a

loyalty program is crucial to its eﬀectiveness. Likewise, Temnyalov [28]

showed that rewards programs are eﬀective, also, as a strategy for es-

tablishing more eﬃcient pricing for sellers.

However, loyalty programs that focus on rewards systems have

neglected the implementation of Challenge, Social Inﬂuence,

Meaningful or Interactivity mechanisms that, as shown by gamiﬁcation

theory, can inﬂuence the modeling of consumer decisions.

The literature that analyzes how elements and mechanisms of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113167

Received 13 December 2018; Received in revised form 25 September 2019; Accepted 5 October 2019

⁎

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: stobon@ucm.es (S. Tobon).

Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Please cite this article as: Sandra Tobon, José L. Ruiz-Alba and Jesús García-Madariaga, Decision Support Systems,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113167

gamiﬁed systems interact to shape attitudes and behaviors has aroused

great interest. Academics from diﬀerent disciplines such as computer

science, psychology, information systems, and social sciences have

conducted studies considering that today people spend a great deal of

their time, whether for work or leisure, connected through mobile de-

vices or computers. Therefore, the explosion of mobile applications and

interactive systems has revolutionized how human-information systems

are related.

These gamiﬁed systems' inﬂuence on attitudes and behaviors have

been analyzed systematically in many contexts. For example, Sardi

et al. [7] have conducted a systematic review of the literature on ga-

miﬁcation applied to e-health and found that gamiﬁcation has focused

on the rehabilitation of chronic diseases, physical activity, and mental

health. Similarly, Johnson et al. [4] found 19 empirical papers that

analyzed the inﬂuence of gamiﬁcation applied to health and well-being,

of which 11 reports positive inﬂuence and 8 mixed eﬀects.

In contexts of application of gamiﬁed systems in education, Dichev

and Dicheva [29] found that there is insuﬃcient empirical evidence on

the beneﬁts of gamiﬁcation in long-term motivation toward learning.

Likewise, Faiella and Ricciardi [3] found that more empirical support is

required regarding the eﬃcacy of gamiﬁcation applied to the learning

process; although they found that agreement is high regarding the

personalized use of gamiﬁcation elements according to the proﬁle of

each student.

How gamiﬁed systems work in consumer decision-making processes

and what elements and mechanisms are necessary for these systems to

work are questions that have also been studied empirically, but this

literature has yet to be analyzed systematically.

Recent systematic reviews on gamiﬁcation literature have shown

how an area of study of gamiﬁcation applied to online consumption

decisions has been consolidated. For example, Koivisto and Hamari

[17] found 26 empirical documents that studied gamiﬁcation in con-

sumer decision contexts (domains such as business, marketing/con-

sumer behavior, tourism, e-commerce/services). Furthermore, Kasur-

inen and Kanutas [30] found 50 papers that focused speciﬁcally on

commercial activities.

The foregoing studies make it necessary to systematically analyze

the empirical literature to i) give an account of the state of the art on

the application of gamiﬁed systems in consumption decisions in digital

contexts, ii) to establish the conditions and mechanisms that explain

that gamiﬁcation does indeed work and that it can provide much more

than the simple, traditional brand loyalty programs that have been

applied as a commercial strategy, and iii) to ﬁnd new lines of research.

There is a resurgence of interest in analyzing how human interac-

tion with information systems is shaping the way that consumers make

decisions since people are online an average of 6:56 h per day and use

Social Networking Sites 2:20 h per day [20]. For example, Xu et al. [31]

analyzed the use of video to manage online customer reviews as well as

the inﬂuence of online reviews in consumer decisions [32,33]. Chen

et al. [34] analyzed how decision-making is supported by online sys-

tems that promote social and collaborative consumption. Finally, Sun

et al. [35] demonstrated that user satisfaction depends on system at-

tributes. Likewise, gamiﬁcation systems have been studied concerning

their inﬂuence on online consumer decisions, but it has not been spe-

ciﬁcally established if they work or what elements and mechanisms can

explain it.

This research ﬁlls the gap in the systemization of the literature on

gamiﬁcation applied to online consumer decisions and shows the main

theories, mechanisms, and elements that must be included in the design

of gamiﬁed systems to engage users and make the decision-making

process on digital platforms easy and fun for consumers. Moreover, this

study proposes new avenues of research on gamiﬁed systems in e-

commerce contexts.

2. Methodology

To meet the objectives, the PRISMA methodology was used to select

which papers to include in the analysis [36]. The universe was all of the

papers reported in Scopus or WoS, published from 2010 to 2018, and

that included “gamif*” in the abstract, title, or keywords. After ﬁltering

out the literature that did not ﬁt the criteria (Section 2.2), 257 papers

remained. A bibliometric analysis using the SciMAT tool was subse-

quently performed to establish a conceptual map of the literature on

gamiﬁed systems in the context of consumer decisions. Of these 257

papers, a manual review was performed to select only papers that in-

cluded an empirical analysis of the inﬂuence of gamiﬁcation on online

consumer decision. A systematic literature review was conducted of the

resulting 36 papers. The universe and the sample section are presented

below.

2.1. Universe

Table 1 shows the gamiﬁcation literature universe, sorted by sub-

ject, document type, author, and database.

The topic of gamiﬁcation itself yielded 5319 papers. 81% of them

were found in the Scopus database and 19% in WoS. Education (25.4%

of the WoS total) and Computer Science (41.1% of the Scopus total)

were the most common subjects in which gamiﬁcation was researched,

but it has also been studied from a multidisciplinary approach [37].

Another relevant characteristic was the document type; in Scopus,

58.3% were conference papers, and in WoS 85.4% were articles. Nacke

(31) and Hamari (30) are the authors with the largest bodies of work.

2.2. Sample

The sample selection was determined using the PRISMA metho-

dology [36] with these steps:

1. The universe: The universe is all papers or conference papers pub-

lished in peer-reviewed journals. They are also indexed and are a

part of the Scopus and Web of Science Datasets (Table 1).

2. The results were segmented by searching Scopus and Web of Science

(WoS) for papers published between 2010 and 2018 with a subject

Table 1

Gamiﬁcation in numbers.

Scopus Web of Science

N = 4302 N = 1017

By subject

Computer Science: 41.1%

Social Science: 1.5%

Engineering: 11.9%

Math's: 8.9%

Business, Management.: 4%

Education: 25.4%

Computer Science: 25.3%

Psychology: 13.3%

Medical and Health: 13.8%

Business and Management: 8.1%

Document type

Conference paper: 58.3%

Article: 24.3%

Conference review: 6.3%

Book chapter: 5.7%

Article: 84.5%

Review: 6.3%

Editorial Material: 4%

Proceedings Paper: 2.4%

By author

Nacke, L.E.:31

Hamari, J.:26

Nakajima, T.:23

Tondelo, G.F.:17

Isotani, S.:16

Rapp, A.:16

Johnson, D.:15

Korn, O.:15

Sakamoto, M.:15

Landers, R.N.:1

Hamari, J.: 17

Su, CH.: 8

Wiers, RV.: 8

Marti-Parreno, J.: 7

Landers, R.N.: 6

Rapp, A.: 6

Armstrong, G.M.: 5

Boendermaker WJ.: 5

De-Marcos, L.: 5

Koivisto, J.: 5

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

(TS) that included one of the following combinations:

“TS =(GAMIF* AND MARKETING)OR TS =(GAMIF* AND

“MOBILE MARKETING”) OR TS =(GAMIF* AND “DIGITAL MARK-

ETING”) OR TS =(GAMIF* AND SMARTPHONE) OR TS =(GAMIF*

AND TABLETS) OR TS = (GAMIF* AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES) OR

TS =(GAMIF* AND E-COMMERCE) OR TS =(“GAME-BASED

MARKETING”) OR TS =(GAMIF* AND ONLINE) OR TS =(GAMIF*

AND CONSUMER DECISIONS)”. We selected the keyword

“Marketing” because it summarizes all the studies in the ﬁeld of

consumer purchases and online consumer decisions while focusing

on the literature that had empirically measured the impact of ga-

miﬁcation techniques on consumer decisions [38].

3. This study focused on the literature on gamiﬁcation and online

consumer decisions (4% Scopus and 8.1% WoS). A total of 257

papers (articles and conference papers) were included in the bib-

liometric analysis. After eliminating duplicate papers, the abstracts

and the reference information on the papers were downloaded in

.csv format and imported into the SciMAT tool for bibliometric

analysis.

4. Exclusion criteria: This research excluded papers that were not

about gamiﬁcation, gamiﬁed systems, funware, or game-based

marketing; were not studied in the context of consumer decisions;

did not provide empirical research; were not peer-reviewed; were

not written in the English language.

5. Inclusion criteria: This research included papers that had empirical

research; focused on gamiﬁcation in the context of online consumer

decisions, marketing, digital marketing, mobile marketing, tourism,

and services; examined the attributes, elements or mechanisms that

inﬂuence the consumer's behavior or intention. Thirty-six empirical

papers were included and summarized.

3. Results

In this section, the results of the systematic review are presented.

First, a bibliometric analysis provides a snapshot of the literature on

gamiﬁcation as related to online consumption. Then the literature was

systematically reviewed to address the question of whether or not ga-

miﬁcation inﬂuences engagement and online consumer decisions. In

the third part, future research streams are discussed and proposed.

3.1. Gamiﬁcation and online consumer decision: a bibliometric analysis

Bibliometrics “is a set of methods used to study or measure texts and

information, especially in big datasets.” A bibliometric analysis illus-

trates on a Cartesian plane, the complete overview of the literature and

the dominant themes in a given subject [39]. This map allows for the

monitoring of a scientiﬁc ﬁeld, the delimiting of research subjects, and

the understanding of a subject's intellectual, social, conceptual and

cognitive structure [40,41]. This tool has been widely used in several

similar bibliometric analyses, for example [42,43].

Fig. 1 lays out a strategic map of gamiﬁcation in the context of

consumer decisions on a Cartesian plane, where the X-axis represents

the centrality, and the Y-axis represents the density of the related

keywords in the analyzed literature. Centrality measures “the degree of

interaction of a network with other networks, and it can be understood

as the external cohesion of the network.” Density “measures the in-

ternal strength of the network, and it can be understood as the internal

cohesion of the network” [36,p.,1617].

The diagram shows the conceptual map of the subject analyzed

according to the centrality and density that each keyword has. For

example, in the upper right quadrant (Fig. 1), we ﬁnd video games,

which present high levels of density and centrality, because gamiﬁca-

tion theory takes elements from video-games for its implementation.

The lower left quadrant represents the subjects with low levels of

centrality and density, which makes it possible to highlight the issues

that require further development and constitutes a future line of

research.

In the upper-right quadrant, with high centrality and density, the

motor themes identiﬁed were ‘intelligent tutoring systems,’ ‘reviews,’

and ‘video games.’ Intelligent tutoring systems adapt games in real-time

depending on the player's performance. Reviews are a way for users to

share information in gamiﬁed systems. Unsurprisingly, ‘Video games’

emerges as a major theme given that the majority of publications dis-

cuss gamiﬁcation's roots in video games.

The upper-left quadrant, with high centrality but low density, fea-

tures the highly developed but isolated themes ‘Motivational aﬀor-

dances’ and ‘behavioral intentions,’ indicating that these are well-de-

veloped themes that are marginally related. These themes discuss the

psychological perspective of why people are motivated by game content

and how intentions are shaped by gamiﬁcation.

The lower-left quadrant with low centrality and density shows

emerging themes. ‘Information systems’ and ‘psychological need for

satisfaction’ are the themes that need more in-depth research. They

have to do with understanding the needs of the users and designing

interactive information systems that allow the user to engage with the

platform. Information systems deal with how the gamiﬁcation is orga-

nized, how the gamer's data is collected, the game's instructions, and

the objectives that make up the context of the game, while ‘psycholo-

gical need for satisfaction’ involves the psychology of the user. A ga-

miﬁed system is correctly designed when it satisﬁes at least one of the

three main psychological needs: Competence, Relatedness, and

Autonomy [44].

In the lower-right quadrant, with low centrality, but high density,

the basic and transversal themes consist of ‘E-learning’ and ‘ques-

tionnaires,’ indicating that these are the least relevant and most studied

themes. This is because gamiﬁcation is frequently applied to e-learning

and has already been extensively studied. In the case of questionnaires,

this theme appears in this quadrant because it is the most widely used

instrument for data collection, despite criticisms of its validity.

3.2. Gamiﬁcation: deﬁnitions, mechanisms, and main theories

3.2.1. Deﬁnitions

Four deﬁnitions of gamiﬁcation were identiﬁed as being the most

frequently cited (Table 2). These deﬁnitions can be divided into two

categories; those that emphasize the stimuli (or gamiﬁcation elements)

and those that emphasize the type of response that is elicited. Both

Deterding et al.'s [45] and Zichermann & Linder's [25] deﬁnitions focus

on the game elements and mechanisms respectively, so they can both be

categorized as stimuli emphasis, whereas, Hamari et al. [46] and

Huotari et al.'s [47,48] deﬁnitions focus more on the experience of the

subject than on the process of gamiﬁcation itself. In this case, systems

are not gamiﬁed, but rather people engage with something that evokes

game-like experiences. In conclusion, gamiﬁcation can be deﬁned as the

process of applying elements of game design to a non-game context,

where the interaction between the game mechanisms and personal

disposition result in a fun and enjoyable experience.

3.2.2. Elements and mechanisms

The literature reviewed uses the concepts of elements, mechanisms,

and mechanics [38,49] indistinctly. As Table 2 shows, the inclusion of

game elements and mechanisms are essential to the deﬁnition of ga-

miﬁcation. However, many deﬁnitions use the terms mechanics and

elements interchangeably when in reality they are two diﬀerent con-

cepts.

In an attempt to clarify this distinction, Liu, Santhanam, and

Webster [50] proposed a new taxonomy deﬁning gamiﬁcation objects as

“the basic building block of a gamiﬁed system, which typically include

items, characters, scripts, visual assets, and so on” and gamiﬁcation

mechanics as the game rules. This taxonomy is useful to the design of

gamiﬁed systems but fails to provide a theoretical explanation of how

the interactions between elements, themes, mechanics and gamer

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

experience constitute a successfully gamiﬁed system.

In this paper, mechanisms are considered the systems that explain

why and how the combination of elements (objects), rules (mechanics),

and gamer characteristics can result in a gameful experience [51]. For

example, Li [52] studied whether gamiﬁcation would result in in-

creased adoption of the new Starbucks application. Points and badges

(game elements/objects) were given to users who switched from their

traditional CRM card to the new Starbucks app. The results showed that

the use of these gamiﬁcation elements caused an increase in app

adoption. In this case, the gamiﬁcation elements (objects) are points and

badges, and the gamiﬁcation mechanism that accounts for the beha-

vioral change is the reward.

Reiners and Wood [53] argued that there are two kinds of gamiﬁ-

cation; reward-based and meaningful. Reward-based gamiﬁcation is a

system designed to condition a behavior by “adding Badges, Levels/

Leaderboards, Achievements, and Points to a real-world setting” (p. 2).

Fig. 1. The strategic diagram of gamiﬁcation and online consumer decisions (SciMAT output).

Table 2

Main gamiﬁcation deﬁnitions, elements and citations.

Deﬁnition Document type Elements/mechanisms Reference Cited by

“The use of game design elements in a non-game context”

(p. 2)

Proceedings of the 15th

International Academic

MindTrek, 2011

•Self-representation with avatars.

•Three-dimensional environments.

•Narrative context.

•Feedback.

•Reputation, rank, and levels.

•Marketplace and economies.

•Competition under rules that are explicit and enforced.

•Teams.

•Parallel communication systems.

•Time pressure.

[45] 1893

“Gamiﬁcation is a form of service packaging where a core

service is enhanced by a rules-based service system that

provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the

user to facilitate and support the users' overall value

creation” (p. 19)

Electronic Markets

Proceeding MindTek, 2012.

Workshop Gamiﬁcation,

2011

Systemic conditions: rules, conﬂicting goals, variable and

uncertain outcomes.

Experiential conditions: the voluntary involvement of

player/users. The responses included hedonic pleasure,

suspense, and gamefulness.

[47,48] 435

“A process of enhancing services with (motivational)

aﬀordance in order to invoke gameful experiences and

further behavioral outcomes” (p. 3026).

47th Hawaii International

Conference on System

Science

Aﬀordance: points and leaderboards, achievements/badges,

levels, story/theme, a clear goal, feedback, rewards,

progress, challenge.

[46] 973

“The process of game-thinking and game mechanics in order

to engage the user and solve problems” (p. xiv)

Funware: “the application of game mechanics to

everyday situations” (p. 14).

Book Points, and levels, leaderboards, badges, onboarding,

challenges and quests, social engagement loops,

customization, gaming the system, agile and gamiﬁcation

design, empty bar problem, and dashboards.

[25] 236

According to Scopus, May 21, 2019.

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

This kind of gamiﬁcation is considered extrinsic motivation, and while

it has a short-term eﬀect on user behavior when rewards stop, the be-

havior also stops [54]. On the other hand, meaningful gamiﬁcation is

considered intrinsic motivation and is associated with “transformative

learning, where learners connect experience to previously held beliefs,

which can allow the transformation of those beliefs and long-term

change” [50,p.,4].

Nicholson [55] aﬃrmed that gamiﬁed systems can become a source

of intrinsic motivation if they include six elements: play, exposition,

choice, information, engagement, and reﬂection. These elements can

satisfy the three psychological needs established in the Self-Determi-

nation Theory (SDT) [53].

According to the literature revised here, gamiﬁcation processes

must have one or more of the following elements: points, levels, lea-

derboards, achievements/badges, story/themes, and avatars. Points are

rewards that are either symbolic or can be redeemed for money or

products. Levels are increasingly diﬃcult contexts that, depending on

the gamer's performance, can be reached or unlocked. Leaderboards

contain information about the performance of other participants, which

permits social comparison [38]. Badges are symbolic distinctions for

participants when they reach levels [56]. The story/theme is the

background of the game that permits the participant to perceive the

context and, avatars are the self-representation of the participants [55].

In order to increase the eﬀectiveness of the implementation of ga-

miﬁed systems, the literature reports the use of mechanisms such as

feedback, competition, rewards, challenges, social engagement and

rules [45,46], as necessary conditions; there also need to be certain

conditions inherent to the system such as voluntary participation and

challenging objectives [46].

3.2.3. Gamiﬁcation theories

Twenty-three (23) out of the 36 papers that were analyzed did not

include any theoretical perspectives. The other 15 papers (Table 3)

attributed the eﬀects of gamiﬁcation to one or more of the following

theories: SDT, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned

Behavior (TPB), Social Inﬂuence, and Flow Theory.

The Self-Determination Theory is frequently used in the literature of

gamiﬁcation to try to explain why gamiﬁcation is eﬀective in engaging

the consumer. According to SDT, people have three basic psychological

needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. When these needs are

satisﬁed, people experience satisfaction and well-being [69]. Deci and

Ryan [68, p.,13670] pointed out that these three needs are associated

with intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation “describes the natural inclination toward as-

similation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration which are so

essential to cognitive and social development. It represents a principal

source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life” [57, p.,70]. Extrinsic

motivation “refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain

some separable outcome” [57, p.,71].

According to this theory, people are inﬂuenced by both intrinsic and

extrinsic motivations. The more intrinsically motivated a consumer is,

the greater the control they have over their behavior and the more self-

determination they will feel.

From the point-of-view of Self-Determination Theory, gamiﬁcation

could be considered extrinsic motivation, where obtaining points,

badges, or other rewards explains why people engage in gamifying

activities [19,53,71]. Nonetheless, some authors argued that these

kinds of rewards can become a form of intrinsic motivation [58,72]. For

example, Kim et al. [58] proved that using feedback as an implicit re-

ward more eﬀectively increases the implicit motivation to engage in a

loyalty program than explicit rewards such as points. Olsson et al. [59]

demonstrated that the use of gamiﬁed systems increases the engage-

ment with an application; this behavioral change was attributed to the

eﬀect of intrinsic motivation.

According to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), people will

engage with the application, product or service website as long as it is

useful and easy to use. Learning a new way to do something is always

diﬃcult because people tend to resist change; however, if companies

make their electronic commerce platforms simple and user-friendly,

then the consumer would try to use the new applications or websites.

Table 3

Main gamiﬁcation theories.

Theory Description Subject Papers

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) A motivational theory that is based on the assumption that “people have an inherent growth tendency

and innate psychological need that is the basis of their self-motivation and personality integration.”

According to this theory, there are three kinds of psychological need: competence (to make changes to

the environmental and to attain valued outcomes), relatedness (“sense of belongingness and

connectedness to the persons, group, or culture disseminating a goal”), and autonomy (“internal

perceived locus of causality”) [61 p.,985 64]. Only when these needs are satisﬁed can a person

experience well-being and mental health. This theory establishes that are two types of motivation:

extrinsic and intrinsic.

Psychology [18,19,58–60]

Technology Acceptance Model

(TAM)

This theory establishes, as the determinants of computer acceptance, “perceived usefulness” (U) and

“perceived ease of use” (EU). U is “the prospective user's subjective probability that using a speciﬁc

application system will increase his or her job performance.” EU “refers to the degree to which the

prospective user expects the target system to be free of eﬀort.” [59, p.,985].

Computer Science [55,62–64]

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) This theory states that the “intention to perform behaviors of diﬀerent kinds can be predicted with

high accuracy from attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral

control” [63, p.,179].

Psychology [49,63]

Flow Theory (FT) This theory holds that an optimal experience with something is “when a person perceives that the

environment contains high enough opportunities for action (or challenges), which are matched with

the person's own capacity to act (or skills). When both challenges and skills are high, the person is not

only enjoying the moment, but they are also stretching his or her capabilities with the likelihood of

learning new skills and increasing their self-esteem and personal complexity” [65,p.,179].

Psychology [64,67]

Social Inﬂuence (SI) Three main theories on social inﬂuence were identiﬁed:

•The Theory of Social Comparison Process (TSCP) “social inﬂuence processes and some kinds of

competitive behavior are both manifestations of the same socio-psychological process and can be

viewed identically on a conceptual level. Both stem directly from the drive for self-evaluation and

the necessity for such evaluation being based on comparison with other persons” [66 ,p.,136].

•SDT, described above, while not explicitly a social inﬂuence theory, does address social inﬂuence,

primarily because of the relatedness need. People need to be part of a community [44].

•TPB, subjective norms, “refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the

behavior.” [63].

Psychology [49]

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

For example, Ayding [62] found that people have the intention to use a

page like Empire Avenue as long as they can learn something about it

ﬁrst and they perceive it as enjoyable. Yang et al. [55] showed evidence

that consumers engage with the Oreo cookie game when they ﬁnd it

useful and easy to use.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is a decision-making theory

that deﬁnes the factors that predict behavior. According to this theory,

all behavior is preceded by an intention, and the intention is de-

termined by the attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and

perceived behavioral control. Attitude can be “a favorable or unfavor-

able evaluation of the behavior.” Subjective norms have been deﬁned as

the “perceived social pressure to perform, or not, the behavior in

question.” Perceived behavioral control is the perceived level of diﬃ-

culty when it comes to performing the behavior [65, p.,188].

This theory has been used in the gamiﬁcation of consumer contexts

to explain the intention of consumers to use gamiﬁed products or ser-

vices. Bittner and Schipper [63] found that TPB can predict the inten-

tion to purchase non-gamiﬁed products, whereas TAM predicts the in-

tention to purchase gamiﬁed products. Additionally, Hamari [49] found

that TPB explains how badges can be an eﬀective way to engage the

consumer with a gamiﬁed product because they can compare their

performance to other players. Subjective norms then push everyone to a

better level of performance.

Flow Theory (FT) predicts that activity becomes a better experience

if it presents a certain level of challenge without completely surpassing

a user's skill level [66]. This explains why a consumer would ﬁnd in-

teracting with an eﬀectively gamiﬁed brand enjoyable and engaging

[73]. Berger et al. [67] found that the consumer can become self-brand

connected with a brand if its gamiﬁcation includes high interactivity

and optimal challenges.

Finally, Social Inﬂuence theories analyze “how one person or group

aﬀects another's opinions, attitudes, emotions, or behaviors” [74, p.,3].

Hamari [49] found that performance comparison between users of

Sharetribe was a mediating factor in the eﬀect that badges had on the

frequency of use of this website.

3.3. Does gamiﬁcation matters in online consumer decisions?

We looked for studies that empirically analyzed the eﬀect of ga-

miﬁcation on online consumer decisions. In this section, a summary of

the inﬂuence of gamiﬁcation on consumer brand engagement is pre-

sented.

Table 4 synthesizes the ﬁndings of the literature regarding the in-

ﬂuence of gamiﬁcation on consumer behavior. Thirty-six papers were

found to have empirical evidence regarding which game elements and

in what contexts gamiﬁcation inﬂuences consumer behavior in terms of

engagement, loyalty, or purchase intention. Twenty-nine (82.8%) of

these papers present evidence that gamiﬁcation has a signiﬁcant, po-

sitive inﬂuence on consumer behavior while four papers found that

gamiﬁcation's inﬂuence is relative, meaning that the inﬂuence was

mediated by other variables. The last two papers did not conclude that

gamiﬁcation had any inﬂuence.

The primary mechanisms that can be credited with gamiﬁcation's

inﬂuence on consumer decisions are rewards, challenge, mean-

ingfulness, social inﬂuence, assessment, and interactivity.

The literature reports two types of rewards that the consumer can

obtain in a gamiﬁcation context as a result of performing the “correct”

behavior: symbolic and social. Symbolic rewards may be points that are

redeemable for money or products. Badges and leaderboards are the

most common form of social recognition or social inﬂuence, and they

can be obtained by reaching a certain level of performance

[19,52,58,75–80].

When it comes to e-learning, challenging and meaningful mechan-

isms increase engagement to the same extent that the system allows

them to acquire or perfect a skill [81]. However, gamiﬁcation in con-

sumer contexts deﬁnes the concept of “challenging” as “activities or

actions which provide opposition to be overcome by the player”

[80,p.,287], and “meaningful” as activities that are useful or gratifying

in their own right. Therefore, in the online consumer decision context,

being challenging is associated with game elements such as competi-

tion, levels, goals, and tasks [59,83–85], and being meaningful is as-

sociated with interactivity, aesthetics, functionality, control, and plat-

form [82]. Both mechanisms are considered reward-based gamiﬁcation.

Social inﬂuence mechanisms that enable consumers to compare

their performance with other players, such as leaderboards or ratings,

can account for increased consumer engagement [49]. Similarly, as-

sessment and interactivity mechanisms also elicit increased engage-

ment, the former, because the consumer feels that they are being

evaluated and the latter because interaction with the system and with

other participants gives them the feeling that they have control over

their performance [86,87].

Two papers reported that gamiﬁcation lacks a signiﬁcant direct

inﬂuence on consumer decisions. In both cases (Table 4), an experi-

mental online design was used. Högberg, Shams, & Wästlund [71]

performed an experiment in which consumers used a mobile applica-

tion while shopping in a brick and mortar store in order to assess the

inﬂuence of mechanisms such as rewards and challenges (quizzes, time

limits, feedback, hunting for oﬀers) on the engagement with the store

brand in general, and especially on their purchasing decisions regarding

the promoted products. They found that gamiﬁcation only inﬂuenced

consumer decisions when the user truly became engaged with the ap-

plication. Hamari [49] conducted an experiment designed to evaluate

the inﬂuence of badges on the frequency of use of the Sharetribe plat-

form. He did not ﬁnd that a signiﬁcant direct inﬂuence resulted from

the use of this particular reward mechanism. However, he proved that

allowing each of the participants to compare their performance with

others had a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the use of the website's services.

Although these conclusions have only been drawn from two papers,

it suggests that gamiﬁcation may not be eﬀective in every context and

that more research on the eﬀects of gamiﬁcation as applied to consumer

decisions is needed, using a variety of products, game elements-me-

chanisms, and methodologies.

4. Limitations, discussion, and conclusions

The overall objective of this study was to analyze the literature on

gamiﬁcation as applied to online consumer decisions. The research was

limited to the literature on gamiﬁcation available in the databases

Scopus and Web of Science. Other related literature published in

newspapers or other databases such as Google Scholar was omitted to

avoid the inclusion of papers that had not been peer-reviewed.

Furthermore, a search of the Google Scholar database did not reveal any

unique records. The research did not include gamiﬁcation in other

subjects like education, health, and environment. However, comparing

the gamiﬁed elements that work in diﬀerent subjects could prove to be

an exciting research project.

The main conclusions were the following.

1. Does gamiﬁcation matter: Twenty-nine (29) out of thirty-six (36)

papers presented evidence that gamiﬁcation has a signiﬁcant and

positive inﬂuence on online consumer decisions (Table 4). Four (4)

papers showed a relative inﬂuence or that the inﬂuence is mediated

by other variables such as user proﬁle [90], consumer experience

[84], user implication [56], or user expectation [60]. Three (3)

papers did not demonstrate a positive inﬂuence of gamiﬁcation on

online consumer decisions [49,64,71].

The literature analyzed presents evidence of the inﬂuence of gami-

ﬁcation on the online decision-making process. Engagement with

apps, attitudes toward products or brands, and purchase or use in-

tentions are among the consumer decisions that were studied. The

most common gamiﬁed systems used to study this phenomenon

were mobile apps, e-commerce, downloaded games and online

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 4

Empirical evidence of gamiﬁcation's inﬂuence on online consumer decisions.

Authors Mechanisms Gamiﬁcation elements Methodology Context Response Results Gamif.

matter

Xi and Hamari [18] Immersion,

achievement, social

inﬂuence

Avatars, badges, points, virtual

currency, progress bar, levels,

leaderboards, task, social network

Quantitative: survey Xiaomi and Huawei

online communities

Intrinsic needs satisfaction

(autonomy, competence, and

relatedness)

Achievement and social inﬂuence are the

two strongest mechanisms that meet the

three psychological needs deﬁned by SDT.

Immersion does not predict satisfaction of

the autonomy need.

Yes

Jang, Kitchen, and Kim

[19]

Rewards Points, badges, leaderboards and social

interactions throughout its usage

Quantitative:

Longitudinal data

Exercise “Tranggle”

App: exercise and

purchase behavior

Engagement and purchase Epistemic, social and personal integrative

beneﬁts are positively associated with

engagement and the purchase of the app.

The relationship is moderated by age and

experience.

Yes

Liu and Tanaka [88] Rewards, challenge Points, rewards and competition Experiment Game-like shopping

experience

Increase in the consumption of

eco-friendly goods

Including points and levels elements in a

game-based system increases the

consumption of environmental products.

Yes

Mulcahy, Russell-

Bennett,

Zainuddin, and

Kuhn [83]

Challenge Hedonic design elements: challenge,

character, feedback. Transformative

design elements: behavior monitoring,

virtual training

Mixed method: focus

group and survey (497)

Apps promoting healthy

and environmental

consciousness

Satisfaction, knowledge and,

behavioral intentions

Signiﬁcant inﬂuence from the game design

elements on satisfaction, knowledge and

behavioral intentions. The inﬂuence was

diﬀerential according to the type of game.

Yes

Högberg, Shams, and

Wästlund [71]

Rewards, challenge Quiz, rewards, hunt for an oﬀer,

feedback, time limit, visual feedback,

haptic feedback, other's responses, 50/

Experiment on a real

store

Apps in smartphones.

Shopping in a real store.

Engagement, ﬁxation on the

target product, choice.

The hypothesis that gamiﬁcation inﬂuences

the choice of a target product was not

supported. Gamiﬁcation only had an

inﬂuence when users became genuinely

engaged with the application.

Berger, Schlager,

Sprott, and

Herrmann [67]

Interactivity,

challenge

Launch, interactivity and the challenge

of a gamiﬁed interaction.

Experiment 67 games. Automobile

and ﬁnancial services.

Emotional and cognitive brand

engagement; self-brand

connection (daily likes of a brand

network proﬁle)

Games that are highly interactive and

optimally challenging lead to increased

emotional and cognitive engagement and

strong connections to the brand. Conditions

under which the consumer did not become

engaged with the brand were: restricting

control and time pressure.

Yes

Li [52] Rewards App Quantitative: Survey 329 Starbucks membership

card and app

Switching from membership card

to the app

Gamiﬁcation motivated the consumer to

switch from the membership card to the

Starbucks app.

Yes

Dietrich, Mulcahy, and

Knox [82]

Rewards, challenge,

and meaningful

Achievements, badges, feedback

leaderboards, points, progress rewards;

competition, goal, level, task;

interactivity, aesthetics, functionality,

control, equipment.

Experiment, Survey Games: Dumb Driver;

Perfect Pour; Alcohol

Trivia

Level of preference Meaningful game characteristics were

preferred over reward game characteristics.

Yes

Nour, Rouf, and

Allman-Farinelli

[76]

Rewards Ranking, feedback, and badges. Mixed method Vegetable consumption

in young adults

Increased motivation to consume

vegetables. Increased use of the

application

An app that tracks users' vegetable

consumption and rewards them with

personalized reports on the beneﬁts they

reap for having eaten well is useful for

increasing vegetable intake.

Yes

Hsu and Chen [80] Rewards Badge Quantitative: Survey E-book retailing Hedonic value, utilitarian value,

satisfaction, brand love

Desirable consumer behaviors like brand

love and satisfaction are explained by

gamiﬁcation activities in marketing,

emphasizing hedonic and utilitarian value.

Yes

Ayding [62] Meaningful N/A Quantitative: Survey Empireavenue.com Intention to use gamiﬁed systems Age and gender moderate the relationship

between usefulness, ease of use, perceived

enjoyment and the intention to use the

gamiﬁed system.

Yes

Meder et al. [89] Rewards Tangible vs. intangible rewards Experiment Mobile e-commerce

application

Application user activity. Rewards have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on

user activity. Tangible rewards increase

activity more than intangible ones.

Yes

(continued on next page)

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 4 (continued)

Authors Mechanisms Gamiﬁcation elements Methodology Context Response Results Gamif.

matter

García-Jurado et al.

[64]

Rewards Points, badges, and leaderboards Quantitative: Survey Amazon.es Intention to use e-commerce

platform (Amazon); ﬂow.

Gamiﬁcation elements (points, badges, and

leaderboards) do not have a signiﬁcant,

direct inﬂuence on consumers' intention to

use the e-commerce platform; this

relationship was mediated by ﬂow in

Millennials.

Relative

Poncin et al. [84] Challenge Challenge, fantasy Experiment Collaborative design of

new laptop bag in an

online smart store.

Control, challenge, arousal,

consumer experience

Gamifying the consumer experience with

challenges and fantasy is a necessary

condition, but it is not enough to enhance

the quality of design of the laptop bag.

Relative

Yes

Leclercq, Poncin, and

Hammedi [90]

Meaningful,

challenge

Cooperation and competition Mixed methodologies Real online platform for

the design of new

products or services.

Ideas/design submission; writing

reviews, name submissions,

voting.

Four proﬁles of participants were identiﬁed

according to the level of engagement and

their participation in the co-creation

activities: competitors, cooperators,

coopetitors, and invisible users.

Relative

Yes

Liang et al. [77] Rewards Badges and price Quantitative:

Econometrics Model

Airbnb “Superhost”

badge

Accommodation's review volume

and ratings

Hosts with a “Superhost” badge are more

likely to receive reviews, while more

expensive accommodations had a lower

volume of reviews. Additionally, the badge

has a positive eﬀect on the guests spending

more on accommodation.

Yes

Kim and Ahn [58] Rewards Explicit or implicit rewards, visual

feedback.

Quantitative: Survey A loyalty program for

Starbucks

Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation

to engage with a loyalty program

Groups with salient rewards were less

motivated to engage in loyalty promotion

than groups without salient rewards. In the

context of gamiﬁcation where feedback was

given via a progress bar, intrinsic

motivation was high.

Yes

Rodrigues, Costa, and

Oliveira [91]

Meaningful,

interactivity

Design, easy-to-use, information,

webpage characteristics

Quantitative: Survey Intention to use e-banking Gamiﬁcation and ease of use have a

signiﬁcant, positive inﬂuence on the

intention to use e-banking websites.

Yes

Nobre and Ferreira

[92]

Meaningful N/A Qualitative: Semi-

structured interviews

and a focus group

Gaming Consumers' motivation to engage

in gamiﬁed experiences

Gamiﬁcation can be a marketing tool for

brand value co-creation where the

consumer may engage with a brand.

Moreover, practitioners can access reliable

consumer data on the consumer proﬁle,

preferences, trends, and new product

opportunities.

Yes

Yang, Asaad, and

Dwivedi [55]

Meaningful,

rewards

Perceived usefulness, ease of use, social

inﬂuence, enjoyment

Mixed methodologies,

Questionnaire

“Oreo: Twist, Lick,

Dunk” game

Consumers' intention to engage in

the gamiﬁcation process; brand

attitude

Perceived usefulness and enjoyment have a

signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the intention to

engage and brand attitude.

Yes

Hsu, Chen, Yang, and

Lin [87]

Interactivity,

meaningful

Website features (utilitarian, hedonic) Quantitative: Web-based

Survey

Recycling User attitude and behavioral

intentions

Web features have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on

consumer attitude and the behavioral

intention of recycling. This inﬂuence is

mediating by user experience and attitude.

Yes

Mitchell, Schuster, and

Drennan [93]

Challenge,

interactivity

Variable diﬃculty levels, player choice

and, dynamic feedback.

Between-subject

experiment

App designed to

encourage walking

Walking behavior over time Gamiﬁcation can facilitate the initial

behavior change and the maintenance of

this behavior change. However, it does not

have a real inﬂuence on intrinsic motivation

to perform the walking behavior.

Yes

Baptista and Oliveira

[79]

Rewards Points, reward, prices Quantitative: Survey Mobile banking services Behavioral intention; use

behavior.

Gamiﬁcation has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on

behavioral intentions to use mobile banking

services.

Yes

(continued on next page)

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 4 (continued)

Authors Mechanisms Gamiﬁcation elements Methodology Context Response Results Gamif.

matter

Olsson et al. [59] Challenge Challenge, progress, radar Quantitative:

Experiment

App designed and used

to ﬁnd images in a retail

store

Intrinsic motivation, satisfaction

and, intention to use

Gamiﬁcation and consumer experience

have a positive inﬂuence on intrinsic

motivation, satisfaction, and intention to

use.

Yes

Gatautis et al. [56] Rewards,

assessment

levels, points, feedback/rewards,

achievement/badges, leaderboards

Quantitative: Survey Lithuanian consumers Consumer brand engagement:

cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral.

A weak correlation between game elements

and consumer brand engagement. They

found cognitive engagement.

Relative

Yes

Xu et al. [94] Challenge,

assessment

N/A Qualitative: Focus

Group.

Gamiﬁcation in tourist

destinations

People give reasons for people

using games at tourist

destinations.

Curiosity, explore the destination, socialize,

fun and fantasy experiences, challenges and

achievement.

Yes

Sigala [78] Rewards Points, badges, leaderboard and social

interaction throughout its usage

Quantitative: Survey TripAdvisor Experiential value, trip planning,

trip experience

The website task and Facebook social graph

were the gamiﬁed elements that produced

the most engagement from TripAdvisor

users.

Yes

Harwood and Garry

[95]

Challenge, rewards Challenge, task, rewards, badges,

leaderboards, win conditions

Mixed methodology Samsung Nation

Website

Consumer engagement:

behavioral and emotional

Gamiﬁcation mechanisms that can

inﬂuence consumer engagement are

intrinsic/extrinsic rewards, relationship,

loyalty, subversion (repeat interaction).

Yes

Bailey, Pritchard, and

Kernohan [86]

Assessment Framework, rule, layout. Soft and hard

gamiﬁcation survey

Quantitative: Online

Survey

Consumer shopping

habits

Consumer engagement and data

validity

Gamiﬁcation increases participant

engagement in both scenarios, but for open

questions, the soft gamiﬁcation scenery was

more reliable.

Yes

Insley and Nunan [85] Challenge Competition between:

- retailers and other consumers in the

price of clothing.

-Against other shoppers.

-Against the retailers' policies

-pricing games

Qualitative:

Observation, Semi-

structured in-depth

interviews.

Fashion clothing Entertainment experiences from

partaking in online shopping

Shopping is itself an entertainment activity

that reports emotional beneﬁts such as

excitement when the product is delivered,

and the hedonic rewards are a distraction,

self-justiﬁcation, and self-gift.

Yes

Ziesemer, Müller, and

Silveira [60]

Meaningful,

rewards

Tangible-Intangible rewards: points or

reputation

Quantitative: Survey Online shopping Reasons for rating purchased

products (recommendation)

People rate products when it does not meet

their expectations (positive or negative).

People do it for tangible rewards.

Relative

Yes

Bittner and Shipper

[63]

Meaningful,

interactivity

Flow, enjoyment and perceived

usefulness

Quantitative: Online

Survey

Digital games Purchase intentions, intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation

TPB theory (attitudes, subjective norm, and

perceived control) explains the purchase

intention of everyday goods. Enjoyment and

ﬂow were the mediators between

motivation incentives and purchase

intentions.

Yes

Wen et al. [75] Rewards Rewards, leaderboards Quasi-experimental Marketing campaign

app

Engagement and purchase The gamiﬁcation mechanisms inﬂuenced

engagement with the app and purchase

behavior.

Yes

Xu et al. [94] Challenge and

assessment

N/A Qualitative: focus group. Gamiﬁcation in tourist

destinations

Why do people use games at

tourist destinations?

Curiosity, explore the destination, socialize,

fun and fantasy experiences, challenges and

achievement.

Yes

Conaway and Garay

[96]

Reward,

interactivity

Progress paths, feedback, and rewards,

social connection, the attractiveness of

the website

Quantitative: Survey Business websites Consumer engagement with the

website

They found that the mechanisms of

competition and fun were related to the

visual design of the website, and challenges

and competitions with progress bars.

Yes

Hamari [49] Rewards, social

inﬂuence

Badges Quantitative: Online

experiment

Sharetribe in a

university.

Service use: trade proposals

posted, number of transactions,

and page views.

The use of badges as a gamiﬁcation

mechanism did not cause increased use of

the website's services.

Relative

The research shows that gamiﬁcation has a positive inﬂuence (matters) or a negative inﬂuence (does not matter) in the study.

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

communities centered on technological brands.

Gamiﬁcation's inﬂuence on online consumer decisions is explained,

primarily, by the reward mechanism. In other words, consumers are

willing to participate in the game if, and only if, they earn a reward

in return, whether it is symbolic or real, meaning they can cash it in

for money or products [97]. However, the use of other types of

symbolic recognition, such as badges or leaderboards are elements

of gamiﬁcation that could explain why consumers are willing to

engage with brand communities. These elements allow them to

compare their performance with others, imitate their behavior, or

gain social recognition. In this case, social inﬂuence is the gamiﬁ-

cation mechanism that explains this behavior. This use of other

types of gamiﬁcation mechanisms can allow companies to overcome

the limitations of the traditional point systems in loyalty programs

[27].

2. The review: 36 of 257 documents were retrieved from the consulted

databases that present empirical evidence on the inﬂuence of ga-

miﬁed systems on consumer decisions. The remaining 221 docu-

ments, although they included the term “gamiﬁcation” and are

within a consumption context, did not study how they interact and

aﬀect consumption decisions. The above poses the challenge of

studying in greater depth the combination of elements and me-

chanisms of gamiﬁed systems that explain their inﬂuence on the

decision making of online consumption.

3. Theoretical foundations: The theories most frequently cited to explain

gamiﬁcation's inﬂuences were the Self-Determination Theory and

the Theory of Planned Behavior; both of them are psychological

theories. However, only 15 out of 36 papers adopted a theoretical

perspective in their research. Four main deﬁnitions of gamiﬁcation

were found in the literature review. Two of them emphasize sti-

mulus and its inﬂuence on consumer behavior and attitude [25,45].

Meanwhile, the other two emphasize consumer experience [46–48].

Finally, the most frequent mechanisms were rewards (points,

badges, and feedback), challenges, interactivity, and mean-

ingfulness.

In addition to more empirical studies, the subject requires more

theoretical development to explain its nature and how it operates.

Using psychological theories about human motivations may allow

this existing theoretical void to be ﬁlled. The consumer is an in-

dividual with needs, desires, and frustrations that requires under-

standing to design products and services according to their nature.

Gamiﬁed systems allow us not only to study consumer needs in

greater depth but also to satisfy them in a diﬀerentiated way. Ex-

plaining why the reward is the main driving force behind gamiﬁ-

cation inﬂuencing consumer decisions is a challenge to overcome for

researchers and practitioners of consumer behavior.

4. According to Deci and Ryan [44], people have three fundamental

psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relationship. How

is the reward-related to these three needs?

5. In conclusion, gamiﬁcation inﬂuences the way we make consump-

tion decisions. This inﬂuence is explained, mainly, by the me-

chanism of reward, challenge, meaningful, and interactivity.

Likewise, in theoretical terms, SDT and TPB are the theoretical de-

velopments most frequently used to explain this relationship. These

are both psychological theories that study human motivations and

they suggest that gamiﬁcation in consumption scenarios often deals

with more than just basic needs. What other needs does gamiﬁcation

supply? These are relevant questions that must be answered.

5. The future of gamiﬁcation and online consumer decisions

The analysis of the literature on gamiﬁcation in this paper has fo-

cused on answering the following research questions: ‘Do gamiﬁed

systems inﬂuence online consumer decisions and, if so, which elements,

mechanisms, and theories explain its inﬂuence? Furthermore, our re-

sults suggest four future lines of study that require more empirical

research on gamiﬁcation as applied to online consumer decisions.

Following, the future research agenda on gamiﬁcation applied to

online consumer decisions are presented. The agenda was organized

into Thematic, Methodological and Theoretical agendas [17].

5.1. Thematic agenda

The results of the literature review showed that the Reward is the

most studied gamiﬁcation mechanism. This is explained by the wide-

spread use of rewards programs in the traditional customer loyalty

strategies implemented by entrepreneurs. However, although this

strategy has proven to be eﬀective in stimulating demand in the short

term, it has generated many doubts about its eﬀectiveness in the long

term [27].

Therefore, future research should include other mechanisms of ga-

miﬁcation and empirically contrast their eﬀectiveness in establishing

relationships with the client over time.

The above should help us establish the motivators that can explain

why a consumer engages with a product or brand. According to the Self-

Determination Theory, people have three fundamental psychological

needs: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. Therefore, it is clear

that in a commercial exchange they seek more than direct or symbolic

rewards.

Theme 1. Future research should incorporate other mechanisms, apart

from Rewards and Challenges, such as Social Inﬂuence, Meaningful,

and Interactivity to establish its impact on consumer decisions.

The current consumer has greater access to information and there-

fore greater tools for making consumption decisions. The consumer

seeks to satisfy higher needs such as belonging to signiﬁcant social

groups and other social needs. It is thus necessary to analyze social

order mechanisms to understand how the virtual communities that

social networks have shaped are impacting social consumption beha-

vior.

Theme 2. What role do the psychological characteristics of users play in

the eﬀectiveness of implementing gamiﬁed systems in consumer

contexts?

The theoretical foundation of gamiﬁed systems in e-commerce

needs to be improved and empirically tested. For example, are the three

psychological needs described in the SDT approach satisﬁed by gami-

ﬁed systems? Is each type of user motivated by the same need?

There is literature that demonstrates the importance of personal

characteristics in consumer decision-making [98]. How do these psy-

chological proﬁles interact with the group to shape buying behaviors

[99]?

In the game literature, ﬁve-player proﬁles have been identiﬁed.

Each of them is determined by the player's primary motivation for

playing, and all of them correspond to psychological proﬁles; achievers

play to win, to gain a reward, or to reach high-performance levels,

socializers want to make new friends and explorers want to discover

diﬀerent aspects of the game (dynamic, objectives and context). Killers

want to perform better than anyone else and naïve people do not have a

speciﬁc objective or motivation [100].

These personal characteristics can determine or moderate the ga-

mer's performance and encourage them to engage in gamiﬁcation in the

context of consumer decisions [5]. For example, participants with

achiever or killer characteristics could be much more likely to invest

time and resources in the gamiﬁcation context because they are seeking

material gains or symbolic rewards. Conversely, explorers or socializers

could be more apt to become frustrated with gamiﬁcation because they

are just looking for fun or to make new friends.

The question is, do gamiﬁed systems work diﬀerently depending on

the psychological proﬁle of the user?

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

5.2. Methodological agenda

The results of the literature review of studies on gamiﬁed systems in

consumer contexts have allowed us to show that there is a body of

empirical literature that has analyzed the inﬂuence of gamiﬁcation

elements in consumption decisions. The methodologies used include

experiments, surveys, qualitative research, mixed methods, and only

one longitudinal study.

Considering that new technologies allow us to not only collect but to

analyze large volumes of data with analytical tools, the development of

research with broader time horizons should be explored in the ﬁeld of

gamiﬁcation in e-commerce.

Theme 3. Future research should include the time variable in their

studies to establish how consumer behaviors and decisions change in

extended gamiﬁcation applications over time.

Gamiﬁcation, as applied to online consumer decisions, is designed

to engage with the consumer in a speciﬁc context and within a limited

period. However, the investment made in gamiﬁcation is part of a

business strategy to build long-term customer loyalty. Therefore, fur-

ther analysis is needed to see if, and how long-term, gamiﬁcation

campaigns for products or services can be eﬀective. Will the consumer,

who is a part of the gamiﬁcation campaign, continue to be loyal to the

product when the reward or game is over?

When explaining the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the SDT

warns that extrinsic motivation (when people do something to obtain a

reward) is not eﬀective in the long term because without a reward the

behavior ceases [70]. Despite this risk, only one research study that

used a longitudinal methodology was found. Jang et al. [19] spent two

years analyzing the behavior of an online brand community and found

that the intention to continue to be part of the community was ex-

plained by gamiﬁcation elements, such as points, leaderboards, and

badges. The best predictors of this behavior, however, were the social

beneﬁts, the feeling of belonging and connectedness. Therefore, more

research needs to be done to study precisely which gamiﬁcation me-

chanisms are eﬀective in eliciting the desired behavior in the long run.

Theme 4. Can gamiﬁed systems be vehicles for implementing online

experiments in social science and for product testing before launch?

The majority of Social Science research uses a quantitative metho-

dology and questionnaires to collect the data [43]. The result of the

systematic revision has shown that 16 of 36 empirical paper (See

Table 4) implemented quantitative methodologies with surveys to test

the hypotheses; 9 experiments, 5 mixed methodologies, 3 qualitative

methodologies, 1 longitudinal study, 1 econometric model, and 1 quasi-

experiment.

By using gamiﬁcation, it is possible to implement online experi-

ments to analyze how much one or more variables inﬂuence consumer

behavior. Using gamiﬁed systems, consumer behaviors such as product

choice and stickiness (the time spent on the platform and the number of

repeated visits per user, etc.) can be measured directly [101], and the

Likert scale and questionnaire instrument, which has many limitations

and validity problems, can thus be phased out [102].

This tool can allow practitioners to perform trials of new designs or

services inexpensively before launching a new product, thus reducing

overall cost. Furthermore, the data that can be collected through ga-

miﬁcation and stored in servers online can also serve as a rich source of

information for practitioners to analyze and take management decisions

[103].

5.3. Theoretical agenda

What explains why a user engages with gamiﬁed systems when

making their consumption decisions? The results of the gamiﬁcation

literature review do not provide an answer to that question.

We found that 15 of the 36 papers analyzed focused on theoretical

issues. The rest are limited to empirical studies of gamiﬁcation elements

and their inﬂuence on the modeling of consumption behaviors, without

delving into the psychological or sociological determinants of those

behaviors.

Theme 5. Future research should analyze which psychological or social

determinants explain that people ﬁnd a gamiﬁed system attractive and

engaging when making online consumer decisions.

The results of the review showed that Self-Determination Theory

was the theoretical explanation most often used to answer this question.

This theory postulates that people experience well-being if they manage

to fulﬁll three basic psychological needs (Autonomy, Competence, and

Relatedness). The question is, can gamiﬁcation meet some or all of

those needs?

Moreover, what other explanations, from a more sociological per-

spective, could explain its eﬀectiveness, especially in virtual social

communities?

Theme 6. Which elements of gamiﬁcation, incorporated in gamiﬁed

systems, have the greatest impact on the information systems that

consumers consult to make their online consumption decisions?

Research on gamiﬁcation applied to online consumer decisions ne-

cessitates a multidisciplinary approach [37,88]. It must incorporate

psychological theories on human motivators to determine which ele-

ments and mechanisms work best in a game context to program those

elements and design an information system that is interactive, enjoy-

able, and useful. It is not enough to determine which elements work in

gaming contexts, but rather the entire gamiﬁed ecosystem must be

understood in order to design systems that respond to users' psycholo-

gical needs, fulﬁll technological requirements, and meet organizational

objectives. E-commerce demands that “instrumental outcomes” be

transformed into “experiential outcomes” [50], and that customers are

provided with a tangible experience.

References

[1] R.S. Alsawaier, The eﬀect of gamiﬁcation on motivation and engagement,

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 35 (2018) 56–79,

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009.

[2] C.-M. Chee, D.H.-T. Wong, Aﬄuent gaming experience could fail gamiﬁcation in

education: a review, IETE Tech. Rev, vol. 34, Taylor & Francis, India, 2017, pp.

593–597.

[3] F. Faiella, M. Ricciardi, Gamiﬁcation and learning: a review of issues and research,

J. E-Learning Knowl. Soc. 11 (2015) 13–21.

[4] D. Johnson, S. Deterding, K.-A. Kuhn, A. Staneva, S. Stoyanov, L. Hides,

Gamiﬁcation for health and wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature,

Internet Interventions 6 (2016) 89–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2016.

10.002.

[5] C.-I. Teng, Look to the future: enhancing online gamer loyalty from the perspective

of the theory of consumption values, Decision Support Systems 114 (2018) 49–60,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.08.007.

[6] E.A. Edwards, J. Lumsden, C. Rivas, L. Steed, L.A. Edwards, A. Thiyagarajan,

R. Sohanpal, H. Caton, C.J. Griﬃths, M.R. Munafò, S. Taylor, R.T. Walton,

Gamiﬁcation for health promotion: systematic review of behaviour change tech-

niques in smartphone apps, BMJ Open 6 (2016) e012447, , https://doi.org/10.

1136/bmjopen-2016-012447.

[7] L. Sardi, A. Idri, J.L. Fernández-Alemán, A systematic review of gamiﬁcation in e-

Health, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 71 (2017) 31–48, https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jbi.2017.05.011.

[8] L.P.S. Dias, J.L.V. Barbosa, H.D. Vianna, Gamiﬁcation and serious games in de-

pression care: a systematic mapping study, Telemat. Informatics. 35 (2018)

213–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.002.

[9] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, “Working out for likes”: an empirical study on social in-

ﬂuence in exercise gamiﬁcation, Comput. Human Behav. 50 (2015) 333–347,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018.

[10] Y.-L. Theng, J.W.Y. Lee, P.V. Patinadan, S.S.B. Foo, The use of videogames, ga-

miﬁcation, and virtual environments in the self-management of diabetes: a sys-

tematic review of evidence, Games Health J 4 (2015) 352–361, https://doi.org/

10.1089/g4h.2014.0114.

[11] D. Johnson, E. Horton, R. Mulcahy, M. Foth, Gamiﬁcation and serious games

within the domain of domestic energy consumption: a systematic review,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73 (2017) 249–264, https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.134.

[12] L. Morganti, F. Pallavicini, E. Cadel, A. Candelieri, F. Archetti, F. Mantovani,

Gaming for Earth: serious games and gamiﬁcation to engage consumers in pro-

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

environmental behaviours for energy eﬃciency, Energy Research and Social

Science 29 (2017) 95–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.001.

[13] R. Arshad, Pg Mohd Auza'e, Baharun, A conceptual framework review of gamiﬁ-

cation ﬂements on mobile marketing outcomes, Advanced Science Letters 23

(2017) 8362–8367, https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9892.

[14] A. Gupta, G.S., A review on gamiﬁcation and its potential to motivate and engage

employees and customers: employee engagement through gamiﬁcation, Int. J.

Sociotechnology Knowl. Dev. 9 (2017) 42–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.4018/

IJSKD.2017010103.

[15] Gamiﬁcation market by solution, Mark. Mark, https://www.marketsandmarkets.

com/Market-Reports/gamiﬁcation-market-991.html, (2017) , Accessed date: 12

September 2018.

[16] A.M. Kaplan, If you love something, let it go mobile: mobile marketing and mobile

social media 4 × 4, Business Horizons 55 (2012) 129–139, https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.bushor.2011.10.009.

[17] J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, The rise of motivational information systems: a review of

gamiﬁcation research, International Journal of Information Management 45

(2019) 191–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013.

[18] N. Xi, J. Hamari, Does gamiﬁcation satisfy needs? A study on the relationship

between gamiﬁcation features and intrinsic need satisfaction, International

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

[19] S. Jang, P.J. Kitchen, J. Kim, The eﬀects of gamiﬁed customer beneﬁts and

characteristics on behavioral engagement and purchase: evidence from mobile

exercise application uses, Journal of Business Research 92 (2018) 250–259,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.056.

[20] Global Web Index's quarterly report on the latest trends in social networking, Glob.

Web Index, http://insight.globalwebindex.net/social?hsCtaTracking=afa9dd8e-

3751-4d1f-8ba3-55d93e8a81dd%7Ca4dc94fa-6a38-4fc7-9692-6ccd4d2dfb70&

__hstc=237476959.9a23fd59fa1bdc3772c12a6c7426f27d.1485372330045.

1487446592462.1487599310066.3&__hssc=237476959.1.14877788732, (2017)

, Accessed date: 30 November 2018.

[21] Y.-Q. Zhu, H.-G. Chen, Social media and human need satisfaction: implications for

social media marketing, Business Horizons 58 (2015) 335–345, https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.bushor.2015.01.006.

[22] The starbucks reward card, Starbucks Website, https://www.starbucks.co.uk/

card, (2019) , Accessed date: 21 February 2019.

[23] Amazon Prime, Amazon, https://www.aboutamazon.co.uk/innovation/amazon-

prime, (2018) , Accessed date: 21 February 2019.

[24] The online banking landscape in Europe, Glob. Web Index, http://insight.

globalwebindex.net/hubfs/Infographics/Online-Banking-in-Europe-Infographic-

Q1-2017.pdf, (2017) , Accessed date: 22 February 2019.

[25] J. Zichermann, Gabe; Linder, Game-based marketing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,

Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010.

[26] H.T. Keh, Y.H. Lee, Do reward programs build loyalty for services? The moder-

ating eﬀect of satisfaction on type and timing of rewards, Journal of Retailing 82

(2006) 127–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.02.004.

[27] B. Koo, J. Yu, H. Han, The role of loyalty programs in boosting hotel guest loyalty:

impact of switching barriers, International Journal of Hospitality Management 84

(2020) 102328, , https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2019.102328.

[28] E. Temnyalov, Points mechanisms and rewards programs, Journal of Economics

and Management Strategy 28 (2019) 436–457, https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.

12292.

[29] C. Dichev, D. Dicheva, Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and

what remains uncertain: a critical review, International Journal of Educational

Technology in Higher Education VO - 14. 14 (2017) 1–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.

1186/s41239-017-0042-5.

[30] J. Kasurinen, A. Knutas, Publication trends in gamiﬁcation: a systematic mapping

study, Comput. Sci. Rev. 27 (2018) 33–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.

2017.10.003.

[31] P. Xu, L. Chen, R. Santhanam, Will video be the next generation of e-commerce

product reviews? Presentation format and the role of product type, Decision

Support Systems 73 (2015) 85–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.03.001.

[32] K.Z.K. Zhang, S.J. Zhao, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, Examining the inﬂuence of

online reviews on consumers' decision-making: a heuristic-systematic model,

Decision Support Systems 67 (2014) 78–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.

08.005.

[33] E. Maslowska, E.C. Malthouse, V. Viswanathan, Do customer reviews drive pur-

chase decisions? The moderating roles of review exposure and price, Decision

Support Systems 98 (2017) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DSS.2017.03.010.

[34] J. Chen, X.-L. Shen, Consumers' decisions in social commerce context: an empirical

investigation, Decision Support Systems 79 (2015) 55–64, https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.dss.2015.07.012.

[35] H. Sun, Y. Fang, J.J.P.-A. Hsieh, Consuming information systems: an economic

model of user satisfaction, Decision Support Systems 57 (2014) 188–199, https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.09.002.

[36] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaﬀ, D.G. Altman, D. Altman, G. Antes, D. Atkins,

V. Barbour, N. Barrowman, J.A. Berlin, J. Clark, M. Clarke, D. Cook, R. D'Amico,

J.J. Deeks, P.J. Devereaux, K. Dickersin, M. Egger, E. Ernst, P.C. Gøtzsche,

J. Grimshaw, G. Guyatt, J. Higgins, J.P.A. Ioannidis, J. Kleijnen, T. Lang,

N. Magrini, D. McNamee, L. Moja, C. Mulrow, M. Napoli, A. Oxman, B. Pham,

D. Rennie, M. Sampson, K.F. Schulz, P.G. Shekelle, D. Tovey, P. Tugwell, Preferred

reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,

PLoS Medicine 6 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

[37] D O'Donnell, N.; Kappen, D.L.; Fitz-Walter, Z.; Nacke, L.E; Johnson, How multi-

disciplinary is gamiﬁcation research?: Results from a scoping review, in: Annu.

Symp. Comput. Interact. Play. CHI Play 2017, Association for Computing

Machinery (ACM), United Kingdom, Europe, 2017.

[38] K. Seaborn, D.I. Fels, Gamiﬁcation in theory and action: a survey, International

Journal of Human Computer Studies 74 (2015) 14–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

ijhcs.2014.09.006.

[39] M.A. Martínez, M. Herrera, J. López-Gijón, E. Herrera-Viedma, H-classics: char-

acterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index, Scientometrics 98

(2014) 1971–1983, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1155-9.

[40] M.J. Cobo, A.G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, SciMAT: a new

science mapping analysis software tool, Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology 63 (2012) 1609–1630, https://doi.org/10.

1002/asi.22688.

[41] M.J. Cobo, A.G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, An approach for

detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research ﬁeld: a practical

application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory ﬁeld, Journal of Informetrics 5 (2011)

146–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002.

[42] M. Castillo-Vergara, A. Alvarez-Marin, D. Placencio-Hidalgo, A bibliometric ana-

lysis of creativity in the ﬁeld of business economics, Journal of Business Research

85 (2018) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.011.

[43] E.M. Murgado-Armenteros, M. Gutiérrez-Salcedo, F.J. Torres-Ruiz, M.J. Cobo,

Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through

science mapping analysis, Scientometrics 102 (2015) 519–557, https://doi.org/

10.1007/s11192-014-1443-z.

[44] E.L. Deci, R.M. Ryan, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human

Behavior, Plenum, Canada, North America, 1985.

[45] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. Nacke, From game design elements to ga-

mefulness: Deﬁning “Gamiﬁcation”, Proc. MindTrek 2011, Denmark, Europe,

2011.

[46] H. Hamari, Juho; Koivisto, Jonna; Sarsa, Does gamiﬁcation work? A literature

review of empirical studies on gamiﬁcation, in: Proc. 2014 47th Hawaii Int. Conf.

Syst. Sci., Hawaii, 2014: pp. 3025–3034. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.

2014.377.

[47] K. Huotari, J. Hamari, Deﬁning gamiﬁcation - a service marketing perspective,

16th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf. 2012 Envisioning Futur. Media Environ. MindTrek

2012, School of Information, UC Berkeley, CA, United States, 2012, pp. 17–22, ,

https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137.

[48] K. Huotari, J. Hamari, A deﬁnition for gamiﬁcation: anchoring gamiﬁcation in the

service marketing literature, Electronic Markets 27 (2017) 21–31, https://doi.org/

10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.

[49] J. Hamari, 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 (2013) 236–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.

2013.01.004.

[50] D. Liu, R. Santhanam, J. Webster, Toward meaningful engagement: a framework

for design and research of gamiﬁed information systems, MIS Quarterly 41 (2017)

1011–1034, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.01.

[51] D. Werbach, Hunter Kevin, For the Win: How Game Thinking can Revolutionize

Your Business, Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2012.

[52] C.-Y. Li, Consumer behavior in switching between membership cards and mobile

applications: the case of Starbucks, Comput. Human Behav. 84 (2018) 171–184,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.042.

[53] T. Reiners, L.C. Wood, Gamiﬁcation in Education and Business, Springer

International Publishing, School of Information Systems, Curtin University,

Bentley, WA, Australia, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5.

[54] B.F. Skinner, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, Appleton-

Century, Oxford, England, 1938.

[55] Y. Yang, Y. Asaad, Y. Dwivedi, Examining the impact of gamiﬁcation on intention

of engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context, Comput. Human

Behav. 73 (2017) 459–469, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.066.

[56] R. Gatautis, J. Banyte, Z. Piligrimiene, E. Vitkauskaite, A. Tarute, The impact of

gamiﬁcation on consumer brand engagement, Transformations in Business and

Economics 15 (2016) 173–191 http://www.transformations.khf.vu.lt/34.

[57] R.M. Ryan, E.L. Deci, Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic deﬁnitions and

new directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (2000) 54–67, https://

doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

[58] K. Kim, S.J. (Grace) Ahn, Rewards that undermine customer loyalty? A motiva-

tional approach to loyalty programs., Psychology and Marketing 34 (2017)

842–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21026.

[59] M. Olsson, J. Hogberg, E. Wastlund, A. Gustafsson, In-store gamiﬁcation: testing a

location-based treasure hunt app in a real retailing environment, in: S. RH, B. TX

(Eds.), 49th Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. HICSS 2016, IEEE Computer Society,

Karlstad University, Sweden, 2016, pp. 1634–1641, , https://doi.org/10.1109/

HICSS.2016.206.

[60] A.D.C.A. Ziesemer, L. Müller, M.S. Silveira, Just rate it! Gamiﬁcation as part of

recommendation, 16th Int. Conf. Human-Computer Interact. Appl. Serv. HCI Int.

2014. 8512 LNCS, 2014, pp. 786–796, , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

07227-2_75.

[61] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology:

a comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35 (1989)

982–1003.

[62] G. Aydin, Eﬀect of demographics on use intention of gamiﬁed systems,

International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 14 (2018) 1–21,

https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2018010101.

[63] J. Bittner, V. Jenny, Shipper, motivational eﬀects and age diﬀerences of gamiﬁ-

cation in product advertising, Journal of Consumer Marketing 31 (2014) 391–400,

https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945 VO - 31.

[64] A. García-Jurado, P. Castro-González, M. Torres-Jiménez, A.L. Leal-Rodríguez,

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Evaluating the role of gamiﬁcation and ﬂow in e-consumers: millennials versus

generation X, Kybernetes. 48 (2018) 1278–1300, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-

2018-0350.

[65] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50 (1991) 179–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)

90020-T.

[66] M. Csikszentmihalyi, J. LeFevre, Optimal experience in work and leisure, Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1989) 815–822.

[67] A. Berger, T. Schlager, D.E. Sprott, A. Herrmann, Gamiﬁed interactions: whether,

when, and how games facilitate self-brand connections, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science 46 (2018) 652–663, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-

0530-0.

[68] L. Festinger, A theory of social comparison processes, Hum. Relations. 7 (1954)

117–140, https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.

[69] R.M. Ryan, E.L. Deci, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being, The American Psychologist 55

(2000) 68–78, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

[70] E.L. Deci, R.M. Ryan, The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational pro-

cesses, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 13 (1980) 39–80, https://doi.

org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60130-6.

[71] J. Högberg, P. Shams, E. Wästlund, Gamiﬁed in-store mobile marketing: the mixed

eﬀect of gamiﬁed point-of-purchase advertising, Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services 50 (2019) 298–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.

2018.07.004.

[72] C.F. Hofacker, K. de Ruyter, N.H. Lurie, P. Manchanda, J. Donaldson, Gamiﬁcation

and mobile marketing eﬀectiveness, Journal of Interactive Marketing 34 (2016)

25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001.

[73] C.W. Yoo, G.L. Sanders, R.P. Cerveny, Exploring the inﬂuence of ﬂow and psy-

chological ownership on security education, training and awareness eﬀectiveness

and security compliance, Decision Support Systems 108 (2018) 107–118, https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.02.009.

[74] E.B. Goldsmith, Social Inﬂuence and Sustainable Consumption, Springer, Cham,

2015.

[75] D.M.-H. Wen, D.J.-W. Chang, Y.-T. Lin, C.-W. Liang, S.-Y. Yang, Gamiﬁcation

design for increasing customer purchase intention in a mobile marketing campaign

app, 1st Int. Conf. HCI Business, HCIB 2014 - Held as Part 16th Int. Conf. Human-

Computer Interact. HCI Int. 2014, Springer Verlag, Department of Digital

Multimedia Design, China University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 2014, pp.

440–448, , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07293-7_43.

[76] M.M. Nour, A.S. Rouf, M. Allman-Farinelli, Exploring young adult perspectives on

the use of gamiﬁcation and social media in a smartphone platform for improving

vegetable intake, Appetite 120 (2018) 547–556, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.

2017.10.016.

[77] S. Liang, M. Schuckert, R. Law, C.-C. Chen, Be a “Superhost”: the importance of

badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations, Tourism Management 60

(2017) 454–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.007.

[78] M. Sigala, The application and impact of gamiﬁcation funware on trip planning

and experiences: the case of TripAdvisor's funware, Electronic Markets 25 (2015)

189–209, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0179-1.

[79] T. Baptista, Goncalo; Oliveira, Why so serious? Gamiﬁcation impact in the ac-

ceptance of mobile banking services, Internet Research 27 (2017) 118–139,

https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2015-0295.

[80] C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen, How gamiﬁcation marketing activities motivate desirable

consumer behaviors: focusing on the role of brand love, Comput. Human Behav.

88 (2018) 121–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2018.06.037.

[81] K.M. Kapp, The Gamiﬁcation of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods

and Strategies for Training and Education, Pfeiﬀer, San Francisco, Ca, 2012.

[82] K. Dietrich, Timo; Mulcahy, Rory; Knox, Gaming attribute preferences in social

marketing programmes, Journal of Social Marketing 8 (2018) 280–296, https://

doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-06-2017-0038.

[83] R.F. Mulcahy, R. Russell-Bennett, N. Zainuddin, K.-A. Kuhn, Designing gamiﬁed

transformative and social marketing services: an investigation of serious m-games,

Journal of Service Theory and Practice 28 (2018) 26–51, https://doi.org/10.

1108/JSTP-02-2017-0034.

[84] I. Poncin, M. Garnier, M.S. Ben Mimoun, T. Leclercq, Smart technologies and

shopping experience: are gamiﬁcation interfaces eﬀective? The case of the

Smartstore, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124 (2017) 320–331,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.025.

[85] V. Insley, D. Nunan, Gamiﬁcation and the online retail experience, International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42 (2014) 340–351, https://doi.org/

10.1108/IJRDM-01-2013-0030.

[86] P. Bailey, G. Pritchard, H. Kernohan, Gamiﬁcation in market research: increasing

enjoyment, participant engagement and richness of data, but what of data va-

lidity?, International Journal of Market Research VO. 57 (2015) 17–28. doi:

https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-003.

[87] C.-L. Hsu, Y.-C. Chen, T.-N. Yang, W.-K. Lin, Do website features matter in an

online gamiﬁcation context? Focusing on the mediating roles of user experience

and attitude, Telemat. Informatics. 34 (2017) 196–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/

J.TELE.2017.01.009.

[88] B. Liu, J. Tanaka, AR-based point system for game-like shopping experience, 2018

Int. Conf. E-Bus. Appl. ICEBA 2018, Association for Computing Machinery,

Graduate School of Information, Production and Systems, Waseda University,

Japan, 2018, pp. 41–45, , https://doi.org/10.1145/3194188.3194189.

[89] M. Meder, T. Plumbaum, A. Raczkowski, B. Jain, S. Albayrak, Gamiﬁcation in e-

commerce: tangible vs. intangible rewards, 22nd Int. Acad. Mindtrek Conf.

Mindtrek Conf. Mindtrek 2018, Association for Computing Machinery, Technische

Universität Berlin, Germany, 2018, pp. 11–19, , https://doi.org/10.1145/

3275116.3275126.

[90] T. Leclercq, I. Poncin, W. Hammedi, The engagement process during value co-

creation: gamiﬁcation in new product-development platforms, International

Journal of Electronic Commerce 21 (2017) 454–488, https://doi.org/10.1080/

10864415.2016.1355638.

[91] L.F. Rodrigues, C.J. Costa, A. Oliveira, How does the web game design inﬂuence

the behavior of e-banking users? Comput. Human Behav. 74 (2017) 163–174,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.034.

[92] H. Nobre, A. Ferreira, Gamiﬁcation as a platform for brand co-creation experi-

ences, Journal of Brand Management 24 (2017) 349–361, https://doi.org/10.

1057/s41262-017-0055-3.

[93] R. Mitchell, L. Schuster, J. Drennan, Understanding how gamiﬁcation inﬂuences

behaviour in social marketing, Australasian Marketing Journal 25 (2017) 12–19,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.12.001.

[94] F. Xu, F. Tian, D. Buhalis, J. Weber, H. Zhang, Tourists as mobile gamers:

Gamiﬁcation for tourism marketing, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 33

(2016) 1124–1142, https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1093999.

[95] T. Harwood, T. Garry, An investigation into gamiﬁcation as a customer engage-

ment experience environment, Journal of Services Marketing 29 (2015) 533–546,

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0045.

[96] R. Conaway, M. Cortés Garay, Gamiﬁcation and service marketing, Springerplus 3

(2014) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-653.

[97] R.P. Bagozzi, Marketing as exchange, Journal of Marketing 39 (1975) 32–39,

https://doi.org/10.2307/1250593.

[98] S.-T. Wang, Consumer characteristics and social inﬂuence factors on green pur-

chasing intentions, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32 (2014) 738–753, https://

doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2012-0146.

[99] J.A. Simpson, V. Griskevicius, A.J. Rothman, Consumer decisions in relationships,

Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 304–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jcps.2011.09.007.

[100] R.A. Bartle, Designing virtual worlds, New Riders, United States, 2004.

[101] E.C. Zichermann, Gabe; Cunningham, Gamiﬁcation by Design, O'Reilly Media, Inc,

Canada, North America, 2011.

[102] N.K. Malhotra, A. Patil, S.S. Kim, Bias breakdown review the alternative methods

and prognosis of common method variance in marketing research, Marketing

Research 19 (2007) 24–29.

[103] S. Akter, S.F. Wamba, Big data analytics in E-commerce: a systematic review and

agenda for future research, Electronic Markets 26 (2016) 173–194, https://doi.

org/10.1007/s12525-016-0219-0.

Sandra Tobon is a Business and Economics PhD for the Complutense University of

Madrid, Spain. She has been a marketing professor for public and private universities in

Colombia. Her research interest is in digital marketing, consumer behavior and opinion

leadership.

José L. Ruiz-Alba (PhD, EMBA, PDG-IESE, SFHEA) is the Research Leader of the School

of Management and Marketing at the Westminster Business School, University of

Westminster (London, UK). He has more than 30 years of professional experience in

diﬀerent service ﬁrms. He has broad teaching experience in more than 15 countries. He

has written over 50 academic journal articles, book chapters and conference papers. He is

a member of the Scientiﬁc Board of Journalism, Tourism & Management Studies, the

European Journal of Family Business and the Journal of Business and Industrial

Marketing. He has received the best paper award from the Spring Servitization

Conference (Manchester, May 2016). He was co-chair of the International Conference

CBIM2018 and he is Guest Editor of a Special Issue of the Journal of Business and

Industrial Marketing.

Jesús García-Madariaga is currently Associate Professor in Management and Marketing

at Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain, director of the University Research team

“Markco2” and Visiting Research Fellow of the California Polytechnic University (San

Luis Obispo, USA). He is the principal researcher in a national project on Neuromarketing,

endorsed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. His re-

search interests encompass Tourism, Customer Value Management and CSR. His research

has been published in refereed international journals, including the Technological and

Economic Development of Economy, the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Management, the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Physiology & Behavior and

the Journal of Business Ethics among others.

S. Tobon, et al. Decision Support Systems xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Only Location: A Systematic Literature Review on Context Marketing

Conference Paper

Nov 2020

In today’s information era, the ability to address the needs of potential customers at a moment when they are particularly receptive to the information provided becomes increasingly important. Modern mobile devices allow to collect precise data about the users’ context, thus enhancing possibilities to better estimate, proof and react to current situations in real time. Given that, ‘context marketing’ nowadays is an approach frequently discussed in literature. This contribution aims to systematize existing publications on the subject of context marketing, in order to build a basis for future research and to uncover potential gaps and contradictions in previous research. Methodologically, the two scientific databases “Scopus” and “Web of Science” were searched for context marketing related contributions. The evaluation made use of a mixed methods approach including a qualitative content analysis, and subsequently further quantitative evaluations. The findings reveal the majority of publications to focus on the user’s location as the only context factor, resulting in a predominant focus on location-based advertising related research.

Gamification in E-Commerce: Tangible vs. Intangible Rewards

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Oct 2018

Increasing user participation or changing behavior are key goals when applying gamification. Existing studies in domains such as education, health, and enterprise show that gamification can have a positive impact on meeting these goals. However, there is still a lack of detailed insights into how certain game design elements affect user behavior and motivation. To gain further insight, this paper presents a user study in the field with 20, 000 participants of a mobile e-commerce application over a one-month time period to analyze the impact of gamification in the e-commerce domain and to compare the effectiveness of tangible versus intangible rewards. Results show that gamification has a positive impact in the e-commerce domain. The study also reveals that tangible rewards increase the user activity substantially more than intangible rewards. We further show how tangible rewards affect certain user types and provide a first discussion on the lastingness of these rewards.

Gamification for Health and Wellbeing:A Systematic Review of the Literature

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2016

Background Compared to traditional persuasive technology and health games, gamification is posited to offer several advantages for motivating behaviour change for health and well-being, and increasingly used. Yet little is known about its effectiveness. Aims We aimed to assess the amount and quality of empirical support for the advantages and effectiveness of gamification applied to health and well-being. Methods We identified seven potential advantages of gamification from existing research and conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies on gamification for health and well-being, assessing quality of evidence, effect type, and application domain. Results We identified 19 papers that report empirical evidence on the effect of gamification on health and well-being. 59% reported positive, 41% mixed effects, with mostly moderate or lower quality of evidence provided. Results were clear for health-related behaviours, but mixed for cognitive outcomes. Conclusions The current state of evidence supports that gamification can have a positive impact in health and wellbeing, particularly for health behaviours. However several studies report mixed or neutral effect. Findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small number of studies and methodological limitations of many studies (e.g., a lack of comparison of gamified interventions to non-gamified versions of the intervention).

Look to the future: Enhancing online gamer loyalty from the perspective of the theory of consumption values

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2018
DECIS SUPPORT SYST

Ching-I Teng

Most online games are commercial systems that attempt to motivate gamers to continue playing by enticing them to progress from one game level to the next. This indicates that the expectancy for character growth (i.e., the anticipation of an increase in game level) may enhance loyalty. However, no research has yet examined the antecedents of expectancy for character growth. Hence, this study adopts the theory of consumption values to examine the relationship among consumption values, expectancy for character growth, and online gamer loyalty. Responses from 1440 online gamers were analyzed using the structural equation modeling method. Learning, novelty, enjoyment, and social value were positively related to expectancy for character growth, and thus loyalty. This study is the first examining the relation among consumption values, expectancy for character growth, and online gamer loyalty. It contributes novel insights enabling electronic commerce managers to make more targeted decisions on resource allocation to effectively enhance gamers’ expectations and loyalty, thus creating promising revenues and competitive advantage.

The effects of gamified customer benefits and characteristics on behavioral engagement and purchase: Evidence from mobile exercise application uses

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2018
J BUS RES

The rise of the motivational information systems: A review of gamification research

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2019
INT J INFORM MANAGE

Today, our reality and lives are increasingly game-like, not only because games have become a pervasive part of our lives, but also because activities, systems and services are increasingly gamified. Gamification refers to designing information systems to afford similar experiences and motivations as games do, and consequently, attempting to affect user behavior. In recent years, popularity of gamification has skyrocketed and manifested in growing numbers of gamified applications, as well as a rapidly increasing amount of research. However, this vein of research has mainly advanced without an agenda, theoretical guidance or a clear picture of the field. To make the picture more coherent, we provide a comprehensive review of the gamification research (N = 819 studies) and analyze the research models and results in empirical studies on gamification. While the results in general lean towards positive findings about the effectiveness of gamification, the amount of mixed results is remarkable. Furthermore, education, health and crowdsourcing as well as points, badges and leaderboards persist as the most common contexts and ways of implementing gamification. Concurrently, gamification research still lacks coherence in research models, and a consistency in the variables and theoretical foundations. As a final contribution of the review, we provide a comprehensive discussion, consisting of 15 future research trajectories, on future agenda for the growing vein of literature on gamification and gameful systems within the information system science field.

Gamified in-store mobile marketing: The mixed effect of gamified point-of-purchase advertising

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2018
J Retailing Consum Serv

This study investigates the effect of gamification on in-store mobile advertisement. More specifically, it investigates the effect of gamification on the inclination to act on offers gained at point of purchase. For this purpose, a field experiment was conducted at a supermarket, where real customers were recruited. Eye tracking, smartphone activity logging and choice were used to investigate the customers’ behaviour. The results reveal that gamification is not always useful for increasing the tendency to act on offers. In fact, engagement in a gamified shopping task is needed; otherwise, the tendency to act on offers might even decrease when gamifying.

The role of loyalty programs in boosting hotel guest loyalty: Impact of switching barriers

Article

Oct 2019
Int J Hospit Manag

This study examines the relationships among the perceived value of a loyalty program, customer satisfaction with a loyalty program, affective commitment, switching barriers, and customer brand loyalty in the hotel context. An online survey method with a quantitative approach was used. Our results from a structural equation model revealed that the perceived value of a loyalty program is essential in the formation of customer brand loyalty. Lastly, findings from an indirect analysis showed that affective commitment and switching barriers mediated the relationship between the perceived value of a loyalty program and customer brand loyalty. Overall, our research will help researchers and practitioners demonstrate to the industry that the loyalty program is a crucial strategy for customer loyalty and helps develop competitive loyalty programs for success.

Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction

Article

Feb 2019
INT J INFORM MANAGE

Points mechanisms and rewards programs: TEMNYALOV

Article

Nov 2018
J ECON MANAGE STRAT

Emil Temnyalov

I study points programs, such as frequent flyer and other rewards programs, as a revenue management tool. I develop a two‐period contracting model where a capacity‐constrained firm faces consumers who privately learn their valuations over time. The firm cannot commit to long‐term contracts, but it can commit to allocate any unsold capacity through a points program. This points scheme creates an endogenous and type‐dependent outside option for consumers, which generates novel incentives in the firm's pricing problem. It induces the firm to screen less ex interim, and to offer lower equilibrium prices, reversing the intuition of demand cannibalization.

Evaluating the role of gamification and flow in e-consumers: millennials versus generation X

Article

Oct 2018
KYBERNETES

Purpose This research has three main objectives. First, it examines influence of gamification on the behavioral intention to use an e-commerce platform. Second, it analyzes the role of the flow state given its importance in terms of behavior in online environments. Finally, the study aims to detect and analyze differences between Millennials and Generation X. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical basis for this study stems from technology acceptance model. The extended model incorporates gamification and the optimal state of intrinsic motivation, flow state, as additional constructs. An online consumer panel was used to collect data from 253 Spanish Amazon users. A structural equation modeling, partial least squares, is proposed and multi-group moderation was studied. Findings Gamification in Millennials has positive and significant indirect effects on behavioral intention through the flow state. In the case of the Generation X, it has been detected that flow interferes in its perception of ease of use. The behavioral intention of using the Web page is directly correlated with the purchase intention. Companies should offer a fun interface to Millennials and an environment easier to use to the Generation X, for gamification to be successful. Originality/value This study expands the research scope in gamification by focusing on e-commerce sector, a field where scientific research is still scarcely developed. It emphasizes the importance of flow as mediator. Age differences confirm the need for segmentation when applying gamification and marketing strategies in e-commerce.