Content uploaded by Marc Riar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc Riar on Jan 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
How game features give rise to altruism and collective action?
Implications for cultivating cooperation by gamification
Marc Riar
IKM, Technical
University of Berlin
marc.riar@tu-berlin.de
Benedikt Morschheuser
IISM, Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology
benedikt.morschheuser
@kit.edu
Juho Hamari
Gamification Group
Tampere University
juho.hamari@tuni.fi
Rüdiger Zarnekow
IKM, Technical
University of Berlin
ruediger.zarnekow@tu-
berlin.de
Abstract
Due to the general gamification of our culture and
society as well as the proliferation of games in our
everyday activities, people are increasingly looking at
games and gamification as a source for cooperation
and other prosocial behaviors. However, not all game
features lead to increased cohesion, cooperation or
collaboration between people. While some games in-
deed are geared for cooperation, majority of games
also aim toward competition or just non-social activity.
Therefore, a prominent research problem exists in un-
derstanding how different game and gamification de-
sign may lead to altruistic sentiment and collective
action. In this study, we investigated how the engage-
ment with cooperative game features relates to the
emergence of altruism and whether altruism leads to
the formation of we-intentions in a gaming context. We
employed data gathered among players of the aug-
mented reality game Ingress (N=206) and analyzed the
data using PLS-SEM. The results show that game fea-
tures can give rise to altruism and that altruism can
invoke we-intentions via cooperative goal structures
(we-goals) of individuals. In addition to providing im-
portant insights regarding how cooperation emerges
within games, this study provides implications for cul-
tivating cooperation by gamification.
1. Introduction
Cooperation and altruistic action are key prosocial
behaviors in our society and pivotal for a number of
desirable outcomes, such as engagement in charitable
work, social support, increased cohesion as well as
increased productivity within teams and better organi-
zational performance [17][25][26][45]. It seems there-
fore evident why cooperation and altruistic action are
in great demand, not only in our society but also in
organizational contexts and why explaining such be-
haviors has been an aspiration of scholars for many
years [6][11][13][25][26]. Of late, the seemingly ef-
fortless emergence of cooperative and altruistic activity
in multiplayer online games has come to the attention
of scholars [14][18][19][43] and with that an increas-
ing interest in how cooperative game patterns may be
utilized outside of games (i.e. as a form of gamifica-
tion) [30][37][38][39][40]. Gamification has been a
soaring trend in recent years [23][24]. It refers to trans-
forming systems, services and activities to afford simi-
lar positive experiences and skills as games do (i.e.
gamefulness), often against the backdrop of increasing
user engagement or motivating (beneficial) behavioral
outcomes [12][22][24].
However, so far, little is known about how and
which game features give rise to altruism and coopera-
tion in games and thus there is still a lack of under-
standing how cooperative potentials of games could be
used outside of a gaming context [7][29]. Current gam-
ification literature has pointed out that much focus has
been set on exploring individualistic motivations and
that considerably less research has been conducted to
examine collective perspectives of gamification
[7][29][40]. Since games and gamification have be-
come increasingly relevant for organizational contexts
[33][54], it seems vital to explore any untapped poten-
tials regarding design characteristics that could support
collective activity in settings such as in computer sup-
ported collaborative work (CSCW) and learning
(CSCL) environments.
One theory that has drawn much attention in terms
of explaining cooperation in technological settings and
online communities is we-intention theory (e.g.
[2][3][4][5][49][50][51][52]). In contrast to the more
commonly employed individual intention schemes, we-
intention theory relies on the notion that individuals do
not perceive themselves as isolated actors contributing
to a group performance independently, but rather as a
part of a collective acting together to achieve mutually
held goals [2][50][51][52]. There have been sugges-
tions in cooperation theory that altruism may play a
central role for the formation of we-intentions [2][50],
Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2020
Page 695
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/63825
978-0-9981331-3-3
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
however, empirical evidence of this thesis remains
scarce. In addition to closing an important gap by in-
vestigating how game features can give rise to altruism
and cooperation, it would present a vital contribution to
we-intention research to explore the pending theoreti-
cal issue pertaining to the role of altruism for the for-
mation of we-intentions.
The purpose of this study is therefore to empirically
investigate whether the interaction with cooperative
game features leads to the emergence of altruism and if
altruism may be responsible for invoking we-intentions
in a gaming context. In addition, based on the results,
we seek to provide implications for cultivating cooper-
ation by gamification. In order to answer our research
question, we employ data from a questionnaire con-
ducted with players of the augmented reality game
Ingress (n=206). This study provides relevant insights
by discussing how games give rise to altruism and co-
operation and by presenting important implications for
the design of gamified systems that seek to increase
altruistic and cooperative activity.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 We-intention
Cooperation is widely characterized as involving
two or more individuals working together to accom-
plish mutual goals [26]. The notion behind two indi-
viduals or a group of people working together and hav-
ing overlapping goals has encouraged researchers to re-
think how intentions must unfold in such situations as
compared to ones in which a person follows personal
goals and acts individually. Thus, it has previously
come to the understanding of some scholars that the
dissimilar situations of an individual acting alone or an
individual acting together with others calls for different
conceptualizations with respect to how intentions
emerge. This led to the birth of we-intention theory
[50][51][52].
Tuomela [50][51][52] theorizes that pure coopera-
tion is characterized by the presence of we-intentions
among the cooperating individuals. According to the
theory, the concept of we-intentions involves at least
two individuals who have common goals and collective
intentions that can be expressed as “We will perform X
together” [5][51][52]. This concept differs from coop-
eration based on individual goals and personal inten-
tions, which can be expressed as “I intend to do X” and
is often applied in more traditional theories, such as
theories of reasoned action or planned behavior [5].
Drawing on social antecedents such as social iden-
tity [3][4][49], group norms [8][49] or joint commit-
ment [40][46], we-intention theory has proven to be a
promising approach for investigating contribution and
participation behavior in cooperative virtual settings.
Apart from the above-mentioned antecedents, it has
been proposed that we-intentions may root from altru-
istic sentiment [2][50]. However, the lack of empirical
research has so far left us in the dark whether altruism
may affect the formation of we-intentions. In addition,
it remains unclear how certain design features in a sys-
tem may stimulate altruism. Therefore, this study seeks
to explore whether cooperative game features can in-
voke altruism and if altruism leads to the formation of
we-intentions.
2.2. Altruism
Altruistic action is usually described as helping be-
havior [6][11][31] and a perceived enjoyment for doing
so [10][32]. In virtual communities, seemingly altruis-
tic action can be observed on various accounts: people
participate in online fundraisings, provide answers to
questions of strangers online, contribute knowledge to
wiki sites or share open source software solutions with
the public [4][17][57].
In scientific literature, the concept of altruism has
been subject to some controversy, with the main argu-
ment being that even when an apparent altruistic be-
havior (e.g. helping others) is performed, it may in fact
be a product of a self-serving need or driven by per-
sonal goals that are unrelated to the desire to help oth-
ers [6][11]. Such goal structures can be regarded as
independent (I-goals). Pioneers in the field therefore
stress that altruism should be examined in accordance
with the underlying goal structures of people who en-
gage in helping behavior [6].
Essentially, helping on an altruistic account is
broadly regarded as involving a perceived enjoyment
for doing so, and provided the help occurred based on
an individual’s ultimate goal to increase the welfare of
others [6][32]. It has also been suggested that altruism
may especially arise within groups with which individ-
uals identify, leading to a “we”-perspective [47]. In the
realm of we-intention, identification with the group is
largely regarded as an important antecedent [3][8][49].
Moreover, it has been suggested that altruism may oc-
cur within an inner group, being manifested by means
of an individual’s goal (i.e. we-goal) to help and sup-
port group members [2].
One particular context in which altruistic action
seemingly occurs naturally is multiplayer online
games. Several studies devoted to investigating proso-
cial patterns in games offer that players frequently re-
ceive help or favors within games, often without the
obligation to reciprocate the help [42][55], and that
playing prosocial games can increase prosocial
thoughts and helping behavior [14][19].
Page 696
Games such as Pokémon Go, Ingress, Minecraft
and World of Warcraft have become tremendously
popular over the recent years, connecting an immense
number of people who socially interact with each other
on a daily basis. Therefore, it is not surprising that
more and more researchers and practitioners seek to
understand how the social potential of games and gam-
ification could be transferred to workplace environ-
ments (e.g. [28][54]), crowdsourcing networks or other
online communities that rely on cooperative interaction
(e.g. [37][38][40]).
3. Hypotheses and research model
3.1 Cooperative game features
Many games, especially multiplayer games, rely on
social interaction and cooperative play. To achieve
cooperative interaction, games usually specify certain
rules that set the cooperative frame, allow for trade and
communication, define mutual goals, create situations
in which players depend on each other or in which
skills of certain player roles complement each other
[15][40][42]. As suggested by a number of previous
studies, collective intentions and cooperative action in
games are essentially enabled and facilitated through
the exposure of cooperative game patterns [15][40].
We therefore hypothesize:
H1a. Engagement with cooperative game features
positively relates to we-intentions.
Prosocial game patterns and playing cooperatively
have previously been suggested to give rise to proso-
cial motives [14][19][41][42]. Games and gamification
have long been argued to yield powerful mechanisms
to increase intrinsic motivation [23][36][59] and en-
gaging in altruistic action has been proposed to be in-
trinsically fulfilling in the sense that people enjoy help-
ing others [57]. Team features, virtual gift giving, and
other features of cooperative nature have been associ-
ated with giving rise to altruistic sentiment and helping
behavior in games [41][42][53]. Accordingly, we pro-
pose that the engagement with cooperative game fea-
tures is positively associated with altruism in games.
H1b. Engagement with cooperative game features pos-
itively relates to altruism.
As suggested by theories of goal setting, coopera-
tive design such as interdependent roles, common chal-
lenges or tasks as well as shared benefits or group re-
wards, are all ways to create mutually held goals [48].
Games are notorious for being capable of addressing
all of the above. They are motivating mutual goals by
means of cooperative game features [15][40]. We
therefore hypothesize that cooperative game features
invoke we-goals.
H1c. Engagement with cooperative game features posi-
tively relates to we-goals.
To continue the assertions above, if the engagement
with cooperative game features mainly benefits the
group instead of oneself, it seems a logical assumption
that such cooperative actions are likely to be carried
out in support of the group goals rather than for strictly
personal goals. This assumption is in line with sugges-
tions from previous studies devoted to the design of
cooperative systems by utilizing cooperative game
features [39][40]. These studies suggest that coopera-
tive features invoke shared goals whereas features of
individualistic nature (e.g. badges, levels, etc.) invoke
personal independent goals. Accordingly, we propose
that engagement with cooperative game features is
only associated with we-goals and lack association
with I-goals.
H1d. Engagement with cooperative game features does
not relate to I-goals.
3.2 Altruism
As outlined in the theory section, the notion of al-
truism is closely linked with motivations to help others
and a feeling of enjoyment for doing so. Altruism is
therefore largely conceptualized as a perceived enjoy-
ment for helping others [10][27][32], which we adopt-
ed for this study. As proposed by altruism theory, it is
vital to consider the underlying goal structures of peo-
ple who engage in altruistic action [6]. Altruism theory
suggests that altruistic motivations should essentially
stem from the ultimate goal of an individual to increase
the welfare of others or of an inner group [2][6]. Peo-
ple who help others based on altruistic sentiment
should thus have cooperative goal structures (we-
goals). Based on this notion, we propose that altruism
is positively associated with we-goals.
H2a. Altruism positively relates to we-goals.
Altruism theory further suggests that if an individu-
al helps another person in order to gain a personal ben-
efit, the helping behavior hardly emerged from an al-
truistic mindset [6][11]. In this case, the individual
rather followed an independent goal (i.e. I-goal), as he
or she did not intent to increase the welfare of others
but rather to achieve a personal goal that is unrelated to
the group’s welfare. The altruistic idiosyncrasy to en-
Page 697
joy helping others is therefore not very likely to be
associated with invoking I-goals. Respectively, we
propose:
H2b. Altruism does not relate to I-goals.
Altruism as an expression of enjoyment for helping
others [10][32] has previously been found to positively
affect engagement in collective action [27][32][56][57]
and according to several renowned scholars in the
field, collective action is more fittingly explained by
drawing on we-intention theory as compared to more
conventional adoption theories that focus on individual
intentions [3][52]. In light of these suggestions, we
expect altruism to be positively related with we-
intention and propose the following hypothesis:
H2c. Altruism positively relates to we-intention.
3.3 Goal structures
Goal-setting theory offers that goals can be set col-
lectively [34] and collective goals are widely recog-
nized for invoking collective intentions and coopera-
tive behavior [50][51][52]. We-intention theory pro-
vides ample theoretical support with respect to the role
of collective goals for invoking we-intentions. Previous
research suggests that cooperatively held values and
goals are captured through social identification and
group norms, leading to the formation of we-intentions
[4][8][49]. These suggestions are articulated at the core
of we-intention theory via the argumentation that we-
intentions commonly emerge in situations where indi-
viduals aim at achieving joint goals [52]. On the basis
of these theoretical suggestions, we posit:
H3a. We-goals positively relate to we-intentions.
A fundamental distinction between we-intentions
and conventional personal intentions is harbored within
individuals different goal structures. While we-
intentions are said to be invoked by we-goals, individ-
ual intentions are said to be invoked by personal com-
mitment and personal goals [5][52]. This means that
we-intentions should be explained by we-goals where-
as I-goals should play an inferior role for explaining
we-intentions. Hence, we suggest:
H3b. I-goals do not relate to we-intentions.
Figure 1: Research model and results
We-goal
(R² = 0.269)
Engagement
with cooperative
game features
I-goal
(R² = 0.066)
Altruism
(R² = 0.339) We-Intention
(R² = 0.357)
H1b
-0.223*
0.226*
0.582**
0.317**
-0.052
0.019
0.473**
-0.021
0.266**
Significant
relationships
Non-significant
relationships
* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01
H1c
H1d
H1a
H2a
H2b
H2c
H3a
H3b
Page 698
4. The empirical study
4.1 Data
The data for this study was collected from users of
Ingress. Ingress is a popular augmented reality game
and trailblazer for games such as Pokémon Go or Har-
ry Potter Wizards Unite. Using a mobile phone, play-
ers of Ingress move around the real world via a map,
which extends the real environment with virtual ob-
jects. Players join one of two teams (factions), each
aiming at taking over virtual portals and connecting
them to span fields with the goal to cover more space
with said fields as the opposing team. The game works
via inter-group competition but also significantly relies
on intra-group cooperation. Since the game supports
cooperative play via specifying shared goals and re-
quiring players to support each other, it is suitable for
the purpose of our study.
In terms of recruiting participants for our survey,
we turned to Ingress communities within social net-
working websites and forums where we posted the
questionnaire. The survey ran for approximately five
months. A number of 206 participants at the average
age of 34.6 (30.1% female and 69.9% male) from 15
different countries completed the survey. The majority
of respondents (68.4%) stated to play Ingress multiple
times a day. 26.2% of respondents further stated to
have played Ingress for less than a year whereas 29.1
% between 1 and 2 years, 26.2 % between 2 and 3
years, and 18.4 % three years and longer.
4.2 Measurement
The items for measuring altruism, I-goals, we-goals
and we-intentions were all adopted from prior studies
(see appendix Table 1). For cooperative game features
the items were newly developed in correspondence to
the following procedure: In a first step, all necessary
information about the game, gameplay and game fea-
tures were gathered by available documents and de-
scriptions about the game as well as by playing the
game. In addition, we conducted eight semi-structured
telephone interviews with Ingress players, all of which
had been playing the game for a minimum of six
months. By drawing on the classification framework
by Morschheuser et al. [39] and using a 5-point Likert
scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree), the inter-
viewees were asked to what degree they affirm each
game feature to have individualistic, cooperative or
competitive traits. The results from the interviews are
shown in the appendix in Table 2. Some features were
perceived as both cooperative and competitive. For the
features in question, we focused on the cooperative
aspects in our operationalization of the survey items.
The final items measure the engagement as well as
importance of cooperative game features and were
modeled in a formative manner, since they are not ex-
changeable and since the effects stem from a player’s
use and perceived importance of the features. The other
constructs were all arranged in a reflective manner.
To test the appropriateness of the survey scales, a
pre-study was conducted [21] with 110 users, revealing
a high validity of the items and requiring only minor
adjustments concerning the newly developed construct.
4.3 Validity and reliability
The research model was tested via structural equa-
tion modeling (component-based PLS-SEM) in
SmartPLS 3 [44]. Using structural equation modeling
is commonplace for testing causal effects in complex
models with several dependent and independent varia-
bles [35]. We chose to test the model via component-
based SEM, which is regarded preferable to covari-
ance-based SEM when it comes to testing predictive
studies [1] and for research models that consist of both
formative and reflective measures [35]. We assessed
convergent validity by reflecting on composite reliabil-
ity (CR) as well as average variance extracted (AVE).
All measures were acceptable, exceeding the thresh-
olds of 0.7 for CR and 0.5 for AVE [16] (see appendix
Table 3). For assessing discriminant validity, we veri-
fied that each item had the highest loading with its cor-
responding latent variable instead of with any cross
loadings [20].
In conclusion, validity and reliability of the meas-
urement model is supported, given that all criteria for
convergent as well as discriminant validity are met.
Moreover, several criteria for lower bounds of sample
size for PLS-SEM are satisfied [1][9].
4.4 Results
As presented in Figure 1, the research model ac-
counts for 35.7% of the variance for we-intention,
33.9% of altruism, 26.9% of we-goal and 6.6% of I-
goal.
Significant positive relationships could be observed
between engagement with cooperative game features
and we-intention (β = 0.226, p < 0.05), altruism (β =
0.582, p < 0.01) and we-goal (β = 0.317, p < 0.01).
These results are in support of H1a-H1c. The relation-
ship between engagement with cooperative game fea-
tures and I-goal is significantly negative (β = -0.223, p
< 0.05). H1d could not be confirmed, since we hypoth-
esized a non-significant relationship between these
variables. However, this result still supports our gen-
Page 699
eral understanding that engagement with cooperative
game features do not invoke I-goals. Interestingly, it
rather seems that cooperative game features even nega-
tively influence the emergence of I-goals.
Further, H2a is supported due to the significant
positive relationship between altruism and we-goal (β
= 0.266, p < 0.01). The relationship between altruism
and I-goal is non-significant (β = -0.052, p > 0.05),
which was expected and thus, H2b is supported.
Against our expectation, altruism has no significant
direct relationship with we-intention (β = -0.021, p >
0.05). H2c could therefore not be supported, however,
we-goal served as a partial mediator for this relation-
ship (β = 0.126, p < 0.01).
As hypothesized, the relationship between we-goal
and we-intention turned out to be positive (β = 0.473, p
< 0.01), and also in consensus with our expectation, no
significant relationship between I-goal and we-
intention could be observed (β = 0.019, p > 0.05). H3a
and H3b could therefore each be supported.
An overview of the results can be found in the ap-
pendix in Table 4.
5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to empirically investigate
how the engagement with cooperative game features
relates to the emergence altruism and whether altruism
may be responsible for invoking we-intentions. To
answer this question, we collected data via a survey
from users of the augmented reality game Ingress
(n=206).
Our findings suggest that interaction with coopera-
tive game design features can give rise to altruism in
games. Contributing to the welfare of others in games
seems to be intrinsically fulfilling for players, given
they are rewarded with a feeling of enjoyment for their
prosocial in-game behavior. According to altruism the-
ory, this is a natural consequence of helping [6] and
what’s more, it adds to our understanding pertaining to
the different facets by which games or features of
games may give rise to intrinsically fulfilling outcomes
[36][59].
The results further indicate that altruism can invoke
we-intentions via we-goals. Due to scarce empirical
analysis supporting this theorization rooting from we-
intention research [2][50], this result presents a vital
contribution to our understanding regarding how we-
intentions and thus cooperation can emerge. To comply
with suggestions from altruism theory that the underly-
ing goal structures of people should be examined more
closely when investigating the notion of altruism [6],
we included the concept of I-goal as a counterpart to
we-goal in our research model. Altruism was found to
promote we-goals whereas I-goals are not incited,
which is in line with the theoretical suggestions in
terms of the underlying goal structure of altruism [6].
Pertaining to the relationships between cooperative
game features and goal structures, we found that coop-
erative types of game features can invoke we-goals
while the formation of I-goals is negatively affected.
This result supports the notion that cooperative game
features should invoke shared goals whereas independ-
ent goals are invoked by individualistic game features
[39]. In accordance with propositions regarding the
different notions of individual and collective inten-
tions, our results also support that we-intentions are
invoked by we-goals whereas I-goals are unrelated to
we-intentions [5][52]. These findings are interesting
because engagement in cooperative behavior in games
may also stem from striving after personal goals and
achievements, such as levelling up, earning points and
badges, or moving to the top of a leaderboard. In these
cases, group contributions are carried out due to self-
centered rather than altruistic motivations [6]. Thus,
while cooperative behavior may be achieved this way,
it seems that the exposure of game features that invoke
I-goals do in fact not motivate cooperative mindsets.
On the other hand, our results indicate that cooperative
game design has the ability to engage users in coopera-
tive behavior because they value the group goals and
value helping others, which may ultimately result in
sincerer and more reliable forms of cooperation in
games, namely cooperation based on we-intentions.
There has also been much discussion about the ef-
fects of games on behaviors after their use. While ma-
jority of studies investigated the negative behavioral
outcomes of playing violent games, recent studies have
also examined the positive behavioral outcomes of
playing prosocial games. Remarkably, these studies
found that games can have positive effects on prosocial
behavior, teambuilding, cohesion and team perfor-
mance in succession to playing (e.g. [19][28]). There-
fore, even if it may pose a greater challenge, we rec-
ommend designing systems with the objective to
achieve full-blown cooperation by addressing altruistic
motivations and we-intentions of individuals as com-
pared to relying on cooperation based on individual
motives and goals.
Interestingly, our results also indicate that the expo-
sure of cooperative game features can directly influ-
ence we-intentions, thereby adding generalizability to
previous studies which offer that cooperative game
design supports collective action in games [15][40].
5.1 Practical implications for gamification
Several implications can be derived from this study
which may be of value for practitioners seeking to in-
Page 700
crease altruistic action as well as cooperation or col-
laboration by gamification:
Design implication 1: The setting of goals is a well-
known gamification design feature [12][24]. For sys-
tems that aim at increasing cooperation, we recom-
mend focusing more on motivating goals that benefit
the group over goals that benefit strictly oneself. Our
results show that in the presence of cooperative game
features cooperative goals emerge, and this may even
lead to the detriment of personal goals. This is a desir-
able outcome in most cooperative settings, however, it
also raises the concern that vice versa features which
invoke I-goals may interfere with the emergence of
we-goals. Accordingly, we suggest that blending fea-
tures that address different goal structures should be
regarded with care. It would especially be beneficial to
attempt aligning personal goals with group goals in
order to increase prosocial activity and simultaneously
reduce the risk of harming the emergence of altruistic
motivation and collective intentions.
Design implication 2: According to our results, en-
gagement with cooperative features can lead to the
altruistic and intrinsically rewarding perception of en-
joyment for helping others. We therefore recommend
enriching systems with elements that motivate mutual
support and let users express their goodwill as well as
enable them to experience enjoyment for helping or
contributing to the welfare of others.
Design implication 3: We further found that the expo-
sure of cooperative game features can directly influ-
ence we-intentions. Thus, in order to give rise to col-
lective intentions, we recommend shifting the focus of
traditional gamification features such as rewards, chal-
lenges, achievements and so forth, from an individual
level to a group level (e.g. group rewards, group chal-
lenges, group achievements, etc.).
5.2 Future research
With this study we provided a doorway for more
research on the concepts of altruism and we-intention
in the domain of game and gamification research.
We provided empirical support of the theoretical
suggestion that altruism may play a central role for the
emergence of we-intentions [2][50]. However, cooper-
ation and seemingly altruistic action such as helping
others can also root from personal intentions, personal
goals and egoistic motivations [5][6][11][52]. An in-
triguing question that surfaced from this study is, if
egoism as a counterpart to altruism may be responsible
for invoking I-goals and personal intentions. Future
studies could extend our research by simultaneously
investigating these concepts. This would broaden our
understanding about the conceptual differences of we-
intentions and personal intentions as well as to whether
egoism or altruism is the main driver for cooperation in
games.
Finally, we call for more studies to differentiate be-
tween the conceptual schemes of we-intention and per-
sonal intentions, as we believe that it would result in
more accurate explanations to why people engage in
games and gamification services.
References
[1] Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
[2] Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional so-
cial action in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 27(3), 388–396.
[3] Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional
social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 16(2), 2–21.
[4] Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open source
software user communities: A study of participation in Linux
user groups. Management Science, 52(7), 1099–1115.
[5] Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for
social influence: The role of compliance, internalization, and
social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 226–247.
[6] Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altru-
ism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological
Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.
[7] Bui, A., Veit, D., & Webster, J. (2015). Gamification - a
novel phenomenon or a new wrapping for existing concepts?
In Proceedings of the 36th international conference on infor-
mation systems - ICIS'15, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1-21.
[8] Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P.-Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011).
Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343.
[9] Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business
Research, 295(2), 295–336.
[10] Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an inte-
grative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in
the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198–1212.
[11] Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is
(still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 124–126.
[12] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L.
(2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Aca-
demic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments, Tampere, Finland, ACM, 9-15.
[13] Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and com-
petition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.
[14] Dolgov, I., Graves, W. J., Nearents, M. R., Schwark, J.
D., & Volkman, C. B. (2014). Effects of cooperative gaming
and avatar customization on subsequent spontaneous helping
behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 49–55.
Page 701
[15] El-Nasr, M. S., Aghabeigi, B., Milam, D., Erfani, M.,
Lameman, B., Maygoli, H., et al. (2010). Understanding and
evaluating cooperative games. In Proceedings of the 28th
international conference on Human factors in computing
systems - CHI'10, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 253-262.
[16] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating struc-
tural equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
urement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
[17] Gleasure, R., & Feller, J. (2016). Does heart or head rule
donor behaviors in charitable crowdfunding markets? Inter-
national Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(4), 499–524.
[18] Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games
do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the
effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578–589.
[19] Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2011). Playing proso-
cial video games increases the accessibility of prosocial
thoughts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 121–
128.
[20] Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-
SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
[21] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
(2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international
edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
[22] Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. Wiley Blackwell En-
cyclopedia of Sociology (in press).
[23] Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use
gamification services? International Journal of Information
Management, 35(4), 419–431.
[24] Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gami-
fication work? - A literature review of empirical studies on
gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international
conference on system sciences - HICSS'14, Waikoloa, HI,
USA, 3025-3034.
[25] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation
and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN, US: In-
teraction Book Company.
[26] Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation
and the use of technology. Handbook of Research for Educa-
tional Communications and Technology: a Project of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technolo-
gy, 1017–1044.
[27] Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005).
Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge reposito-
ries: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 113–143.
[28] Keith, M. J., Anderson, G., Gaskin, J., & Dean, D. L.
(2018). Team Video Gaming for Team Building: Effects on
Team Performance. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer
Interaction, 10(4), 205–231.
[29] Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motiva-
tional information systems: A review of gamification re-
search. International Journal of Information Management, 45,
191–210.
[30] Leclercq, T., Poncin, I., & Hammedi, W. (2017). The
Engagement Process During Value Co-Creation: Gamifica-
tion in New Product-Development Platforms. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21(4), 454–488.
[31] Lehmann, L., & Keller, L. (2006). The evolution of
cooperation and altruism‐a general framework and a classifi-
cation of models. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19(5),
1365–1376.
[32] Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic mo-
tivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal
of Information Science, 33(2), 135–149.
[33] Liu, D., Li, X., & Santhanam, R. (2013). Digital Games
and Beyond: What Happens When Players Compete. MIS
Quarterly, 37(1), 111–124.
[34] Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in
goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 15(5), 265–268.
[35] Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares
(PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and
testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how
to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
57(2), 123–146.
[36] Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically
motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-369.
[37] Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Maedche,
A. (2017). Gamified crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, liter-
ature review, and future agenda. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 106, 26–43.
[38] Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A. (2018).
Cooperation or competition – When do people contribute
more? A field experiment on gamification of crowdsourcing.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
[39] Morschheuser, B., Maedche, A., & Walter, D. (2017).
Designing cooperative gamification: Conceptualization and
prototypical implementation. In Proceedings of the 20th
ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work
and social computing - CSCW'17, Portland, OR, USA, 2410-
2421.
[40] Morschheuser, B., Riar, M., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A.
(2017). How games induce cooperation? A study on the rela-
tionship between game features and we-intentions in an aug-
mented reality game. Computers in Human Behavior, 77,
169–183.
[41] Nakajima, T., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2013). Designing
motivation using persuasive ambient mirrors. Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 17(1), 107–126.
[42] Nardi, B.,Harris, J.: Strangers and Friends: Collaborative
Play in World of Warcraft. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2006,
ACM, New York, (2006), 149–138
[43] Peng, W., Lee, M., & Heeter, C. (2010). The effects of a
serious game on role-taking and willingness to help. Journal
of Communication, 60(4), 723–742.
[44] Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015).
SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.
smartpls.com.
[45] Sanders, N. R. (2007). An empirical study of the impact
of e-business technologies on organizational collaboration
and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6),
1332–1347.
[46] Shen, A. X. L., Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., &
Chen, H. (2009). An investigation into contribution I-
Intention and we-intention in open web-based Encyclopedia:
Roles of joint commitment and mutual agreement. In Pro-
ceeding of the 13th international conference on information
systems e ICIS'09, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 1-7.
[47] Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics. The
American Economic Review, 83(2), 156–161.
Page 702
[48] Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal
approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Ap-
plied Psychology, 47(3), 285–313.
[49] Tsai, H.-T., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2014). Contribution be-
havior in virtual communities: cognitive, emotional, and
social influences. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 143–164.
[50] Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philosoph-
ical study of basic social notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
[51] Tuomela, R. (2006). Joint Intention, We‐Mode and
I‐Mode. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30(1), 35–58.
[52] Tuomela, R., & Miller, K. (1988). We-intentions. Philo-
sophical Studies, 53(3), 367–389.
[53] Velez, J. A., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2013). Helping behav-
iors during video game play. Journal of Media Psychology.
[54] Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J. T., & Warmelink,
H. (2017). Computer games and organization studies. Organ-
ization Studies, 38(2), 273–284.
[55] Wang, C.-C., & Wang, C.-H. (2008). Helping others in
online games: Prosocial behavior in cyberspace. CyberPsy-
chology & Behavior, 11(3), 344–346.
[56] Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”:
why people participate and help others in electronic commu-
nities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Sys-
tems, 9(2-3), 155–173.
[57] Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share?
Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in elec-
tronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 35–57.
[58] Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Organiza-
tional partnerships in China: self-interest, goal interdepend-
ence, and opportunism. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(4), 782.
[59] Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy
needs? A study on the relationship between gamification
features and intrinsic need satisfaction. International Journal
of Information Management, 46, 210–221.
7. Appendix Table 1: Measurement items
We-intention
Source: [46][49]
1) I intend that our group (i.e. myself and the group that I identified before) play Ingress together sometime during the next 4
weeks.
2) We (i.e., I and the group that I identified before) intend to play Ingress together sometime during the next 4 weeks.
3) We (i.e., I and the group that I identified before) plan to play Ingress together sometime during the next 4 weeks.
We-goal
Source: [46][58]
1) The group (I identified before) and I “swim or sink” together.
2) The members of the group (I identified before) and I seek compatible goals.
3) We (i.e., I and the group that I identified before) all know that all members are jointly committed to performing their parts of
the common tasks.
I-goal
Source: [58]
1) The members of the group (I identified before) and I “do our own thing”.
2) The members of the group (I identified before) and I pursue our own independent goals.
3) The members of the group (I identified before) are most concerned about what they accomplish when playing by them-
selves.
Altruism
Source: [32][53][56]
1) I like helping other members of the group I mentioned before in Ingress.
2) It feels good to help other members of the group I mentioned before in Ingress.
3) I enjoy helping other members of the group I mentioned before in Ingress.
4) Assisting members of the group I identified before in Ingress is pleasurable.
Cooperative game features
Newly developed formative measure
1) How often do you upgrade portals of other players (Upgrade = deploy mods, deploy additional resonators, upgrade resona-
tors to higher level)
2) How often do you recharge resonators of other players?
3) How often do you communicate with other players via chat?
4) How often do you create control fields, in order to obtain Mind Units (MU)?
5) How often do you participate in XM Anomalies? (for the sake of playing Ingress together with other people)
6) How often do you participate in Mission Days? (for the sake of playing Ingress together with other people)
7) How often do you participate in First Saturday (FS) events?
8) How often do you look at the faction’s progress during a cycle?
9) How important is it to you to upgrade portals of other players? (Upgrade = deploy mods, deploy additional resonators, up-
grade resonators to higher level)
10) How important is it to you to recharge resonators of other players?
11) How important is it to you to communicate with other players via chat?
12) How important is it to you to create control fields, in order to obtain Mind Units (MU)?
13) How important are XM Anomalies to you? (with regard to playing Ingress with other people)
14) How important are Mission Days to you? (with regard to playing Ingress with other people)
15) How important are First Saturday (FS) events to you?
16) How important is to you to see the faction’s progress during a cycle?
Page 703
Table 2: Ingress feature categorization
Ingress game feature
Individualistic
Cooperative
Competitive
Action points
X
Agent level
X
Agent stats
X
Medals
X
Mission Badges
X
Personal avatar
X
Power cubes
X
Playing missions
X
Mission days
(x)
X
Factions
X*
Mind units
X*
Deploy resonators
X*
Recharge resonators
X*
COMM (in-game chat)
X
First Saturday events
X*
XM Anomalies
X*
Mods
X*
Takeover portals
X*
Upgrade portals
X*
Checkpoints and cycles
X*
Attacking portals
X
Weapons
X
Hacking portals
C
C
C
X = primary perceived category of the game feature.
(x) = secondary perceived category of the game feature, A minority of experts perceived this feature as part of the category.
* = features that were perceived as having both competitive traits (on an intergroup level) as well as cooperative traits (on an
intragroup level). For such cooperative-competitive features, we carefully identified the cooperative aspects before developing
the corresponding survey items.
C = features that were perceived as core game mechanics of the game. Thus, no clear assignment to one of the features categories
could be made.
Table 3: Validity and reliability
AVE
CR
CGF
Altruism
We-goal
I-goal
We-intention
CGF
n/a
n/a
n/a
Altruism
0.695
0.901
0.582
0.834
We-goal
0.581
0.806
0.472
0.450
0.762
I-goal
0.558
0.784
-0.253
-0.182
-0.165
0.747
We-Intention
0.884
0.958
0.432
0.320
0.567
-0.113
0.940
CGF = Cooperative game features
Table 4: Results
Independent variable
Dependent variable
β
CI95LO
CI95 HI
p
Cooperative game features
Altruism
0.582
0.470
0.700
0.000
We-goals
0.317
0.195
0.558
0.001
I-goals
-0.223
-0.443
-0.029
0.042
We-intention
0.226
0.082
0.484
0.035
Altruism
We-goal
0.266
0.024
0.398
0.006
I-goal
-0.052
-0.205
0.194
0.598
We-intention
-0.021
-0.245
0.143
0.833
We-goal
We-intention
0.473
0.314
0.568
0.000
I-goal
We-intention
0.019
-0.095
0.162
0.772
β = standard regression coefficients, CI = Confidence interval
Page 704
