Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2020

Gameful Self-Regulation: A Study on How Gamified Self-Tracking

Features Evoke Gameful Experiences

Lobna Hassan Nannan Xi Bahadir Gurkan

Gamification Group Gamification Group Gamification Group
University of Turku Tampere University Tampere University
lobna.hassan@tuni.fi nannan.xi@tuni.fi bahadir.gurkan@tuni.fi

Jonna Koivisto Juho Hamari

Gamification Group Gamification Group
Tampere University Tampere University
jonna.koivisto@tuni.fi juho.hamari@tuni.fi

Abstract afford similar psychological states and skills that good

games provide. Such experiences of gamefulness
Gamification has become one of the top would sustain engagement with activities in non-game
engagement technology trends of recent times. It refers contexts [6, 13, 21]. and thus, support user’s
to designing and transforming systems, services, and motivation [13, 21, 30, 31, 36]. Gamification has,
activities to afford gameful experiences as good games hence, been utilized pervasively especially across
do, commonly implemented through the utilization of contexts where persistence and long-term continuance
familiar features from games. However, one of the of activity are key to the realization of results; i.e.
persistent problems in academia and practice has been education, work, and health [23, 26, 27, 41, 44, 45].
the lack of understanding of which systems features are A key to how gamification design often seeks to
more or less prone to facilitate which dimensions of the support the persistence and long-term continuance of
gameful experience. We investigate the relationships activities is facilitating self-regulation; the self-tracking
between user interaction with features related to goal- and correction of one’s behavior in relation to a desired
setting, self-tracking as well as prompts, and gameful outcome that one wishes to attain [1]. Gamification
experiences (accomplishment, challenge, competition, design, commonly attempts to support several aspects
guidance, immersion, playfulness, and sociability) of self-regulation [14, 27]; 1) Goal-setting, the process
through a survey (N=201) in a gamified exercise of determining desirable outcomes that individuals
service. Goal-setting and prompt features were wish to attain [34], often facilitated in gamification
positively associated with most dimensions of the through conscious objectives, leaderboards and badges
gameful experience whereas self-tracking features (e.g., [14, 27]), 2) Self-tracking/monitoring of one’s
were negatively associated with immersion and progress [1] is often facilitated in gamification through
sociability while positively associated with feelings of progress indicators and means of visualization such as
accomplishment. graphs and progress bars (e.g., [18, 35] ), 3) Prompts
that nudge individuals to continue to work towards
their set goals, commonly facilitated in gamification in
the form of reminders or suggestions [39, 48].
1. Introduction Prior research indicates that gamification can
provide positive cognitive, affective, social, and
During recent years, it has become increasingly motivational outcomes [18, 26] as well as support goal
accepted that games can provide several kinds of attainment, often through self-regulation. However,
cognitive, affective, social and motivational benefits little is known about how, and through which features
[9, 13, 53, 54]. The techno-social development termed gamification and system design in general can lead to
‘gamification’ [6, 13, 21] has emerged as an attempt to the gameful experience that gamification is thought to
harness these benefits on a larger scale [26, 36]. facilitate. The aim of this research is to investigate how
Gamification can be defined as a process of designing gamification (operationalized as goal-setting, self-
and transforming activities, systems, and services to tracking, and prompts features) leads to gameful
experiences (i.e. accomplishment, challenge,

URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/63877
978-0-9981331-3-3 Page 1103
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
competition, guided, immersion, playfulness, and study to identify dimensions of gamefulness in
social experience). We employ survey data gathered gamified services. The work incorporated previous
among users (N=201) of a gamified exercise app. This research on gamefulness from various fields through a
knowledge supports design of systems in general, and literature review as well as a host of qualitative and
gamification applications in specific, that are better quantitative confirmatory studies, leading to the
able to support individuals in their endeavors on the identification of seven dimensions of gamefulness in
long run through inducing appropriate experiences. gamified services as presented in Table 1.
As these conceptualizations of gameful experiences
2. Background are recent, the understanding of which types of
gamification may give rise to which gameful
experiences is lagging behind. Some preliminary work
2.1. Gamefulness has been conducted in order to identify which gameful
elements could be connected to which aspects of
To motivate engagement with activities that may gameful experiences [2, 43, 51]. However, little is
not be inherently inviting, such as exercise [18] or known about how the various gameful design elements
routine work activities [50], there has been a pervasive affect the various dimensions of gameful experiences.
effort to make these activities, and the systems and
services employed around them, more game-like 2.2. Gameful self-regulation
through several techniques [13]: gamification [21, 31],
exergames [41], serious games [28], game-based
learning [17, 24] games-with-a-purpose/human It is unintuitive to expect that all gamification
computation [37, 49], quantified-self (e.g. [14, 18]), features that entail different dynamics and mechanics
and persuasive technologies/behavior change systems would be equally suited to facilitate all the different
[55]; all of which generally belong to the larger class dimensions of gameful experiences. For the purposes
of motivational information systems [26]. The goal of of more effective gameful designs, it is of value to
such ‘gamification’ and technological developments is understand which gamification features or feature
commonly to create a ‘gameful experience’ and categories may be better or less able to evoke certain
consequently affect behavior in a positive way [6, 21, dimensions of gamefulness.
22, 30]. Gamefulness is, hence, key to the success of Gamification features are often selected to facilitate
these systems and their ability to motivate individuals. self-regulation [10, 14]; a process of monitoring one’s
While traditional understanding still often regards activity in relation to internal or external goals, so as to
gaming as a pure leisure activity without further improve and correct one’s behavior [1]. Self-regulation
benefits to an individual, gamified and gameful is thought to be a core aspect of human psychology
services combine dimensions of hedonism and utility through which individuals improve themselves, learn,
[26, 30, 31]. The goal in gameful system design is to or attain goals [1, 32, 52]. Successful self-regulation
employ gameful design practices, which would in turn often depends on the frequency, consistency and
induce gameful experiences [22]. The gameful accuracy of self-monitoring/tracking [1] as well as the
experiences would then motivate and support the user goal-setting process individuals engage in [32]
of a gameful system to perform intended behaviors amongst other variables.
[31]. Hence, gameful systems always contain a goal Goal setting; represents a process of determining
that is external to system use itself, and consequently, and pursuing desirable end states that individuals wish
the experiences produced by such systems are not to attain [34]. All individuals engage in goal-setting
limited merely to the enjoyment of using the system. consciously or unconsciously, but perhaps conscious
While “gamefulness” as a construct has been goal-setting is the most effective in terms of self-
considered difficult to define for a long time [6, 21], development [32, 33]. One of the core strengths of
the construct has generally referred to a latent idea of gamification and motivational design is directing
experiences related to playing games [6, 21, 31]. individuals along this process, arguably through the
Gamefulness in the context of gamification and gameful experience [10, 21]. Research has investigated
gameful systems has perhaps come to be more commonly employed features of gamification and the
concretely conceptualized as an interactive state in extent to which they support goal-setting, for example,
which an individual is voluntarily motivated to pursue leaderboards in learning [29] rewards and outcomes
meaningful goals, under pre-known conditions and [16, 37, 39] and largely, which categories of
evaluation techniques [31]. Recently, instruments for gamification features may be preferred by which
measuring the gameful experience have been individuals depending on their goal-setting tendencies
developed: Högberg et al. [22] conducted an extensive [14]. Theory has hence emerged on the connections
between goal-setting and gamification [10].

Page 1104
 Table 1. Gamefulness dimensions according to Högberg et al. [22]
Gamefulness dimension Definition
Accomplishment The drive for attainment of goals and completion of tasks
Challenge A test of one’s ability in which there is a drive for hard work to achieve the challenge
Competition The drive to best one’s self or others and attain a desirable outcome
Guided Feelings of being guided as to how, through what, and when can the goals of the gamified service
be attained
Immersion Absorption in the activity at hand to the exclusion of anything outside of it
Playfulness Feelings of voluntary engagement with imaginative or exploratory activities that have clearly
defined rules
Social experience Feelings of social presence associated with real or imaginary social actors in service

Self-tracking/monitoring; involves the conscious underlying activity that the system is attempting to
tracking of one’s behavior and variables of interest support. Research on gamification has indicated that
[47]. The idea of self-tracking in order to consciously notifications and prompts are one of the most
adjust and improve performance has perhaps been most appreciated features by users [39]. Similar findings
notably popularized in recent years by the quantified- have been obtained with regards to behavioral
self movement that advocated that such self-tracking is suggestions to promote desired behavior [48].
core to self-improvement [3, 35, 48]. Notable The implicit assumption in this research is that
gamification features that facilitate self-tracking gamification through these features associates with
include progress bars that summarize performance [14] gamefulness or similar positive experiences [26]. Many
as well as feedback mechanics [18] amongst other of the outlined gamification features indeed do
features. Research indicates that self-tracking of positively associate with positive affect [18], and flow
activity in gamified contexts can provide users benefits experiences [20], strengthening the implicit
[18], create enjoyable experiences of flow [20], as well assumptions that gamification features associate with
as motivate engagement with the gamified activity [3, gamefulness. Nonetheless, research has not directly
15, 37, 39]. investigated whether gamification features that support
Prompts; while goal-setting [34] and self-tracking self-regulation actually associate with experiences of
[3] have been found very useful to improving human gamefulness in general, or with which of the individual
behavior and its outcomes, research indicates that dimensions of gamefulness in specific. The question
individuals do not always consciously choose to follow remains as to what dimensions of gameful experiences
these strategies [52]. Additionally, individuals may not do gamification features that support self-regulation (in
often know what is it that they are supposed to do next terms of goal-setting, self-tracking, and prompts)
to attain their set goals without some external direction promote in users. To answer this question, and based
or information [35]. Prompts and suggestions are often on a scarcely available literature, we explored all
employed in gamification for these purposes. They possible associations between the 3 categories of
remind and nudge individuals towards further gamification design features and the seven dimensions
engagement with the gamified systems as well as the of the gameful experience as presented in Figure 1.

Goal-setting Self-tracking Prompts

Gamification features

Social
Accomplishment Competition Immersion
experience

Challenge Guided Playfulness

Gameful experience dimensions

Figure 1. The research model

Page 1105
3. The empirical study 70% of the times, 7 = interacting with the feature every
time) respectively. The measurement of gameful
3.1. Procedure and participants experience was adapted from the GAMEFULQUEST-
instrument by Högberg et al. [22], which can be used
An online survey was administered amongst the to measure a user’s perceived gameful experience of a
users (N=201) of a gamified exercise, and self-tracking system. At the planning stage of the research,
app; Wellmo, to investigate the gameful experiences researchers went through the measuring items in the
that gamification features are associated with. Wellmo instruments to ensure that they were all applicable to
is available for free download on the iOS and Android the study context. A leading prefix “This app makes
app stores. It allows users to create profiles, choose a me feel…” was added to the start of measuring item, as
health goal according to their fitness levels and track indicated in Appendix 1, to ensure the participants
their progress. As a standard exercise app1, it tracks the were thinking of the investigated app as they answered.
activity levels of users, daily steps, distance, calories Seven dimensions of gameful experience were
burned, sleep, and alcohol consumed amongst other measured as defined in Appendix 1: accomplishment
variables that may be of interest to the users. An (8 items), challenge (7 items), competition (7 items),
automated trainer is available to guide the users guided (6 items), immersion (9 items), playfulness (9
through their goals if they so wish. Various trackers items) and social experience (7 items). All of the seven
and third-party applications and accounts can be dimensions of gameful experience were measured on a
connected to the app. Users of the app can compete 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
against each other on who ranks higher on to 7 (strongly agree). The application was used in
leaderboards based on the points each user collects. Finnish language in Finland. Thus, the survey was
The app includes leaderboards, badges and translated and administered in Finnish.
objects/goals as gamification features that support
goal-setting; progression and visual feedback as 3.3. Validity and reliability
gamification features that support self-tracking, and
reminders and suggestions as gamification features that Following the guidelines of Cenfetelli and Bassellier
support prompts. [38], the measured use frequency and importance of
Table 2 provides the demographic information of each of the three investigated gamification feature sets
the study participants. The participants were all either were conceptualized as formative constructs. This is
employees or customers of a large Finnish health because the use frequency and importance of each
insurance company. All participants accessed the app feature is posited as the cause of the measured
through a specific code that was provided to them by construct. On the other hand, the seven dimensions of
the insurance company, however, they were not further gameful experience were conceptualized as reflective
segmented once they started using the app and there is constructs given that their indicators are assumed to be
no possible way to distinguish them on the app. The caused by the latent variables. Model testing was done
survey was placed in-app. through SmartPLS 3.0 as described below.
The formative measurement model: The validity of
3.2. Measurement the formative model was assessed through examining
multicollinearity as well as indicator loadings and
The study participants were asked to estimate the weights. Multicollinearity was assessed through an
importance and frequency of use of the gamification examination of the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs).
features (see [51]) using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = The formative measurement model is presented in
completely unimportant, 7 = very important), and a 7- Appendix 1. All VIF values are significantly below the
point Likert scale (1 = interacting with the feature acceptable threshold of 5 [4, 11, 42], indicating no
rarely, 3 = interacting with the feature less than 30% of multicollinearity between the items. All indicators have
the times, 5 = interacting with the feature less than high loadings, and even though the weights of some
items (e.g., Object/Goal_2) are lower than 0.5 and may
be insignificant, the loadings of the corresponding
1
The persuasive/motivational design of e.g. exercise and other well- items are quite high. The formative measurement
being apps is considered to belong under the large umbrella of model, hence, has an acceptable external validity.
gamification [18, 19, 21, 28, 31, 32], however, it perhaps remains
debatable to what degree they all are game-like. In this study, we
cover all the interface elements of the target gamified exercise
system that are related to supporting the users in their exercise and
well-being. For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the total set of
features herein as "gamification features". Appendix 1 details these
features.

Page 1106
 Table 2. Demographic information
Variable N % Variable N %
Gender Male 78 38.8 Annual household Under 20.000 19 9.5
Female 123 61.2 income 20.001 - 29.999 16 8.0
Age Under 20 0 0.0 30.000 - 39.999 26 12.9
20 - 29 40 19.9 40.000 - 49.999 25 12.4
30 - 39 77 38.3 50.000 - 74.999 65 32.3
40 - 49 56 27.9 75.000 - 99.999 29 14.4
50 - 59 23 11.4 100.000 - 149.999 15 7.5
60 - 69 4 2.0 Over 150.000 6 3.0
70 or more 1 0.5 Living circumstances Alone 20 10.0
Employment Full-time 162 80.6 With a partner 63 31.3
Part-time 11 5.5 With friend(s) 2 1.0
Unemployed 7 3.5 With family 116 57.7
Students 6 3.0 Use Length Less than a month 22 10.9
Retired 4 2.0 1-6 months 72 35.8
Other 11 5.5 6-12 months 50 24.9
Education No degree 3 1.5 1-2 years 46 22.9
Upper secondary 8 4.0 More than 2 years 11 5.5
Vocational (or equivalent) 86 42.8 Use frequency More than once a day 22 10.9
Bachelor’s (or equivalent) 71 35.3 Daily 72 35.8
Master’s or higher degree 33 16.4 Several times a week 50 24.9
1 or 2 times a week 46 22.9
Less than once a week 11 5.5

The reflective measurement model: We evaluated the playfulness (R² = 0.38) and 23.4% of the variance for
reliability and convergent validity of the reflective social (R² = 0.234). Table 3 presents the structural
measurement model by applying Kline’s [25] and equation modeling results.
Fornell & Larcker’s [8] approaches. The reflective As per the relationship between goal-setting
measurement model is presented in Appendix 2. gamification features and the seven dimensions of
Cronbach’s α’s of all indicators are higher than 0.9. In gameful experience, goal-setting features were
addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) is at an significantly associated with the dimensions of
acceptable range between 0.662 to 0.908, and the accomplishment, challenge, competition, immersion,
construct reliability (CR) is between 0.924 to 0.966. playfulness and social experience. The relationship
Thus, the reflective measurement model has good between goal-setting features and guided was
convergent validity [8]. For assessing the discriminant insignificant (β = 0.098, P = 0.279). Self-tracking
validity, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations gamification features were significantly associated
(HTMT) is a new method in partial least squares with accomplishment (β = 0.3), immersion (β = -0.303)
structural equation modeling [12]. In order to clearly and social (β = -0.215). However, the influences of
discriminate between two factors, the HTMT should be self-tracking-related features on immersion and social
significantly smaller than one [19]. The HTMT values were negative. In terms of the prompts-related
are presented in Appendix 3. HTMT values are gamification features, only the relationship between
between 0.562 and 0.940 (P < 0.001). Thus the prompts-related gamification features and competition
discriminant validity was acceptable in this study. was insignificant (β = 0.164, P = 0.093).

3.4. Results 4. Discussion

The investigated model explained 47.4% of the This study examined the relationships between
variance for accomplishment (R² = 0.474), 42.6% of three sets of gamification and systems features and
the variance for challenge (R² = 0.426), 31.8% of the gameful experiences. The findings indicate that the
variance for competition (R² = 0.318), 33% of the features associate differently with the dimensions of
variance for guided (R² = 0.33), 23.1% of the variance the gameful experience that the user derives from the b
for immersion (R² = 0.231), 38% of the variance for

Page 1107
 Table 3. The structural equation model results (bootstrapping, sample=5000)
β P CI95% β P CI95%
GS -> Accomplishment 0.217 ** 0.006 0.081 0.390 ST -> Immersion -0.303 ** 0.008 -0.466 -0.019
GS -> Challenge 0.298 *** 0.000 0.140 0.471 ST -> Playfulness -0.059 0.476 -0.196 0.131
GS -> Competition 0.534 *** 0.000 0.349 0.695 ST -> Social -0.215 * 0.022 -0.359 0.014
GS -> Guided 0.098 0.279 -0.05 0.301 P -> Accomplishment 0.281 *** 0.000 0.120 0.437
GS -> Immersion 0.334 *** 0.000 0.164 0.510 P -> Challenge 0.386 *** 0.000 0.224 0.519
GS -> Playfulness 0.305 *** 0.000 0.151 0.478 P -> Competition 0.164 0.093 -0.036 0.353
GS -> Social 0.339 *** 0.000 0.165 0.513 P -> Guided 0.449 *** 0.000 0.258 0.576
ST-> Accomplishment 0.300 *** 0.000 0.169 0.430 P -> Immersion 0.343 *** 0.000 0.132 0.506
ST -> Challenge 0.042 0.566 -0.076 0.212 P -> Playfulness 0.410 *** 0.000 0.239 0.538
ST -> Competition -0.174 0.071 -0.326 0.055 P -> Social 0.313 *** 0.001 0.112 0.466
ST -> Guided 0.083 0.301 -0.059 0.256
GS = Goal-Setting, ST = Self-Tracking, P = Prompts
β = standard regression coefficient, CI = confidence interval, P < 0.05 *; P < 0.01 **; P < 0.001 ***

use of a (gamified) system. Goal-setting features The lack of more active goal-setting might have
had a significant positive association with all additionally made self-tracking appear purposeless as it
dimensions of gamefulness except for the guided may not have been clear what the tracking was
experience. While goals differ in the degree of specifically for without such interim goals. Hence, the
challenge they create [17, 29], research around positive goal-setting and self-tracking features implemented in
experiences and flow indicates that a suitable degree of the investigated system may not have been appropriate
challenge is enjoyable [5] and provides feelings of to provide a guided experience. Research is
accomplishment and success when facing the challenge encouraged to compare which goal-setting and self-
[7]. Hence, it is unsurprising to observe these tracking features and larger system designs may be
associations between goal-setting features and the able to provide a guided experience.
gameful dimensions of accomplishment, challenge, and Self-tracking features, however, were expectedly
immersion. Similarly, it is intuitive to observe positively associated with feelings of accomplishment
associations between goal-setting features and feelings Nonetheless, self-tracking of one’s activity may, as
of competition as competition inherently revolves indicated by the negative association between self-
around goals. Goal-setting features, such as tracking and immersion and social experiences, break
leaderboards, allow for social comparison [15], which individuals out of immersion and social experiences.
was indicated in the data by feelings of social presence. Immersion requires focused attention on the activity
Furthermore, an association between goal-setting that is the current source of immersion [5]. Similarly,
features and playfulness was also found, suggesting self-tracking of behavior can distract from social
that the competition that is perhaps taking place is none connectedness [47]. Overall, it seems that while self-
the less playful. tracking contributes to feelings of gamefulness,
The observations that neither goal-setting nor self- excessive self-tracking may, however, be more
tracking features were associated with guided detrimental than helpful to the creation of a positive,
experiences are surprising as one of the main goals of enjoyable experience.
the investigated system is to guide users in the exercise Prompts-related gamification features were
domain. On occasions, goal-setting and self-tracking positively associated with all dimensions of the
have been observed to have a lower guidance impact gameful experience except with feelings of
[35], e.g. if the set goals and progress tracking methods competition. While individuals differ in the perceived
are not appropriate for a specific context or when usefulness of phone notifications and prompts [46], in
individuals are not very receptive to these methods. the given context they are not perceived negatively. It
Furthermore, the guided dimension of the gameful is worthy to note here that users of the investigated app
experience has been conceptualized as an active had the ability to set the frequency of the prompts they
process of guidance [22]. The app in question sets the received. Prompts are useful in advising users on what
goals at the sign-up stage, i.e. without later on they should do next [35]. They direct the users again to
providing smaller, more manageable goals, the app that is providing them with feelings of
communicated to the users on a weekly or daily basis. immersion and playfulness, thus strengthening these

Page 1108
experiences rather than distracting and retracting from literature”. Journal of the American Dietetic
them. Similarly, they can provide social information Association 111(11), 2011, pp. 92–102.
related to the user’s social network thus supporting [4] R. T. Cenfetelli, and G. Bassellier, “Interpretation
social experiences. The insignificant association of formative measurement in information systems
between prompt features and competition, however, research”. MIS quarterly, 2009, pp. 689-707.
could be due to the prompts being centered around the [5] M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Beyond Boredom and
individual and thus not necessarily creating a feeling of Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play”. The
competition. Nonetheless, this aspect along with the Jossey-Bass Behavioral Science Series. San Francisco:
outlined associations are worthy of further Jossey-Bass, 1975.
investigation. [6] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke,
The results overall suggest the importance of “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
especially goal-setting and prompts in facilitating most gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th International
dimensions of the gameful experience that is thought to Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning
be the essence of gamification design. Designers and Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11, 2011,
system developers are encouraged to consider the ACM, Tampere, Finland, pp. 9–15.
conscious utilization of these features to support users [7] A. J. Elliot, and J. M. Harackiewicz, “Goal setting,
in activities where motivation for further engagement achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A
is needed. Similarly, the features that support self- mediational analysis”. Journal of Personality and
regulation may help individuals towards the betterment Social Psychology 66(5), 1994, pp. 968–980.
of themselves through goal-setting and prompts while [8] C. Fornell, and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating
feeling gameful about the processes, creating both structural equation models with unobservable variables
utilitarian and hedonic benefits. and measurement error”. Journal of Marketing
As outlined, experiences of gamefulness differ Research 18(1), 1981, pp. 39–50.
across individuals, however, due to scope limitations, [9] I. Granic, A. Lobel, and R. C. Engels, “The benefits
this research did not consider the role of factors such as of playing video games”. American Psychologist
age, perception of games, gender, personality, user 69(1), 2014.
traits or use tenure on the associations between [10] G. F. Tondello, H. Premsukh, and L. E. Nacke, “A
gamification features and the dimensions of Theory of Gamification Principles Through Goal-
gamefulness. Future research is encouraged to consider Setting Theory”. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
the moderating effect of these variables on perceptions International Conference on System Sciences
of gamefulness in gamified applications. (HICSS51), 2018.
[11] J. F. Jr. Hair, R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and
Acknowledgments W. C. Black. “Multivariate Data Analysis”, 3rd ed.
New York: Macmillan, 1995.
This work was supported by the Finnish [12] J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M.
Foundation for Economic Education (grants: 12-6385 Sarstedt, “A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
and 14-7824), Business Finland (projects: Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)”, 2nd Ed., Thousand
5654/31/2018 and 376/31/2018), the Centre of Oakes, CA: Sage, 2017.
Excellence on Game Culture Studies (GameCult), [13] J. Hamari, Gamification. Wiley Blackwell
Marcus Mallenbergin tutkimussäätiö and Satakunnan Encyclopedia of Sociology (in press), 2019.
Korkeakoulusäätiö and its collaborating organizations [14] J. Hamari, L. Hassan, and A. Dias, “Gamification,
quantified-self or social networking? Matching users’
5. References goals with motivational technology”. User Modeling
and User-Adapted Interaction 28(1), 2018 pp. 35-74.
[1] B. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of self- [15] J. Hamari, and J. Koivisto, ““Working out for
regulation”. Organizational behavior and human likes”: An empirical study on social influence in
decision processes, 50(2), 1991, pp. 248-287. exercise gamification”. Computers in Human Behavior
[2] D. Bormann, and T. Greitemeyer, “Immersed in 50, 2015a, pp. 333–347.
virtual worlds and minds: effects of in-game [16] G. Richter, D. R. Raban and s. Rafaeli, “Tailoring
storytelling on immersion, need satisfaction, and a points scoring mechanism for crowd-based
affective theory of mind”. Social Psychological and knowledge pooling”. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
Personality Science 6(6), 2015, pp. 646-652. International Conference on System Sciences, 2018,
[3] L. E. Burke, J. Wang, and M. A. Sevick, “Self- pp. 1128-1137.
monitoring in weight loss: a systematic review of the [17] J. Hamari, D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J.
Asbell-Clarke, and T. Edwards, “Challenging games

Page 1109
help students learn: An empirical study on Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda”.
engagement, flow and immersion in game-based Simulation & Gaming 49(3), 2018a, pp. 315–337.
learning”. Computers in Human Behavior 54, 2016, pp. [31] R. N. Landers, G. F. Tondello, D. L. Kappen, A.
170–179. B. Collmus, E. D. Mekler, and L. E. Nacke, “Defining
[18] L. Hassan, A. Dias, and J. Hamari, “How gameful experience as a psychological state caused by
motivational feedback increases user’s benefits and gameplay: Replacing the term ‘Gamefulness’ with
continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self three distinct constructs”. International Journal of
and social networking”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2018b.
Information Management 46, 2019, pp. 151–162. [32] G. P. Latham, and E. A. Locke, “Self-regulation
[19] J. Henseler, G. Hubona, and P. A. Ray, “Using through goal setting”. Organizational behavior and
PLS path modeling in new technology research: human decision processes 50(2), 1991, pp. 212-247.
updated guidelines”. Industrial management & data [33] E. A. Locke, K. N. Shaw, L. M. Saari, and G. P.
systems 116(1), 2016, pp. 2-20. Latham, “Goal setting and task performance: 1969–
[20] H. C. Huang, T. T. L. Pham, M.K. Wong, H. Y. 1980”. Psychological Bulletin 90(1), 1981.
Chiu, Y. H. Yang, and C. I. Teng, “How to create flow [34] E. A. Locke, G. P. Latham, and A. Edwin,
experience in exergames? Perspective of flow theory”. “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
Telematics and Informatics 35(5), 2018, pp. 1288– and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey”. American
1296. Psychologist 57(9), 2002, pp. 705–717.
[21] K. Huotari, and J. Hamari, “A definition for [35] D. Lupton, “The Quantified Self: A Sociology of
gamification: anchoring gamification in the service Self-Tracking”. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016.
marketing literature”. Electronic Markets 27(1), 2017, [36] G. Richter, D. R. Raban, and S. Rafaeli, “Studying
pp. 21–31. gamification: The effect of rewards and incentives on
[22] J. Högberg, J. Hamari, and E. Wästlund, motivation”. Gamification in education and business,
“Gameful Experience Questionnaire 2015, pp. 21-46, Springer International Publishing.
(GAMEFULQUEST): An instrument for measuring [37] A. Anderson, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and J.
the perceived gamefulness of system use”. User Leskovec. “Steering user behavior with badges”.
Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 2019. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on
[23] D. Johnson, S. Deterding, K. A. Kuhn, A. World Wide Web, 2013, pp. 95-106.
Staneva, S. Stoyanov, and L. Hides, “Gamification for [38] R. T. Cenfetelli, and G. Bassellier, “Interpretation
health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the of Formative Measurement in Information Systems
literature”. Internet interventions 6, 2016, pp. 89-106. Interpretation of Formative Measurement in
[24] K. Kiili, “Digital game-based learning: Towards Information Systems Research”. MIS Quarterly, 33(4),
an experiential gaming model”. The Internet and 2009, pp. 689–707
Higher Education 8(1), 2005, pp. 13-24. [39] S. Munson, and S. Consolvo, “Exploring Goal-
[25] R. B. Kline, “Principles and Practice of Structural setting, Rewards, Self-monitoring, and Sharing to
Equation Modeling”. New York, Guilford Press, 1998. Motivate Physical Activity”. Proceedings of the 6th
[26] J. Koivisto, and J. Hamari, “The Rise of International Conference on Pervasive Computing
Motivational Information Systems: A Review of Technologies for Healthcare, IEEE, 2012 pp. 25–32..
Gamification Research”. International Journal of [40] J. Nunnally, “Psychometric methods”. McGraw-
Information Management 45, 2019a, pp. 191–210. Hill, New York, 1978.
[27] J. Koivisto, and J. Hamari, “Gamification of [41] W. Peng, J. C. Crouse, and J. H. Lin, “Using
physical activity: A systematic literature review of active video games for physical activity promotion: a
comparison studies”. Proceedings of GamiFIN 2019 systematic review of the current state of research”.
conference, Levi, Finland, 2019b, pp. 106-117. Health education & behavior 40(2), 2013, pp. 171-192.
[28] R. N. Landers, “Developing a theory of gamified [42] C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and J. M. Becker,
learning: Linking serious games and gamification of SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. 2015. Retrieved
learning”. Simulation & Gaming 45(6), 2014, pp. 752– from http://www.smartpls.com
768. [43] M. Sailer, J. U. Hense, S. K. Mayr, and H, Mandl,
[29] R. N. Landers, K. N., Bauer, and R. C. Callan, “How gamification motivates: An experimental study
“Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: of the effects of specific game design elements on
A goal setting experiment”. Computers in Human psychological need satisfaction”. Computers in Human
Behavior 71, 2017, pp. 508–515. Behavior, 69, 2017, pp. 371-380.
[30] R. N. Landers, E. M. Auer, A. B. Collmus, and M. [44] L. Sardi, A. Idri, and J. L. Fernández-Alemán, “A
B. Armstrong, “Gamification Science, Its History and systematic review of gamification in e-Health”. Journal
of biomedical informatics 71, 2017, pp. 31-48.

Page 1110
[45] K. Seaborn, and D. I. Fels, “Gamification in [51] N. Xi, and J. Hamari, “Does gamification satisfy
theory and action: A survey”. International Journal of needs? A study on the relationship between
human-computer studies 74, 2015, pp. 14-31. gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction”.
[46] A. S. Shirazi, N. Henze, T. Dingler, M. Pielot, D. International Journal of Information Management 46,
Weber and A. Schmidt, “Large-scale assessment of 2019, pp. 210-221.
mobile notifications”. Proceedings of CHI Vol. 14, [52] B. J. Zimmerman, “Investigating self-regulation
2014, pp. 3055-3064. and motivation: Historical background, methodological
[47] M. Snyder, “Self-monitoring processes”. developments, and future prospects”. American
Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 12, educational research journal 45(1), 2008, pp. 166-183.
Academic Press, 1979, pp. 85-128. [53] T. W. Malone, “Toward a Theory of Intrinsically
[48] M. Swan, “The Quantified Self: Fundamental Motivating Instruction”. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 1981,
Disruption in Big Data Science and Biological pp. 333–369.
Discovery”. Big Data 1(2), 2013, pp. 85–92. [54] R. M. Ryan, C. S. Rigby, A. Przybylski, “The
[49] L. Von Ahn, and L. Dabbish, “Designing games motivational pull of video games: A self-determination
with a purpose”. Communications of the ACM 51(8), theory approach”. Motivation and emotion 30(4), 2006,
2008, pp. 58-67. pp. 344-360.
[50] H. Warmelink, J. Koivisto, I. Mayer, M. Vesa, and [55] H. Oinas-Kukkonen, and M. Harjumaa,
J. Hamari, “Gamification of production and logistics “Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process
operations: Status quo and future directions”. Journal Model, and System Features”. Communication of the
of Business Research, 2019. Association for Information Systems 24(1), 2009,
pp.485–500.

Appendices
Appendix 1. The formative measurement
Construct/Itemsa Loading Weight VIF Construct/Items Loading Weight VIF
Self-tracking-related gamification features Goal setting-related gamification features
Progression_1 0.955 0.528 3.733 Badge_1 0.801 0.187 3.443
Progression_2 0.623 0.054 2.069 Badge_2 0.873 0.441 2.780
Visual feedback_1 0.947 0.437 3.915 Leaderboard_1 0.686 -0.063 2.890
Visual feedback_2 0.588 0.083 2.074 Leaderboard_2 0.781 0.424 2.306
Prompts-related gamification features Object/Goal_1 0.708 0.325 2.344
Remind_1 0.715 -0.015 2.430 Object/Goal_2 0.440 -0.120 1.774
Remind_2 0.837 0.571 2.131
Suggestion_1 0.827 0.559 2.397
Suggestion_2 0.740 0.096 2.087
a
X_1 = frequency of using X gamification feature; X_2 = importance of X gamification feature

Appendix 2. The reflective measurement

Construct/item Loading Construct/item Loading
This app__________
Accomplishment (α = 0.96 CR = 0.966 AVE = 0.782) Immersion (α = 0.914 CR =0.928 AVE = 0.590)
ACC_1 makes me feel that I need to complete 0.819 IMMER_1 gives me the feeling that time passes 0.742
things. quickly.
ACC_2 pushes me to strive for 0.881 IMMER_2 grabs all my attention. 0.766
accomplishments.
ACC_3 inspires me to maintain my standards 0.904 IMMER_3 gives me a sense of being separated from 0.677
of performance. the real world.
ACC_4 makes me feel that success comes 0.903 IMMER_4 makes me lose myself in what I am 0.870
through accomplishments. doing.
ACC_5 makes me strive to take myself to the 0.904 IMMER_5 makes my actions seem to come 0.662
next level. automatically.
ACC_6 motivates me to progress and get 0.908 IMMER_6 causes me to stop noticing when I get 0.788
better. tired.
ACC_7 makes me feel like I have clear goals. 0.908 IMMER_7 causes me to forget about my everyday 0.815
concerns.

Page 1111
ACC_8 gives me the feeling that I need to 0.842 IMMER_8 makes me ignore everything around me. 0.749
reach goals.
Challenge (α = 0.907 CR = 0.926 AVE = 0.643) IMMER_9 gets me fully emotionally involved. 0.818
CHAL_1 makes me push my limits. 0.776 Playfulness (α = 0.91 CR = 0.924 AVE = 0.575)
CHAL_2 drives me in a good way to the brink 0.681 PLAY_1 gives me an overall playful experience. 0.810
of wanting to give up.
CHAL_3 pressures me in a positive way by its 0.831 PLAY_2 leaves room for me to be spontaneous. 0.731
high demands.
CHAL_4 challenges me. 0.865 PLAY_3 taps into my imagination. 0.753
CHAL_5 calls for a lot of effort in order for me 0.741 PLAY_4 makes me feel that I can be creative. 0.760
to be successful.
CHAL_6 motivates me to do things that feel 0.854 PLAY_5 gives me the feeling that I explore 0.731
highly demanding. things.
CHAL_7 makes me feel like I continuously 0.846 PLAY_6 feels like a mystery to reveal. 0.711
need to improve in order to do well.
Competition (α = 0.926 CR = 0.940 AVE = 0.690) PLAY_7 gives me a feeling that I want to know 0.787
what comes next.
COMP_1 feels like participating in a 0.844 PLAY_8 makes me feel like I discover new 0.805
competition. things.
COMP_2 inspires me to compete. 0.836 PLAY_9 appeals to my curiosity. 0.733
COMP_3 involves me by its competitive 0.815 Social experience (α = 0.927 CR = 0.941 AVE = 0.697)
aspects.
COMP_4 makes me want to be in first place. 0.839 SOCO_1 gives me the feeling that I’m not on my 0.784
own.
COMP_5 makes victory feel important. 0.837 SOCO_2 gives me a sense of social support. 0.808
COMP_6 feels like being in a race. 0.866 SOCO_3 makes me feel like I am socially 0.875
involved.
COMP_7 makes me feel that I need to win to 0.773 SOCO_4 gives me a feeling of being connected to 0.838
succeed. others.
Guided (α = 0.932 CR = 0.947 AVE = 0.748) SOCO_5 feels like a social experience. 0.893
GUI_1 makes me feel guided. 0.838 SOCO_6 gives me a sense of having someone to 0.867
share my endeavors with.
GUI_2 gives me a sense of being directed. 0.877 SOCO_7 influences me through its social aspects. 0.770
GUI_3 makes me feel like someone is 0.901
keeping me on track.
GUI_4 gives me the feeling that I have an 0.872
instructor.
GUI_5 gives me the sense I am getting help 0.841
to be structured.
GUI_6 gives me a sense of knowing what I 0.859
need to do better.

Appendix 3. HTMT value for discriminant validity (complete bootstrapping, sample=5000)

Accomplishment Challenge Competition Guided Immersion Playfulness Social
Accomplishment
Challenge 0.940
Competition 0.704 0.901
Guided 0.879 0.897 0.792
Immersion 0.562 0.784 0.850 0.720
Playfulness 0.826 0.940 0.898 0.913 0.903
Social 0.617 0.807 0.855 0.814 0.855 0.897

Page 1112