So, having learned that gamification is the concept of adding gaming elements into non-gaming contexts, to harness the motivation capability that games have and utilise them into the non-gaming context. (Hamari J, Koivisto J, 2015)
The question to explore is: why is gamification able to be motivating? What do these gaming elements have over us?
A few major theories seek to explain how Gamification can be so motivating.
Just as everyone learns differently, everyone is motivated differently. Many papers and theorists have tried to breakdown all the components based on different psychological models (Deterding, S 2015). However, as humans all have different motivations, this range of theories compete to explain how gamification can be so motivating,
As this is only a short blog post, and a long rabbit hole to get stuck in, let’s just touch on a few.
Many papers use Flow Theory to describe individuals’ experiences when playing games. Flow theory describes the ‘rewarding, subjective, emotional state of optimal pleasure that arises when an individual is absorbed in either work or leisure activities that are perceived as valuable’ (Boyle et al. 2012). Flow theory indicates that in order to maintain engagement there should be a balance between individual skills and the challenges within an activity. As well as be naturally gratifying, immersive, require a high degree of attentiveness, give a sense of autonomy, have clear goals and provide feedback to the user. (Boyle et al. 2012)
Yee’s (2006) research attempted to identify some core tools to assess the motivational components of games. His paper concluded with three core components.
An Achievement Component which consists of elements of advancement, mechanics and competition. A Social Component- socialising, building relationships and teamwork. And an Immersion Component which is characterised by elements of discovery, role playing, and customisation. Yee concluded that the player motivations do not subdue each other (Yee, N, 2006).
The last theory I’d like to review is Self- Determination Theory, which Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski (2010) built on to study players reasons for playing games. Self- Determination Theory or SDT implies that we are motivated to participate in activities which satisfy three innate psychological needs – The sense of autonomy, competence and ability to relate to others.
- Autonomy describes the sense of acting within ones will towards your own goals, needs values and identity
- Competence is fulfilled with the experience of one’s growing ability to achieve a task or challenge
- Relatedness is the sense of connection with others.
The theory suggests that when these needs are met, we are independently motivated (Deci, EL, Ryan, RM, 2012).
When comparing all of these different theories to the multiple common gaming elements, we can begin to understand why each element holds and contributes different motivation qualities to the gamification design.
(Check out my previous blog post here, where I discuss some of the common gaming elements)
This further explains why successful gamification design uses combinations of many gaming elements in order to create a motivating and engaging design.
I found that researching why gaming elements can be so motivating absolutely fascinating. There are a lot of theories and it is a highly complex area of psychological study. To explain how particular gaming elements can satisfy one of the most well supported theories that I’ve discovered, Self Determination Theory, I’ve created a short video.
In the video I review an application called Habitica against this theory. I explain how the app uses gaming elements which fulfil the three needs included in Self Determination theory.
Lots of these theories that I learned about, attempt to generalise the motivating elements in gamification, which evades the fact that every human is different and will (or even will not) be motivated and engaged by different combinations of elements included in gamification.
References
Boyle, EA, Connolly, TM, Hainey, T, Boyle, JM, 2012, ‘Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.771-780, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
Da Rocha Seixas, L, Sandro Gomes, A, De Melo Filho, IJ, 2015, ‘Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 58, pp.48-63 doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
Deci, EL, Ryan, RM, 2012, ‘Motivation, Personality and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory’ The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0006
Hamari, J, Koivisto J, 2015, ‘Why do people use gamification services?’, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 35 no. 4, pp. 418-431, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006
Deterding, S 2015, ‘The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design’ Human- Computer Interaction, vol. 30 no. ¾, pp. 294-335, doi: 10.1080/07370024.2014.993471
Yee, N, 2006, ‘Motivations for Play in Online Games’ , CyberPsychology & Behaviour, vol. 9, no. 6, pp772-775, doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772
Video
8bit game (https://theartistunion.com/tracks/cd7de4) by Alex Nekita CC by 3.0
Deci, EL, Ryan, RM, 2012, ‘Motivation, Personality and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory’ The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0006
Hamari, J, Koivisto J, 2015, ‘Why do people use gamification services?’, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 35 no. 4, pp. 418-431, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006 Deterding, S 2015, ‘The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design’ Human- Computer Interaction, vol. 30 no. ¾, pp. 294-335, doi: 10.1080/07370024.2014.993471
All images included taken by the author
Digital Media Reflections 