skip to main content
10.1145/3275116.3275126acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Gamification in E-Commerce: Tangible vs. Intangible Rewards

Published:10 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

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

References

  1. Richard Bartle. 1996. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research 6, 1 (1996), 39. http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Richard Bartle. 2003. A Self of Sense. http://mud.co.uk/richard/selfware.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Codish and G. Ravid. 2012. Personality Based Gamification: How Different Personalities Perceive Gamification. Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2012), 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali Darejeh and Siti Salwah Salim. 2016. Gamification Solutions to Enhance Software User Engagement - A Systematic Review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 7318, May (2016), 10447318.2016.1183330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Edward L Deci. 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18, 1 (1971), 105--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. E L Deci, R Koestner, and R M Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin 125, 6 (1999), 627--68; discussion 692--700. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan. 2001. Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research 71, 1 (2001), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, R Khaled, and L Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceeding of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (2011), 9--15. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181040 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dan Dixon. 2011. Player Types and Gamification. In CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification Using Game Design Elements in NonGame Contexts. 12--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rosta Farzan, Joan M. DiMicco, David R. Millen, Casey Dugan, Werner Geyer, and Elizabeth A. Brownholtz. 2008. Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08. 563. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Seamus F Forde, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. Informational, but not Intrinsically Motivating Gamification': Preliminary Findings. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts - CHI PLAY Companion '16. 157--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Aiste Grubliauskiene, Maxime Verhoeven, and Siegfried Dewitte. 2012. The joint effect of tangible and non-tangible rewards on healthy food choices in children. Appetite 59, 2 (2012), 403--408.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Juho Hamari. 2013. Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic commerce research and applications 12, 4 (2013), 236--245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422313000112Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Juho Hamari. 2014. Player Types: a meta-synthesis. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association: The Nordic DiGRA Special Issue 1, 2 (2014), 29--53. https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/99064/player_types_a_meta_synthesis.pdf?sequence=1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does gamification work?-a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (2014), 3025--3034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Daniel Johnson, Sebastian Deterding, Kerri-Ann Kuhn, Aleksandra Staneva, Stoyan Stoyanov, and Leanne Hides. 2016. Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions 6 (2016), 89--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari. 2014. Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014), 179--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Stavros Lounis, Katerina Pramatari, and Aristeidis Theotokis. 2014. Gamification Is All About Fun: the Role of Incentive Type and Community Collaboration. ECIS 2014 Proceedings (2014), 1--14. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track12/13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Lu, Casey Dugan, Rosta Farzan, and Werner Geyer. 2016. Let's Stitch Me and You Together!: Designing a Photo Co-creation Activity to Stimulate Playfulness in the Workplace. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3061--3065. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Elisa D Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis, and Alexandre N. Tuch. 2013. Disassembling gamification: the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on - CHI EA '13 (2013), 1137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Elisa D Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis, and Alexandre N Tuch. 2013. Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?: an empirical analysis of common gamification elements. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications - Gamification '13 (2013), 66--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Brooke A. Morrill, Gregory J. Madden, Heidi J. Wengreen, Jamison D. Fargo, and Sheryl S. Aguilar. 2016. A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Food Dudes Program: Tangible Rewards Are More Effective Than Social Rewards for Increasing Short- and Long-Term Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 116, 4 (2016), 618--629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Katie Seaborn and Deborah I. Fels. 2015. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 74 (2015), 14--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jennifer Thom, D Millen, and Joan DiMicco. 2012. Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (2012), 1067--1070. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145362 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Erika Noll Webb. 2013. Gamification: When It Works, when It Doesn't. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design, User Experience, and Usability: Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural, and Cross-cultural User Experience - Volume Part II (DUXU'13). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 608--614. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Nick Yee. 2007. Motivations for play in online games. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior 9 (2007), 772--775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nick Yee. 2016. The Gamer Motivation Profile: What We Learned From 250,000 Gamers. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Angelina De C A Ziesemer, Luana Müller, and Milene S. Silveira. 2014. Just rate it! Gamification as part of recommendation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 8512 LNCS. 786--796.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Gamification in E-Commerce: Tangible vs. Intangible Rewards

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Other conferences
                Mindtrek '18: Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference
                October 2018
                282 pages
                ISBN:9781450365895
                DOI:10.1145/3275116

                Copyright © 2018 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 10 October 2018

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed limited

                Acceptance Rates

                Mindtrek '18 Paper Acceptance Rate34of68submissions,50%Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader