The Hidden Dangers of Mandatory Gamification

Table of Links

Abstract and 1 Introduction

2. Background and Related Work and 2.1. Gamification

2.2. Game Design Elements and 2.3. Gamification Effects

2.4. Related Work on Gamification Negative Effects

3. Systematic Mapping and 3.1. The Research Questions

3.2. Search Strategy and 3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

3.4. Applying the Search Strategy

3.5. Data Extraction

4. Systematic Mapping Results

5. Focus Group: Developer Perception on the Negative Effects of Game Design Elements

5.1. Context and Participant Characterization

5.2. Focus Group Design

5.3. The Developers’ Perception on The Negative Effects

5.4. On the Perceived Usefulness, Ease of use and Intent of Adoption of Mapped Negative Effects

5.5. Participant Feedback

6. Limitations

7. Concluding Remarks

7.1. Future Research Directions

Acknowledgements and References

2.2. Game Design Elements

Game Design Elements (GDEs) represents the basic components of any gamified software [2, 20]. For instance, assigning points to players directly reward user interaction promotes further interactions in the future. Additionally, it might stimulate competitive environment among players, to achieve the highest scores in points. In order to gamify any software, many gamification design frameworks were proposed in the literature [21, 22, 23, 24]. These frameworks tend to present and summarize different types of GDEs. For instance, [21] proposed a framework that relies on six gamification steps, that contains 30 game elements. Conversely, [23] proposed a framework based on seven aspects that may influence gamification, such framework contains 14 GDEs. Despite the difference among the gamification design frameworks, there are a set of GDEs which are commonly described. Table 1 list some of these GDEs.

2.3. Gamification Effects

Some scholars have a negative opinion on gamification. For example, Ian Bogost [30] stated that gamification is primarily an opportunistic marketing

strategy. Despite such criticism, research over the years found that gamification does bring benefits when properly used.

Using an action research design, Putz et al. [31] found that gamification can have a positive effect on students’ knowledge retention, independent of age and gender. Positive effects of gamification on enhancing interaction with learning materials and performance on studies were also reported by Klock et al. [32]

Systematic reviews have revealed both positive and negative effects. Zainuddin et al. [33] found evidence that the use of game design elements such as badges, points, trophies, leader boards, avatars, and virtual gifts not only promotes students’ extrinsic motivation but also increases their intrinsic value for learning; however, they also reported studies with contradic tory findings. Johnson et al. [34] conducted a systematic literature review of empirical studies on gamification for health and well-being. From the papers identified, the impact of gamified interventions was found to be positive by 59% of the papers reviewed, with effects including empowerment, motivation, health monitoring, and more healthy habits taken. However, 41% - a significant portion of the studies - reported mixed or neutral effects.

Hamari et al. [35] corroborated the point about mixed effects. Most quantitative studies identified in their review concluded positive effects of gamification elements to exist only partially. Also, they observed (through qualitative analysis) that gamification is more manifold than previous studies often assumed. Koivisto and Hamari [36] reached the same conclusion, having found papers pointing to a mixed effect of gamification and a small amount of purely negative results, which they attributed to a possible confirmation bias.

Indeed, gamification manipulates human psychology through game design elements, and it is natural to expect that such manipulation can have adverse effects. One issue occurred at the Disneyland Resort Hotel, California, in 2018. The hotel decided to use leaderboards updated in real-time to stimulate its workers to clean sheets and towels more efficiently. The initiative backfired hard because the competition degenerated the environment’s quality, caused extra stress, and increased the number of injuries on the job [37]. Another case happened with Go365, a gamified app, when imposed on public school teachers in West Virginia, forcing them to provide sensitive medical data and have their positions tracked daily. This gamified app’s enforcement was the last in a series of events that lead to a wildcat strike in 2018 [37]. Recent research points out that a gamified activity should never be mandatory; otherwise, it loses its fun value and leads to the collapse of play and work value [38].