Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: T

Making work fun?
⁎
Robert Mitchell , Lisa Schuster, Hyun Seung Jin
QUT Business School, Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the proliferation of gamification in the workplace, little is known about the contextual factors that
Gamification contribute to its efficacy and impact on employee engagement and organizational productivity. Employing self-
Intrinsic motivation determination theory, this research investigates the impact of extrinsic motivation, such as social pressure or
Extrinsic motivation internalized guilt, on employees' psychological needs satisfaction and behavioral intention. A survey (n = 291)
Workplace
across multiple industries shows extrinsic motivation can decrease employees' autonomy and competence needs
Employee
Self-determination theory
satisfaction, but when extrinsic motivation is internalized (such as through perceived personal value) it can
support needs satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and behavioral intention. For managers, these results indicate
that beyond being enjoyable, sustainable gamification design should provide benefits that are meaningful to and
valued by employees. While it is acknowledged that further research is required, this study provides a basis for
deeper understanding of how gamification works as the first to empirically examine the role of extrinsic mo-
tivation.

1. Introduction potential of these features to amplify extrinsic motivation (such as fear

In the face of changing modern workplaces and the challenges these
create for employee retention (Dobre, 2013; Ertürk & Vurgun, 2015),
gamification has been positioned as the long sought-after solution to
dwindling employee engagement (Hamari, Huotari, & Tolvanen, 2015;
IEEE, 2014). The gamification application Evaluagent, for example,
provides a goal-orientated framework that enables managers to set
tasks and then virtually reward employees who pursue and complete
these tasks. Although research into gamification applications for busi-
ness largely supports their positive impact on a range of behavioral
antecedents and outcomes (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Oprescu,
Jones, & Katsikitis, 2014), concerns as to the (unintended) negative and
ethical consequences of gamification in this environment have been
raised (Bogost, 2013; Kim & Werbach, 2016). For instance, while
common gamification elements such as points and badges (Hamari
et al., 2014) are an integral part of the motivational pull or appeal of
voluntary games (Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn, 2012), in the workplace
these elements may be interpreted as a means of control (Callan, Bauer,
& Landers, 2015; Korn & Schmidt, 2015). Case studies of gamification
in the workplace, such as the adaptation of leaderboards to track task
speed in the laundry departments of Disneyland Resorts, illustrate the
of reprisal or social pressure) with some employees finding the practice
publicly embarrassing and essentially an “electronic whip” (Lopez,
2011).
To explore of the ethicality of gamification and its potential prac-
tical implications, this study investigates the relationship between ex-
trinsic workplace pressures and gamification outcomes. Informed by
self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and organismic
integration theory (OIT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985), we seek to examine
whether gamification undermines the inherent intrinsic motivation to
perform work tasks (such as for personal satisfaction or enjoyment)
with extrinsic motivation (such as for reward or social pressure), and
whether this impacts employees' needs satisfaction and intentions to
perform these tasks in the future. We conduct an online quantitative
survey (n = 291) of gamification users across a variety of workplace
and application contexts. The results of this survey are used to in-
vestigate four hypotheses outlined in detail in the literature review
section.
Such an investigation of the potential downsides of gamifying
workplaces is important given extrinsic motivation's capacity to un-
dermine intrinsic motivation (Callan et al., 2015; Mekler, Brühlmann,
Opwis, & Tuch, 2013; Thom, Millen, & DiMicco, 2012) and cause

Non-standard abbreviations: OIT, organismic integration theory; PENS scale, player experience of need satisfaction scale; RPG, role playing game; SDT, self-
determination theory
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: r20.mitchell@qut.edu.au (R. Mitchell), lisa.schuster@qut.edu.au (L. Schuster), hs.jin@qut.edu.au (H.S. Jin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.022
Received 15 November 2017; Received in revised form 13 November 2018; Accepted 14 November 2018
Available online 22 November 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
R. Mitchell et al.
employee distress and increased turnover (Gagné et al., 2010). That is,
if gamification facilitates extrinsic motivation to perform work tasks
through rewards that are not meaningful to employees or through social
pressure, it may be detrimental to employees' intrinsic motivation to
work despite initial organizational benefit (Kim & Werbach, 2016). In
this case, the potential for employee and regulatory backlash could be a
significant barrier to continued implementation of gamification in the
workplace (Korn & Schmidt, 2015). Notwithstanding these notable
implications and extensive discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic moti-
vation in gamification research, empirical studies of these behavioral
antecedents remain scarce (Seaborn & Fels, 2015). This research thus
contributes to an improved understanding of the mechanisms under-
pinning gamification's impact on behavior as well as the potential ne-
gative effects of gamification as called for by the literature (Koivisto &
Hamari, 2018; Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2017; Mitchell,
Schuster, & Drennan, 2017).
2. Literature review
While it is broadly accepted that gamification, which is “the use of
game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon,
Khaled, & Nacke, 2011, p. 1), impacts behavior, debate remains as to
how exactly this is achieved (Hamari et al., 2014; Hamari & Koivisto,
2014). In fact, one of the most common criticisms of gamification re-
search is its focus on whether—to the exclusion of how—gamification
can modify behavior (Deterding, 2014; Lewis, Swartz, & Lyons, 2016;
Mekler et al., 2017; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). This gap in knowledge has
made it difficult to achieve consensus on whether gamification's impact
on users is positive or negative and to predict its efficacy in new con-
texts (Mekler et al., 2013).
Understanding the mechanisms that underpin gamification's impact
on behavior has thus been the focus of recent gamification research
(Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Some researchers espouse the view that, similar
to the motivational pull of video games, gamification appeals to users as
it provides greater flow, balancing challenges to create focused en-
gagement (Hamari & Koivisto, 2014). Others have suggested gamifi-
cation leverages the appeal of escapism, making behaviors or tasks
different and novel (Przybylski, Weinstein, Ryan, & Rigby, 2009).
However, since in practice most gamification applications are not fully-
fledged games, but rather elements of games such as points, leader-
boards, and badges (Hamari et al., 2014), the most widely accepted
explanation for the behavioral impact of gamification is that it can
create intrinsically motivating game-like experiences (Hamari, 2017).
This view is based on the concept of motivational affordance, or the
properties of an object that determine whether and how it can support
motivational needs (Zhang, 2008). In a gamification context, this is best
understood as the application of identified sources of video games'
motivational affordance (game design elements such as point scoring)
to increase the motivational pull of the target behavior (Deterding
et al., 2011). To examine this process gamification research has largely
drawn on SDT, a macro theory of human motivation concerned pri-
marily with the drive to satisfy innate psychological needs (Deci &
Ryan, 2002; Deterding, 2015).
2.1. Needs satisfaction and intrinsic motivation
SDT emerged from research into the differences between in-
trinsically and extrinsically derived motivation (Deci, 1971). Intrinsic
motivation refers to sources of motivation inherent to a behavior, such
as enjoyment, engagement in a task, or the capacity of the task to
provide opportunities for cognitive and social development (Deci &
Ryan, 2002). Conversely, extrinsic motivation refers to motivation ex-
ternal to the behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and is usually derived from
the outcomes of the behavior, such as rewards, punishments, or social
pressure (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although intrinsic motivation is a more
powerful driver of behavior (Grant, 2008; Ryan, Frederick, Lepes,
324
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
Rubio, & Sheldon, 1997), extrinsic motivation is not without behavioral
impact (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014).
A central tenant of SDT is that psychological needs satisfaction re-
sults in intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1991). SDT identifies these
needs as competence (the need to feel challenged but capable of mas-
tering that challenge), autonomy (the need to possess causal agency and
freedom of choice), and relatedness (the need to interact and mean-
ingfully connect with others) (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Generally, psycho-
logical needs satisfaction has been found to predict continued perfor-
mance of behavior, mental well-being, and the quality of effort exerted
across a wide variety of domains (Deci & Ryan, 2008a; Sheldon, Elliot,
Kim, & Kasser, 2001). In a work context, employee needs satisfaction is
an important indicator of the psychological health of the workplace
(Broeck, Vansteenkiste, Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). Needs satisfac-
tion is positively associated with employee well-being, positive atti-
tudes, and improved performance as well as reduced turnover (see
Gagné & Deci, 2005; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens,
2008).
Psychological needs satisfaction is associated with intrinsic moti-
vation and increased video game play (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski,
2006). This research draws upon a sub-theory of SDT known as cog-
nitive evaluation theory (CET), which proposes that a behavior's in-
trinsic motivational pull is determined by its capacity to facilitate
competence and autonomy needs satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). CET suggests that game
design elements that facilitate greater competence needs satisfaction
(such as supportive feedback) and greater autonomy needs satisfaction
(such as player choice) will facilitate intrinsic motivation (Frederick &
Ryan, 1995; Vallerand & Reid, 1984). Conversely, game design ele-
ments that reduce feelings of competence and autonomy, such as ne-
gative feedback or controlling rewards, can decrease intrinsic motiva-
tion (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand &
Reid, 1984). This has important implications for behavior change given
that research in contexts such as exercise (Schneider & Kwan, 2013)
and work (Arshadi, 2010), suggest that intrinsic motivation mediates or
partially mediates the relationship between needs satisfaction and be-
havioral intention. While most research in video game settings has fo-
cused on competence and autonomy needs on the basis of CET, relat-
edness needs satisfaction has also been found to increase intrinsic
motivation in video games (Ryan et al., 2006).
On this basis, the following hypotheses are proposed in accordance
with SDT and CET:
H1. The satisfaction of autonomy, competency, and relatedness needs
will positively influence intrinsic motivation.
H2. Intrinsic motivation will (a) mediate the relationship between
psychological needs satisfaction and behavioral intention and (b)
positively influence behavioral intention.
While theory and past SDT research largely support these hy-
potheses (Ryan et al., 2006), the links between psychological needs
satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and behavior in gamification research
have not always been consistent. Peng et al. (2012) found that in-
troducing game design elements such as avatar customization and in-
teractive feedback increased autonomy and competence satisfaction as
well as intrinsic motivation. Sailer, Hense, Mayr, and Mandl (2017)
found that game design elements resulted in competency and related-
ness needs satisfaction, but not autonomy needs satisfaction. In con-
trast, Mekler et al. (2017) found that although the addition of perfor-
mance features resulted in increased performance on an image
annotation task, it had no impact on competency needs satisfaction or
intrinsic motivation. While Mitchell et al. (2017) did not examine
psychological needs satisfaction, they found that even though the use of
a gamified fitness application increased exercise it had no impact on
intrinsic motivation. Interestingly, Hanus and Fox (2015) found that in
a classroom environment, gamification may actually undermine
R. Mitchell et al.
autonomy needs satisfaction resulting in a decrease in both intrinsic
motivation and behavioral outcomes.
From these findings, some researchers highlight the possibility that
gamification's behavioral impact may not stem from the facilitation of
psychological needs satisfaction and promotion of intrinsic motivation,
but rather from being a source of extrinsic motivation (e.g., Korn &
Schmidt, 2015; Mekler et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2017). Even in cases
where the game design elements employed (artefactual affordance) act
as intrinsic motivational affordances, contextual extrinsic pressures
(situated affordance) may still have a significant impact on gamifica-
tion's capacity to achieve needs satisfaction (Deterding, 2011). There-
fore, to better understand the way in which gamification works, it is
vital to move beyond the current focus on intrinsic motivation and
examine in greater detail the role of extrinsic motivation in gamifica-
tion outcomes.
2.2. External motivation and regulatory styles
Extrinsic motivation can be a powerful driver of behavior, but it is
most effective when the extrinsic incentives are aligned with an in-
dividual's own self-determined values, identity, and personal goals
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). OIT is a sub-theory of SDT concerning the way in
which external pressures are internalized and extrinsic motivation be-
comes self-regulated and autonomous (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Rather than
viewing extrinsic motivation as a dichotomous opposite to intrinsic
motivation, it proposes that extrinsic motivation can be interpreted
through a continuum of regulatory styles differentiated by the degree to
which the extrinsic motivation has been internalized (Deci & Ryan,
2002).
The most externalized motivation is external regulation, referring to
the motivation to engage in an activity to receive rewards or avoid
punishments. This might take the form of an employee using a gami-
fication application to receive virtual rewards or because they are re-
quired to do so to fulfill performance criteria. Although still externally
focused, introjected regulation has been partially internalized and re-
fers to the motivation to complete an activity out of guilt or ego in-
volvement. This might take the form of an employee using a gamifi-
cation application to avoid the guilt of disappointing a manager.
Identified regulation is internalized as the individual identifies with the
value or meaning of the task. This might take the form of an employee
using a gamification application because of the benefit it brings to
them. Finally, integrated regulation refers to a level of internalization
that causes the value of an activity to become integrated into the in-
dividual's sense of self. This might take the form of an employee using a
gamification application because they feel that using the application
reflects their personal commitment to improved performance. Of note,
identified regulation and integrated regulation are still not intrinsic as
they focus on the instrumental or functional value of the behavior (Deci
& Ryan, 2002). In addition, it is not uncommon to measure only
identified regulation or integrated regulation owing to difficulties in
psychometrically distinguishing these constructs (Vallerand et al.,
1992).
Deci and Ryan (1985) propose that the more internalized the reg-
ulatory style, the more autonomous the behavior. This is reflected in the
associations between internalized regulatory styles (identified and in-
tegrated regulation) and continued performance of behavior in a
variety of contexts, including education (Miserandino, 1996), health-
care (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996), and exercise
(Ryan, Patrick, Deci, & Williams, 2008). Internalized regulatory styles
have been found to have a positive association with job satisfaction,
well-being, and organizational commitment and a negative association
with distress and turnover intention in the workplace (Gagné et al.,
2010). In contrast, externalized regulatory styles (external and in-
trojected regulation) tend to crowd out needs satisfaction, thereby re-
ducing any inherent intrinsic motivation the behavior might have once
inspired (Deci & Ryan, 2008b). While these relationships have not been
325
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
examined empirically in the video game or gamification context to date,
on the basis of the aforementioned extant research it is hypothesized:
H3. An externalized regulatory style (external and introjected
regulation) will negatively influence autonomy, competence, and
relatedness needs satisfaction.
H4. An internalized regulatory style (identified regulation) will
positively influence autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs
satisfaction.
3. Method
3.1. Sample
An online self-administered survey was conducted with 291 in-
dividuals who were either currently using a gamification application in
a workplace context or had used such an application in the last three
months. The focus on current and recent users of gamification appli-
cations in the workplace reduces the potential for recall bias.
Respondents were recruited through Mechanical Turk (mTurk) by
Amazon and offered a payment of US$0.60. Concerns have been raised
regarding the validity of samples recruited online from crowdsourced
recruitment services, such as mTurk, owing to the potential for auto-
mated “bot” participants and inattentive reporting (Fleischer, Mead, &
Huang, 2015). However, when appropriate proactive steps are under-
taken, such as timing task postings to correspond with average work
hours in the United States and prohibiting multiple responses from the
same IP address (Smith, Roster, Golden, & Albaum, 2016), mTurk
samples are largely equivalent to those obtained through more tradi-
tional recruitment strategies (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013). The
survey was hosted through the online survey tool Qualtrics and com-
prised 43 questions.
3.2. Measures
Respondents were instructed to only consider one specific gamifi-
cation application when addressing questions throughout the survey.
The key variables were measured using contextualized versions of three
pre-validated scales: the player experience of need satisfaction (PENS)
scale (Ryan et al., 2006), the multidimensional work motivation scale
(Gagné et al., 2015) and a behavioral intention scale (Cronin, Brady, &
Hult, 2000). Each variable was measured using a 7-point Likert scale,
weighted from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Both the order of the
scales and the order of items within each scale were randomized to
reduce the impact of presentation effects (Murdock, 1968).
This study used three item measures of relatedness, autonomy, and
competency needs from the PENS scale. Example items include “I was
able to use the app the way I wanted to use it” (autonomy), “I felt able
to meet the challenge of performing well in this app” (competence), and
“I found the relationships I formed in this app important” (relatedness).
In contextualizing the motivation at work scale (Gagné et al., 2015),
measures of integrated regulation were removed owing to difficulties in
psychometrically distinguishing this construct from identified regula-
tion, a common issue in OIT research (Vallerand et al., 1992). This scale
was employed to measure intrinsic motivation as well as identified,
introjected, and external regulatory styles. Example items include “I use
the app because other people say I should” (external), “I feel guilty
when I don't use the app” (introjected), “I value the benefits of using the
app” (identified), and “I use the app because it's fun” (intrinsic). Finally,
Cronin et al.' (2000) behavioral intention scale was employed to assess
future use of the application as well as choice satisfaction. An example
item is “I will continue to use this app”. Given gamification is the ad-
dition of scoring mechanisms to the targeted behavior itself (Deterding
et al., 2011), continuing use of the gamification application necessitates
continued performance of the target behavior. Use intention thus serves
R. Mitchell et al. Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330

Table 1 the high correlation between autonomy and competency needs sa-
Gamification app distribution. tisfaction factors (r = 0.77, p < .001) within the PENS scale, average
App Name Frequency Percentage variance extracted (AVE) and maximum shared variance (MSV) were
calculated to assess discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As
Habitica 63 21.6% the AVE for both autonomy (AVE: 0.53) and competency (AVE: 0.54)
Epic win 14 4.8%
were less than the MSV for both factors (MSV: 0.97) discriminant va-
To-doist karma 11 3.8%
Task hammer 11 3.8%
lidity could not be established. The autonomy and competency needs
Super better 11 3.8% factors were therefore combined into the “CET needs satisfaction”
Mind bloom 10 3.4% factor to reflect their association within CET.
Doable 6 2.1%
Fortune city 5 1.7%
Devhub 5 1.7%
Duolingo 5 1.7% 4.3. Hypotheses testing
Litmos 4 1.4%
Keas 4 1.4% Structural equation modeling (SEM) using the maximum likelihood
method was used to examine the structural model proposed by the
Apps with less than four users excluded.
hypotheses in AMOS 24.0. Results showed acceptable fit, with the fol-
lowing goodness of fit statistics: χ2(238) = 478.71 p < .001, com-
as a measure of behavioral impact.
parative fit index (CFI) = 0.93, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) = 0.06, and root mean square error approximation
4. Data analysis and results (RMSEA) = 0.06 [0.05, 0.07] (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Standardized
path coefficients and significance levels are presented below as Fig. 1.
4.1. Sample characteristics Respondents who reported that the gamification application they
used satisfied their CET needs (autonomy and competency) exhibited
Of the 291 respondents, 68% were male. The mean age of re- higher levels of intrinsic motivation (γ = 0.87, t = 8.03, p < .001)
spondents was approximately 31 years old, with a range of 19 to toward using the gamification application, supporting H1. The sa-
62 years old. A large portion (46%) had attained a 4-year college degree tisfaction of relatedness needs, however, did not impact intrinsic mo-
or the equivalent. The most common industries in which respondents tivation (γ = 0.08, t = 1.04, p = .50). Consequently, the data partially
worked were information (17%), education services (12%), and finance supports H1.
or insurance (9%). The majority (75%) of respondents were currently The gamification application's satisfaction of CET needs (autonomy
using a gamification application, compared to those who has used an and competency) (γ = 0.47, t = 1.04, p = .29) or relatedness needs
application in the last three months but were no longer currently using (γ = −0.12, t = −1.77, p = .08) did not directly impact respondents'
that application (25%). intentions to use the gamification application. This suggests that CET
The most common reason for using the gamification application was needs satisfaction indirectly influences behavioral intention through
to improve productivity (32%), followed by tracking task completion/ intrinsic motivation, supporting the mediation hypothesis H2a. Intrinsic
compliance (19%) and education/training (16%). Gamification appli- motivation positively influenced respondents' intention to use the ga-
cation use was predominantly voluntary (88%). A wide variety of ga- mification application (γ = 0.54, t = 2.33, p = .02), supporting H2b.
mification applications were used by the sample (see Table 1), with the Respondents who reported higher levels of an external regulatory
majority (58.8%) of applications used by < 10 respondents. The most style when using the gamification application reported significantly
common application was Habitica (21.6%), followed by Epic Win lower levels of CET needs satisfaction from the gamification application
(4.8%). Both these applications gamify task completion through the (γ = −0.21, t = −2.46, p = .01), but significantly higher relatedness
tropes of role playing games (RPGs), allowing users to create their own needs satisfaction from the gamification application (γ = 0.25, t = 3.00
to-do lists and rewarding them with virtual items and experience points p < .01). In contrast, an introjected regulatory style when using the
to customize their player avatars once they have completed an activity. gamification application was not found to significantly influence CET
The flexibility these applications offer in setting tasks makes them at- needs satisfaction (γ = −0.08, t = −0.97, p = .33) or relatedness
tractive to organizations (Strohmeyer, 2014), with Habitica in parti- needs satisfaction (γ = 0.04, t = 0.54, p = .59) from the gamification
cular offering corporate plans that provide managers with more tools to application. As such, H3 was partially supported by the research.
direct and measure task completion (Habitica, 2018). Last, respondents who reported higher levels of an identified reg-
ulatory style when using the gamification application also reported
4.2. Descriptive analysis higher levels of both CET needs satisfaction (γ = 0.92, t = 9.58,
p < .01) and relatedness needs satisfaction (γ = 0.32, t = 9.13,
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients and cor- p < .01) from the gamification application, supporting H4.
relations were calculated for each factor (see Table 2). All scales de-
monstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (α > 0.7). Given

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and latent construct correlations.
Alpha Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Identified 0.73 5.15 1.08 1

2 Introjected 0.86 3.60 1.59 0.21⁎⁎ 1
3 External 0.83 3.97 1.58 0.24⁎⁎ 0.58⁎⁎ 1
4 Autonomy 0.77 5.35 1.01 0.57⁎⁎ 0.03 0.02 1
5 Competency 0.77 5.37 0.97 0.56⁎⁎ 0.03 0.03 0.77⁎⁎ 1
6 Relatedness 0.81 4.84 1.25 0.60⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎ 1
7 Intrinsic 0.73 5.32 0.98 0.58⁎⁎ 0.05 0.04 0.68⁎⁎ 0.66⁎⁎ 0.50⁎⁎ 1
8 Intention 0.78 5.47 0.94 0.56⁎⁎ 0.07 −0.05 0.71⁎⁎ 0.66⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ 0.67⁎⁎ 1

⁎⁎
Significant at p < .01.

326
R. Mitchell et al.
0.92**
(9.58)
Identified
Regulation
0.32**
(9.12)
-0.08
(-0.98)
Introjected
Regulation
0.04
(.54)
- 0.21*
(-2.46)
External
Regulation 0.25**
(3.00)
Fig. 1. Research model of gamification use intention and antecedents χ2(238) = 478.71, p < .001, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.06 [0.05, 0.07]
Note. ⁎⁎significant at p-value < .001; ⁎significant at p-value < .05; standardized coefficient and t-values in parentheses; insignificant paths are dotted.
5. Discussion
This study shows employees, on the basis of their average PENS
result, reported that the gamification application they used in the
workplace did satisfy their autonomy and competence needs and that
this had a positive association with the intrinsic motivation to use the
gamification application (H1). This finding is consistent with findings
in the video game context (Ryan et al., 2006) and previous CET re-
search (Arshadi, 2010; Schneider & Kwan, 2013). However, it does
contrast with findings in some contexts showing gamification does not
facilitate competency needs satisfaction and intrinsic motivation
(Mekler et al., 2017) or autonomy needs satisfaction (Sailer et al.,
2017), and may actually undermine autonomy needs satisfaction and
intrinsic motivation (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Considering most re-
spondents in the survey reported that their use of the gamification
application was voluntary, in comparison to a prescribed classroom
activity (Hanus & Fox, 2015) or experimental condition (Mekler et al.,
2017; Sailer et al., 2017), contextual autonomy may have influenced
this result. That is, in contexts where gamification applications are
prescribed, thus restricting autonomy from the outset, gamification's
capacity to satisfy autonomy needs may be compromised.
This study also shows employees, on the basis of their average PENS
result, reported that the gamification application they used did some-
what satisfy their relatedness needs. However, it was found that relat-
edness needs satisfaction did not influence respondents' intrinsic mo-
tivation to use the gamification application (H1). This contradicts prior
research in the video game (Ryan et al., 2006) and gamification (Sailer
et al., 2017) contexts. CET research would suggest that, in general,
thwarting of psychological needs satisfaction undermines intrinsic
motivation (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). However, relatedness needs sa-
tisfaction is not necessary for the experience of intrinsic motivation in
the same way as autonomy and competency needs satisfaction (Deci &
Ryan, 1985), and so this finding is not necessarily in conflict with CET
research. Nonetheless, it is also possible that gamification applications
in the workplace may include fewer features contributing to relatedness
needs satisfaction, such as narrative, teammates, or communal goal
sharing (Ryan et al., 2006; Sailer et al., 2017). Alternatively, it is pos-
sible that relatedness needs satisfaction may be less important to in-
trinsic motivation in a workplace context relative to more leisure or
social contexts like video game play.
Moreover, this study also shows that intrinsic motivation mediates
the effect of autonomy and competence needs satisfaction on behavioral
intention and positively influences behavioral intention (H2a, b). This
is consistent with the substantive body of research showing that in-
trinsic motivation is a powerful driver of behavior (Grant, 2008; Ryan
327
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
0.87**
CET Needs (8.02) Intrinsic
Satisfaction Motivation
0.47
(1.04)
0.54*
(2.33)
0.08
(1.04)
Relatedness Behavioral
Satisfaction -0.12 Intention
(-1.77)
et al., 1997). It also provides further support for CET's specification that
the impact of autonomy and competency needs satisfaction on beha-
vioral intention is mediated by intrinsic motivation, which has also
been demonstrated in the video game context (Ryan et al., 2006).
Importantly, externalized regulatory styles were not unequivocally
associated with reduced psychological needs satisfaction in this study,
as proposed on the basis of OIT (H3). The study shows that an in-
trojected regulatory style—the extent to which employees used the
gamification application because they would feel guilty if they did
not—had no effect on their psychological needs satisfaction from the
gamification application. In contrast, it was found that employees re-
porting higher levels of an external regulatory style—in that they used
the gamification application due to social pressure to gain a reward or
avoid punishment—experienced lower levels of autonomy and com-
petency needs satisfaction from the gamification application. This
finding is consistent with OIT, which suggests that externalized reg-
ulatory styles create a mindset that behavior is being controlled by the
presence of social or other pressures (Deci & Ryan, 1985), undermining
feelings of autonomy and competency. Interestingly—and contrary to
expectations—an external regulatory style positively influenced relat-
edness needs satisfaction. This suggests that employees who felt as
though their behavior was being controlled by social pressures in their
workplace may have perceived the relationships they formed through
gamification as being more meaningful. These employees, for instance,
could feel more bonded or at least perceive the relationships formed to
be more meaningful (at least in a business sense), owing to the shared
experience of feeling pressured to use the gamification application.
Last, the internalized regulatory style of identified regulation was
positively associated with psychological needs satisfaction in line with
OIT (H4). This suggests that when employees use workplace gamifica-
tion applications they feel provide them with useful benefits, these
gamification applications are more likely to fulfill their autonomy,
competence and relatedness needs. This is important given the research
also shows that satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs pro-
motes intrinsic motivation and intention to use the gamification ap-
plication and, by extension, the target behavior which has been gami-
fied in the workplace.
5.1. Implications
Broadly, this study provides further support for the importance of
intrinsic motivation in influencing behavior through gamification,
particularly within the workplace. Specifically, the extent to which
employees' experienced personal satisfaction or enjoyment from using a
gamification application positively influenced their behavioral
R. Mitchell et al.
intention to continue its use and, by association, the behavior targeted
by the gamification application. This suggests that designing gamifi-
cation applications that are enjoyable and interesting is key, un-
surprisingly, to their sustainability and efficacy in the workplace.
This study also contributes to the evidence base for the utility of
CET as a foundation for explaining how gamification works to achieve
behavioral outcomes. Specifically, it shows that when employees ex-
perience autonomy and competence needs satisfaction as a result of a
gamification application they exhibit higher levels of intrinsic motiva-
tion and behavioral intention to use the gamification application. This
suggests that managers should develop gamification applications that
utilize game design elements that support autonomy and competence
needs satisfaction. Sailer et al. (2017) suggest that badges, leader-
boards, and performance graphs positively affect competence needs
satisfaction, and Peng et al. (2012) found that avatar customization,
player choice, and dialog options positively affect autonomy needs sa-
tisfaction. However, by highlighting the importance of needs satisfac-
tion, the current study supports the call by existent literature (e.g.
Hamari et al., 2014; Seaborn & Fels, 2015) for additional research into
the specific game design elements that facilitate needs satisfaction.
The results only partially support the utility of SDT as a foundation
for explaining how gamification works to achieve behavioral outcomes,
as relatedness needs satisfaction was not found to influence intrinsic
motivation or behavioral intention. However, it is possible that this
result is owing to the workplace context in which the study takes place;
it may be that satisfaction of the need to interact and meaningfully
connect with others (relatedness needs) is not as important in a work-
place context as in other leisure or social contexts, such as video games.
This suggests that game design elements that support relatedness needs
satisfaction, like avatars, a meaningful narrative, and teammates (Sailer
et al., 2017), may not be as important when designing gamification
applications for the workplace. However, future research that specifi-
cally tests this proposition is necessary.
Importantly, this study provides some empirical support for OIT's
capacity to expand understanding of how gamification works to achieve
behavioral outcomes. It was found that an external regulatory style can
undermine psychological needs satisfaction through gamification.
Employees reporting higher levels of an external regulatory style—in
that they used the gamification application due to social pressure to
gain rewards or to avoid punishment—experienced lower levels of
psychological needs satisfaction from the gamification application. This
finding could explain the limited or negative impact of gamification on
autonomy and competence needs satisfaction in studies such as those by
Hanus and Fox (2015) and Mekler et al. (2017), where an external
regulatory style was not examined; that is, respondents' external reg-
ulatory style could have undermined gamification's capacity to facil-
itate autonomy and competence needs satisfaction in these studies.
Although this finding needs to be replicated, it provides a basis for
improved understanding of the contention in the literature around ga-
mification's ability to affect psychological needs satisfaction, and thus
support intrinsic motivation as a means to achieve behavioral out-
comes. For managers seeking to implement gamification applications,
the finding suggests that care must be taken to ensure that game design
elements such as points and badges are interpreted as competency
supportive progress markers, rather than as means of reward and
punishment. Specifically, managers should avoid linking game
achievement with real-world consequences such as payments or social
pressure.
Also, consistent with OIT, this study found that an identified reg-
ulatory style positively influenced psychological needs satisfaction from
gamification. This suggests that when employees use workplace gami-
fication applications they feel provide them with useful benefits, these
gamification applications are more likely to fulfill their autonomy,
competence, and relatedness needs. Managers should ensure that ga-
mification has clear benefits for the employee in addition to benefiting
the organization. For example, rather than a gamification program
328
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
being designed to better monitor task adherence, its design (and how its
benefits are communicated to the employees) should focus on making
the target behavior easier, more rewarding, and more engaging for the
employee. Predicting how employee needs will be impacted by work-
place innovation can be a challenge for managers, however, and so the
design of new workplace experience should be undertaken in colla-
boration, even co-design, with the employee users (Gruber, De Leon,
George, & Thompson, 2015).
Overall, these findings have important implications for the ethics of
gamification use, as they highlight the potential for gamification to
diminish psychological needs satisfaction in situations where the use of
the gamification application is driven by perceived social pressures or
rewards and punishments rather than utility. Given the importance of
the satisfaction of these needs to the psychological health of a work-
place (Broeck et al., 2010), the misuse of gamification may result in
negative outcomes for employees. This study also, however, provides
evidence of the capacity of gamification to support the satisfaction of
employees' psychological needs when its use is driven by perceived
personal benefit. Gamification implementation should thus always be
undertaken with both organizational and employee outcomes in mind.
The primary goal should be to create shared value. In this way, gami-
fication can maximize utility while avoiding the ethical criticisms that
have been leveled at it in recent years (Kim & Werbach, 2016; Korn &
Schmidt, 2015).
5.2. Limitations and future research
The key limitation of this study is the use of data from multiple
gamification applications. While the diversity of gamification applica-
tions included in the study increases the cross-contextual relevance of
the results, the lack of large samples for each application limits the
validity of any statistical comparison between the different applica-
tions. This “artefactual affordance” may be equally important to the
“situated affordance” examined by this study (Deterding, 2011), as
needs satisfaction is the result of the interplay between internal and
external factors (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Thus, future research into the
impact of extrinsic motivation on gamification should also explore the
impact of artefactual affordance.
Moreover, due to the variety of workplace contexts examined in this
study and the limited sample sizes in any one individual workplace, this
study cannot meaningfully compare results across contexts. Exploring
the impact of differing contexts on a single specific gamification pro-
gram would shed additional insight into the different ways that situated
affordance can impact on gamification outcomes.
Further, while this paper identifies extrinsic motivation as a critical
variable for further assessment, it could not assess gamification's ca-
pacity to change regulatory style or needs satisfaction. There is a crucial
need for longitudinal data to help demonstrate causality (Hanus & Fox,
2015). Consequently, further longitudinal studies into the impacts of
extrinsic motivation on gamification are warranted.
Additionally, the focus on current and recent users of gamification
limits the ability of this study to draw conclusions regarding the ante-
cedences of gamification cessation. While this study captured data from
lapsed gamification users, future research should investigate the factors
underpinning cessation of gamification applications in more depth.
By employing OIT, this paper takes steps toward understanding the
relationship between extrinsic motivation and gamification outcomes,
addressing the call for further examination of the role of extrinsic
motivation in gamification literature (Mekler et al., 2017; Mitchell
et al., 2017). By identifying the association between externalized ex-
trinsic motivation and reductions in autonomy and competency sa-
tisfaction, these findings support those calling on business to consider
the ethical and practical implications of external rewards or punish-
ment when gamifying workplaces (Bogost, 2013; Kim & Werbach,
2016). While the findings of this paper support the use of OIT as a
framework for investigating the impact of extrinsic motivation on
R. Mitchell et al.
gamification outcomes, the unexpected relationships between external
regulatory styles and relatedness needs satisfaction highlight the need
for further research. Furthermore, by highlighting the positive asso-
ciations between needs satisfaction and behavioral intention through
intrinsic motivation, this paper builds further evidence to suggest SDT's
capacity to explain and predict gamification outcomes (Seaborn & Fels,
2015).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Submission declaration
All authors have approved the final article.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Arshadi, N. (2010). Basic need satisfaction, work motivation, and job performance in an
industrial company in Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1267–1272.
Bogost, I. (2013). Exploitationware. In R. Colby, M. S. S. Johnson, & R. S. Colby (Eds.).
Rhetoric/composition/play through video games (pp. 139–147). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing au-
tonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of
the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. 154, Sage
Focus Editions136.
Callan, R. C., Bauer, K. N., & Landers, R. N. (2015). How to avoid the dark side of ga-
mification: Ten business scenarios and their unintended consequences. In T. Reiners,
& L. Wood (Eds.). Gamification in education and business (pp. 553–568). Cham:
Springer.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of parti-
cipants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face be-
havioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(4), 980.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environ-
ments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In
R. Dienstbier (Vol. Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: . Vol. 38. Nebraska symposium on
motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human be-
haviour. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester:
University Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
49(1), 14.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
49(3), 182.
Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual
model. Paper presented at Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming
Contexts, CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Deterding, S. (2014). Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamification. In M.
Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, & N. Schrape (Eds.). Rethinking gamification (pp. 305–323).
Lüneburg: Meson Press.
Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design.
Human Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th international academic
MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). ACM.
Dobre, O. I. (2013). Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review of
Applied Socio-Economic Research, 5(1), 53–60.
Ertürk, A., & Vurgun, L. (2015). Retention of IT professionals: Examining the influence of
329
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
empowerment, social exchange, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 34–46.
Fleischer, A., Mead, A. D., & Huang, J. (2015). Inattentive responding in MTurk and other
online samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 196–202.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
382–388.
Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: A review using
cognitive evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 5–23.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M. H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The
motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 628–646.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A.
K., ... Halvari, H. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation
evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational sy-
nergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(1), 48.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-reg-
ulation and competence in schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
Gruber, M., De Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7.
Habitica (2018). Need more for your crew? Retrieved from https://habitica.com/static/
plans.
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478.
Hamari, J., Huotari, K., & Tolvanen, J. (2015). Gamification and economics. In S. P. Walz,
& S. Deterding (Eds.). The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 139–
161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2014). Measuring flow in gamification: Dispositional flow
scale-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 133–143.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review
of empirical studies on gamification. System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii
International Conference on, IEEE (pp. 3025–3034). .
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.
IEEE (2014). Everyone's a gamer – IEEE experts predict gaming will be integrated into
more than 85 percent of daily tasks by 2020. April 14 IEEEhttp://www.ieee.org/
about/news/2014/25_feb_2014.html, Accessed date: 13 November 2017.
Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamification.
Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 157–173.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). The rise of motivational information systems: a review
of gamification research (working paper) https://people.uta.fi/*kljuham/
Manuscript-5.pdf, Accessed date: 16 October 2018.
Korn, O., & Schmidt, A. (2015). Gamification of business processes: Re-designing work in
production and service industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3424–3431.
Lewis, Z. H., Swartz, M. C., & Lyons, E. J. (2016). What's the point?: A review of reward
systems implemented in gamification interventions. Games for Health Journal, 5(2),
93–99.
Lopez, S. (2011, October 19). Disneyland workers answer to 'electronic whip'. Retrieved
from Los Angeles Timeshttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/local/la-me-1019-
lopez-disney-20111018.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013). Do points, levels and
leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation?: An empirical analysis of common gamifi-
cation elements. Proceedings of the First International Conference on gameful design,
research, and applications (pp. 66–73). ACM.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the
effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in per-
ceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(2), 203.
Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., & Drennan, J. (2017). Understanding how gamification influ-
ences behaviour in social marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal; AMJ, 25(1),
12–19.
Murdock, B. B. (1968). Serial order effects in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 76(4), 1–15.
Oprescu, F., Jones, C., & Katsikitis, M. (2014). I PLAY AT WORK—Ten principles for
transforming work processes through gamification. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(14).
Peng, W., Lin, J. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Winn, B. (2012). Need satisfaction supportive game
features as motivational determinants: An experimental study of a self-determination
theory guided exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175–196.
Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). Having to versus
wanting to play: Background and consequences of harmonious versus obsessive en-
gagement in video games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 485–492.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68–78.
Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Intrinsic
motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28,
335–354.
Ryan, R. M., Patrick, H., Deci, E. L., & Williams, G. C. (2008). Facilitating health beha-
viour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory.
R. Mitchell et al.
The European Health Psychologist, 10(1), 2–5.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A
self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 344–360.
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An
experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological
need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380.
Schneider, M. L., & Kwan, B. M. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic moti-
vation and affective response to exercise in adolescents. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 14(5), 776–785.
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about sa-
tisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 325.
Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-group analysis
of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel
to MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3139–3148.
Strohmeyer, R. (2014, May 2). Play your way to productivity with these 5 gamified apps.
Retrieved from https://www.pcworld.com/article/2149581/play-your-way-to-
productivity-with-these-5-gamified-apps.html.
Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise
SNS. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(pp. 1067–1070). .
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amo-
tivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on
intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology,
6(1), 94–102.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic
psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five
mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends,
and future directions. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and
achievement (pp. 105–165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
330
Journal of Business Research 106 (2020) 323–330
Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996).
Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115.
Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT design and
use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145–147.
Mr Robert Mitchell is a PhD candidate at the QUT Business School. Prior to joining QUT,
Mr. Mitchell worked in the private section in data management and human resources
roles. After achieving a Bachelor of Business (Marketing), Bachelor of Behavioural Science
and Bachelor of Business (Hons) at QUT, Mr. Mitchell returned to attain PhD qualifica-
tions hosted by the School of Advertising Marketing and Public Relations. His research
has focused on Gamification and the application of game design to non-game contexts, in
particular social marketing contexts such as health and fitness. He has published work on
the gamification of exercise with the peer-reviewed Australasian Marketing Journal.
Dr Lisa Schuster is a Senior Lecturer at the QUT Business School. Dr. Schuster completed
her Bachelor of Business (Marketing) and Bachelor of Business (Hons) at QUT. She went
on to complete her PhD, a Graduate Certificate in Research Commercialisation and a
Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice (Higher Education). Previously, Dr. Schuster
worked as a Research Fellow at Social Marketing @ Griffith University, a research centre
focused on undertaking collaborative research with industry partners, where she was also
on the Steering Committee of the Population and Social Health Research Program. She
has published her work in domestic and international conferences, receiving three ‘Best
Paper’ awards, and peer-reviewed journals, including European Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Services Marketing and Journal of Marketing
Management.
Dr Hyun Seung “HS” Jin (PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is a Senior
Lecturer in the School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations at the QUT Business
School. Prior to joining QUT, Dr. Jin worked at Samsung Co. in Seoul, Korea, and taught
advertising at Kansas State University and marketing at the University of Missouri at
Kansas City in the United States. Dr. Jin has published articles in the Journal of Advertising,
Journal of Advertising Research, Psychology & Marketing, International Journal of Advertising,
Health Marketing Quarterly, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, and others.