BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP. HỒ CHÍ MINH

CÔNG TRÌNH DỰ THI

GIẢI THƯỞNG
ĐỀ TÀI MÔN HỌC XUẤT SẮC UEH500 NĂM 2022

TÊN CÔNG TRÌNH: Gamification On Mobile Wallet:

The Relationship Between Customers’ Interaction With
Different Gamification Features And Brand Engagement

ĐỀ TÀI THUỘC KHOA/VIỆN: Khoa Kinh doanh quốc

tế - Marketing

MSĐT (Do BTC ghi):

TP. Hồ Chí Minh - 2022

 Acknowledgements
Our research is made from the Marketing Research subject taught by Mr. Ho
Xuan Huong. He helped and supported our group in orienting and this topic. He helped
direct our interests towards relevant topics and methodological innovations in the field
of gamification to the engagement between the customer and the brand, and made our
experience truly memorable. Thank you very much, our professor, without your
academic and mental, emotional support, we could not have finished this paper!
We also want to extend our sincere thanks to our families and all of our special
friends. Thank you for always standing by our sides, giving us spiritual support and
supporting us with all our efforts in the data survey process, thank you!
 Table of contents
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
List of tables
List of figures
Abstract........................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2
1.1 Research background and statement of the problem .................................... 2
1.2 Research objectives ........................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research objects ................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Research subjects......................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Scope of study .............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Research method ............................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research structure ............................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Mobile wallet ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Gamification....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Conceptualization of Gamification .............................................................. 5
2.2.2 Contextualization of Gamification............................................................... 6
2.3 Gamification features ........................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Immersion-related features.......................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Achievement-related features ...................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Social interaction-related features .............................................................. 8
2.4 Psychological Outcomes .................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Autonomy ..................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Competence.................................................................................................. 9
2.4.3 Relatedness .................................................................................................. 9
2.5 Brand engagement........................................................................................... 10
2.5.1 The emotional brand engagement ............................................................. 10
2.5.2 The cognitive brand engagement ............................................................... 10
2.5.3 The social brand engagement .................................................................... 11
2.6 Gamification and its interconnections to brand engagement ..................... 11
 2.7 Prior relevant studies ...................................................................................... 12
2.8 Research framework and hypothesis development ...................................... 14
2.8.1 The self-system model of motivational development (SSMMD) ............... 14
2.8.2 The relationship between gamification features and psychological outcomes
............................................................................................................................ 15
2.8.3 The relationship between psychological outcomes and brand engagement
............................................................................................................................ 17
2.9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................. 20
3.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Quantitative methods ...................................................................................... 21
3.3 Data analysis process ...................................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Descriptive statistics analysis .................................................................... 22
3.3.2 Measurement Model .................................................................................. 23
3.3.3 Assessing Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient.................................................... 23
3.3.4 Assessing Composite Reliability ................................................................ 24
3.3.5 Assessing Convergent validity ................................................................... 24
3.3.6 Assessing Discriminant Validity ................................................................ 25
3.4 Assessing Structual Model .............................................................................. 25
3.4.1 Assessing Multicollinearity ........................................................................ 26
3.4.2 Relationship in structural model ............................................................... 26
3.4.3 Assessing Coefficient of determination (𝑹𝟐) ............................................ 26
3.4.4 Assessing Effect Size (𝒇𝟐) ......................................................................... 27
3.4.5 Assessing the relevance of 𝑸𝟐 ..................................................................... 27
3.5 Measurement Scale ......................................................................................... 27
3.6 Sample characteristics .................................................................................... 32
3.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 04: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................ 38
4.1 Assessment of measurement scales ................................................................ 38
4.1.1 Reflective construct .................................................................................... 40
4.1.2 Formative construct ................................................................................... 45
4.2 Assessment of structural model ..................................................................... 50
4.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 05: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................... 56
5.1 Discussion of research ..................................................................................... 56
5.2 Theoretical contributions ............................................................................... 57
5.3 Practical implications ...................................................................................... 57
5.4 Limitations and further research................................................................... 59
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE – VIETNAMESE VERSION ..................... 71
APPENDIX B. RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC ............................................ 80
APPENDIX C. BOOTSTRAPPING RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING
.................................................................................................................................... 82
 List of abbreviations

AUT : Autonomy

AVE : Average variance extracted

BE : Brand engagement

CBDBE : Customer-based destination brand equity

CBE : Cognitive Brand Engagement

CMB : Common method bias

COM : Competence

EBE : Emotional Brand Engagement

HTMT : Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio

PLS-SEM : Partial least squares Structural equation modeling

REL : Relatedness

SBE : Social Brand Engagement

SDT : Self-determination theory

SRMR : Standardized root mean square residual

SSMMD : The self-system model of motivational development

VIF : Variance inflation factor

 List of tables
Table 2.1 Relevant empirical studies investigating the relationship between
engagement and gamification

Table 3.1 Measurement scales

Table 3.2 Sample demographic characteristics

Table 4.1 Scale accuracy analysis

Table 4.2 Scale accuracy analysis: Discriminant validity assessment

Table 4.5 Structural model quality

Table 4.4 Inner VIF Values

Table 4.6 Structural model results

Table 4.7 Results of testing the magnitude of the effect f2 in the model
 List of figures

Figure 1.1 The research framework and hypothesis.

Figure 3.1 Research process

Figure 4.1 Research model in Stage I

Figure 4.2 Research model in Stage II

Figure 4.3 The impact of factors

 Gamification On Mobile Wallet: The Relationship Between Customers’
Interaction With Different Gamification Features And Brand Engagement
Abstract
Businesses are increasingly making use of gamification as a popular technique
in marketing. They believe that gamification can enhance users’ engagement with their
mobile wallet. However, in previous studies, there was a scarcity in the process of
studying the effects of gamification and brand engagement, so there was not enough
empirical evidence to reinforce belief. In this study, we investigated the relationships
between gamification, psychological outcomes and brand engagement among
consumers using mobile wallets. Structural equation model with two-stage approach
is employed to test the research framework with 300 users who have experienced
games on mobile apps in Ho Chi Minh City. The results showed that gamification
increases user engagement through satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy
and relatedness. Gamification features (immersion, social interaction and
achievement) have a positive impact on all three forms of brand engagement
(emotional, cognitive and social) through psychological needs.
Keywords: Gamification; Gamification features; Brand engagement.

1
 CHAPTER 01: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research background and statement of the problem
In recent years, Vietnam has witnessed the emergence of digital platforms and
new technologies, which has created a new trajectory for technology-mediated
payment transactions. Furthermore, the mobile payments ecosystem is undergoing a
revolution as a result of rapid changes in the economy, social conditions, regulatory
landscape, and everything related to technology. This creates a fertile market for
services in a digital economy where mobile-wallets are a possible method of payment
and attracts a lot of organizations to expand their business in this industry. According
to statistics from the State Bank of Vietnam (2018), there were 26 payment service
providers licensed in the country, of which the majority were e-wallets, the favorites
being MoMo and Zalo Pay, GrabPay by Moca, Viettel Pay, and AirPay (Phan et al.,
2020), show the market for providing mobile wallet services in recent years has
become vibrant.
As engagement appears to be an important buzzword in today’s business world
(Santos et al., 2022), a lot of businesses face pressures to figure out how to engage
customers in all possible ways. Many traditional marketing strategies aimed at
engaging customers, which are commonly based on monetary and material rewards,
have been considered to be ineffective when compared to strategies that satisfy
intrinsic needs, such as gamification (Xi, N., & Hamari, J., 2020).
Gamification is the use of game mechanics to non-game situations (Eisingerich
et al., 2019). Games have been considered a pinnacle of engaging interactions (Hamari
& Keronen, 2017). Therefore, mobile wallet brands are incorporating gamified
elements into their marketing strategies. Gamification can also increase consumer
engagement behaviors (Robson et al., 2016), so the majority of businesses want to use
gamification in mobile wallet apps to improve consumer incentives to engage with
their brands. The Momo activity-tracking app, for example, converts user behaviors
into points, gives badges for achieving specified targets, and allows customers to post
their accomplishments on social media networks.
Scholars have studied the positive effects of gamification in various contexts
but only at an overall level. In particular, gamification is still in its infancy stages in
the mobile payment industry and empirical research on the influence of gamification
2
on this industry is called for. Many published studies have not looked into the
significance of game playing for establishing psychological and behavioral consumer
outcomes or how various gamification feature categories affect consumer engagement
dimensions beyond qualitative exploratory investigations. Furthermore, in the current
gamification-related literature, brand engagement, which is thought to be a significant
component of the organization's value, has not undergone extensive research as a
dependent variable. As a result, there is a research gap regarding how user engagement
may foster positive outcomes in this context and how gamification can increase user
engagement.
1.2 Research objectives
The goal of this study is to understand the relationships between the three key
gamification features of achievement, social interaction, and immersion that have an
impact on brand engagement in order to close existing research gaps. The satisfaction
of specific psychological outcomes for relatedness, competence, and autonomy is
facilitated by three characteristics of those. These elements work together to
demonstrate how psychological needs affect consumers' brand engagement across the
three main dimensions (emotional, cognitive and social). This study was conducted
online on a total of 336 consumers using mobile wallet applications, of which 300
users have experienced gamification of them.
This research will show (impact) the importance of gamification on using
digital wallets that affected brand engagement in the age of industry 4.0.
The connection between players and gamification in mobile wallets and the
expansion of the market to reach customers who have never played the game and do
not intend to experience it in a mobile wallet are two additional contributions made by
this study to the existing body of literature in the gamification and marketing fields of
enterprises about the interaction between consumers and brands.
1.3 Research objects
1.3.1 Research subjects
- Research subjects: Gamification experiences of user on mobile wallet and
relationships between gamification, the users’ interactions and brand engagement;
- Participants: Users living, working and studying in Ho Chi Minh city have
experienced gamification on mobile wallets.
3
1.3.2 Scope of study
- About space: This survey was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
- About time: Data was collected over 2 months in 2022 (March 17, 2022 and
May 23, 2022) at different times of day and on both weekdays and weekends. The
studies and published results of the author’s group were carried out from March to
August 2022.
1.4 Research method
The topic was used Quantitative research methods to comprehend and
determine the impact of game features on user psychology, resulting in cohesion. In
the first stage, the measurement scales for all studied constructs were adopted from
prior studies and were translated into Vietnamese. Next, the questionnaire was
designed, then our team discussed and modified it to ensure its clarity before
distribution.
The second stage was quantitative study which included the main survey and
data analysis. The survey is designed on Google Form and sent through social
networking platforms such as Facebook, Zalo, Instagram,.... After collection, the
dataset was analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and SmartPLS 3.2.8 and consisted of the
following steps: assessment of measurement scales, test for common method bias
(CMB) and assessment of the structural model with hypotheses testing.
1.5 Research structure
After Chapter 01 – Introduction, the current thesis is composed of four themed
chapters:
Chapter 02 - Literature review and hypothesis development
Chapter 03 – Research method: This chapter is concerned with the method used
for the current thesis, including the research process, measurement scale, questionnaire
design, sample and data collection, as well as the sample characteristics.
Chapter 04 – Data analysis and results: This section analyzes the dataset of the
research. It consists of the following steps: assessment of measurement scales, test for
common method bias, assessment of structural model
Chapter 05 – Discussion and conclusion: This final chapter briefs the important
results of the current thesis. Moreover, the research limitations and recommendations
for further research are also mentioned.
4
 CHAPTER 02: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Mobile wallet
Mobile wallet is the new type of payment method that enables users to exchange
content, access services, make payments and purchases all from their phones. Simply
described, a mobile wallet is a phone that can replace a person's wallet, which is
utilized as an alternative for financial transactions. Due to the rapid expansion of
mobile technology and a rising pool of mobile phone users as well as businesses'
innovative marketing plan, the mobile wallet has been identified as having
development potential in the mobile commerce industry. The sector tries to create
reliable mobile commerce applications while also providing a safe, convenient, cost-
effective, and efficient commercial transaction environment.
Mobile wallet offers a wide range of transactions, helping users have more
options for settling transactions at the moment of sale. Additionally, companies can
engage customers directly by delivering discount coupons to their mobile phones.
Furthermore, mobile payments allow carriers to strengthen their relationships with
clients by becoming their payment service providers. For example, MoMo-the Best
Mobile Payments Product in Vietnam for 2017, has launched a payment application
for smartphones running on the IOS/Android platforms in conjunction with local banks
(Bui, T. T. H., & Bui, H. T., 2018). Mobile wallet has recently been a hot topic and is
expected to become one of the most developed areas in the near future.
2.2 Gamification
2.2.1 Conceptualization of Gamification
First of all, Brett Terrill in his blog defined gamification as taking game
mechanics and applying them to other web properties to increase engagement (Huotari,
K., & Hamari, J., 2017). In 2010, this term became popular in the digital media sector,
when it comes to the specific definition of gamification, they denoted it as the
utilization of game design elements rather than game-based technology as a whole in
a non-game context (Deterding et al., 2011). In other words, the existence of game
system conditions such as rules, conflicting goals, and uncertain outcomes determine
whether an application is gamified. These conditions direct users to specific desired
behaviors, such as engagement in an innovation, positive feedback and loyalty, and
5
mutual cooperation. Meanwhile, another definition of gamification from the
standpoint of a game designer (Werbach, K. 2014), referring to the process of making
activities more game-like for the objective of bringing the theoretical and practical
perspectives closer together. In response to the ambiguity of previous studies in terms
of gamification definition, went even further, claiming that gamification is a process
of enhancing services with affordances for gameful experiences that aid user value
creation in general from the perspective of service marketing (Huotari, K., & Hamari,
J. 2017). To be more specific, affordances for gameful experiences should assist the
value in-use of a core service to raise its value and differentiate it from other rivals, as
outlined by Gronroos (2013). From a service marketing viewpoint, the current study
focusing on gamification may be determined by two key contributions: the joyful
experience and the support of total product value in-use (Huotari & Hamari, 2016).
2.2.2 Contextualization of Gamification
In the early years when gamification was applied to marketing and information
systems, researchers mainly focused on some areas where provision was needed, such
as learning, fitness and health or crowdsourcing (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). In recent
years, more research has been made on the impact of gamification on user perception
changes and related behavioral changes in a variety of contexts (Cardador et al., 2017;
Landers et al., 2020). For example, gamification has been shown to improve
consumers' adoption of innovative products (e.g. Muller-Stewens et al., 2017); to
provoke positive reactions to smartphone marketing strategies like advertising and
loyalty programs (e.g. Hwang and Choi, 2020; Hogberg et al., 2019; Jang et al., 2018);
and lower energy consumption (e.g. Gunther et al., 2020). Furthermore, other research
found that gamification in fintech had influenced people's behavior, such as better
financial management through the facilitation of consumer participation in e-banking
(e.g. Rodrigues et al., 2016a,b). The preceding study summarizes the popular use of
gamification as a strategy to aid in the penetration of fintech and emphasizes the
critical role of social inclusivity in gamification designs. Most of the gaming elements
applied in the "non-game" context have been applied directly from the game design
(such as points, scores, badges and medals), and the context of gamification in mobile
wallets in Vietnam like Momo, ShopeePay, Zalopay, … is no exception. In recent
years, mobile wallet gamification products have included not only traditional simple
6
gameplay such as checking in, receiving gold coins, and receiving cash, but also more
interesting and engaging mini-games such as planting trees, constructing farms,
solving puzzles, and raising pets, making mobile wallet more appealing to users.
Gamification aspects in mobile wallets can take the form of accumulating points
or badges and receiving rewards for transactions, making consumers feel more
entertained while making a purchase. According to our analysis of the literature, there
are few studies on the effects of gamification on mobile payment. Despite the fact that
gamification elements have been implemented on mobile wallets, research trends on
gamification have focused on general gamification theory, gamification elements, or
educational topics. No research has been identified that directly discusses the effects
of gamification on mobile payment.
2.3 Gamification features
2.3.1 Immersion-related features
Immersion definitions can extensively be characterized into two sorts:
perceptual and mental (Burn et al., 2006). Specialists that view immersion as a
perceptual peculiarity allude to immersion as how much an innovation or experience
consumes the feelings of a client. Conversely, scientists that view immersion as a
mental peculiarity underscore mental as opposed to tangible highlights of the game,
alluding to immersion as including the player's "psychological retention" in the game
world. Obviously, there is an error in the examinations as far as what immersion really
is. Moreover, it isn't clear which of these definitions is nearest to that of gamers when
they allude to immersion in their game play. While trying to determine this difference,
the subsequent grounded hypothesis observed that immersion was utilized to portray
an individual's level of inclusion with a PC game, in this way supporting the possibility
of immersion as a mental peculiarity (Brown, E., & Cairns, P., 2004). Moreover, the
hypothesis distinguished various obstructions that could restrict the level of inclusion,
and the sort of hindrance proposed various degrees of immersion: commitment,
engagement and all out immersion.
Using gaming mechanisms like avatars, storytelling, narrative structures,
roleplay systems, and so on, striving to engage the user in self-directed exploratory
action, immersion-related features in this study primarily attempt to immerse the
player in self-directed inquisitive activity.
7
2.3.2 Achievement-related features
Players can finish discretionary sub-objectives to procure accomplishment
compensations that are apparent to players. As many sub-objectives require exhaustive
investigation, play styles, and virtuosity, achievements are a relatively cost-efficient
way of extending the lifetime of a game. Achievement features are a recent addition to
game design but they can be considered a successful one (they have become a
mandatory feature for many XBox games since 2007). However, because they are used
the most frequently in branded communities, the current study exclusively focuses on
achievement-related gamification features. The benefits of achievement-related
gamification features on brand-related factors, like brand engagement, have been
supported by existing research (Gatautis et al., 2016).
In this paper, we discuss the possibilities of achievement-related features in
games of mobile wallet apps, including elements such as badges/medals, points,
leaderboards or rankings, progress bars, and escalating difficulty levels, increasing
user's sense of accomplishment. We have a general view of how achievement-related
features have been used in games of mobile wallet apps. Then we present the results
from the user's experience, which included affections of achievement-related features
to brand engagement.
2.3.3 Social interaction-related features
The process of reciprocal influence people exercise over one another during
social encounters is known as social interaction. It typically refers to in-person
interactions where participants are physically present with one another for a
predetermined amount of time (Little et al., 2016). However, we can also consider
social interactions that are technologically mediated in modern society, such as
messaging. For instance, gamification uses interaction-related features, including
game mechanisms like team, group, and competition, to encourage social interaction
amongst users (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019).
2.4 Psychological Outcomes

Psychosocial outcomes include various domains such as, feelings, behavior,

self-esteem and body image, social interactions, sexual activities, relationships, and
social cognition (Tsimicalis et al., 2005; Vahedi, 2010). In this study, with the

8
gamification aspect we mention psychological outcomes as the intrinsic motivation
including autonomy, competence and relatedness.

2.4.1 Autonomy
The need for autonomy is defined in many ways, it is the ambition to be
independence or more specifically, to be self-direction (Wei et al., 2005) and
individuals who act based on the feeling of vitality, volition or willing to finish a
particular task are also considered to have a need for autonomy (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2004; Ryan et al., 2006). To be more explicit, the need for autonomy is the personal
experiences of the psychological decision and freedom when engaging in activities.
The SDT (Peng et al., 2012) states that a person's sense of autonomy grows when they
have the flexibility to go after an ideal outcome or take part in an activity without
external influences and distractions, which enhances intrinsic motivation. As a result,
we can claim that affordances that help users feel more free to choose or have more
opportunities to express themselves can meet the autonomy needs.

2.4.2 Competence
The desire for self-mastery and development is referred to as the need for
competence (Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan et al., 2006). The concept of competence
originates from the idea individuals seek to control outcomes and they have a natural
penchant for manipulating their circumstances, overcoming obstacles, and experience
mastery over a task or domain (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). As attested by previous
research (e.g., Peng et al., 2012), we believe the factors that allow the users to have
chances to acquire new abilities, improve their skills, set clear objectives or receive
the positive feedback that they don’t expect can help to satisfy their competence. In
the gaming context of mobile wallet, users can enhance perceived competence through
optimal challenges and they can feel accomplished and controlled.

2.4.3 Relatedness
Individuals are social animals and have a need to interact with other human
beings (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). The need for relatedness is demonstrated through
social connections, it is more about the interpersonal dimension, reflecting the extent
to which a person feels that one is connected to others, has caring relationships, and
belongs to a community (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan et al., 2006). As a result, when

9
people form close bonds with others and feel a sense of communion, they can
experience higher levels of relatedness and need satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

2.5 Brand engagement

Brand engagement is the process of forming an emotional or rational attachment
between consumer and brand. It includes an aspect of brand management. Brand
attachment will have an impact on brand attachment and have a positive effect on
customer purchase intention. Besides, consumer brand engagement has been defined
variously as the level of an individual customer's motivational, brand-related and
context-dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive,
emotional and behavioral activity in direct brand interactions and a customer's
behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting
from motivational drivers. We therefore define consumer brand engagement as
consumers' positive, fulfilling, brand-use-related state of mind (comprising cognitive,
emotional and social elements).

2.5.1 The emotional brand engagement

Emotional branding is the approach to consumer - centric, through customer
experience stories to forging deep and enduring relationships between consumers and
brands (Robert, 2004). When a brand creates positive emotions for consumers, that
brand is gradually creating brand attachment with potential customers. The emotional
aspect of brand engagement is related to the feeling of delighted consumers by a
particular brand. At any time, they always spend with this brand and they are willing
to recommend one to family and friends about affection or enthusiasm. (Hollebeek et
al., 2014).

2.5.2 The cognitive brand engagement

When any consumer has positive feeling and satisfaction, they will have an
enduring mental states with the brand. That is the cognitive aspect of brand
engagement. It is connected by absorption and attention. If a customer's initial
experience to create an impression leads to emotional brand engagement, the cognitive
brand engagement is the degree of interest and wishes to have in focusing on brand,
in which, interaction with gamification is also a form of concentration. Gamification

10
help user process the brand-related thought and elaboration in brand interaction
(Hollebeek et al., 2014) or practice the duration of focus (So et al., 2014).

2.5.3 The social brand engagement

Introduction is one of the forms of the social brand engagement. Because it a
meaningful connection, creation and communication between one consumer and one
or more other consumers, through brand-related language, images and meanings.
(Kozinets, Robert V., 2014). In addition, social BE is related to online activity about
socializing and online communities (Calder et al., 2009; Vivek et al., 2014). In aspect
of the social brand engagement, specialize in gamification, the increasing of
interaction with others is focus of engagement (Bijmolt et al., 2010; Van Doorn et al.,
2010).

2.6 Gamification and its interconnections to brand engagement

Gamification is often seen as the application of game-related elements in a non-
game context (Deterding et al., 2011). However, because these definitions are based
on mechanics and design processes, many studies have criticized it. Instead,
gamification should be seen as a service that a company provides to users so that they
can take part in gameful experience and when players use that game service will create
an inevitable co-creation between the user and the producer (Huotari & Hamari, 2017).
Meanwhile, through various design elements, the producer creates the game model,
rules, content, and context, and the user contributes by participating in the game and
interacting with the other player (Huotari & Hamari, 2012). Gamification is the
fundamental link with engagement, and it really does have an impact on brand
engagement (e.g., Hofacker et al., 2016; Lounis et al., 2013; Lucassen & Jansen, 2014;
Mulcahy et al., 2018; Teotónio & Reis, 2018; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011; Xi
& Hamari, 2019).
Gamification can be approached in two ways, that is, classification based on
game design elements or game features. According to Schell's (2008) model, game
design elements include story, aesthetics, mechanics, and technology. The stories give
the game context and give the gaming experience meaning. Aesthetics refers to the
game's appearance, such as the visuals used to create immersion, and technology
describes how the medium itself, such as a mobile device, can enable various gaming

11
experiences. Recent research by Xi and Hamari (2019), who had offered an approach
to gamification by categorizing based on game features including immersion,
achievement, and social interaction, offers an approach to game design. Badges,
challenges, achievements, and rankings are among the features of the achievements
system that aim to increase the user's sense of accomplishment. By fostering chances
for collaboration, social features aim to enhance users' social interactions. In this study,
we decided to approach gamification on mobile wallets through classifying game
features and we analyze the specific effects of gamification on brand engagement
through an intermediate variable, psychological outcomes, because we found that in
previous studies, the author only inquired about the connection between different game
design components and participation and the relationship between gamification and
brand management has not always been explicitly theorized.
2.7 Prior relevant studies
Table 2.1 Relevant research on gamification

Independent Mediator/ Dependent

Reference Key finding
variables moderator variables

Gamification
increases user
Bitrian, P., engagement by
Buil, I., & Motivational Psychological Behavioral meeting their
Catalan, affordances outcomes outcomes demands for
S., 2021 competence,
autonomy, and
connectedness.

Gamification
Xi, N., & appears to be a
Gamification Brand
Hamari, J., Brand equity good brand
features engagement
2020 management
technique

12
 because it can
boost brand
engagement
and equity.

Users
interacting with
Autonomy, game features
competence, are more likely
Commensurate
relatedness, to engage in
Feng et al., game elements
engagement physical
2020 & N/A
behavior, activity, be
incommensurate
intrinsic more devoted
elements
motivation, to the fitness
loyalty app, and have
higher intrinsic
motivation.

The link
between
interpretation
Gamified
type (gamified
Fernandez- environmental
Consumer vs non-
Ruano et interpretation & N/A
behavior gamified) and
al., 2022 Psychological
CBDBE is
distance
influenced by
psychological
distance.

13
 Gamification
can produce
captivating user
experiences to
Key enhance how
Customers and
Robson et gamification people engage
N/A employee's
al., 2016 mechanics for with a
engagement
player type company or
brand the way
customers
interact with a
brand or firm.

Gamification
principles can
promote hope
Eisingerich Hope & Customer and
Purchases
et al., 2019 compulsion engagement consequently
increase
customer
engagement.

2.8 Research framework and hypothesis development

2.8.1 The self-system model of motivational development (SSMMD)

An explanation of how social contextual factors affect people's self-system

processes, promoting or undermining their engagement, is provided by the SSMMD,
a theoretical model based on self-determination theory. Individuals have three basic
psychological needs, according to the SSMMD: competence, autonomy, and
relatedness (which are also central to the SDT). Competence refers to a person's belief
in his or her ability to conduct an activity effectively and achieve a specified outcome.
The ability to make behavioral decisions is known as autonomy The final definition of
relatedness is the perception of a connection to others (Dupont et al., 2014). These
14
three psychological needs serve as the framework for self-system processes. The
SSMMD asserts that engagement occurs when these fundamental psychological needs
are met. The person feels unsatisfied when their needs are not met.

2.8.2 The relationship between gamification features and psychological outcomes

According to the self-determination theory (Rigby & Ryan, 2011; Ryan & Deci,
2000), three variables of psychological outcomes including autonomy, competence
and relatedness can be understood as intrinsic motivation and they can help internalize
and integrate extrinsic motivation. In addition, this further facilitates self-motivation
and performance (Baard et al., 2004). It can be simply understood that if the user can
meet the needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness when interacting with
gamification features, it can create intrinsic motivation for the user to participate in the
system or service. SDT theory will help careful observers understand the relationship
between gamification and intrinsic need satisfaction by recognizing the commonalities
between classification of player types, in-game design in the fields of game research
and some aspects of intrinsic needs satisfaction (Dickey, 2007; Yee, 2006). Therefore,
it is not surprising that in the gamification literature it is generally believed that
gamification (and games) have a special effect on psychological outcomes as our
inherent need for satisfaction.
The most popular game elements in gamified systems, such as badges/medals,
points, leaderboards or rankings, progress bars, and escalating difficulty levels, are all
included in achievement-related gamification features (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019).
When users interact with these kinds of features, previous research has shown
that people feel competent and this competence involves difficulty and the feeling of
being able to conduct appropriately, overcoming the obstacles (Ryan et al., 2006). As
a result, these aspects help people feel competent because they constantly inform and
provide effective feedback (Hassan et al., 2019). Furthermore, several of these aspects,
such as leaderboards, badges (Xi & Hamari, 2019), and challenges (Van Roy &
Zaman, 2019), have been proven to elicit feelings of freedom and consequently
perceptions of greater autonomy in users. Lastly, by helping users understand other
players' actions in the gamified system, this game element category encourages a sense
of social connection (Xi & Hamari, 2019). For instance, the need for relatedness is met
when gamified systems have leaderboards that enable players to compare their
15
achievements with those of other players (Sailer et al., 2017), challenges, and badges
and goals that publicize the behavior and performance of the users involved and allow
them to compare the number of badges/goals achieved (Hamari & Koivisto, 2015).
Second, gamification characteristics connected to social interaction (such as
cooperation, competitiveness, social networking features, and teammates) have mostly
been associated with feelings of relatedness. The desire for belonging and social
relationships is linked to the desire for relatedness (Ryan et al., 2006). Collaborating
with other users helps players feel part of a group or team, or connecting with other
users to achieve the same goals or even compete in the game will also help users
experience social relatedness (Wee & Choong, 2019). Interacting with social-oriented
features such as incorporating social networks into the game system will help users
chat and exchange more information, meeting the needs of connection. This not only
creates favorable conditions for users to exchange information, but also supports users
to gain knowledge and skills, increasing their sense of achievement (Xi & Hamari,
2019). Individuals have tremendous incentives to improve their talents and
advancement because these factors enable them to form close social interactions with
others. As a result, when people compete, cooperate, and engage with others through
social networking features, they develop a sense of competence and when users
interact with these game features, they create a sense of autonomy.
Finally, impressions of escaping the real world in new virtual locales, assuming
new roles, and participating in stories are linked to immersion-oriented affordances
(Ryan et al., 2006). These components including avatars, or profiles, narratives, or
significant stories, and customization are all included in this game aspect area have
been linked to the fulfillment of psychological demands (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Users
can easily achieve large goals by adopting tactics connected to task themes (Dong et
al., 2012) using storylines/narratives, which split actions into tiny, similarly themed
segments (Wee & Choong, 2019). This fosters emotions of competence. Similarly,
when gamified systems contain personalization, users feel more autonomous since
they have more options and power (Kim et al., 2015). User’s autonomy is also linked
to the profile or profile picture because the user is allowed to choose the avatar or
profile description of his or her own preferences, moreover, the avatars and characters

16
play an important role to assumes the user's position in the gamification system
(Mulcahy et al., 2020), which invokes a sense of social relatedness.
Based on the arguments above, we propose:
H1. The user’s interaction with achievement-related gamification features in
the mobile wallet helps to satisfy his/her needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy and
(c) relatedness.
H2. The user’s interaction with social interaction-related gamification features
in the mobile helps to satisfy his/her needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy and (c)
relatedness.
H3. The user’s interaction with immersion-related gamification features in the
mobile wallet helps to satisfy his/her needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy and (c)
relatedness.
2.8.3 The relationship between psychological outcomes and brand engagement
Brand engagement is considered to be a result of customer experience when
consumers interact with the products and services; suppliers represent the brand, which
then further show the nature of relationship between consumers’ particular with brand
(Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014). Generally speaking, brand engagement
can be seen as a multidimensional psychological state that is a result of interacting
with a brand represented to three main factor: emotional BE, cognitive BE and social
BE.“The emotional of brand engagement refers to affection and a consumer’s degree
of positive brand-related affect in a particular consumer/brand interaction (Hollebeek
et al., 2014) or enthusiasm and refers to the zealous reactions and feelings of a person
related to using or interacting with the focus of their engagement. The cognitive of
brand engagement mentions to the level of interest the customer has or wishes to have
in interacting with the concentration of their engagement, specifically is interaction
with gamification, named conscious attention (Vivek et al., 2014), the brand-related
thought processing and elaboration in brand interaction (Hollebeek et al., 2014) or the
duration of focus (So et al., 2014). Social brand engagement involves increasing of the
interaction based on the inclusion of others with the focus of engagement (Bijmolt et
al., 2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010), which involves online aspects, socializing and
participating in the online community with others (Vivek et al., 2014; Calder et al.,
2009). Social brand engagement is a social act full of culture, meaning, language, and
17
values. Social brand engagement is meaningful connection, creation and
communication between consumers, using brand or brand-related language, images
and meanings (Kozinets & Robert V, 2014). In addition, social BE involves increased
interaction with others as the focus of engagement (Bijmolt et al., 2010; Van Doorn et
al., 2010), consistent with online activity, related to socializing and participating in
online communities with others (Calder et al., 2009; Vivek et al., 2014).”
In this study, we need to provide evidence to explain how the above aspects are
applied by businesses to gamification and how they have an impact to promote brand
engagement.
Several previous practical studies on gamification have shown that gamification
affects brand engagement. Gamification has impacts on consumer brand interaction in
the Lithuanian market, while this relationship was unclear according to their research
results (Gatautis et al., 2016). Gambling-related interactions were often highly
interactive and that optimal challenge was positively related to the emotional and
cognitive aspects of interactions with brands (Berger et al., 2017). Similarly, states-
related consist of likes, comments, teams and collaboration naturally affects social
brand engagement (Leclercq, Hammedi, & Poncin, 2018).
Brand engagement is considered to be one of the most important determinants
of brand equity (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Weiger et al., 2017). That is customers can
affect to brand equity through their willingness to spend more time, money,...
Whenever customers focus on product quality, it has a positive impact on brand equity
(Christodoulides et al., 2012). So to promote these customer behaviors, we focus on
three psychological factors that are considered the most optimal.
The individuals have three main psychological needs: competence, autonomy,
and relatedness. They give players the freedom to create different contexts and ways
of playing. In fact, this relationship between psychological outcomes and brand
engagement was investigated in other researches in different contexts. For instance,
students’ sense of competence, autonomy and relatedness have been linked to
cognitive, emotional and social brand engagement (Buil et al., 2020; Dupont et al.,
2014; Skinner et al., 2008). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4. The satisfaction of the need for competence has a positive impact on (a)
the emotional BE, (b) the cognitive BE and (c) the social BE
18
 H5. The satisfaction of the need for autonomy has a positive impact on (a) the
emotional BE, (b) the cognitive BE and (c) the social BE
H6. The satisfaction of the need for relatedness has a positive impact on (a) the
emotional BE, (b) the cognitive BE and (c) the social BE

Figure 1.1 The research framework and hypothesis

2.9 Summary
Overall, this chapter presented the research framework which was drawn upon
the SSMMD framework and the literature review on each construct of the model, as
well as five studies relevant to this thesis. Furthermore, four hypotheses were
proposed. The first three hypotheses are that the user’s interaction with each
gamification feature, respectively, (1) achievement, (2) social interaction and (3)
immersion helps to satisfy his/her needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy and (c)
relatedness. The last hypothesis is that the satisfaction of psychological outcomes
(consisting of the need for autonomy/competence/ relatedness) has a positive impact
on (a) the emotional BE (b) the cognitive BE and (c) the social BE. The next chapter
would be concerned with the method used for the current thesis.

19
 CHAPTER 03: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Procedure
The research process was carried out according to the following basic steps:
The first step in this process was to review the literature and prior relevant
papers (Table 2.1) to adopt the measurement scale for all studied constructs; with some
minor modifications to fit the current research context. Constructing an initial
questionnaire in English from the original articles, then translated it into Vietnamese
and then conducted a preliminary survey to adjust the questionnaire to ensure the
logical and understandable meaning of each item and back to being translated into
English for data analysis. This current study, quantitative methods was chosen to
evaluate measurement models and structural model testing. To begin this process, a
two-stage approach was applied to assess the measurement model. The reliability of
the studied constructs was represented by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability,
while the convergent validity was represented by indicator reliability and average
variance extracted (AVE). In addition, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) and
cross loadings were employed to evaluate the discriminant validity of the measurement
model. The following step involved determining whether the common method bias
(CMB) might jeopardize the research findings. The structural model was then
evaluated using a variety of criteria, including the R2 and Q2 of the endogenous
constructs to evaluate the proposed research model's predictive power and predictive
relevance, respectively, and the VIF values to check for collinearity issues (Henseler
& Chin, 2010). A bootstrapping procedure of 5,000 samples was used to test the direct
effects, the mediating effects, and the moderating effects of the current thesis
hypotheses (Hair et al., 2021). Research process includes the following steps as
illustrated in Figure 3.1.

20
 - Reliability (cronbach’s alpha and composite
reliability)
- Convergent validity ( AVE)
- Discriminant validity (cross loadings, Fornell-Larcker
criterion, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio - HTMT)
- The collinearity issues (VIF value)
- The predictive power (R2) and predictive relevance
(Q2)
- Hypotheses testing (bootstrapping 5,000): direct
effects, mediating effects, and the moderating effects.
- Effect Size F2

1. Read the related 8. Data processing 9. Give the

articles and analysis conclusion

2. Literature 7. Collect the

10. Give cons and
Review quantitative data
solutions
(n=300)

3. Construct the 6. Modified

research model and questionnaire &
hypotheses measurement scale

5. Measurement
4. Discussion scale & Draft
questionnaire

Figure 3.1. Research process

3.2 Quantitative methods
The questionnaire was then modified to ensure its clarity before finalization and
distribution. Quantitative data was collected through Google Forms. The sample size
must be at least 100 and at least five observable variables for each measurement
21
variable (Hair et al., 2011). The research model proposed in Chapter 2 consists of 9
latent variables with 53 measured variables. Therefore, the minimum sample size
should be: 53*5 = 235 observable variables. The study is expected to be sent to
approximately 350 participants to ensure that the PLS-SEM analysis will yield the
most accurate results. The author team will contact friends, acquaintances,... to send
the Google form link through Facebook, zalo and messenger. The total number of votes
sent was 350 and 300 votes were collected. The survey took place between March 17,
2022 and May 23, 2022.
This study uses the PLS-SEM approach as the main tool for data analysis for
several reasons. This study uses the PLS-SEM approach as the main tool for data
analysis for several reasons. First of all, PLS-SEM is the preferred method because in
a direct comparison with CB-SEM the variance explained in the dependent variables
is substantially higher (Hair et al., 2017), so this method is more suitable (compared
to CB-SEM) when the purposes of the researchers are focusing on the predictive power
of the dependent variable (Henseler et al., 2009). Furthermore, PLS-SEM has a relative
advantage (compared to CB-SEM) in that it does not require the dataset to be normally
distributed or has no multicollinearity problem (Hair et al., 2018). In addition, PLS-
SEM can analyze models with many latent variables measured by many different
parameters at the same time, especially those measured by higher-order variables (Hair
et al., 2017). In addition, PLS-SEM allows both the measurement model and the
structural model to estimate at the same time, avoiding skewed or inappropriate parts
for the estimate (Hair et al., 2018).
SmartPLS 3.2.8 is used, through the PLS algorithm (PLS algorithm) to analyze
the accuracy of the scales, 𝑅2 and 𝑓 2 values. The bootstrapping method was performed
to test the significance of the path coefficients.
3.3 Data analysis process
3.3.1 Descriptive statistics analysis
Summarize with the form obtained from Google Form and perform checks and
screenings to avoid errors before conducting data analysis. The end result is 317
samples. To conduct descriptive statistics analysis, SPSS 20.0 was used to describe the
characteristics of the research sample. Next, the author conducts an evaluation of the
research model through two types of models: (1) Effect Indicator (Reflective
22
Measurement Models) and (2) Composite Indicator (Formative Measurement Models)
are proposed by (Henseler & Chin, 2010).
3.3.2 Measurement Model
The measurement model is evaluated based on reliability and validity. In which,
reliability is evaluated based on specific measures, Cronbach's Alpha reliability and
Composite reliability coefficient (CR), and validity (convergent validity and
discriminant validity) evaluated through Cross loading coefficient, Average Variance
Extracted AVE and Correlation matrix between research variables.

3.3.3 Assessing Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient

Cronbach (1951) proposed a formula to evaluate internal consistency reliability
based on the correlation between observable variables. Cronbach's alpha assumes that
all observed variables have the same reliability (outer loading). Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient is relatively sensitive to the number of observable variables in each scale
and tends to underestimate the internal consistency reliability.

Formula (Hair et al., 2018):

𝑘 ∑𝑘 2
𝑖=1 𝜎𝑖
α= (1 − )
𝑘−1 𝜎𝜏2

Where:

α: Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient

k: Number of items in the scale

𝜎𝜏2 : 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒

𝜎𝑖2 : 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑖

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient takes values between 0 and 1. In general,

an Alpha coefficient above 0.70 will pass the reliability test with values closer to 1
being preferable. Here is a summary of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value ranges and
how to interpret them in reliability analysis.

Cronbach's Alpha value range Interpretation

α ≥ 0.90 Excellent

23
 α 0.80 – 0.89 Good

α 0.70 – 0.79 Acceptable

α 0.60 – 0.69 Debatable

α 0.50 – 0.59 Poor

α < 0.50 Not acceptable

3.3.4 Assessing Composite Reliability

Composite reliability (CR) takes into different outer loadings of the observable
variables and is calculated by the formula (Hair et al., 2018).

(∑𝑖 𝑙𝑖 ) 2
CR =
(∑𝑖 𝑙𝑖 ) 2 + 𝛴𝑖 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑒𝑖 )

Where:

𝑙𝑖 : completely standardized loading of the observable variable i of a particular

latent variable

𝑒𝑖 : measure error of observable variable

𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑒𝑖): variance of the measurement error, and is determined by 1 − 𝑙2 . With

the condition that CR is 0.6 or higher.

3.3.5 Assessing Convergent validity

The average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct is calculated by
looking at the outer loadings of the indicators, which is how convergent validity is
assessed.
The construct score must account for at least 50% of the variance of the
variable, according to the square of the outer loadings, which should be greater than
0.708. (Henseler et al., 2015). The AVE is a summary convergence indicator that is
determined by extracting the variance from all of the items loading on a single
construct (Hair et al., 2010). A general guideline for adequate convergence is an AVE
> 0.50, which denotes that the construct score includes more than half of the indicator
variance (Hair et al., 2017c).

24
 Since internal consistency reliability is inappropriate for formative
measurement models, convergent validity assessment is quite different. It is necessary
to include additional reflectively measured variable(s) in the nomological net of each
formative construct in the survey in order to calculate convergent validity for
formatively measured constructs. Formatively measured constructs are evaluated in
addition to their convergent validity using the statistical significance, size, and
collinearity of the indicator weights (Hair et al., 2017c).
3.3.6 Assessing Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is a rather complementary concept: Two conceptually
different concepts should exhibit sufficient difference (i.e. the joint set of indicators is
expected not to be unidimensional) (Henseler et al., 2009). The Fornell-Larcker
criterion and cross loadings are two measures of discriminant validity that have been
proposed for PLS path modeling. According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981), a latent variable shares more variance than any other latent variable
with the indicators to which it is assigned. According to statistics, each latent variable's
AVE should be higher than its highest squared correlation with any other latent
variable.Assessing the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlations, which
is the average of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of
indicators across constructs measuring different phenomena), relative to the average
of the monotrait-heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of indicators within
the same construct). With the condition that the HTMT is less than 0.9 (Henseler et
al., 2015).

3.4 Assessing Structual Model

To assessing the relationship between the research variables, the impact, the
intensity of the independent variables on the dependent variable, the researcher must
take the following steps: (1) evaluate the multicollinearity problems of the structural
model; (2) evaluate the magnitude and significance of the relationships in the structural
model; (3) evaluation of the impact factor 𝑓 2 ; (4) evaluate the coefficient of
determination 𝑅2 ; (5) evaluate the relevance of the 𝑄2 forecast.

25
3.4.1 Assessing Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is a phenomenon where the independent variables are strongly
correlated, leading to bias and change in direction of its relationship with the dependent
variable. In other words, multicollinearity occurs when a linear correlation exists
between more than two independent variables in the model. That will lead to problems
such as: Limiting the value of R squared, distorting/changing the sign of the regression
coefficients.
To test the multicollinearity, the author relies on the variance inflation factor
(VIF) with the VIF index < 5 or the TOL tolerance > 0.20 (Hair et al., 2017). In the
context of PLS-SEM, a tolerance value of 0.20 or less and a VIF value of 5.00 or higher
can cause multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2017).
3.4.2 Relationship in structural model
Because PLS-SEM does not assume that the data must be normally distributed.
The absence of a normal distribution means that the parameterized tests used in the
regression analysis cannot be applied to check whether the outer weight, outer loading
and path coefficients is statistically significant or not. Therefore, PLS-SEM uses a
coefficient that is statistically significant depending on its standard error obtained
through bootstrapping to check the significance level.
Hair et al. (2018) proposed a return magnified sample to approximately 5,000
samples. The bootstrap standard error allows us to calculate the experimental t-value
and the p-value for all the path systems in the structural model. With t-value > 1.96,
the test is statistically significant at the 5% level.
3.4.3 Assessing Coefficient of determination (𝑹𝟐 )
The essential criterion for this assessment is the coefficient of determination 𝑅 2
of the endogenous latent variables. The 𝑅2 value is calculated as the squared
correlation between the predicted value and the value of the specific dependent
research variable. The value of 𝑅2 ranges from 0 to 1, the higher the index, the more
accurate the forecast. 𝑅2 values of 0.75; 0.50 or 0.25 in PLS path models as substantial,
moderate, and weak, respectively (Henseler et al., 2009).

26
3.4.4 Assessing Effect Size (𝒇𝟐 )
For each effect in the path model, one can evaluate the effect size 𝑓 2 by means
of Cohen (1988). The effect size 𝑓 2 is calculated as the increase in 𝑅2 relative to the
proportion of variance of the endogenous latent variable that remains unexplained.
The 𝑓 2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 can be viewed as a gauge for whether a
predictor latent variable has a weak, medium, or large effect at the structural level
(Cohen, 1988).
3.4.5 Assessing the relevance of 𝑸𝟐
The structural model's capacity for prediction is subject to another evaluation.
Stone-𝑄2 Geisser's (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1975), the most common indicator of
predictive relevance, can be measured while using blindfolds (Tenenhaus et al., 2005).
The model must be able to predict the endogenous latent variable's indicators,
according to the Stone-Geisser criterion. The method combines cross-validation and
function fitting in one step. The prediction of observables or potential observables is
of much greater relevance than the estimator of what are frequently artificial construct-
parameters, as Chin (1998) points out. (p. 320).

3.5 Measurement Scale

The research papers were evaluated using 7-point scales based on prior
literature and translated into Vietnamese, the official language of the current research
context. There were a total of thirteen gamification features found. Avatar/virtual
identity/profile, customization/personalization features, and narrative/story are
classified as immersion-related features; badges/medals/trophies, virtual
currency/coins, points/score/experience points, status bar/progress, level,
leaderboards/rankings/highscore lists, and increasingly challenging tasks are classified
as achievement-related features; and team, social competition, and social network
features are classified as social interaction-related features. Frequency and importance
have both been used to measure interaction in the literature on interacting with
information systems and social interaction (Chua, 2002; Novak, Hoffman, & Yung,
2000). As a result, in this study, participants were asked to estimate the frequency and
significance of each interaction they have with a feature. On a 7-point scale, we scored
each item from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important), and from 1 (never)
to 7 (every time).
27
 Based on earlier studies by So et al. (2014), Vivek (2009), and Vivek et al.
(2016), we also evaluated social brand engagement with six items, emotional brand
engagement with five items, and cognitive brand engagement with four items. A 7-
point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7, was offered (strongly agree).

Construct Items

Interaction with gamification features

Important

1. It is important for badges, medals, and trophies

to be interacted with (IAF1)

2. It is important for virtual currency and coins to

be interacted with (IAF2)

3. It is important for points, scores and experiences

points to be interacted with (IAF3)

4. It is important for status bars andprogress bars to

be interacted with (IAF4)

Interaction with achievement 5. It is important for avatar, virtual identify and

profile levels to be interacted with (IAF5)
and progression-oriented
elements 6. It is important for leaderboards, rankings and
highscore lists to be interacted with (IAF6)

7. It is important for increasing difficult tasks to be

interacted with (IAF7)

Frequency

1. How often are badges, medals, and trophies

interacted with (FAF1)

2. How often are virtual currency, coins interacted

with (FAF2)

28
 3. How often are points, scores, and experiences
points interacted with (FAF3)

4. How often are status bars, progress bars

interacted with (FAF4)

5. How often are avatar, virtual identify and profile

levels interacted with (FAF5)

6. How often are leaderboards, rankings and

highscore lists interacted with (FAF6)

7. How often are increasing difficult tasks

interacted with (FAF7)

Important

1. It is important for competition to be interacted

with (ISF1)

2. It is important for social networking features to

be interacted with (ISF2)

3. It is important for cooperation to be interacted

with (ISF3)
Interaction with social-
oriented elements
Frequency

1. How often are competition interacted with

(FSF1)

2. How often are social networking features

interacted with (FSF2)

3. How often are cooperation interacted with

(FSF3)

Interaction with immersion- Important

oriented elements
1. It is important for profile, virtual identity and

29
 avatar to be interacted with (IIF1)

2. It is important for personalization to be

interacted with (IIF2)

3. It is important for virtual world, 3D world to be

interacted with (IIF3)

Frequency

1. How often are profile, virtual identity and avatar

interacted with (FIF1)

2. How often are personalization interacted with

(FIF2)

3. How often are virtual world, 3D world interacted

with (FIF3)

Psychological Outcomes

1. When I use this app, I consider myself to be

pretty good (COM1)

2. The performance of this app is satisfactory to me

(COM2)
Competence
3. As a result of using this app, I feel as if I am an
expert (COM3)

4. As a result of using this app, I feel

competent (COM4)

1. There are different options available in this

app (AUT1)
Autonomy 2. Using this app is completely free for
me (AUT2)

3. The activities I choose to do in this app are up to

30
 me (AUT3)

4. My use of this app is motivated by my desire to

use it (AUT4)

1. Whenever I do something, I feel as if other

people care about it (REL1)

2. Support from others makes me feel

good (REL2)
Relatedness
3. Having the confidence that I am a valuable
person to others is very important to me (REL3)

4. Having been understood, I feel

comfortable (REL4)

Brand Engagement

1. The brand is exciting to me (EBE1)

2. This brand is extremely important to me (EBE2)

3. There is something very passionate about this

Emotional dimension
brand to me (EBE3)

4. In terms of this brand, I'm enthusiastic (EBE4)

5. This brand is my favorite (EBE5)

1. I am interested in learning more about this brand

(CBE1)

2. I am very interested in anything related to this

Cognitive dimension brand (CBE2)

3. I am intrigued by anything related to this brand

(CBE3)

4. This brand occupies a lot of my thoughts (CBE4)

31
 1. I enjoy discussing the brand with my friends and
using their products (SBE1)

2. When I'm around other people, I like discussing

and using the brand's products more (SBE2)

3. When my surroundings participate, talking about

and using the brand's products is more enjoyable
Social dimension (SBE3)

4. I enjoy telling others about my interactions with

the brand's products (SBE4)

5. I feel a sense of community with other

consumers of the brand's products (SBE5)

6. I enjoy recommending the brand's products to

other people (SBE6)

Sources: Xi & Hamari (2019); So et al. (2014); Vivek et al. (2014); Vivek (2009);
Standage et al. (2005).
3.6 Sample characteristics
After thorough review, 300 valid responses were used for further analysis. The
majority of respondents (74.3%) have graduated from college or university. The most
common monthly income is less than 5 million VND (50.7%). Momo is the e-wallet
app that spends the most time playing games (62.7%). More details about respondents’
profiles and purchase behaviors are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Sample demographic characteristics

Name of variables Frequency Percentage %

Age

Less than 18 21 7.0

32
 19 - 25 140 46.7

26 - 35 101 33.7

Over 35 38 12.7

Total 300 100.0

Gender

Male 133 44.3

Female 167 55.7

Total 300 100.0

Education

High school 26 8.7

Associate’s degree 6 2.0

Bachelor’s degree 217 72.3

Master’s degree and

50 16.7
above

Others 1 3.0

Total 300 100.0

33
 Occupation

Student 154 51.3

Self-employed 37 12.3

Paid Employment 65 21.7

Military/Government 39 13.0

Others 5 1.7

Total 300 100.0

Income per month

Less than VND

152 50.7
5,000,000

VND 5,000,000 to <

70 23.3
10,000,000

VND 10,000,000 <

37 12.3
15,000,000

VND 15,000,000 <

26 8.7
20,000,000

VND 20,000,000
15 5.0
and more

34
 Total 300 100.0

Habit of use

Momo 188 62.7

Shopee Pay 81 27.0

Zalo Pay 18 6.0

VN Pay 3 1.0

Others 10 3.3

Total 300 100.0

Tenure

Less than 3 months 94 31.3

3-6 months 92 30.7

6-9 months 27 9.0

9-12 months 15 5.0

More than 1 year 72 24.0

Total 300 100.0

35
 Weekly use

Less than 15 min 110 36.7

15-30 min 102 34.0

30-60 min 51 17.0

1-3h 23 7.7

3-6h 8 2.7

6-9h 3 1.0

9-12h 2 0.7

More than 12h 1 0.3

Total 300 100.0

3.7 Summary
In Chapter 3, the author presents in detail the steps of the research process,
including: Research problems, Research objectives, Theories are systematized to come
up with a research model, from which to build a preliminary scale, conduct group
discussions, conduct preliminary research to come up with a scale. The next step is to
select a survey sample, collect and process data by means of sample descriptive
statistics, test hypotheses and scales from which to draw conclusions and finally
propose implications.
The scale was built from the inheritance of previous studies and combined with
qualitative surveys to clarify the questions to serve the research process. The results
have 9 research concepts in the model measuring 53 questions.
36
 For the data processing part, the author presented methods to describe statistical
samples using SPSS 22.0 software and evaluated the measurement model, PLS-SEM
structural model with SmartPLS 3.2.8 software.

37
 CHAPTER 04: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Chapter 3 detailed the research design, construction of the scale, and the
evaluation criteria for each research concept. In this chapter, the following sections
will be presented: description of data collected after data cleaning, reliability testing
of the scale by Cronbach's Alpha, CR, AVE.

4.1 Assessment of measurement scales

The component-based PLS-SEM was used to assess the measurement model's
validity and reliability, as well as to examine the route model. PLS-SEM is believed
to be a more appropriate structural equation modeling approach than CB-SEM when
the measurement model incorporates formative elements (Coltman et al., 2008; Hair
et al., 2011; Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). According to the understanding of formative
constructs taken from Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2003) and Rossiter (2002),
because the frequency and importance of each gamification feature is theorized as the
common source of construct and variation in item measures producing variance in the
constructs, three separate gamified interactions are recognized as formative constructs
in this study. Brand engagement and Psychology outcomes, on the other hand, are
considered reflective models since their indicators are thought to be produced by latent
factors. As a result, both formative (interaction with gamification features) and
reflective aspects are included in the model (Psychological outcomes, brand
engagement).
The research framework had unidimensional, multidimensional, (see Figure
4.1); then, as recommended by Becker et al. (2012), a two-stage approach was applied.
In Stage I, the repeated indicators approach was applied to obtain the latent variable
scores (see Figure 4.1). These results were preserved in the dataset for Stage II's further
analysis. The Stage I results then served as indicators for the relevant components in
Stage II. (see Figure 4.2). The results of scale accuracy (i.e., reliability and validity) of
the studied constructs were presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.
.

38
Note: See Table 3.1 for all abbreviations of the respective constructs in the
model

Figure 4.1. Research model in Stage I

39
 Note: See Table 3.1 for all abbreviations of the respective constructs in the
model

Figure 4.2. Research model in Stage II

4.1.1 Reflective construct

The reliability of the constructs was assessed by applying thresholds of
Cronbach’s α (0.7) and composite reliability (0.7) (Hair et al., 2017). The satisfactory
level of scale reliability was shown in Table 4.1. The requirement of indicator loadings
(0.7) and average variance extracted (AVE) values above the cut-off point of 0.5 were
satisfied, confirming the convergent validity for the investigated constructs.

Table 4.1 Scale accuracy analysis

Stage I

Cronbach’s
Construct Indicator CR AVE Outer loading
alpha

Competence COM1 0.930 0.950 0.826 0.883

40
 COM2 0.912

COM3 0.927

COM4 0.913

Autonomy AUT1 0,914 0,946 0,853 0.914

AUT2 0.937

AUT3 0.920

Relatedness REL1 0,901 0,926 0,716 0.806

REL2 0.830

REL3 0.865

REL4 0.872

REL5 0.856

Emotional
EBE1 0,935 0,951 0,794 0.826
BE

EBE2 0.901

EBE3 0.918

EBE4 0.885

41
 EBE5 0.923

Cognitive
CBE1 0,915 0,941 0,799 0.834
BE

CBE2 0.917

CBE3 0.919

CBE4 0.901

Social BE SBE1 0,950 0,960 0,801 0.868

SBE2 0.891

SBE3 0.917

SBE4 0.913

SBE5 0.902

SBE6 0.877

Stage II

Cronbach’s
Construct Indicator CR AVE Outer loading
alpha

Competence COM1 0,930 0,950 0,826 0,882

42
 COM2 0,913

COM3 0,927

COM4 0,913

Autonomy AUT1 0,914 0,946 0,853 0,913

AUT2 0,937

AUT3 0,920

Relatedness REL1 0,901 0,926 0,716 0,806

REL2 0,830

REL3 0,864

REL4 0,872

REL5 0,856

Emotional
EBE1 0,935 0,951 0,794 0,826
BE

EBE2 0,901

EBE3 0,918

EBE4 0,885

43
 EBE5 0,923

Cognitive
CBE1 0,915 0,941 0,799 0,834
BE

CBE2 0,917

CBE3 0,919

CBE4 0,901

Social BE SBE1 0,950 0,960 0,801 0,868

SBE2 0,891

SBE3 0,917

SBE4 0,913

SBE5 0,902

SBE6 0,877

Cross loadings, the Fornell-Larcker criteria, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait

Ratio (HTMT) were also utilized to examine the discriminant validity of the
measurement model. Each indicator's cross-loading on its related construct was higher
than all of the other constructions' cross-loadings. The square root of each construct's
AVE was also greater than the construct's strongest correlations with the other
constructs, as seen in Table 4.2. Furthermore, all HTMT values were lower than the
cautious limit of 0.854. Overall, the measurement model's reliability and validity were
assured.

44
 Table 4.2. Scale accuracy analysis: Discriminant validity assessment
Fornell-Larcker Criterion

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Autonomy (1) 0,924

Cognitive BE (2) 0,634 0,894

Competence (3) 0,706 0,673 0,909

Emotional BE (4) 0,698 0,789 0,707 0,891

Relatedness (5) 0,769 0,708 0,741 0,720 0,846

Social BE (6) 0,643 0,820 0,668 0,750 0,703 0,895

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Autonomy (1)

Cognitive BE (2) 0,690

Competence (3) 0,765 0,727

Emotional BE (4) 0,751 0,854 0,757

Relatedness (5) 0,848 0,776 0,809 0,782

Social BE (6) 0,689 0,879 0,710 0,795 0,758

4.1.2 Formative construct

The formative measurement model for the first-order dimensions was then
assessed (see Table 4). Following previous research (e.g., Xi & Hamari, 2019),
interaction with each game element in the app (i.e., badges, virtual currency, scores,
progress bar, profile levels, ranking, increasingly difficult task, competition, team,
45
social networking features, virtual identity, personalization, narrative) was evaluated
formatively using two indicators: the frequency of the user’s interaction with the game
element and the importance they assigned to the interaction. First, the VIF values were
used to assess collinearity. The values varied from 1.017 to 1.083, all below the
threshold of 5, indicating no issues with collinearity (Hair et al., 2011). The formative
indicators' importance and relevance were also validated, since all of the indicators'
weights were statistically significant.
We created the second-order constructs using the two-stage approach proposed
by Hair et al. (2018) following the evaluation of the first-order constructs.
Engagement, in particular, was conceived of as a second-order formative construct
constructed of first-order variables. Similarly, interaction with achievement elements,
interaction with social-oriented elements, and interaction with immersion-oriented
elements were were all envisioned as second-order formative constructions made out
of the first-order factors listed below: badges, profile levels, progress bars, rankings,
scores, virtual currency, increasingly difficult task for achievement; competition, team,
social networking features for social elements; and virtual identity, personalization and
narrative for the immersion elements.
The model was then re-estimated and re-assessed. First, we ensured that all
HTMT values were below the 0.90 threshold (see Table 5) and that the bootstrap
confidence interval did not contain the number 1. This was done in accordance with
Henseler et al. (2015). The VIF values were then used to assess collinearity. To avoid
collinearity issues, the values should be less than 5 (Hair et al., 2011). The progress
bar indicator was deleted from the social-oriented components construct because it had
a value greater than 5. The model was then re-estimated, and the remaining VIF values
varied from 2.472 to 4.754, indicating that there are no multicollinearity issues with
the model (see Table 4.3). Similarly, the external validity of the formative
measurement model was assessed by examining the weights and loadings of the
indicators. Although the weights of the indicators should ideally be statistically
significant, indicators with non-significant weights but high loadings (>0.5) should be
considered because they contribute to the construct (Hair et al,. 2017); thus, the
external validity of the model can be concluded to be acceptable.

46
 Table 4.3 Formative measurement model results

Stage I

Construct Items VIF Weight P-values Loading

Frequency 1.083 0.821 0.000 0.8712

Badges
Importance 1.083 0.387 0.000 0.7127

Frequency 1.051 0.903 0.000 0.9082

Virtual currency
Importance 1.051 0.275 0.000 0.6089

Frequency 1.060 0.832 0.000 0.8703

Scores
Importance 1.060 0.391 0.000 0.6847

Frequency 1.050 0.841 0.000 0.8728

Progress bar
Importance 1.050 0.387 0.000 0.6672

Frequency 1.083 0.842 0.000 0.8809

Profile levels
Importance 1.083 0.354 0.000 0.6983

Frequency 1.060 0.843 0.000 0.8757

Ranking
Importance 1.060 0.374 0.000 0.6778

47
 Frequency 1.073 0.868 0.000 0.8915
Increasingly difficult
task
Importance 1.073 0.319 0.000 0.6697

Competition Frequency 1.033 0.877 0.000 0.8857

Importance 1.033 0.328 0.000 0.6443

Frequency 1.017 0.881 0.000 0.8909

Team
Importance 1.017 0.301 0.001 0.6643

Frequency 1.031 0.869 0.000 0.8767

Social networking
features
Importance 1.031 0.355 0.000 0.6629

Frequency 1.049 0.890 0.000 0.8915

Virtual identity
Importance 1.049 0.325 0.001 0.6048

Frequency 1.068 0.942 0.000 0.9287

Personalization
Importance 1.068 0.236 0.013 0.4872

Frequency 1.051 0.922 0.000 0.9143

Narrative
Importance 1.051 0.259 0.006 0.5579

Stage II

48
 Construct Items VIF Weight P-values Loading

Badges 3.172 0.115 0.324 0.821

Virtual
2.481 0.397 0.000 0.889
currency

Scores 4.536 0.073 0.527 0.851

Achievement
Profile levels 3.902 0.107 0.397 0.785

Ranking 4.754 -0.030 0.842 0.809

Increasingly
3.938 0.464 0.000 0.929
difficult task

Competition 2.472 0.471 0.000 0.922

Team 3.204 0.226 0.061 0.911

Social
Social
networking 2.847 0.401 0.001 0.891
features

Virtual identity 2.493 0.183 0.098 0.835

Immersion Personalization 3.151 0.406 0.002 0.928

Narrative 2.611 0.501 0.000 0.939

49
4.2 Assessment of structural model
Following the procedure to evaluate the structural model as proposed by Hair
et al. (2017), the collinearity issues among each set of predictor variables were firstly
checked; all VIF values (see Table 4.4) of less than 5.0 demonstrated that collinearity
was unlikely to be a concern.

Table 4.4 Inner VIF Values

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Achievement (1) 2.832 2.832 2.832

Autonomy (2) 2.723 2.723 2.723

Cognitive BE (3)

Competence (4) 2.465 2.465 2.465

Emotional BE (5)

Immersion (6) 2.549 2.549 2.549

Relatedness (7) 3.035 3.035 3.035

Social (8) 3.052 3.052 3.052

Social BE (9)

The statistical significance of the standardized paths was assessed through a

bootstrapping process with 1,000 subsamples. The model explained 37.3% (R2 =
0.373) of the variance of Autonomy, 45.8% (R2 = 0.458) of the variance of
Competence, 44.0% (R2 = 0.440) of the variance of Relatedness, 55.1% (R2 = 0.551)
of the variance of the Cognitive brand engagement, 60.4% (R2 = 0.604) of the variance
of the Emotional brand engagement and 54.7% (R2 = 0.547) of the variance of the
Social brand engagement.

50
 Table 4.5 Structural model quality

R Square R Square Adjusted

Autonomy 0.379 0.373

Cognitive BE 0.555 0.551

Competence 0.463 0.458

Emotional BE 0.608 0.604

Relatedness 0.445 0.440

Social BE 0.551 0.547

In support of H1a, H1b and H1c, interaction with achievement and progression-
oriented game elements in the app promotes the satisfaction of the needs for Autonomy
(β = 0.400; p = 0.000), Competence (β = 0.450; p = 0.000) and Relatedness (β = 0.296;
p = 0.001).
Similarly, interaction with social-oriented game elements is positively
associated with Relatedness (β = 0,213; p = 0.021) and Competence (β = 0.234; p =
0.007) need satisfaction, supporting H2a, H2c.In contrast to our expectations, we did
not find a significant relationship between interaction with social-oriented elements
and Autonomy need satisfaction (β = 0.038; p = 0.692), which leads us to reject H2b.
The results demonstrated that engagement with immersion-oriented game
features in the app enhances Relatedness need fulfillment (β = 0.222; p = 0.001) and
Autonomy need satisfaction (β = 0.225; p = 0.031), supporting H3b, H3c; no
significant effect was found on Competence (β = 0.040; p = 0.645), rejecting H3a,
respectively.
In addition, interaction with Competence elements in psychology, the results
indicated that satisfaction of the needs for Emotional brand engagement (β = 0.309; p
= 0.001), Cognitive brand engagement (β = 0.292; p = 0.001) and Social brand
engagement (β = 0.278; p = 0.002). Hence, H4a, H4b and H4c are supported.
51
 In terms of the connection between Autonomy characteristics and the three
elements of brand engagement, the findings revealed that interaction with Autonomy
features was not significantly associated with either Cognitive brand engagement (β =
0.123, p = 0.116) or Social brand engagement (β = 0.157, p = 0.079), and only
positively associated with Emotional brand engagement (β = 0.251, p = 0.003). Thus,
H5a are supported; H5b and H5c are rejected according to the result.
Furthermore, the three characteristics of brand engagement were found to be
highly linked to Relatedness features (for Emotional brand engagement, β = 0.297, p
= 0.000; Cognitive brand engagement, β = 0.397, p = 0.000; Social brand engagement,
β = 0.376, p = 0.000). Therefore, H6a, H6b and H6c are supported.

Table 4.6 Structural model results

Sample Standard
T Statistics P Significance
β Mean Deviation
(|O/STDEV|) Values (p < 0.05)?
(M) (STDEV)

Achievement -
0,400 0,411 0,096 4,182 0,000 Yes
> Autonomy

Achievement -
0,450 0,450 0,082 5,457 0,000 Yes
> Competence

Achievement -
0,296 0,303 0,089 3,338 0,001 Yes
> Relatedness

Autonomy ->
0,123 0,121 0,078 1,572 0,116 No
Cognitive BE

Autonomy ->
0,251 0,252 0,085 2,946 0,003 Yes
Emotional BE

Autonomy ->
0,157 0,157 0,089 1,756 0,079 No
Social BE

52
Competence -
> Cognitive 0,292 0,285 0,085 3,430 0,001 Yes
BE

Competence -
> Emotional 0,309 0,300 0,091 3,387 0,001 Yes
BE

Competence -
0,278 0,273 0,088 3,177 0,002 Yes
> Social BE

Immersion ->
0,225 0,224 0,104 2,162 0,031 Yes
Autonomy

Immersion ->
0,040 0,051 0,088 0,460 0,645 No
Competence

Immersion ->
0,222 0,225 0,070 3,189 0,001 Yes
Relatedness

Relatedness ->
0,397 0,402 0,077 5,184 0,000 Yes
Cognitive BE

Relatedness ->
0,297 0,304 0,078 3,812 0,000 Yes
Emotional BE

Relatedness ->
0,376 0,378 0,089 4,240 0,000 Yes
Social BE

Social ->
0,038 0,036 0,096 0,397 0,692 No
Autonomy

Social ->
0,234 0,228 0,086 2,723 0,007 Yes
Competence

53
 Social ->
0,213 0,210 0,092 2,307 0,021 Yes
Relatedness

Figure 4.3: The impact of factors

The magnitude of the effect (f2) represents the effect of the factor when it is
removed from the model. Factor with f2 < 0.02 has low influence (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 Results of testing the magnitude of the effect f2 in the model

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Achievement (1) 0,089 0,130 0,054

Autonomy (2) 0,013 0,059 0,020

Cognitive BE (3)

54
 Competence (4) 0,078 0,099 0,070

Emotional BE (5)

Immersion (6) 0,032 0,001 0,035

Relatedness (7) 0,117 0,074 0,104

Social (8) 0,001 0,033 0,026

Social BE (9)

4.3 Summary
Chapter 4, we present the results of descriptive statistics of the observed sample.
Then, we evaluate the measurement model through testing the reliability and validity
(including convergence value and discriminant value) of the scale by using the
reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha, system composite confidence (CR) and
extracted mean variance (AVE), discriminant validity test (Fornell-Larcker condition),
inner confidence interval (HTMT). Next, the study also tested the multicollinearity of
the scale through the VIF coefficient. The study uses the coefficient of determination
(𝑅2 ), the coefficient of impact (𝑓 2 ) and the relevance of the forecast (𝑄2 ) to evaluate
the explanatory power of the dependent variables. Bootstrapping 1000 samples is also
used to test research hypotheses through t-test.

55
 CHAPTER 05: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion of research
Using the SSMMD as a foundation, this study proposes and tests a model to
explain how game elements based on achievement and progression, socialization, and
immersion, satisfy basic psychological needs and promote user engagement, resulting
in positive marketing outcomes.
Interaction with accomplishment and progression-oriented aspects has the
ability to meet users' requirements for competence, autonomy, and relatedness,
according to this study. Interaction with immersion-oriented components in the app,
contrary to our expectations, increases sentiments of relatedness and competence
among users, but not feelings of autonomy.
The findings concerning users' interactions with the app's social-oriented
elements were even more surprising. As predicted, the findings revealed that this type
of game feature has a significant influence on the development of social relatedness
sentiments. However, contrary to our predictions, it had no effect on the users’ feelings
of autonomy. A possible explanation for this might be that implementing social-
oriented elements, such as competition or cooperation, in the app might be perceived
as controlling, as they ‘force’ users to make decisions based on other users’ actions,
instead of on themselves, thus reducing their feelings of autonomy. For instance, in the
case of Momo wallet, users will ask their friends for puzzle pieces to complete items
(Lac Li Xi Campaign), they may believe they are being pressured to accept it,
decreasing their sense of autonomy. According to the SSMMD, mobile apps must meet
users' demands for competence, autonomy, and relatedness in order to encourage user
engagement. In fact, our research shows that psychological need fulfillment plays a
role in modulating the impacts of competence and autonomy on user engagement.
Gamification aspects have been shown to increase brand engagement in previous
research (e.g., Xi & Hamari, 2020). However, psychological states such as fulfillment
of the SSMMD's psychological requirements influence this link (Eisingerich et al,.
2019). This is also in accordance with the SDT, which states that utilizing a gamified
mobile app becomes a reward in and of itself if users believe they are competent in
handling its features, have the flexibility to choose how they use it, and can connect
with other users. Furthermore, this research illustrates the favorable influence of user
56
involvement with the mobile app on desirable marketing outcomes, as well as the
significance of user engagement as a mediating factor in the link between game
element interaction and marketing outcomes. Engaged users, in particular, are more
likely to continue using the gamified mobile app, connect more with the brand, and
give the brand app a positive rating.
5.2 Theoretical contributions
In terms of theoretical contributions, through individual research and scientific
measurements, our group confirmed the correctness and reliability of the sample
research model. According to the findings, gamification has a moderate impact on
brand engagement. The study provides a clearer knowledge of the function of
gamification in brand management based on the data indicating a sensible internal and
external validity, as well as the conduction of the structural equation modeling
analysis. The study looked at the connections between various gamification features
and three types of brand engagement (emotional, cognitive, and social), which can
assist in illuminating how gamification influences brand engagement and which
gamification elements are appropriate to use. However, there needs to be more in-
depth research related to the engagement of mobile wallet consumers with brands
through the application of gamification mechanisms. The study contributed to the
theoretical basis of reference for the following similar and extended research topics.
5.3 Practical implications
The study's conclusions also offer a number of useful recommendations that
will aid marketers and developers of mobile wallet apps in their decision-making.
Points, badges, and leaderboards are key components of game design that increase user
satisfaction (Hassan & Hamari, 2019). Mobile wallet games have features like mini-
games to entice new users, stealing from in-game friends, asking friends to help barter
for lower prices, and battling other players for ranking points. Players can also decide
whether to keep playing or stop depending on the social interactions they have in the
game (Baabdullah, 2018). Customers also express a sense of social identity while
playing games. Compared to many other mobile wallets currently on the market,
Momo, a latecomer, quickly opened up a new region of mobile wallets. The
gamification of social interaction is a crucial element.

57
 As this study has shown, engagement is promoted by meeting basic
psychological needs. Therefore, gamified mobile apps should be made by app
developers to give users a sense of competence, independence, and community.
According to this study, the most effective gaming elements are those that emphasize
achievement and progression because they simultaneously promote the three
fundamental requirements and have a positive direct and indirect impact on user
engagement. We think managers and practitioners should investigate heavily utilizing
aspects of achievement and social interaction in their online brand communities to
increase emotional, cognitive, and social brand engagement. Aspects of immersion can
also be used to achieve particular marketing goals, like boosting social engagement.
To encourage a sense of community among users, app developers may think
about creating a user community within the app. For instance, mobile wallets should
have their own user communities that encourage user interaction and allow users to
voluntarily share their goals, successes, and even information about short-term mini-
games that are beneficial to users, such as "Lac Li xi" in the Momo Lunar New Year.
Additionally, users should be able to publicly post their accomplishments to receive
praise and "likes" and invite their Facebook friends to join their communities. This
will attract more users to the app.
In terms of their participation, involvement, and engagement in marketing
activities, many traditional marketing strategies, such as customer loyalty programs,
point-based management, and membership systems, which are typically linked with
monetary or material rewards systems, have been seen to lower consumers' motivation
(Deci et al., 1999). These strategies also place a significant financial burden on
businesses. Businesses need to master both the art and science of customer
management if they want to engage their customers in a profitable and sustainable way
(Pansari & Kumar, 2017). On the other hand, gamification uses web and visual game
features to satisfy users' psychological needs and boost their intrinsic motivation (Peng
et al., 2012; Van Roy & Zaman, 2018). The positive interactions may encourage
frequent usage of the service (Wolf et al., 2019). According to our analysis,
implementing gamification as a marketing strategy can increase brand equity and
customer engagement with a company. Therefore, practitioners should think about
adding more engaging gamification affordances to the current system in order to
58
gamify traditional marketing strategies. To test the effectiveness of conventional
marketing strategies that incorporate gamification techniques, more study is
necessary.”
5.4 Limitations and further research
The fact that the current study measured customer engagement with brands
using two key variables, such as three gamification features and psychological
outcomes, is one of its strengths. However, the present study carries a few drawbacks
that could open up new areas for investigation in the future. First of all, the data size
was small and they were only collected once using a single self-administered
questionnaire (most of the students). Therefore, it would be great if future studies could
increase the size of their data sets, use longitudinal data to assess the effectiveness of
gamification over the long term in addition to data collected directly from the app
(Bitrián et al., 2021), and have employees of mobile-wallet companies speak with more
users over the age of 30. In addition, the data were collected based on a few specific
mobile app (Momo, Shopee Pay, Zalopay), that have not yet covered all mobile-wallets
available on the market, therefore a future research strategy focusing on users all of
mobile wallets to give larger results, propose solutions for as many businesses as
possible. Moreover, this study was conducted in the context of the world facing Covid
- 19, the frequency of using mobile-wallets has peaked, and the results may change
depending on the time and purposes of service providers. To increase the
generalizability of the findings, future researchers can select to research in the context
of the "New Normal". The returned data is self-reported, as is typical for survey-based
studies, so some respondents may not accurately recall certain details like how
frequently they interacted with each gamification feature or how they felt after playing.
Therefore, it might be beneficial if future research can focus on the period right after
users play. Finally, additional research into the interactions between gamification and
brand engagement could produce findings that differ from those of this study. For
instance, depending on the gaming history of consumers and how their interactions
with gamification translate to brand engagement and brand equity (Bittner & Schipper,
2014), or how their interactions relate to their demographic factors like age and gender
(Koivisto & Hamari, 2014).

59
 REFERENCES
Abda, A., Bolduc, M. E., Tsimicalis, A., Rennick, J., Vatcher, D., & Brossard-Racine,
M. (2019). Psychosocial outcomes of children and adolescents with severe
congenital heart defect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 44(4), 463-477.
B.J. Calder, E.C. Malthouse and E. Schaedel Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (4)
(2009), pp. 321-331
Baabdullah, A. M. (2018). Consumer adoption of Mobile Social Network Games (M-
SNGs) in Saudi Arabia: The role of social influence, hedonic motivation and
trust. Technology in society, 53, 91-102.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: a
motivational basis of performance and weil‐being in two work settings. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.
Becker, J.M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M., 2012. Hierarchical latent variable models in
PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range
Planning, 45(5–6), pp.359–394.
Berger, A., Schlager, T., Sprott, D. E., & Herrmann, A. (2018). Gamified interactions:
whether, when, and how games facilitate self–brand connections. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 652-673.
Bijmolt, T. H., Leeflang, P. S., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B. G., Lemmens, A.,
& Saffert, P. (2010). Analytics for customer engagement. Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 341-356.
Bitrián, P., Buil, I., & Catalán, S. (2021). Enhancing user engagement: The role of
gamification in mobile apps. Journal of Business Research, 132, 170-185.
Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of
gamification in product advertising. Journal of consumer marketing.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement:
Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research.
Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.
Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. CHI
2004, ACM Press, 1279-1300.

60
Bui, T. T. H., & Bui, H. T. (2018). Gamification impact on the acceptance of mobile
payment in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. International Journal of Social
Science and Economic Research, 3(9), 4822-4837.
Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2020). Engagement in business simulation games:
A self‐system model of motivational development. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 51(1), 297-311.
Burn, A., Buckingham, D., Carr, D., Schott, G., & Thompson, J. (2006). Computer
games: Text, narrative and play. Polity Press.
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the
relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321-331.
Cardador, M.T., Northcraft, G.B. and Whicker, J. (2017). A theory of work
gamification: something old, something new, something borrowed, something
cool. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, 353-365.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of
marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. In: G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research
(pp. 295–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers:
Quantitative evidence for change: How user-generated content really affects
brands. Journal of advertising research, 52(1), 53-64.
Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Journal
of Intellectual capital.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus
reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement.
Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
psychometrika 16(3) 297-334.
61
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-
134.
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.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification.
using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI'11 extended
abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2425-2428).
Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how
massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic
motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253-
273.
Dong, T., Dontcheva, M., Joseph, D., Karahalios, K., Newman, M., & Ackerman, M.
(2012, May). Discovery-based games for learning software. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2083-
2086).
Dupont, S., Galand, B., Nils, F., & Hospel, V. (2014). Social context, self-perceptions
and student engagement: A SEM investigation of the self-system model of
motivational development (SSMMD).
Eisingerich, A. B., Marchand, A., Fritze, M. P., & Dong, L. (2019). Hook vs. hope:
How to enhance customer engagement through gamification. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(2), 200-215.
Feng, W., Tu, R., & Hsieh, P. (2020). Can gamification increases consumers’
engagement in fitness apps? The moderating role of commensurability of the
game elements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102229.
Fernandez-Ruano, M. L., Frias-Jamilena, D. M., Polo-Pena, A. I., & Peco-Torres, F.
(2022). The use of gamification in environmental interpretation and its effect
on customer-based destination brand equity: The moderating role of
psychological distance. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 23,
100677.

62
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 328–388.
Gatautis, R., Banytė, J., Piligrimienė, Ž., Vitkauskaitė, E., & Tarutė, A. (2016). The
impact of gamification on consumer brand engagement. Transformations in
business & economics, 15, 173-191.
Geisser, S. (1975). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika,
61(1), 101–107.
Grönroos, A. M. (2013). Humour in video games: play, comedy, and mischief.
Günther, M., Kacperski, C., & Krems, J. F. (2020). Can electric vehicle drivers be
persuaded to eco-drive? A field study of feedback, gamification and financial
rewards in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science, 63, 101407.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Canonical correlation:
A supplement to multivariate data analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall Publishing: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.
Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.
Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-
SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of
Multivariate Data Analysis 1(2) 107-123.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. 2018. Advanced issues in
partial least squares structural equation modeling: saGe publications.
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125-141.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on
social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
333-347.

63
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on
social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
333-347.
Hassan, L., Dias, A., & Hamari, J. (2019). How motivational feedback increases user’s
benefits and continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self and social
networking. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 151-162.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international
marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. 2015. A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal
of the academy of marketing science 43(1) 115-135
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal
marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.
Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016).
Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 34(1), 25-36.
Hogberg, J., Shams, P., & Wästlund, E. (2019). Gamified in-store mobile marketing:
The mixed effect of gamified point-of-purchase advertising. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 298-304.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer Brand Engagement
in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement
in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal
of interactive marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012, October). Defining gamification: a service marketing
perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th international academic MindTrek
conference (pp. 17-22).
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: anchoring
gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21-
31.
64
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: anchoring
gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21-
31.
Hwang, J. and Choi, L. (2020), “Having fun while receiving rewards?: exploration of
gamification in loyalty programs for consumer loyalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 106 No. C, pp. 365-376.
Jang, S., Kitchen, P. J., & Kim, J. (2018). The effects of gamified customer benefits
and characteristics on behavioral engagement and purchase: Evidence from
mobile exercise application uses. Journal of Business Research, 92, 250-259.
Jang, S., Kitchen, P.J. and Kim, J. (2018), “The effects of gamified customer benefits
and characteristics on behavioral engagement and purchase: evidence from
mobile exercise application uses”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92, pp.
250-259.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of
construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and
consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), 199-218.
Kim, K., Schmierbach, M. G., Chung, M. Y., Fraustino, J. D., Dardis, F., & Ahern, L.
(2015). Is it a sense of autonomy, control, or attachment? Exploring the effects
of in-game customization on game enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior,
48, 695-705.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179-188.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A
review of gamification research. International Journal of Information
Management, 45, 191-210.
Kozinets, R. V. (2014). Social brand engagement: A new idea. NIM Marketing
Intelligence Review, 6(2), 8.
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., & Abraham, J. D. (2020). Gamifying a situational
judgment test with immersion and control game elements: Effects on applicant
reactions and construct validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

65
Leclercq, T., Hammedi, W., & Poncin, I. (2018). The boundaries of gamification for
engaging customers: Effects of losing a contest in online co-creation
communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44, 82-101.
Little, W., McGivern, R., & Kerins, N. (2016). Introduction to sociology-2nd
Canadian edition. BC Campus.
Lounis, S., Neratzouli, X., & Pramatari, K. (2013, April). Can gamification increase
consumer engagement? A qualitative approach on a green case. In Conference
on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 200-212). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation
modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to
choose it and how to use it. IEEE transactions on professional communication,
57(2), 123-146.
Lucassen, G., & Jansen, S. (2014). Gamification in consumer marketing-future or
fallacy?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 194-202.
Mulcahy, R., Russell-Bennett, R., & Iacobucci, D. (2020). Designing gamified apps
for sustainable consumption: A field study. Journal of Business Research, 106,
377-387.
Müller-Stewens, J., Schlager, T., Häubl, G., & Herrmann, A. (2017). Gamified
information presentation and consumer adoption of product innovations.
Journal of Marketing, 81(2), 8-24.
Nobre, H., & Ferreira, A. (2017). Gamification as a platform for brand co-creation
experiences. Journal of Brand Management, 24(4), 349-361.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer
experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing
science, 19(1), 22-42.
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.
Phan, T. N., Ho, T. V., & Le-Hoang, P. V. (2020). Factors affecting the behavioral
intention and behavior of using e-wallets of youth in Vietnam. The Journal of
Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 295-302.ISO 690
66
Rigby, S., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Glued to games: How video games draw us in and
hold us spellbound: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound. AbC-
CLIo.
Roberts, K. (2005). Lovemarks: The future beyond brands. Powerhouse books.
Roberts, Kevin (2004), Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands. New York:
Powerhouse Books.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game on:
Engaging customers and employees through gamification. Business horizons,
59(1), 29-36.
Rodrigues, L. F., Costa, C. J., & Oliveira, A. (2016a). Gamification: A framework for
designing software in e-banking. Computers in Human behavior, 62, 620-634.
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Costa, C. J. (2016b). Playing seriously–How
gamification and social cues influence bank customers to use gamified e-
business applications. Computers in human behavior, 63, 392-407.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.
International journal of research in marketing, 19(4), 305-335.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video
games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4),
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.
Santos, Z. R., Cheung, C. M., Coelho, P. S., & Rita, P. (2022). Consumer engagement
in social media brand communities: A literature review. International Journal
of Information Management, 63, 102457.
Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC press.

67
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal
functioning: Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC) model.
Psychological Inquiry, 22(1), 1-16.
So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism
brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 38(3), 304-329.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111–147
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path
modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.
Teotónio, N., & Reis, J. L. (2018, March). The Gamification Systems Application
Elements in the Marketing Perspective. In World Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (pp. 77-87). Springer, Cham.
Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the
strategic value of the doppelgänger brand image. Journal of marketing, 70(1),
50-64.
Tsimicalis, A., Stinson, J., & Stevens, B. (2005). Quality of life of children following
bone marrow transplantation: Critical review of the research literature.
European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 9, 218–238.
Vahedi, S. (2010). World Health Organization Quality-ofLife Scale (WHOQOL-
BREF): Analyses of their item response theory properties based on the graded
responses model. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 140–153.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, H. (2010). Unemployed
individuals’ work values and job flexibility: An explanation from expectancy-
value theory and self-determination theory. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 59(2), 296–317.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P.
C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and
research directions. Journal of service research, 13(3), 253-266.
Van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2019). Unravelling the ambivalent motivational power of
gamification: A basic psychological needs perspective. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 127, 38-50.
68
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004).
Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of
intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 246-260.
Vitkauskaitė, E., & Tarutė, A. (2016). The impact of gamification on consumer brand
engagement. Transformations in business & economics, 15, 173-191.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized
multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401-420.
Washburn, J. H., & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice,
10(1), 46-62.
Wee, S. C., & Choong, W. W. (2019). Gamification: Predicting the effectiveness of
variety game design elements to intrinsically motivate users' energy
conservation behaviour. Journal of environmental management, 233, 97-106
Wei, M., Shaffer, P.A., Young, S.K., & Zakalik, R.A. (2005). Adult attachment,
shame, depression, and loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological
needs satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 591-601.
Weiger, W. H., Wetzel, H. A., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2017). Leveraging marketer-
generated appeals in online brand communities: An individual user-level
analysis. Journal of Service Management.
Werbach, K. (2014, May). (Re) defining gamification: A process approach. In
International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 266-272). Springer,
Cham.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the
relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction.
International Journal of Information Management, 46, 210-221.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2020). Does gamification affect brand engagement and equity?
A study in online brand communities. Journal of Business Research, 109, 449-
460.
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & behavior,
9(6), 772-775.
69
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of business research, 52(1), 1-14.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing
game mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

70
 APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE – VIETNAMESE VERSION
BẢNG CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT

Chào bạn,

Chúng tôi là nhóm nghiên cứu thuộc trường Đại học Kinh tế TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Chúng
tôi đang thực hiện một bài nghiên cứu về sự gắn kết giữa người dùng và thương hiệu
thông qua việc ứng dụng game hóa (gamification), cụ thể ở đây là trên nền tảng các
ứng dụng ví điện tử. Mong bạn dành ra 15 phút quý giá để giúp nhóm hoàn thành phiếu
khảo sát dưới đây. Chúng tôi xin cam kết tất cả thông tin thu thập được chỉ phục vụ
cho mục đích học thuật và được xử lý hoàn toàn ẩn danh trong quy trình bảo mật
nghiêm ngặt.

PHẦN A. THÔNG TIN CHUNG:

*Ghi chú: Game hóa (gamification) là việc ứng dụng một cách thực tế những cơ
chế của game vào các lĩnh vực phi trò chơi như marketing, giáo dục hoặc quản
trị, với mục tiêu mang lại các lợi ích tích cực như khuyến khích khách hàng tiêu
dùng, gắn kết người dùng với các ứng dụng phần mềm, website, mobile app,…
của thương hiệu.

1. Câu hỏi gạn lọc:

Bạn đã từng trải nghiệm game trên các ứng dụng ví điện tử (MoMo, ShopeePay,
ZaloPay,...) chưa?

o Đã từng
o Chưa

2. Câu hỏi chính:

2.1 Bạn đã trải nghiệm các game trên ứng dụng ví di động nào:

□ MoMo
□ Shopee Pay
□ Zalo Pay
□ Moca

71
 □ Khác

2.2 Bạn dành thời gian nhiều nhất để trải nghiệm game trên ứng dụng ví điện tử nào
sau đây:
o MoMo
o ShopeePay
o ZaloPay
o Moca
o Khác
2.3 Bạn đã chơi game trên ứng dụng ví di động bao lâu rồi:
o Dưới 3 tháng
o Từ 3-6 tháng
o Từ 6-9 tháng
o Từ 9-12 tháng
o Trên 1 năm
2.4 Bạn thường dành bao nhiêu thời gian trong tuần để chơi game trên ứng dụng ví di
động:
o Dưới 30 phút
o Từ 30-60 phút
o Từ 1-3 giờ
o Từ 3-6 giờ
o Từ 6-9 giờ
o Từ 9-12 giờ
o Trên 12 giờ

PHẦN B. KHẢO SÁT CHÍNH

Bạn hãy nghĩ về thương hiệu ví di động mà bạn yêu thích nhất và đã trải nghiệm các
game trên ứng dụng của thương hiệu ví di động đó, sau đó trả lời các câu hỏi bên dưới
bằng cách khoanh tròn vào con số thích hợp.

1. Xin vui lòng đánh giá mức độ quan trọng (1-7) đối với các phát biểu bên
dưới theo quy ước sau:

72
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hoàn toàn
Không Phần nào
không Khá quan Quan Cực kỳ
quan không Trung Lập
quan trọng trọng quan trọng
trọng quan trọng
trọng

Hoàn toàn không quan

YẾU TỐ THÀNH TÍCH/KẾT QUẢ trọng → Cực kỳ quan
trọng
Tầm quan trọng của việc đạt được các thành tích trong
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
game (phần thưởng, huy chương, danh hiệu).
Tầm quan trọng của việc nhận được tiền ảo (xu,...)
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thông qua game trên ứng dụng.
Tầm quan trọng của điểm số, điểm kinh nghiệm khi
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
trải nghiệm các game trên ứng dụng.
Tầm quan trọng của thanh tiến trình (biểu đồ thể hiện
4. cấp độ/kết quả) khi trải nghiệm các game trên ứng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dụng.
Tầm quan trọng của hồ sơ ảo (ảnh đại diện, thông tin
5. cá nhân, cấp độ của nhân vật) khi trải nghiệm các 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
game trên ứng dụng.
Tầm quan trọng của bảng xếp hạng khi trải nghiệm các
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
game trên ứng dụng.
Tầm quan trọng của việc trải nghiệm các cấp độ khó
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tăng dần của game.
Hoàn toàn không quan
SỰ TƯƠNG TÁC TRÊN MẠNG XÃ HỘI trọng → Cực kỳ quan
trọng
Tầm quan trọng của việc cạnh tranh với người chơi
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
khác trong game.

73
 Tầm quan trọng của việc bạn tương tác với đồng đội
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
để dành chiến thắng trong game.
Tầm quan trọng của việc game có tính năng nhắn tin,
3. trò chuyện và tạo ra cộng đồng người cùng chơi trên 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
các mạng xã hội.
Hoàn toàn không quan
SỰ ĐẮM CHÌM trọng → Cực kỳ quan
trọng
Tầm quan trọng của việc tương tác với avatar, profile
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
và bộ nhận diện ảo của người chơi trong game.
Tầm quan trọng của việc tương tác với các tùy chỉnh
2. trong game (vd: điều chỉnh giao diện mặc định theo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
các riêng của bạn).
Tầm quan trọng của việc game có nội dung/thông điệp
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
đối với bạn.

2. Xin vui lòng cho biết tần suất tương tác (1-7) của bạn đối với các yếu tố khi trải
nghiệm game bên dưới theo quy ước sau:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Không
Không Thỉnh Thường
Hiếm khi thường Liên tục Mọi lúc
bao giờ thoảng xuyên
xuyên

Hoàn toàn không đồng

VỀ TÍNH CẠNH TRANH
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi nghĩ rằng tôi chơi khá tốt khi chơi game trên
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ứng dụng.
Tôi hài lòng với màn thể hiện của mình khi chơi
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
game trên ứng dụng.

74
 Tôi cảm thấy mình như một người chơi thông thạo
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
khi tham gia game.
Tôi cảm thấy mình là một người có năng lực khi
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chơi game của thương hiệu này.
Hoàn toàn không đồng
VỀ TÍNH TỰ CHỦ
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi có nhiều sự lựa chọn khi chơi game trên ứng
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dụng ví điện tử.
2. Tôi thoải mái quyết định mình sẽ làm gì/chơi trò gì. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Tôi thoải mái quyết định mình sẽ chơi như thế nào. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tôi chơi những game này bởi vì tôi thật sự muốn
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
trải nghiệm nó.
Hoàn toàn không đồng
VỀ TÍNH GẮN KẾT
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi cảm thấy mình có ích với những người chơi
1. khác (vd: trao đổi vật phẩm để hoàn thành nhiệm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
vụ.).
2. Tôi nhận được sự hỗ trợ từ những người chơi khác. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Khi tham gia vào cộng đồng những người cùng
3. chơi, tôi cảm thấy mình được thấu hiểu ( trò chuyện 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
về nhiệm vụ, cách thăng cấp,...).
Khi tham gia vào cộng đồng những người cùng
4. chơi, tôi cảm thấy người khác quan tâm đến những 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gì tôi nói, tôi làm.

3. Xin vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý (1-7) của bạn đối với các yếu tố khi trải
nghiệm game bên dưới theo quy ước sau:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

75
 Hoàn
Rất Hoàn
toàn Không Rất đồng
không Trung lập Đồng ý toàn đồng
không đồng ý ý
đồng ý ý
đồng ý

Hoàn toàn không đồng

VỀ TÍNH CẠNH TRANH
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi nghĩ rằng tôi chơi khá tốt khi chơi game trên
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ứng dụng.
Tôi hài lòng với màn thể hiện của mình khi chơi
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
game trên ứng dụng.
Tôi cảm thấy mình như một người chơi thông thạo
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
khi tham gia game.
Tôi cảm thấy mình là một người có năng lực khi
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chơi game của thương hiệu này.
Hoàn toàn không đồng
VỀ TÍNH TỰ CHỦ
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi có nhiều sự lựa chọn khi chơi game trên ứng
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dụng ví điện tử.
2. Tôi thoải mái quyết định mình sẽ làm gì/chơi trò gì. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Tôi thoải mái quyết định mình sẽ chơi như thế nào. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tôi chơi những game này bởi vì tôi thật sự muốn
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
trải nghiệm nó.
Hoàn toàn không đồng
VỀ TÍNH GẮN KẾT
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi cảm thấy mình có ích với những người chơi
1. khác (vd: trao đổi vật phẩm để hoàn thành nhiệm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
vụ.).
2. Tôi nhận được sự hỗ trợ từ những người chơi khác. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

76
 Khi tham gia vào cộng đồng những người cùng
3. chơi, tôi cảm thấy mình được thấu hiểu ( trò chuyện 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
về nhiệm vụ, cách thăng cấp,...).
Khi tham gia vào cộng đồng những người cùng
4. chơi, tôi cảm thấy người khác quan tâm đến những 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gì tôi nói, tôi làm.

4. Xin vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý (1-7) của bạn về sự gắn kết với thương
hiệu ví điện tử sau những trải nghiệm game trên ứng dụng theo quy ước sau:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hoàn
Rất Hoàn
toàn Không Rất đồng
không Trung lập Đồng ý toàn đồng
không đồng ý ý
đồng ý ý
đồng ý

Hoàn toàn không đồng

YẾU TỐ CẢM XÚC
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
1. Tôi thấy hứng thú với thương hiệu ví điện tử này. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Tôi có sự yêu thích với thương hiệu ví điện tử này. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tôi cảm thấy bản thân có sự đam mê với thương
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hiệu ví điện tử này.
4. Thương hiệu ví điện tử làm tôi cảm thấy say mê. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Tôi vô cùng yêu thích thương hiệu ví điện tử này. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hoàn toàn không đồng
YẾU TỐ NHẬN THỨC
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi muốn tìm hiểu thêm về thương hiệu ví điện tử
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
này.
Tôi chú ý đến mọi thứ liên quan đến thương hiệu ví
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
điện tử này.

77
 Bất cứ điều gì liên quan đến thương hiệu ví điện tử
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
này đều thu hút sự chú ý của tôi.
4. Tôi nghĩ về thương hiệu ví điện tử này rất nhiều. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hoàn toàn không đồng
YẾU TỐ XÃ HỘI
ý→ Hoàn toàn đồng ý
Tôi yêu thích việc bàn luận và sử dụng thương hiệu
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ví điện tử này với bạn bè.
Tôi thích việc bàn luận và sử dụng thương hiệu ví
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
điện tử này hơn khi ở cùng với người khác.
Tôi thấy vui hơn nếu những người xung quanh tôi
3. cùng bàn luận và sử dụng thương hiệu ví điện tử 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
này.
Tôi thích chia sẻ với người khác về trải nghiệm của
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bản thân khi sử dụng thương hiệu ví điện tử này.
Tôi có hảo cảm với những người cùng sử dụng
5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thương hiệu ví điện tử này.
Tôi thích việc giới thiệu thương hiệu ví điện tử này
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
với người khác.

PHẦN C. THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN

Xin vui lòng cho biết một số thông tin cá nhân chung của bạn bằng cách đánh dấu vào
ô trả lời thích hợp.

1. Độ tuổi của bạn

o Dưới 18 tuổi
o Từ 18 - 25 tuổi
o Từ 26 - 35 tuổi
o Trên 35

2. Giới tính

o Nam
o Nữ
78
3. Trình độ học vấn

o Trung học phổ thông

o Cao đẳng/Trung cấp
o Đại học
o Sau đại học
o Khác

4. Nghề nghiệp của bạn là

o Học sinh
o Sinh viên
o Công nhân/ nhân viên
o Công chức/ viên chức
o Tự kinh doanh
o Khác
5. Thu nhập trung bình mỗi tháng
o Dưới 5 triệu
o Từ 5 - dưới 10 triệu
o Từ 10 - dưới 15 triệu
o Từ 15 triệu - dưới 20 triệu
o Từ 20 triệu trở lên

XIN CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN BẠN!

79
APPENDIX B. RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHIC

80
81
APPENDIX C. BOOTSTRAPPING RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING
1. Path Coefficients
Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values
T
Standard
Original Sample Statistics
Deviation P Values
Sample (O) Mean (M) (|O/STDE
(STDEV)
V|)
Achievement
0,400 0,411 0,096 4,182 0,000
-> Autonomy
Achievement
-> 0,450 0,450 0,082 5,457 0,000
Competence
Achievement
-> 0,296 0,303 0,089 3,338 0,001
Relatedness
Autonomy ->
0,123 0,121 0,078 1,572 0,116
Cognitive BE
Autonomy ->
Emotional 0,251 0,252 0,085 2,946 0,003
BE
Autonomy ->
0,157 0,157 0,089 1,756 0,079
Social BE
Competence -
> Cognitive 0,292 0,285 0,085 3,430 0,001
BE
Competence -
> Emotional 0,309 0,300 0,091 3,387 0,001
BE
Competence -
0,278 0,273 0,088 3,177 0,002
> Social BE
Immersion -> 0,225 0,224 0,104 2,162 0,031

82
 Autonomy
Immersion ->
0,040 0,051 0,088 0,460 0,645
Competence
Immersion ->
0,222 0,225 0,070 3,189 0,001
Relatedness
Relatedness -
> Cognitive 0,397 0,402 0,077 5,184 0,000
BE
Relatedness -
> Emotional 0,297 0,304 0,078 3,812 0,000
BE
Relatedness -
0,376 0,378 0,089 4,240 0,000
> Social BE
Social ->
0,038 0,036 0,096 0,397 0,692
Autonomy
Social ->
0,234 0,228 0,086 2,723 0,007
Competence
Social ->
0,213 0,210 0,092 2,307 0,021
Relatedness
Confidence Intervals Bias Corrected
Original Sample
Bias 2.5% 97.5%
Sample (O) Mean (M)
Achievement
0,400 0,411 0,010 0,193 0,569
-> Autonomy
Achievement
-> 0,450 0,450 0,000 0,288 0,615
Competence
Achievement
-> 0,296 0,303 0,007 0,109 0,456
Relatedness
Autonomy -> 0,123 0,121 -0,002 -0,037 0,276

83
Cognitive BE
Autonomy ->
Emotional 0,251 0,252 0,001 0,085 0,411
BE
Autonomy ->
0,157 0,157 0,000 -0,020 0,331
Social BE
Competence -
> Cognitive 0,292 0,285 -0,007 0,121 0,452
BE
Competence -
> Emotional 0,309 0,300 -0,009 0,125 0,479
BE
Competence -
0,278 0,273 -0,005 0,105 0,443
> Social BE
Immersion ->
0,225 0,224 -0,001 0,009 0,412
Autonomy
Immersion ->
0,040 0,051 0,010 -0,144 0,191
Competence
Immersion ->
0,222 0,225 0,003 0,086 0,349
Relatedness
Relatedness -
> Cognitive 0,397 0,402 0,005 0,258 0,549
BE
Relatedness -
> Emotional 0,297 0,304 0,007 0,146 0,439
BE
Relatedness -
0,376 0,378 0,002 0,213 0,565
> Social BE
Social ->
0,038 0,036 -0,002 -0,128 0,242
Autonomy
Social -> 0,234 0,228 -0,005 0,064 0,391

84
Competence
Social ->
0,213 0,210 -0,002 0,037 0,402
Relatedness

2. Total Indirect Effects

Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values
T
Standard
Original Sample Statistics
Deviation P Values
Sample (O) Mean (M) (|O/STDE
(STDEV)
V|)
Achievement
-> Autonomy
Achievement
-> Cognitive 0,298 0,303 0,057 5,256 0,000
BE
Achievement
->
Competence
Achievement
-> Emotional 0,328 0,336 0,057 5,699 0,000
BE
Achievement
->
Relatedness
Achievement
0,299 0,306 0,057 5,244 0,000
-> Social BE
Autonomy ->
Cognitive BE
Autonomy ->
Emotional
BE

85
Autonomy ->
Social BE
Competence -
> Cognitive
BE
Competence -
> Emotional
BE
Competence -
> Social BE
Immersion ->
Autonomy
Immersion ->
0,127 0,127 0,046 2,741 0,006
Cognitive BE
Immersion ->
Competence
Immersion ->
Emotional 0,135 0,132 0,050 2,698 0,007
BE
Immersion ->
Relatedness
Immersion ->
0,130 0,130 0,047 2,774 0,006
Social BE
Relatedness -
> Cognitive
BE
Relatedness -
> Emotional
BE
Relatedness -
> Social BE

86
Social ->
Autonomy
Social ->
0,157 0,155 0,059 2,666 0,008
Cognitive BE
Social ->
Competence
Social ->
Emotional 0,145 0,144 0,062 2,325 0,020
BE
Social ->
Relatedness
Social ->
0,151 0,146 0,061 2,484 0,013
Social BE
Confidence Intervals Bias Corrected
Original Sample
Bias 2.5% 97.5%
Sample (O) Mean (M)
Achievement
-> Autonomy
Achievement
-> Cognitive 0,298 0,303 0,005 0,168 0,397
BE
Achievement
->
Competence
Achievement
-> Emotional 0,328 0,336 0,009 0,193 0,427
BE
Achievement
->
Relatedness
Achievement 0,299 0,306 0,007 0,172 0,398

87
-> Social BE
Autonomy ->
Cognitive BE
Autonomy ->
Emotional
BE
Autonomy ->
Social BE
Competence -
> Cognitive
BE
Competence -
> Emotional
BE
Competence -
> Social BE
Immersion ->
Autonomy
Immersion ->
0,127 0,127 0,000 0,037 0,218
Cognitive BE
Immersion ->
Competence
Immersion ->
Emotional 0,135 0,132 -0,003 0,033 0,236
BE
Immersion ->
Relatedness
Immersion ->
0,130 0,130 0,001 0,033 0,215
Social BE
Relatedness -
> Cognitive

88
BE
Relatedness -
> Emotional
BE
Relatedness -
> Social BE
Social ->
Autonomy
Social ->
0,157 0,155 -0,002 0,050 0,284
Cognitive BE
Social ->
Competence
Social ->
Emotional 0,145 0,144 -0,001 0,031 0,280
BE
Social ->
Relatedness
Social ->
0,151 0,146 -0,005 0,047 0,296
Social BE

89