International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

Research Article

Continuance intention in gamified mobile applications: A study of

behavioral inhibition and activation systems
Elif Tuğba Aydınlıyurt a, *, Nazım Taşkın b, Shane Scahill c, Ayşegül Toker b
a
Bahçeşehir University Yıldız, Çırağan Cd., 34349 Beşiktaş, İstanbul, Turkey
b
Boğaziçi University, 34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
c
The University of Auckland School of Pharmacy Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, 85 Park Road Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study seeks to investigate the effects of Behavioral Activation System (BAS), known as approach motivation,
Behavioral inhibition system and Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), known as avoidance motivation, that are expected to influence in­
Behavioral activation system dividuals’ post-adoption behaviors in gamified mobile applications. A survey-based research methodology was
Information systems continuance
used, and the impacts of BAS and BIS on Information Systems Continuance are examined. The results show that
Mobile applications
reward responsiveness has the most significant effect on user satisfaction and continuance intention. Fun-seeking
Gamification
plays an essential role in continuance intention; however, it does not significantly affect satisfaction, as drive
does not affect either satisfaction or continuance intention. BIS has a significant and negative effect on individual
satisfaction, but no effects were found related to continuance intention. The findings of this study improve the
understanding of the differences between these motivations related to Information Systems Continuance. Sig­
nificant practical implications that gamified mobile application developers can adopt are proposed.

1. Introduction human resources (Vinichenko, Melnichuk, Kirillov, Makushkin, & Mel­

Whether people adopt technology or not is big business, particularly
the case with mobile networks. Despite the critical real-world issue of
understanding why people do and do not adopt mobile applications and
what might influence this, there are still gaps in our understanding. It is
fair to say that previous studies have identified various motivational
factors affecting individuals’ decisions when accepting a mobile tech­
nology. However, a gap in the literature still exists regarding the moti­
vators related to post-acceptance and the ongoing and sustained use of
technology. There is little theoretically underpinned work that looks at
both the positive (activation) and negative (inhibition) influences on
whether people continue to embrace mobile applications or not post an
initial acceptance period.
As such, this study fills this gap by analyzing the effects of Behavioral
Activation System (BAS) and Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) on
users’ intentions to continue using a mobile application. Furthermore,
by gaining considerable attention both in theory and in management
practice, gamification has proven its advantages in several ways:
increasing customer engagement; crowdsourcing innovation; improving
employee performance (Salcu & Acatrinei, 2013); and efficiency of
nichuk, 2016). For these reasons, companies embed gamified features
into their mobile products and services to encourage engaged and
continued use of these mobile technologies. Therefore, this study also
aims to investigate the effectiveness of gamification related to different
elements of BAS and BIS on Information Systems Continuance. The in­
formation system selected in this case is mobile applications.
Over the past decade, mobile internet consumption has increased
exponentially and, mobile-only adoption rates have increased from 9%
to 20% between 2011 and 2015 due to increased smartphone ownership
and enhancements in download speeds of mobile networks (Manlove &
Whitacre, 2018). The rapid speed of technological development has
brought considerable challenges and profitability concerns, with low
adoption by users and low continuance rates. In order to overcome these
challenges and survive in the mobile world, achieving long-term re­
lationships with existing users is more important than ever. Customer
loyalty results in higher usage rates as well as reduced costs through
customer retention (Kim, 2010).
The determinants of technology acceptance have been one of the
most researched topics in the information systems literature. However,
there is still a lot to discover with regards post-acceptance behaviors of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elifaydinliyurt@gmail.com, eliftugba.aydinliyurt@ou.bau.edu.tr (E.T. Aydınlıyurt), nazim.taskin@boun.edu.tr (N. Taşkın), s.scahill@auckland.
ac.nz (S. Scahill), tokera@boun.edu.tr (A. Toker).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102414
Received 2 December 2019; Received in revised form 8 August 2021; Accepted 9 August 2021
Available online 19 August 2021
0268-4012/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
individuals. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory
of Reasoned Action (TRA), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),
Bhattacherjee (2001) has proposed a model, the Information Systems
Continuance Model (IS Continuance Model), to explain antecedents of
post-adoption. To further elaborate on the difference between initial
acceptance and continuance, it is critical to examine those psychological
motivators that become important after individuals accept a technology
(Hong, Kim, & Lee, 2008). Taking this into account, building on the
proposed IS continuance model based on TAM, TRA, and TPB, in this
study, we aimed to explore possible psychological motivators that could
lead us to improve further and additional valuable insights for the IS
continuance model. Since long-term relationships with mobile users are
crucial (Kim, 2010) and limited research has been conducted into what
motivates people to use or abandon a mobile app, despite the size of the
mobile app industry (Tam, Santos, & Oliveira, 2020). Our research focus
will be on mobile applications as the type of information system.
Moreover, the questions that we seek answers to include:
• How is users’ satisfaction affected by the individuals’ psychological
motivations with gamification embedded mobile applications?
• How is users’ continuance intention affected by the individuals’
psychological motivations with gamification embedded mobile
applications?
• Which psychological motivators are linked positively or negatively
to individuals’ satisfaction and continuance intention with gamified
mobile applications?
The remainder of the study proceeds as follows. First, we define
gamification, and critique relevant literature related to Information
Systems Continuance and behavioral motivation systems. Next, we test a
series of hypotheses and present the results of the data analysis. In the
final section, we discuss the study’s key findings with implications and
outline a future research agenda and study limitations.
2. Literature review
2.1. Gamification
Playing games constitutes a part of many people’s free time. A recent
meta-analysis of the existing literature on games showed that usefulness
and enjoyment are equally important reasons people choose to play
games (Hamari & Keronen, 2017). Similar to games, gamification had
emerged as a trend many years ago, and increasingly more companies
have used gamification techniques to capture opportunities over the
recent decades. Gamification has many definitions in the literature,
which have much in common. Deterding, Dixon, Khalled and Nacke (,
2011, p. 9) define gamification as "the use of game design elements in
non-game contexts". Focusing on added value, Huotari and Hamari
(2017) propose the following definition: “Gamification refers to a pro­
cess of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in
order to support users’ overall value creation.” Kim (2015b) agrees on
the apparent difference between a game and gamification, by indicating
that the latter does not precisely have the purpose of the creation of the
former, but that it involves the transferral of its positive qualities to a
platform which is not a game and for this particular reason, it is called
gami-“fy”-ing. Accordingly, a “Gamified Mobile Application” can be
defined as a non-game mobile application that integrates game dy­
namics to stimulate the retention of users.
We see examples of gamification in the everyday lives of individuals
who have not yet been introduced to online products and services. Many
decades ago, military badges, newspaper coupons, educational rewards,
etc. laid the foundation of gamified features in our offline lives. Rapid
technological advancements fueled this involvement and, with the
dramatic increase in smartphone adoption levels, mobile web usage, and
intensive social media influence on everyday lives came the era of the
“gamified world.” Examples of gamification can be seen back in ancient
2
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
times, in the Olympic Games, where winners earned an olive-leaf crown
as a reward. Those who won the game three times achieved the honor of
getting their statues displayed in Olympia, symbolizing their greatness
(Kim, 2015a).
The tool kit of gamification consists of several components similar to
the building blocks of a game. The interest in gamification was initially
driven by the observation that people are highly engaged while playing
games, and this enthusiasm continues for a significant amount of time
(Insley & Nunan, 2014). Therefore, the same motivational techniques
that are used in video games are commonly applied to a non-game
context (Andonova, 2013). Users tend to feel so involved in games
that they allocate much time to them regardless of their free time in real
terms. Furthermore, during their time playing games, they tend to care
less for anything else that happens in their surroundings. This high
involvement and interaction of individuals in the gaming environment
eventually caught the attention of marketers, and an opportunity to
translate game elements into a non-game platform has been exploited.
Since gamification is a powerful tool for increasing user engagement
levels, the number of companies leveraging these techniques is contin­
ually increasing as part of their marketing and promotion activities
(Kim, 2015a). It has been explained that gamification is most frequently
used in marketing domains to enhance brand image and increase
customer loyalty (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013). However, achieving
positive results with its successful implementation presents many op­
portunities for other business divisions.
New business opportunities have presented themselves due to im­
provements in digital technologies and the establishment of new mobile
platforms where gamified elements can be added. Gamification aims to
enhance the core offer by delivering emotional and social experiences
bundling game design elements with complex, IT-based services (Blohm
& Leimeister, 2013). The primary intention is to trigger individuals’
motives in a way that eventually influences their behaviors, and for this
reason, it is accepted as quite persuasive (Petkov, Ko¨bler, Foth, Medland,
& Krcmar, 2011). Breaking automatic habits is never easy since in­
dividuals tend to revert to them in the long term, even though these
habits may not bring additional value in terms of enhancing people’s
quality of life. Furthermore, in some cases, individuals are fully aware of
the uselessness or harmfulness of certain habits, but they are still unable
to quit them easily even if they want to; in short it is hard to alter habits.
Gamification has a high potential for modifying habitual behaviors and
supporting the addition of new behavior patterns as a result of positive
emotional feedback (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013) and this is what in­
terests marketers. With the appropriate stimuli, these behavioral
changes are expected to occur; and by fostering positive emotions,
gamification enables the breaking of present habits, replacing them with
new ones and maintaining the newly established habits by continuously
presenting suitable incentives (Ortiz de Guinea & Markus, 2009).
There has been an increase in the range of gamified features explored
in various contexts, and the most commonly seen platforms/sectors
utilizing gamification are crowdsourcing, health, and education (Koi­
visto & Hamari, 2019). The Nike Run Club mobile application is a good
example, providing a means for users to track their running progress, see
their athletic performance history and rankings among friends, collect
NikeFuel as they train, and earn badges and trophies when they reach
milestones as a symbol of their achievements. Moreover, they are
encouraged to share their running activities among friends and socialize
while competing for a better status on the leaderboard. Users can also
join various challenges in which they try to complete certain tasks in a
specified duration and in which they compete not only with their friends
but also the whole Nike community through actively using the mobile
application. We see various other mobile applications in which gamifi­
cation is exploited to increase customer engagement and capture users’
interest in products or services. Foursquare Swarm, Facebook Places,
and Starbucks mobile apps are some well-known examples in which
users are motivated to undertake certain actions more often by being
exposed to “game-like” features. For instance, in the Swarm app,
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
individuals can check-in at places they visit, create a personal record of
their experiences, see where their friends have been, and earn points and
badges as a reward for being a more active user. Oh the other hand,
Facebook Places rewards its editors’ community for contributing to the
information pool about places they are knowledgeable about. Users can
see where they stand in the competition based on total points they have
collected depending on their contribution to the community, earn
badges and reach status levels as they move up the leaderboard. Star­
bucks has implemented a similar gamification strategy where it offers
not only intangible rewards but also tangible rewards such as free food
or drinks that can be redeemed via the stars that users collect with each
transaction they make. It is highly recommended that companies
embrace and leverage the power of gamification in their loyalty systems
(Andonova, 2013). Gamification is also found to positively influence
users’ purchase behaviors (Wen, Chang, Lin, Liang, & Yang, 2014) with
a study finding that gamification significantly affects the donations on
one crowdsourcing platform (Behl & Dutta, 2020). As can be seen from
the aforementioned examples, more and more industry giants are in­
clined to embed game mechanics into their businesses with the aim of
increasing engagement, boosting customer retention, and encouraging
customers’ purchase intentions.
Some consumers like to track statistics related to their progress,
receive rewards for their accomplishments, learn from their experiences,
and compete and collaborate with others while socializing at the same
time (Salcu & Acatrinei, 2013). Gamified software services and products
are found to encourage individuals to complete specific tasks, with the
following results: establishing optimism utilizing an increased sense of
achievement and positive feelings; boosted user satisfaction, which re­
sults from users’ envisioning their advancements and emotions related
to individual progress of performance; fostering social interaction; a
feeling of belonging to a community with similar purposes; facilitating
the learning progress, as a result of skill improvement by completing
specific subtasks of gamification and going even further up in reaching
new difficulty levels; and finally improved problem solving, as a result of
achieving higher status and going beyond personal goals (Harman,
Koohang, & Paliszkiewicz, 2014). Even though gamification has proven
to be very successful in providing positive and effective results, it does
not automatically trigger users’ motivations or improve customer
engagement (Kim, 2015b).
In effectuating the fundamentals of gamification, core offer providers
activate particular user motivations to invoke specific behaviors and
influence the users towards pre-defined objectives (Blohm & Leimeister,
2013). Individuals’ positive perceptions of gamified mobile applications
and their highly involved reactions to game-like features made busi­
nesses realize an essential opportunity. However, companies should
implement gamification very carefully to focus on the motivations of the
target group. This is because when they are presented with attractive
rewards and other game elements that appeal to their motivations, a
significant increase in their interest in gamification is expected (Kim,
2015b). Many companies consider implementing gamification in their
core businesses, but it is crucial to exploit this opportunity correctly
since inadequate application might entail difficulties and result in
deflated profits and decreased customer satisfaction. A Gartner report by
Burke (2012) predicted that most of the gamified mobile applications
would result in failure because of insufficient adjustments and improper
design. Now we see that this prediction has become a reality. Failures in
gamification may also be related to a lack of implementing elements that
trigger specific behavioral motivations, which are expected to affect
users’ satisfaction and their continued use in a positive manner. This
study, therefore, aims to explore behavioral motivational systems in
detail and gain a better understanding of how to design gamification to
have a higher chance of market survival as a result of individuals’
improved satisfaction and continued use with gamified mobile
applications.
3
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
2.2. Information systems continuance
Ongoing use of mobile applications post-acceptance is expected to
significantly impact the growth and sustainability of the mobile appli­
cations marketplace. Low profits due to an inability to maintain cus­
tomers’ continued use challenge many different businesses to survive in
the mobile world. In marketing and information systems disciplines,
continuance usage is considered more critical than initial acceptance for
eventual success (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Maintaining relationships
with customers in the long term is particularly important, not just
because it is more likely to see loyal customers use the service more
actively and continuously, but also because of the lower cost to retain
them (Thong, Hong, & Tam, 2006). It has been suggested that it costs
five times more to retain an existing customer than acquire a new one
(Reichheld & Schefter, 2000).
Various theories and models have been proposed to explain users’
motivations in adopting and continuing with a technology. For instance,
persuasive technology is defined as an interactive information systems
product that aims to monitor change in human behavior and attitudes
(Fogg, 2002). It is a system designed to encourage individuals to adopt
positive behaviors or improve their attitudes without coercion or any
deceit (Yohana Dewi, Lukito, & Adhistya, 2019). Self-determination
Theory is another theoretical framework proposed to explain human
motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985) indicating three basic psychological
needs; competence, relatedness and autonomy. These three needs refer
to experiencing positive emotions; when we succeed, have a pleasant
relationship with someone important, and become more self-regulating,
respectively (Sheldon & Schüler, 2011). For example, in a study pro­
posing a combined view of the Technology Acceptance Model and
Self-determination Theory, it was found that the intrinsic motivations;
specifically autonomy and relatedness, enhanced the perceived useful­
ness and perceived ease of use which are the primary elements of TAM
and as a result individuals’ behavioral intention to use the specified
technology (Racero, Bueno, & Gallego, 2020, pp. 10082711). Most other
studies, which were based on the Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000)
and the Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), have brought
more profound insights into explaining the impact of individuals’
extrinsic motivations, such as the perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness, as well as intrinsic motivations such as the perceived
enjoyment and perceived playfulness on their intention to accept and
use a technology (Chang, Liang, Yan, & Tseng, 2013).
According to mobile service providers, initial adoption reflects the
acquisition of potential users who can be later converted to actual users.
On the other hand, post-adoption, reflects the retention of existing
customers who can be converted to loyal users (Zhou, 2011). The body
of research related to post-adoption behaviors of mobile customers has
received less attention in the past than initial adoption behaviors (Zhou,
2011). Since initial studies considered continuance as an extended part
of adoption, they did not focus on factors related to post-adoption. As a
result, they failed to reveal the reasons behind individuals’ abandon­
ment following their initial technology acceptance (Jin, Lee, & Cheung,
2010). For example, a recent study finding indicates that pre-adoption
and post-adoption perceptions should be taken into account and that
individuals’ IS Continuance intention is strongly influenced by satis­
faction, post-adoption self-efficacy, and post-adoption perceived use­
fulness (Gupta, Yousaf, & Mishra, 2020). Research interest in IS
continuance is growing, and there is still a lot to discover in this respect.
Customers’ technology acceptance is a pre-condition for achieving IS
success, but their continuance intention is a must to ensure its perma­
nence in the long term. Bhattacharjee’s model of IS continuance, which
adapted Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT), postulated by Oliver
(1980) from the consumer behavior literature, is similar to the model of
IS acceptance, also known as Technology Acceptance Model, which
adapted the Theory of Reasoned Action, formulated by Davis, Bagozzi,
and Warshaw (1989) from social psychology (Bhattacherjee, 2001). TRA
suggests that an individual’s behavioral intention determines his or her
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
performance related to the behavior in question, and the individual’s
attitude and subjective norms determine his or her behavioral intention
(Al-Gahtani & King, 1999). Drawing on TRA, the Technology Accep­
tance Model was first formulated by Davis (1985) to explain users’
initial acceptance behavior of information systems. According to TAM,
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use determine individuals’
attitudes towards using a system, whereas their attitudes and perceived
usefulness jointly determine their behavioral intention (BI). Finally, the
degree of BI determines individuals’ actual system use. ECT is commonly
acknowledged in marketing literature to explain customers’ satisfaction
and purchase intentions (Venkatesh, Thong, Chan, Hu, & Brown, 2011).
ECT indicates that satisfaction, confirmation related to initial expecta­
tions, and perceived product performance determine individuals’
behavioral intention to reuse it. In the early stages, consumers have an
initial expectation of a product before they have the chance to use it.
After they use the product, they compare their former expectations of
the product’s performance and this evaluation phase is defined as the
confirmation stage, where they assess whether their initial expectations
are met and to what extent. The level of their confirmation determines
their satisfaction, which later plays a vital role in their intention to
purchase again.
According to Bhattacherjee (2001), IS continuance and consumers’
repurchase behaviors illustrate similar decision paths. However, IS
continuance is different from ECT since the emphasis is only on the
factors related to post-adoption. The IS continuance model, proposed by
Bhattacherjee (2001) introduced a new theoretical framework as an
extension of ECT, including four different constructs, as shown in Fig. 1.
This model indicates a positive significant relationship between users’
satisfaction and Information Systems Continuance intentions as well as
perceived usefulness and IS Continuance (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Fig. 2.
This model explains the post-acceptance behaviors of individuals
related to their intention to continue using a particular information
system. In the confirmation stage, consumers evaluate whether their
initial expectations have been sufficiently met after accepting and using
the technology. The degree of their confirmation affects their satisfac­
tion with the system and their perception of its usefulness. Thus,
perceived usefulness and satisfaction jointly determine their intention to
continue using the system.
2.3. Behavioral motivation systems
Behavioral motivation systems have been thoroughly researched in
the literature in various contexts but there is still much more to discover
about motivation theories within the field of IS. In order to study human
motivational behavior, various theories have been proposed in psy­
chology, which can be found in Table 1:
Out of the relevant motivation theories, the Reinforcement Sensi­
tivity Theory (RST) defines two different motivation systems: Behavioral
Activation System and Behavioral Inhibition System. BAS relates to
approach motivation towards a reward, whereas BIS relates to avoid­
ance motivation away from punishment (Gray, 1984). Individuals have
varying sensitivity levels in response to reward and punishment (Van
Fig. 1. Information systems continuance model (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Notes: BAS - Reward Responsiveness - Behavioral Activation System - Reward Responsiveness.
BAS - Drive - Behavioral Activation System – Drive, BAS - Fun Seeking: Behavioral Activation System - Fun Seeking.
4
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
den Berg, Franken, & Muris, 2011), and these mechanisms are essential
elements included in gamified mobile platforms. For these reasons, our
study aims to broaden RST and gain valuable insights related to these
motivation systems in the field of IS.
Gray (1987) Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory posits that there are
two distinct dimensions of personality: “anxiety,” which indicates the
sensitivity of the Behavioral Inhibition System in response to stimuli
associated with punishment; and “impulsivity” which indicates the
sensitivity of the Behavioral Activation System in response to stimuli
associated with reward. BAS, referred to as “approach motivation,” is
mainly related to positive consequences whereas BIS, referred to as
“avoidance motivation,” is mainly related to negative consequences
(Arnold & Reynolds, 2012).
The RST was later revised to consist of another distinct dimension
defined as; Fight Flight and Freezing System (FFFS) (Gray &
McNaughton, 2000), directly related to fear and punishment cues. In
this paper, based on the study’s context, we address the most widely
used measures based on RST; BAS, and BIS (Levinson, Rodebaugh &
Frye, 2011). According to Gray (1978, 1981), BIS triggers negative
feelings such as fear, anxiety, and frustration, whereas BAS triggers
positive feelings, such as hope, elation, and happiness provided that the
person is exposed to given cues. Since BAS and BIS reflect different
structures in the nervous system, it is expected that individuals with a
variety of combinations of high and low BIS and BAS sensitivity levels
would exist in a given population (Carver & White, 1994). It is also
expected that high BAS sensitive individuals would be responsive to
rewarding cues and experience positive affect as a result. In contrast,
high BIS-sensitive individuals would be responsive to punishment cues
and experience negative affect and anxiety as a result (Carver & White,
1994).
Many types of addictive behaviors have been researched in the
literature concerning BIS and BAS, and it has been found that BAS was
associated with addictive behaviors such as alcohol and drug use,
whereas BIS was associated with the frequency of self-reported drug use
(Voigt et al., 2009). Both motivations have been found to correlate
highly with college students’ Internet addiction (Yen, Ko, Yen, Chen, &
Chen, 2009). In contrast, gamification has the aim of establishing a more
positive addiction in individuals. Since BIS and BAS have been closely
linked to addictive behaviors in the literature in other contexts, it can be
expected that they might play an important role also in the continued
use of gamified mobile applications.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Behavioral activation system
The Behavioral Activation System has also been identified as the
behavioral approach system (Gray, 1990) and the behavioral facilitation
system (Depue & Iacono, 1989). It is referred to as a system that regu­
lates pleasant behavior following stimuli of desire and positive
emotional experiences such as happiness and excitement (Hayden et al.,
2008). BAS is associated with individuals’ sensitivity to rewards and
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
Fig. 2. Research model.
positive stimuli, and it is linked to appetitive emotions, which influence
actions toward positive outcomes (Carver & White, 1994). There are
three subscales in the BAS domain, which are namely Reward Respon­
siveness, Fun Seeking and Drive.
3.2. Reward responsiveness
Responses to reward and punishment have been researched thor­
oughly in the literature, and it has been found that there are various
levels of sensitivity to reward and punishment among individuals (Van
den Berg et al., 2011). As one of the BAS sub-scales, Reward Respon­
siveness (RR) indicates the anticipation of a reward and a positive
response to it when achieved. Additionally, it is identified as an in­
dividual’s proneness to experience positive feelings such as excitement
and happiness when encountered with rewards (Carver & White, 1994).
Gamification includes rewarding elements and provides positive
cues that can trigger the varying levels of RR of individuals. Gamified
mobile applications create an environment with rewarding cues (Kim,
2015b) and individuals with high RR are more sensitive to rewards as
well as prone to giving a positive emotional response when encountered
with them (Carver & White, 1994). Consequently, we can expect that
there might be a positive association between the BAS sub-scale, reward
responsiveness, and users’ satisfaction with mobile applications that
involve gamification. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
H1. : Reward Responsiveness will be positively related to users’ satisfaction
in gamified mobile applications.
It is noted that IT addiction is a concern that is on the rise, which is
determined by the excessive compulsive use of IT games or social media
(Maier, 2020). Moreover, it is indicated that while some users can dis­
continue their use of IT on their own, whereas other people may need
professionals to help them terminate their use of IT to avoid the adverse
effects on their private and social life. (Maier, 2020). As a similar
addictive behavior, gambling at its core aims to make its participants as
addictive as possible and encourages them to revisit gambling machines
as frequently as possible in order to make the maximum profit by
5
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
motivating the customers to continue the activity and thus spend more
money. Excess gambling and the inability to control the continuance
behavior are believed to result primarily from a lack of coping skills. The
subsequent effects of gambling on an individual’s lifestyle further
decrease these resources and fuel the urge to continue gambling,
regardless of the outcome (Sharpe & Tarrier, 1993).
Gambling has two different consequences for individuals; one is the
positive outcome where the person achieves a monetary reward, and the
other is the negative outcome where the person encounters a monetary
loss; more often the latter. On the other hand, gamified mobile appli­
cations offer users a platform where they are presented with positive
outcomes such as badges, points, etc., when their continued use is
maintained. In this context, there is not necessarily an extremely nega­
tive outcome similar to a monetary loss in gambling; however, while
some gamified mobile applications allow the user to keep the status quo
when they discontinue, others decrease the users’ existing virtual gains
when the user stops engaging with the mobile application.
A study in gambling addiction found that individuals who have high
levels of RR were more sensitive to outcomes where there was a possi­
bility for a reward in the end, regardless of whether this outcome was
positive or not (Van den Berg et al., 2011). Gamification provides out­
comes that aim to establish a positive addiction in users which in turn
aims to encourage their continued use of the technology involved. In­
dividuals who are more sensitive to rewarding stimuli have a higher
tendency to have attention for and develop an approach behavior in
circumstances that involve appetitive or rewarding cues (Jonker et al.,
2016). For this reason, we can expect that the sub-scale of BAS; reward
responsiveness will be positively associated with individuals’ willing­
ness to continue using a gamified mobile application; thus, the following
hypothesis is derived:
H2. Reward Responsiveness will be positively related to IS Continuance
Intention in gamified mobile applications.
3.3. Drive
Drive, as one of the sub-scales of BAS, denotes the expectation of
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al. International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414

Table 1 relationship between the BAS sub-scale; drive, and users’ satisfaction
Motivational theories. with gamified mobile applications. Therefore, the following hypothesis
Theory Description References is stated:
Expectancy-Value Expectancy-Value Theory posits (Borders, Earleywine, H3. Drive will be positively related to satisfaction in gamified mobile
Theory that individuals select their & Huey, 2004) applications.
behaviors according to the
outcomes they expect and their Gamified mobile applications set various goals for the users, such as;
value assessment of those completing tasks, collecting virtual currency, achieving better perfor­
outcomes.
Attribution Theory Attribution Theory addresses the (Graham, 2020)
mance than others and moving up the leaderboard. Individuals tend to
explanations or causes of success discontinue the goal pursuit, disengage from it when they no longer
and failure as a consequence. The perceive the goal as desirable, achievable, or realistic (Milyavskaya &
three dimensions of these causes Werner, 2018). However, goals embedded in gamified mobile applica­
are locus, stability and
tions are intentionally made feasible and achievable to motivate users’
controllability in which each
dimension is connected to positive actions toward the mobile application.
specific behavioral outcomes. Since as one of the sub-scales of BAS, drive refers to the expectation
Social Cognitive Social Cognitive Theory indicates (Bandura, 1986) of attaining a rewarding goal (Chen et al., 2017), and gamified mobile
Theory that environmental stimuli applications intend to maintain users’ expectation of a possible goal
contribute to determination of
behavior as well as human
completion by assuring the created goals remain achievable, we can
cognition. expect that there is a positive association between drive and IS contin­
Reinforcement Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Bijttebier, Beck, Claes, uance intention in gamified mobile applications. Thus the following
Sensitivity Theory (RST) posits that there are two & Vandereycken, hypothesis is stated:
main motivational systems; the 2009)
behavioral inhibition system H4. Drive will be positively related to IS Continuance Intention in gamified
(BIS) is accountable for behavior mobile applications.
in response to punishment
associated stimuli and the
behavioral activation system
3.4. Fun seeking
(BAS) is accountable for behavior
in response to reward associated
stimuli. Smartphone apps are becoming more important in people’s lives,
Cognitive The Theory of Cognitive (Aronson, 1969) and intrinsic motivations such as playfulness, enjoyment, and fun can be
Dissonance Dissonance indicates that acquired by adopting a new product or service, such as a smartphone,
Theory dissonance is a negative
based on its novel features (Alalwan, 2020). Gamified mobile systems
motivational state that
individuals experience when they offered within a smartphone have been found to offer more user
hold contradictory cognitions. enjoyment than traditional systems (Triantoro, Gopal, Benbunan-Fich,
Self-Actualization Self-Actualization Theory posits (Maslow, 1970) & Lang, 2019). It has also been found that gamification significantly
Theory that individuals are motivated to affects the flow state in one study conducted on millennials (García-­
reach their highest potential in
life and it is an ongoing process
Jurado, Castro-González, Torres-Jiménez, & Leal-Rodríguez, 2019)
where there are peak moments of where flow is defined as a state in which a person is involved in a specific
achievement. activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Individuals had reported higher levels
Self-Perception Self-Perception Theory indicates (Bem, 1972) of enjoyment/fun and greater satisfaction when they experienced a flow
Theory that individuals sometimes
state (Ghazali, Mutum, & Woon, 2019).
analyze their own attitudes and
emotions in the same way they Fun Seeking reflects the motivation to seek out novel rewards (Chen
would do others and as a result, et al., 2017) and “a willingness to approach a potentially rewarding
make inferences about their inner event on the spur of the moment” as defined by Carver and White
motivations like an outside (1994). Li et al. (2016) found that individuals having more fun in a
observer.
The Incentive Incentive Theory of Motivation (Ho & Thuy, 2020)
Facebook game were more satisfied with the game. Since gamification
Theory of posits that external outcomes triggers individuals’ fun/enjoyment levels and having fun brings satis­
Motivation such as praise, materialism, etc. faction, it can be expected that there might be a positive relationship
are the primary motivators of between fun-seeking motivation and satisfaction in gamified mobile
human actions.
applications. Therefore, the following hypothesis is derived:
H5. Fun Seeking will be positively related to satisfaction in gamified mobile
achieving a rewarding goal (Chen et al., 2017) and is described by applications.
Carver and White (1994) as “pertaining to the persistent pursuit of
desired goals.” Goals can be pursued with varying strategies. For Flow is a state in which an individual experiences high levels of
example, some have “approach goals” where they try to achieve positive enjoyment/fun and low levels of awareness of the surroundings. Csiks­
outcomes in their lives, such as improving their lifestyle in terms of their zentmihalyi (1997) defines these moments of joy in life as “so perfect
health, becoming better at their job, getting higher scores in schoolwork. that you want it to last forever.” Mobile game users have reported higher
Others have goals to avoid negative consequences such as failing from a enjoyment levels when they are in a flow state (Ghazali et al., 2019), and
class, getting sick, or losing a relationship they care about (Park, Van it has been found that perceived enjoyment/fun has a significant effect
Dyne, & Ilgen, 2013). on users’ intention to continue playing online games (Wu, Wang, & Tsai,
Gamification within mobile applications provides goals for the users 2010).
where they are encouraged to pursue positive outcomes of earning in Since enjoyment mediates the relationship between flow and
terms of virtual rewards and tangible gifts in some cases, like Starbucks. continuance intention (Ghazali et al., 2019), and fun-seeking refers to
Since it has been found that people pursuing approach goals tend to have the motivation to look for ways to achieve new rewards “on the spur of
greater satisfaction when they use an approach strategy (Park, Van the moment” (Carver & White, 1994, p.4), it can be expected that in­
Dyne, & Ilgen, 2013), it can be expected that there might be a positive dividuals who look for fun will continue their usage to extend their
pleasant experience. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

6
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
H6. Fun Seeking will be positively related to IS Continuance Intention in
gamified mobile applications.
3.5. Behavioral inhibition system
Behavioral Inhibition System reflects the sensitivity to punishment
and anxiety proneness. Individuals with high BIS tend to be more sen­
sitive to negative stimuli, and they try to avoid negative feelings and
outcomes (Carver & White, 1994). For instance, a study by Arnold and
Reynolds (2012) indicated that both approach and avoidance motiva­
tion led to positive emotions and evaluations by shoppers in a retail
context. The reason for this was explained by shopping being recognized
as an activity that has an “escapist” quality that individuals with high
BIS seek to avoid problems in their lives for a certain period of time.
Gamified apps allow users to enjoy their time with game-like mecha­
nisms, but since they are offered in a virtual environment, and users’
actual environment does not change by engaging in a gamified mobile
application, it may not provide the same “escapist” value that a retail
shop has. In addition, previous research has revealed that individuals
with high avoidance motivation search for experiences that decrease
their level of anxiety and negative emotions (Carver & White, 1994).
Some people enjoy spending time in a competitive environment such as
a gamified platform; however, we might expect that some others may
feel anxious and dissatisfied. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is
derived:
H7. BIS will be negatively related to satisfaction in gamified mobile
applications.
Some individuals enjoy competition; they are motivated to get to the
top of a leaderboard and gain more points than others, while others try
to avoid competition whenever they can. This is because they fear losing
the respect or affection of others at the end of competition either by
losing or winning it (Ryckman, Thornton, & Gold, 2010). For these in­
dividuals, the repelling features of a gamified mobile application might
result in dissatisfaction, frustration, anxiety, feelings of being left out,
and incompetence, and so on. Consequently, since individuals with high
avoidance motivation tend to avoid unwanted situations, we can also
expect that there might be a negative association between BIS and users’
satisfaction and their intention to continue using gamified mobile ap­
plications. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is stated:
H8. BIS will be negatively related to IS Continuance Intention in gamified
mobile applications.
4. Methodology
Empirical data for the research model was collected from university
students from various faculties, including engineering, social sciences,
arts and sciences, and education faculties. The sampling strategy
involved the recruitment of millennial students. The researcher’s fa­
miliarity with the region and access to the academic institution enabled
a convenience sampling approach to be taken. Taking into account the
estimation of mobile Internet penetration in Europe to range from 90.3%
(UK) to 56.9% (Ukraine) in 2020 (Statista, 2021a), the institution
selected in the study was considered as a good representation of the
target market; a well-known university with over 17,000 students
located in Eastern Europe.
The reason behind choosing university students was that millennial
consumers’ accessibility and technology acceptance is relatively high
compared to older consumers (Hur, Lee, & Choo, 2017). Millennials are
identified as individuals born between 1980 and 2000 (Donnison,
2007), and one of the most valuable belongings for this technologically
advanced generation is a smartphone (Holicza & Këdena, 2018). They
are considered a generation with increased accessibility to and famil­
iarity with mobile technologies, and their mobile penetration has shown
a consistent increase year on year (Statista, 2021b). For instance, in
7
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
2017, millennial Internet users spent an average of 223 min a day on
their mobile devices, which indicates an 18.6% increase compared to
2016 (Statista, 2021b).
The survey was conducted offline after receiving ethical approval for
the study from the University Ethics Board. In order to increase the
likelihood of accessing students from various majors and to improve the
randomization of sampling, five core courses that many students take
were selected from which to collect data. The sampling frame consisted
of 40–50 students for each class section and up to 90 students in mass-
exam sessions. The surveys, a consent form, and an information sheet
explaining the study were handed out at the beginning of these sessions
and participation was voluntary. Students had 20 min, based on the
findings from the pilot study, to complete the survey. Out of distributed
400 surveys, we received a total of 314 responses (78.5%), of which we
excluded 15 (4.8%) respondents as they indicated that they had never
used a gamified mobile application before.
In the distributed survey instrument, a definition of gamification was
provided. Participants were also given examples of well-known gamified
apps and asked to consider the app they had used before while
answering the survey questions. Since study’s objective is about un­
derstanding how gamification apps should be designed in general,
considering the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Systems, partici­
pants were asked to consider one app they were familiar with the most.
Since our research model is focused on post-adoption behavior of in­
dividuals, we only included the responses that belonged to the partici­
pants who have already adopted this technology.
This study measured BAS and BIS sensitivities as well as the degree of
perceived usefulness, confirmation, satisfaction and continuance inten­
tion to genuinely understand individuals’ intention to continue using
gamified mobile applications. The measures that were used in this
article were adapted from previous studies. The BIS-BAS scale proposed
by Carver and White (1994) was used to assess the different sensitivity
levels of BAS and BIS among individuals. BIS has a seven-item scale
related to anticipation of punishment, whereas BAS has three sub-scales:
Reward Responsiveness, which includes five-items related to the
expectation of a reward; Drive, which consists of a four-item scale
related to the pursuit of goals; and Fun Seeking, which includes a
four-item scale related to seeking novel rewards on impulse (Carver &
White, 1994; Smits & Boeck, 2006).
Items were changed slightly to fit with the context, and a pre-test was
conducted to avoid any possible ambiguity in the interpretation of sur­
vey questions. The randomly selected ten students were asked to com­
plete the final survey and comment on any of the items if they had any
difficulty in understanding them to ensure that all the survey items were
fully coherent. As a result, no major concerns appeared and only minor
adjustments were made to improve clarity. The respondents also
received a cover letter assuring the completely anonymous nature of the
survey. We assessed all items in the survey, including BAS and BIS items
(Carver & White, 1994), based on a seven-point Likert scale (G. Park,
2013) as well as IS continuance items (Bhattacherjee, 2001) to gather
sufficient psychometric results.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used since it enables re­
searchers to obtain answers for several interrelated research questions in
a single, systematic and comprehensive method by simultaneously
modeling the relationships between several independent and dependent
constructs (Tarka, 2018). Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and Partial
Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM) are commonly used as different ap­
proaches in analyzing the relationships between multiple variables. Both
methods have advantages and disadvantages due to their varying esti­
mation procedures and outcomes; therefore, it is crucial to select the
proper method depending on the type of study. When choosing PLS or
CB-SEM, it is essential to determine if the research to be conducted is
exploratory or confirmatory. PLS should be used for the former, whereas
researchers can use both methods for the latter (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014).
The increased use over time of PLS-SEM rather than other available
analytic options is evidenced in top journals such as MIS Quarterly,
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al. International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414

which confirm the rise of the number of papers using this method over
20 years, 1992–2011 (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012). Over 20 years,
out of 109 SEM studies, 65 selected the PLS-SEM technique most
commonly based on: small sample sizes, issues of normality, and mea­
surement of latent variables (Ringle et al., 2012).
Another rationale is that PLS fits better for a study that aims to
develop a theory rather than test it (Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010). This
study aims to advance theory development rather than theory confir­
mation; thus, PLS-SEM was used. Additionally, while both PLS and
CB-SEM test the measurement and theoretical models simultaneously
(Chin, Marcolin, & Newstead, 2003), PLS-SEM possesses further ad­
vantages such as performing better with small sample sizes and being
free from normality assumptions (Chin, 1998). In addition, PLS-SEM
was adopted due to the study’s exploratory nature (Benitez, Henseler,
Castillo, & Schuberth, 2020).
5. Results
5.1. Measurement model
In studies using survey methodology, Common Method Bias (CMB) is
tested to determine whether there is bias associated with the instrument
and whether there are any issues regarding the cause of the variation in
responses. The most common method to determine CMB is Harman’s
single factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The
authors conducted Harman’s single-factor test in which all the con­
structs of the study are combined to conduct a factor analysis to un­
derstand whether the bulk of the variance can be explained by the single
general factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results showed that 17.8% of the
variance, less than the accepted threshold of 50%, was explained by one
factor, indicating no threat of CMB. A further test that is commonly used
for studies using PLS confirmed the same outcome. In PLS studies, ver­
tical and lateral collinearity can be assessed with the full collinearity test
introduced by Kock and Lynn (2012). It is proposed that the presence of
a VIF higher than 3.3 is a sign of pathological collinearity and a sign that
a model is affected by common method bias (Kock, 2015). Since in our
study, the VIF of all the variables is below point 3.3, we can say that it is
free of common method bias.
Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha were used to assess the
reliability of the measurements. According to Nunnally (1978), the
threshold for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7. It is also noted that values be­
tween 0.50 and 0.70 are an indication of moderate reliability (Hinton,
Brownlow, McMurray, & Cozens, 2004) while 0.6 and above is consid­
ered as marginally acceptable and sufficient for preliminary research
(Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2017; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
2006). Since only two constructs had alphas slightly below 0.7 (BASD;
0.686 and BASF; 0.674), we decided to progress the analysis with this
data since the composite reliability values were above 0.7 and the
average variance extracted values were above 0.50 (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988). The variance explained for the constructs were as the following;
R-squared coefficients of Perceived Usefulness (0.210), Satisfaction
(0.197), and Continuance Intention (0.282).
The statistical significance of the factor loadings of each of the
constructs was verified using confirmatory factor analysis. Table 2
shows that the factor loadings of the items, composite reliability, and
average variance extracted values were sufficiently high in the mea­
surement model, indicating convergent validity, reliability, and
discriminant validity. It can also be seen in Table 3 that discriminant
validity was verified since the AVE of all constructs exceeded the
squared correlation coefficients. Only two items from the BIS scale were

Table 2
Measurement validity and reliability.
Factor Items Factor α AVE CR
loadings

Perceived Usefulness Using the mobile application, improves my performance in achieving my aim 0.918* 0.919 0.804 0.943
Using the mobile application, increases my productivity in achieving my aim 0.888*
Using the mobile application, enhances my effectiveness in achieving my aim 0.919*
I find the mobile application to be useful in achieving my aim 0.862*
Confirmation My experience with using the mobile application was better than what I expected. 0.878* 0.794 0.710 0.880
The service level provided by the mobile application was better than what I expected. 0.863*
Overall, most of my expectations from using the mobile application were confirmed. 0.784*
Satisfaction Please rate your feeling about the mobile application: very dissatisfied/very satisfied 0.747* 0.821 0.652 0.882
Please rate your feeling about the mobile application: very displeased/very pleased 0.824*
Please rate your feeling about the mobile application: very frustrated/very contented 0.840*
Please rate your feeling about the mobile application: absolutely terrible/absolutely delighted 0.816*
IS Continuance Intention I intend to continue using the mobile application rather than discontinue its use 0.848* 0.706 0.632 0.837
My intentions are to continue using the mobile application than use any alternative means (such as 0.827*
websites with similar offerings)
If I could, I would like to discontinue using the mobile application. 0.703*
BAS - Reward When I’m doing well at something I love to keep at it 0.762* 0.849 0.624 0.892
Responsiveness
When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized 0.843*
When I see an opportunity for something I like I get excited right away 0.782*
When good things happen to me, it affects me strongly 0.812*
It would excite me to win a contest 0.746*
BAS - Drive I go out of my way to get things I want 0.622* 0.686 0.517 0.810
When I want something I usually put my all energy to get it 0.747*
If I see a chance to get something I want I move on it right away 0.770*
When I go after something I use a "no limits" approach 0.728*
BAS - Fun Seeking I’m always willing to try something new if I think it will be fun 0.759* 0.674 0.508 0.804
I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun 0.735*
I often act on impulse, without planning 0.607*
I crave excitement and new sensations 0.738*
Behavioral Inhibition Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit 0.625* 0.755 0.509 0.837
System
I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me 0.739*
If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty “anxious” 0.830*
I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something important 0.668*
I worry about making mistakes 0.687*

Notes: * p < 0.001.

8
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al. International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414

Table 3
Discriminant and convergent validity of constructs.
BASD BASF BASR BIS Confirmation Perceived Usefulness Satisfaction Continuance intention

BASD 0.719
BASF 0.286 0.712
BASR 0.403 0.310 0.790
BIS 0.004 0.011 0.384 0.713
Confirmation 0.148 0.067 0.216 0.055 0.843
Perceived Usefulness 0.241 0.176 0.252 0.045 0.457 0.897
Satisfaction 0.107 0.047 0.116 -0.042 0.370 0.310 0.807
Continuance Intention 0.150 0.169 0.339 0.095 0.428 0.349 0.312 0.795

Notes: Square roots of average variances extracted (AVEs)are shown on diagonal.

removed to improve convergent validity and discriminant validity.
5.2. Structural model
PLS-SEM analysis was conducted in this study to understand the ef­
fects of BIS and BAS sensitivities on Satisfaction and IS continuance
intention in a gamified mobile application. The path coefficients for the
research model are illustrated in Fig. 3. All coefficients related to the IS
Continuance model (Bhattacherjee, 2001) were significant in the ex­
pected direction.
It is recommended that the p values for APC and ARS should be both
significant at the 0.05 level, and AVIF is acceptable if it is lower than 5
and ideal if it is lower than 3.3 (Kock, 2012). Adequate model fit was
indicated as p values of both APC and ARS were lower than 0.05
(p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively), and AVIF was 1.176. An
acceptable Q-squared coefficient is indicated as the coefficient being
above zero (Kock, 2012). Accordingly, we assessed predictive validity by
confirming that the Q-squared coefficients for endogenous latent vari­
ables were all above zero.
The relationship between IS continuance intention and BAS-Reward
Responsiveness, Satisfaction, BAS-Fun seeking and Perceived Usefulness
were positive and significant (β = 0.259, p < 0.001, β = 0.243,
p < 0.001, β = 0.098, p < 0.05, and β = 0.218, p < 0.001, respec­
tively). The dependent variable did not have any significant relationship
between Behavioral Inhibition System or BAS-Drive. BIS had a negative
and significant association with Satisfaction (β = − 0.103, p < 0.05),
whereas BAS-Reward Responsiveness, Confirmation and Perceived
Usefulness had a positive association (β = 0.153, p < 0.01, β = 0.252,
p < 0.001, and β = 0.194, p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, BAS-
Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking did not have any significant association
with Satisfaction. Finally, our results showed that Confirmation had a
positive association (β = 0.458, p < 0.001) with Perceived Usefulness.
Consistent with H1 and H2, BAS Reward Responsiveness was posi­
tively related to Satisfaction and IS Continuance Intention. Results in
Fig. 3 indicate that BAS Drive was not significantly related to Satisfac­
tion or IS continuance intention. Contrary to our predictions, H3 and H4
were not supported. H5 predicted that BAS Fun Seeking would affect
satisfaction positively. H5 was not supported, but since BAS Fun Seeking

Fig. 3. SEM analysis of the research model *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

9
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
was significantly related to IS Continuance Intention, H6 was supported.
Results indicated that BIS was negatively associated with satisfaction,
thus providing support for H7, but BIS was not significantly associated
with IS Continuance Intention, so H8 was not supported. Table 4 sum­
marizes the status of the hypotheses.
6. Discussion
In recent literature, gamification has been found to significantly
affect individuals’ continuance intention in various technologies such as
mobile banking services (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017), interest-based
virtual communities (Feng, Liu, Qian, Guo, & Chen, 2019), and virtual
corporate social responsibility platforms (Jun, Jiao, & Lin, 2020).
Furthermore, a recent study’s findings indicate that a great positive ef­
fect on users’ satisfaction is expected when gamification is implemented
in online community services (Xi & Hamari, 2019), other technologies
such as e-learning platforms (Poondej & Lerdpornkulrat, 2019),
smartphone-based jobs (Liu, Huang, & Zhang, 2018) and websites
(Hsieh & Yang, 2020).
In this study, the aim was not to specifically evaluate gamification as
an independent variable. Instead, the research was conducted in a
gamified mobile application context, and behavioral motivational sys­
tems and their relation to Information Systems Continuance and in­
dividuals’ satisfaction were explored. The characteristics of these
motivational systems, such as “sensitivity to reward,” are closely related
to gamification elements, and the results were consistent with previous
research in this respect.
Our findings suggest that from all BAS sub-scales, BAS reward
responsiveness had the most prominent effect on users’ satisfaction and
their intention to continue using a gamified mobile application, sup­
porting H1 and H2, which indicates a positive relationship between
reward responsiveness and satisfaction as well as IS continuance. This
shows that individuals with a high degree of BAS reward responsiveness
are more satisfied and willing to continue using the mobile application
when presented with attractive rewards. Additionally, compared to
other motivational factors, rewards are expected to strongly influence
these individuals’ intention to spend more time on gamified mobile
platforms. As they become more satisfied and motivated to engage with
the mobile application, they can be expected to form a stronger
attachment to the mobile application and a positive addiction resulting
in continued use.
Contrary to our expectations, BAS drive was found to have no sig­
nificant effect on satisfaction or IS continuance intention which did not
support H3 and H4. In other competitive settings, such as an interactive
puzzle game, customer retention is positively influenced by creating
more minor task achievements for the users, leading to a bigger goal in
the end. This aims to foster the sense of completion with each finished
task, which motivates the user to come back and complete another task
to get closer to the ultimate goal. In the end, the user either gets satisfied
by completing all the tasks before anyone else and winning the game, or
Table 4
Summary of Hypotheses.
Hypotheses
H1: Reward Responsiveness will be positively related to satisfaction.
H2: Reward Responsiveness will be positively related to IS Continuance
Intention.
H3: Drive will be positively related to satisfaction.
H4: Drive will be positively related to IS Continuance Intention.
H5: Fun Seeking will be positively related to satisfaction.
H6: Fun Seeking will be positively related to IS Continuance Intention.
H7: BIS will be negatively related to satisfaction.
H8: BIS will be negatively related to IS Continuance Intention.
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
by simply achieving progress with each accomplished step during the
whole game experience. However, even though setting a goal for con­
sumers of a mobile service seems reasonable to attract them to re-use the
application to complete tasks, this does not necessarily seem to be the
case in a gamified mobile platform. This may be because individuals
might be more focused on other service features related to rewards
rather than achieving a specific goal in this context. Another reason
could be that users might perceive a gamified mobile application
differently than a regular game (ex. puzzle game) in terms of a task
completion process. They may not be encouraged in the same way in a
gamified mobile application as they are in a game to complete smaller
tasks to achieve a bigger goal in the end, and this could justify the
insignificance of BAS Drive on both satisfaction and IS continuance.
BAS fun seeking was expected to influence both customers’ satis­
faction and their continuance intention positively. However, the results
indicated that it only affects continuance intention in a positive way but
has no effect on satisfaction which provides support for H6 but not for
H5. The fun aspect of using information systems has a significant effect
on the technology adoption of individuals (Van der Heijden, 2004) and
plays an important role in post-adoption behaviors as well. Even though
those who seek fun tend to be addicted to the gamified elements and use
the mobile application continuously, they may not be satisfied just
because they perceive the app as “fun.” Both users’ confirmation related
to the evaluation of the difference between their initial expectations,
perceived performance after using it, and their perception of the use­
fulness of the mobile application seems to play more prominent roles in
this respect.
BIS was found to influence satisfaction negatively, as expected in H7.
This result supports our prediction that even though some individuals
like gamified platforms and become motivated to earn the highest points
by defeating others in a competition, others are predisposed to be
dissatisfied in such circumstances. When individuals with high BIS
outperform others, they might feel distressed and frustrated because of
an expectation of resentment from others, or they might be prone to
feeling anxious or incompetent when they can not have a high perfor­
mance compared to others or even maintain their previous scores. Even
though avoidance motivation may not have an effect on individuals’
intention for discontinuance, high BIS individuals’ dissatisfaction may
lead to other negative consequences such as negative reviews, lower
customer engagement, decreased purchase intention, etc. Further
research should be conducted to understand these possible negative
consequences that may result from dissatisfaction related to avoidance
motivation as they may be crucial in assuring the success and profit­
ability of the mobile product or service. On the other hand, in our study,
a negative relationship between BIS and IS continuance intention was
expected; however, no significant effect was found, which indicated no
support for H8. This may indicate that individuals may not perceive the
online environmental cues of a gamified mobile application as threat­
ening or discomforting in any way. For this reason, their motivation to
use the application continuously may not be affected at all. Individuals
with a high level of BIS tend to avoid platforms that include punishment
cues or provide negative experiences. However, in the case of a gamified
mobile application, the negative cues may not be sufficient enough to
trigger these users’ avoidance motivation which would in other cases
Result
have resulted in them leaving the application immediately.
Supported To improve convergent and discriminant validity, we removed two
Supported
items from the BIS scale in this study. Even though there is general
Not support for the performance of the BIS/BAS scale in recent literature,
Supported there is also debate about these scales having limitations in accurately
Not measuring the constructs they are intended to measure (Demianczyk,
Supported Jenkins, Henson, & Conner, 2014; Gray, Hanna, Gillen, & Rushe, 2016;
Not
Supported
Haws, Dholakia, & Bearden, 2010), especially the BIS scale (Poythress
Supported et al., 2008). Previously, it has been proposed that the items from the BIS
Supported scale that refer to lack of fear should be deleted (Levinson, Rodebaugh,
Not & Frye, 2011; Poythress et al., 2008). This finding is consistent with the
Supported
items that we have also excluded. It has been suggested that the deleted
10
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
items represent a different construct than the BIS, namely the Fight
Flight and Freezing System; FFFS (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The
resulting measure in our study excluded references to fear and empha­
sized worry and anxiety for the BIS scale. As a result, in accordance with
previous literature (Levinson et al., 2011; Poythress et al., 2008), this
study provides a contribution confirming the update of the BIS scale. It
suggests the establishment of two different constructs rather than one,
which indicates that further studies should be conducted to improve the
BIS scale.
6.1. Theoretical contributions and implications
According to RST, BAS refers to approach motivation towards a
reward, while BIS refers to avoidance motivation away from punishment
(Gray, 1984). The present study expands the RST concerning the field of
IS by empirically analyzing the effects of BIS/BAS on the satisfaction and
IS continuance intention of users of a gamified mobile application.
Our findings are consistent with Gray (1987) and Carver and White
(1994) studies, according to which approach motivation is expected to
be associated with desirable behaviors, whereas avoidance motivation is
expected to be associated with undesirable behaviors. In the context of a
gamified mobile application, desirable outcomes from the mobile
application owner’s perspective can be indicated as users’ high level of
satisfaction and addictive usage. In contrast, undesirable outcomes can
be indicated as users’ low level of satisfaction and their decision to
abandon the application or even delete it entirely from their smart­
phones. In addition to providing support for approach motivation to be
linked to desirable behaviors and avoidance motivation to undesirable
behaviors in an IS context, this study further explored motivation sys­
tems in a gamified mobile platform. Furthermore, the study contributes
to identifying the different effectiveness levels of Behavioral Activation
and Inhibition Systems concerning users’ satisfaction and IS continuance
intention.
BAS and BIS have been researched before in the context of the
adoption of a technology (TAM) (N. Park, 2013; Vella, Caruana, & Pitt,
2012), but there are some gaps in research related to individu­
als’post-adoption behavior. This cross-disciplinary study provides an
alternative perspective on the issue by associating the addictive aspects
of gamified features with BAS/BIS motivations and continuance inten­
tion,.
6.2. Implications for practice
The results have significant implications for understanding how in­
dividuals differ in their motivations related to their satisfaction with a
gamified mobile service and their intention to use it continuously. These
findings may benefit managers when starting a new business division
based on a gamified mobile application. Likewise, when adding gami­
fied features for the first time to an existing mobile product or service as
a strategy to increase profits. BASR was found to have the most signif­
icant effect on users’ satisfaction in gamified mobile applications.
Hence, it is recommended that managers should focus on ways to build
effective reward mechanisms such as attractive badges, virtual coins,
status acknowledgements, as well as elements of fun that can help the
gamified mobile application to be more game-like, such as entertaining
tasks, progressive levels, and even interactivity. Additionally, findings
suggest that BASR is the most important antecedent of continuance
intention. For this reason, managers should try to increase individuals’
continual usage by improving their expectations and beliefs of how the
mobile application can provide them with captivating and valuable re­
wards. Presenting customers with an environment in which they
encounter new and exciting rewards continuously is expected to capture
their interest and maintain it for the long term. On the other hand, fun-
seeking is found to be influential in increasing continued usage but
seems to be less effective in increasing customer satisfaction.
Even though individuals having fun in a Facebook game were found
11
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
to be more satisfied (Li et al., 2016), the results of our study suggest that
this might not be the case for gamified mobile applications. Individuals
seeking fun may not be satisfied from a gamified mobile application in
the same way they get satisfied from playing a game since they might not
perceive gamified elements in a mobile application identical to a game.
They may be looking for a “whole game experience” for satisfaction and,
therefore, it would be misleading for managers to think they can achieve
customer satisfaction by simply adding fun gamification elements.
Keeping this distinction in mind, managers should consider including
fun elements in the mobile app they are in charge of, but they should not
rely on them as their primary focus since gamification may not guar­
antee ultimate customer satisfaction. Additionally, adding rewards
seems to play a more significant role in influencing continuance inten­
tion than presenting features related to fun. Setting goals for the users of
a gamified mobile application was also found to be ineffective for both
purposes, indicating that individuals may be more interested in rewards
and fun elements rather than being presented with goals such as task
completion. In this regard, managers can select rewards out of the most
commonly utilized; points, badges, and leaderboards (Koivisto &
Hamari, 2019), whereas they can emphasize the fun elements that stand
out; concentration, challenge, and immersion (Jegers, 2009).
Since BIS is found to affect customer satisfaction negatively, man­
agers should be aware of a portion of users in their customer base who
have a high level of BIS since punishment cues might be strongly
influential in determining their levels of satisfaction. For this reason, it is
essential not to focus solely on rewards for positive reinforcement. It is
also crucial to mitigate the negative cues that might result in avoidance
by the users. Designers of some gamified mobile applications insist on
including punishment cues such as lowering the users’ rankings when
they discontinue using the app for a while or decreasing their points
when they fail to achieve a certain status or task completion. Owners of
gamified mobile applications should be very cautious in implementing
such negative cues, and they should find ways to emphasize an envi­
ronment that is welcoming and comforting and not perceived as highly
competitive or punishing in any way. Designers should constantly
monitor the presence of punishment cues in mobile applications and
eliminate them or minimize their intensity to avoid losing sales.
6.3. Limitations and future research
This study is not without limitations. First, we analyzed the effects of
BIS/BAS on university students and not all millennials in general. The
sample used in this study was from one university, and it was collected
during exam sessions in which students from various faculties partici­
pated. Thus, the randomization of the sample could improve by
including participants from more than one university and various degree
programs. In addition, students’ demographic profile was not collected
in this study due to the time limit allowed by the University and in­
structors. Therefore descriptive statistics were not provided. In future
studies, additional research on a broader and more specific millennial
population would enhance the generalizability and validity of our
findings.
Secondly, this study was conducted using a survey, which indicates a
snapshot of users’ perceptions at a certain point in time. In order to
support the validity of our findings for the IS continuance model, a
longitudinal study is recommended in the future to improve insight
about different variables that may change over time. Users might have
varying perceptions in different phases of their usage of a gamified
mobile application. These variations should be emphasized in order to
develop a better understanding of their continuance intention.
Thirdly, in particular the Behavioral Inhibition System has been
found to have no significant effect on continuance intention. However,
the significant negative relationship between BIS and satisfaction may
result in negative consequences other than discontinuance, such as;
decreased user engagement, loyalty, purchase intention, and more. In
future studies, the relationship between BIS, satisfaction, and various
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
negative results should be explored since it may surface valuable in­
sights concerning the success of the mobile application, product, or
service.
Lastly, in this study, all mobile gamified applications were evaluated
as a single category, regardless of which group they belong to, such as
social media, e-commerce, health applications, etc. Thus, future studies
should classify gamified mobile applications in a more detailed manner,
and data should be collected from each specific category to expand our
understanding of this subject.
7. Conclusion
Humans are genetically coded as individuals who like to gather and
collect items, look for ways to improve their social ranks, compete with
others to earn the highest rewards, socialize and collaborate on certain
occasions with others. By utilizing these characteristics, gamification
has provided an incredible number of success stories (Salcu & Acatrinei,
2013). Gamification is a “trending” concept, and there is building
literature that tests the concept in various contexts. Although most of
this empirical research on gamification indicates its positive effective­
ness, there is a lack of consensus on its benefits (Koivisto & Hamari,
2019).
In order to have a better understanding of gamified technologies, this
study aimed to explore it from a psychological perspective and shed
more light on the role of individuals’ behavioral motivations in this
regard. There is also an ongoing debate about gamification’s effective­
ness on business profitability associated with mobile applications. This
study also provides valuable insights on which elements of gamification
to investigate further and which ones are appropriate to include when
implementing gamified features on mobile applications. Future studies
should be undertaken in different age groups and with more diverse
populations to improve the generalizability of these findings.
References
Alalwan, A. A. (2020). Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors
affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. International
Journal of Information Management, 50, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2019.04.008.
Al-Gahtani, S. S., & King, M. (1999). Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: Factors
contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 18(4), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/
014492999119020.
Andonova, Y. (2013). Loyalty 3.0: How big data and gamification are revolutionizing
customer and employee engagement. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 1, 234–236.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jma.2013.19.
Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2012). Approach and avoidance motivation:
Investigating hedonic consumption in a retail setting. Journal of Retailing, 88(3),
399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.12.004.
Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)
60075-1.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02723327.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Why so serious? Gamification impact in the
acceptance of mobile banking services. Internet Research, 27(1), 118–139. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2015-0295.
Behl, A., & Dutta, P. (2020). Engaging donors on crowdfunding platform in disaster relief
operations (DRO) using gamification: a civic voluntary model (CVM) approach.
International Journal of Information Management, 54, Article 102140. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102140.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report
an impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and
explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), Article 103168. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance. An
expectation–confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3250921.
Bijttebier, P., Beck, I., Claes, L., & Vandereycken, W. (2009). Gray’s reinforcement
sensitivity theory as a framework for research on personality–psychopathology
12
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
associations. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2009.04.002.
Blohm, I., & Leimeister, J. (2013). Gamification. Design of IT-based enhancing services
for motivational support and behavioral change. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 4(5), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0273-5.
Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Huey, S. J. (2004). Predicting problem behaviors with
multiple expectancies: Expanding expectancy-value theory. Adolescence, 39(155),
539–550.
Burke, B. (2012). Gamification: Engagement strategies for business and IT. Gartner Inc.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319.
Chang, C., Liang, C., Yan, C., & Tseng, J. (2013). The impact of college students’ intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation on continuance intention to use english mobile learning
systems. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40299-012-0011-7.
Chen, C., Zhang, K. Z. K., Gong, X., Zhao, S. J., Lee, M. K. O., & Liang, L. (2017).
Understanding compulsive smartphone use: an empirical test of a flow-based model.
International Journal of Information Management, 37, 438–454. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.04.009.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,
22(1), 7–16.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newstead, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte
Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems
Research, 14, 189–217.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. In Psychology today, 30 pp. 46–48). Ziff-Davis
Publishing Company.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey Bass.
Davis, F. D.1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation). Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York: Plenum.
Demianczyk, A. C., Jenkins, A. L., Henson, J. M., & Conner, B. T. (2014). Psychometric
evaluation and revision of Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales in a diverse sample of
young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 485–494. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00223891.2013.870570.
Depue, R. A., & Iacono, W. G. (1989). Neurobehavioral aspects of affective disorders.
Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 457–492. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
ps.40.020189.00232521.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khalled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design
elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the fifteenth
international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments.
Tampere, Finland: MindTrek ’11. Retrieved from 〈https://doi.org/10.1145/218103
7.2181040〉.
Donnison, S. (2007). Unpacking the millennials: A cautionary tale for teacher education.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2007v32n3.1.
Feng, Y., Liu, Z., Qian, W., Guo, M., & Chen, J. (2019). Research on the influence
mechanism of gamification elements on users’ willingness to continue using in interest-
based virtual communities – based on ECM-ISC model. Piscataway: The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICSSSM.2019.8887645.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and
do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957.
García-Jurado, A., Castro-González, P., Torres-Jiménez, M., & Leal-Rodríguez, A., L.
(2019). Evaluating the role of gamification and flow in e-consumers: Millennials
versus generation X. Kybernetes, 48(6), 1278–1300. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-
2018-0350.
Ghazali, E., Mutum, D. S., & Woon, M.-Y. (2019). Exploring player behavior and
motivations to continue playing Pokémon GO. Information Technology & People, 32
(3), 646–667. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2017-0216.
Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2017). Research methods in applied settings: an
integrated approach to design and analysis (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781410605337.
Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61(4), Article 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2020.101861.
Gray, J. A. (1978). The 1977 Myers lecture: The neuropsychology of anxiety. British
Journal of Psychology, 69, 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1978.
tb02118.x.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A model for personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A critique of Eysenck’s
theory of personality (pp. 246–276). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_8.
Gray, J. A. (1984). Implications of the neuropsychology of anxiety for personality.
Clinical Neuropharmacology, 7(1), S405.
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of
Research in Personality, 21(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(87)
90036-5.
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and
Emotion, 4(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939008410799.
Gray, J. D., Hanna, D., Gillen, A., & Rushe, T. (2016). A closer look at Carver and White’s
BIS/BAS scales: Factor analysis and age group differences. Personality and Individual
Differences, 95, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.022.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into
the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford Psychology Series (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780198522713.001.0001.
Gupta, A., Yousaf, A., & Mishra, A. (2020). How pre-adoption expectancies shape post-
adoption continuance intentions: An extended expectation-confirmation model.
International Journal of Information Management, 52, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijinfomgt.2020.102094.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International Inc.
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017). Why do people play games? A meta-analysis.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 125–141. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.006.
Harman, K., Koohang, A., & Paliszkiewicz, J. (2014). Scholarly interest in gamification: a
citation network analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(9), 1438–1452.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2014-0208.
Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic
regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967–982. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967.
Hayden, E. P., Bodkins, M., Brenner, C., Shekhar, A., Nurnberger, J. I., Jr., O’Donnell, B.,
& Hetrick, W. P. (2008). A multimethod investigation of the behavioral activation
system in bipolar disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(1), 164–170.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.164.
Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. London;
New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203642597.
Ho, T. V., & Thuy, V. T. N. (2020). Time Orientation on avoiding advertising based on
incentive theory of motivation: A literature review and conceptual framework.
International Journal of Management, 11(7), 1018–1027.
Holicza, P., & Këdena, E. (2018). Smart and secure? Millennials on mobile devices.
Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 16(3), 376–383. https://doi.org/
10.7906/indecs.16.3.10.
Hong, S., Kim, J., & Lee, H. (2008). Antecedents of use-continuance in information
systems: toward an integrative view. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48
(3), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2008.11646022.
Hsieh, H. C. L., & Yang, H. (2020). Incorporating gamification into website design to
facilitate effective communication. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 21(1),
89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2019.1645920.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification
in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.
Hur, H. J., Lee, H. K., & Choo, H. J. (2017). Understanding usage intention in innovative
mobile app service: Comparison between millennial and mature consumers.
Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.03.051.
Insley, V., & Nunan, D. (2014). Gamification and the online retail experience.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(5), 340–351. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2013-0030.
Jin, X. L., Lee, M. K. O., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2010). Predicting continuance in online
communities: model development and empirical test. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 29(4), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903398190.
Jegers, K. (2009). Elaborating eight elements of fun: Supporting design of pervasive
player enjoyment. Computers in Entertainment, 7(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1541895.1541905.
Jonker, N. C., Glashouwer, K. A., Ostafin, B. D., van Hemel-Ruiter, M., E., Smink, F. R. E.,
Hoek, H. W., & de Jong, P., J. (2016). Attentional bias for reward and punishment in
overweight and obesity: The TRAILS study. PLoS One, 11(7), Article 0157573.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157573.
Jun, F., Jiao, J., & Lin, P. (2020). Influence of virtual CSR gamification design elements
on customers’ continuance intention of participating in social value co-creation: the
mediation effect of psychological benefit. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 32, 1305–1326. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2019-0213.
Kim, B. (2010). An empirical investigation of mobile data service continuance:
Incorporating the theory of planned behavior into the expectation–confirmation
model. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(10), 7033–7039. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.015.
Kim, B. (2015aaa). Chapter 1: The popularity of gamification in the mobile and social era, 51.
Library Technology Reports.
Kim, B. (2015bbb). Chapter 5: Designing gamification in the right way, 51. Library
Technology Reports.
Kock, N. (2012). WarpPLS 3.0 User Manual.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of e-
Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-
based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: a review
of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45,
191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013.
Levinson, C. A., Rodebaugh, T. L., & Frye, T. (2011). An examination of the factor,
convergent and discriminant validity of the behavioral inhibition system and
13
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
behavioral activation system scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 33(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-010-9202-9.
Li, T. M. H., Chau, M., Sung, W., Lee, A. J., Wong, P. W. C., & Yip, P. S. F. (2016). Design
and evaluation of a Facebook game for self-directed elearning. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning, 8(3), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.
kmel.2016.08.029.
Liu, M., Huang, Y., & Zhang, D. (2018). Gamification’s impact on manufacturing:
enhancing job motivation, satisfaction and operational performance with
smartphone-based gamified job design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, 28(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20723.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452.
Maier, C. (2020). Overcoming pathological IT use: How and why IT addicts terminate
their use of games and social media. International Journal of Information Management,
51, Article 102053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102053.
Manlove, J., & Whitacre, B. (2018). Understanding the trend to mobile-only internet
connections: A decomposition analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 43(1), 76–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.012.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Milyavskaya, M., & Werner, K. M. (2018). Goal pursuit: current state of affairs and
directions for future research. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 59(2),
163–175. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qxswa.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378001700405.
Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Markus, M. L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime?
Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information
technology use. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650303.
Park, G., Van Dyne, L., & Ilgen, D. R. (2013). Satisfaction pursuing approach and
avoidance goals: Effects of regulatory fit and individual temperaments. Motivation
and Emotion, 37(3), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9324-3.
Park, N., Kim, Y. C., Shon, H. Y., & Shim, H. (2013). Factors influencing smartphone use
and dependency in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1763–1770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.008.
Petkov, P., Ko¨bler, F., Foth, M., Medland, R.C., & Krcmar, H. (2011). Engaging energy
saving through motivation-specific social comparison. In Proceedings of the annual
conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems – CHI EA 11 (pp.
1–6). Retrieved from 〈https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979855〉.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879.
Poondej, C., & Lerdpornkulrat, T. (2019). Gamification in e-learning. A Moodle
implementation and its effect on student engagement and performance. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 17(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-
2019-0030.
Poythress, N. G., Skeem, J. L., Weir, J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Douglas, K. S., Edens, J. F., &
Kennealy, P. J. (2008). Psychometric properties of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/
BAS scales in a large sample of offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8),
732–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.021.
Racero, F. J., Bueno, S., & Gallego, M. D. (2020). Predicting students’ behavioral
intention to use open source software: A combined view of the technology
acceptance model and self-determination theory. Applied Sciences, 10(8), 2711.
https://doi.org/10.3390/a.
Reichheld, F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web. Harvard
Business Review, 78, 105–113.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: A critical look at
the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly”. MIS Quarterly, 36, iii–xiv. https://doi.org/
10.2307/41410402.
Ryckman, R. M., Thornton, B., & Gold, J. A. (2010). Assessing competition avoidance as a
basic personality dimension. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 175–192. https://doi.
org/10.3200/JRLP.143.2.175-192.
Salcu, A. V., & Acatrinei, C. (2013). Gamification applied in affiliate marketing. Case
Study of 2Parale. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 8(4),
767–790.
Sharpe, L., & Tarrier, N. (1993). Towards a cognitive-behavioural theory of problem
gambling. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 162(3), 407–412. https://doi.org/
10.1192/bjp.162.3.407.
Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing: integrating motive
disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(5), 1106–1123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024952.
Smits, D. J. M., & Boeck, P. D. (2006). From BIS-BAS to the big five. European Journal of
Personality, 20(4), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.583.
Statista . (2021a). Mobile internet penetration in Europe 2020, by country. Retrieved from
〈https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1168913/mobile-internet-penetration-in
-europe-by-country〉. (Accessed 1 February 2021).
Statista. (2021b). Millennials: daily mobile internet usage 2012–2017. Retrieved from 〈https
://www.statista.com/statistics/283138/millennials-daily-mobile-usage/〉. (Accessed
4 February 2021).
Tam, C., Santos, D., & Oliveira, T. (2020). Exploring the influential factors of continuance
intention to use mobile apps: extending the expectation confirmation model.
Information Systems Frontiers, 22(1), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-
9864-5.
E.T. Aydınlıyurt et al.
Tarka, P. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical
development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity,
52(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8.
Thong, J. Y. L., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on
the expectation–confirmation model for information technology continuance.
International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001.
Triantoro, T., Gopal, R., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Lang, G. (2019). Would you like to play? A
comparison of a gamified survey with a traditional online survey method.
International Journal of Information Management, 49, 242–252. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.06.001.
Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems
research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Application, 11(2), 5–40.
Van den Berg, I., Franken, I. H. A., & Muris, P. (2011). Individual differences in
sensitivity to reward: Association with electrophysiological responses to monetary
gains and losses. Journal of Psychophysiology, 25(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1027/
0269-8803/a000032.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660.
Vella, J., Caruana, A., & Pitt, L. F. (2012). The effect of behavioural activation and
inhibition on CRM adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(1), 43–59.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321211195695.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011).
Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: incorporating
UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6),
527–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x.
14
International Journal of Information Management 61 (2021) 102414
Vinichenko, M. V., Melnichuk, A. V., Kirillov, A. V., Makushkin, S. A., & Melnichuk, Y. A.
(2016). Modern views on the gamification of business. Journal of Internet Banking and
Commerce, 21(S3).
Voigt, D. C., Dillard, J. P., Braddock, K. H., Anderson, J. W., Sopory, P., &
Stephenson, M. T. (2009). Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales and their
relationship to risky health behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(2),
89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.003.
Wen, D. M.-H., Chang, D. J.-W., Lin, Y.-T., Liang, C.-W., & Yang, S.-Y. (2014).
Gamification design for increasing customer purchase intention in a mobile
marketing campaign app. HCI in Business, 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-07293-7_43.
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Tsai, H. H. (2010). Falling in love with online games: the uses
and gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior (vol. 26,(6), 1862–1871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.033.
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship
between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction: SSIS. International
Journal of Information Management, 46, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2018.12.002.
Yen, J. Y., Ko, C. H., Yen, C. F., Chen, C. S., & Chen, C. C. (2009). The association
between harmful alcohol use and internet addiction among college students:
comparison of personality. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 63(2), 218–224.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.01943.x.
Yohana Dewi, L. W., Lukito, E. N., & Adhistya, E. P. (2019). Persuasive technology for
enhanced learning behavior in higher education. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-
0142-5.
Zhou, T. (2011). An empirical examination of users’ post-adoption behaviour of mobile
services. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0144929X.2010.543702.