A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification

Gamification is the "use of game design elements in non-game contexts" (Deterding et al, 2011, p.1). A frequently used model for gamification is to equate an activity in the non-game context with points and have external rewards for reaching specified point thresholds. One significant problem with this model of gamification is that it can reduce the internal motivation that the user has for the activity, as it replaces internal motivation with external motivation. If, however, the game design elements can be made meaningful to the user through information, then internal motivation can be improved as there is less need to emphasize external rewards. This paper introduces the concept of meaningful gamification through a user-centered exploration of theories behind organismic integration theory, situational relevance, situated motivational affordance, universal design for learning, and player-generated content. A Brief Introduction to Gamification One definition of gamification is "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts" (Deterding et al, 2011, p.1). A common implementation of gamification is to take the scoring elements of video games, such as points, levels, and achievements, and apply them to a work or educational context. While the term is relatively new, the concept has been around for some time through loyalty systems like frequent flyer miles, green stamps, and library summer reading programs. These gamification programs can increase the use of a service and change behavior, as users work toward meeting these goals to reach external rewards (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011, p. 27). Gamification has met with significant criticism by those who study games. One problem is with the name. By putting the term "game" first, it implies that the entire activity will become an engaging experience, when, in reality, gamification typically uses only the least interesting part of a game the scoring system. The term "pointsification" has been suggested as a label for gamification systems that add nothing more than a scoring system to a non-game activity (Robertson, 2010). One definition of games is "a form of play with goals and structure" (Maroney, 2001); the points-based gamification focuses on the goals and leaves the play behind. Ian Bogost suggests the term be changed to "exploitationware," as that is a better description of what is really going on (2011). The underlying message of these criticisms of gamification is that there are more effective ways than a scoring system to engage users. Another concern is that organizations getting involved with gamification are not aware of the potential long-term negative impact of gamification. Underlying the concept of gamification is motivation. People can be driven to do something because of internal or external motivation. A meta-analysis by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan of 128 studies that examined motivation in educational settings found that almost all forms of rewards (except for non-controlling verbal rewards) reduced internal motivation (2001). The implication of this is that once gamification is used to provide external motivation, the user's internal motivation decreases. If the organization starts using gamification based upon external rewards and then decides to stop the rewards program, that organization will be worse off than when it started as users will be less likely to return to the behavior without the external reward (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001). In the book Gamification by Design, the authors claim that this belief in internal motivation over extrinsic rewards is unfounded, and gamification can be used for organizations to control the behavior of users by replacing those internal motivations with extrinsic rewards. They do admit, though, that "once you start giving someone a reward, you have to keep her in that reward loop forever" (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011, p. 27).  (2012, June). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification. Paper Presented at Games+Learning+Society 8.0, Madison, WI. Further exploration of the meta-analysis of motivational literature in education found that if the task was already uninteresting, reward systems did not reduce internal motivation, as there was little internal motivation to start with. The authors concluded that "the issue is how to facilitate people's understanding the importance of the activity to themselves and thus internalizing its regulation so they will be selfmotivated to perform it" (2001, p. 15). The goal of this paper is to explore theories useful in user-centered gamification that is meaningful to the user and therefore does not depend upon external rewards. Organismic Integration Theory Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) is a sub-theory of self-determination theory out of the field of Education created by Deci and Ryan (2004). Self-determination theory is focused on what drives an individual to make choices without external influence. OIT explores how different types of external motivations can be integrated with the underlying activity into someone’s own sense of self. Rather than state that motivations are either internalized or not, this theory presents a continuum based upon how much external control is integrated along with the desire to perform the activity. If there is heavy external control provided with a reward, then aspects of that external control will be internalized as well, while if there is less external control that goes along with the adaptation of an activity, then the activity will be more self-regulated. External rewards unrelated to the activity are the least likely to be integrated, as the perception is that someone else is controlling the individual’s behavior. Rewards based upon gaining or losing status that tap into the ego create an introjected regulation of behavior, and while this can be intrinsically accepted, the controlling aspect of these rewards causes the loss of internal motivation. Allowing users to selfidentify with goals or groups that are meaningful is much more likely to produce autonomous, internalized behaviors, as the user is able to connect these goals to other values he or she already holds. A user who has fully integrated the activity along with his or her personal goals and needs is more likely to see the activity as positive than if there is external control integrated with the activity (Deci & Ryan, 2004). OIT speaks to the importance of creating a gamification system that is meaningful to the user, assuming that the goal of the system is to create long-term systemic change where the users feel positive about engaging in the non-game activity. On the other side, if too many external controls are integrated with the activity, the user can have negative feelings about engaging in the activity. To avoid negative feelings, the game-based elements of the activity need to be meaningful and rewarding without the need for external rewards. In order for these activities to be meaningful to a specific user, however, they have to be relevant to that user. Situational Relevance and Situated Motivational Affordance One of the key research areas in Library and Information Science has been about the concept of relevance as related to information retrieval. A user has an information need, and a relevant document is one that resolves some of that information need. The concept of relevance is important in determining the effectiveness of search tools and algorithms. Many research projects that have compared search tools looked at the same query posed to different systems, and then used judges to determine what was a "relevant" response to that query. This approach has been heavily critiqued, as there are many variables that affect if a user finds something relevant at that moment in his or her searching process. Schamber reviewed decades of research to find generalizable criteria that could be used to determine what is truly relevant to a query and came to the conclusion that the only way to know if something is relevant is to ask the user (1994). Two users with the same search query will have different information backgrounds, so that a document that is relevant for one user may not be relevant to another user. This concept of "situational relevance" is important when thinking about gamification. When someone else creates goals for a user, it is akin to an external judge deciding what is relevant to a query. Without involving the user, there is no way to know what goals are relevant to a user's background, interest, or needs. In a points-based gamification system, the goal of scoring points is less likely to be relevant to a user if the activity that the points measure is not relevant to that user. For example, in a hybrid automobile, the gamification systems revolve around conservation and the point system can reflect how much energy is being saved. If the concept of saving energy is relevant to a user, then a point system  (2012, June). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification. Paper Presented at Games+Learning+Society 8.0, Madison, WI. based upon that concept will also be relevant to that user. If the user is not internally concerned with saving energy, then a gamification system based upon saving energy will not be relevant to that user. There may be other elements of the driving experience that are of interest to a user, so if each user can select what aspect of the driving experience is measured, more users will find the system to be relevant. By involving the user in the creation or customization of the gamification system, the user can select or create meaningful game elements and goals that fall in line with their own interests. A related theory out of Human-Computer Interaction that has been applied to gamification is “situated motivational affordance” (Deterding, 2011b). This model was designed to help gamification designers consider the context of each o