fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 23 November 2020
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581200
Edited by:
Monica Gomez-Suárez,
Autonomous University of Madrid,
Spain
Reviewed by:
Leonidas Hatzithomas,
University of Macedonia, Greece
Nuria Huete-Alcocer,
University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Spain
*Correspondence:
Zhong Chen
1151121693@qq.com
Michael Yao-Ping Peng
s91370001@mail2000.com.tw
Muhammad Khalid Anser
mkhalidrao@xauat.edu.cn
These authors have contributed
equally to this work and share first
authorship
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 08 July 2020
Accepted: 23 October 2020
Published: 23 November 2020
Citation:
Xu Y, Chen Z, Peng MY-P and
Anser MK (2020) Enhancing
Consumer Online Purchase Intention
Through Gamification in China:
Perspective of Cognitive Evaluation
Theory. Front. Psychol. 11:581200.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581200
Enhancing Consumer Online
Purchase Intention Through
Gamification in China: Perspective of
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Yan Xu
1
, Zhong Chen
2
*
, Michael Yao-Ping Peng
3
*
and Muhammad Khalid Anser
4
*
1
Business School, Yango University, Fuzhou, China,
2
School of Economics, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China,
3
School of Economics and Management, Foshan University, Foshan, China,
4
School of Public Administration, Xi’an
University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, China
The application of game elements of gamification in online shopping is attracting interest
from researchers and practitioners. However, it remains unclear how gamification affects
and improves consumer purchase intention on online shopping platforms, which still
leaves a gap in our knowledge. To narrow this theoretical gap, a theoretical model has
been built in this study. This model adopts cognitive evaluation theory to explain the
impact of gamification elements on consumer purchase intention. Data was collected
from 322 online shopping consumers who used a flash game to test their purchase
intention after playing games. The results show that game rewards, absorption and
autonomy of gamification positively enhance sense of enjoyment, and that it helps
people meet their psychological needs, which ultimately affects the online purchase
intention of consumers. This study is helpful in analyzing the factors involved in the
successful introduction of gamification on online shopping platforms in more detail.
Keywords: online shopping, gamification, cognitive evaluation theory, game dynamics, consumer enjoyment
INTRODUCTION
As mobile applications and social media have evolved, competition in the online shopping
market has grown fiercer, with many businesses working to affect consumer behavior (Wang
and Fesenmaier, 2003). An increasing number of businesses are competing for a share of
the market by attracting active consumers. As a relatively new paradigm for engaging people,
gamification is applied as a strategy to influence and motivate people to participate in education,
marketing, training, networking, and health-related activities (Bunchball, 2010). Gamification is the
implementation of dynamic components and elements of games (Zichermann and Linder, 2010;
Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020) that are not directly related to games (Bunchball, 2010) and appear
in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011). The term “gamification” was first used in 2002, but
it was not until 2010 that this concept of gamification became popular (Mitchell et al., 2020).
Introducing game mechanics into business is the science of enriching consumer interaction,
while games for commercial purposes are still under development (Zichermann and Cunningham,
2011). In this sense, it is urgent for platforms to learn how to introduce game mechanisms
into their business to provide their consumers with a rewarding, enjoyable, and fun experience.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 2
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
As an emerging way to attract consumers, gamification is being
used in marketing, school education and training, on the Internet,
and in related industries (Huang and Cappel, 2005; Silverman,
2011; Hordemann and Chao, 2012; Kankanhalli et al., 2012). In
this context, the design of game elements, such as inspiration,
competition mechanisms, and shock, is used to increase the value
of high enjoyment to attract consumers (Simões et al., 2013;
Seaborn and Fels, 2015; Müller-Stewens et al., 2017; Mullins and
Sabherwal, 2020).
Taking this context into account, gamification has been
clearly deemed as a means of driving consumer behavior.
Gamification is the utilization of game design elements in non-
game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2020). Since
2002, gamification (Hamari and Lehdonvirta, 2010; Deterding
et al., 2011) and persuasive technologies (Fogg, 2002) have
been harnessed for business purposes and to influence customer
behavior. The control of game elements in gamification may have
a positive impact on the experience of playing games and the
generation of customers intention (Poncin et al., 2017; Mitchell
et al., 2020; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020). For instance, Alibaba
has set up a game mechanism on its payment platform, on which
the quantity of trees planted depends on individual walks, so
as to fulfill its social responsibility and stimulate consumption
through the platform. On the other hand, as gamification is
heavily driven by information communication technologies, it is
natural to address interrelations between gamification and online
behavior of consumers (Huang et al., 2017). For example, JD.com,
a large online shopping platform in China, enables people to
gain points, known as beans, when they make purchases; these
beans can then be exchanged for other commodities or planted
on the game platform in order to obtain more beans and increase
consumer willingness on this platform.
Although there has been a lot of research on online consumer
behavior (Chen et al., 2015), there is a lack of research on
gamification from the perspective of consumer behavior (Sigala,
2015). In the context of fierce competition among online
shopping platforms, many such platforms not only face domestic
competitors, but also have to consolidate the barriers to entry of
foreign competitors (Xi and Hamari, 2020). Thus, the concept
of gamification is an important source of stimulation in the
marketing theory of consumer behavior decision (Tobon et al.,
2020; Xi and Hamari, 2020), and it provides specific directions
for researchers in the study of online marketing. Therefore, this
study aims to explore the effect of gamification on consumers
online purchase intention.
For this purpose, a theoretical model has been developed
to predict the impact of consumers enjoyment in the game
on their purchase intention by drawing on cognitive evaluation
theory (CET) (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b; Deci and Ryan, 2010;
Mitchell et al., 2020). According to CET, when people are
involved in certain activities, they have psychological needs
such as autonomy and absorption. When individuals feel that
their demands need to be met, they will trigger intrinsic
motivation and feel a greater sense of enjoyment, which, in
turn, will lead to more engagement in activities (Lee and Yang,
2011) and ultimately affect consumer behavior. Since the main
purpose of gamification is to develop willpower and high-quality
forms of motivation, CET helps us understand the changes in
consumer behavior in the context of gamification. Based on
CET, a model has been developed and tested in this study to
explore how game elements affect users psychological needs and
increase consumers’ sense of enjoyment, thereby influencing their
purchase intention.
According to the literature on meaning (Webster and Ahuja,
2006; Sen et al., 2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015), people derive
meaning when their activities are consistent with core aspects
of enjoyment. Autonomy, rewards, and absorption are important
factors for the success of gamification (Sigala, 2015; Mitchell et al.,
2020), as well as lying at the core of CET. According to the above
explanations, this study intends to propose relevant research
contributions on the basis of the following theoretical gaps: (1)
applying CET to explore the important role of gamification in
consumer online purchase intention; (2) focusing on verifying
characterized game elements of gamification, which is conducive
to filling the gap of variable measurement in the theoretical
literature on CET; (3) enriching applications of gamification for
business and academics, particularly those that add new features
and gameplay mechanics (Huotari and Hamari, 2017) to ensure
both customer enjoyment and the success of business objectives.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY
DEVELOPMENT
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Cognitive evaluation theory is a psychological theory that
aims to explain the effect of extrinsic results on intrinsic
motivation. CET proposes the concept of intrinsic incentive,
which is also known as intrinsic motivation.” The theory
suggests that people are more likely to participate in an activity
when they have intrinsic motivations such as an experience
of enjoyment (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000; Gottschalg and
Zollo, 2007; Beecham et al., 2008). Deci and Ryan (2000)
proposed three types of motivation: extrinsic regulation, intrinsic
regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Their study emphasized
that motivation needs to be intrinsic rather than extrinsic. The
central focus of Deci and Ryan’s research was on intrinsic
motivation and the antecedents that increase persistence. They
defined intrinsic motivation as performing an activity solely
for inherent satisfaction. This is a broader view that people
motivated intrinsically are more stimulated and perform better
than others (Cerasoli et al., 2014). Although researchers regard
intrinsic motivation as an inherent quality, the maintenance
and enhancement of this motivation depends on the social
and environmental conditions around the individual. Deci and
Ryan’s CET proposed that individuals significant psychological
needs are satisfied when the individuals perceive that they can
regulate their behaviors. Intrinsic motivation is supported by
social and environmental factors, such as events and conditions,
that enhance an individual’s sense of autonomy and competence,
whereas it is undermined by factors that diminish perceived
autonomy or competence (Deci and Ryan, 1980; Chae et al.,
2017). Withdrawing on theoretical foundation, this study adopts
CET to build conceptual framework of gamification and expands
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 3
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
upon how gamification elements are key determinants of
consumer enjoyment, intrinsically motivated purchase intention.
By extending such aspects of CET to this study, it is
possible to consider the behaviors of extrinsic regulation to be
motivated by external factors such as awards and competition,
and the behaviors of intrinsic regulation to be motivated
by internal factors such as absorption and autonomy. When
an individual realizes that the causation originates from the
behaviors mentioned above, intrinsic motivation appears. An
example of intrinsic motivation is enjoyment. When people are
dominated by intrinsic motivation, they will stick to a task
for longer and like it more (Deci, 1985). The contribution
of CET is that it proposes the factors that enable people to
generate intrinsic motivation, which are specifically autonomy
and competence. Autonomy means the willpower or willingness
to do a task; competence refers to the feeling of being
effective (Silverman, 2011; Santhanam et al., 2016; Huang et al.,
2017), such as getting rewards, being addicted to games, and
participating in competition.
Consumer Enjoyment
Consumer enjoyment is “a necessary response of humans to
activities with computers as intermediaries” (Laurel, 2013). When
consumers are attracted by a game, a sense of enjoyment will
be generated (Jacques, 1995). Intrinsic motivation of expected
enjoyment derives from the pleasure or inherent interest in doing
something (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Curiosity, fun, or enjoyment
can all be intrinsic motivations (Kim and Drumwright, 2016).
Based on CET, intrinsic motivation derives from ones preference
for an activity. People will gain inherent satisfaction from doing
it, intrinsic motivation reflects the desire to engage in a task for
its enjoyment (Tao and Yun, 2019). Enjoyment of an activity is
generally viewed as an important intrinsic motivation (Kim and
Drumwright, 2016; Hew et al., 2018). Consumer enjoyment is
important because it allows people to have a positive outlook on
human–computer interaction, thus increasing future motivation
for repeated interactions with games (Kim and Moon, 1998;
Webster and Ahuja, 2006). This, in turn, leads to the success of
a game (Hwang and Thorn, 1999).
Studies have shown that consumer enjoyment can develop
positive attitudes through certain activities, such as gaining
rewards, absorption in games, participation in competition, and
feeling self-control (Schaufeli et al., 2002). These subdimensions
represent the emotional, cognitive, and physical aspects of
consumer enjoyment (Chen et al., 2015). In this study, autonomy
is defined as the voluntary participation of a consumer in an
activity designed by gamification and the consumer’s continuous
efforts to gain rewards in the face of difficulties. Competition
comprises the senses of meaning, pride, and challenge, as well
as the inspiration and passion of consumers. Enjoyment refers
to the extent to which a consumer’s experience culminates
in pleasure and excitement triggered by the online gamified
environment. Some scholars hold that some psychological needs
should be satisfied if people want to keep their intrinsic
motivation (i.e., enjoyment) (Ryan et al., 2006). In other words,
when a person’s basic psychological needs of competence,
autonomy, and relevance are satisfied by an activity, greater
enjoyment will be gained.
In this case, enjoyment is the extent to which an individual
obtains a pleasant experience while playing games (Huotari and
Hamari, 2017). CET predicts that if people consider an activity
involving a certain form of technology to be enjoyable, the
intrinsic motivation will be increased and extrinsic behaviors
will ultimately be affected (O’Brien, 2010; Lee and Yang, 2011).
In the field of online shopping, enjoyment is considered to
be a motivational state that can influence the degree and
focus of consumption (Bunchball, 2010). Purchase intention is
defined as a spontaneous and powerful shopping tendency and
a shopping process that is dominated by consumers themselves
(Rook and Fisher, 1995). In a state of enjoyment, consumers
tend to feel environmental stimuli and arousal impulses (Wang
and Li, 2016). As the purpose of gamification is mainly to
make consumers activities more enjoyable (Bunchball, 2010),
enjoyment is a significant intrinsic motivation that determines
whether consumers participate in designed gamified shopping
environment and affects purchase intention. On this basis, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Consumer enjoyment has a positive impact on online
purchase intention.
Gamification
Gamification can collect user data for salespeople to observe user
preference (Nelson, 2005). If users develop a negative attitude
toward the instrumental trait of a certain game, they will not play
the game anymore, which hinders the development of a favorable
brand attitude and game skills (Kwak et al., 2012; Xi and Hamari,
2020). Some scholars have suggested conducting a survey on
specified gamification design elements, so as to improve the
design and obtain the benefits of gamification (Kim and Johnson,
2016; Mitchell et al., 2020; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020). Thus,
it is quite important to analyze the use of gamification business
applications to understand the impact of gamification and social
cognition on e-commerce success (Wakefield et al., 2011; Tobon
et al., 2020; Xi and Hamari, 2020). According to CET, increasing
all aspects of value can enhance more customers’ experience of
enjoyment and ultimately promote online consumer behavior.
Gamification can serve to enhance consumer enjoyment with
online shopping (Huotari and Hamari, 2017). The factors that
stimulate consumer online shopping are closely associated with
the motivation to participate in games and can be divided into
two categories: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.
Both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation play a significant role
in online shopping. However, according to CET, intrinsic
motivation represents enjoyment in an activity for its own sake
(Mekler et al., 2017). For example, people who shop online
because they enjoy looking over new things and expanding their
consumer knowledge are intrinsically motivated to be there.
However, some scholars agree that the intrinsic motivation factor
is more important than extrinsic motivation and has a greater
impact on consumer behavior (Reiss, 2004; Deterding et al., 2011;
Tobon et al., 2020).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 4
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
Moreover, merely adding gamification mechanics such as
challenge and fantasy in a smart interface is not enough to
significantly enhance the quality of the perceived experience
(Insley and Nunan, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2020). The purpose of
gamification is to increase consumer motivation and facilitate
consumers participation in gamification activities through
intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, and to provide a pleasant
experience (Von Ahn and Dabbish, 2008; Conaway and Garay,
2014; Xi and Hamari, 2020). Reward, competition, autonomy,
and absorption are the most common game dynamics in
the literature on gamification (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000;
Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al., 2007; Hordemann and
Chao, 2012; Kapp, 2012; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020), these
elements must be available in order for gamification to be
used (Conaway and Garay, 2014). As a result, consumers are
encouraged to further participate in the system (Gottschalg
and Zollo, 2007), which ultimately affects purchase intention.
Furthermore, a gamified campaign needs to be well executed in
order to achieve the intended goals (Lucassen and Jansen, 2014).
To represent components of gamification specifically, reward,
competition, autonomy, and absorption have been adopted as
measurement dimensions of gamification in this study (Agarwal
and Karahanna, 2000; Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al.,
2007; Hordemann and Chao, 2012; Kapp, 2012), and Table 1
summarizes the definitions of these dimensions.
Based on CET, researchers hold that consumer competence
is an important prerequisite for triggering enjoyment. When a
consumer feels that he/she is controlled or forced to do something
(e.g., participate in an unpleasant competitive relationship),
any external condition will reduce the intrinsic motivation and
lessen the experience of enjoyment (Antin and Churchill, 2011).
Players voluntary enjoyment is the key element of a game
(Huotari and Hamari, 2017).
Playing a game means the player is in an environment
where he/she has autonomy (Gagné and Deci, 2005), and people
participate in the game of their own free will. This is an exact
reflection of autonomy. Game activities, such as completing tasks,
defeating other players, and developing strategies to achieve goals
with other players, can help people meet their psychological
needs of autonomy, competence, and relevance (Deci and Ryan,
2000; Beecham et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2020), and improve
the inner experience of enjoyment. According to CET, people
have more fun when engaging in activities in which they are
interested or in activities that can reflect their personal value
(Ryan et al., 2006). When external conditions are able to meet
internal psychological needs, external factors can increase the
intrinsic motivation and enable people to experience enjoyment
(Antin and Churchill, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2020). In other
words, the greater the freedom perceived by consumers when
making orders on an online shopping platform, the greater the
efficiency in triggering the consumers intrinsic motivation to
engage in the consumption process and in further satisfying
their psychological needs (Rogers, 2017). From this logic, we can
infer that when gamification is applied in the context of online
shopping, enjoyment can be more easily triggered if the need for
autonomy is satisfied. Based on the above discussion, we have
developed the following hypothesis:
H2: Autonomy of gamification has a positive
impact on enjoyment.
In the design of gamification, rewards are what the user
receives as a return for completing pre-assigned tasks. Rewards
and challenges have been identified as the two mechanisms
that are most commonly used for gamification (Tobon et al.,
2020). Rewards can motivate consumers to make every effort
to improve their level and get more points or loots (Deterding
et al., 2011). CET confirms the importance of rewards. Players
can earn points, rise to a higher level, or get badges or discounts
as rewards (Hofacker et al., 2016). People are motivated to gain
more rewards. For example, the ranking place on the leaderboard
can stimulate a player’s desire to compete with others for better
scores (Hordemann and Chao, 2012). These reward mechanisms
are helpful in intensifying the intrinsic motivation to get a
TABLE 1 | Definitions of variables in gamification.
Game dynamics Game elements Description
Rewards Points, levels,
virtual gifts
Consumers earn points as a reward by completing pre-assigned tasks. Points are a game element
of gamification, which induces consumers to strive for more rewards. Levels create a dynamic that
encourages consumers to make efforts to improve their status through achieving predefined goals
or reaching milestones of gamification. Emblems or loots indicate the valuable activities of a person,
thus motivating players to obtain tangible rewards and then show their achievements (Reiss, 2004;
Gagné and Deci, 2005; Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Hordemann and Chao, 2012).
Competition Points, levels,
leaderboard
Leaderboard offers consumers the opportunity to compare and compete with others. Consumers
attempt to get more points in an activity, reach a higher level, and earn more emblems and loots
(Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al., 2007).
Autonomy Decision, judgment,
sharing behavior
Autonomy defines the extent to which an individual can control and determine the consequences of
his/her behaviors. In general, human beings fight for as much autonomy as possible. Competence
refers to having goals and relevant skills to achieve them (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci,
2000a; Kapp, 2012). Autonomy can be realized by allowing users to choose their own tools and to
self-assign tasks (Beecham et al., 2008; Schell, 2019). Consumers’ perceived autonomy is evoked
by the participation in gamification.
Absorption Spending time,
control
Consumers indulge in the process of gamification and even forget themselves. A typical example is
the consumer’s emotion towards a game when he/she is deeply involved in the game (Agarwal and
Karahanna, 2000).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 5
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
better experience of enjoyment (Przybylski et al., 2010). Thus,
by helping people to meet their psychological needs, rewards can
stimulate peoples intrinsic motivation to get a better experience
of enjoyment from specific activities.
According to CET, obtaining real returns through
gamification can enhance the consumer experience and
help consumers achieve higher satisfaction (Deci and Ryan,
2000). Moreover, some scholars believe that rewards can bring
a higher level of enjoyment (Johnson et al., 2018). Through the
continuous accumulation of points, consumers have confidence
in their own capability, which can then improve their sense of
enjoyment (Francisco-Aparicio et al., 2013). Consumers can also
exchange points earned from rewards with virtual discounts or
products according to their own needs. For example, consumers
are rewarded for reaching higher levels, which gives them a sense
of achievement and allows them to feel self-worth. Hence, the
more rewards consumers gain through gamification, the more
they consider themselves valuable (Przybylski et al., 2010) and
the easier it is to generate enjoyment. Thus, we propose our third
hypothesis:
H3: Rewards of gamification have a positive impact on the
generation of enjoyment.
Absorption in gamification has a strong influence on
individual behavior change (Silic and Lowry, 2020). According to
CET, people can count on intrinsic motivation to generate stable
actions when they are immersed in their own world (Rook and
Fisher, 1995). For consumers using gamification, absorption is a
state of enjoyment. Under this state, players can be absorbed in
these games. This can be seen as a process of high enjoyment.
Gamification allows players to immerse themselves in a virtual
world, helping them escape from some of the problems in the real
world. Some players may be absorbed in a game, enjoy mental
relaxation, and feel that time passes faster than usual. Some
scholars call this state a “flow state, under which people may
only be aware of activities they participate in, or of the specific
environment they are in Mauri et al. (2011). Some scholars
believe that games can improve and regulate emotions, and that
participants experience higher absorption after completing game
tasks, thus generating more positive emotions (Yang et al., 2020)
and stimulating more powerful motivations (Silic and Lowry,
2020). Therefore, consumers absorption in a game may have a
positive influence on their enjoyment. Players who are obsessed
with a game may have more enjoyment intentions. Therefore, we
have developed our fourth hypothesis as follows:
H4: Absorption of gamification has a positive impact on
the generation of enjoyment.
Gamification by nature thrives in the context of competition
to win (Morschheuser et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2020). People
challenge each other to achieve the best results. Leaderboards can
show game results and celebrate the winners. The basic property
of games, no matter whether they are multi-player games, single-
player games, or other single-user experiences, is to compete for
a specific goal. When participants need to present themselves
as active solutions on a competitive platform, they will actively
pay more attention to participating in the gamified environment
(Deng et al., 2016). Consumers immerse themselves in games
through the competitive environment designed by gamification.
The satisfaction arising from competition with others is able
to enhance the consumer’s intrinsic motivation and enjoyment
of online shopping. This is because people get satisfaction
from comparing themselves with others. The literature on CET
indicates that individuals are motivated to achieve better results
in competition (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b) and to obtain a better
experience of enjoyment. Therefore, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H5: Competition of gamification has a positive impact on
the generation of enjoyment.
This study extends CET by identifying the antecedents of need
satisfaction, and it develops a research model to explain consumer
enjoyment with gamification, as shown in Figure 1.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling
Taobao, Chinas largest online shopping website, has 576 million
users. In November 2019, Taobao launched a game called
“Stackopolis.” In this game, consumers can get rewards or
discounts, and a large number of consumers have played
the game. We adopted a questionnaire survey to test our
hypotheses. Given that our model covers different constructs,
such as consumer absorption in games and self-control, we
used a structural equation model to discover through path
analysis whether the relationship between these variables is
statistically significant (Deci, 1985). The method used to develop
measurement items and collect data is discussed in more detail
in this section.
The data was collected from Chinese consumers who shopped
on Taobao in November 2019. We conducted a survey using
purposive sampling. Taobao was selected as the subject of the
case study because as an online shopping website it is second
only to Amazon in the world, which means that it allows
for sufficiently representative sampling required to discuss the
FIGURE 1 | Research model.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 6
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
impact of gamification on consumer purchase intention. To
improve the response rate, we offered each participant RMB
20 once they had completed the questionnaire. A total of 350
questionnaires were collected. After the questionnaires were
checked, 28 questionnaires were omitted as invalid. The number
of valid questionnaires was 322. The main targets for data
collection were consumers between the ages of 20 and 40, as they
are the biggest consumer groups in the online shopping market.
The information about the sample profile is shown in Table 2.
When self-report questionnaires are used to collect data at the
same time from the same participants, common method variance
(CMV) may be a concern. A post hoc Harman one-factor analysis
was used to test for common method variance (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986). The explained variance in one factor is 38.54%,
which is smaller than the recommended threshold of 50%.
Therefore, CMB is not problematic in this study (Harman, 1976).
Procedure
This is a cross-sectional study whose research framework and
survey instrument have been approved by the Institutional
Review Board of National Kaohsiung University of Science and
Technology. The researchers contacted the consumers who were
willing to receive the questionnaire by email first. Each survey
package contained a covering letter explaining the purpose of
the survey and the survey instrument. Before filling out the
questionnaires, consumers were asked to understand the right of
attending survey to ensure research ethical aspects.
Instrument
A questionnaire survey was used to collect data and develop
measurement items using a five-point Likert-type scale, in which
“1” means “strongly disagree and “5” means “strongly agree.”
The English questionnaire was translated into Chinese by a
researcher whose first language is Chinese, and the Chinese
questionnaire was translated into English by another researcher
TABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics.
Characteristic Scale (%)
Gender Male 146 (45.3%)
Female 176 (54.7%)
Age 20-29 113 (35%)
30-39 78 (24.2%)
40-49 71 (22.1%)
50 60 (18.7%)
Education level
(completed)
High school or below 59 (18.2%)
College 171 (53.2%)
Graduate school or above 92 (28.6%)
Occupation Public servant 31 (9.6%)
Manufacturing 20 (6.2%)
Business 93 (28.9)
Professional 19 (5.9%)
Unemployed (e.g., student, retired,
housewife)
159 (49.4%)
Total 322
to ensure that the meaning of items did not change because
of translation. Afterward, the questionnaire was sent to six
consumers who had experience in bilingual online shopping to
further check the accuracy of the translation and the clarity of the
questionnaire, and then some expressions were adjusted on the
basis of their feedback.
Items of enjoyment were adopted from Sykes et al. (2009)
to Kim et al. (2013), and we adopted items for autonomy from
Sheldon et al. (2001) to Jang et al. (2009). Items for rewards
were adopted from Kankanhalli et al. (2005); Sen et al. (2008),
O’Brien (2010); Wakefield et al. (2011). Items for competition
were adopted from Chen et al. (1998); Ma and Agarwal (2007),
Lee and Yang (2011), and items for absorption from Schaufeli
et al. (2002). Finally, we adopted items for online purchase
intention from Huang et al. (2017). In the scale of purchase
intention, VIP service can be referred as offering consumers a
very individual form of online shopping. We collected the data
by means of a questionnaire (see Table A1).
Data Analysis Strategy
The hypotheses of research framework have been tested and paths
have been included via structural equation modeling in this study.
Measurement model was performed using IBM-SPSS 25 and
SmartPLS 3.0 statistical program; Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was adopted to construct the
structural model, specifically, verification of the structural model
was performed using SmartPLS 3.0 (path analysis).
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Measurement Model
A two-stage analytical procedure was used for the data analysis
(Deterding et al., 2011). The measurement model for reliability
and validity was assessed in the first stage, and the structural
model was examined in the second stage to test the hypotheses
(Hair et al., 1998).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for latent variables of
Smart-PLS 3.0 and SPSS 25 were used as the analytical tools for
this study. All factors have strong significance, so the intrinsic
consistency and convergent validity of each scale are supported,
indicating that the structure is sufficiently reliable (Hair et al.,
1998; Table 3).
We have examined the average variance extracted (AVE) in
order to assess discriminant validity. If the AVE from a construct
is greater than the variance shared between the construct and
the other constructs in the model, a satisfactory discriminant
validity is obtained (Chin, 1998). The square root of the AVE
of each construct should exceed its correlation with all the
other constructs. It can be seen from Table 3 that the AVE for
each construct is larger than its correlation with all the other
constructs in the model, which ensures the discriminant validity
of the constructs.
Henseler et al. (2015) proposed the heterotrait–monotrait
(HTMT) ratio of the correlations. Henseler et al. (2015) suggested
0.90 as a threshold value for structural models with dimensions.
In this study, the values ranged from 0.100 to 0.746, which
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 7
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
TABLE 3 | Validity and correlation of constructs.
α CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
(1) Absorption 0.906 0.934 0.779 0.883
(2) Autonomy 0.839 0.902 0.754 0.008** 0.868
(3) Competition 0.875 0.907 0.709 0.487** 0.095** 0.842
(4) Enjoyment 0.849 0.909 0.770 0.522** 0.267** 0.476** 0.878
(5) Purchase intention 0.836 0.886 0.663 0.413** 0.298** 0.498** 0.455** 0.814
(6) Rewards 0.928 0.949 0.822 0.351** 0.167** 0.678** 0.416** 0.529** 0.907
α = Cronbach’s alpha; (1) Square root of AVE for each latent construct is given in diagonals. (2) AVE, Average variance extracted; CR, Composite reliability. **if p < 0.01.
Bold value represent square root of AVE for each latent construct is given in diagonals.
TABLE 4 | Discriminant validity: Heterotrsait–monotrait (HTMT).
1 2 3 4 5 6
(1) Online Purchase Intention
(2) Enjoyment 0.493
(3) Autonomy 0.360 0.306
(4) Rewards 0.610 0.461 0.178
(5) Absorption 0.452 0.584 0.059 0.373
(6) Competition 0.528 0.485 0.100 0.746 0.528
indicated that discriminate validity was established for all
dimensions of the model, as shown in Table 4.
Testing Structural Model Fit
Before proceeding to test the model, we first tested model fit
by using three model fitting parameters: the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR), the normed fit index (NFI) and the
exact model fit (bootstrap-based statistical inference). Henseler
et al. (2015) introduced the SRMR as a goodness-of-fit measure
for PLS-SEM that can be used to avoid model misspecification.
NFI values above 0.9 usually represent acceptable fit. The third
fit value is exact model fit, which tests the statistical (bootstrap-
based) inference of the discrepancy between the empirical
covariance matrix and the covariance matrix implied by the
composite factor model. Dijkstra and Henseler et al. (2015)
suggested the d_LS (i.e., the squared Euclidean distance) and
the d_G (i.e., the geodesic distance) as two different ways to
compute this discrepancy. A model fits well if the difference
between the correlation matrix implied by the model being tested
and the empirical correlation matrix is so small that it can be
purely attributed to sampling error, thus the difference between
the correlation matrix implied by your model and the empirical
correlation matrix should be non-significant (p > 0.05). Henseler
et al. (2015) considered that d
ULS
and d
G
are smaller than the 95%
bootstrapped quantile (HI 95% of d
ULS
and HI 95% of d
G
).
In this study, the SRMR value is 0.055 (<0.08) and the
NFI is 0.912 (>0.90) and the d
ULS
< bootstrapped HI 95% of
d
ULS
and d
G
< bootstrapped HI 95% of d
G
, indicating the data
fits the model well.
Inner Model Analysis
To assess the structural model, Hair et al. (2017) suggested
looking at the R
2
, beta (β) and the corresponding t-values via
a bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 5,000. They also
suggested that in addition to these basic measures, researchers
should also report the predictive relevance (Q
2
), as well as the
effect sizes (f
2
). As asserted by Sullivan and Feinn (2012), while a
p-Value can inform the reader whether an effect exists, it will not
reveal the size of the effect. In reporting and interpreting studies,
both the substantive significance (effect size) and statistical
significance (p-Value) are essential results to be reported (p. 279).
Hahn and Ang (2017) summarized some of the recommended
rigor in reporting results in quantitative studies, which includes
the use of replication studies, the use of effect size estimates and
confidence intervals, the use of Bayesian methods, Bayes factors
or likelihood ratios, and decision-theoretic modeling. Prior to
hypotheses testing, the values of the variance inflation factor
(VIF) have been determined. The VIF values are less than 5,
ranging from 1.000 to 2.132. Thus, there have been no collinearity
issues among the predictor latent variables (Hair et al., 2017).
FIGURE 2 | The results of PLS-SEM (*** if p < 0.001).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 8
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
TABLE 5 | Results of the paths.
Hypotheses Std. β t-value Significance CI (2.50%-97.5%) VIF f
2
H1: Enjoyment Online Purchase Intention 0.870*** 8.349 (0.6340.934) 1.000 0.261
H2: Autonomy Enjoyment 0.240*** 5.742 (0.1490.309) 1.032 0.084
H3: Rewards Enjoyment 0.270*** 4.376 (0.1140.378) 1.892 0.012
H4: Absorption Enjoyment 0.350*** 6.789 (0.2730.508) 1.316 0.191
H5: Competition Enjoyment 0.070*** 1.166 (0.0680.309) 2.132 0.027
***If p < 0.001.
Figure 2 shows the test results of the structural model. The
results in Table 5 show that reward has a positive impact on
enjoyment (β = 0.27, p < 0.001); autonomy has a positive
influence on enjoyment (β = 0.24, p < 0.001); absorption is
positively correlated with enjoyment (β = 0.35, p < 0.001); and
enjoyment has a positive correlation with purchase intention
(β = 0.87, p < 0.001). Therefore, all hypotheses except for H5
have been supported. The Stone-Geisser Q
2
values obtained
through the blindfolding procedures for enjoyment (Q
2
= 0.342)
and online purchase intention (Q
2
= 0.423) are larger than
zero, confirming that the model has predictive relevance
(Hair et al., 2017).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Discussion
This study aims to explore how gamification affects consumer
purchase intention. All the hypotheses except for H5 are
supported, which provides powerful evidence for the model’s
validity. This study shows that gamification can enhance
consumer online purchase intention when game dynamics
meets the psychological needs of consumers (Mullins
and Sabherwal, 2020). It is worth noting that different
game dynamics increase consumer satisfaction in different
ways. Based on the results, this study proposes several
specific contributions.
First, it is found that rewards, autonomy, and absorption
of gamification elements enhance consumer enjoyment, and
such consumer enjoyment promotes online purchase intention.
This result is consistent with the importance of intrinsic
motivation in the CET model as emphasized by other scholars
(Deci and Ryan, 1980; Chae et al., 2017; Huotari and
Hamari, 2017), according to which positive motivation and
attitude of consumers can be produced via intrinsic motivation
generated by gamification elements that enhance consumer
enjoyment. The results also show that combining the above
gamification factors satisfies the basic psychological needs of
individuals, which is the key to enhancing the enjoyment
in games, while the degree of enjoyment in games is the
main determinant of consumer online purchase intention
(Xi and Hamari, 2020). This also implies that the intrinsic
motivation in CET is to be generated when peoples psychological
needs are satisfied.
Moreover, the study results show that the enjoyment
value in developing gamification within the online shopping
market will promote consumer behavior. In prior marketing
literature, some studies have employed CET to discuss consumer
motivation and behavior (Webster and Ahuja, 2006; Sen et al.,
2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015); however, few studies have
taken enjoyment as the important core intrinsic motivation,
from the perspective of online marketing (Xi and Hamari,
2020), to induce consumers to have a specific consumer
behavior, especially in relation to the gamification of online
platform consumption. Although enjoyment value can enhance
consumers online purchase intention, it also relies on important
gamified antecedents, which is the element of game designing
(Xi and Hamari, 2020). Games are generated when a group
of different game elements are invoked by users in different
environments. On this basis, we maintain that satisfaction
of the basic psychological needs of consumers in the online
shopping market is the key to the successful application of
gamification. We also speculate that if any one of these
psychological needs is ignored, the consumer enjoyment may be
significantly reduced, and thus the consumer behavior may be
adversely affected.
Finally, our study has found that competition has no
positive effect on enjoyment. The competitive elements of
a game may distract users and even lower their enjoyment
(Lee and Yang, 2011). This result is similar to the argument
that despite gamification comprising many game elements, not
all these elements can successfully attract users (Hair et al.,
1998; Huotari and Hamari, 2017). It would be impossible
to attract consumers only by adding the enjoyment value
through game elements without also considering how to meet
the basic psychological needs of consumers. Previous studies
have also held different views on the impact of competition,
with some scholars suggesting that competition produces more
driving force (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b; Insley and Nunan,
2014; Mitchell et al., 2020). Other scholars have suggested
that competition might have a negative effect on users
psychological states when the competition is excessive or poorly
designed such that it does not consider users characteristics
(Qiu and Benbasat, 2010). The present study verifies that
competition does not have a positive impact on consumer
enjoyment in the online marketing context; however, our analysis
also reveals a positive correlation between competition and
consumer enjoyment, implying that well-designed competition
in gamification motivates consumers in experiencing enjoyment
(Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020).
In other words, the impact of each design element of
gamification and the assessment of their impact on enjoyment are
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 9
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
very important, and unreasonable design of competitive elements
can reduce the degree of enjoyment.
Implications for Research
This study makes important academic contributions. First, it
extends CET by determining which antecedents among rewards,
autonomy, and absorption can satisfy the need for enjoyment
(Silverman, 2011; Santhanam et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2017).
Researchers have found that CET can explain why people keep
playing games (Deterding et al., 2011), but few studies have
examined the impact of game-related factors on consumer online
purchase intention (King et al., 2010). Our theoretical extensions
help researchers develop their theories (Webster and Ahuja,
2006; Sen et al., 2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015) and explain that
some gamification elements are able to attract consumers and
thus influence consumer behavior when peoples psychological
needs are satisfied.
Secondly, this study explains four game elements that promote
enjoyment and purchase intention. Our work shows that the
design of gamification should be such that consumers satisfy
their extrinsic and intrinsic regulation (autonomy, reward, and
absorption) (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b) and participate in the next
action with the support of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1985).
Thirdly, our conceptualization of structure and its
measurement is beneficial for researchers as it enables
them to more accurately monitor consumer behavior and
analyze potential problems (Chen et al., 2015). In order
to understand the impact of gamification on consumer
purchase intention, researchers need to control and measure
variables (Lee and Yang, 2011). To this end, and to make it
more elaborate, the current work is conducive to the design
of gamification.
Implications for Practice
This study contributes to the extant literature on practice
in the following ways. First, it can enlighten system
designers and administrators who are trying to influence
consumer behavior through gamification. Secondly, through
this kind of research, practitioners or designers who are
trying to improve the consumer experience can provide
consumers with a higher level of enjoyment, thereby
establishing a closer relation with consumers. Finally, as
Kotler (1973) argued, a well-designed sales environment
may have an emotional impact on consumers and increase
the possibility of purchasing. Therefore, companies should
create an environment that has a positive emotional
impact on consumers.
The results of this study show that competition has no
positive effect on enjoyment. Thus, the competitive dynamics
that frequently occur in gamification design do not necessarily
have a positive impact on motivating consumers. The competitive
mechanism does not necessarily motivate consumers to enjoy the
website more and increase their purchase intention. The model
also contributes to the commercial application of gamification
and provides relevant guidance for online shopping platforms
in developing game designs and social cues; in addition, it
contributes to future research in this new field.
This study also has a social significance. Many social media
apps use reward and competition strategies that are common
in games to make the utilization of apps more enjoyable
for consumers (Silverman, 2011). Nevertheless, there is still
a lack of prescriptive guidelines and design principles for
successful application of gamification. The framework of this
study has systematically explained how to help consumers
enjoy themselves and make their online shopping more
enjoyable. This, in turn, will pave the way for better gamified
applications, and it will promote beneficial behaviors in
the online society.
Limitations and Further Research
Directions
Although this study enables a better understanding of the impact
of gamification on consumer online purchase intention, the
impact of gamification on consumer enjoyment may change with
variations in the design purposes of gamification systems. We
appeal to researchers to study our model outside the field of
the online shopping market, as there will be more developments
and discoveries in research on gamification and consumer online
purchase intention. For example, although we have found that
competition has no positive effect on enjoyment, current studies
have suggested that the impact of competition might vary
according to skill levels and competitive structures (Liu et al.,
2007). Therefore, in the future context of the development of
gamification, further investigations are also required to be certain
how different competitive structures affect enjoyment and online
purchase intention.
The second limitation of this study is that our data
may contain bias in its market selection. Because the object
of this study is consumers participating in gamification on
Taobao.com, such consumers may be more positive than those
who are not attracted by gamification. Subsequent research could
expand the research objects to people who are not sensitive
to gamification.
We believe that our conceptualization of gamification and
our empirical tests for consumer online purchase intention will
lead to scholars paying more attention to gamification. We also
emphasize that relevant theories need to be referred to as a basis
before formulating effective gamification design strategies.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
and approved by Institutional Review Board of National
Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology. The
patients/participants provided their written informed consent to
participate in this study.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 10
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
YX, ZC, and MP contributed to the ideas of educational
research, collection of data, and empirical analysis. MP,
ZC, MW, YP, and YX contributed to the data analysis,
design of research methods, and tables. MP, MA, and YX
participated in developing a research design, writing, and
interpreting the analysis. All authors contributed to the
literature review and conclusion, article, and approved the
submitted version.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., and Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24, 665–
694. doi: 10.2307/3250951
Antin, J., and Churchill, E. F. (2011). “Badges in social media: a social
psychological perspective, in Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Gamification
Workshop, (Vancouver, BC).
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., and Sharp, H. (2008). Motivation
in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Inform. Softw. Technol.
50, 860–878. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.09.004
Bunchball, I. (2010). Gamification 101: an introduction to the use of
game dynamics to influence behavior. White Paper. Available online at:
http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf
(accessed June 10, 2013).
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation
and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis.
Psychol. Bull. 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661
Chae, S., Choi, T. Y., and Hur, D. (2017). Buyer power and supplier relationship
commitment: a cognitive evaluation theory perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag.
53, 39–60. doi: 10.1111/jscm.12138
Chen, X.-P., Hui, C., and Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational
citizenship behavior in turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key
hypotheses. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:922. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.922
Chen, Y., Yan, X., and Fan, W. (2015). Examining the effects of decomposed
perceived risk on consumer online shopping behavior: a field study in China.
Eng. Econ. 26, 315–326.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336.
Conaway, R., and Garay, M. C. (2014). Gamification and service marketing.
SpringerPlus 3:653.
Deci, E. L. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: when mind mediates
behavior. J. Mind Behav. 1, 33–43.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi:
10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). “Intrinsic motivation, in The corsini
Encyclopedia of Psychology, eds I. B. Weiner and W. E. Craighead (Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons).
Deng, X., Joshi, K. D., and Galliers, R. D. (2016). The duality of empowerment and
marginalization in microtask crowdsourcing: giving voice to the less powerful
through value sensitive design. Mis Q. 40, 279–302. doi: 10.25300/misq/2016/
40.2.01
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011). “From game
design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification, in Proceedings of the
15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media
environments, (New York, NJ).
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What
We Think and Do. Ubiquity, 2002 (December), 2. Burlington, MA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Francisco-Aparicio, A., Gutiérrez-Vela, F. L., Isla-Montes, J. L., and
Sanchez, J. L. G. (2013). “Gamification: analysis and application, in
New trends in interaction, virtual reality and modeling, eds V. M. R.
Penichet, A. Peñalver, and J. A. Gallud (New York, NY: Springer),
113–126.
Gagné, M., and Deci, E. L. (2005). Selfdetermination theory and work motivation.
J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
Gottschalg, O., and Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive
advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 418–437. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.2435
1356
Hahn, E. D., and Ang, S. H. (2017). From the editors: new directions in the
reporting of statistical results in the journal of world business. J. World Bus.
52, 125–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2016.12.003
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., and Chong, A. Y. L. (2017).
An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems
research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 117, 442–458.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis, Vol. 5. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Hamari, J., and Lehdonvirta, V. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game
mechanics create demand for virtual goods. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 5,
14–29.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
press.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hew, J., Leong, L., Tan, G. W., Lee, V., and Ooi, K. (2018). Mobile social tourism
shopping: a dual-stage analysis of a multi-mediation model. Tour. Manage. 66,
121–139. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.005
Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., and Donaldson, J.
(2016). Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. J. Interact. Market.
34, 25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001
Hordemann, G., and Chao, J. (2012). Design and implementation challenges to
an interactive social media based learning environment. Interdiscip. J. Inform.
Knowl. Manage. 7, 92–94.
Huang, T., Bao, Z., and Li, Y. (2017). Why do players purchase in mobile social
network games? An examination of customer engagement and of uses and
gratifications theory. Program 51, 259–277. doi: 10.1108/prog-12-2016-0078
Huang, Z., and Cappel, J. J. (2005). Assessment of a web-based learning game in an
information systems course. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 45, 42–49.
Huotari, K., and Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: anchoring
gamification in the service marketing literature. Electron. Mark. 27, 21–31.
doi: 10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
Hwang, M. I., and Thorn, R. G. (1999). The effect of user engagement on system
success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Inform. Manage. 35,
229–236. doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00092-5
Insley, V., and Nunan, D. (2014). Gamification and the online retail experience. Int.
J. Retail Distribution Manage. 42, 340–351. doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-01-2013-0030
Jacques, R. (1995). Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Can. J. Educ.
Commun. 24, 49–59.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., and Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination
theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences
of collectivistically oriented Korean students? J. Educ. Psychol. 101:644. doi:
10.1037/a0014241
Johnson, D., Klarkowski, M., Vella, K., Phillips, C., McEwan, M., and Watling,
C. N. (2018). Greater rewards in videogames lead to more presence, enjoyment
and effort. Comput. Human Behav. 87, 66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.
05.025
Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., and Kim, S. H. (2012). “Gamification: a
new paradigm for online user engagement, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2012, (Orlando, FL).
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., and Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge
to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 29,
113–143. doi: 10.2307/25148670
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco:
Wiley.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 11
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
Kim, A. J., and Johnson, K. K. (2016). Power of consumers using social media:
examining the influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook.
Comput. Human Behav. 58, 98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.047
Kim, E., and Drumwright, M. (2016). Engaging consumers and building
relationships in social media: how social relatedness influences intrinsic vs.
extrinsic consumer motivation. Comput. Human Behav. 63, 970–979. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.025
Kim, H., Suh, K.-S., and Lee, U.-K. (2013). Effects of collaborative online shopping
on shopping experience through social and relational perspectives. Inform.
Manage. 50, 169–180. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.02.003
Kim, J., and Moon, J. Y. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in
customer interfaces—trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces.
Interact. Comput. 10, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/s0953-5438(97)00037-4
King, D., Delfabbro, P., and Griffiths, M. (2010). The role of structural
characteristics in problem video game playing: a review. Cyberpsychol. J.
Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 4:6.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. J. Retailing 49, 48–64.
Kwak, D. H., McDaniel, S., and Kim, K. T. (2012). Revisiting the satisfaction-loyalty
relationship in the sport video gaming context: the mediating role of consumer
expertise. J. Sport Manage. 26, 81–91. doi: 10.1123/jsm.26.1.81
Laurel, B. (2013). Computers as Theatre. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lee, C.-L., and Yang, H.-J. (2011). Organization structure, competition and
performance measurement systems and their joint effects on performance.
Manage. Account. Res. 22, 84–104. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2010.10.003
Liu, D., Geng, X., and Whinston, A. B. (2007). Optimal design of consumer
contests. J. Mark. 71, 140–155. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.71.4.140
Lucassen, G., and Jansen, S. (2014). Gamification in consumer marketing-future or
fallacy? Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 148, 194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.
034
Ma, M., and Agarwal, R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: information
technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online
communities. Inform. Syst. Res. 18, 42–67. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0113
Mauri, M., Cipresso, P., Balgera, A., Villamira, M., and Riva, G. (2011). Why
is Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological measures describe a core flow
state while using Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 723–731. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2010.0377
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., and Opwis, K. (2017). Towards
understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic
motivation and performance. Comput. Human Behav. 71, 525–534. doi: 10.
1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., and Jin, H. S. (2020). Gamification and the impact of
extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: making work fun? J. Bus. Res. 106,
323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.022
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., and Koivisto, J. (2016). “Gamification in
crowdsourcing: a review, in Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), (Koloa, HI).
Müller-Stewens, J., Schlager, T., Häubl, G., and Herrmann, A. (2017). Gamified
information presentation and consumer adoption of product innovations.
J. Mark. 81, 8–24. doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0396
Mullins, J. K., and Sabherwal, R. (2020). Gamification: a cognitive-emotional view.
J. Bus. Res. 106, 304–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.023
Nelson, M. R. (2005). “Exploring consumer response to “Advergaming”, in Online
consumer psychology: Understanding and influencing consumer behavior in the
virtual world, eds C. P. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit, and R. Yalch (Abingdon-on-
Thames: Taylor & Francis Group), 156–182.
O’Brien, H. L. (2010). The influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on
user engagement: the case of online shopping experiences. Interact. Comput.
22, 344–352. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.001
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12, 531–544. doi: 10.1177/
014920638601200408
Poncin, I., Garnier, M., Mimoun, M. S. B., and Leclercq, T. (2017). Smart
technologies and shopping experience: are gamification interfaces effective?
The case of the Smartstore. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 320–331. doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.025
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of
video game engagement. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14, 154–166. doi: 10.1037/a0019440
Qiu, L., and Benbasat, I. (2010). A study of demographic embodiments of product
recommendation agents in electronic commerce. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud.
68, 669–688. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.005
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic
desires. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 179–193. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.179
Rogers, R. (2017). The motivational pull of video game feedback, rules, and social
interaction: another self-determination theory approach. Comput. Human
Behav. 73, 446–450. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.048
Rook, D. W., and Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying
behavior. J. Consum. Res. 22, 305–313. doi: 10.1086/209452
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic
definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi: 10.
1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55:68.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., and Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of
video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot. 30, 344–360.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., and Shen, W.-C. M. (2016). Research Note—Gamification
of technology-mediated training: not all competitions are the same. Inform.
Syst. Res. 27, 453–465. doi: 10.1287/isre.2016.0630
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A. B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study.
J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003
Schell, J. (2019). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Seaborn, K., and Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int.
J. Human-Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
Sen, R., Subramaniam, C., and Nelson, M. L. (2008). Determinants of the choice
of open source software license. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 25, 207–240. doi:
10.2753/mis0742-1222250306
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., and Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
80:325. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
Sigala, M. (2015). The application and impact of gamification funware on trip
planning and experiences: the case of TripAdvisor’s funware. Electron. Mark.
25, 189–209. doi: 10.1007/s12525-014-0179-1
Silic, M., and Lowry, P. B. (2020). Using design-science based gamification to
improve organizational security training and compliance. J. Manage. Inform.
Syst. 37, 129–161. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2019.1705512
Silverman, R. E. (2011). Latest game theory: mixing work and play.
Wall Street J. Available online at: http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204294504576615371783795248.html
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., and Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework
for a K-6 learning platform. Comput. Human Behav. 29, 345–353. doi: 10.1016/
j.chb.2012.06.007
Sullivan, G. M., and Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not
enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 4, 279–282.
Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., and Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer
support: a social network perspective to understand employees system use. MIS
Q 33, 371–393. doi: 10.2307/20650296
Tao, L., and Yun, C. (2019). Will virtual reality be a double-edged sword? Exploring
the moderation effects of the expected enjoyment of a destination on travel
intention. J. Destination Mark. Manage 12, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.
02.003
Tobon, S., Ruiz-Alba, J. L., and García-Madariaga, J. (2020). Gamification and
online consumer decisions: is the game over? Decis. Support Syst. 128:113167.
doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2019.113167
Von Ahn, L., and Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Commun.
ACM 51, 58–67.
Wakefield, R. L., Wakefield, K. L., Baker, J., and Wang, L. C. (2011). How website
socialness leads to website use. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 20, 118–132. doi: 10.1057/
ejis.2010.47
Wang, X., and Li, Y. (2016). Users’ satisfaction with social network sites: a self-
determination perspective. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 56, 48–54. doi: 10.1080/
08874417.2015.11645800
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 12
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
Wang, Y., and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in
online communities: an empirical investigation of an online travel community.
Electron. Mark. 13, 33–45. doi: 10.1080/1019678032000052934
Webster, J., and Ahuja, J. S. (2006). Enhancing the design of web navigation
systems: the influence of user disorientation on engagement and performance.
MIS Q. 30, 661–678. doi: 10.2307/25148744
Xi, N., and Hamari, J. (2020). Does gamification affect brand engagement and
equity? A study in online brand communities. J. Bus. Res. 109, 449–460. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.058
Yang, C., Ye, H. J., and Feng, Y. (2020). Using gamification elements for competitive
crowdsourcing: exploring the underlying mechanism. Behav. Inform. Technol.
Zichermann, G., and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design:
Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Zichermann, G., and Linder, J. (2010). Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer
Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Xu, Chen, Peng and Anser. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 13
Xu et al. Gamification and Purchase Intention
APPENDIX
TABLE A1 | Measurement items.
Construct Measurement items References Factor
loadings
t-value
Reward When playing Stackopolis Sen et al., 2008; O’Brien, 2010;
Kankanhalli et al., 2012
(1) Awards increases my involvement in the game 0.94 25.40
(2) I try to get more points as a reward for my activities. 0.93 77.29
(3) I try to have a higher status as a reward for my activities. 0.94 84.83
(4) I try to get more badges or loots as a reward for my activities. 0.82 101.88
Competition When playing Stackopolis Sheldon et al., 2001; Jang et al.,
2009
(1) I am facing intense competition. 0.84 30.11
(2) Activities of other participants are threats to me 0.85 31.93
(3) Competition among participants is fierce. 0.85 28.67
(4) Competition increases my participation in the game 0.83 50.14
Absorption When playing Stackopolis Seaborn and Fels, 2015
(1) I forget everything else around me. 0.88 46.82
(2) Time flies. 0.87 41.42
(3) I am immersed. 0.90 52.07
(4) It is difficult to detach myself from the website. 0.89 43.52
Autonomy (AUT) When playing Stackopolis Sheldon et al., 2001; Jang et al.,
2009
(1) I feel free to decide what to do for myself. 0.85 24.60
(2) I feel that my choices are based on my true interests and values. 0.85 23.15
(3) I feel free to do things on my own way. 0.90 42.12
Enjoyment (ENJ) Stackopolis is Kim et al., 2013
(1) interesting. 0.89 51.03
(2) exciting. 0.93 97.29
(3) fun. 0.82 35.28
Online Purchase intention After the game, Huang et al., 2017
(1) I bought goods or VIP services on the website. 0.87 36.42
(2) I intend to pay for some goods or VIP services. 0.90 57.18
(3) I am able to buy goods or VIP services with the acquired red packet. 0.81 31.54
(4) I will recommend others to buy goods or VIP services. 0.67 12.33
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200

Preview text:

fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 23 November 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581200 Enhancing Consumer Online Purchase Intention Through
Gamification in China: Perspective of Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Yan Xu1†, Zhong Chen2*, Michael Yao-Ping Peng3*† and Muhammad Khalid Anser4*
1 Business School, Yango University, Fuzhou, China, 2 School of Economics, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China,
3 School of Economics and Management, Foshan University, Foshan, China, 4 School of Public Administration, Xi’an
University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, China Edited by:
The application of game elements of gamification in online shopping is attracting interest Monica Gomez-Suárez,
Autonomous University of Madrid,
from researchers and practitioners. However, it remains unclear how gamification affects Spain
and improves consumer purchase intention on online shopping platforms, which still Reviewed by:
leaves a gap in our knowledge. To narrow this theoretical gap, a theoretical model has Leonidas Hatzithomas,
University of Macedonia, Greece
been built in this study. This model adopts cognitive evaluation theory to explain the Nuria Huete-Alcocer,
impact of gamification elements on consumer purchase intention. Data was collected
University of Castilla-La Mancha,
from 322 online shopping consumers who used a flash game to test their purchase Spain
intention after playing games. The results show that game rewards, absorption and *Correspondence: Zhong Chen
autonomy of gamification positively enhance sense of enjoyment, and that it helps 1151121693@qq.com
people meet their psychological needs, which ultimately affects the online purchase Michael Yao-Ping Peng s91370001@mail2000.com.tw
intention of consumers. This study is helpful in analyzing the factors involved in the Muhammad Khalid Anser
successful introduction of gamification on online shopping platforms in more detail. mkhalidrao@xauat.edu.cn
† These authors have contributed
Keywords: online shopping, gamification, cognitive evaluation theory, game dynamics, consumer enjoyment
equally to this work and share first authorship INTRODUCTION Specialty section: This article was submitted to
As mobile applications and social media have evolved, competition in the online shopping Organizational Psychology,
market has grown fiercer, with many businesses working to affect consumer behavior (Wang a section of the journal
and Fesenmaier, 2003). An increasing number of businesses are competing for a share of Frontiers in Psychology
the market by attracting active consumers. As a relatively new paradigm for engaging people, Received: 08 July 2020
gamification is applied as a strategy to influence and motivate people to participate in education, Accepted: 23 October 2020
marketing, training, networking, and health-related activities (Bunchball, 2010). Gamification is the Published: 23 November 2020
implementation of dynamic components and elements of games (Zichermann and Linder, 2010; Citation:
Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020) that are not directly related to games (Bunchball, 2010) and appear Xu Y, Chen Z, Peng MY-P and
in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011). The term “gamification” was first used in 2002, but Anser MK (2020) Enhancing
it was not until 2010 that this concept of gamification became popular (Mitchell et al., 2020).
Consumer Online Purchase Intention
Introducing game mechanics into business is the science of enriching consumer interaction, Through Gamification in China:
Perspective of Cognitive Evaluation
while games for commercial purposes are still under development (Zichermann and Cunningham,
Theory. Front. Psychol. 11:581200.
2011). In this sense, it is urgent for platforms to learn how to introduce game mechanisms doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581200
into their business to provide their consumers with a rewarding, enjoyable, and fun experience.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 2 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
As an emerging way to attract consumers, gamification is being
forms of motivation, CET helps us understand the changes in
used in marketing, school education and training, on the Internet,
consumer behavior in the context of gamification. Based on
and in related industries (Huang and Cappel, 2005; Silverman,
CET, a model has been developed and tested in this study to
2011; Hordemann and Chao, 2012; Kankanhalli et al., 2012). In
explore how game elements affect users’ psychological needs and
this context, the design of game elements, such as inspiration,
increase consumers’ sense of enjoyment, thereby influencing their
competition mechanisms, and shock, is used to increase the value purchase intention.
of high enjoyment to attract consumers (Simões et al., 2013;
According to the literature on meaning (Webster and Ahuja,
Seaborn and Fels, 2015; Müller-Stewens et al., 2017; Mullins and
2006; Sen et al., 2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015), people derive Sabherwal, 2020).
meaning when their activities are consistent with core aspects
Taking this context into account, gamification has been
of enjoyment. Autonomy, rewards, and absorption are important
clearly deemed as a means of driving consumer behavior.
factors for the success of gamification (Sigala, 2015; Mitchell et al.,
Gamification is the utilization of game design elements in non-
2020), as well as lying at the core of CET. According to the above
game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2020). Since
explanations, this study intends to propose relevant research
2002, gamification (Hamari and Lehdonvirta, 2010; Deterding
contributions on the basis of the following theoretical gaps: (1)
et al., 2011) and persuasive technologies (Fogg, 2002) have
applying CET to explore the important role of gamification in
been harnessed for business purposes and to influence customer
consumer online purchase intention; (2) focusing on verifying
behavior. The control of game elements in gamification may have
characterized game elements of gamification, which is conducive
a positive impact on the experience of playing games and the
to filling the gap of variable measurement in the theoretical
generation of customers’ intention (Poncin et al., 2017; Mitchell
literature on CET; (3) enriching applications of gamification for
et al., 2020; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020). For instance, Alibaba
business and academics, particularly those that add new features
has set up a game mechanism on its payment platform, on which
and gameplay mechanics (Huotari and Hamari, 2017) to ensure
the quantity of trees planted depends on individual walks, so
both customer enjoyment and the success of business objectives.
as to fulfill its social responsibility and stimulate consumption
through the platform. On the other hand, as gamification is
heavily driven by information communication technologies, it is LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY
natural to address interrelations between gamification and online DEVELOPMENT
behavior of consumers (Huang et al., 2017). For example, JD.com,
a large online shopping platform in China, enables people to Cognitive Evaluation Theory
gain points, known as beans, when they make purchases; these
Cognitive evaluation theory is a psychological theory that
beans can then be exchanged for other commodities or planted
aims to explain the effect of extrinsic results on intrinsic
on the game platform in order to obtain more beans and increase
motivation. CET proposes the concept of “intrinsic incentive,”
consumer willingness on this platform.
which is also known as “intrinsic motivation.” The theory
Although there has been a lot of research on online consumer
suggests that people are more likely to participate in an activity
behavior (Chen et al., 2015), there is a lack of research on
when they have intrinsic motivations such as an experience
gamification from the perspective of consumer behavior (Sigala,
of enjoyment (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000; Gottschalg and
2015). In the context of fierce competition among online
Zollo, 2007; Beecham et al., 2008). Deci and Ryan (2000)
shopping platforms, many such platforms not only face domestic
proposed three types of motivation: extrinsic regulation, intrinsic
competitors, but also have to consolidate the barriers to entry of
regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Their study emphasized
foreign competitors (Xi and Hamari, 2020). Thus, the concept
that motivation needs to be intrinsic rather than extrinsic. The
of gamification is an important source of stimulation in the
central focus of Deci and Ryan’s research was on intrinsic
marketing theory of consumer behavior decision (Tobon et al.,
motivation and the antecedents that increase persistence. They
2020; Xi and Hamari, 2020), and it provides specific directions
defined intrinsic motivation as performing an activity solely
for researchers in the study of online marketing. Therefore, this
for inherent satisfaction. This is a broader view that people
study aims to explore the effect of gamification on consumers’
motivated intrinsically are more stimulated and perform better online purchase intention.
than others (Cerasoli et al., 2014). Although researchers regard
For this purpose, a theoretical model has been developed
intrinsic motivation as an inherent quality, the maintenance
to predict the impact of consumers’ enjoyment in the game
and enhancement of this motivation depends on the social
on their purchase intention by drawing on cognitive evaluation
and environmental conditions around the individual. Deci and
theory (CET) (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b; Deci and Ryan, 2010;
Ryan’s CET proposed that individuals’ significant psychological
Mitchell et al., 2020). According to CET, when people are
needs are satisfied when the individuals perceive that they can
involved in certain activities, they have psychological needs
regulate their behaviors. Intrinsic motivation is supported by
such as autonomy and absorption. When individuals feel that
social and environmental factors, such as events and conditions,
their demands need to be met, they will trigger intrinsic
that enhance an individual’s sense of autonomy and competence,
motivation and feel a greater sense of enjoyment, which, in
whereas it is undermined by factors that diminish perceived
turn, will lead to more engagement in activities (Lee and Yang,
autonomy or competence (Deci and Ryan, 1980; Chae et al.,
2011) and ultimately affect consumer behavior. Since the main
2017). Withdrawing on theoretical foundation, this study adopts
purpose of gamification is to develop willpower and high-quality
CET to build conceptual framework of gamification and expands
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 3 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
upon how gamification elements are key determinants of
autonomy, and relevance are satisfied by an activity, greater
consumer enjoyment, intrinsically motivated purchase intention. enjoyment will be gained.
By extending such aspects of CET to this study, it is
In this case, enjoyment is the extent to which an individual
possible to consider the behaviors of extrinsic regulation to be
obtains a pleasant experience while playing games (Huotari and
motivated by external factors such as awards and competition,
Hamari, 2017). CET predicts that if people consider an activity
and the behaviors of intrinsic regulation to be motivated
involving a certain form of technology to be enjoyable, the
by internal factors such as absorption and autonomy. When
intrinsic motivation will be increased and extrinsic behaviors
an individual realizes that the causation originates from the
will ultimately be affected (O’Brien, 2010; Lee and Yang, 2011).
behaviors mentioned above, intrinsic motivation appears. An
In the field of online shopping, enjoyment is considered to
example of intrinsic motivation is enjoyment. When people are
be a motivational state that can influence the degree and
dominated by intrinsic motivation, they will stick to a task
focus of consumption (Bunchball, 2010). Purchase intention is
for longer and like it more (Deci, 1985). The contribution
defined as a spontaneous and powerful shopping tendency and
of CET is that it proposes the factors that enable people to
a shopping process that is dominated by consumers themselves
generate intrinsic motivation, which are specifically autonomy
(Rook and Fisher, 1995). In a state of enjoyment, consumers
and competence. Autonomy means the willpower or willingness
tend to feel environmental stimuli and arousal impulses (Wang
to do a task; competence refers to the feeling of being
and Li, 2016). As the purpose of gamification is mainly to
effective (Silverman, 2011; Santhanam et al., 2016; Huang et al.,
make consumers’ activities more enjoyable (Bunchball, 2010),
2017), such as getting rewards, being addicted to games, and
enjoyment is a significant intrinsic motivation that determines participating in competition.
whether consumers participate in designed gamified shopping
environment and affects purchase intention. On this basis, we
propose the following hypothesis: Consumer Enjoyment
Consumer enjoyment is “a necessary response of humans to
H1: Consumer enjoyment has a positive impact on online
activities with computers as intermediaries” (Laurel, 2013). When purchase intention.
consumers are attracted by a game, a sense of enjoyment will
be generated (Jacques, 1995). Intrinsic motivation of expected
enjoyment derives from the pleasure or inherent interest in doing Gamification
something (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Curiosity, fun, or enjoyment
Gamification can collect user data for salespeople to observe user
can all be intrinsic motivations (Kim and Drumwright, 2016).
preference (Nelson, 2005). If users develop a negative attitude
Based on CET, intrinsic motivation derives from one’s preference
toward the instrumental trait of a certain game, they will not play
for an activity. People will gain inherent satisfaction from doing
the game anymore, which hinders the development of a favorable
it, intrinsic motivation reflects the desire to engage in a task for
brand attitude and game skills (Kwak et al., 2012; Xi and Hamari,
its enjoyment (Tao and Yun, 2019). Enjoyment of an activity is
2020). Some scholars have suggested conducting a survey on
generally viewed as an important intrinsic motivation (Kim and
specified gamification design elements, so as to improve the
Drumwright, 2016; Hew et al., 2018). Consumer enjoyment is
design and obtain the benefits of gamification (Kim and Johnson,
important because it allows people to have a positive outlook on
2016; Mitchell et al., 2020; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020). Thus,
human–computer interaction, thus increasing future motivation
it is quite important to analyze the use of gamification business
for repeated interactions with games (Kim and Moon, 1998;
applications to understand the impact of gamification and social
Webster and Ahuja, 2006). This, in turn, leads to the success of
cognition on e-commerce success (Wakefield et al., 2011; Tobon
a game (Hwang and Thorn, 1999).
et al., 2020; Xi and Hamari, 2020). According to CET, increasing
Studies have shown that consumer enjoyment can develop
all aspects of value can enhance more customers’ experience of
positive attitudes through certain activities, such as gaining
enjoyment and ultimately promote online consumer behavior.
rewards, absorption in games, participation in competition, and
Gamification can serve to enhance consumer enjoyment with
feeling self-control (Schaufeli et al., 2002). These subdimensions
online shopping (Huotari and Hamari, 2017). The factors that
represent the emotional, cognitive, and physical aspects of
stimulate consumer online shopping are closely associated with
consumer enjoyment (Chen et al., 2015). In this study, autonomy
the motivation to participate in games and can be divided into
is defined as the voluntary participation of a consumer in an
two categories: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.
activity designed by gamification and the consumer’s continuous
Both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation play a significant role
efforts to gain rewards in the face of difficulties. Competition
in online shopping. However, according to CET, intrinsic
comprises the senses of meaning, pride, and challenge, as well
motivation represents enjoyment in an activity for its own sake
as the inspiration and passion of consumers. Enjoyment refers
(Mekler et al., 2017). For example, people who shop online
to the extent to which a consumer’s experience culminates
because they enjoy looking over new things and expanding their
in pleasure and excitement triggered by the online gamified
consumer knowledge are intrinsically motivated to be there.
environment. Some scholars hold that some psychological needs
However, some scholars agree that the intrinsic motivation factor
should be satisfied if people want to keep their intrinsic
is more important than extrinsic motivation and has a greater
motivation (i.e., enjoyment) (Ryan et al., 2006). In other words,
impact on consumer behavior (Reiss, 2004; Deterding et al., 2011;
when a person’s basic psychological needs of competence, Tobon et al., 2020).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 4 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
Moreover, merely adding gamification mechanics such as
defeating other players, and developing strategies to achieve goals
challenge and fantasy in a smart interface is not enough to
with other players, can help people meet their psychological
significantly enhance the quality of the perceived experience
needs of autonomy, competence, and relevance (Deci and Ryan,
(Insley and Nunan, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2020). The purpose of
2000; Beecham et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2020), and improve
gamification is to increase consumer motivation and facilitate
the inner experience of enjoyment. According to CET, people
consumers’ participation in gamification activities through
have more fun when engaging in activities in which they are
intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, and to provide a pleasant
interested or in activities that can reflect their personal value
experience (Von Ahn and Dabbish, 2008; Conaway and Garay,
(Ryan et al., 2006). When external conditions are able to meet
2014; Xi and Hamari, 2020). Reward, competition, autonomy,
internal psychological needs, external factors can increase the
and absorption are the most common game dynamics in
intrinsic motivation and enable people to experience enjoyment
the literature on gamification (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000;
(Antin and Churchill, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2020). In other
Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al., 2007; Hordemann and
words, the greater the freedom perceived by consumers when
Chao, 2012; Kapp, 2012; Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020), these
making orders on an online shopping platform, the greater the
elements must be available in order for gamification to be
efficiency in triggering the consumers’ intrinsic motivation to
used (Conaway and Garay, 2014). As a result, consumers are
engage in the consumption process and in further satisfying
encouraged to further participate in the system (Gottschalg
their psychological needs (Rogers, 2017). From this logic, we can
and Zollo, 2007), which ultimately affects purchase intention.
infer that when gamification is applied in the context of online
Furthermore, a gamified campaign needs to be well executed in
shopping, enjoyment can be more easily triggered if the need for
order to achieve the intended goals (Lucassen and Jansen, 2014).
autonomy is satisfied. Based on the above discussion, we have
To represent components of gamification specifically, reward,
developed the following hypothesis:
competition, autonomy, and absorption have been adopted as
measurement dimensions of gamification in this study (Agarwal H2: Autonomy of gamification has a positive
and Karahanna, 2000; Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al., impact on enjoyment.
2007; Hordemann and Chao, 2012; Kapp, 2012), and Table 1
summarizes the definitions of these dimensions.
In the design of gamification, rewards are what the user
Based on CET, researchers hold that consumer competence
receives as a return for completing pre-assigned tasks. Rewards
is an important prerequisite for triggering enjoyment. When a
and challenges have been identified as the two mechanisms
consumer feels that he/she is controlled or forced to do something
that are most commonly used for gamification (Tobon et al.,
(e.g., participate in an unpleasant competitive relationship),
2020). Rewards can motivate consumers to make every effort
any external condition will reduce the intrinsic motivation and
to improve their level and get more points or loots (Deterding
lessen the experience of enjoyment (Antin and Churchill, 2011).
et al., 2011). CET confirms the importance of rewards. Players
Players’ voluntary enjoyment is the key element of a game
can earn points, rise to a higher level, or get badges or discounts (Huotari and Hamari, 2017).
as rewards (Hofacker et al., 2016). People are motivated to gain
Playing a game means the player is in an environment
more rewards. For example, the ranking place on the leaderboard
where he/she has autonomy (Gagné and Deci, 2005), and people
can stimulate a player’s desire to compete with others for better
participate in the game of their own free will. This is an exact
scores (Hordemann and Chao, 2012). These reward mechanisms
reflection of autonomy. Game activities, such as completing tasks,
are helpful in intensifying the intrinsic motivation to get a
TABLE 1 | Definitions of variables in gamification. Game dynamics Game elements Description Rewards Points, levels,
Consumers earn points as a reward by completing pre-assigned tasks. Points are a game element virtual gifts
of gamification, which induces consumers to strive for more rewards. Levels create a dynamic that
encourages consumers to make efforts to improve their status through achieving predefined goals
or reaching milestones of gamification. Emblems or loots indicate the valuable activities of a person,
thus motivating players to obtain tangible rewards and then show their achievements (Reiss, 2004;
Gagné and Deci, 2005; Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Hordemann and Chao, 2012). Competition Points, levels,
Leaderboard offers consumers the opportunity to compare and compete with others. Consumers leaderboard
attempt to get more points in an activity, reach a higher level, and earn more emblems and loots
(Gottschalg and Zollo, 2007; Liu et al., 2007). Autonomy Decision, judgment,
Autonomy defines the extent to which an individual can control and determine the consequences of sharing behavior
his/her behaviors. In general, human beings fight for as much autonomy as possible. Competence
refers to having goals and relevant skills to achieve them (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci,
2000a; Kapp, 2012). Autonomy can be realized by allowing users to choose their own tools and to
self-assign tasks (Beecham et al., 2008; Schell, 2019). Consumers’ perceived autonomy is evoked
by the participation in gamification. Absorption Spending time,
Consumers indulge in the process of gamification and even forget themselves. A typical example is control
the consumer’s emotion towards a game when he/she is deeply involved in the game (Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 5 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
better experience of enjoyment (Przybylski et al., 2010). Thus,
pay more attention to participating in the gamified environment
by helping people to meet their psychological needs, rewards can
(Deng et al., 2016). Consumers immerse themselves in games
stimulate people’s intrinsic motivation to get a better experience
through the competitive environment designed by gamification.
of enjoyment from specific activities.
The satisfaction arising from competition with others is able According to CET, obtaining real returns through
to enhance the consumer’s intrinsic motivation and enjoyment
gamification can enhance the consumer experience and
of online shopping. This is because people get satisfaction
help consumers achieve higher satisfaction (Deci and Ryan,
from comparing themselves with others. The literature on CET
2000). Moreover, some scholars believe that rewards can bring
indicates that individuals are motivated to achieve better results
a higher level of enjoyment (Johnson et al., 2018). Through the
in competition (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b) and to obtain a better
continuous accumulation of points, consumers have confidence
experience of enjoyment. Therefore, we propose the following
in their own capability, which can then improve their sense of hypothesis:
enjoyment (Francisco-Aparicio et al., 2013). Consumers can also
H5: Competition of gamification has a positive impact on
exchange points earned from rewards with virtual discounts or the generation of enjoyment.
products according to their own needs. For example, consumers
are rewarded for reaching higher levels, which gives them a sense
This study extends CET by identifying the antecedents of need
of achievement and allows them to feel self-worth. Hence, the
satisfaction, and it develops a research model to explain consumer
more rewards consumers gain through gamification, the more
enjoyment with gamification, as shown in Figure 1.
they consider themselves valuable (Przybylski et al., 2010) and
the easier it is to generate enjoyment. Thus, we propose our third hypothesis: METHODOLOGY
H3: Rewards of gamification have a positive impact on the Sampling generation of enjoyment.
Taobao, China’s largest online shopping website, has 576 million
users. In November 2019, Taobao launched a game called
Absorption in gamification has a strong influence on
“Stackopolis.” In this game, consumers can get rewards or
individual behavior change (Silic and Lowry, 2020). According to
discounts, and a large number of consumers have played
CET, people can count on intrinsic motivation to generate stable
the game. We adopted a questionnaire survey to test our
actions when they are immersed in their own world (Rook and
hypotheses. Given that our model covers different constructs,
Fisher, 1995). For consumers using gamification, absorption is a
such as consumer absorption in games and self-control, we
state of enjoyment. Under this state, players can be absorbed in
used a structural equation model to discover through path
these games. This can be seen as a process of high enjoyment.
analysis whether the relationship between these variables is
Gamification allows players to immerse themselves in a virtual
statistically significant (Deci, 1985). The method used to develop
world, helping them escape from some of the problems in the real
measurement items and collect data is discussed in more detail
world. Some players may be absorbed in a game, enjoy mental in this section.
relaxation, and feel that time passes faster than usual. Some
The data was collected from Chinese consumers who shopped
scholars call this state a “flow state,” under which people may
on Taobao in November 2019. We conducted a survey using
only be aware of activities they participate in, or of the specific
purposive sampling. Taobao was selected as the subject of the
environment they are in Mauri et al. (2011). Some scholars
case study because as an online shopping website it is second
believe that games can improve and regulate emotions, and that
only to Amazon in the world, which means that it allows
participants experience higher absorption after completing game
for sufficiently representative sampling required to discuss the
tasks, thus generating more positive emotions (Yang et al., 2020)
and stimulating more powerful motivations (Silic and Lowry,
2020). Therefore, consumers’ absorption in a game may have a
positive influence on their enjoyment. Players who are obsessed
with a game may have more enjoyment intentions. Therefore, we
have developed our fourth hypothesis as follows:
H4: Absorption of gamification has a positive impact on the generation of enjoyment.
Gamification by nature thrives in the context of competition
to win (Morschheuser et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2020). People
challenge each other to achieve the best results. Leaderboards can
show game results and celebrate the winners. The basic property
of games, no matter whether they are multi-player games, single-
player games, or other single-user experiences, is to compete for
a specific goal. When participants need to present themselves FIGURE 1 | Research model.
as active solutions on a competitive platform, they will actively
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 6 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
impact of gamification on consumer purchase intention. To
to ensure that the meaning of items did not change because
improve the response rate, we offered each participant RMB
of translation. Afterward, the questionnaire was sent to six
20 once they had completed the questionnaire. A total of 350
consumers who had experience in bilingual online shopping to
questionnaires were collected. After the questionnaires were
further check the accuracy of the translation and the clarity of the
checked, 28 questionnaires were omitted as invalid. The number
questionnaire, and then some expressions were adjusted on the
of valid questionnaires was 322. The main targets for data basis of their feedback.
collection were consumers between the ages of 20 and 40, as they
Items of enjoyment were adopted from Sykes et al. (2009)
are the biggest consumer groups in the online shopping market.
to Kim et al. (2013), and we adopted items for autonomy from
The information about the sample profile is shown in Table 2.
Sheldon et al. (2001) to Jang et al. (2009). Items for rewards
When self-report questionnaires are used to collect data at the
were adopted from Kankanhalli et al. (2005); Sen et al. (2008),
same time from the same participants, common method variance
O’Brien (2010); Wakefield et al. (2011). Items for competition
(CMV) may be a concern. A post hoc Harman one-factor analysis
were adopted from Chen et al. (1998); Ma and Agarwal (2007),
was used to test for common method variance (Podsakoff and
Lee and Yang (2011), and items for absorption from Schaufeli
Organ, 1986). The explained variance in one factor is 38.54%,
et al. (2002). Finally, we adopted items for online purchase
which is smaller than the recommended threshold of 50%.
intention from Huang et al. (2017). In the scale of purchase
Therefore, CMB is not problematic in this study (Harman, 1976).
intention, VIP service can be referred as offering consumers a
very individual form of online shopping. We collected the data Procedure
by means of a questionnaire (see Table A1).
This is a cross-sectional study whose research framework and
survey instrument have been approved by the Institutional Data Analysis Strategy
Review Board of National Kaohsiung University of Science and
The hypotheses of research framework have been tested and paths
Technology. The researchers contacted the consumers who were
have been included via structural equation modeling in this study.
willing to receive the questionnaire by email first. Each survey
Measurement model was performed using IBM-SPSS 25 and
package contained a covering letter explaining the purpose of
SmartPLS 3.0 statistical program; Partial least squares structural
the survey and the survey instrument. Before filling out the
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was adopted to construct the
questionnaires, consumers were asked to understand the right of
structural model, specifically, verification of the structural model
attending survey to ensure research ethical aspects.
was performed using SmartPLS 3.0 (path analysis). Instrument RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A questionnaire survey was used to collect data and develop
measurement items using a five-point Likert-type scale, in which Measurement Model
“1” means “strongly disagree” and “5” means “strongly agree.”
The English questionnaire was translated into Chinese by a
A two-stage analytical procedure was used for the data analysis
researcher whose first language is Chinese, and the Chinese
(Deterding et al., 2011). The measurement model for reliability
questionnaire was translated into English by another researcher
and validity was assessed in the first stage, and the structural
model was examined in the second stage to test the hypotheses (Hair et al., 1998).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for latent variables of
TABLE 2 | Descriptive statistics.
Smart-PLS 3.0 and SPSS 25 were used as the analytical tools for Characteristic Scale (%)
this study. All factors have strong significance, so the intrinsic
consistency and convergent validity of each scale are supported, Gender Male 146 (45.3%)
indicating that the structure is sufficiently reliable (Hair et al., Female 176 (54.7%) 1998; Table 3). Age 20-29 113 (35%)
We have examined the average variance extracted (AVE) in 30-39 78 (24.2%)
order to assess discriminant validity. If the AVE from a construct 40-49 71 (22.1%)
is greater than the variance shared between the construct and ≥50 60 (18.7%)
the other constructs in the model, a satisfactory discriminant Education level High school or below 59 (18.2%)
validity is obtained (Chin, 1998). The square root of the AVE (completed) College 171 (53.2%)
of each construct should exceed its correlation with all the Graduate school or above 92 (28.6%)
other constructs. It can be seen from Table 3 that the AVE for Occupation Public servant 31 (9.6%)
each construct is larger than its correlation with all the other Manufacturing 20 (6.2%)
constructs in the model, which ensures the discriminant validity Business 93 (28.9) of the constructs. Professional 19 (5.9%)
Henseler et al. (2015) proposed the heterotrait–monotrait
Unemployed (e.g., student, retired, 159 (49.4%)
(HTMT) ratio of the correlations. Henseler et al. (2015) suggested housewife)
0.90 as a threshold value for structural models with dimensions. Total 322
In this study, the values ranged from 0.100 to 0.746, which
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 7 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
TABLE 3 | Validity and correlation of constructs. α CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 (1) Absorption 0.906 0.934 0.779 0.883 (2) Autonomy 0.839 0.902 0.754 0.008** 0.868 (3) Competition 0.875 0.907 0.709 0.487** 0.095** 0.842 (4) Enjoyment 0.849 0.909 0.770 0.522** 0.267** 0.476** 0.878 (5) Purchase intention 0.836 0.886 0.663 0.413** 0.298** 0.498** 0.455** 0.814 (6) Rewards 0.928 0.949 0.822 0.351** 0.167** 0.678** 0.416** 0.529** 0.907
α = Cronbach’s alpha; (1) Square root of AVE for each latent construct is given in diagonals. (2) AVE, Average variance extracted; CR, Composite reliability. **if p < 0.01.
Bold value represent square root of AVE for each latent construct is given in diagonals.
TABLE 4 | Discriminant validity: Heterotrsait–monotrait (HTMT). 1 2 3 4 5 6 (1) Online Purchase Intention (2) Enjoyment 0.493 (3) Autonomy 0.360 0.306 (4) Rewards 0.610 0.461 0.178 (5) Absorption 0.452 0.584 0.059 0.373 (6) Competition 0.528 0.485 0.100 0.746 0.528
indicated that discriminate validity was established for all
suggested that in addition to these basic measures, researchers
dimensions of the model, as shown in Table 4.
should also report the predictive relevance (Q2), as well as the
effect sizes (f2). As asserted by Sullivan and Feinn (2012), while a Testing Structural Model Fit
p-Value can inform the reader whether an effect exists, it will not
Before proceeding to test the model, we first tested model fit
reveal the size of the effect. In reporting and interpreting studies,
by using three model fitting parameters: the standardized root
both the substantive significance (effect size) and statistical
mean square residual (SRMR), the normed fit index (NFI) and the
significance (p-Value) are essential results to be reported (p. 279).
exact model fit (bootstrap-based statistical inference). Henseler
Hahn and Ang (2017) summarized some of the recommended
et al. (2015) introduced the SRMR as a goodness-of-fit measure
rigor in reporting results in quantitative studies, which includes
for PLS-SEM that can be used to avoid model misspecification.
the use of replication studies, the use of effect size estimates and
NFI values above 0.9 usually represent acceptable fit. The third
confidence intervals, the use of Bayesian methods, Bayes factors
fit value is exact model fit, which tests the statistical (bootstrap-
or likelihood ratios, and decision-theoretic modeling. Prior to
based) inference of the discrepancy between the empirical
hypotheses testing, the values of the variance inflation factor
covariance matrix and the covariance matrix implied by the
(VIF) have been determined. The VIF values are less than 5,
composite factor model. Dijkstra and Henseler et al. (2015)
ranging from 1.000 to 2.132. Thus, there have been no collinearity
suggested the d_LS (i.e., the squared Euclidean distance) and
issues among the predictor latent variables (Hair et al., 2017).
the d_G (i.e., the geodesic distance) as two different ways to
compute this discrepancy. A model fits well if the difference
between the correlation matrix implied by the model being tested
and the empirical correlation matrix is so small that it can be
purely attributed to sampling error, thus the difference between
the correlation matrix implied by your model and the empirical
correlation matrix should be non-significant (p > 0.05). Henseler
et al. (2015) considered that dULS and dG are smaller than the 95%
bootstrapped quantile (HI 95% of dULS and HI 95% of dG).
In this study, the SRMR value is 0.055 (<0.08) and the
NFI is 0.912 (>0.90) and the dULS < bootstrapped HI 95% of
dULS and dG < bootstrapped HI 95% of dG, indicating the data fits the model well. Inner Model Analysis
To assess the structural model, Hair et al. (2017) suggested
looking at the R2, beta (β) and the corresponding t-values via
FIGURE 2 | The results of PLS-SEM (*** if p < 0.001).
a bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 5,000. They also
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 8 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
TABLE 5 | Results of the paths. Hypotheses Std. β t-value Significance CI (2.50%-97.5%) VIF f2
H1: Enjoyment→ Online Purchase Intention 0.870*** 8.349 (0.634∼0.934) 1.000 0.261 H2: Autonomy→ Enjoyment 0.240*** 5.742 (0.149∼0.309) 1.032 0.084 H3: Rewards→ Enjoyment 0.270*** 4.376 (0.114∼0.378) 1.892 0.012 H4: Absorption→ Enjoyment 0.350*** 6.789 (0.273∼0.508) 1.316 0.191 H5: Competition→ Enjoyment 0.070*** 1.166 (0.068∼0.309) 2.132 0.027 ***If p < 0.001.
Figure 2 shows the test results of the structural model. The
market will promote consumer behavior. In prior marketing
results in Table 5 show that reward has a positive impact on
literature, some studies have employed CET to discuss consumer
enjoyment (β = 0.27, p < 0.001); autonomy has a positive
motivation and behavior (Webster and Ahuja, 2006; Sen et al.,
influence on enjoyment (β = 0.24, p < 0.001); absorption is
2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015); however, few studies have
positively correlated with enjoyment (β = 0.35, p < 0.001); and
taken enjoyment as the important core intrinsic motivation,
enjoyment has a positive correlation with purchase intention
from the perspective of online marketing (Xi and Hamari,
(β = 0.87, p < 0.001). Therefore, all hypotheses except for H5
2020), to induce consumers to have a specific consumer
have been supported. The Stone-Geisser Q2 values obtained
behavior, especially in relation to the gamification of online
through the blindfolding procedures for enjoyment (Q2 = 0.342)
platform consumption. Although enjoyment value can enhance
and online purchase intention (Q2 = 0.423) are larger than
consumers’ online purchase intention, it also relies on important
zero, confirming that the model has predictive relevance
gamified antecedents, which is the element of game designing (Hair et al., 2017).
(Xi and Hamari, 2020). Games are generated when a group
of different game elements are invoked by users in different
environments. On this basis, we maintain that satisfaction DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
of the basic psychological needs of consumers in the online
shopping market is the key to the successful application of Discussion
gamification. We also speculate that if any one of these
This study aims to explore how gamification affects consumer
psychological needs is ignored, the consumer enjoyment may be
purchase intention. All the hypotheses except for H5 are
significantly reduced, and thus the consumer behavior may be
supported, which provides powerful evidence for the model’s adversely affected.
validity. This study shows that gamification can enhance
Finally, our study has found that competition has no
consumer online purchase intention when game dynamics
positive effect on enjoyment. The competitive elements of meets the psychological needs of consumers (Mullins
a game may distract users and even lower their enjoyment
and Sabherwal, 2020). It is worth noting that different
(Lee and Yang, 2011). This result is similar to the argument
game dynamics increase consumer satisfaction in different
that despite gamification comprising many game elements, not
ways. Based on the results, this study proposes several
all these elements can successfully attract users (Hair et al., specific contributions.
1998; Huotari and Hamari, 2017). It would be impossible
First, it is found that rewards, autonomy, and absorption
to attract consumers only by adding the enjoyment value
of gamification elements enhance consumer enjoyment, and
through game elements without also considering how to meet
such consumer enjoyment promotes online purchase intention.
the basic psychological needs of consumers. Previous studies
This result is consistent with the importance of intrinsic
have also held different views on the impact of competition,
motivation in the CET model as emphasized by other scholars
with some scholars suggesting that competition produces more
(Deci and Ryan, 1980; Chae et al., 2017; Huotari and
driving force (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b; Insley and Nunan,
Hamari, 2017), according to which positive motivation and
2014; Mitchell et al., 2020). Other scholars have suggested
attitude of consumers can be produced via intrinsic motivation
that competition might have a negative effect on users’
generated by gamification elements that enhance consumer
psychological states when the competition is excessive or poorly
enjoyment. The results also show that combining the above
designed such that it does not consider users’ characteristics
gamification factors satisfies the basic psychological needs of
(Qiu and Benbasat, 2010). The present study verifies that
individuals, which is the key to enhancing the enjoyment
competition does not have a positive impact on consumer
in games, while the degree of enjoyment in games is the
enjoyment in the online marketing context; however, our analysis
main determinant of consumer online purchase intention
also reveals a positive correlation between competition and
(Xi and Hamari, 2020). This also implies that the intrinsic
consumer enjoyment, implying that well-designed competition
motivation in CET is to be generated when people’s psychological
in gamification motivates consumers in experiencing enjoyment needs are satisfied. (Mullins and Sabherwal, 2020).
Moreover, the study results show that the enjoyment
In other words, the impact of each design element of
value in developing gamification within the online shopping
gamification and the assessment of their impact on enjoyment are
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 9 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
very important, and unreasonable design of competitive elements
This study also has a social significance. Many social media
can reduce the degree of enjoyment.
apps use reward and competition strategies that are common
in games to make the utilization of apps more enjoyable Implications for Research
for consumers (Silverman, 2011). Nevertheless, there is still
This study makes important academic contributions. First, it
a lack of prescriptive guidelines and design principles for
extends CET by determining which antecedents among rewards,
successful application of gamification. The framework of this
autonomy, and absorption can satisfy the need for enjoyment
study has systematically explained how to help consumers
(Silverman, 2011; Santhanam et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2017).
enjoy themselves and make their online shopping more
Researchers have found that CET can explain why people keep
enjoyable. This, in turn, will pave the way for better gamified
playing games (Deterding et al., 2011), but few studies have
applications, and it will promote beneficial behaviors in
examined the impact of game-related factors on consumer online the online society.
purchase intention (King et al., 2010). Our theoretical extensions
help researchers develop their theories (Webster and Ahuja,
Limitations and Further Research
2006; Sen et al., 2008; Seaborn and Fels, 2015) and explain that Directions
some gamification elements are able to attract consumers and
Although this study enables a better understanding of the impact
thus influence consumer behavior when people’s psychological
of gamification on consumer online purchase intention, the needs are satisfied.
impact of gamification on consumer enjoyment may change with
Secondly, this study explains four game elements that promote
variations in the design purposes of gamification systems. We
enjoyment and purchase intention. Our work shows that the
appeal to researchers to study our model outside the field of
design of gamification should be such that consumers satisfy
the online shopping market, as there will be more developments
their extrinsic and intrinsic regulation (autonomy, reward, and
and discoveries in research on gamification and consumer online
absorption) (Ryan and Deci, 2000a,b) and participate in the next
purchase intention. For example, although we have found that
action with the support of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1985).
competition has no positive effect on enjoyment, current studies Thirdly, our conceptualization of structure and its
have suggested that the impact of competition might vary
measurement is beneficial for researchers as it enables
according to skill levels and competitive structures (Liu et al.,
them to more accurately monitor consumer behavior and
2007). Therefore, in the future context of the development of
analyze potential problems (Chen et al., 2015). In order
gamification, further investigations are also required to be certain
to understand the impact of gamification on consumer
how different competitive structures affect enjoyment and online
purchase intention, researchers need to control and measure purchase intention.
variables (Lee and Yang, 2011). To this end, and to make it
The second limitation of this study is that our data
more elaborate, the current work is conducive to the design
may contain bias in its market selection. Because the object of gamification.
of this study is consumers participating in gamification on Implications for Practice
Taobao.com, such consumers may be more positive than those
who are not attracted by gamification. Subsequent research could
This study contributes to the extant literature on practice
expand the research objects to people who are not sensitive
in the following ways. First, it can enlighten system to gamification.
designers and administrators who are trying to influence
We believe that our conceptualization of gamification and
consumer behavior through gamification. Secondly, through
our empirical tests for consumer online purchase intention will
this kind of research, practitioners or designers who are
lead to scholars paying more attention to gamification. We also
trying to improve the consumer experience can provide
emphasize that relevant theories need to be referred to as a basis
consumers with a higher level of enjoyment, thereby
before formulating effective gamification design strategies.
establishing a closer relation with consumers. Finally, as
Kotler (1973) argued, a well-designed sales environment
may have an emotional impact on consumers and increase
the possibility of purchasing. Therefore, companies should DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
create an environment that has a positive emotional impact on consumers.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
The results of this study show that competition has no
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
positive effect on enjoyment. Thus, the competitive dynamics
that frequently occur in gamification design do not necessarily
have a positive impact on motivating consumers. The competitive ETHICS STATEMENT
mechanism does not necessarily motivate consumers to enjoy the
website more and increase their purchase intention. The model
The studies involving human participants were reviewed
also contributes to the commercial application of gamification
and approved by Institutional Review Board of National
and provides relevant guidance for online shopping platforms
Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology. The
in developing game designs and social cues; in addition, it
patients/participants provided their written informed consent to
contributes to future research in this new field. participate in this study.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 10 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
design of research methods, and tables. MP, MA, and YX
participated in developing a research design, writing, and
YX, ZC, and MP contributed to the ideas of educational
interpreting the analysis. All authors contributed to the
research, collection of data, and empirical analysis. MP,
literature review and conclusion, article, and approved the
ZC, MW, YP, and YX contributed to the data analysis, submitted version. REFERENCES
Gottschalg, O., and Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive
advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 418–437. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.2435
Agarwal, R., and Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive 1356
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24, 665–
Hahn, E. D., and Ang, S. H. (2017). From the editors: new directions in the 694. doi: 10.2307/3250951
reporting of statistical results in the journal of world business. J. World Bus.
Antin, J., and Churchill, E. F. (2011). “Badges in social media: a social
52, 125–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2016.12.003
psychological perspective,” in Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Gamification
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., and Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). Workshop, (Vancouver, BC).
An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., and Sharp, H. (2008). Motivation
research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 117, 442–458.
in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Inform. Softw. Technol.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (1998).
50, 860–878. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.09.004
Multivariate data analysis, Vol. 5. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Bunchball, I. (2010). Gamification 101: an introduction to the use of
Hamari, J., and Lehdonvirta, V. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game
game dynamics to influence behavior. White Paper. Available online at:
mechanics create demand for virtual goods. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 5,
http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf 14–29. (accessed June 10, 2013).
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation press.
and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
Psychol. Bull. 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad.
Chae, S., Choi, T. Y., and Hur, D. (2017). Buyer power and supplier relationship
Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
commitment: a cognitive evaluation theory perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag.
Hew, J., Leong, L., Tan, G. W., Lee, V., and Ooi, K. (2018). Mobile social tourism
53, 39–60. doi: 10.1111/jscm.12138
shopping: a dual-stage analysis of a multi-mediation model. Tour. Manage. 66,
Chen, X.-P., Hui, C., and Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational
121–139. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.005
citizenship behavior in turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key
Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., and Donaldson, J.
hypotheses. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:922. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.922
(2016). Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. J. Interact. Market.
Chen, Y., Yan, X., and Fan, W. (2015). Examining the effects of decomposed
34, 25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001
perceived risk on consumer online shopping behavior: a field study in China.
Hordemann, G., and Chao, J. (2012). Design and implementation challenges to Eng. Econ. 26, 315–326.
an interactive social media based learning environment. Interdiscip. J. Inform.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation Knowl. Manage. 7, 92–94.
modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336.
Huang, T., Bao, Z., and Li, Y. (2017). Why do players purchase in mobile social
Conaway, R., and Garay, M. C. (2014). Gamification and service marketing.
network games? An examination of customer engagement and of uses and SpringerPlus 3:653.
gratifications theory. Program 51, 259–277. doi: 10.1108/prog-12-2016-0078
Deci, E. L. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior.
Huang, Z., and Cappel, J. J. (2005). Assessment of a web-based learning game in an New York, NY: Plenum.
information systems course. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 45, 42–49.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: when mind mediates
Huotari, K., and Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: anchoring
behavior. J. Mind Behav. 1, 33–43.
gamification in the service marketing literature. Electron. Mark. 27, 21–31.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: human doi: 10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi:
Hwang, M. I., and Thorn, R. G. (1999). The effect of user engagement on system 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Inform. Manage. 35,
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). “Intrinsic motivation,” in The corsini
229–236. doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00092-5
Encyclopedia of Psychology, eds I. B. Weiner and W. E. Craighead (Hoboken,
Insley, V., and Nunan, D. (2014). Gamification and the online retail experience. Int. NJ: John Wiley & Sons).
J. Retail Distribution Manage. 42, 340–351. doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-01-2013-0030
Deng, X., Joshi, K. D., and Galliers, R. D. (2016). The duality of empowerment and
Jacques, R. (1995). Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Can. J. Educ.
marginalization in microtask crowdsourcing: giving voice to the less powerful Commun. 24, 49–59.
through value sensitive design. Mis Q. 40, 279–302. doi: 10.25300/misq/2016/
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., and Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination 40.2.01
theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011). “From game
of collectivistically oriented Korean students? J. Educ. Psychol. 101:644. doi:
design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification,” in Proceedings of the 10.1037/a0014241
15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media
Johnson, D., Klarkowski, M., Vella, K., Phillips, C., McEwan, M., and Watling, environments, (New York, NJ).
C. N. (2018). Greater rewards in videogames lead to more presence, enjoyment
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What
and effort. Comput. Human Behav. 87, 66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.
We Think and Do. Ubiquity, 2002 (December), 2. Burlington, MA: Morgan 05.025 Kaufmann.
Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., and Kim, S. H. (2012). “Gamification: a
Francisco-Aparicio, A., Gutiérrez-Vela, F. L., Isla-Montes, J. L., and
new paradigm for online user engagement,” in Proceedings of the International
Sanchez, J. L. G. (2013). “Gamification: analysis and application,” in
Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2012, (Orlando, FL).
New trends in interaction, virtual reality and modeling, eds V. M. R.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., and Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge
Penichet, A. Peñalver, and J. A. Gallud (New York, NY: Springer),
to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 29, 113–126.
113–143. doi: 10.2307/25148670
Gagné, M., and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self−determination theory and work motivation.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco:
J. Organ. Behav. 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322 Wiley.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 11 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
Kim, A. J., and Johnson, K. K. (2016). Power of consumers using social media:
Qiu, L., and Benbasat, I. (2010). A study of demographic embodiments of product
examining the influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook.
recommendation agents in electronic commerce. Int. J. Human-Comput. Stud.
Comput. Human Behav. 58, 98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.047
68, 669–688. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.005
Kim, E., and Drumwright, M. (2016). Engaging consumers and building
Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic
relationships in social media: how social relatedness influences intrinsic vs.
desires. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 179–193. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.179
extrinsic consumer motivation. Comput. Human Behav. 63, 970–979. doi:
Rogers, R. (2017). The motivational pull of video game feedback, rules, and social 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.025
interaction: another self-determination theory approach. Comput. Human
Kim, H., Suh, K.-S., and Lee, U.-K. (2013). Effects of collaborative online shopping
Behav. 73, 446–450. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.048
on shopping experience through social and relational perspectives. Inform.
Rook, D. W., and Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying
Manage. 50, 169–180. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.02.003
behavior. J. Consum. Res. 22, 305–313. doi: 10.1086/209452
Kim, J., and Moon, J. Y. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic
customer interfaces—trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces.
definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi: 10.
Interact. Comput. 10, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/s0953-5438(97)00037-4 1006/ceps.1999.1020
King, D., Delfabbro, P., and Griffiths, M. (2010). The role of structural
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation
characteristics in problem video game playing: a review. Cyberpsychol. J.
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55:68.
Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 4:6. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. J. Retailing 49, 48–64.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., and Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of
Kwak, D. H., McDaniel, S., and Kim, K. T. (2012). Revisiting the satisfaction-loyalty
video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv. Emot. 30, 344–360.
relationship in the sport video gaming context: the mediating role of consumer doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
expertise. J. Sport Manage. 26, 81–91. doi: 10.1123/jsm.26.1.81
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., and Shen, W.-C. M. (2016). Research Note—Gamification
Laurel, B. (2013). Computers as Theatre. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
of technology-mediated training: not all competitions are the same. Inform.
Lee, C.-L., and Yang, H.-J. (2011). Organization structure, competition and
Syst. Res. 27, 453–465. doi: 10.1287/isre.2016.0630
performance measurement systems and their joint effects on performance.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A. B.
Manage. Account. Res. 22, 84–104. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2010.10.003
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study.
Liu, D., Geng, X., and Whinston, A. B. (2007). Optimal design of consumer
J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003
contests. J. Mark. 71, 140–155. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.71.4.140
Schell, J. (2019). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Lucassen, G., and Jansen, S. (2014). Gamification in consumer marketing-future or Press.
fallacy? Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 148, 194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.
Seaborn, K., and Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. 034
J. Human-Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
Ma, M., and Agarwal, R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: information
Sen, R., Subramaniam, C., and Nelson, M. L. (2008). Determinants of the choice
technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online
of open source software license. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 25, 207–240. doi:
communities. Inform. Syst. Res. 18, 42–67. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0113 10.2753/mis0742-1222250306
Mauri, M., Cipresso, P., Balgera, A., Villamira, M., and Riva, G. (2011). Why
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., and Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
is Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological measures describe a core flow
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
state while using Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 723–731. doi:
80:325. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325 10.1089/cyber.2010.0377
Sigala, M. (2015). The application and impact of gamification funware on trip
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., and Opwis, K. (2017). Towards
planning and experiences: the case of TripAdvisor’s funware. Electron. Mark.
understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic
25, 189–209. doi: 10.1007/s12525-014-0179-1
motivation and performance. Comput. Human Behav. 71, 525–534. doi: 10.
Silic, M., and Lowry, P. B. (2020). Using design-science based gamification to 1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
improve organizational security training and compliance. J. Manage. Inform.
Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., and Jin, H. S. (2020). Gamification and the impact of
Syst. 37, 129–161. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2019.1705512
extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: making work fun? J. Bus. Res. 106,
Silverman, R. E. (2011). Latest game theory: mixing work and play.
323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.022 Wall Street J. Available online at: http://online.wsj.com/article/
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., and Koivisto, J. (2016). “Gamification in
SB10001424052970204294504576615371783795248.html
crowdsourcing: a review,” in Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., and Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), (Koloa, HI).
for a K-6 learning platform. Comput. Human Behav. 29, 345–353. doi: 10.1016/
Müller-Stewens, J., Schlager, T., Häubl, G., and Herrmann, A. (2017). Gamified j.chb.2012.06.007
information presentation and consumer adoption of product innovations.
Sullivan, G. M., and Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not
J. Mark. 81, 8–24. doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0396
enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 4, 279–282.
Mullins, J. K., and Sabherwal, R. (2020). Gamification: a cognitive-emotional view.
Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., and Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer
J. Bus. Res. 106, 304–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.023
support: a social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS
Nelson, M. R. (2005). “Exploring consumer response to “Advergaming”,” in Online
Q 33, 371–393. doi: 10.2307/20650296
consumer psychology: Understanding and influencing consumer behavior in the
Tao, L., and Yun, C. (2019). Will virtual reality be a double-edged sword? Exploring
virtual world, eds C. P. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit, and R. Yalch (Abingdon-on-
the moderation effects of the expected enjoyment of a destination on travel
Thames: Taylor & Francis Group), 156–182.
intention. J. Destination Mark. Manage 12, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.
O’Brien, H. L. (2010). The influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on 02.003
user engagement: the case of online shopping experiences. Interact. Comput.
Tobon, S., Ruiz-Alba, J. L., and García-Madariaga, J. (2020). Gamification and
22, 344–352. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.001
online consumer decisions: is the game over? Decis. Support Syst. 128:113167.
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2019.113167
research: problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12, 531–544. doi: 10.1177/
Von Ahn, L., and Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Commun. 014920638601200408 ACM 51, 58–67.
Poncin, I., Garnier, M., Mimoun, M. S. B., and Leclercq, T. (2017). Smart
Wakefield, R. L., Wakefield, K. L., Baker, J., and Wang, L. C. (2011). How website
technologies and shopping experience: are gamification interfaces effective?
socialness leads to website use. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 20, 118–132. doi: 10.1057/
The case of the Smartstore. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 124, 320–331. doi: ejis.2010.47 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.025
Wang, X., and Li, Y. (2016). Users’ satisfaction with social network sites: a self-
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., and Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of
determination perspective. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 56, 48–54. doi: 10.1080/
video game engagement. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14, 154–166. doi: 10.1037/a0019440 08874417.2015.11645800
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 12 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention
Wang, Y., and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in
Zichermann, G., and Linder, J. (2010). Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer
online communities: an empirical investigation of an online travel community.
Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
Electron. Mark. 13, 33–45. doi: 10.1080/1019678032000052934 & Sons.
Webster, J., and Ahuja, J. S. (2006). Enhancing the design of web navigation
systems: the influence of user disorientation on engagement and performance.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
MIS Q. 30, 661–678. doi: 10.2307/25148744
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Xi, N., and Hamari, J. (2020). Does gamification affect brand engagement and
potential conflict of interest.
equity? A study in online brand communities. J. Bus. Res. 109, 449–460. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.058
Copyright © 2020 Xu, Chen, Peng and Anser. This is an open-access article
Yang, C., Ye, H. J., and Feng, Y. (2020). Using gamification elements for competitive
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
crowdsourcing: exploring the underlying mechanism. Behav. Inform. Technol.
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
Zichermann, G., and Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design:
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. Sebastopol, CA:
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No O’Reilly Media, Inc.
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200 fpsyg-11-581200 November 17, 2020 Time: 18:39 # 13 Xu et al.
Gamification and Purchase Intention APPENDIX TABLE A1 | Measurement items. Construct Measurement items References Factor t-value loadings Reward When playing Stackopolis
Sen et al., 2008; O’Brien, 2010; Kankanhalli et al., 2012
(1) Awards increases my involvement in the game 0.94 25.40
(2) I try to get more points as a reward for my activities. 0.93 77.29
(3) I try to have a higher status as a reward for my activities. 0.94 84.83
(4) I try to get more badges or loots as a reward for my activities. 0.82 101.88 Competition When playing Stackopolis
Sheldon et al., 2001; Jang et al., 2009
(1) I am facing intense competition. 0.84 30.11
(2) Activities of other participants are threats to me 0.85 31.93
(3) Competition among participants is fierce. 0.85 28.67
(4) Competition increases my participation in the game 0.83 50.14 Absorption When playing Stackopolis Seaborn and Fels, 2015
(1) I forget everything else around me. 0.88 46.82 (2) Time flies. 0.87 41.42 (3) I am immersed. 0.90 52.07
(4) It is difficult to detach myself from the website. 0.89 43.52 Autonomy (AUT) When playing Stackopolis
Sheldon et al., 2001; Jang et al., 2009
(1) I feel free to decide what to do for myself. 0.85 24.60
(2) I feel that my choices are based on my true interests and values. 0.85 23.15
(3) I feel free to do things on my own way. 0.90 42.12 Enjoyment (ENJ) Stackopolis is Kim et al., 2013 (1) interesting. 0.89 51.03 (2) exciting. 0.93 97.29 (3) fun. 0.82 35.28 Online Purchase intention After the game, Huang et al., 2017
(1) I bought goods or VIP services on the website. 0.87 36.42
(2) I intend to pay for some goods or VIP services. 0.90 57.18
(3) I am able to buy goods or VIP services with the acquired red packet. 0.81 31.54
(4) I will recommend others to buy goods or VIP services. 0.67 12.33
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13
November 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 581200
Document Outline

  • Enhancing Consumer Online Purchase Intention Through Gamification in China: Perspective of Cognitive Evaluation Theory
    • Introduction
    • Literature Review and Theory Development
      • Cognitive Evaluation Theory
      • Consumer Enjoyment
      • Gamification
    • Methodology
      • Sampling
      • Procedure
      • Instrument
      • Data Analysis Strategy
    • Results and Analysis
      • Measurement Model
      • Testing Structural Model Fit
        • Inner Model Analysis
    • Discussion and Conclusion
      • Discussion
      • Implications for Research
      • Implications for Practice
      • Limitations and Further Research Directions
    • Data Availability Statement
    • Ethics Statement
    • Author Contributions
    • References
    • Appendix