Journal of Communication Management

Stakeholder engagement through gamification: Effects of user motivation on

psychological and behavioral stakeholder reactions
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Wolfgang Weitzl, Magdalena Henriks,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Wolfgang Weitzl, Magdalena Henriks, (2018) "Stakeholder engagement
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

through gamification: Effects of user motivation on psychological and behavioral stakeholder

reactions", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 22 Issue: 1, pp.67-78, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2016-0096
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2016-0096
Downloaded on: 20 October 2018, At: 11:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 640 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement", International Journal of
Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 35 Iss 1 pp. 56-79 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJILT-02-2017-0009">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009</a>
(2014),"Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising",
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5 pp. 391-400 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JCM-04-2014-0945">https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:605028 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm

Stakeholder
Stakeholder engagement engagement
through gamification through
gamification
Effects of user motivation on psychological and
behavioral stakeholder reactions 67
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Wolfgang Weitzl and Magdalena Henriks Received 5 December 2016
Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Revised 22 March 2017
Accepted 26 July 2017
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to research the role of stakeholder motivation in the context of
gamification. The authors suggest, that a player’s motivation, is a key determinant of psychological
engagement and subsequently, behavioral engagement. To examine stakeholder engagement through
gamification, the authors propose a research model that links gamer types, i.e. a gamer’s motivation, with
engagement and potential effects beyond the gamified content.
Design/methodology/approach – Online survey with 90 active users of a gamified application, followed
by a multiple regression analysis.
Findings – The findings of the study suggest that a gamer’s typology, i.e. her underlying motivation,
positively influences psychological stakeholder engagement toward gamified content and indirectly
behavioral stakeholder engagement toward the communication instrument (i.e. the app) itself. The findings
suggest that particularly gamified content that targets a person’s need toward achievement is a key driver of
behavioral engagement toward an application. Thus, gamer types seem to be a good predictor for
engagement on the part of stakeholders.
Research limitations/implications – This research provides first empirical evidence about the
effectiveness of gamification of mobile service apps and the critical role of stakeholder engagement. However,
several limitations have to be noted: first, the study was conducted with only a single mobile app which
targets only a specific audience and which only conveys specific types of gamified content. Second, given the
small sample size and sampling approach the findings should be interpreted with care in respect to its
reliability, validity and robustness. Third, as only a fraction of the variance of behavioral engagement was
explained by the research, future studies should investigate additional variables that drive app usage
(e.g. perceived informational value).
Practical implications – When talking about the role of dialogue in the process of establishing good and
lasting relations between an organization and its stakeholders, the non-rational (e.g. emotions) forces of
engagement are often disregarded. The human drive to play can be a powerful door opener in that process.
The paper suggests that engaging in stakeholder relations through gamification might be as effective as the
standard way of dialogue and two-way-symmetrical communication. Especially potential stakeholders who lack
the interest and motivation for information seeking, can be attracted to the organization in such a manner.
Social implications – Many studies that focus on engagement in the digital realm look to Twitter,
Facebook, etc. in order to study company-stakeholder relationships. Thereby, the importance of many other
digital media, especially games, is neglected. However, within gamified apps, small social networks form,
which are driven by other forces (such as play), than in the aforementioned.
Originality/value – The present study contributes to research in the area of stakeholder engagement in the
following way: even though engagement is widely believed to play a vital role in the process of building
stakeholder relationships, research in the field of PR focuses mainly on the behavioral aspect of engagement.
The results suggest to pay more attention to psychological antecedents in order to understand what
drives engagement.
Keywords Communication technologies, Stakeholder management, Electronic media,
Marketing communications
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
It has been just a few years, since the term “gamification” appeared on the landscape of Journal of Communication
Management
social sciences. However, the concept of gamification, which is defined as “the use of game Vol. 22 No. 1, 2018
pp. 67-78
elements and mechanics in non-game contexts” (Seaborn and Fels, 2015, p. 16), has since © Emerald Publishing Limited
1363-254X
then already left its traces in diverse academic disciplines such as marketing DOI 10.1108/JCOM-12-2016-0096
 JCOM communication, education or health communication. Researchers agree that gamification
22,1 should be regarded as a key explanatory variable triggering diverse human attitudes and
behaviors. However, as Seiffert and Nothhaft (2015) conclude, the topic of gamification is
still outside the scope of public relations and strategic communication research.
The present paper seeks to fill this void by demonstrating that introducing the concept of
gamification in the context of public relations and strategic communication research is a
68 promising endeavor. In times of fierce competition, companies are forced to introduce novel
communication vehicles (e.g. mobile apps) in order to connect with their stakeholders.
In addition, companies have to provide new forms of content that help to foster company-
stakeholder relationships and enhance stakeholders’ psychological involvement as well as
behavioral engagement toward their offerings (e.g. brands, products) and activities
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

(e.g. CSR). Various companies, such as Verizon or Nissan, consequently have begun to
gamify their market communication in order to increase stakeholder engagement by
directing the human drive to play toward their organizational goal. For instance, intermaps
Software’s iSKI-Austria is a mobile app that as a main function provides information for
skiers (weather forecast, snow depth, avalanche risk, ski lifts, etc.). However, this service is
accompanied by gamified content for users to organize and enhance their skiing experience
in the Austrian Mountains. Gamification in the app comes in two forms: the iSKI-Trophy,
in which skiers participate by collecting rewards based on their skiing activity, and the
iSKI-Community, which allows users to share their skiing experience with others and track
their buddies in real time. Both elements should increase the attractiveness of this
communication instrument. However, the scientific knowledge concerning the effectiveness
of such gamified content for increasing the appeal of mobile apps is still very limited.
This research is guided by two key research questions:
RQ1. Does gamified content enhance both stakeholder engagement toward the app and
critical outcomes of the communication process (i.e. recognition of app sponsors)?
RQ2. What role do motivational dispositions have in regard with stakeholder
engagement toward gamified content?
Our research provides new insights for academia as well as practice. From the scientific
perspective, our key contribution is the introduction of a novel conceptual model that
enables us to evaluate the importance and role of gamification or more specifically
stakeholders’ mental involvement toward gamified content. Our results show that this
psychological engagement is a key facilitator of subsequent behavioral outcomes. However,
we are also able to demonstrate that stakeholder behaviors are influenced differently by
varying types of mental involvement toward gamified content. Additionally, the paper
enquires into the relationship between deep seeded hedonic motivations (i.e. a person’s game
playing motivation) and a stakeholder’s psychological engagement toward different forms
of gamified content.

Literature review
Gamification
Research on gamification in the context of public relations, communication management
and strategic communication is scarce. None of the major journals in the field feature any
article that is related to the matter. Therefore, Seiffert and Nothhaft (2015) state a lack
of attempts to incorporate games as persuasive devices into the body of knowledge of
strategic communication and PR research. In other disciplines such as computer sciences,
education or marketing, however, literature and research on gamification is more profound,
albeit still in its infancy (see, e.g. Lucassen and Jansen, 2014). Nevertheless, there is
considerable agreement among researchers that gamification should be regarded as an
 important facilitator of diverse attitudinal and behavioral reactions. For instance, according Stakeholder
to Hamari (2015a, b), gamified content in general is likely to increase user activity, engagement
by promoting motivation directed toward activity (Hamari and Koivisto, 2015). In the field of through
education, numerous studies show increased engagement and motivation of students
due to the use of gamification in the classroom (e.g. da Rocha Seixas et al., 2016; Kuo and gamification
Chuang, 2016). Likewise, Love et al. (2016) report increased engagement in an online
community with regard to effective parenting and the development of vulnerable children 69
due to the use of gamified mechanisms in the program.
Gamification is also widely researched in the field of marketing. Hofacker et al. (2016)
support the general claim, brought forward by authors like Hamari (2015a, b), that
gamification is likely to foster the engagement and motivation of customers. A variety of
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

papers provides approaches on gamification in marketing (e.g. Rodrigues et al., 2016a;

Robson et al., 2016), advertising (Terlutter and Capella, 2013) and non-profit contexts
(Freudmann and Bakamitsos, 2014). However, Hofacker et al. (2016) also note, that
empirical evidence for claims on effects is still scarce. A notable exception is the work of
Rodrigues et al. (2016b) who report a significant improvement in bank customer’s awareness
for social interaction, which then could lead to increased engagement. In a study with online
game players, Cheung et al. (2015) were able to show that stimulated engagement exerts a
positive influence on in-game spending online. Looking at the connection between player
types and application usage, a number of works supports the hypothesis that users engage
with programs according to their player type (e.g. Hamari and Tuunanen, 2014).

Stakeholder engagement
Unlike gamification, stakeholder engagement has been, and still is, a major issue in the field
of PR and strategic communication ( Johnston, 2014; McKie and Willis, 2012; Motion, 2005;
Botan and Taylor, 2004; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000), especially in the sub-field of
corporate social responsibility (Greenwood, 2007; Morsing and Schultz, 2006), since
“stakeholder engagement is traditionally seen as corporate responsibility in action”
(Greenwood, 2007, p. 315). However, as Greenwood continues to argue, to reduce stakeholder
engagement solely to the field of CSR would oversimplify a rather complex relationship.
A more inclusive definition according to Greenwood would therefore be to understand
stakeholder engagement as all “practices the organization undertakes to involve
stakeholders in a positive manner in organizational activities” (Greenwood, 2007)
Ledingham and Bruning (2000, p. 66) point out, that stakeholder relationships therefore
work to benefit the organizational publics as well as the organization. Consequently,
one then has to include the motivation to engage of each participant of the process into the
broader picture (Lawrence, 2002).
Despite the recognized importance of the concept, engagement remains undertheorized,
and thus, vague, within the field (Greenwood, 2007; Devin and Lane, 2014). As Devin and
Lane (2014) note, there are two notable perspectives on engagement with regard to PR.
The first is an understanding of engagement as how to approach in order to create
relationships. The second angle is a meta-view, where engagement is understood as
organizational communication about the things the organization does. Consequently,
research in the field is mostly concerned with engagement as an effective process (Devin and
Lane, 2014). This however, is a reduction of the concept of engagement into a merely
behavioral dimension, where engagement is understood as an organizational endeavor that
targets the elicitation of stakeholders behavioral reactions, for instance, tweets on Twitter
(Lovejoy et al., 2012) or Facebook posts (Cho et al., 2014; Waters et al., 2009).
However, marketing research tells us to view engagement also from the recipient’s
perspective. Here, customer engagement, which should be considered as a sub-concept
under the umbrella term of “engagement,” has particularly drawn the attention of various
 JCOM researchers (e.g. Bowden, 2009; Hollebeek, 2011). A strong body of literature provides
22,1 considerable evidence that individuals can develop engagement toward a diverse set of objects
including brands (Sprott et al., 2009), products and organizations (Patterson et al., 2006) and
brand communities (Algesheimer et al., 2005). While there is remarkable consensus that
customer engagement triggers the success of marketing and communication activities
(e.g. Hollebeek et al., 2014), there is still some dispute how to define the concept. Currently, three
70 conceptual views dominate the literature: according to the first literature string, customer
engagement should be regarded as a psychological process (Bowden, 2009) that leads to
triggers individual's pro-brand reactions (e.g. increased loyalty) the emergence of loyalty and
customer returns. The second view conceptualizes customer engagement as a behavioral
manifestation. van Doorn et al. (2010) as members of this school of thought define customer
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

engagement as a set of customer behaviors toward a brand or a firm that go beyond purchase
behavior. The third view emphasizes customer engagement as a motivational psychological
state. Patterson et al. (2006), for example, view engagement as a complex psychological state
that is expressed by a degree of vigor, dedication, interaction and absorption.
In recent years, various researchers have attempted to explore the concept of customer
engagement in the online context. Here, a particular emphasis was on social networking
sites and online brand communities (e.g. Brodie et al., 2013). We also notice that there are
only some studies that have been conducted in the context of online games (e.g. Cheung
et al., 2015). In this research, we want to examine the concept of stakeholder engagement on
the individual level in the context of gamified mobile apps.

Theoretical framework: from player motivation to stakeholder engagement

The approach brought forward by this paper is, to put gamer motivation (GM) and
engagement into relationship to each other, with the former influencing the latter. Thus,
our guiding assumption is that deep seeded motivations are a driving force when it comes
to user involvement in gamified apps. Having in mind the importance of stakeholder
relations – especially the engagement involved in the process – for organizations,
our proposition is to understand playing as a powerful driving motivation (among others)
for stakeholders to engage in relational activities. So far, stakeholder relationships
have mostly been approached from the angle of dialogue (Kent and Taylor, 2002;
McAllister-Spooner, 2009). While a dialogic approach to stakeholder relationships affords
an earnest attitude toward the issue, playing instead involves “a note of light-heartedness
and carefree joyfulness,” as Huizinga (1980) pointed out (p. 30). Of course, very often the
motivation to engage stems from the wish of stakeholders to somehow change
organizational behavior (e.g. Lawrence, 2002; Morsing and Schultz, 2006) by the means of
dialogic communication. While many works so far have focused on engagement with
regard to customers specifically (e.g. Robson et al., 2016), we argue that the framework can
be applied in a broader sense beyond the organizational intention to increase customer
pro-brand reactions (e.g. purchasing patterns). Attitude and behavioral change can also be
understood in a wider context of issues that are related to the organization.
Figure 1 outlines our conceptual model. We assume that a person’s mental disposition to
strive for particular gaming goals (i.e. a gamer’s motivation) is a driving force of
psychological engagement toward a gamified app (PE). We identify two routes of app
gamification: gamification by competition (e.g. iSKI’s-Trophy); and gamification by
providing an environment for social exchange (e.g. iSKI’s-Community). We assume that
stakeholders can develop mental disposition toward both types of content: psychological
engagement toward the iSKI-Trophy (PET) (i.e. a stakeholder’s mental involvement toward
a mobile app’s competition) and psychological engagement toward the iSKI-Community
(PEC) (i.e. a stakeholder’s mental involvement toward a mobile app’s community).
In reference to earlier research we further assume, that PE should be regarded as an
 App User Motivation App User Engagement App User Reactions Stakeholder
PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORAL engagement
GAMER TYPE STAKEHOLDER APP
STAKEHOLDER APP
ENGAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT through
+
gamification
H1a-H1c
PSYCHOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT ++
ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS H4a-H4c
MOTIVATION
+
THE iSKI TROPHY
(achievement)
+
BEHAVIORAL +
71
SPONSOR
H3a-H3b ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS
+ RECOGNITION
SOCIAL THE iSKI APP
MOTIVATION +
++ PSYCHOLOGICAL
ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

+
THE iSKI TROPHY
(social) +
H2a-H2c
IMMERSION +
Figure 1.
App engagement
framework
Source: Own

antecedent for behavioral engagement toward an app (BEA; i.e. a stakeholder’s app usage
frequency and duration) itself and app message reception (i.e. post-app usage recognition of
its sponsors) – the latter is also driven by BEA. Our point of origin for developing a research
model are the underlying drivers for stakeholder engagement which are represented in the
concept of GM (Yee et al., 2012).

GMs as antecedents of psychological app engagement

In the early 1990s, Richard Bartle (1996) developed an approach to classify types of gamers.
He based his conceptual approach based upon what then became his research question:
“What do people want out of a MUD [Multi User Dungeon; the author]” (Bartle, 1996, p. 2).
Out of the analysis of an online discussion with regard to the motivations of users to play
MUDs, according to Bartle, four motivations emerged: “Achievement within the game
context […], exploration of the game […], socializing with others […] and, imposition upon
others” (Bartle, 1996, pp. 3-4). Hence, Bartle labeled his four emerging categories of gamers
as achievers, explorers, socializers and killers. Robson et al. (2016, p. 31) came to a similar
categorization when looking at gamified content in a business environment, labeling the
categories as strivers (resembling Bartle’s achiever), slayers (killer), scholars (explorer) and
socialities (socializer). However instructive the Bartle categorization might be, authors like
Yee (2007) and Hamari and Tuunanen (2014), point out, that there are two major deficits
inherent in the model. First, the model has never been tested empirically (Yee, 2007).
And secondarily, it is seen by some scholars as being too dichotomous and simplifying
(Hamari and Tuunanen, 2014). Based on the original categorization Yee (2007) and
Yee et al. (2012) developed a three-factor model that merged the original categories into three
new dimensions: achievement (i.e. a stakeholder’s desire to challenge and compete with
others and to gain power as well as accumulate in-game symbols of wealth and status);
social (i.e. a stakeholder’s desire to interact with others and build personal relationships);
and immersion (i.e. a stakeholder’s desire to immerge into the game world). We suggest that
these three types of motivation are the drivers that influence the actual motivational state of
the user’s PE toward the distinctive gamified elements of the app.
Nowadays, in games like the Diablo-series and World of Warcraft, digital items are a
commodity that is traded and sold on platforms like Ebay. User spend money to short-cut
the oftentimes arduous way through an entire game in order to unlock all its rewards,
secrets and special items. Especially so called “freemium games” (Seufert, 2014) use that
 JCOM kind of mechanism to induce purchases of digital items by gamers. Recently, researchers were
22,1 able to show that in-game enjoyment and satisfaction have an impact on purchasing behavior
of users (e.g. Guo and Barnes, 2012). Freemium games are designed to drag the user into an
enjoyable but frustratingly slow gaming experience, in order to increase real money spending.
Strong enjoyment increases the willingness to play, while it simultaneously reduces the
willingness to purchase (Hamari, 2015a, b). Thus, games and gamified applications need to be
72 balanced in order to manage engagement. Cheung et al. (2015, p. 242) argue that “customer
engagement can be considered as an effective strategy to improve customer relationships in
the online environment” and in turn, “game players’ psychological engagement leads to their
behavioral engagement” (Cheung et al., 2015). Hence, it is crucial to consider, what drives
engagement in the play-situation.
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

When looking at PE toward distinctive gamified features of applications, the different

GMs presumably influence engagement toward gamified content in general, but toward
corresponding game elements in particular. For instance, stakeholders guided by the
achievement motivation should therefore, develop a greater PE toward competitive game
elements, while stakeholders who value the social aspects of games should be dragged
toward an app’s community elements. Consequently, our first and second hypotheses are
as follows:
H1. PET is positively affected by a user’s (a) achievement, (b) social, and (c) immersion
motivation. Given the competitive nature of the iSKI Trophy, we expect PET to be
strongest affected by the achievement motivation.
H2. PEC is positively affected by a user’s (a) achievement, (b) social, and (c) immersion
motivation. Given the social nature of the iSKI Trophy, we expect PEC to be
strongest affected by the social game motivation.

Relationship between psychological app engagement and behavioral app engagement

Following our research model, the next step is to understand how psychological app
engagement and behavioral app engagement are connected to each other. PE, understood as
a salient state of motivation, should affect BE, which then should also yield outcomes
beyond the application. Therefore, the object of engagement in this study is split: The first
object are the different elements of the application, i.e. the gamified content, toward which
the user develops PE. The second object is the application as a whole, with which the user
engages behaviorally. Without PE as an antecedent, the user is unlikely to develop BE,
which itself is comprised of frequency, duration, and recentness (Cheung et al., 2015) of the
app usage. In order to look at the relationship between PET, PEC and BEA as well as
potential effects beyond app usage, our third and fourth hypotheses state:
H3. BEA is positively affected by PET and PEC.
H4. PET, PEC and BEA positively influence app sponsor recognition.

Method
Survey measurement
In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted an online survey with a standardized
questionnaire. All measurement items used in this survey were taken from established
academic research. Only minor changes in the items’ wording were necessary to fit into the
current context of the investigated mobile app. As the original items were derived from
the international communication, marketing and IS literature, it was necessary to translate
the English items into German. The translation was done by two researchers and was
reassessed by another independent translator. Afterwards, the face validity of the
 preliminary measures was then assessed by an expert panel of communication and Stakeholder
marketing researchers, who have prior experience with research in the field of gamification engagement
and stakeholder engagement. We then pretested the measurement items for through
comprehensiveness, clearness and psychometric properties (Churchill, 1979) using a
sample of ten respondents taken from the target population. Throughout the research gamification
instrument, multi-item perceptual scales were used, when possible, for ensuring the validity
and the reliability of the involved constructs. In quantitative survey research it is well 73
acknowledged that constructs can be operationalized either reflectively or formatively.
While reflective and formative measures both attempt to capture different aspects of a focal
construct (Petter et al., 2007), there are some key differences in respect to how the construct
can be actually measured. These differences include amongst others item
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

interchangeability, internal consistency and causal priority. One key assumption of

reflective measures is that the underlying construct is ultimately causing variations in a
person’s responses to the scale items which attempt to measure similar, but slightly different
elements of the construct (i.e. the causality is from the construct to its items). On the other
hand, the totality of formative scale items define the scope and the nature of the construct,
hence the causality of measurement is from the item to the construct. Based on these
considerations, in this study, BEA and sponsor recognition are both conceptualized as
formative constructs. All other constructs are modeled as reflective. All reflective measures
were measured on a five-point Likert scale (with high values indicating favorable attitudes
or perceptions). In addition, BEA was measured from the frequency and duration
perspective. More specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their app usage
frequency on an eight-point continuous scale for assessing usage frequency (ranging from
“1 ¼ less than one time per month” to “8 ¼ daily usage”) and two five-point rating scales for
measuring active and passive usage patterns. PET was measured with the scale advanced
by Cheung et al. (2015); five items for measuring vigor, six items for measuring dedication,
and four items for measuring absorption). PEC, on the other hand, was assessed with a
four-item scale adapted from Algesheimer et al. (2005). GM was measured with Yee’s (2007)
multi-item scale: achievement (four items), social (four items) and immersion (five items).
Sponsor recognition was measured with the correct identification of five sponsoring brands
among a list that included also five non-sponsoring brands. Summated scales were used to
measure the individual constructs. The questionnaire also included additional items not
discussed in this paper and a list of socio-demographic variables. (A full list of the items
used in this research is available upon request.)

Data collection
The current study used a survey design requiring participants to respond to an online
questionnaire, which was available for four weeks in Spring, 2016. The target respondents
of this study were active users of the iSKI-Austria app. The purpose of this app is to furnish
skiers and snowboarders with useful information all around their winter sport activity
(e.g. weather conditions, ski slope conditions). For a better experience, some features of the
app are gamified. Consequently, app users regularly utilize it to compete with other skiers
and interact with others. To improve the response rate, we cooperated with the app producer
who granted us access to the firm’s mailing list and also published links to the questionnaire
on the company’s own website and social media channels. In addition, we also contacted
several Austrian sports organizations who also published information about the survey on
their communication channels (e.g. newsletters). We used screening questions to filter
persons who have installed the app on their smartphone and who are active users of the app
within the last six months. Only eligible respondents could access the reminder of the online
questionnaire. To increase the participation, we granted the participating persons the
opportunity enter a lottery and to win a material prize sponsored by the app producer.
 JCOM Of the total responses, 90 questionnaires were considered for data analysis. Of these valid
22,1 respondents, 72.2 percent (n ¼ 65) were male. Participants were between 17 and 67 years old
having a mean age of 31.3 (SD ¼ 11.7). On average, respondents spent 32 days on the
ski slope during the last Winter season and spent 480 euros for skiing passes.

Data analysis and results

74 We conducted statistical analysis with a series of multiple regressions in order to
find empirical support for our hypotheses. This was done after ensuring the reliability and
validity of both the reflective and formative measures. This precursory step was conducted
in awareness that reflective and formative measurement scales require different procedures
in order to assess their psychometric quality. Accordingly, a series of exploratory factor
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

analyses were conducted to check the convergent and discriminant validity of the reflective
measures. Subsequently, reliability analyses ensured the internal consistencies of all
(reflective) measures (with Cronbach’s α of 0.77 and above). Also the formative scales
possessed satisfactory measurement properties.
H1 states that psychological engagement toward the iSKI-Trophy (PET) is positively
influenced by a person’s gaming motivation (GM). That is whether he/she strives for:
achievement, social interaction with others, and feels immersed with games in general.
Results of a multiple regression (R² ¼ 0.71, F(3,86) ¼ 69.61, p o0.001) shows that the
achievement motivation (b ¼ 0.58, p o0.001) and social motivation (b ¼ 0.31, po0.01) have
a positive and significant relationship with PET supporting H1a and H1b. As expected,
the influence of the achievement motivation is stronger. Our research, however, does not
find evidence that immersion should be regarded as an antecedent of PET (b ¼ 0.05,
p W0.05). Hence, H1 is partially supported.
According to H2 we expect that stakeholder psychological engagement toward the
iSKI-Community (PEC) is driven by a person’s GM but in particularly by an individual’s
social gaming motivation. Accordingly, we find such a pattern in the data (b ¼ 0.77,
p o0.001; R2 ¼ 0.71, F(3,86) ¼ 69.35, p o0.001) supporting H2b, but not for the achievement
(H2a) (b ¼ −0.04, p W0.05) and immersion motivation (H2c) (b ¼ 0.13, p W0.05).
We further found that PET (b ¼ 0.31, po 0.05) is positively associated with behavioral
engagement toward an app (BEA), while PEC is not (b ¼ 0.04, p W0.05; R2 ¼ 0.09,
F(2,87) ¼ 4.13, p o0.05). This partially supports H3. Finally, PET (b ¼ 0.49, p W0.001) and
BEA (b ¼ 0.23, p W0.05) are both positively associated with sponsor brand recognition.
Thus, H4a and H4c are supported. However, we do not find any empirical support for the
influence of PEC on brand recognition (H4b) (b ¼ 0.19, p W0.05; R2 ¼ 0.25, F(3,86) ¼ 9.59,
p o0.001).

Discussion
The paper at hand conceptualizes and operationalizes “stakeholder engagement” in the
context of gamified mobile apps and examines its role in contributing to the app’s
communication success. In order to address the research objectives outlined at
the beginning of this paper, we have advanced a theoretical model that captures the
determinants and consequences of stakeholder engagement toward two different kinds of
gamified content. The majority of the hypothesized relationships in the model were
supported by empirical evidence. The findings suggest that particularly gamified content
that targets a person’s need toward achievement is a key driver of BEA. This means that
individuals tend to use the app more frequently and increase time spent for each usage
session when they are mentally involved toward such game elements. In addition, we find
some evidence that such PET enhances stakeholders’ memory toward critical content
elements (e.g. the app’s sponsoring brands). Our research supports earlier findings that a
person’s level of BEA with a communication vehicle and the simultaneous increased
 exposure with its content is positively associated with content recognition. However, Stakeholder
we gained some insight that engagement toward gamified content that targets achievement engagement
motivations is a stronger predictor. In contrast, our study was not able to find similar effects through
for the role of PE toward social interaction with other gamers demonstrating that the type of
gamified content is essential and not gamification per se. gamification
This study also identified the antecedents of stakeholder engagement in gamified
smartphone apps recognizing the important role of a person’s gaming personality. 75
In particular, achievement and social motivation had statistically significant effects on PE,
explaining a large proportion of the two engagement types (around 70 percent in both
cases). As expected, a person is more likely to get psychologically engaged with a gamified
content that targets achievement motivations when he/she is already disposed to be an
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

achiever. However, our findings also showed that a person’s personal disposition for social
gaming affects this kind of engagement. Social motivations are, as expected, the key driver
of stakeholder engagement toward social gaming content. In contrast, immersion appears to
be a determinant of limited importance as no significant association with any kind of PE
was found in the data. This indicates that gamers that are attracted by content that invites
users to explore its nature and features are not attracted by neither of the two gamified
content types.

Implications
The argument brought forward in this paper is, that GM drives psychological stakeholder
engagement. Psychological stakeholder engagement then is an antecedent of behavioral
stakeholder engagement which finally leads to the emergence of relationships between an
organizations and its various stakeholders – if the particular effects are positive.
The present study contributes to research in the area of stakeholder engagement in three
ways. First, even though engagement is widely believed to play a vital role in the process of
building stakeholder relationships, research in the field of PR focuses mainly on the
behavioral aspect of engagement. Our results suggest to pay more attention to
psychological antecedents in order to understand what drives engagement. Even though
BEA is a focal point of stakeholder relationships, research and analysis need to take on a
broader view, conceptually and disciplinary. Especially the fields of psychology and
marketing provide a vast body of research to connect to. Second, when talking about the
role of dialogue in the process of establishing good and lasting relations between an
organization and its stakeholders, the non-rational (e.g. emotions) forces of engagement are
often disregarded. The human drive to play can be a powerful door opener in that process.
Of course, dialogue is a powerful way to involve stakeholders and to bring about
engagement. However, by tapping into a player’s motivation via gamification,
an organization can start to build relationships in a playful manner, apart from the
rational dimensions of motivation. Especially potential stakeholders who lack the interest
and motivation for information seeking, can be attracted to the organization in such a
manner. Finally, our research highlights that games and gamified applications deserve more
scholarly attention. Many studies that focus on engagement in the digital realm look to
Twitter, Facebook, etc. in order to study stakeholder relationships. Thereby, the importance
of many other digital media, especially games, is neglected. Our findings support the notion
to dedicate more attention to the huge variety of potential communication channels.

Limitations
The insights of this paper and its implications should be interpreted in the light of several
limitations, which can be addressed in future research. First, the study was conducted
with only a single smartphone app which targets only a specific audience and which only
conveys specific types of gamified content. Future research should extent our current
 JCOM study to other apps that also include other gamified elements and where gamification lies
22,1 at the heart of the app’s purpose. Second, as our research addresses a specific app with a
limited target population, the sample size is also very restricted. This may restrict the
external validity of our findings. Third, the generalization of the findings should be made
with caution because only 9 percent of the variance in BEA was explained. Although this
is solely explained by the concept of stakeholder PE toward the iSKI Trophy, it implies
76 that other important factors may have been neglected. In particular future research should
consider other factors unrecognized in this study, such as perceived information value,
which may provide additional insights for predicting stakeholder app usage frequency
and duration. Fourth, analyses conducted in this paper involved a series of multiple
regressions enabling us to evaluate the hypothesized relationships independently and
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

sequentially. Future research should consider simultaneous estimation of the

relationships by using covariance- or variance-based modeling techniques. This would
grant additional insights concerning the quality of the involved measures and the
robustness of the structural relationships.

References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:
evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Bartle, R. (1996), Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs, MUSE Ltd., Colchester.
Botan, C.H. and Taylor, M. (2004), “Public relations: state of the field”, Journal of Communication,
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 645-661.
Bowden, J.L.-H. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Cheung, C.M., Shen, X.-L., Lee, Z.W. and Chan, T.K. (2015), “Promoting sales of online games
through customer engagement”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 241-250.
Cho, M., Schweickart, T. and Haase, A. (2014), “Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on
Facebook”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 565-567.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A.S. and de Melo Filho, I.J. (2016), “Effectiveness of gamification in the
engagement of students”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 48-63, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
Devin, B.L. and Lane, A.B. (2014), “Communicating engagement in corporate social responsibility:
a meta-level construal of engagement”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 436-454.
Freudmann, E.A. and Bakamitsos, Y. (2014), “The role of gamification in non-profit marketing:
an information processing account”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148,
pp. 567-572, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.081.
Greenwood, M. (2007), “Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 315-327.
Guo, Y. and Barnes, S.J. (2012), “Explaining purchasing behavior within World of Warcraft”, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 18-30.
Hamari, J. (2015a), “Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 71, pp. 469-478, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.20
15.03.036
 Hamari, J. (2015b), “Why do people buy virtual goods? Attitude toward virtual good purchases versus Stakeholder
game enjoyment”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 299-308. engagement
Hamari, J. and Koivisto, J. (2015), “Why do people use gamification services?”, International Journal of through
Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 419-431.
gamification
Hamari, J. and Tuunanen, J. (2014), “Player types: a meta-synthesis”, Transactions of the Digital Games
Research Association, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 29-53.
Hofacker, C., de Ruyter, K., Lurie, N.H., Machanda, P. and Donaldson, J. (2016), “Gamification and 77
mobile marketing effectiveness”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 34, pp. 25-36.
Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573.
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Huizinga, J. (1980), Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, International Library of
Sociology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London and Boston, MA.
Johnston, K.A. (2014), “Public relations and engagement: theoretical imperatives of a multidimensional
concept”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 381-383.
Kent, M.L. and Taylor, M. (2002), “Toward a dialogic theory of public relations”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Kuo, M.-S. and Chuang, T.-Y. (2016), “How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online
academic dissemination – an empirical study”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55
No. Part A, pp. 16-27, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025
Lawrence, A.T. (2002), “The drivers of stakeholder engagement”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
Vol. 2002 No. 6, pp. 71-85.
Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (2000), “A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship
dimensions: defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management”, in
Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (Eds), Public Relations as Relationship Management:
A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, LEA’s Communication
Series, L. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 55-70.
Love, S.M., Sanders, M.R., Turner, Karen, M.T., Maurange, M., Knott, T., Prinz, R., Metzler, C. and
Ainsworth, A.T. (2016), “Social media and gamification: engaging vulnerable parents in an
online evidence-based parenting program”, Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 53, pp. 95-107.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R.D. and Saxton, G.D. (2012), “Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: how
nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 313-318.
Lucassen, G. and Jansen, S. (2014), “Gamification in consumer marketing – future or fallacy?”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148, pp. 194-202, available at: https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.sbspro.2014.07.034
McAllister-Spooner, S.M. (2009), “Fulfilling the dialogic promise: a ten-year reflective survey on
dialogic internet principles”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 320-322.
McKie, D. and Willis, P. (2012), “Renegotiating the terms of engagement: public relations, marketing,
and contemporary challenges”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 846-852.
Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder
information, response and involvement strategies”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 323-338.
Motion, J. (2005), “Participative public relations: power to the people or legitimacy for government
discourse?”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 505-512.
Patterson, P., Yu, T. and de Ruyter, K. (2006), Understanding Customer Engagement in Services, working
paper, Brisbane.
 JCOM Petter, S., Straub, D. and Rai, A. (2007), “Specifying formative constructs in information systems
22,1 research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 623-656.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J.H., McCarthy, I. and Pitt, L. (2016), “Game on: engaging
customers and employees through gamification”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Rodrigues, L.F., Costa, C.J. and Oliveira, A. (2016a), “Gamification: a framework for designing software
in e-banking”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 620-634.
78 Rodrigues, L.F., Oliveira, A. and Costa, C.J. (2016b), “Playing seriously – how gamification and social
cues influence bank customers to use gamified e-business applications”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 392-407.
Seaborn, K. and Fels, D.I. (2015), “Gamification in theory and action: a survey”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 74, pp. 14-31.
Downloaded by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration At 11:28 20 October 2018 (PT)

Seiffert, J. and Nothhaft, H. (2015), “The missing media”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 254-263.
Seufert, E.B. (2014), Freemium Economics: Leveraging Analytics and User Segmentation to Drive
Revenue, Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The Importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior. Development and validation of a scale”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Terlutter, R. and Capella, M.L. (2013), “The gamification of advertising: analysis and research
directions of in-game advertising, advergames, and advertising in social network games”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42 Nos 2-3, pp. 95-112.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. and Lucas, J. (2009), “Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 35
No. 2, pp. 102-106.
Yee, N. (2007), “Motivations of play in online games”, Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 9,
pp. 772-775.
Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N. and Nelson, L. (2012), “Online gaming motivations scale”, Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2803-2806.

Corresponding author
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann can be contacted at: jens.seiffert@univie.ac.at

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com