Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

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

A framework for gamification in the metaverse era: How designers envision

gameful experience
Nibu John Thomas a, *, Rupashree Baral a, Oliver S. Crocco b, Swathi Mohanan c
a
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, TN, India
b
Leadership and Human Resource Development, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
c
Department of Commerce, University of Calicut, Calicut, KL, India

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

Keywords: Gamification uses principles extracted from games to elicit a unique game-like experience for users in various
Gamification settings, including learning, healthcare, and business. The ‘gameful experience,’ considered by researchers to be
Metaverse the essence of gamification, plays a significant role in positively affecting behavior in organizations and society
Gameful experience
as a whole. While attempts have been made to conceptualize the idea of gameful experience, those attempts lack
Thematic analysis
Flow experience
empirical insights from gamification designers. Thus, this paper aims to understand gamification from the de­
Extended reality (XR) signer's perspective. Towards this objective, interviews were conducted with experienced gamification designers
Games from different industries and parts of the world. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Inductive
reasoning resulted in eleven themes, which were mapped to four overarching theoretical categories: nudge
experience, flow experience, alternate reality experience, and hedonic experience. The evidence indicates that
gamification is influenced by positive psychology and the metaverse. The findings provide theoretical insights
concerning the construct of gameful experience and practical inputs on the experience to target when imple­
menting gamification.

1. Introduction 2021). Over a decade of gamification research, researchers have pro­

The concept of gamification has gained widespread recognition
among scholars and practitioners across fields of practice and academic
disciplines (Behl et al., 2022; Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto and Hamari,
2019; Thomas et al., 2022; Waldispühl et al., 2020). It is used in
countless settings and contexts from protein structuring (Waldispühl
et al., 2020) to space research (Kara, 2015; Peng et al., 2017). Gamifi­
cation is the practice of changing processes, products, organizational
structures, or almost any human-integrated activity into a game-like
experience that leads to expected behavioral changes (Hamari, 2019;
Högberg et al., 2019; Huotari and Hamari, 2017). It uses principles
extracted from games to elicit unique game-like experiences for users in
various contexts such as learning, healthcare, and business and enhance
its value (Huotari and Hamari, 2017; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019;
Thomas et al., 2022). Gamification has been studied in a variety of
fields, including learning (Behl et al., 2022; Grijalvo et al., 2022; Thomas
and Baral, 2023), knowledge management (Feng et al., 2022), business
(Beatson et al., 2020; Poncin et al., 2017) and healthcare (Yang and Li,
posed multiple definitions of gamification (Deterding et al., 2011;
Huotari and Hamari, 2012, 2017), advanced theoretical perspectives
(Deterding, 2015; Landers et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Yadav et al.,
2022), and produced several systematic research reviews (Behl et al.,
2022; Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Thomas et al.,
2022).
Since 2011 there has been a dramatic uptick in interest in applica­
tions of gamification and research articles on the various uses of gami­
fication (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Thomas et al., 2022). This is borne
out in a cursory analysis of Scopus records, which shows academic
research on gamification has steadily increased since 2011 (Scopus,
2022) and heralds the concept's importance and value in academic
research. According to an analysis of Google Trends, searches for the
term gamification have surged over the last ten years (Google Trends,
2022), indicating the increasing popularity of the term among the
general public. Furthermore, according to Gartner, a top technology
research firm, gamification is showing rapid growth in industry and is
expected to propel future business practice (Gartner, 2017, 2022).

* Corresponding author at: Indian Institute of Technology Madras, IITM PO, 600036, Chennai, India.
E-mail address: nibujohnthomas@gmail.com (N.J. Thomas).
URL: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nibujohnthomas/ (N.J. Thomas), https://www.linkedin.com/in/swathi-mohanan-p-k-b23628219/ (S. Mohanan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122544
Received 12 October 2022; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 21 March 2023
Available online 3 May 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.
N.J. Thomas et al.
Gamification is expected to grow exponentially with the global gamifi­
cation market “predicted to rise from $9.1 billion in 2020 up to $30.7
billion in 2025” (Forbes, 2022, p.2) and further in the metaverse era
(Forbes, 2023).
But what makes gamification distinct from similar concepts such as
play or positive affect? In existing gamification literature, the gameful
experience that gamification is meant to cultivate is considered the
distinctive characteristic of gamification (Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari
and Hamari, 2012, 2017; Liu et al., 2017). Even though scholars and
practitioners more or less intuitively agree that gameful experience re­
fers to a set of experiences elicited by games or gamification, and even
though the term gameful experience has appeared in the literature on
gamification, attempts to conceptualize it have only recently begun
(Högberg et al., 2019). Most scholarship treats the term as an under­
explored enigma and a loosely understood concept (Deterding et al.,
2011; Hamari, 2019; Huotari and Hamari, 2017, 2011; Liu et al., 2017).
As pointed out by Edmondson and McManus (2005: 1160), this nascent
stage of research demands an “open-ended inquiry about” the “phe­
nomenon of interest” through a qualitative approach. Thus, the purpose
of this study is to understand how gamification designers describe
gameful experience and to conceptualize gameful experience from their
insights. To this end, the current study seeks to address the following
research question:
RQ: How do gamification designers describe the gameful experience?
This paper is organized as follows. After a conceptual introduction to
gamification, we explain the research method adopted for the study.
Then we present the eleven themes that emerged from the data on
gameful experience. Finally, we discuss the four overarching categories,
the implications, and our conclusions.
2. Background: gamification and gameful experience
The concept of gamification originates in the idea of games. How­
ever, it has been further developed by different fields, including infor­
mation systems and psychology. Given the multiplicity of viewpoints
that have contributed to its definition, gamification has evolved as an
interdisciplinary subject. Gamification has been defined as the “use of
game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011:10)
or as “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful
experiences in order to support users' overall value creation” (Huotari
and Hamari, 2017:25). Researchers emphasize that the goal of gamifi­
cation is to create a gameful experience that supports value creation.
Gamification entails introducing components such as points, badges,
levels, and leaderboards to create the gameful experience.
Researchers diverge concerning the origin of the term gamification.
Some believe the term was coined by Nick Pelling (Liu et al., 2017),
others by Brett Terrill (Huotari and Hamari, 2017), but the vast majority
of scholars are silent concerning its origins (Deterding et al., 2011).
Researchers agree that the term gamefulness, which indicates the
experiential outcome of gamification, was coined by McGonigal (2011)
in her book Reality is Broken (Deterding et al., 2011; Eppmann et al.,
2018; Landers et al., 2019). McGonigal (2015) later explained that the
term gameful is not entirely new; instead, it can be traced back to the
sixteenth century Jacobean play, described as the “pleasant time” (p.
656) of one's life with games. That said, the idea of gameful experience
within the context of gamification has been studied more explicitly since
2011, after the aforementioned first definition emerged.
Gameful experience has been defined and explained by researchers
in various ways. Initially, gamefulness was described as the “experien­
tial and behavioral qualities of gaming” (Deterding et al., 2011:3) or
later as “an experiential condition unique to games” (Huotari and
Hamari, 2017:25). Eppmann et al. (2018) maintained that “gameful
experience in a non-game context refers to the positive emotional and
involving qualities of using a gamified application” (100). Relatedly,
Landers et al. (2019, p 83) defined gameful experience as a “psycho­
logical state resulting from the interaction of three psychological
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
characteristics: the perception of presented goals as non-trivial and
achievable, the motivation to pursue those goals under arbitrary,
externally-imposed constraints, and the belief that their actions within
these constraints are volitional.” The conceptualizations of gamification
and gameful experience are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Even though
researchers have attempted to conceptualize gameful experience using
the existing literature on games and gamification, empirical examina­
tion of what constitutes a gameful experience is still lacking. This paper
aims to address this research gap.
3. Method
As mentioned in the introduction, the study used a qualitative
approach to understand how gamification designers describe the
gameful experience and eventually conceptualize the gameful experi­
ence from their insights. The study collected data using in-depth, semi-
structured interviews (Creswell, 2013; McNamara, 2009; Turner, 2010).
After that, the data is analyzed using thematic analysis, as Braun and
Clarke (2006) recommended.
3.1. Recruitment
The participants for this study were identified using the advanced
search feature of LinkedIn under a premium recruiter account. In stage
one, the keyword “gamification” was used to find a list of relevant
profiles (n: 908). As the LinkedIn algorithm already ordered profiles by
relevance, the profiles after the 908th did not have sufficient relevance,
and hence we did not consider them. In stage two, all these profiles were
scanned, and the individuals with gamification designing experience
were identified (n: 133). Profiles with only the keyword gamification as
a certification or area of interest but without related experience were
removed. In stage three, a detailed profile evaluation was carried out,
and 52 designers with relevant gamification experience were identified.
During this stage, designers who only had coding and technical expertise
were removed. All 52 designers were contacted in the next stage, 22 of
whom agreed to be interviewed. After dropouts, 14 interviews were
initially agreed upon for the interview. While we experienced data
saturation after the 8th interview, we conducted all 14 interviews.
Thereafter we again reached out to 4 more designers and conducted 3
additional interviews to further examine if there are any further insights
from more interviews. The researchers concluded after all 17 interviews
that data saturation was reached.
3.2. Participants
The 17 participants each had direct experience in designing gamifi­
cation and came from different parts of the world: Brazil, Colombia,
Canada, Denmark, Greece, India, Israel, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, New
Table 1
Conceptualizations of gamification and gameful experience.
Definition Year Coined by
“A form of service packaging where a core service 2011 (Huotari and Hamari,
is enhanced by a rules-based service system that 2017, p. 4)
provides feedback and interaction mechanisms
to the user with an aim to facilitate and support
the users' overall value creation.”
“The use of game design elements in non-game 2011 (Deterding et al.,
contexts.” 2011, p. 10)
“The process of making activities more game-like.” 2014 (Werbach, 2014, p.
261)
“The incorporation of game design elements into a 2017 (Liu et al., 2017, p.
target system while retaining the target system's 1013)
instrumental functions.”
“A process of enhancing a service with affordances 2017 (Huotari and Hamari,
for gameful experiences in order to support 2017, p. 25)
users' overall value creation.”
N.J. Thomas et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544

Table 2 their home or office. All interviews were recorded with the participants'
Conceptualizations of gameful experience. consent.
Definition Year Coined by Before starting the interview, the interviewer took sufficient time to
build rapport with the participant, as McNamara (2009) and Turner
“Gameful experience in a non-game context refers to 2018 Eppmann et al.
the positive emotional and involving qualities of (2018, p. 100) (2010) have suggested. Apart from this initial interaction, the actual
using a gamified application” interview took, on average, 1 h. The discussion began with a general
“A psychological state resulting from the interaction 2019 Landers et al. question about gamification to ensure that the designer's view of the
of three psychological characteristics: the (2019, p84) concept aligned with the existing literature. None of the participants
perception of presented goals as non-trivial and
achievable, the motivation to pursue those goals
digressed from the prevailing view. They generally understood gamifi­
under arbitrary, externally-imposed constraints, cation as the process of using game elements to achieve specific target
and the belief that their actions within these objectives as defined by Deterding et al. (2011) and Huotari and Hamari
constraints are volitional.” (2017). Their conceptualization of gamification is explored further in
“The subjective positive experiences expected to 2021 Thomas et al.
the findings. The participants were also asked to provide information
emerge in a gamified system among its voluntary (2021, p.14)
users.” about their gamification designing activities to confirm their expertise.
In the interviews, the participants were invited to offer their insights
on the experience associated with gamification. A series of questions
Zealand, Sweden, and USA. Most of the participants had more than four were asked according to an interview protocol concerning gameful
years of experience in gamification design. Some of them worked in experience, including “What do you think is the experience of users
multinational companies (MNC), such as International Business Ma­ while they are in a gamified platform or context?” and “What do you
chines (IBM), Marsh McLennan, and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), think should be the ideal experiences during gamified activity?”
and some in gamification companies such as the Octalysis Group and Furthermore, participants were prompted to expand on their answers
Gametools. Table 3 presents details about the designers. via follow-up and probing questions, allowing us to gain deeper insights.
Analytic memos were taken throughout the interviews to document
3.3. Data collection observations and comments. Interview recordings were transcribed, and
ranged between 3000 and 5000 words in length. The interview material
The data was gathered via in-depth, semi-structured virtual video was deemed adequate to support the analysis (Malterud et al., 2016).
interviews using the Zoom platform. Following advice for strengthening
the quality and validity of responses (Creswell, 2013) and recommen­ 3.4. Data analysis
dations for collecting qualitative data over Zoom (Gray et al., 2020), the
interviewer provided the participants with information on study's pur­ The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis in line with
pose and explicit consent was obtained from each participant. Partici­ the guidelines provided by Braun and Clarke (2006). Following the
pants engaged in the discussion from a quiet and secure place such as inductive approach, specific themes were not established prior to the
analysis but rather discovered during the analytic process. However,
Table 3 after the themes were identified, a deductive approach was used to
Details of the interview participants – gamification designers. create an overarching category structure to yield more meaning for the
identified themes.
No Gender Country Organization type Gamification
experience During the first phase of the analysis, data familiarization, we tran­
scribed the recorded video interviews. After reviewing the transcriptions
1 Female Israel Gamification 4 years
company
for accuracy, we studied the content to immerse ourselves in the data. In
2 Female Greece Multinational 3 years this phase, few initial codes were identified. In the second phase, initial
company code generation, we reread each interview transcript and assigned codes
3 Male Colombia Gamification 7 years to any phrase, sentence, or paragraph judged significant. These codes
company
denoted the smallest segment or data element that could be considered
4 Male India Multinational 5 years
company part of the gameful experience. Code saturation was achieved after eight
5 Male USA Multinational 2 years interviews were coded; however, to receive a reasonable sample we
company continued collecting further interviews until 17.
6 Female India Multinational 2 year During the third phase, finding themes, we searched for themes in the
company
7 Male Denmark Gamification 8 years
initial codes, comparing the codes to each other several times. Similar or
company related codes were grouped into potential themes, and all coded data
8 Male Netherlands Gamification 9 years extracts relevant to the indicated themes were gathered together. As
company Braun and Clarke (2006) suggested, a thematic map was created to aid in
9 Male USA Gamification 8 years
the discovery and construction of themes by grouping the initial codes.
company
10 Male Colombia Multinational 3 years During this phase, some of the codes were merged, resulting in the
company creation of 23 themes. In the fourth phase of our analysis, reviewing
11 Male Brazil Multinational 7 years themes, the potential themes were checked and refined against the whole
company data set's coded data extracts. During this phase, themes were evaluated
12 Female Malta Gamification 3 years
company
for external heterogeneity and internal homogeneity, with some merged
13 Female Sweden Multinational 4 years to form higher-level themes. We assessed the validity of the individual
company themes with respect to the complete data set to see if they reflected the
14 Male USA Multinational 4 years meanings present in the data set as a whole and told a pure story about
company
the data. The themes were refined through debate between the authors,
15 Female Japan Multinational 3 years
company using a consensus-based data analysis paradigm of the investigator
16 Male Canada Gamification 3 years triangulation method (Fox and Denzin, 1979). In this method, respectful
company debate and discussion within the research team are seen as opportunities
17 Female New Zealand Multinational 2 years to hone or question interpretations, consistent with a social construc­
company
tionist epistemology (Creswell, 2013).

3
N.J. Thomas et al.
In phase five, defining and naming, the abstracts of each theme were
reviewed to ensure coherence and, if required, the theme was renamed
to capture the essence of the whole story. Finally, the findings were
reported using quotes from the extracts representing the theme. After
this inductive stage of identifying the themes, we created overarching
categories using a deductive approach to render the findings more
meaningful and valuable.
4. Results: themes of gameful experience
In this section, we present the experiences associated with gamifi­
cation that were identified by the gamification designers. Table 3 sum­
marizes the profiles of the fourteen designers who participated in the
study. Each of the eleven themes that emerged from the analysis of the
data is presented below with two or three representative data extracts to
enrich comprehension. Additional extracts are presented whenever a
notable aspect of the theme is described. Each extract is labeled by an
alphanumeric code, ranging from D1 to D17 that corresponds to the
designer who made that statement.
4.1. Theme 1: trigger interest
All designers identified triggering the user's interest as an aspect of
gamification. They said gamification “triggers”, “encourages”, “moti­
vates”, or even “seduces” the user such that the user's “interest is
increased.” Designers believe this triggering will cause users to become
“attracted” or even “addicted” to the gamified platform and want to use
it more often or “want to continue more.” One of them also pointed out
that this may create a “feeling of elevation” with “more energy.” The
triggers mostly consist of game elements. Triggering the interest could
also be considered the act of creating arousal, as pointed out by Liu et al.
(2017), or inducing “activation”, as observed by Eppmann et al. (2018).
As the participants noted:
There will always be some kind of trigger and action and then some sort of
reward, and then another trigger. Again, this is very important, depending
on whatever you have designed.
(D5)
I would say this [gamification] encourages the end-user or the partici­
pants to do the same activity more, or this encourages the users to get
connected to service the product or application more.
(D1)
The game part of it should somehow like motivate you, incentivize you. I
mean, it should be something that makes you want to participate more,
and usually, if my participation yields result[s] in the game world, that is
the kind of like the best part of it.
(D4)
When they get rewarded, they feel they want to continue more… So they
continue to do things again and again.
(D-15)
It's going to lead to that feeling of elevated and the feeling that you have
more energy than when you have that feeling of motivation.
(D-17)
4.2. Theme 2: reward behavior
Most designers identified the feeling of being rewarded as another
aspect of a gamified setting. They believe that users feel “rewarded” or
“recognized” by rewards, which are highly valued and reinforce
behavior. According to them, the feeling of being rewarded comes from
getting “visibility” or “feeling valued” and sometimes from the mere
“thought of achievement.” Prior research has characterized this aspect
of the gameful experience as achievement (Huotari and Hamari, 2017;
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
Liu et al., 2017) and accomplishment (Högberg et al., 2019). The par­
ticipants reflected:
At the end of it, because there is a reward attached, I believe it is very
satisfying for them. First of all, they will put in their best effort…at least
from what we have been [seeing]… because there are clear rewards
available and milestones attached. Once they are there, the experience of
going through is much more stress-free than going through other types of
assessment, and the rewards are also encouraging.
(D10)
It is explicitly visible to them, right? That anything I do here…there are
outcome-based rewards…that is another messaging that kind [of] gets
reinforced [in] your mind subconsciously, unconsciously and consciously,
that also helps to some extent, and overall I think they value rewards and
they value where they have reached.
(D10)
Some certifications and rewards, otherwise, recognition to the people who
have cleared this…visibility with management or organization. All these
are intangible outcomes that will give them some kind of pride and
accomplishment.
(D10)
While most designers highlighted the importance of feeling rewar­
ded, one of them (D5) believes that rewards are paid too much attention
in gamification. D5 commented:
Another thing is the big misunderstanding that people say is that gamifi­
cation should be about rewarding. If I talk with clients, they want me to
design some sort of gamification, and they want people to interact with it.
Quite often, they asked me the question, well, should we give them a
reward at the end? Should we say there is a prize? or that they will get X,
Y, or Z and the end? That's not a thing… I never do. So you should not be
playing the game or interacting with any gamification if there is a known
reward at the beginning because then the reason to play gets fuzzy. If I
compare it with just playing a game, you will not play a game with me
because you get a free cake at the end. We are going to play a game
because it's fun to play a game. Right? And that's what gamification
should be. So never talk about extrinsic rewards beforehand.
(D5)
4.3. Theme 3: elicit uncertainty and curiosity
Many designers believe that the uncertainty of a gamified setting and
curiosity about the situation are two significant triggers in gamification.
They pointed out that faced with the “uncertainty” or “mystery” of the
gamified environment, users become curious and feel the “thrill of
unpredictability.” Similarly, they indicated that users enjoy the “dis­
covery of new things”, or exploration. Another aspect of gamification
that may increase uncertainty, according to the designers, is the “risk of
losing” certain rewards. Correspondingly, previous research has identi­
fied suspense (Huotari and Hamari, 2017) and uncertainty (Leclercq
et al., 2020) as components of a gameful experience. The participants
noted:
Good games actually serve you two things. One, it gives you uncertainty,
and second, it ramps up its own ability to challenge your [wits]… Can I do
it in a different way? Can I experience it in a different way? That's when
the uncertainty of the gamification principle steps in; that's when people
start actually playing around with your gamification mechanics.
(D2)
Then you have the unpredictability, the stuff that comes very well with
casino [say] gambling and all of that… No one has to pay you to be in the
thrill of unpredictability. You even pay for that. That's why you pay to go
to the movies… to buy a new book… to go to the casino because you want
to feel the thrill of what's like unpredictable.
N.J. Thomas et al.
(D14)
4.4. Theme 4: clarify goal
Another aspect of a gamified setting identified by the designers is
having a clear goal. The designers explained that goals, particularly
“clear goals”, give users a feeling of “being guided” or being on a
“journey.” One of the designers stated that goals motivate in two ways:
through the fear of losing something and through the happiness of
achieving it. Landers et al. (2019) have highlighted the goal as an
essential aspect of the gameful experience. The participants spoke:
So basically, I usually create something where at the end of it, there's like a
clear goal… [a] clear rule for all facilitators and everyone who's running
it.
(D4)
Three parts, like the first one is like the motivation to achieve a goal. The
second one is the risk of losing that goal, third one is the rewarding part
like some sort of happiness when or a pleasant experience [when] I
reached out that goal.
(D1)
When I say positive experiences, what I'm trying to say is that am I giving
my players a kind of goal or a kind of a calling that they need to achieve.
(D2)
4.5. Theme 5: highlight progress
Another aspect of the gameful experience identified by the designers
is the user's awareness of progress. The users “immediately have feed­
back” in a gamified setting. The “feedback” serves as an “affirmation” of
their progress. Designers also said that users will be aware of the things
that “need to be improved” and their current status in terms of “where
am I?” compared to other users. The unique ability of gamification to
give timely feedback or performance information has similarly been
emphasized by Cardador et al. (2017). The participants said:
As soon as possible, I want to people drawn into the game or gamification
and that's by getting into small actions…immediately have feedback…
short feedback loops, that are engaging… quite often they are story based
or story driven. The first step should be quite easy, and you want to do
more of it.
(D5)
You're [users] going to keep on actually exploring more on the same
behavior known, trying to get an affirmation after affirmation that what
I'm doing is currently… right. And during this entire process of exploring
more, the game is able to give you more.
(D2)
4.6. Theme 6: progressively challenge
An interesting contrast between easy and challenging was observed
in our analysis. On one hand, the designers expressed the need to make a
gamified platform easy for users, especially at the beginning. On the
other hand, they also expressed the need to challenge users. Some of
them further explained that the challenge needs to be progressive, or the
right amount of challenge. Challenge has been identified as an essential
component of the gameful experience by Högberg et al. (2019) as well.
The designers reflected:
The first step should be quite easy, and you want to do more of it…. Let
them do something that's easy, fun. Don't bother them with complexity in
the beginning. Just lure them in. So that's for a first step.
(D5)
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
Your journey with the game itself needs to be extremely linear, extremely
simple. Let's not use the word linear, but we use the word simple… So the
word simple is very important. Can I make the journey of my learners
within the game, extremely simple. The simpler it is, the more engaged my
people will be.
(D2)
Furthermore, the designers said they create a “feeling of challenge”
by providing opportunities to “compet[e] with each other” or “overcom
[e] obstacles.” The designers believe that users like to be challenged and
that challenge boosts their adrenaline. They continued:
They come to only to us, because we give them this amazing experience
and the feeling of the challenge, competition, competing against each
other. That builds [them] up, the adrenaline and air from the top of the
game.
(D9)
People like to be challenged. More than the satisfaction of having it
achieved something. There are people who coming… who just sometimes
look at the questions, try to attempt it…. People love to deal with complex
problems or… feel challenged. It's just like shooting games. It [the game]
itself gives them no sense of satisfaction. I think people just get a kick out
of it [challenge].
(D10)
To clarify, some designers were more explicit, stating that the
gamified platform should be easy at the beginning and more challenging
at a later stage. They advised against using complexity at the initial
stage, and that the challenge should be progressively increased such that
it is always at the right level. One participant concluded while another
highlighted the about the challenge being optimized:
I know how to actually challenge my audience, I know at what level I need
to challenge my audience that is very important. I cannot create a game
which is actually, which is two levels up of my audience, people will never
understand or they will never like it. Your game should always like your
audience should take that journey with you. Like the first level is always
you know everyone can do [it], second level, it actually gives you a little
bit of challenge. Third level, you have learned something in the first two,
I'm applying in the third. In all of these three levels, what I've learned [I'm]
applying in the fourth, basically, it's like a journey.
(D2)
Basically if the challenge is optimized directly with the ability of the
player, most likely you've got it right. It's all about this.
(D-17)
4.7. Theme 7: emulate safety and control
Another aspect of gamification the designers described is the expe­
rience of being in a safe space. The gamified environment enables the
users to “feel in control” and use that “freedom” to do things they are
otherwise not “allowed” to do.
What we want the gamified activity to do is to enable people to talk about
topics that they usually wouldn't talk about. So it gives them sort of a safe
place to be more playful, because you are more playful, you're allowed to
say things that maybe in a different social context, you wouldn't be
allowed to.
(D12)
The environment allows users to feel ‘stress-free’ and sometimes
‘forget about the problems.’ Furthermore, the setting enables the users
to experience more ‘power’ with more ‘meaningful choices’ and the
‘autonomy’ to choose.
This is really important because we have already seen how gamification,
how, when you're interested in something and you're playing something,
N.J. Thomas et al.
you kind of forget about the problems, the troubles that real life has…
When you're trying to put game design elements on it, you are trying to
bring more interactivity or power to the person [user].
(D7)
However, one of the designers pointed out that this power is just
something experienced by users, but that in reality, users could be
controlled by the gamified setting, which is the negative side of gami­
fication that should be avoided.
You know, sometimes we give them [the] impression, that they're having
power, but we're actually controlling them to [do] certain things. And
that's the evil side of gamification that we want to avoid.
(D7)
4.8. Theme 8: construct an alternate world
One interesting finding from this study is that most designers stated
that the gamified setting imparts a sense of a different world. The users
experience a “different” world from the “day to day world,” and they feel
immersed in a “storyline” that creates an alternate “universe.” This new
world provides a stress-free environment with options for testing and
failing and making new discoveries. The participants reflected:
The gamified experience presents us with something we can immerse
ourselves in. This might be stories, characters, you know, the sense of
being there. And this is very much connected to what VR experiences or
AR experiences does really well. It gives us this sense of being to the point
that we will lean against a wall that's not there and kind of fall, right. This
is because the gamified experience, will allow us to basically have the
sense of universe around us.
(D4)
Yeah. So when I say universe, I think it's I just recently did something. So,
in a lack of better word, the immersion part of it is, is the positive
experience.
(D4)
Yes, it could be fun to be transported to a different universe and play
there. It might be fun.
(D12)
Some designers expressed that this alternate world is a “game-like”
or playful world, whereas a few pointed out that the game-like aspect is
optional:
We are making it feel more enjoyable… you lock or unlock different levels
and move forward. This is actually creating a game kind of feeling for this
generation which makes them feels involved in the whole exercise.
(D10)
It should be engaging, it should be fun in a way, it should feel game-like,
and whatever they experience if it's story-driven or a lot of frustration.
That depends on the design. I think it should not cross the boundaries of
the definition of gamification.
(D5)
As illustrated above, a few designers noted that users move through
different game elements, become involved in the “game-like situation,”
and feel an enjoyable experience. However, as shown below, a few
others maintained that even though the game-like aspect is popular, it is
optional, and they advocated for gamification beyond games to unleash
the full potential of the technique. One noted:
Whatever I have seen the most popular ones on the market [gamification
solutions] are almost like a game, but it doesn't have to be. So I think we
need to study more behavior science than just study games. We need to
study games and then we need to go back and connect them with what
people are studying in behavior science, and then tap into those. And that's
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
where I think the gold lies and we haven't gone that far yet. It's my
thinking.
(D12)
4.9. Theme 9: connect to reality
Most designers identified the creation of a “connection” to the
gamified environment or the possibility of connecting to that different
“reality” as a feature of gamification, which may not occur in traditional,
non-gamified settings. They stated that this feeling of “real” happens due
to the “engaging” nature and “interactivity” of the gamified setting. One
participant highlighted the “genuine engagement” and “genuine quality
interaction” during the gamified activities. Participants also said that
users may not feel isolated in the setting, and that users can “relate” to
the experience as “real scenarios” due to the “scaffolding” created in the
gamified setting. The designers reflected:
There's a sense of being presented with something where you matter…
again, I'm [talking] where it's a good gamification experience. Yeah, so
there's the sense of ‘this makes sense’ for me…like the connection with you
as a person …as a human is extremely important… Yeah, so the trick is
that you need to build… this is why I called [it a] universe, you need to
build the scaffolding around the experience, the one that was using it, that
makes it just meaningful enough for you, for some degree of time, suspend
the fact that [it] is not real.
(D4)
Whatever he's doing on the system or interacting with the games some­
where down at the back of his head, is he able to tell himself that…you
know… what I have seen… this thing happening at my work and when
something like this happens at my work…the moment he actually does
that connection your learning games actually [work] best…the moment
he makes a connection like that he's definitely going to leave a comment
saying that… you know what… this is something that has happened… I
only use this in my team…next thing …you know… I found it really
relatable.
(D2)
It's simply a way to connect with the environment that you wouldn't have
otherwise.
(D-17)
Try to get attention… like engagement… but a genuine engagement, not
just oh, I have to do this. People are looking for something like genuine
quality interaction.
(D-16)
4.10. Theme 10: provide fun
One key aspect of gamification identified by the designers is that it
presents a fun or entertaining experience. They stated that users will
experience a gamified platform as “nice” and “entertaining,” such that it
motivates and keeps them engaged ‘longer.’ Fun as a component has
been pointed out by previous researches as well (Hamari et al., 2014; Liu
et al., 2017). The participants said:
So I guess this is the crux or the core of experience from that we derive all
these things like how can we entertain them, how can motivate them…we
make this crucial. I think [that] is the core part of it.
(D1)
There is one element of your gamification process, which would give you a
positive experience. When I say positive experience … [it] includes your
fun, play, it includes other part[s] of it.
(D2)
In that case, the goal would be to make the experience more fun, so that
you don't feel tired in your brain… you don't feel bored.
N.J. Thomas et al.
(D12)
They already are entertained, and they have a lot of features within the
game that keep them longer.
(D9)
4.11. Theme 11: ensure happiness
A similar aspect of the gamified experience identified by the de­
signers is happiness or enjoyment. Designers said that a gamified setting
allows users to feel “satisfaction”, “happiness”, or even sometimes
“excitement.” They pointed out that gamification aims to make the ac­
tivity ‘enjoyable,’ such that the users feel like coming back. Previous
research has identified enjoyment, satisfaction, and happiness as part of
the gameful experience (Hamari et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2017). The
participants noted:
I think in the end, it should be an enjoyable experience and be something
that they look forward to doing…We want to make sure that they are
interested in opening it back up to continue the training…So the experi­
ence should be positive. It should be something they look forward to. It's
something they should enjoy… so enjoyable experience…non-boring
experience.
(D6)
We make important things more enjoyable…So that kind of talks about
the consequences of what we do so often experience. So if it's well design
[ed] and everything, then you take something that's very important, like
doing [paying] your taxes and we make it enjoyable. That's, that's one of
the things we do.
(D14)
I want to please them… So I want to make them feel more comfortable,
happy, you know, satisfied, etc. I'm trying to create like an experience.
(D-15)
5. Discussion: overarching categories
While the preceding eleven themes represent the various compo­
nents of the gameful experience that emerged inductively from the data,
they can be further mapped into four overarching categories using a
deductive approach. The objective is to map the experience to a higher-
Fig. 1. Gameful experience: the themes & overarching categories.
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
level thematic structure for better conceptual clarity and practical uti­
lization. Therefore, we mapped the identified themes into four over­
arching categories: nudge experience, flow experience, alternate reality
experience, and hedonic experience, as depicted in Fig. 1. While the
themes represent various experiences the designers aim to create, the
overarching categories represent the experience that can emerg among
the users due to those. The following section explains each overarching
category in detail. Table 4 summarizes the themes, overarching cate­
gories, representative empirical examples from the extracts, and its
theoretical mapping.
5.1. Nudge experience
Nudges, by definition, are “any aspects of the choice architecture
that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any
options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler and
Sunstein, 2008: 6). As mentioned in the introduction, gamification is the
use of game design elements (Deterding et al., 2011: 3) or affordances
(Huotari and Hamari, 2017: 25) for creating gameful experiences.
Hence, gamification should create a nudge experience for users. Three of
the themes identified in the data, Theme 1: Trigger Interest, Theme 2:
Reward Behavior, and Theme 3: Elicit Uncertainty and Curiosity can be
directly mapped to the nudging aspect of gamification. The experience
generated due to nudging users' behavior could be considered a Nudge
Experience or Nudging Experience. It is notable that researchers have
also pointed out the role of gamification in nudging users (Krath et al.,
2021; Wünderlich et al., 2020).
5.2. Flow experience
The concept of flow experience was developed by Mihaly Csiks­
zentmihalyi (1990). According to him, feeling a sense of exhilaration or
a deep sense of enjoyment can be considered an optimal experience
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Through his studies, he has identified the four
flow conditions, which are as follows: (i) clear goals, (ii) immediate
feedback, (iii) skill-challenge match, and (iv) the possibility of control
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 2014; Hamari and Koivisto, 2014). Four of the
themes identified in the data can be mapped to the four conditions for
flow. Specifically, (i) Theme 4: Clarify Goal addresses the need for clear
goals; (ii) Theme 5: Highlight Progress discusses the immediate feedback
in a gamified context; (iii) Theme 6: Progressively Challenge refers to
N.J. Thomas et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Gameful experience: nudge, flow, alternate reality & hedonic experience. Overarching Theme Empirical examples Mapping to literature
Overarching Theme Empirical examples Mapping to literature category (representative
category (representative extract)
extract)
This might be stories, pervasive games
Nudge 1: Trigger There will always be Creating arousal (Liu characters, you know, research.
experience interest some kind of trigger et al., 2017), Inducing the sense of being
and action and then ‘activation’ (Eppmann there. (D4)
some sort of reward, et al., 2018). 9: Connect to There's a sense of Connecting to reality
and then another reality being presented with is seen as essential
trigger. Again, this is something where you aspect of simulations
very important matter… again, I'm and immersive
depending on taking where it's a environments (Rubio-
whatever you have good gamification Tamayo et al., 2017).
designed. (D5) experience. Yeah, so
2: Reward At the end of it, Achievement (Huotari there's the sense of
behavior because there is and Hamari, 2017; Liu ‘this makes sense’ for
reward attached, I et al., 2017) me…like the
believe it is very Accomplishment ( connection with you
satisfying for them. Högberg et al., 2019). as a person …as a
First of all, they will human is extremely
put their best effort… important (D4)
at least from what we Hedonic 10: Provide fun So I guess this is the Fun (Hamari et al.,
have been seen… experience crux or the core of 2014; Liu et al., 2017)
because there are experience from that
clearly rewards we derive all these
available and things like how can we
milestones attached. entertain them, how
(D10) can motivate them…
3: Elicit Can I experience it in a Suspense (Huotari and we make this crucial. I
uncertainty & different way? That's Hamari, 2017) think is the core part
curiosity when the uncertainty Uncertainty (Leclercq of it. (D1)
of gamification et al., 2020) 11: Ensure It should be something Enjoyment,
principle steps in, happiness they look forward to. satisfaction, and
that's when people It's something they happiness (Hamari
start actually playing should enjoy… so et al., 2014; Liu et al.,
around with your enjoyable 2017).
gamification experience…non
mechanics. (D2) boring experience.
Flow 4: Clarify goal So basically, I usually Goal as an essential (D6)
experience create something aspect (Landers et al.,
where at the end of it, 2019)
there's like a clear the right amount of challenge, or the skill-challenge match; and finally,
goal…clear rule for all (iv) Theme 7: Emulate Safety and Control describes an environment free
facilitators and
of the fear of failure, as expected in the possibility of control. The
everyone who's
running it. (D4) existing literature also points out the presence of flow experience in a
5: Highlight As soon as possible, I Timely feedback or gamified setting (Hamari and Koivisto, 2014; Krath et al., 2021; Özhan
progress want to people drawn performance and Kocadere, 2020; Thomas and Baral, 2023).
into the game or information (Cardador
gamification and et al., 2017)
that's by getting into
5.3. Alternate reality experience
small actions…
immediately have An interesting observation from the current study is the capacity of
feedback… short gamification to create an alternate reality. An alternate reality experi­
feedback loops, that
ence commonly refers to “the experience felt by refining the meaning of
are engaging
6: I know what how to Challenge as an real space by incorporating virtuality” (Ishizawa et al., 2018: 21331), an
Progressively actually challenge my essential component ( incorporation typically obtained using the five senses. However, within
challenge audience, I know at Högberg et al., 2019) the context of gamification, the alternate reality could refer to shifting
what level I need to and connecting at the cognitive and affective levels, as represented by
challenge my
audience, that is very
Theme 8: Construct an Alternate World and Theme 9: Connect to Re­
important. (D2) ality. The creation of an alternate world or spatial expansion is an
7: Emulate So it gives them sort of Existing research is exciting aspect of gaming in alternate reality games (ARG), especially in
safety & a safe place to be more mostly silent about the pervasive games research (Montola et al., 2009). Similarly, connecting
control playful, because you safe space and control
to reality is a noteworthy characteristic of simulations and immersive
are more playful, provided by
you're allowed to say gamification environments (Rubio-Tamayo et al., 2017). Thus, we could say, gami­
things that maybe in a fication brings the unique opportunity of creating an alternate world in
different social non-game contexts and connects users into that new reality. Further­
context, you wouldn't more, the alternate reality experience could be related to the concept of
be allowed to. (D12)
Alternate 8: Construct an The gamified This idea of Spatial
the magic circle, or the fictional reality created within the boundaries of
reality alternate world experience presents us expansion (Montola a game (Harviainen, 2012) or gamified setting (Dymek, 2018) that
experience with something we can et al., 2009) is a focus creates space for new possibilities of performance (Kawitzky, 2020).
immerse ourselves in. of discussions in

8
N.J. Thomas et al.
5.4. Hedonic experience
Most designers considered the hedonic experience as one of the
essential aspects of the gameful experience. They described the gamified
platform as delivering various shades of positive experiences to users,
such as fun, entertainment, happiness, excitement, and satisfaction.
Thus, Theme 10: Provide Fun and Theme 11: Ensure Happiness can be
mapped as part of the hedonic experience. The presence of hedonic
experience in gamification is obvious and has previously been identified
in the literature (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Liu et al., 2017).
Note that some of the themes could be cross-mapped within the
overarching category structure. Hence, the themes are not mutually
exclusive. For instance, the idea of a safe space could be mapped as part
of the alternate reality experience. Yet we have mapped it to the flow
experience, as it could be argued that a safe space is not essential for
experiencing an alternate reality, but is essential to experiencing flow.
5.5. Gamification towards positive psychology and the metaverse
One interesting observation from the current study is the initial ev­
idence it provides on how gamification is integrating the concepts of
positive psychology and the idea of the metaverse. The alternate reality
experience or the extended reality experience comes under the broad
concept of the exponentially growing metaverse concept. The term
metaverse refers to virtual reality environments that allow users to
participate in an extended world (Davis et al., 2009; Shin, 2022). In the
metaverse, users interact with each other using their avatars for work
and fun (Davis et al., 2009; Shin, 2022). Thus, it creates a virtual
extension of the physical world and uses the metaphor of the actual
world without its physical limits (Davis et al., 2009; Shin, 2022). Ac­
cording to the leading technology research firm Gartner (2022), by
2026, 25 % of people will spend 1 h each day in the metaverse for work,
education, and/or leisure. While the idea of a metaverse includes
various aspects, such as hardware and networking (Hollensen et al.,
2022), gamification is influenced by its immersive experience (Davis
et al., 2009).
Similarly, the concept of flow belongs to the domain of positive
psychology. Positive psychology is a relatively new branch of psychol­
ogy that aims to broaden the scope of psychology (Khazaei et al., 2017;
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) to increase the well-being of in­
dividuals by encouraging positive thoughts, positive emotions, and
positive behavior (Khazaei et al., 2017; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Even though the definitions of gamification or gameful experi­
ences have not explicitly stated the use of positive psychology
(Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari and Hamari, 2017), it has been a part of
the gamification discussions (Hamari and Koivisto, 2014; Krath et al.,
2021; Morschheuser and Hamari, 2019). Similarly, positive psychology
scholars have considered gamification to use behavioral psychology
principles and is highly relevant to positivity (Luthans and Youssef-
Morgan, 2017). While the current evidence suggests the presence of
flow, various other principles also might be used knowingly or un­
knowingly during gamification.
While gamification is inherently about using game elements, the
gamification affordances and design principles used by the gamification
designers seem to have been influenced by positive psychology and the
metaverse. Thus, it indicates that gamification has grown beyond the
idea of games among practitioners, and gamification may eventually
become more rooted in positive psychology theories and a part of the
metaverse concept.
6. Implications and conclusion
While there are research studies that qualitatively examine the users'
perspective of game elements (Aldemir et al., 2018) and studies that
examine the game elements in depth (Wang et al., 2022), according to
the best of our knowledge this is the first study that collects the
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
gamification designers' insights on gameful experience. This consolida­
tion of the designers' perspectives on gameful experience offers an
overall framework outlining the various categories of experiences and
illustrating how they are manifested. This study has multiple theoretical
implications. First, various experiences associated with gamification
have been identified and classified into four specific categories. Second,
the study highlights the importance of focusing on the outcome rather
than the process by identifying different aspects of gameful experience
and illustrating that gamification can extend beyond the straightforward
use of game elements. Third, the identified aspects of the gameful ex­
periences are clarified by mapping them to established constructs, which
may encourage future research that could extend the meaning or scope
of gamification. Thus, the study contributes to the theory-building of the
gameful experience construct that may prompt future research on
gamification. Finally, the results of this study could eventually be used
to create a scale for assessing a gameful experience.
Additionally, it provides initial evidence on how gamification de­
signers take inputs from the metaverse concept and positive psychology
domains, thus indicating that the construct of gamification is getting
more rooted in posting psychology and might be moving more towards
the metaverse. In other words, gamification, which has predominantly a
concept built on games, extends its base to positive psychology and the
metaverse. Though various studies already show the presence of positive
psychological constructs emerging in gamified settings, this evidence
illustrates that designers intentionally focus on these constructs while
implementing gamification.
Similarly, this study has several practical applications. The study
identified the experiences that gamification designers believe should be
included in a gamified setting. Thus it contributes to the practice by
offering a framework for gameful experiences to understand the mech­
anism of gamification. The framework gives directions for using gami­
fication by providing inputs on creating each of the experiences in a
gamified platform. For instance, while designing a gamified application
for creating a nudge experience, practitioners can use the framework
(Fig. 1) to get designers' insights on the ‘nudge experience’ that narrates
how that experience emerges. The framework and its narration would
explain how they could introduce, for example, instigate curiosity or
provide rewards for a ‘nudge experience.’ The narration further explains
the thrill of unpredictability (Theme 3) that creates curiosity and that a
reward will get reinforced subconsciously (Theme 2). Similarly, if they aim
to create a flow experience instead of a nudge, they could refer to the
framework to gain designers' inputs on the ‘flow experience’ that nar­
rates how flow emerges. The framework would further explain how they
could give progressive challenges or highlight the participants' progress
to create flow.
Furthermore, if a specific category of experience is missing in an
already existing gamified platform, practitioners can refer to the
framework to find ways to bring that experience. More importantly, by
looking into the framework, they could refine and enrich the gameful
experience of their platform by understanding which kinds of experi­
ences are missing their platform, as the framework is more or less a
universal sample of what gamification designers might try to create
when they are creating the gameful experience. Thus, the framework
could be used as a checklist to evaluate the user experience on various
gamification platforms. Also, the paper urges practitioners to use prin­
ciples of positive psychology and the metaverse for a better and
enhanced gameful experience in the future. These inputs on the gameful
experience provide practitioners insights to understand and examine the
experiences created in the gamified settings and also help them strate­
gize and organize more robust gamified systems for an enriched expe­
rience and extended realities (XR).
However, the study has various limitations as well. One major lim­
itation is that the study only included gamification researchers who had
profiles on LinkedIn. Even though LinkedIn is the most popular social
media site for professional activities, it is still possible that many good
gamification designers may not have accounts there. Those designers
N.J. Thomas et al.
and other people who were not interviewed might have envisioned more
or different aspects of the gamification process.
While collecting perspectives from experienced gamification de­
signers from different parts of the world was intentional to gain an
overall perspective on gameful experience, this heterogeneity in the
sample did not allow for specific country-level analysis regarding the
phenomenon of gameful experience. Future studies could explore more
insights from designers from specific subsets, such as different
geographic locations and different cultural orientations, to gain more
insights about how gameful experience may or may not be culturally
laden. Such data from various subgroups and countries may give
context-specific and culture-specific insights regarding design, imple­
mentation, and outcomes related to gamification. Thus, the current
studies call for multiple future studies from various parts of the world
and different facets of life.
While the current study aims to investigate how designers envision
gameful experience, future studies could explore how various individual
users experience them. This research stream could focus on multiple sub-
contexts where gamification is implemented, as each setting may create
different types of experiences. Furthermore, the researchers could
examine the context-specific relevance of gameful experiences. Among
the four types of experiences identified in the current research, there
may be variations in the need or intensity of these experiences in various
contexts.
In summary, the aim of this study was to clarify the concept of
gameful experience using insights from experienced gamification de­
signers. As indicated previously, gamification plays a significant role in
different facets of life and has the potential to contribute to the creation
of a better world through engagement and enjoyment at work and life,
especially in the new era of the metaverse. As eliciting a gameful
experience is the essence of gamification, insights on the concept of
gameful experience are of great value. This study could also represent a
quintessential step towards conceptualizing and measuring gameful­
ness, enhancing the practicality of gamification and furthering the
research in this domain.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nibu John Thomas: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investiga­
tion, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software,
Visualization, Writing – original draft. Rupashree Baral: Funding
acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing –
review & editing. Oliver S. Crocco: Methodology, Validation, Writing –
review & editing. Swathi Mohanan: Data curation, Software, Investi­
gation, Formal analysis.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
Aldemir, T., Celik, B., Kaplan, G., 2018. A qualitative investigation of student perceptions
of game elements in a gamified course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 78, 235–254. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.001.
Beatson, N., Gabriel, C.A., Howell, A., Scott, S., van der Meer, J., Wood, L.C., 2020. Just
opt in: how choosing to engage with technology impacts business students’ academic
performance. Journal of Accounting Education 50, 100641. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.100641.
Behl, A., Jayawardena, N., Pereira, V., Islam, N., Giudice, M.Del, Choudrie, J., 2022.
Gamification and e-learning for young learners: a systematic literature review,
bibliometric analysis, and future research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
176 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121445.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
(2) https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Cardador, M.T., Northcraft, G.B., Whicker, J., 2017. A theory of work gamification:
something old, something new, something borrowed, something cool? Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 27 (2), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.014.
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. In: Research design Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. Flow. In: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper &
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2014. Applications of Flow in Human Development and Education
[electronic resource] : The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi / by Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi. Springer eBooks.
Davis, A., Murphy, J., Owens, D., Khazanchi, D., Zigurs, I., 2009. Avatars, people, and
virtual worlds: foundations for research in metaverses. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10 (2),
90–117. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00183.
Deterding, S., 2015. The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: a method for gameful design.
Human-Computer Interaction 30 (3–4), 294–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07370024.2014.993471.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., 2011. From game design elements to
gamefulness. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek
Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11, Finland,
pp. 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.
Dymek, M., 2018. Expanding the magic circle – gamification as a marketplace icon.
Consum. Mark. Cult. 21 (6), 590–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10253866.2017.1361153.
Edmondson, A., McManus, S., 2005. In: A Note on Methodological Fit in Management
Field Research. Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 1–27. http://faculty.cbu.
ca/amolloy/mba603/MBA603_files/hbs.pdf.
Eppmann, R., Bekk, M., Klein, K., 2018. Gameful experience in gamification:
construction and validation of a gameful experience scale [GAMEX]. J. Interact.
Mark. 43, 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.03.002.
Feng, Y., Yi, Z., Yang, C., Chen, R., Feng, Y., 2022. How do gamification mechanics drive
solvers’ knowledge contribution? A study of collaborative knowledge
crowdsourcing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 177 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2022.121520.
Forbes, 2022. Gamification Versus Game-Based Learning: What Suits Your Business?
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/02/18/gamificat
ion-versus-game-based-learning-what-suits-your-business/?sh=69f5523835b3.
Forbes, 2023. Consumer Product Top Trends 2023: Digital Drives Resilience. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2023/02/28/cp-brands-top-trends-2023-digital-
drives-resilience/?sh=24f534bc1876.
Fox, W.S., Denzin, N.K., 1979. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. Contemp. Sociol. 8 (5) https://doi.org/10.2307/2065439.
Gartner, 2017. Hype Cycle Education. https://www.gartner.com/doc/3769145/hype-cy
cle-education-.
Gartner, 2022. Top 10 Strategic Predictions for 2022 and Beyond. Gartner. https://www.
gartner.com/en/articles/you-ll-be-breaking-up-with-bad-customers-and-9-other-pr
edictions-for-2022-and-beyond.
Gray, L.M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G.R., Cook, K., 2020. Expanding qualitative
research interviewing strategies: zoom video communications. Qual. Rep. 25 (5),
1292–1301.
Grijalvo, M., Segura, A., Núñez, Y., 2022. Computer-based business games in higher
education: a proposal of a gamified learning framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121597.
Hamari, J., 2019. Gamification. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd., pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos1321
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., 2014. Measuring flow in gamification: dispositional flow Scale-2.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 40, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.048.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H., 2014. Does gamification work? - A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3025–3034. https://doi.org/
10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
Harviainen, J.T., 2012. Ritualistic games, boundary control, and information
uncertainty. Simul. Gaming 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111435395.
Högberg, J., Hamari, J., Wästlund, E., 2019. Gameful experience questionnaire
(GAMEFULQUEST): an instrument for measuring the perceived gamefulness of
system use. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-
09223-w.
Hollensen, S., Kotler, P., Opresnik, M.O., 2022. Metaverse–the new marketing universe.
J. Bus. Strateg. (ahead-of-print).
Huotari, K., Hamari, J., 2012. Defining gamification - A service marketing perspective.
In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference 2012:
“Envisioning Future Media Environments”. MindTrek 2012. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2393132.2393137.
Huotari, K., Hamari, J., 2017. A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in
the service marketing literature. Electron. Mark. 27 (1), 21–31. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z.
Huotari, K., Hamari, J., 2011. Gamification from the perspective of service marketing. In:
Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on - MindTrek
’12, p. 17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137.
Ishizawa, F., Sakamoto, M., Nakajima, T., 2018. Extracting intermediate-level design
knowledge for speculating digital–physical hybrid alternate reality experiences.
Multimed. Tools Appl. 77 (16) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-5595-8.
Kara, O., 2015. Future mars mission demonstrationwith gamification and
socioeconomictraits: nextgenerationworkforce development and self-knowledge
management. In: AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition. https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2015-4652.
Kawitzky, F.R., 2020. Magic circles: tabletop role-playing games as queer utopian
method. Perform. Res. 25 (8) https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2020.1930786.
N.J. Thomas et al.
Khazaei, F., Khazaei, O., Ghanbari-H, B., 2017. Positive psychology interventions for
internet addiction treatment. Computers in Human Behavior 72, 304–311. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.065.
Koivisto, J., Hamari, J., 2019. The rise of motivational information systems: a review of
gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 45, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2018.10.013.
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., von Korflesch, H.F.O., 2021. Revealing the theoretical basis of
gamification: a systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification,
serious games and game-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 125, 106963 https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2021.106963.
Landers, R.N., Auer, E.M., Collmus, A.B., Armstrong, M.B., 2018. Gamification science,
its history and future: definitions and a research agenda. Simul. Gaming 49 (3),
315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118774385.
Landers, R.N., Tondello, G.F., Kappen, D.L., Collmus, A.B., Mekler, E.D., Nacke, L.E.,
2019. Defining gameful experience as a psychological state caused by gameplay:
replacing the term ‘Gamefulness’ with three distinct constructs. Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 127 (October 2017), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.08.003.
Leclercq, T., Poncin, I., Hammedi, W., 2020. Opening the black box of gameful
experience: implications for gamification process design. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52,
101882 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.07.007.
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., Webster, J., 2017. Toward meaningful engagement: a framework
for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Q. 41 (4), 1011–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C.M., 2017. Psychological capital: an evidence-based
positive approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 4 (1), 339–366. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V.D., Guassora, A.D., 2016. Sample size in qualitative interview
studies: guided by information power. Qual. Health Res. 26 (13) https://doi.org/
10.1177/1049732315617444.
McGonigal, J., 2011. Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. Penguin.
McGonigal, J., 2015. Position Statement: I‟m Not Playful, I‟m Gameful. In: The Gameful
World. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9788.003.0045.
McNamara, C., 2009. General guidelines for conducting interviews. Retrieved November
11, 2021, from. http://managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm.
Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., 2019. The gamification of work: lessons from
crowdsourcing. J. Manag. Inq. 28 (2), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1056492618790921.
Montola, M., Stenros, J., Waern, A., 2009. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. CRC
Press.
Özhan, Ş.Ç., Kocadere, S.A., 2020. The effects of flow, emotional engagement, and
motivation on success in a gamified online learning environment. J. Educ. Comput.
Res. 57 (8), 2006–2031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118823159.
Peng, C., Cao, L., Timalsena, S., 2017. Gamification of apollo lunar exploration missions
for learning engagement. Entertain. Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
entcom.2016.12.001.
Poncin, I., Garnier, M., Ben Mimoun, M.S., Leclercq, T., 2017. Smart technologies and
shopping experience: are gamification interfaces effective? The case of the
smartstore. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 124, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2017.01.025.
Rubio-Tamayo, J.L., Gertrudix Barrio, M., García García, F., 2017. Immersive
environments and virtual reality: systematic review and advances in communication,
interaction and simulation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 1 (4), 21. https://doi.org/
10.3390/mti1040021.
Scopus, 2022. Analyze search results: Document by year. Scopus. https://www.scopus.
com/term/analyzer.uri?sid=8baeedb82296665dd40a150452be8a70&origin=result
slist&src=s&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28gamification%29&sort=plf-f&sdt=b&sot
=b&sl=27&count=12613&analyzeResults=Analyze+results&txGid=566bec54a86
1290e118d5901dfc893c0.
Seligman, M.E., Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2000. Positive psychology. An introduction. Am.
Psychol. 55 (1) https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.
Shin, D., 2022. The actualization of meta affordances: conceptualizing affordance
actualization in the metaverse games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 133 (October 2021),
107292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107292.
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 193 (2023) 122544
Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness. In: Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1477-3880(15)30073-6.
Thomas, N.J., Baral, R., Crocco, O.S., 2022. Gamification for HRD: systematic review and
future research directions. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 15344843221074859 https://
doi.org/10.1177/15344843221074859.
Thomas, N.J., Baral, R., 2023. Mechanism of gamification: role of flow in the behavioral
and emotional pathways of engagement in management education. Int. J. Manag.
Educ. 21 (1), 100718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100718.
Thomas, N.J., Hamari, J., Baral, R., Sukumar, H., 2021. What is gameful experience?
Towards a conceptual definition. Academy of Management Proceedings 2021 (1),
14337. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.14337abstract.
Trends, G., 2022. Interest over time. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=a
ll&q=Gamification.
Turner III, D.W., 2010. Qualitative interview design: a practical guide for novice
investigators. Qual. Rep. 15 (3), 754.
Waldispühl, J., Szantner, A., Knight, R., Caisse, S., Pitchford, R., 2020. Leveling up
citizen science. Nature Biotechnology 38 (10), 1124–1126. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41587-020-0694-x, 2020 38:10.
Wünderlich, N.V., Gustafsson, A., Hamari, J., Parvinen, P., Haff, A., 2020. The great
game of business: advancing knowledge on gamification in business contexts. In.
J. Bus. Res. 106 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.062.
Wang, Y.F., Hsu, Y.F., Fang, K., 2022. The key elements of gamification in corporate
training – The Delphi method. Entertainment Computing 40 (October 2021),
100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2021.100463.
Werbach, K., 2014. (Re) defining gamification: A process approach. In: Persuasive
Technology: 9th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2014, Padua, Italy, May 21-
23, 2014. Proceedings 9. Springer International Publishing, pp. 266–272.
Yadav, R., Giri, A., Chatterjee, S., 2022. Understanding the users’ motivation and barriers
in adopting healthcare apps: a mixed-method approach using behavioral reasoning
theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 183, 121932 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TECHFORE.2022.121932.
Yang, H., Li, D., 2021. Health management gamification: understanding the effects of
goal difficulty, achievement incentives, and social networks on performance.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2021.120839.
Nibu John Thomas is a PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras. He works in
the domains of Human-Computer Interaction, Positive Psychology, Organizational
Behavior, and Human Resource Development. His research interests include Gamification,
Metaverse, Gameful Experience, and Learning. He also received the Academy of Man­
agement (AoM) Award at the annual meeting in Washington in 2022.
Rupashree Baral is an Associate Professor at the Department of Management Studies,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT Madras). Her research interests are in the areas
of Technology and Human Interface, Work-Life Balance, Women in Management and
Entrepreneurship, Employer Branding, Corporate Social and Environmental Re­
sponsibility, Knowledge Sharing, and Hiding Behavior.
Oliver S. Crocco is an Assistant Professor of Leadership and Human Resource Develop­
ment at Louisiana State University. He is also the Program Coordinator of the Learning
Experience Design and Innovation Bachelor of Science degree program. His research in­
terests are in HRD in Southeast Asia, learning experience design, adult development, and
enhancing global mindset in university and work contexts.
Swathi Mohanan is a Ph.D. candidate from the University of Calicut in the Department of
Commerce. She works in the domains of gamification, metaverse and innovation. Her
research interests include creativity, immersion, and attitude. She also works as a gami­
fication consultant.