Does gamification work?
Gamification moves some outcomes and leaves others alone. A 2014 review, a 2020 meta-analysis and three experiments show which, and what each one measured.
Answer to the question
Does gamification work?
Gamification works for some outcomes under some conditions. A 2014 review of 24 studies by Hamari and colleagues found mostly positive results that depended on context and users, and a 2020 meta-analysis by Sailer and Homner found small positive effects on learning outcomes. Single elements such as points and leaderboards raised output without raising enjoyment.
Key takeaways
- Hamari and colleagues (2014) reviewed 24 empirical studies and found mostly positive results in engagement, enjoyment and use, with the size of the effect depending on context and users.
- Sailer and Homner (2020) pooled studies of gamified learning and found small positive effects on knowledge, motivation and behaviour.
- In Mekler and colleagues' 2017 tagging experiment, points, levels and leaderboards raised the number of tags produced without changing competence or intrinsic motivation.
- Sailer and co-authors (2017) found that badges, leaderboards and performance graphs raised competence, while avatars, stories and teammates raised connection.
- Hanus and Fox (2015) followed 71 students for 16 weeks: motivation and satisfaction fell in the course with a leaderboard and badges.
Early research on gamification asked a plain question, and the answer that came back was yes, with conditions attached. Most of the 24 studies in the 2014 review led by Juho Hamari reported some positive result, mainly in engagement, enjoyment and the use of a service. Gamification, the use of game design elements outside games, moves some outcomes and leaves others alone, a pattern the later research repeats.
Adam Alter discusses gamification in Irresistible as one way of designing experiences that hold attention. That framing treats it as a technique to be judged by its results, which is how the research has approached it. Variable rewards, the mechanic behind [random rewards in loyalty apps](https://thewhyweproject.com/articles/why-loyalty-apps-use-random-rewards), are a different tool from the points and badges tested in the studies here.
What did the broad reviews find?
That review, written with two colleagues, collected peer-reviewed empirical studies of gamification and asked what they had measured. Positive results clustered around engagement, enjoyment, motivation and how much people contributed to or used a service, and their size depended on the context and on the users.
The review also reported cases where a gain faded with time. The authors noted that services built around strictly rational tasks seemed harder to gamify than playful ones. Their own list of weaknesses in the evidence was long: small samples, few validated measures, experiments without control groups, several game elements tested together so that none could be isolated, and short study periods in which novelty may have done some of the work.
A meta-analysis by Michael Sailer and Lisa Homner, published in 2020, pooled studies of gamification in learning and sorted the outcomes into three kinds: what learners know, how motivated they are and what they do. It found small positive effects on all three.
Elements that raised output on a short task sat alongside falling interest over a semester.
The pooled analysis also looked for features that made a difference. Game fiction and social interaction mattered for behavioural outcomes, and pairing competition with collaboration looked helpful for behaviour and for motivation. Sailer and Homner judged gamification an effective way to teach, while noting that why it works is still unclear, particularly for knowledge outcomes.
Which element does which job?
A second line of work isolated single elements. In an online experiment by Elisa Mekler and colleagues, built around tagging images, participants worked with points, levels or leaderboards, or with none of them. The elements did not change how competent participants felt or how much they enjoyed the task for its own sake. They did change output. Points raised the number of tags people produced, and levels and leaderboards raised it further.
A team that counts actions will see the mechanics work.
The authors read the elements as extrinsic incentives that increased quantity without changing the motivation underneath. For a product team this is a useful split. If the goal is more of an action, the elements delivered. If the goal is a person who likes the activity, the experiment found no sign that they did.
Self-determination theory, which holds that people need to feel competent, autonomous and connected to others, guided an experiment by Michael Sailer and three co-authors. In a randomised online simulation they varied the elements on offer. Badges, leaderboards and performance graphs raised the sense of competence and the sense that the task was meaningful. Avatars, meaningful stories and teammates raised the sense of connection. The sense of autonomy did not move in the way the researchers intended.
On this evidence, gamification is not effective simply by being applied, and specific elements produce specific psychological effects. That reading fits the earlier [account of reward and motivation at the till](https://thewhyweproject.com/articles/self-determination-theory-at-the-till), where the same three needs explain why one loyalty scheme feels like a gift and another feels like management.
Did a full semester change the picture?
A 16-week university semester gave Michael Hanus and Jesse Fox a longer test. Hanus and Fox followed 71 students and surveyed them at four points. One course ran with a leaderboard and badges, and another taught the same material without game elements. Over the term, students in the gamified course became less motivated, less satisfied and less empowered, and their lower intrinsic motivation accounted for part of a drop in final exam scores. In their view, reward-heavy gamification can backfire in education.
Set beside the tagging experiment, the result shows the same mechanism with a different payoff. Leaderboards and badges can raise output on a short task, while over a semester they sit alongside falling interest in the subject. The two studies measured different things in different settings, so neither settles the other, and the gap between them is where design choices matter.
Taken together, the studies support a narrower question than whether gamification works. The useful questions are which outcome is wanted and which element is meant to deliver it. Points, levels and leaderboards raised output in the tagging task. Badges and graphs supported competence in the simulation. Stories and teammates supported connection. None of the studies found a single element that improved every outcome at once.
Measurement matters as much as design. A team that counts actions will see the mechanics work, and a team that also asks whether people like the activity may see something else. The experiments keep those two readings apart, and a dashboard can do the same by reporting actions and liking as separate lines, a distinction that [measures of use](https://thewhyweproject.com/articles/what-engagement-metrics-really-measure) often blur. Kept apart, the two numbers show which of them a given design moved, and which it left alone.
Common questions
Does gamification work?
Gamification works for some outcomes under some conditions. A 2014 review of 24 studies by Hamari and colleagues found mostly positive results that depended on context and users, and a 2020 meta-analysis by Sailer and Homner found small positive effects on learning outcomes.
Do points and leaderboards make people enjoy a task more?
In one online tagging experiment, points, levels and leaderboards raised how many tags people produced but did not change how competent or interested participants felt. Enjoyment was not improved in that study.
Can gamification reduce motivation?
In the Hanus and Fox study of 71 students over 16 weeks, those in a course with a leaderboard and badges became less motivated and satisfied over the term than those in a course without them. It is one study, in one setting.
What should be measured to judge gamification?
Both the behaviour the elements are meant to change and the motivation behind it. The studies above show that the two can move apart.
Sources
Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible. Seed book.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). “Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification.” Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025-3034. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). “The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis.” Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77-112. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). “Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance.” Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525-534. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). “How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction.” Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). “Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance.” Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019