Threats Arising from Software Gamification

*Lucio Gros and Cécile van de Leemput*

#### **Abstract**

The appearance of gamification dates back about a decade and since this tool has been increasingly used not only in the entertainment sector but also in the industry, army, education, health and others. Studies suggest that this approach may provide added value outcomes, in particular in the users' motivational and engagement areas, in a wide range of fields such as customer relations, skills learning, physical exercises, health management, etc. On the other hand, the consequences and potential risks related to its use remain insufficiently understood and have started to become the object of research in the last years. This chapter aims at exploring and deepening the understanding of the possible threats resulting from the use of software gamification at both the individual and collective levels. To do so, an integrative literature review was carried out on studies examining the negatives effects and challenges of this tool so as to identify the possible adverse impacts arising from them. Overall, results would show that an inadequate gamification design and implementation and its implications in terms of a flawed rewarding system and ethical issues may entail perils such as demotivating users, engendering mistrust, health issues and tarnishing the gamification credibility as well as that of the management in charge of it.

**Keywords:** gamification, engagement, motivation, risks, threats

#### **1. Introduction**

The impressive growth of the gaming sector in the last decades [1] constitutes one of the major elements to understand the rational of gamification. Indeed, the massive use of video games has triggered the interest of scientists and several industrial sectors to know what renders this cyberactivity motivating [2]. Fundamentally the objective being to identify and use the engaging components of video games in other activities with other purposes than gaming so as to increase the participation of the users concerned (customers, employees, students, etc.) [3].

Since 2010s gamification has been growing as both a subject of study and as a tool for stimulating users' activities [1, 4]. In particular, it is usually designed and used for promoting and supporting users' motivation and engagement and it has been applied in a quite wide range of areas such as entertainment, business, health, education, military, etc. [5].

The increasing use of gamification in the last decade attracted the attention of researchers and thus led to a growing number of studies in this field. However, it could be stated that despite its rapid development the academic attention to this

field is rather recent [6]. According to the available papers in research databases (see section Approach), it seems that the efforts to understand the dimensions and characteristics related to this tool and its use have been unequally distributed. Indeed, theorising on the gamification concept and studying its main advantages through concrete applications are the most explored areas. Studies on the effectiveness of this approach relative to its goals in different contexts are also rather frequent, although to a lesser extent. On the other hand, despite the production of useful and interesting literature review studies on detecting and grasping the limitations, negative consequences, unintended side effects, challenges and risks of gamification, this topic appears to be one of the least covered areas so far and probably insufficiently understood [7–9]. Since the information systems do influence users' behaviour [10], it is meaningful to examine the possible harms caused by gamification, which overall remain under addressed and represent an area needing further research.

applying them in non-game like activities consists in the attempt to combining the

It is probably also useful to make the distinction between gamification and game-based learning. In the latter participants embark in their learning process through game playing, whereas in the former the learning takes place in a non-game context and requires the endeavour, knowledge and skills of participants to reach

The concept of *serious games* could also be regarded as quite close to that *of gamification*, yet their differences lie in the fact that the former is a complete game setting for non-recreational purposes on a serious subjects whereas, as mentioned previously, the latter adopts game elements in other non-game

Another concept that probably needs to be addressed is that of *play*. Games imply a set of norms and regulations to reach an objective usually through competition, unlike *play* which rather involves a free improvising behaviour with a sense of enjoyment [17]. However, gamification has also been described by resorting to aspects of *play*: "Gamification is the application of gameful or playful layers to motivate involvement within a specific context" [18]. The distinction between these two concepts is based on the previous analysis made on the specificities of *paidia* (i.e. play) and *ludus* (i.e. games) [19]. In other words, games would result from the formalisation of *play* through the establishment of rules, norms and explicit objectives. For its part, gamification relates to games, which in turn has ties with *play*, and aims at benefiting from the stimulating features of these two concepts [20]. These are all definitions that suggest a possible lack of consensus concerning the explicit inclusion of the notion *play* when defining gamification. Yet, some industrial sectors criticise the insufficient components of *play* in the gamification design and consider that, if included, they could probably render the gamified solution

The connexions of '*gamification'* with '*games'* and '*play'*, constitute a web of major concepts related to one another of this research topic. In fact, each one of these terms is polysemic, thus in each of them coexist several meanings. In addition

to the thorough and articulated definitions on *gamification, games* and *play* provided by the authors mentioned previously, a semantic mapping [21] of these concepts as well as with of those related to main purpose of gamification (i.e., '*engaging'* and '*motivating'* users) is developed here below to have a synthetic overview on how these notions tie with one another, on the meanings they share or that

**2.1 Semantic mapping of gamification, game, play, motivation and engage**

The aim of this section is providing a holistic scheme so as to visually display the concepts semantically related to the main terms of this study (gamification, game, play, engage, motivation) independently of their specialised definitions mentioned previously. Based on the distinctions and sameness between the meanings arising from these main words, it is intended to highlight the notions that would match the purpose of gamification and those that would diverge from it and could represent

The obvious tie between the terms *gamification* and *game* deserves to be clarified. Whilst game refers to an activity whose main purpose is entertaining, gamification uses games principles in a non-game activity aiming at changing attitudes and

pleasant to the useful.

*Threats Arising from Software Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95963*

behaviours [15].

their goals [16].

systems contexts [6].

more engaging [6].

differentiate them.

potential threats.

**23**

*2.1.1 Goal*

Within this frame, this chapter aims at exploring the following question: What are the possible threats arising from the use of gamification at both the individual and collective levels?

An integrative literature review [11] was chosen as a means to seek answers and to develop insights into the mentioned research question that constitutes the scope of this study. The rest of this chapter is organised as described hereafter:

The next section concerns the notional part of this chapter, that is the grasping of gamification as a concept, with examples of definitions and differentiation with similar concepts as well as the semantic mapping on the main notions arising from this subject. Then, the research approach and the protocol employed to operate the analysis are presented. The following section displays and describes the results from the integrative literature review. Finally, the last section includes the discussion on the results, their implications, ideas on possible future research, conclusions and limitations of this study.

Through this integrative literature review, this paper contributes to discern perils that may result from gamification and suggests to take them into consideration during both the design and the outcome evaluation phases of this tool.

### **2. Grasping gamification**

Understanding the nature, the purpose and the components of gamification is probably the pre-requisite to explore the potential threats that may result from the use of this approach. Precising the content of the gamification concept and its boundaries has been the object of studies [6]. As a result, the theorization work on gamification produced several definitions on this subject. For instance, Zicherman and Cunningham [12] define this concept as " … *changing the way of thinking and using some gaming rules in order to increase the interest of learners and to solve problems"*.

Huotari and Hamari [13] share many concepts of the previously cited definition by referring to gamification as "*the process of enhancing services with motivational affordance for gameful experiences*". Seaborn and Fels [14] define it as "the intentional use of game elements for a gameful experience of non-games tasks and context".

Detering et al. [6] describe this concept as " … *the use of game design elements in non-game contexts*". This definition is quite generic, comprehensive and implicitly involves the motivational and useful aspects of this tool.

Beyond the degree of explicitness in citing the major components of gamification in the definitions, the leading thread of resorting to game elements and

#### *Threats Arising from Software Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95963*

applying them in non-game like activities consists in the attempt to combining the pleasant to the useful.

The obvious tie between the terms *gamification* and *game* deserves to be clarified. Whilst game refers to an activity whose main purpose is entertaining, gamification uses games principles in a non-game activity aiming at changing attitudes and behaviours [15].

It is probably also useful to make the distinction between gamification and game-based learning. In the latter participants embark in their learning process through game playing, whereas in the former the learning takes place in a non-game context and requires the endeavour, knowledge and skills of participants to reach their goals [16].

The concept of *serious games* could also be regarded as quite close to that *of gamification*, yet their differences lie in the fact that the former is a complete game setting for non-recreational purposes on a serious subjects whereas, as mentioned previously, the latter adopts game elements in other non-game systems contexts [6].

Another concept that probably needs to be addressed is that of *play*. Games imply a set of norms and regulations to reach an objective usually through competition, unlike *play* which rather involves a free improvising behaviour with a sense of enjoyment [17]. However, gamification has also been described by resorting to aspects of *play*: "Gamification is the application of gameful or playful layers to motivate involvement within a specific context" [18]. The distinction between these two concepts is based on the previous analysis made on the specificities of *paidia* (i.e. play) and *ludus* (i.e. games) [19]. In other words, games would result from the formalisation of *play* through the establishment of rules, norms and explicit objectives. For its part, gamification relates to games, which in turn has ties with *play*, and aims at benefiting from the stimulating features of these two concepts [20]. These are all definitions that suggest a possible lack of consensus concerning the explicit inclusion of the notion *play* when defining gamification. Yet, some industrial sectors criticise the insufficient components of *play* in the gamification design and consider that, if included, they could probably render the gamified solution more engaging [6].

The connexions of '*gamification'* with '*games'* and '*play'*, constitute a web of major concepts related to one another of this research topic. In fact, each one of these terms is polysemic, thus in each of them coexist several meanings. In addition to the thorough and articulated definitions on *gamification, games* and *play* provided by the authors mentioned previously, a semantic mapping [21] of these concepts as well as with of those related to main purpose of gamification (i.e., '*engaging'* and '*motivating'* users) is developed here below to have a synthetic overview on how these notions tie with one another, on the meanings they share or that differentiate them.

#### **2.1 Semantic mapping of gamification, game, play, motivation and engage**

#### *2.1.1 Goal*

The aim of this section is providing a holistic scheme so as to visually display the concepts semantically related to the main terms of this study (gamification, game, play, engage, motivation) independently of their specialised definitions mentioned previously. Based on the distinctions and sameness between the meanings arising from these main words, it is intended to highlight the notions that would match the purpose of gamification and those that would diverge from it and could represent potential threats.

## *2.1.2 Method*

We looked for the dictionary definitions [22] of the main concepts to grasp this tool (i.e., *gamification, game, play, motivation, engage*)*.* The key words (terms directly related to this research topic) defining each of these concepts were included in the semantic net around the word they are related to. For example, the definition of gamification was: *Transformation of a product/story into a game.* The association between the gamification definition and the term *game* as a key concept on which this definition is based, is represented with the arrow linking *gamification* with *game.* In turn, the key word *game* was subject to a new cycle of search definition whose key words were also included in this semantic net with the corresponding

arrows tying *game* with to each of the key words sustaining its meaning. Then, each of these key words went through the definition search. The same proceeding was applied over again until the key words of the new definition were the same ones as those previously found or were out of the scope of this research. This process was undertaken for the five mentioned words in one integrated mapping. Finally, the meaning-based connections between the identified terms were underlined or coloured according to their degree of compatibility with the gamification purpose as

The graphic illustrates the results of the semantic mapping (**Figure 1**) which shows the obvious and expected link between *gamification* and *game*. In turn, *game* shares an important common ground with *play.* Although often gamification definitions do not resort to the notion of *play,* this conceptual intersection between *play* and *game* might raise the question as whether these two concepts could be separated

In principle, the areas in green are affordances, psychological and behavioural outcomes that gamification is meant to promote [7], whereas the words in red represent those that the tool is not supposed to foster and may designate risky areas [7, 9]. The words in black and underlined would be affordances, psychological and behavioural outcomes that gamification would use and aim at in moderation.

On the other hand, the orange coloured text would highlight those indicating a

We are aware that there is not always a clear cut between these notions and that much can be debated about how these concepts relate with gamification. The last

To investigate the possible threats resulting from gamification, an integrative literature review approach was implemented [11, 23]. This approach intends to gather relevant observations and findings of existing literature review studies enabling to deepen insights into the issues and trends likely to provide elements of answer to the research question. In particular the aim is identifying the unintended side effects, challenges and limitations of gamification detected and analysed in the included studies from which may be inferred the possible perils arising from gamification, and thus compensating the shortage of papers studying specifically

1.The choice of words for the search of studies was intended to be as broad as possible given the previously mentioned dearth of papers covering specifically the threats of gamification. Consequently, several words were used to refer to the possible adverse impacts of gamification. The terms chosen to search the studies in all used databases were: *literature review, gamification, risks, disadvantages, threats, negative impacts, unintended side*

The four inclusion criteria were: 1) Published peer reviewed papers 2) Literature review studies 3) Written in English 4) Papers that examine, at least partially, the negative consequences and/or threats of gamification. Were excluded: 1) Posters

possible risk for the gamification approach to deviate from its purpose.

section of this chapter deepens and expands the analysis on these issues.

described in 2.1.3.

from each other.

**3. Research approach**

the threats resulting from this tool.

*effects*.

**25**

The mentioned approach consists in three phases:

*2.1.3 Results of the sematic mapping*

*Threats Arising from Software Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95963*

**Figure 1.** *Semantic net graphic of* Gamification, Game, Play, Engage and Motivation.

#### *Threats Arising from Software Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95963*

arrows tying *game* with to each of the key words sustaining its meaning. Then, each of these key words went through the definition search. The same proceeding was applied over again until the key words of the new definition were the same ones as those previously found or were out of the scope of this research. This process was undertaken for the five mentioned words in one integrated mapping. Finally, the meaning-based connections between the identified terms were underlined or coloured according to their degree of compatibility with the gamification purpose as described in 2.1.3.

### *2.1.3 Results of the sematic mapping*

The graphic illustrates the results of the semantic mapping (**Figure 1**) which shows the obvious and expected link between *gamification* and *game*. In turn, *game* shares an important common ground with *play.* Although often gamification definitions do not resort to the notion of *play,* this conceptual intersection between *play* and *game* might raise the question as whether these two concepts could be separated from each other.

In principle, the areas in green are affordances, psychological and behavioural outcomes that gamification is meant to promote [7], whereas the words in red represent those that the tool is not supposed to foster and may designate risky areas [7, 9]. The words in black and underlined would be affordances, psychological and behavioural outcomes that gamification would use and aim at in moderation.

On the other hand, the orange coloured text would highlight those indicating a possible risk for the gamification approach to deviate from its purpose.

We are aware that there is not always a clear cut between these notions and that much can be debated about how these concepts relate with gamification. The last section of this chapter deepens and expands the analysis on these issues.
