**4. Results**

The search was carried out by employing the key words mentioned earlier in the following databases through the University of Maastricht: Clarivate Analytics, JSTOR (filters used: science & engineering, journal articles), PubMed, MEDLine (Ovid SP), Clarivate Analytics (filters used: medicine, health & life science), EBSCO host APA PsycArticles (filters used: psychology & neuroscience, journal articles), Google Scholar and Maastricht University online library.



used *motivational affordances*, and their impact in terms of *psychological* and *behavioural* outcomes. In terms of gamification issues, the results of this study would indicate that gamification may be less compatible with utilitarian contexts, with some profile of users and would only have a short-term impact. Methodologically though, it is noteworthy remarking that 17 (out of the 24-peer reviewed empirical studies) utilised qualitative users' perception measurements only without using control groups. Moreover, most of their experiment timeframes were quite short and consequently the novelty effect might have impacted users' perceptions. In addition, the motivational affordances as well as the psychological/behavioural

Hyrynsalmi et al. [9] tackled more straightforwardly the issues arising from this tool from a researcher perspective. Indeed, their research question aimed at exploring *"how researchers have perceived the negative side effects of applying gamification?"*. To do so, authors carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) that included 26 literature review studies about gamification on which they implemented a content analysis that led to the definition of two categories of negative consequences: 1) Limitations of gamification (i.e., moderate or less optimal outcomes of gamified system), which could be demotivating, detrimental to teamwork or distracting users from their core activity. 2) Harmful consequences (i.e., gamified solution producing users' questionable and potentially unethical behaviours), that may lead to problem of ethical nature. It is important underlining that this SLR relied on secondary studies and thus lacks the detailed information on specific issues that

Sardi et al. [26] also run a SLR, but they focused their study to explore the advantages and shortcomings of gamification in e-health. Several research questions were addressed, among which the one that relates to our integrative review: "Which challenges are most frequently encountered during gamification?". In total the authors included 46 studies that were examined via structured questionnaire to extract data from them to answer the research questions*.* The challenges identified were also around the decline of users' interest over time, the poor design of gamified solutions and the ethical issues. Besides, other important issues were detected, namely the inadequacy of rewards, the poor tailoring of the gamified

solutions and the lack of united framework for evaluating gamification principles and outcomes. This SLR provides a more holistic analysis of the challenges associated with gamification, but it specifically examined the e-health

mechanics and dynamics is not analysed in this study.

Schmidt-Kraepelin et al. [27], studied the use of gamification in Enterprise Systems (ES). Apart from exploring how gamification could increase ES end-user acceptance, the authors raised and examined the research question that is quite linked to our integrative review: What risks are related to applying gamification in ES contexts? Altogether, 62 studies (quantitative and qualitative) on gamification were selected and analysed. The focus of this literature review was centred on gamification's mechanics, dynamics (Zichermann and Cunningham 2011) and risks. In total 339 mechanics and dynamics were identified (172 empirically confirmed). The negative consequences of gamified Enterprise Systems (perceived risks) amounted 59 risks, which were categorised in seven master-risks*.* The found risks relate to areas similar to those identified in the previous studies, in particular the ethical issues, the declining impact of gamification over time, the grabbing of users' attention at the expenses of the main purpose and the dysfunctional rewards. Concerning the last point, the authors state how a moderate quality of gamification mechanics and dynamics adversely impacts the rewarding system, which in turn leads to users' demotivation. On the other hand, the interaction between the

outcomes varied between the studies.

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

primary studies may provide.

sector only.

**29**

#### **Table 1.**

*Included literature review papers, number of studies on gamification examined by them and the 42 identified items/texts on limitations, unintended negative side effects, risks and challenges of gamification. ()\* numbers in brackets allud to the bibliographic references.*

All databases together, the search conducted beginning of September 2020 produced 1696 hits from which 2 literature review studies were selected. Due to the considerable dearth of literature review papers about our research topics, 3 other studies that met the inclusion criteria were found via references. Consequently, altogether 5 literature review papers were selected and included, which in total analysed 187 studies on gamification and identified 42 negative unintended side effects, limitations, risks and challenges about its implementation, all of them listed in **Table 1**.

Although the methods and the examined gamification contexts somewhat vary across the five selected literature review studies, they yielded to an important extent common and/or converging gamification issues as described here below.

For instance, in their literature review Hamari et al. [25] aimed at measuring the effectiveness of gamification by examining 24 peer reviewed empirical studies on gamification in different contexts. In particular, the areas explored referred to the

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

used *motivational affordances*, and their impact in terms of *psychological* and *behavioural* outcomes. In terms of gamification issues, the results of this study would indicate that gamification may be less compatible with utilitarian contexts, with some profile of users and would only have a short-term impact. Methodologically though, it is noteworthy remarking that 17 (out of the 24-peer reviewed empirical studies) utilised qualitative users' perception measurements only without using control groups. Moreover, most of their experiment timeframes were quite short and consequently the novelty effect might have impacted users' perceptions. In addition, the motivational affordances as well as the psychological/behavioural outcomes varied between the studies.

Hyrynsalmi et al. [9] tackled more straightforwardly the issues arising from this tool from a researcher perspective. Indeed, their research question aimed at exploring *"how researchers have perceived the negative side effects of applying gamification?"*. To do so, authors carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) that included 26 literature review studies about gamification on which they implemented a content analysis that led to the definition of two categories of negative consequences: 1) Limitations of gamification (i.e., moderate or less optimal outcomes of gamified system), which could be demotivating, detrimental to teamwork or distracting users from their core activity. 2) Harmful consequences (i.e., gamified solution producing users' questionable and potentially unethical behaviours), that may lead to problem of ethical nature. It is important underlining that this SLR relied on secondary studies and thus lacks the detailed information on specific issues that primary studies may provide.

Sardi et al. [26] also run a SLR, but they focused their study to explore the advantages and shortcomings of gamification in e-health. Several research questions were addressed, among which the one that relates to our integrative review: "Which challenges are most frequently encountered during gamification?". In total the authors included 46 studies that were examined via structured questionnaire to extract data from them to answer the research questions*.* The challenges identified were also around the decline of users' interest over time, the poor design of gamified solutions and the ethical issues. Besides, other important issues were detected, namely the inadequacy of rewards, the poor tailoring of the gamified solutions and the lack of united framework for evaluating gamification principles and outcomes. This SLR provides a more holistic analysis of the challenges associated with gamification, but it specifically examined the e-health sector only.

Schmidt-Kraepelin et al. [27], studied the use of gamification in Enterprise Systems (ES). Apart from exploring how gamification could increase ES end-user acceptance, the authors raised and examined the research question that is quite linked to our integrative review: What risks are related to applying gamification in ES contexts? Altogether, 62 studies (quantitative and qualitative) on gamification were selected and analysed. The focus of this literature review was centred on gamification's mechanics, dynamics (Zichermann and Cunningham 2011) and risks. In total 339 mechanics and dynamics were identified (172 empirically confirmed). The negative consequences of gamified Enterprise Systems (perceived risks) amounted 59 risks, which were categorised in seven master-risks*.* The found risks relate to areas similar to those identified in the previous studies, in particular the ethical issues, the declining impact of gamification over time, the grabbing of users' attention at the expenses of the main purpose and the dysfunctional rewards. Concerning the last point, the authors state how a moderate quality of gamification mechanics and dynamics adversely impacts the rewarding system, which in turn leads to users' demotivation. On the other hand, the interaction between the mechanics and dynamics is not analysed in this study.

Finally, Schmidt-Kraepelin et al. [7] examined the consequences of gamification as a means to support behavioural change in the health domain. The authors run a literature review with the aim of exploring the research question "*what unintended side effects may occur when implementing gamification in the health behaviour change support systems*?". In this literature review 33 studies were included; peer reviewed papers were prioritised. Data was processed through manual content analysis and by using an open coding approach, which yielded 16 potential unintended side effects linked with motivational issues (undermining intrinsic motivation, motivation decreasing over time), rewarding system inadequacies, distraction from the core purpose of the activity, ethical matters, poor match with the context and lowquality system interface. The moderate running-in of this tool is worthy of note and thus requires cautiousness about its impact evaluation.

**Categories of gamification issues Items x Category Frequency**

main purpose [9]

activity [27]

at hand [9]

[25]

Lack of evaluation tool • There is no unified framework for evaluating

Cheating • If underlying rules are not clearly defined, it

Moral and Legal Principles Matters • Monitoring and surveillance of both the

[27]

[26]

[25]

• Quality of tasks might suffer if gamified elements distract from the main purpose of the

• Distraction from health purpose [7]

• Motivation decreases over time [7]

declines over time [26]

• Gamified solutions may distract users from the

4/42

4/42

2/42

1/42

3/42

4/42

4/42

6/42

• Users might be optimising the end-result game (ex. Position in leader boards) and not the task

• A decreased effectiveness can occur once the novelty of gamification has worn off. [27] • Users might feel motivated and excited about the gamification elements but the interest

• Results of gamification may not be long term

• Gamification solutions are not users-centred as they overlook the traits and demographics characteristics of potential users [26] • Gamified health solutions do not integrate health professionals in their development [26]

gamification principles and outcomes. [26]

perceived to be meaningless and not helpful in terms of the system's healthcare purposes [26] • Gamification might not be effective in

enables cheating, which can lead to rejection of implemented game elements by other

• Cheating may increase as users might work to achieve higher levels solely for their sake of

performed activity and the performing employee are likely to breach privacy rights

• Taking advantage of users, infringing their

• Effectiveness of the gamification solutions can lessen when relying on only one game element.

• There is a significant lack of control between the elements of gamification and thus various elements were viewed as a single one. [26] • Some gamified solutions may be simplistic, childish and therefore demotivating [9] • Some users did not find gamification engaging

• Gamification elements are sometimes

utilitarian contexts [25] • Trivialising the health context [7]

employees [27]

rewards [26] • Cheating the self [7] • Cheating others [7]

autonomy. [9] • Feeling of manipulation [7] • Privacy infringements [7]

Possible over-emphasis on hedonic elements at the expenses of the

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

Short term impact of gamification on

None or insufficient tailoring in the gamification design and development

Mismatch between gamification and

Usability issues of gamified solutions

and users' motivation

**31**

its context

utilitarian purpose

users' motivation

The detailed information about this phase is presented in **Table 1**, which lists the titles of the included literature review studies and describes the 42 unintended negative side effects, risks and challenges of gamification identified by them.

#### **4.1 Classifying the 42 identified items on limitations, risks, challenges and unintended side effects of gamification**

Despite the different methods used and the variety of gamification contexts examined in these studies there are clear similarities among the 42 identified items on the risks, challenges, limitations and side effects of gamification. Consequently, items sharing analogue meanings or belonging to the same gamification area/function were set in the same cluster. In other words, the listed 42 items in **Table 1** went through a grouping process and based on their commonalities and semantic consistencies a total of 11 categories were constituted.

For instance, the four items referring the short-term impact of gamification and its decline over time were grouped in the same category (Short-term impact of gamification on users' motivation).

The same goes for the two items related to the poor users-centred gamified solutions and the absence of integration of health professionals' input in gamification development (None or insufficient tailoring in the gamification design and development).

The three items alluding to gamified solutions not fitting the demands of the environment constituted the category 'Mismatch between gamification and its context'.

The item stating the absence of united framework for evaluating gamification principles and outcomes is related to the two previous categories albeit as a cause of them rather than as part of them, hence its status as one item category (Lack of evaluation tool).

The four items associated with gamified elements deviating users' attention from their core duties and activities were grouped under the category 'Possible over-emphasis on hedonic elements at the expenses of the utilitarian purpose'.

The four items related to users taking unfair advantage of gamified systems were placed in the 'Cheating' category.

The four items linked with the possible misuse of gamification (surveillance, manipulation, exploitation and infringing privacy and autonomy of users) formed the category 'Moral and Legal Principles Matters'.

The six items referring to the impact of poorly designed gamified solutions on users' motivation and engagement were set in the category 'Usability of gamified solutions and users' motivation'.

The seven items stating the inconsistent rewards generating demotivation or misbehaviour constitute the category 'Unsound encouraging/punishing'.

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



reported. 2) Inferring the threats that could arise from them by exploring the

gamification system, its rewarding system and the ethical sphere are the

described below, along with the possible threats that arise from them.

*4.2.1 Inadequate gamification design and development phase*

The content analysis suggests that the design and development phase of the

gamification areas/functions associated with the detected issues. Although it could be stated that most identified negative impacts of gamification result from insufficiencies in the design and development phase, some of them are associated more specifically to particular domains of gamification, hence the formation of two other areas/functions of gamification (i.e., Flawed Rewarding System and Ethical Issues). As for the threats, some areas and/or mismanagement of this tool could lead to perils, namely a loss of gamification/management credibility, low productivity, users' demotivation, an atmosphere of mistrust tied with health and ethical issues. Each of these areas/functions of gamification with their respective categories are

This area of gamification is composed of several categories. The category "None or insufficient tailoring in the gamification design and development" that leads to a "Mismatch between gamification solution and its context". Moreover, design deficiencies result in "Usability issues of gamified solutions" as well as in two other categories "Gamified elements distracting from the main purpose" and "Cheating". This scenario may be worsened by the "Lack of evaluation tool" which would prevent from ensuring the learning process required to adjust and improve the gamification system. At the organisational level, an inadequate design and development of gamification, would, through its implementation dysfunctions, impact adversely the credibility of both the gamified system and that of Management [26, 27]. It would also imply a productivity loss and thus a low cost-effectiveness as well as a low implementation quality of mechanics and dynamics that would engender problematic interactions and an inefficient reward system [27].

Moreover, from a user stand point, "Gamified elements distracting from the main purpose" would suggest, at least partially, the engaging effect of flow [9]. Whilst this emotional state may serve the purpose of gamification (engaging and motivating), it may also put at risk users with gaming addiction history [9] and with attention deficit disorders (ADD) [28]. The nature of this category, due to its health-related impact, may be regarded as an extension of the "Ethical issues". Finally, although the "Usability issues of gamified solutions" are not elements of the rewarding system per se, they would also have a demotivation impact on users like a

As a function, the rewarding system is probably the gist of the gamification process. The observed "Unsound encouraging/punishing" measures produce unintended effects such as "Some gamified solutions may encourage users to perform behaviour only when rewarded", "Users' Motivation declines over time", "Execution overuse due to wrong rewards" or even "Fostering behaviour that harms third parties" which can have ethical consequences [7]. Besides, the over use of competition as a means to increase users' engagement might weaken "cooperation and teamwork" [9, 25], with the risk of deteriorating the interactions and the

"overemphasise the extrinsic motivation" could eventually hinder users' motivation

atmosphere among users [7]. Furthermore, the gamified solution that

potential adverse impacts of their items.

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

flawed rewarding system does [9].

*4.2.2 Flawed rewarding system*

[8, 9, 18].

**33**

#### **Table 2.**

*Categories of gamification issues, the identified items (unintended side effects, limitations, risks and challenges of gamification) per category with the bibliographic reference number in brackets of the study that originally detected them, the frequency of the mentioned items per category relative to the total number of items.*

The four items indicating that competition-like gamified solutions may take place at the expenses of cooperation were grouped under the cluster 'Weakening cooperation, teamwork'.

Finally, the three items showing the negative impact of gamified solutions linked with extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation of users formed the category 'Overemphasis on extrinsic motivational elements and users' intrinsic motivation'.

These categories are presented with their corresponding items and the frequency of the mentioned items per category relative to the total number of items (**Table 2**).

#### **4.2 Threats of gamification**

In turn, these eleven categories with their respective items went through a double processing whose aim is to facilitate the identification of threats and their localisation in relation to the organisational areas/functions of gamification. That is: 1) Grouping them according to the major areas/functions of the gamification system where these limitations and unintended side effects have been observed or

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

reported. 2) Inferring the threats that could arise from them by exploring the potential adverse impacts of their items.

The content analysis suggests that the design and development phase of the gamification system, its rewarding system and the ethical sphere are the gamification areas/functions associated with the detected issues. Although it could be stated that most identified negative impacts of gamification result from insufficiencies in the design and development phase, some of them are associated more specifically to particular domains of gamification, hence the formation of two other areas/functions of gamification (i.e., Flawed Rewarding System and Ethical Issues). As for the threats, some areas and/or mismanagement of this tool could lead to perils, namely a loss of gamification/management credibility, low productivity, users' demotivation, an atmosphere of mistrust tied with health and ethical issues. Each of these areas/functions of gamification with their respective categories are described below, along with the possible threats that arise from them.

#### *4.2.1 Inadequate gamification design and development phase*

This area of gamification is composed of several categories. The category "None or insufficient tailoring in the gamification design and development" that leads to a "Mismatch between gamification solution and its context". Moreover, design deficiencies result in "Usability issues of gamified solutions" as well as in two other categories "Gamified elements distracting from the main purpose" and "Cheating". This scenario may be worsened by the "Lack of evaluation tool" which would prevent from ensuring the learning process required to adjust and improve the gamification system. At the organisational level, an inadequate design and development of gamification, would, through its implementation dysfunctions, impact adversely the credibility of both the gamified system and that of Management [26, 27]. It would also imply a productivity loss and thus a low cost-effectiveness as well as a low implementation quality of mechanics and dynamics that would engender problematic interactions and an inefficient reward system [27].

Moreover, from a user stand point, "Gamified elements distracting from the main purpose" would suggest, at least partially, the engaging effect of flow [9]. Whilst this emotional state may serve the purpose of gamification (engaging and motivating), it may also put at risk users with gaming addiction history [9] and with attention deficit disorders (ADD) [28]. The nature of this category, due to its health-related impact, may be regarded as an extension of the "Ethical issues". Finally, although the "Usability issues of gamified solutions" are not elements of the rewarding system per se, they would also have a demotivation impact on users like a flawed rewarding system does [9].

#### *4.2.2 Flawed rewarding system*

As a function, the rewarding system is probably the gist of the gamification process. The observed "Unsound encouraging/punishing" measures produce unintended effects such as "Some gamified solutions may encourage users to perform behaviour only when rewarded", "Users' Motivation declines over time", "Execution overuse due to wrong rewards" or even "Fostering behaviour that harms third parties" which can have ethical consequences [7]. Besides, the over use of competition as a means to increase users' engagement might weaken "cooperation and teamwork" [9, 25], with the risk of deteriorating the interactions and the atmosphere among users [7]. Furthermore, the gamified solution that "overemphasise the extrinsic motivation" could eventually hinder users' motivation [8, 9, 18].


**Areas/ functions of gamification**

Flawed Rewarding System

**35**

**Categories of gamification issues**

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

> Possible overemphasis on hedonic elements at the expenses of the utilitarian purpose

Unsound encouraging/ punishing

**Items (limitations, unintended side effects,**

• Some users did not find gamification engaging • Reduced usability: confusing / too complex interface

not clearly defined, it enables cheating, which can lead to rejection of implemented game elements by other employees • Cheating may increase as users might work to achieve higher levels solely for their sake of

**Possible Threats Frequency**

• Demotivating users [8, 9] with possible ethical implications

• Decreased productivity

• Health Matters [9, 28]: Possible flow generating gamified solutions that could put at risk users prone to addiction or

with ADD

• Hampering users' motivation, frustrating users, undermining cooperation, thus obtaining the opposite

> effects relative to the gamification's goals [8, 27]

18/42 (42.8%)

**of items x Areas/ functions of gamification**

**challenges of gamification) x category**

Cheating • If underlying rules are

rewards • Cheating the self • Cheating others

• Quality of tasks might suffer if gamified elements distract from the main purpose of the activity • Gamified solutions may distract users from the main purpose • Users might be optimising the endresult game (ex. Position in

leaderboards) and not the task at hand • Distraction from health purpose

• Some rewards were judged to be irrelevant or exaggerated • Some gamified solutions may encourage users to perform behaviour only when rewarded

• Exaggerated punishment • Execution overuse due to wrong rewards • Incorrect reward • Unfulfilled expectations (generated by


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


Overall, the failures concerning the rewarding system are a threat at both the individual and collective level insofar as they may hamper users' motivation or lead to users' frustration [7, 27], and thus obtaining the opposite results relative to those

*The areas/functions of gamification with their corresponding categories of gamification issues, items x category (limitations, risks, challenges and unintended side effects of gamification), possible threats arising from gamification (with the bibliographic reference number in brackets) and frequency of items per areas/function*

**Items (limitations, unintended side effects,**

• Taking advantage of users, infringing their **Possible Threats Frequency**

**of items x Areas/ functions of gamification**

**challenges of gamification) x category**

autonomy • Feeling of manipulation • Privacy infringements

*of gamification relative to the total amount of items expressed in fractions and percentage.*

This sort of critical matters usually results from the two previous areas/functions of gamification (an Inadequate Gamification Design and Development phase, and a Flawed Rewarding system). It could relate to a moderate quality of gamified solutions, in which underlying rules are not clearly defined and enable "cheating". Ethical issues might also arise from the way in which the gamification system handles users' data, defines and implements the users' role ("Privacy and autonomy infringements", "feeling of manipulation") [27, 29]. Besides, as mentioned earlier, rewards that "Foster behaviour that harms third parties" could have also ethical consequences [7]. These issues may generate a sense of mistrust and thus demotivate users, which in turn would weaken the adherence to the system [7]. The synthetic overview of the possible threats arising from areas and functions

In short, an inadequate gamification design and development (partially due to the lack of framework to evaluate this tool) would lead to several negative consequences [26]. That is, the usability issues of the gamified solutions together with the flawed rewarding system might adversely impact the motivation of users [27], thus obtaining the opposite outcome of the gamification purpose [9]. Moreover, rewards that foster behaviours that may harm third parties would have ethical consequences [7]. Besides, the moral/legal matters [7, 27] as well as the hedonic emphasis of some gamified solutions could generate ethical and health-related issues [9], thus risking to cause mistrust, which in turn might aggravate the already weakened engagement and motivation of users due to the dysfunctional rewarding system. Then, the users' demotivation and the mistrust may threaten and jeopardise the credibility of both the gamification approach and that of the management in charge of it with the negative impact it may have on productivity, cost-effectiveness, etc. [7, 26, 27]. Finally, this credibility loss, in turn, would worsen both users' demotivation and

targeted by the gamification system [9].

**Categories of gamification issues**

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

of gamification are summarised in the **Table 3**.

*4.2.3 Ethical issues*

**Areas/ functions of gamification**

**Table 3.**

mistrust [27].

**37**

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


#### **Table 3.**

*The areas/functions of gamification with their corresponding categories of gamification issues, items x category (limitations, risks, challenges and unintended side effects of gamification), possible threats arising from gamification (with the bibliographic reference number in brackets) and frequency of items per areas/function of gamification relative to the total amount of items expressed in fractions and percentage.*

Overall, the failures concerning the rewarding system are a threat at both the individual and collective level insofar as they may hamper users' motivation or lead to users' frustration [7, 27], and thus obtaining the opposite results relative to those targeted by the gamification system [9].

#### *4.2.3 Ethical issues*

This sort of critical matters usually results from the two previous areas/functions of gamification (an Inadequate Gamification Design and Development phase, and a Flawed Rewarding system). It could relate to a moderate quality of gamified solutions, in which underlying rules are not clearly defined and enable "cheating". Ethical issues might also arise from the way in which the gamification system handles users' data, defines and implements the users' role ("Privacy and autonomy infringements", "feeling of manipulation") [27, 29]. Besides, as mentioned earlier, rewards that "Foster behaviour that harms third parties" could have also ethical consequences [7]. These issues may generate a sense of mistrust and thus demotivate users, which in turn would weaken the adherence to the system [7].

The synthetic overview of the possible threats arising from areas and functions of gamification are summarised in the **Table 3**.

In short, an inadequate gamification design and development (partially due to the lack of framework to evaluate this tool) would lead to several negative consequences [26]. That is, the usability issues of the gamified solutions together with the flawed rewarding system might adversely impact the motivation of users [27], thus obtaining the opposite outcome of the gamification purpose [9]. Moreover, rewards that foster behaviours that may harm third parties would have ethical consequences [7]. Besides, the moral/legal matters [7, 27] as well as the hedonic emphasis of some gamified solutions could generate ethical and health-related issues [9], thus risking to cause mistrust, which in turn might aggravate the already weakened engagement and motivation of users due to the dysfunctional rewarding system. Then, the users' demotivation and the mistrust may threaten and jeopardise the credibility of both the gamification approach and that of the management in charge of it with the negative impact it may have on productivity, cost-effectiveness, etc. [7, 26, 27]. Finally, this credibility loss, in turn, would worsen both users' demotivation and mistrust [27].

### **5. Discussion**

Overall, this integrative review on gamification suggests that an inadequate design and development phase together with the flawed rewarding system and the moral/legal negative issues arising from it, may be sources of threats for both organisations and individuals, and could possibly jeopardise the management and approach credibility, demotivate users, generate ethical and health issues leading to mistrust [7, 9, 25–27]. Unsound rewards and poor usability of gamified solutions are the categories of gamification issues with the highest number of reported items.

(bonding, cooperation, competition) as well as individual aims associated with survival and social interests (learning physical skills, innovation, tool use), and would exercise the production and mastering of affective behaviours, as a possible waking alter ego of dreaming which processes affective states during the rapid eyes movements cycles while sleeping [35]. It is noteworthy remarking that the cholinergic system (involved in memory, emotional processing and selective attention) [36] is associated with both playing and dreaming [35]. Besides, among mammals and due to their extended childhood and adolescence, humans experience the longest playing time [35], which would imply that this innate activity with its hedonic components is quite anchored in memory and probably rather dissociated from

The mentioned distinctive emotional features of *play* (joy, lightness and flow)

Along these lines, fear and hunger (among other states like rage, anger and separation distress) stop playing [35]. Whilst hunger is quite unlikely to happen in a gamification scenario, it might not be always the case for fear. For instance, some competition-like gamified solutions whose results are related to important personal goals (ex. Being promoted, being positively judged, etc.), could trigger fear in users, particularly in anxious ones, and render them reluctant to engage lest gamified solutions would prevent them to achieve their objectives. The same would go for anger resulting from a gamified solution perceived as unfair, or for separation distress produced by providing open access to comparative performance displays (leader boards), which could engender in poor performers the fear of being

This foundation of gamification would argue in favour of a safe context as a prerequisite for gamification and raises several challenges that, if inappropriately managed, may have adverse impacts on both organisations and individuals. For instance, one challenge would be how to render the unattractive task more engaging

It is likely that the adverse impacts that gamification may have on users are of

the same nature as those arising from games [9]. In this line, when playing competition-like video games, the level of dopamine (DA) released in the ventral striatum (a brain area mediating reward, cognition, reinforcement and motivation) is quite comparable to that produced by psycho-stimulant drugs [38, 39]. Enhancing the attractiveness of an activity by introducing flow-generating elements in it could also be a matter of concern. In effect, it has been observed that flow recruits the brain circuits associated with cognitive synchronisation of the attentional function together with those of the brain rewarding system and consequently places the

through game elements generating joy and lightness without trivialising the gamified solution [37] and/or the entire gamification policy, with all the risky consequences this approach might have in terms of management credibility and of users' adherence to the gamified approach [7]. The fact that gamification is usually applied in serious contexts [29] makes this issue even more relevant and raises the question of whether this approach is the most suitable for this sort of settings. Moreover, when the users end up mastering the process by which they obtain the gamification rewards (points, badges, etc.) their involvement level in the gamified solution is reduced [18], which compromises the purpose of the gamification

suggest that a safe environment is required for the ludic activity to occur, as observed in animal models where rodents set in a new environment adopt an exploratory behaviour to familiarise with it before being in the mood for playing [35]. A supplementary index supporting this view is that laughter, in young humans. as an innate emotional action linked with the activation of ancient brain systems, is strongly associated with play [35] and also suggests enjoying time within

serious contexts.

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

a secure context.

policy [9].

**39**

disregarded by others or of losing their jobs.

The included studies, among other matters, explored the gamification side effects in several areas (i.e., Education, Health, Business, etc.), yet many negative outcomes seem to occur across sectors. Although the reviewed literature highlights the relevance of the mentioned potential adverse impacts and threats, it is noteworthy wondering how gamification specific they are. Gamification presents similarities with previous information systems (IS) (i.e. intrinsically motivating IS, Persuasive IS, Hedonic IS) whose goals also aim at motivating and engaging users [30]. Moreover, gamification may be regarded as an attempt to improve and/or facilitate pre-existing managerial practices aiming at increasing users' engagement under the assumption that it will have a positive effect on performance [18, 31]. In line with these statements, frustrating and/or demotivating workers/users through childish tasks or over complex processes, or by over encouraging competition at the expenses of cooperation is not a particularity of gamification since the same phenomenon could be produced with other means. The same goes for ill-managed policies resulting in the risk of losing management credibility, obtaining production loss and decreased costeffectiveness. Designing flow-generating cyber game-like activities with its potential health effects it has for those with a history of gaming addictions [9, 32] is not a distinctive trait of gamification either. Thus, considering that most gamification risks and perils can be found in already pre-existing concepts and practices, it could be stated that at least the mentioned threats may occur in a gamified approach although they do not constitute per se a feature of gamification uniqueness.

It could be posited that gamification would suffer from its design dilemma. That is, since highly stimulating tasks do not require boosting the motivation via other means, it supposes that gamification is meant to target activities which may be important and/or necessary (ex. Commercial, educational, health related tasks etc.) but less stimulating or even somewhat unpleasant [9]. It is assumed that rendering these less attractive tasks more stimulating by introducing the engaging components of games would possibly increase users' participation and thus the performance level [33].

Now, as described below, gamification could rely on gameful or playful components to fulfil its purpose [18]. Although, (video) games are structured around a set rules and competition, they do provide also to some extent with some the room for improvising and enjoying like play does. Indeed, it has been observed the massive use of video games would be explained by motives that could match the targets of certain gamified solutions (skills development, competition, socialising), but also by other reasons that could hinder the gamification purpose (designed to achieving serious goals) like evading one-self, moving into a fantasy world and relaxing [34], which probably derive from the main emotional states associated with play (joy, lightness and flow) and are correlated with opioids release as well as with the activation of ancient brain structures such as the para-fascicular and posterior thalamic nuclei [35].

Ethologically, understanding the functions of play may contribute to assessing the feasibility or the impossibility of transposing some of its engaging components to gamification (applied in serious contexts). Play would serve social purposes

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

(bonding, cooperation, competition) as well as individual aims associated with survival and social interests (learning physical skills, innovation, tool use), and would exercise the production and mastering of affective behaviours, as a possible waking alter ego of dreaming which processes affective states during the rapid eyes movements cycles while sleeping [35]. It is noteworthy remarking that the cholinergic system (involved in memory, emotional processing and selective attention) [36] is associated with both playing and dreaming [35]. Besides, among mammals and due to their extended childhood and adolescence, humans experience the longest playing time [35], which would imply that this innate activity with its hedonic components is quite anchored in memory and probably rather dissociated from serious contexts.

The mentioned distinctive emotional features of *play* (joy, lightness and flow) suggest that a safe environment is required for the ludic activity to occur, as observed in animal models where rodents set in a new environment adopt an exploratory behaviour to familiarise with it before being in the mood for playing [35]. A supplementary index supporting this view is that laughter, in young humans. as an innate emotional action linked with the activation of ancient brain systems, is strongly associated with play [35] and also suggests enjoying time within a secure context.

Along these lines, fear and hunger (among other states like rage, anger and separation distress) stop playing [35]. Whilst hunger is quite unlikely to happen in a gamification scenario, it might not be always the case for fear. For instance, some competition-like gamified solutions whose results are related to important personal goals (ex. Being promoted, being positively judged, etc.), could trigger fear in users, particularly in anxious ones, and render them reluctant to engage lest gamified solutions would prevent them to achieve their objectives. The same would go for anger resulting from a gamified solution perceived as unfair, or for separation distress produced by providing open access to comparative performance displays (leader boards), which could engender in poor performers the fear of being disregarded by others or of losing their jobs.

This foundation of gamification would argue in favour of a safe context as a prerequisite for gamification and raises several challenges that, if inappropriately managed, may have adverse impacts on both organisations and individuals. For instance, one challenge would be how to render the unattractive task more engaging through game elements generating joy and lightness without trivialising the gamified solution [37] and/or the entire gamification policy, with all the risky consequences this approach might have in terms of management credibility and of users' adherence to the gamified approach [7]. The fact that gamification is usually applied in serious contexts [29] makes this issue even more relevant and raises the question of whether this approach is the most suitable for this sort of settings. Moreover, when the users end up mastering the process by which they obtain the gamification rewards (points, badges, etc.) their involvement level in the gamified solution is reduced [18], which compromises the purpose of the gamification policy [9].

It is likely that the adverse impacts that gamification may have on users are of the same nature as those arising from games [9]. In this line, when playing competition-like video games, the level of dopamine (DA) released in the ventral striatum (a brain area mediating reward, cognition, reinforcement and motivation) is quite comparable to that produced by psycho-stimulant drugs [38, 39]. Enhancing the attractiveness of an activity by introducing flow-generating elements in it could also be a matter of concern. In effect, it has been observed that flow recruits the brain circuits associated with cognitive synchronisation of the attentional function together with those of the brain rewarding system and consequently places the individual in a "here and now" mode, sometimes engendering distorted perception of place and time [40]. Moreover, excessive exposure to video game has been associated with attention deficit, impulsivity and reduced proactive cognitive control [28, 41, 42]. This grabbing of the entire attentional resources may lead the individual to focus on one particular aspect of the gamified solution at the detriment of broader and more important matters [7, 9, 27].

tool provider [49, 50]. It may also result from the speed gap between the very fast pace of gamification technical development relative to the delayed and slower progress of norms definitions required to set ethical boundaries for the design and implementation of the mentioned technical approach [29]. These reasons might not

The consequences of these ethical issues may create a deleterious atmosphere of mistrust among users and vis a vis the gamification provider, which in turn could feed the demotivation engendered by a flawed rewarding system, thus worsening the credibility level of the gamification system and that of the management in

Overall, the potential threats previously mentioned are all areas of concern that

Moreover, it would seem as if gamification is context and user dependent, that is, it would rather suit safe and less serious environments, short/medium term goals

Perhaps, one of the main challenges of gamification is overcoming the quandary posed by the relationship between the hedonic intensity of gamified solutions and the unengaging tasks. That is, a less stimulating task will remain unengaging if the gamified solutions are not motivating enough; on the other hand, if the emphasis is mainly put on the hedonic gamified components around the task it might increase the likelihood of engendering a trivialisation of the context, a biased attention and a possible demotivation of users over time, unethical issues, unhealthy behaviours [9] and a gamification policy loss of trustworthiness. May be, a gamified solution that bridges the end of its process with the real-world matters could be a possible way forward [8, 18], as a manner to, at least, moderate the over-focus on the hedonic experience seeking loop engendered by flow which would disconnect the user from

In sum, putting gamification at the service of work and serious contexts is an idea that would be tantamount to combining the useful with the pleasant, yet it involves an attempt to merge two worlds that, a priori, do not mix easily [29]. This suggests that gamification represents a demanding, laborious and somewhat troublesome conception work, to the extent that, according to estimations, gamified

Several limitations for this study are to be mentioned. Due to the novelty of gamification as a research topic, there is a clear shortage of literature review on the threats that may arise from it [8, 9]. In effect, a rather reduced number of studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected in this integrative literature review. In addition, despite the careful approach adopted during the selection phase, one is not immune to having missed out on papers that meet the inclusion criteria. The same goes for the text analysis of the selected and included literature review studies in spite of the detailed checking and examining of information related to negative impacts and possible threats that could result from gamification. Besides, it cannot be excluded that other studies covered this research subject by using another wording and therefore went unnoticed. For example, studies designed to emphasise the potential benefits and added value of gamification that were excluded in this

could lead the gamification approach achieving, if not the opposite, diverging

results to those for which it was initially designed.

and users with competitive and affective characteristics [25, 31].

applications are destined to have a very high rate of failure [37].

exclude each other.

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

charge of it.

**6. Conclusion**

the outside world [32].

**6.1 Limitations**

**41**

Besides, over-emphasising the hedonic traits of gamified solutions not only could diminish the users' awareness of the utilitarian purpose of this approach but also may put at risk certain users. Indeed, gaming cues may increase craving in those with gaming disorders [43], which would represent a perilous situation for users with a history of game addiction [9]. Examples of gamification in large organisations showed that an important proportion of users perceive the process as addicting, or they may encounter difficulties prioritising the serious purpose of gamification due to the compulsion they feel to seek rewards [29]. Physiologically, this could be the result of an over DA release at the expenses of serotonin (5HT) since both neurotransmitters share the same amino acid transporter, which leads to an unbalance in the DA-5HT interaction preventing the serotoninergic system to display its inhibitory function to moderate the over activation of the dopaminergic system [44] and consequently increases the likelihood to worsening the mentioned addictive disorder [45]. Moreover, in this sort afflictions, flow may disrupt the perception of individuals [32, 46] that could result in somewhat distorted insights into their emotional states associated with their addictive behaviours [45, 47].

The impact of gamification on this kind of disorders probably deserves much attention. It is noteworthy remarking though, that the link between experiencing flow and this sort of disorders may not be as direct as it seems. In effect, neither all addict video gamers experience flow, nor experiencing flow leads inevitably to addiction, but experiencing flow would boost the chances of becoming addict [32], hence the necessity to take care of the impact that a gamified solution might have on individuals with this type afflictions.

In short, these mentioned adverse impacts pledge for considering and assessing the possible health related consequences of gamification.

Gamified solutions based on competition would be a double edge tool whose impact would vary according to the kind of user profile. In effect, it would be suitable for performance, competitive mind and affective driven individuals [31], but it may not be appealing to users without those personal characteristics. In addition, assuming that the booming of video games based on competition could be transposed to gamification might be a misleading idea insofar as contests in flow generating activities like games are usually perceived as non-self-judgemental [48] and does not entail any responsibility, unlike competitions in gamified solutions especially in work and education environments where displaying the ranking about users' performance may be regarded as humiliating [29] and where results could give rise to criticism from hierarchy. This distinction is in line with what differentiates *play* from *a gamified solution*: playing supposes the lightness of free movements, improvisation and careless fun [35] (Semantic Mapping), whereas through gamification it is expected to obtain results that may be scrutinised by others. It is noteworthy remarking that both perils resulting from over-emphasising competition and hedonic traits of gamified solutions coincide with the critical zones detected through the semantic mapping.

The identified ethical issues (Monitoring and surveillance of users, infringing autonomy and privacy, taking advantage of users, fostering behaviours that may harm third parties, etc.) [29] may reveal various aspects of gamification. It could imply an exploitative purpose and a morally questionable influence on users' behaviour when the gamification approach is only designed to produce value for the

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

tool provider [49, 50]. It may also result from the speed gap between the very fast pace of gamification technical development relative to the delayed and slower progress of norms definitions required to set ethical boundaries for the design and implementation of the mentioned technical approach [29]. These reasons might not exclude each other.

The consequences of these ethical issues may create a deleterious atmosphere of mistrust among users and vis a vis the gamification provider, which in turn could feed the demotivation engendered by a flawed rewarding system, thus worsening the credibility level of the gamification system and that of the management in charge of it.

### **6. Conclusion**

Overall, the potential threats previously mentioned are all areas of concern that could lead the gamification approach achieving, if not the opposite, diverging results to those for which it was initially designed.

Moreover, it would seem as if gamification is context and user dependent, that is, it would rather suit safe and less serious environments, short/medium term goals and users with competitive and affective characteristics [25, 31].

Perhaps, one of the main challenges of gamification is overcoming the quandary posed by the relationship between the hedonic intensity of gamified solutions and the unengaging tasks. That is, a less stimulating task will remain unengaging if the gamified solutions are not motivating enough; on the other hand, if the emphasis is mainly put on the hedonic gamified components around the task it might increase the likelihood of engendering a trivialisation of the context, a biased attention and a possible demotivation of users over time, unethical issues, unhealthy behaviours [9] and a gamification policy loss of trustworthiness. May be, a gamified solution that bridges the end of its process with the real-world matters could be a possible way forward [8, 18], as a manner to, at least, moderate the over-focus on the hedonic experience seeking loop engendered by flow which would disconnect the user from the outside world [32].

In sum, putting gamification at the service of work and serious contexts is an idea that would be tantamount to combining the useful with the pleasant, yet it involves an attempt to merge two worlds that, a priori, do not mix easily [29]. This suggests that gamification represents a demanding, laborious and somewhat troublesome conception work, to the extent that, according to estimations, gamified applications are destined to have a very high rate of failure [37].

#### **6.1 Limitations**

Several limitations for this study are to be mentioned. Due to the novelty of gamification as a research topic, there is a clear shortage of literature review on the threats that may arise from it [8, 9]. In effect, a rather reduced number of studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected in this integrative literature review. In addition, despite the careful approach adopted during the selection phase, one is not immune to having missed out on papers that meet the inclusion criteria. The same goes for the text analysis of the selected and included literature review studies in spite of the detailed checking and examining of information related to negative impacts and possible threats that could result from gamification. Besides, it cannot be excluded that other studies covered this research subject by using another wording and therefore went unnoticed. For example, studies designed to emphasise the potential benefits and added value of gamification that were excluded in this
