Cited by 474Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaEmployee Performance and Management

Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment

Landers, Richard N., Bauer, Kristina N., Callan, Rachel C.·2017·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Design decisions can lead to variance in the effect sizes of certain game design elements, as shown for leaderboards and achievements.

    “Such design decisions can lead to variance in the effect sizes of certain game design elements as shown in the context of leaderboards (Landers et al. 2017) and in the context of achievements, showing that effectivity of achievements strongly depends on the design (i.e., the quantity and difficulty of achievements; Groening and Binnewies 2019).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Landers et al. 2017

  • Leaderboards implemented to foster competition can be interpreted as goals, suggesting that leaderboards with easy goals would likely be less effective than leaderboards with difficult goals.

    “Landers et al. (2017) showed how leaderbords that are implemented to foster competition can be interpreted as goals, suggesting that leaderbords with easy goals would likely be less effective than leaderboards with difficult goals.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Landers et al. 2017

  • Game design elements such as likes, badges, skill levels, and leaderboards are used to increase learning in online courses, exercise on e-health platforms, or performance in standard organizational tasks.

    “This is the idea behind using game design elements such as likes, badges, skill levels, and leaderboards to increase learning in online courses, exercise on e-health platforms, or performance in standard organizational tasks (Denny, McDonald, Empson, Kelly, & Petersen, 2018;Koivisto & Hamari, 2019;Landers, Bauer, & Callan, 2017).”

    From Relative Feedback Increases Disparities in Effort and Performance in Crowdsourcing Contests (2022) · cites this paper as Landers, Bauer, & Callan, 2017

  • Studies exploring gamification show that the use of game design elements (eg, points and scoreboards) can improve motivation.

    “This finding is supported by studies exploring gamification of tasks, where the use of game design elements (eg, points and scoreboards) can improve motivation [47,48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Landers, Richard N.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
71
Pages
508-515
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1741765804
Cited by
474
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7
FWCI
47.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
Keywords
gamification, leaderboards, goal setting theory, employee motivation, task performance, goal commitment, individual differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review