The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning
Open accessAbstract
Despite increasing scientific interest in explaining how gamification supports positive affect and motivation, behavior change and learning, there is still a lack of an overview of the current theoretical understanding of the psychological mechanisms of gamification. Previous research has adopted several different angles and remains fragmented. Taking both an observational and explanatory perspective, we examined the theoretical foundations used in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning through a systematic literature review and then discussed the commonalities of their core assumptions. The overview shows that scientists have used a variety of 118 different theories. Most of them share explicitly formulated or conceptual connections. From their interrelations, we derived basic principles that help explain how gamification works: Gamification can illustrate goals and their relevance, nudge users through guided paths, give users immediate feedback, reinforce good performance and simplify content to manageable tasks. Gamification mechanics can allow users to pursue individual goals and choose between different progress paths, while the system can adapt complexity to the user's abilities. Social gamification elements may enable social comparison and connect users to support each other and work towards a common goal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective
Bandura, A. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 · Cited by 15,510
Cited by
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100062 · Cited by 243
Digital game-based language learning for vocabulary development
Chowdhury, M., Dixon, L., Kuo, L.-J., Donaldson, J. P., Eslami, Z., Viruru, R., & Luo, W. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100160 · Cited by 64
Exploring the potential of digital game-based vocabulary learning: a systematic review
Vnucko, G., & Klimova, B. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11020057 · Cited by 59
Self-Determination Theory and HCI Games Research: Unfulfilled Promises and Unquestioned Paradigms
Tyack, A., & Mekler, E. D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3673230 · Cited by 57
Technostress among teachers: A systematic literature review and future research agenda
Yang, D., Liu, J., Wang, H., Chen, P., Wang, C., & Metwally, A. H. S. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108619 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O.
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-12
- Volume
- 125
- Pages
- 106963
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3191036075
- Cited by
- 943
- References
- 69
- FWCI
- 28.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
- The paper
- Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.