Cited by 5,201Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Does Gamification Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification

Open access
Hamari, Juho, Koivisto, Jonna, Sarsa, Harri·2014·2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Abstract

This paper reviews peer-reviewed empirical studies on gamification. We create a framework for examining the effects of gamification by drawing from the definitions of gamification and the discussion on motivational affordances. The literature review covers results, independent variables (examined motivational affordances), dependent variables (examined psychological/behavioral outcomes from gamification), the contexts of gamification, and types of studies performed on the gamified systems. The paper examines the state of current research on the topic and points out gaps in existing literature. The review indicates that gamification provides positive effects, however, the effects are greatly dependent on the context in which the gamification is being implemented, as well as on the users using it. The findings of the review provide insight for further studies as well as for the design of gamified systems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/hicss.2014.377

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Conclusive meta-analytic evidence on the effectiveness of gamification in the context of learning and education has yet to be provided.

    “Even though considerable research efforts have been made in this field (Hamari et al. 2014;Seaborn and Fels 2015), conclusive meta-analytic evidence on the effectiveness of gamification in the context of learning and education has yet to be provided.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Hamari et al. 2014

    Section 5.3 says the review could not conduct a formal meta-analysis because the studies varied greatly in outcomes and methods. The paper includes education and learning studies, but it does not establish that no conclusive meta-analytic evidence had been provided elsewhere specifically for that context. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The use of standardized instruments can help to ensure the comparability of study results and the reliable measurement of variables.

    “The use of standardized instruments can help to ensure the comparability of study results and further ensure the reliable measurement of variables (see Hamari et al. 2014).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Hamari et al. 2014

    Section 5.3 says future gamification-study results could be made more comparable through proper psychometric measurements, among other methods. Section 5.1 identifies the lack of validated psychometric measurements for experiences and attitudes as a methodological shortcoming. The paper does not specifically say that standardized instruments ensure reliable measurement of variables generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An appropriate design of gamification can meet learners' psychological needs and promote goal-oriented behavior and autonomous learning.

    “The research also indicates that an appropriate design of gamification can meet the psychological needs of learners and promote goal-oriented behavior as well as autonomous learning [11].”

    From Design and Implementation of Gamified Augmented Reality Learning System to Enhance Biodiversity Education (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    Section 4.2 (page unavailable) says the reviewed studies examined motivation and other psychological outcomes; the study summary in §5.3 (page unavailable) includes achieving learning goals in an online learning environment. The review does not establish that gamification meets learners’ psychological needs or promotes autonomous learning, and listing learning goals as an outcome studied does not show that goal-oriented behavior improved. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Digital platforms' gamification elements, rewards, and personalized recommendations reinforce novelty seeking behaviors by providing immediate feedback and tailored content.

    “Many digital platforms also often incorporate gamification elements, rewards, and personalized recommendations and such features act to reinforce novelty seeking behaviors by providing immediate feedback and tailored content based on users' preferences and past engagement (Hamari et al., 2014).”

    From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Hamari et al., 2014

    The Introduction describes game-like features as a means of supporting user engagement and positive patterns of service use. The review also discusses rewards and feedback, but it does not establish that gamification or personalized recommendations reinforce novelty-seeking through immediate feedback and content tailored to users’ preferences. Its mention of a possible “novelty effect” in §4.3 is not a finding about novelty-seeking behavior. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gamification has a positive influence on users.

    “In their literature review of empirical studies on gamification, Hamari et al. (2014) indicated that gamification has a positive influence on users.”

    From Monitoring Systems for Checking Websites on Accessibility (2021) · cites this paper as Hamari et al. (2014)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]7. E.L. Deci, and R.M. Ryan, Self-Determination, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1985.
  2. [15]15. R. Farzan, J.M. DiMicco, D.R. Millen, B. Brownholtz, W. Geyer, and C. Dugan, "When the experiment is over: Deploying an incentive system to all the users", In Symposium on Persuasive Technology, 2008.
  3. [24]24. J. Hamari, "Perspectives from behavioral economics to analyzing game design patterns: loss aversion in social games", In the CHI 2011 Social Games Workshop, May 7- 12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada, ACM.
  4. [33]33. W. Li, T. Grossman, and G. Fitzmaurice, "GamiCAD: a gamified tutorial system for first time autocad users", In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 7-10, 2012, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, ACM, pp. 103-112.
  5. [44]44. P. Zhang, "Motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and use", Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 2008, pp. 145-147.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H.
Affiliations
  • Tampere University (FI)
  • Aalto University (FI)
Venue
2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-01
Pages
3025-3034
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998933811
Cited by
5,201
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 519 · 2025: 675 · 2024: 528 · 2023: 499 · 2022: 396 · 2021: 468 · 2020: 434 · 2019: 418 · 2018: 371 · 2017: 303 · 2016: 249 · 2015: 242 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 5
FWCI
631.57
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Suomen Kulttuurirahasto (40311/12)
  • Tekes (40311/12)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
gamification, motivational affordances, user motivation, psychological outcomes, behavioral effects, context sensitivity, gamification design

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