Cited by 388Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaGame Theory and Applications

Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda

Landers, Richard N., Auer, Elena M., Collmus, Andrew B., Armstrong, Michael B.·2018·Simulation & Gaming

Abstract

Background. Definitions of gamification tend to vary by person, both in industry and within academia. One particularly popular lay interpretation, introduced and popularized by Ian Bogost, and reiterated by Jan Klabbers, is that gamification is “bullshit” and “exploitationware.” They describe gamification as a marketing term or business practice invented to sell products rather than to represent a real and unique phenomenon relevant to a nascent game science. However, this view is an oversimplification, one which ignores a growing body of theory development and empirical research on gamification within a post-positivist epistemology. In fact, because gamification is so much more outcome-focused than general game design, current gamification research in many ways has a stronger footing in modern social science than much games research does. Aim. In this article, to address common misunderstandings like these, we describe the philosophical underpinnings of modern gamification research, define the relationship between games and gamification, define and situate gamification science as a subdiscipline of game science, and explicate a six-element framework of major concerns within gamification science: predictor constructs, criterion constructs, mediator constructs, moderator constructs, design processes, and research methods. This framework is also presented diagrammatically as a causal path model. Conclusion. Gamification science refers to the development of theories of gamification design and their empirical evaluation within a post-positivist epistemology. The goal of gamification scientist-practitioners should be to understand how to best meet organizational goals through the design of gamification interventions, drawing upon insights derived from both gamification science and games research more broadly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1046878118774385

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Specific game design elements were not used as search terms because gamification research lacks consistent terms, definitions, and taxonomies for game design elements.

    “Specific game design elements were not used as search terms because gamification research lacks consistent terms, definitions, and taxonomies for game design elements and agreed upon lists of game design elements that claim to be exhaustive are lacking (see Landers et al. 2018;Sailer et al. 2017a).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Landers et al. 2018

  • The theory of gamified learning offers a suitable framework for constructing a comprehensive framework for gamification research.

    “The theory of gamified learning offers a suitable framework for doing so (see Landers 2014;Landers et al. 2018).”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Landers et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Landers, Richard N.
Venue
Simulation & Gaming
Published
2018-05-21
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
315-337
ISSN
  • 1046-8781 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-826X
OpenAlex
W2803238191
Cited by
388
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2016: 1
FWCI
55.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Simulation & Gaming (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
gamification, Ian Bogost, research framework, organizational goals

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