CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaDigital Marketing and Social Media

An Experimental Analysis of Gamification’s Impact on Customer Engagement and Retention in Subscription-Based Business Models

Open access
Israfilzade, Khalil, Pathania, Daraab·2026·Management of Organizations: Systematic Research
DOI 10.2478/mosr-2026-0005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of gamification on customer engagement and retention in subscription-based business models through a six-week quasi-experimental field study. Using a streak-based gamification mechanism, we compared user behaviour between a gamified experimental group (n = 1,994) and a non-gamified control group (n = 2,107) within a live iOS subscription application. As group assignment followed onboarding status rather than randomisation, the design is quasi-experimental, and the results are interpreted as gamification-associated effects under real-world conditions rather than as strict causal estimates. Results show that gamification was associated with significantly higher engagement frequency, more stable retention, greater time investment per session, and higher conversion to paid subscriptions. At the level of daily aggregates, the experimental group exhibited 3.7 times higher daily goal completion, 4.5 times greater time investment per activity, and a 6.9-fold higher trial-to-paid conversion rate than the control group; complementary user-level analyses confirmed that these effects were broad-based rather than driven by a small number of highly active users. These findings provide ecologically valid evidence for the association between gamification and improved customer loyalty and business performance in digital subscription services. This study contributes to the literature by providing quasi-experimental field evidence linking gamification, engagement, and retention within subscription-based digital services and by demonstrating how engagement functions as a behavioural mechanism through which gamified experiences relate to conversion and long-term user value. Managerially, the results suggest that strategically integrated gamification features can serve as effective tools for improving customer lifecycle outcomes in digital subscription environments.

Verified 2026-10-12 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This six-week quasi-experimental field study in a live iOS subscription app found that a streak-based gamification mechanic was associated with higher engagement, more stable retention, greater time investment, and higher trial-to-paid conversion. Because groups were assigned by onboarding status rather than randomisation, the authors interpret the magnitudes as gamification-associated effects and an upper bound rather than strict causal estimates.

Key findings

  • Engagement was higher in the gamified group: 3.7 times more total daily goals per user (74 vs. 20), with Goal 1 averaging 36.3 vs. 11.5 daily completions, t(82) = -15.37, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 3.35; user-level reach was 76.4% vs. 22.9%, z = 34.29, p < .001, Cohen’s h = 1.13.
  • Retention was more stable: experimental Goal 1 completions stayed between 231 and 288 per week, while control declined from 89 in week 1 to 59 in week 6; by week 6 the experimental group completed Goal 1 about 3.9 times more often (231 vs. 59).
  • Time investment was greater: experimental users averaged 142.4 seconds per completion event (median 114.1) vs. 31.6 seconds (median 30.4) for controls, a 4.5-fold difference; Goal 1 showed t(82) = -7.88, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.72.
  • Conversion was higher: 8.17% of experimental users (163 of 1,994) converted to paid subscriptions vs. 1.19% of controls (25 of 2,107), χ²(1, N = 4,101) = 114.4, p < .001, odds ratio = 7.41, φ = 0.17.

Methods

  • Quasi-experimental field design in a live iOS subscription application from January 5 to February 15, 2025 (six weeks); control group n = 2,107 existing users without gamification, experimental group n = 1,994 newly onboarded users exposed to a streak-based mechanic.
  • Behavioural data were collected automatically via Amplitude analytics integrated with Google Firebase, capturing daily goal completions, session durations, and subscription conversions; inclusion was limited to English-language iOS settings, with no demographic filtering.
  • Primary hypothesis tests used day-level independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests with Cohen’s d, plus Bonferroni correction; complementary user-level analyses used chi-square, Cohen’s h, φ, and odds ratio for engagement reach and conversion.

Limitations

  • The paper states that group assignment followed onboarding status rather than randomisation, so experimental and control groups likely differed in baseline motivation and engagement, and new users may have shown novelty effects; this is expected to inflate the absolute differences, which should be read as an upper bound rather than a clean causal estimate.
  • The paper states the sample was limited to English-speaking iOS users of a single application, the data export provided day-level aggregated counts rather than full user-level event histories, the six-week duration cannot capture long-term effects, only one gamification mechanic (streaks) was examined, and behavioural data lacked attitudinal measures.
  • The text also makes evident that day-level effect sizes are large by construction due to aggregation, while user-level associations were small-to-moderate (e.g., conversion φ = 0.17), so the two units of analysis should be distinguished.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2478/mosr-2026-0005

Cites

38 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 4 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

24 of 60 cited sources checked · 11 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § Key findings · p. 17

    Gamification has a positive impact on user behaviour.

    “aligning with the broader findings of Hamari et al. (2014) and Suh et al. (2015, 2016) regarding gamification's positive impact on user behaviour”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hamari et al. (2014) source
    • cites Suh et al. (2015, 2016)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § Impact of gamification on user engagement and retention · p. 6

    Over-gamification, or the use of game elements without meaningful integration into the user experience, may lead to fatigue or disengagement.

    “Over-gamification, or the use of game elements without meaningful integration into the user experience, may lead to fatigue or disengagement (El Hafidy et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites El Hafidy et al., 2021 source

      Section 2.3 defines gamification and describes it as promoting engagement. A passage in Section 4.7 says users may disengage if rewards are removed, but neither passage addresses over-gamification, poorly integrated game elements, or fatigue. Searches for those terms and related negative effects found no passage supporting the attributed claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Socially gamified behaviours significantly increase monetary outcomes, based on quasi-experimental field data from 4,896 e-commerce users over two years.

    “The study (Farace et al., 2025), based on quasi-experimental field data from 4,896 e-commerce users over two years, reveals that socially gamified behaviours significantly increase monetary outcomes”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Farace et al., 2025 source
  • Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Jacobides et al. (2024) analysis of 40 gamification projects identifies validated pathways through which gamified systems facilitate customer acquisition.

    “Jacobides et al. (2024), in their analysis of 40 gamification projects, identify validated pathways through which gamified systems facilitate customer acquisition”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacobides et al. (2024) source
  • Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 2

    Empirical research suggests that gamification can positively affect engagement and loyalty across digital environments.

    “Empirical research suggests that gamification can positively affect engagement and loyalty across digital environments (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; García-Jurado et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Koivisto & Hamari, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites García-Jurado et al., 2021 source

      The Discussion reports a positive relationship between gamification and engagement in online shopping. The Introduction says gamification elements can promote user loyalty, but the study does not report an empirical loyalty outcome or test effects across digital environments. The claim extends the study’s findings beyond its measured outcome and setting. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 52
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Gamification in subscription-based business models · p. 5

    Mechanics like daily challenges or streak counters are effective in triggering consistent behaviour and fostering psychological ownership of the service.

    “In particular, mechanics like daily challenges or streak counters are effective in triggering consistent behaviour and fostering psychological ownership of the service (Litvin et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Litvin et al., 2020 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports significantly lower attrition in the gamified-app group, which offers some support for improved adherence. But the paper does not establish that daily challenges or streak counters trigger consistent behaviour or foster psychological ownership; its Strengths and limitations section says app usage was not recorded, so the effect on nonusage attrition could not be evaluated. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Impact of gamification on user engagement and retention · p. 6

    In mobile health and education applications, gamified features increase the frequency and duration of user sessions and reduce dropout rates.

    “For example, in mobile health (mHealth) and education applications, gamified features have been found to increase the frequency and duration of user sessions, as well as reduce dropout rates (Edney et al., 2019; Poondej & Lerdpornkulrat, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Edney et al., 2019 source

      The Results (Daily Active Users; page unavailable) found significantly more daily users in the gamified mHealth app group, supporting increased use. The study did not report session duration or examine education apps. The Results (Nonuse Attrition; page unavailable) found numerically lower dropout in the gamified group, but the between-group difference in time to attrition was not statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Poondej & Lerdpornkulrat, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Lin et al. (2022) report that gamification elements positively influence perceived playfulness and customer engagement.

    “Lin et al. (2022) report that gamification elements positively influence perceived playfulness and customer engagement, suggesting that users are more likely to immerse themselves in tasks when interactive and motivational features are present (Israfilzade, 2021, 2025a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lin et al. (2022) source
    • cites Israfilzade, 2021, 2025a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 7

    Experimental evidence from Bravo et al. (2023) shows that gamification enhances perceived playfulness and reward satisfaction, which in turn increases user engagement behaviours and interaction frequency.

    “Experimental evidence by Bravo et al. (2023), based on a controlled study with 315 participants comparing gamified and non-gamified loyalty programs, shows that gamification enhances perceived playfulness and reward satisfaction, which in turn increases user engagement behaviours and interaction frequency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bravo et al. (2023) source

      The Experimental design and participant sections describe a gamified-versus-non-gamified comparison with 315 participants. The results report higher perceived playfulness and reward satisfaction with gamification, and link those perceptions through perceived hotel value to engagement measures such as booking intentions, word of mouth and referrals. The paper does not report increased interaction frequency, and its engagement measures should not be presented as observed behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 7

    Jacobides et al. (2024) identify retention as a central pathway through which gamification creates value, emphasising the role of virtualisation, social comparison, and reward structures in sustaining user participation.

    “Jacobides et al. (2024) identify retention as a central pathway through which gamification creates value, emphasising the role of virtualisation, social comparison, and reward structures in sustaining user participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacobides et al. (2024) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 2

    Gamification has emerged as a promising approach for increasing engagement, motivation, and user participation.

    “Gamification - defined as the application of game design elements in non-game contexts - has emerged as a promising approach for increasing engagement, motivation, and user participation (Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Deterding et al., 2011 source
    • cites Hamari et al., 2014 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Reward-based loyalty mechanisms alone can effectively stimulate participation and adoption.

    “rewardbased loyalty mechanisms alone can effectively stimulate participation and adoption”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacobides et al. (2024) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Impact of gamification on user engagement and retention · p. 6

    In e-commerce, gamification has direct effects on user engagement, with points and challenges as key drivers.

    “In ecommerce, gamification has been found to have direct effects on user engagement, with specific elements like points and challenges emerging as key drivers (García-Jurado et al., 2021; Persada, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites García-Jurado et al., 2021 source

      The Discussion (section 5; page unavailable) reports that points, badges and leaderboards jointly have direct effects on engagement in e-commerce. Challenges are listed as a possible game element in section 2.1, but the paper does not identify them as a key driver of engagement. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Persada, 2023 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Engagement-driven interactions influence purchasing behaviour.

    “highlighting the role of engagement-driven interactions in influencing purchasing behaviour”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Farace et al., 2025 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    The combination of virtualisation and tangible rewards creates competitive and immersive experiences that attract and convert new users.

    “the combination of virtualisation and tangible rewards creates competitive and immersive experiences that attract and convert new users”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacobides et al. (2024) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conversion · p. 15

    The experimental group demonstrated significantly higher completion rates across all five daily goals compared to the control group: Goal 1 engagement was 76.40% (1,522 users) versus 22.90% (482 users) for controls - a 3.3-fold increase - while Goal 5 showed a 6.9-fold difference (8.18% or 163 users versus 1.19% or 25 users).

    “the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher completion rates across all five daily goals compared to the control group: Goal 1 engagement was 76.40% (1,522 users) versus 22.90% (482 users) for controls - a 3.3-fold increase - while the relative advantage grew progressively stronger for deeper engagement activities, with Goal 5 showing a 6.9-fold difference (8.18% or 163 users versus 1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Engagement frequency · p. 12

    In aggregate, the experimental group averaged 74 total goals per user versus 20 for controls, a 3.7-fold increase in engagement frequency.

    “In aggregate, the experimental group averaged 74 total goals per user versus 20 for controls - representing a 3.7-fold increase in engagement frequency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conversion · p. 16

    Approximately 1 in 12 experimental users converted to a paid subscription (8.17%, 163 of 1,994), compared with approximately 1 in 84 control users (1.19%, 25 of 2,107).

    “approximately 1 in 12 experimental users converted to a paid subscription (8.17%, 163 of 1,994), compared with approximately 1 in 84 control users (1.19%, 25 of 2,107).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Retention · p. 13

    Across all five goals, the control group's weekly activity trended downward, whereas the experimental group sustained markedly higher and more stable participation.

    “Across all five goals, the control group's weekly activity trended downward, whereas the experimental group sustained markedly higher and more stable participation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Summary of hypothesis testing · p. 16

    All four hypotheses were supported; effects were consistent across dimensions; day-level effect sizes were large while user-level associations were small-to-moderate.

    “All four hypotheses were supported, effects were consistent across dimensions; day-level effect sizes were large while user-level associations were small-to-moderate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Engagement frequency · p. 12

    For Goals 2-5, the experimental group had significantly higher daily completions than the control group (Goal 2: 17.1 vs 4.5; Goal 3: 9.9 vs 2.1; Goal 4: 3.9 vs 0.6; Goal 5: 6.4 vs 1.3; all p < .001).

    “For Goal 2, the experimental group averaged 17.1 completions versus 4.5 for controls, t(82) = -13.85, p < .001. For Goal 3, the comparison was 9.9 versus 2.1, t(82) = -12.70, p < .001. For Goal 4, 3.9 versus 0.6, t(82) = -11.09, p < .001. For Goal 5, 6.4 versus 1.3, t(82) = -9.58, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Key findings · p. 17

    A relatively simple streak-based mechanic was associated with substantial behavioural differences: 3.7 times higher daily engagement frequency, 4.5 times greater time investment, and a 6.9-fold higher conversion rate compared to the control condition.

    “A relatively simple streak-based mechanic was associated with substantial behavioural differences: 3.7 times higher daily engagement frequency, 4.5 times greater time investment, and a 6.9-fold higher conversion rate compared to the control condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Retention · p. 13

    For Goal 2, the control group declined from 33 completions in week 1 to 24 in week 6, while the experimental group remained substantially higher throughout (114 in week 1 and 95 in week 6).

    “For Goal 2, the control group declined from 33 completions in week 1 to 24 in week 6, while the experimental group remained substantially higher throughout (114 in week 1 and 95 in week 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Engagement frequency · p. 13

    Daily Goal 1 events were distributed evenly across the study period (Gini = 0.14 for the experimental group), with the five most active days accounting for only 16.5% of total events and every one of the 42 days registering activity.

    “daily Goal 1 events were distributed evenly across the study period (Gini = 0.14 for the experimental group), with the five most active days accounting for only 16.5% of total events (against a 12% even-distribution baseline) and every one of the 42 days registering activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Retention · p. 13

    The experimental group maintained consistently higher engagement throughout the study period, while the control group exhibited a steady decline in activity.

    “The experimental group maintained consistently higher engagement throughout the study period, while the control group exhibited a steady decline in activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Engagement frequency · p. 13

    The median number of first-goal completions for experimental users was 36 out of 42 days, compared to approximately 12 days for the control group.

    “The median number of first-goal completions for experimental users was 36 out of 42 days, markedly greater than the control group's median of approximately 12 days.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Engagement frequency · p. 12

    For Goal 1, the experimental group averaged 36.3 completions per day (SD = 9.6) over the six-week period, compared to 11.5 (SD = 4.2) for the control group, t(82) = -15.37, p < .001, Cohen's d = 3.35.

    “For the primary daily goal (Goal 1), the experimental group averaged 36.3 completions per day (SD = 9.6) over the six-week period, compared to 11.5 (SD = 4.2) for the control group, t(82) = -15.37, p < .001, Cohen's d = 3.35.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Retention · p. 13

    Weekly analysis of Goal 1 completions showed the experimental group remained stable across the six weeks (between 231 and 288 completions per week), whereas the control group declined from 89 completions in week 1 to 59 in week 6.

    “Weekly analysis of Goal 1 completions revealed that the experimental group remained stable across the six weeks (between 231 and 288 completions per week), whereas the control group declined from 89 completions in week 1 to 59 in week 6.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Retention · p. 14

    Both groups remained technically active for the full 42-day period; however, the experimental group demonstrated significantly more consistent daily participation.

    “both groups remained technically active for the full 42-day period; however, the experimental group demonstrated significantly more consistent daily participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Time investment · p. 14

    The experimental group averaged 142.4 seconds per completion event (median = 114.1 seconds), compared to 31.6 seconds (median = 30.4 seconds) for the control group.

    “The experimental group averaged 142.4 seconds per completion event (median = 114.1 seconds), compared to 31.6 seconds (median = 30.4 seconds) for the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Conclusions · p. 21

    A streak-based gamification mechanic is associated with enhanced behavioural engagement, more stable participation, deeper interaction, and improved monetisation within a subscription-based digital service.

    “This study provides quasi-experimental field evidence that a streak-based gamification mechanic is associated with enhanced behavioural engagement, more stable participation, deeper interaction, and improved monetisation within a subscription-based digital service.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Research design · p. 9

    The design is described as quasi-experimental and group differences are interpreted as gamification-associated effects rather than as strict causal estimates.

    “Consistent with conventions for field studies that lack full randomisation, we describe the design as quasi-experimental and, accordingly, interpret group differences as gamification-associated effects rather than as strict causal estimates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    There is a causal pathway from gamification to engagement, perceived benefits, and eventual monetisation outcomes.

    “establishing a causal pathway from gamification to engagement, perceived benefits, and eventual monetisation outcomes”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu, Santhanam, and Webster (2020)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Increased engagement and satisfaction derived from gamified experiences elevate perceived value and willingness to pay.

    “Liu, Santhanam, and Webster (2020) argue that increased engagement and satisfaction derived from gamified experiences elevate perceived value and willingness to pay”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu, Santhanam, and Webster (2020)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 7

    Gullshenas and Shirazi (2025) demonstrate that gamification significantly influences customer loyalty both directly and indirectly through engagement mediation.

    “Empirical evidence from Gullshenas and Shirazi (2025) demonstrates that gamification significantly influences customer loyalty both directly and indirectly through engagement mediation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gullshenas and Shirazi (2025)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 8

    Paschmann et al. (2024), based on a large-scale study of 18,952 mobile app users, demonstrate that game-based rewards substantially increase engagement time, with proximity to rewards increasing gameplay duration and reward attainment leading to an increase in time spent.

    “Empirical evidence from Paschmann et al. (2024), based on a large-scale study of 18,952 mobile app users, demonstrates that game-based rewards substantially increase engagement time, with proximity to rewards increasing gameplay duration and reward attainment leading to an increase in time spent, indicating that gamified incentives can significantly intensify user involvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Paschmann et al. (2024)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Impact of gamification on user engagement and retention · p. 6

    Retention is reinforced when users receive timely and meaningful feedback about their progress, which can enhance perceived competence and long-term commitment to the platform.

    “Moreover, retention is further reinforced when users receive timely and meaningful feedback about their progress, which can enhance perceived competence and long-term commitment to the platform (Ryan & Deci, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ryan & Deci, 2020 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Theoretical framework · p. 6

    Self-Determination Theory posits that human motivation is driven by three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

    “Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a robust theoretical lens for understanding gamification's psychological effects (Ryan & Deci, 2020). SDT posits that human motivation is driven by three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy (the desire for self-directed action), competence (the need to feel effective and capable), and relatedness (the desire for social connection).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ryan & Deci, 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § An Experimental Analysis of Gamification's Impact on Customer Engagement and Retention in Subscription-Based Business Models · p. 1

    The study's group assignment followed onboarding status rather than randomisation, making the design quasi-experimental and the results interpretable as gamification-associated effects under real-world conditions rather than strict causal estimates.

    “As group assignment followed onboarding status rather than randomisation, the design is quasi-experimental, and the results are interpreted as gamification-associated effects under real-world conditions rather than as strict causal estimates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Impact of gamification on user engagement and retention · p. 6

    In e-commerce and subscription-based services, gamification has been associated with higher conversion rates from free to paid plans, greater long-term usage, and deeper user involvement in platform features.

    “In e-commerce and subscription-based services, gamification has been associated with higher conversion rates from free to paid plans, greater long-term usage, and deeper user involvement in platform features (Suh et al., 2015; 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Suh et al., 2015; 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 7

    Koneti et al. (2025) argue that common gamification elements such as points, badges, leaderboards, challenges, and progress tracking satisfy core psychological needs for achievement and competence, reinforcing habitual usage patterns and motivating repeated task completion.

    “From a theoretical standpoint, Koneti et al. (2025) argue that common gamification elements - such as points, badges, leaderboards, challenges, and progress tracking - satisfy core psychological needs for achievement and competence, reinforcing habitual usage patterns and motivating repeated task completion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koneti et al. (2025)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Hypotheses development · p. 7

    Koivisto and Hamari (2019) note that gamification sustains user interest beyond initial novelty effects by providing continuous motivation through achievement systems and progress tracking.

    “Extending this literature, prior studies note that gamification sustains user interest beyond initial novelty effects by providing continuous motivation through achievement systems and progress tracking (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019), with streak mechanisms in particular fostering psychological commitment to maintaining uninterrupted participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koivisto & Hamari, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sample and data collection · p. 11

    This instrumentation ensured high accuracy and consistency without introducing self-report bias or social desirability effects.

    “This instrumentation ensured high accuracy and consistency without introducing self-report bias or social desirability effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Measures and data analysis · p. 11

    Complementary user-level analyses for engagement reach and conversion were reported to guard against over-interpretation of day-level magnitudes.

    “To guard against over-interpretation of these magnitudes, we report complementary user-level analyses for engagement reach and conversion”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Time investment · p. 15

    Overall, the experimental group invested 4.5 times more time per interaction, indicating substantially deeper engagement.

    “Overall, the experimental group invested 4.5 times more time per interaction, indicating substantially deeper engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Sample and data collection · p. 10

    The sample size provides adequate statistical power (>.80) to detect medium effect sizes at the conventional alpha level of .05.

    “The sample size provides adequate statistical power (>.80) to detect medium effect sizes at the conventional alpha level of .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Key findings · p. 17

    These effect sizes substantially exceed those typically reported in gamification meta-analyses, suggesting that mechanics aligned with core service value - similar to the effective implementations described by Zhao (2024) - generate superior outcomes compared to superficial gamification often criticised by Nyström (2021).

    “These effect sizes substantially exceed those typically reported in gamification meta-analyses, suggesting that mechanics aligned with core service value - similar to the effective implementations described by Zhao (2024) generate superior outcomes compared to superficial gamification often criticised by Nyström (2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Zhao (2024) source
    • cites Nyström (2021) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Internal validity and group composition · p. 10

    New and existing users may differ in baseline motivation and usage, and new users may show a temporary novelty effect that lifts early activity on its own.

    “New and existing users may differ in baseline motivation and usage, and new users may show a temporary novelty effect that lifts early activity on its own.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Measures and data analysis · p. 11

    This dual reporting directly addresses the concern that aggregate trends might be driven by a small number of highly active users.

    “This dual reporting directly addresses the concern that aggregate trends might be driven by a small number of highly active users.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Internal validity and group composition · p. 10

    The quasi-experimental assignment is a real constraint but a deliberate trade-off for ecological validity.

    “The quasi-experimental assignment is a real constraint but a deliberate trade-off for ecological validity”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Retention · p. 14

    The experimental group also decreased over the next few weeks (as is natural when novelty wears off), but overall participation remained relatively stable.

    “The experimental group also decreased over the next few weeks (as is natural when novelty wears off), but overall participation remained relatively stable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Key findings · p. 17

    The pattern is consistent with mechanics aligned with core service value, generating stronger outcomes than the superficial gamification criticised by Nyström (2021).

    “The pattern is consistent with mechanics aligned with core service value, generating stronger outcomes than the superficial gamification criticised by Nyström (2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nyström (2021) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Time investment · p. 14

    The control group's median of 30.4 seconds per completion event suggests brief, transactional interactions, whereas the experimental group's median of 114.1 seconds - roughly 3.7 times longer - indicates more sustained, attentive engagement with task content.

    “The control group's median of 30.4 seconds per completion event suggests brief, transactional interactions, whereas the experimental group's median of 114.1 seconds - roughly 3.7 times longer - indicates more sustained, attentive engagement with task content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Retention · p. 14

    Many experimental users were active almost every day, motivated by streak mechanics that created psychological commitment to maintaining progress.

    “Many experimental users were active almost every day, motivated by streak mechanics that created psychological commitment to maintaining progress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conversion · p. 16

    This finding is particularly important for subscription businesses, as even small improvements in conversion rates can have substantial revenue implications at scale.

    “This finding is particularly important for subscription businesses, as even small improvements in conversion rates can have substantial revenue implications at scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical implications · p. 18

    Simple mechanics (streak counters) generate specific dynamics (sustained usage patterns) that produce meaningful aesthetic experiences (satisfaction and accomplishment).

    “The study validates Hunicke et al.'s (2004) MDA framework application to non-gaming services, demonstrating how simple mechanics (streak counters) generate specific dynamics (sustained usage patterns) that produce meaningful aesthetic experiences (satisfaction and accomplishment).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hunicke et al.'s (2004)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Internal validity and group composition · p. 10

    Both threats push in the same direction - inflating the experimental group's apparent advantage - so the absolute size of the differences should not be read as a clean treatment effect.

    “Both threats push in the same direction - inflating the experimental group's apparent advantage - so the absolute size of the differences should not be read as a clean treatment effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Time investment · p. 14

    This distinction suggests that the streak mechanic was associated not only with how often users engaged, but with how deeply.

    “This distinction suggests that the streak mechanic was associated not only with how often users engaged, but with how deeply.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sample and data collection · p. 11

    The automated, rule-based procedure ensured consistent, non-arbitrary assignment.

    “the automated, rule-based procedure ensured consistent, non-arbitrary assignment”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Retention · p. 14

    The control group's activity decreased each week, indicating that they lost interest or did not consistently complete the tasks.

    “In general, the control group's activity decreased each week, indicating that they lost interest or did not consistently complete the tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Internal validity and group composition · p. 10

    Even after discounting for novelty, the direction holds, as the effects are large and consistent across all behavioural dimensions and the full six weeks - including the later weeks, when a novelty spike would already have faded.

    “even after discounting for novelty, the direction holds, as the effects are large and consistent across all behavioural dimensions and the full six weeks - including the later weeks, when a novelty spike would already have faded”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The novelty effect would have faded by the later weeks of the study.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sample and data collection · p. 11

    The automated data collection eliminated observer effects and ensured uniform measurement across all participants.

    “The automated data collection also eliminated observer effects and ensured uniform measurement across all participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Sample and data collection · p. 11

    All users in both groups had access to identical core application features; the only difference was the presence of the streak gamification element for the experimental group.

    “All users in both groups had access to identical core application features; the only difference was the presence of the streak gamification element for the experimental group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Internal validity and group composition · p. 10

    Assignment was not randomised; it followed the platform's onboarding logic, so the experimental group consisted of newly onboarded users and the control group of existing users.

    “Because the study ran within a live application rather than a laboratory, assignment was not randomised: it followed the platform's onboarding logic, so the experimental (streak-active) group consisted of newly onboarded users and the control (streak-inactive) group of existing users.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Sample and data collection · p. 11

    Group assignment was determined by onboarding timing (existing vs. new users), a practical approach in live app environments.

    “Group assignment was determined by onboarding timing (existing vs. new users), a practical approach in live app environments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Time investment · p. 15

    The findings indicate that the streak mechanic was associated with greater depth and persistence of user engagement, increasing both the frequency and the duration of interactions with tasks.

    “the findings indicate that the streak mechanic was associated with greater depth and persistence of user engagement, increasing both the frequency and the duration of interactions with tasks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Measures and data analysis · p. 12

    Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple comparisons to control family-wise error rate.

    “Significance was assessed at α = .05 with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons to control family-wise error rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Practical implications · p. 19

    The magnitude of effects observed suggests substantial potential return on investment for gamification implementation.

    “The magnitude of effects observed suggests substantial potential return on investment for gamification implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Practical implications · p. 19

    Users converted because gamification enhanced their service experience, not despite it.

    “Users converted because gamification enhanced their service experience, not despite it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Conclusions · p. 22

    Strategically implemented gamification can serve as a powerful driver of behavioural engagement and revenue growth in subscription-based digital services.

    “Overall, the findings provide valuable insights for both scholars and practitioners by demonstrating that strategically implemented gamification can serve as a powerful driver of behavioural engagement and revenue growth in subscription-based digital”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations · p. 20

    The six-week duration cannot capture very long-term effects or determine whether observed benefits persist, diminish, or compound over extended periods.

    “The six-week duration, while sufficient for initial patterns, cannot capture very long-term effects or determine whether observed benefits persist, diminish, or compound over extended periods.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Practical implications · p. 19

    Habits are the foundation of long-term retention.

    “Businesses should design gamification to encourage habitual usage rather than sporadic engagement, as habits are the foundation of long-term retention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Practical implications · p. 19

    The streak mechanism was meaningful because it tracked progress toward goals that users valued, not merely arbitrary actions.

    “The streak mechanism was meaningful because it tracked progress toward goals that users valued, not merely arbitrary actions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Limitations · p. 20

    The study was conducted in a specific commercial context.

    “Finally, the study was conducted in a specific commercial context, and results may not generalise to non-commercial or nonsubscription environments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations · p. 19

    Randomised assignment of comparable users is needed to confirm causality.

    “While the direction and consis­ tency of effects across all behavioural dimensions and the full six-week window - together with the broad-based user-level results - make it unlikely that the entire effect is artefactual, the design cannot fully isolate the treatment from group composition; randomised assignment of comparable users is needed to confirm causality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations · p. 20

    Other gamification mechanics, such as leaderboards, badges, or points, may produce different effects.

    “Additionally, the study examined only one gamification mechanic (streaks); other mechanics, such as leaderboards, badges, or points, may produce different effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Conclusions · p. 21

    Gamification can facilitate habit formation and psychological commitment, thereby reducing disengagement risks commonly observed in digital subscription environments.

    “Increased engagement frequency and sustained participation trajectories suggest that gamification can facilitate habit formation and psychological commitment, thereby reducing disengagement risks commonly observed in digital subscription environments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Conclusions · p. 21

    Gamification functions as a behavioural structuring mechanism capable of reinforcing consistent interaction patterns and encouraging deeper experiential involvement.

    “The results highlight that gamification functions not merely as an entertainment feature but as a behavioural structuring mechanism capable of reinforcing consistent interaction patterns and encou­ raging deeper experiential involvement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Conclusions · p. 21

    The direction and breadth of the effects remain robust across units of analysis.

    “These associations should be interpreted in light of the quasi-experimental design: because the experimental and control groups differed in onboarding status, the absolute magnitudes likely overstate the pure treatment effect, even as the direction and breadth of the effects remain robust across units of analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
74 of 74

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many digital services face a persistent challenge: while initial adoption rates may be high, user activity often declines after onboarding, threatening retention and monetisation.

    “However, many digital services face a persistent challenge: while initial adoption rates may be high, user activity often declines after onboarding, threatening retention and monetisation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most evidence on gamification relies on cross-sectional surveys, laboratory experiments, or short-term behavioural observations rather than behaviour observed over time in real commercial platforms.

    “This tension remains unresolved largely because most evidence relies on cross-sectional surveys, laboratory experiments, or short-term behavioural observations rather than behaviour observed over time in real commercial platforms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fewer prior studies have investigated the downstream economic consequences of gamification, particularly within subscription-based digital business models where monetisation depends on sustained behavioural participation.

    “Moreover, while prior studies have examined engagement outcomes, fewer have investigated the downstream economic consequences of gamification, particularly within subscription-based digital business models where monetisation depends on sustained behavioural participation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many studies focus on complex gamification systems involving multiple mechanics, leaving open questions regarding whether minimalistic features such as streak-based consistency incentives can produce meaningful behavioural and commercial effects.

    “In addition, many studies focus on complex gamification systems involving multiple mechanics, leaving open questions regarding whether minimalistic features - such as streak-based consistency incentives - can produce meaningful behavioural and commercial effects.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample is representative of the application's user base.

    “No demographic filtering was applied, resulting in a diverse sample representative of the application's user base.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The novelty effect would have faded by the later weeks of the study.

    “including the later weeks, when a novelty spike would already have faded”
6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(82) = -15.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(82) = -15.37, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(82) = -13.85reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(82) = -13.85, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(82) = -12.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(82) = -12.70, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(82) = -11.09reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(82) = -11.09, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(82) = -9.58reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(82) = -9.58, p < .001”

5 of 5

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Median of 36 Goal 1 completion days conflicts with total events

    Major

    The annex reports only 1,524 experimental-group Goal 1 completion events over the entire study. That cannot support a median of 36 completion days per experimental user: at least half of the 1,994 users would each need at least 36 events.

  • Daily goal totals are described as per-user averages

    Minor

    The reported 74 and 20 goals are approximately the sums of the groups' daily goal averages, yet the text calls them totals per user. The methods explicitly identify the underlying observations as daily aggregated counts per group, not per-user counts.

  • Goal 4 and Goal 5 daily averages are reversed

    Minor

    The stated averages assign 3.9 versus 0.6 completions to Goal 4 and 6.4 versus 1.3 to Goal 5. The Goal 4 and Goal 5 rows of Table 1 instead give mean differences of 5.1 and 3.29, respectively, matching the opposite assignment.

  • Goal 1 user counts differ between results sections

    Minor

    The engagement analysis says 1,524 experimental users completed Goal 1 at least once, while the conversion analysis says 1,522 users reached Goal 1 during the same study.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bunchball, I. (2010). Gamification 101: An introduction to the use of game dynamics to influence behavior [White paper]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35930-9_17 · DOI

Authors
Israfilzade, K., & Pathania, D.
Affiliations
Vytautas Magnus University (LT)
ORCID
Israfilzade, Khalil
Venue
Management of Organizations: Systematic Research
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2026-06-01
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
79-102
ISSN
  • 1392-1142 (ISSN-L)
  • 2335-8750
DOI
10.2478/mosr-2026-0005
OpenAlex
W7165046016
Semantic Scholar
ec4dd08535a1b058cc28ccd22e58ffceb812a0f1
Cited by
0
References
38
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Management of Organizations Systematic Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Vytautas Magnus University (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
gamification, customer engagement, customer retention, subscription models, customer loyalty, user onboarding, mobile application

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-12.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-12.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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