Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Prof. Ethan Mollick
Wharton School
• A history of what we know, and
how we know it
• Data from studies by Prof.
Nancy Rothbard and myself
• Paradox of “manda...
Karl Maydens
Evan Long
Fast-growing and successful
social e-commerce company
Field Experiment:
Three sales floors, fairly
random assignment
Multi...
Game Condition Control
Condition
Alternative Control:
“Competition” Condition
• Basketball-themed game
• Score points by c...
Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent
Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline -
Affect No Effect Strong + Stro...
Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent
Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline -
Affect No Effect Strong + Stro...
Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent
Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline -
Affect No Effect Strong + Stro...
• We created three versions of the same game
• We created three versions of the same game
• We randomized between three possible
choice conditions
• Three factors of consent (understand the
rules, pay attention think it is fair)
• Highest for groups that had a choice
•...
• Gamification without consent can actually
lower performance and attitude
• This is often hidden because:
– In voluntary ...
• Consent is absolutely critical in games to avoid
the paradox of mandatory fun
• Consent can be gained by giving people
a...
• emollick@Wharton.upenn.edu
• @emollick
GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan M...
GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan M...
GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan M...
GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan M...
GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan M...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan Mollick @emollick

3,319 views

Published on

  • Login to see the comments

GSummit SF 2014 - Stopping Gamification from Being a Double-Edged Sword: Evidence from Games and the Enterprise by Ethan Mollick @emollick

  1. 1. Prof. Ethan Mollick Wharton School
  2. 2. • A history of what we know, and how we know it • Data from studies by Prof. Nancy Rothbard and myself • Paradox of “mandatory fun” and consent • How to avoid gamification as a double-edged sword
  3. 3. Karl Maydens
  4. 4. Evan Long
  5. 5. Fast-growing and successful social e-commerce company Field Experiment: Three sales floors, fairly random assignment Multiple surveys, plus individual performance data Examining consent: I followed the game closely I understood rules of the game The game was fair
  6. 6. Game Condition Control Condition Alternative Control: “Competition” Condition • Basketball-themed game • Score points by closing deals • Warm leads “layups”; cold calls “jump shots” • Large display screens showed basketball themed animation when points were scored. • Daily emails sent out to update participants on game status. No intervention • Large screen “scoreboards” • Performance statistics • Data similar to game condition without the game mechanics
  7. 7. Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline - Affect No Effect Strong + Strong - Attitude to co. No Effect Strong + No Effect
  8. 8. Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline - Affect No Effect Strong + Strong - Attitude to co. No Effect Strong + No Effect
  9. 9. Leaderboard Game w/Consent Game w/o Consent Performance Borderline - No Effect Borderline - Affect No Effect Strong + Strong - Attitude to co. No Effect Strong + No Effect • Winning and losing had minor effects • Legitimacy of games (hours of gameplay) …second experiment to find out more…
  10. 10. • We created three versions of the same game
  11. 11. • We created three versions of the same game
  12. 12. • We randomized between three possible choice conditions
  13. 13. • Three factors of consent (understand the rules, pay attention think it is fair) • Highest for groups that had a choice • Generally similar (except for understanding the rules) for those that were not presented with a choice • Lowest for groups that got the opposite of their choice
  14. 14. • Gamification without consent can actually lower performance and attitude • This is often hidden because: – In voluntary settings non-consenters drop out – Measurement is often bad or non-existent in gamification • Gamification without consent is mandatory fun
  15. 15. • Consent is absolutely critical in games to avoid the paradox of mandatory fun • Consent can be gained by giving people agency over their decisions • Measure what you want to change, and also what you want to avoid changing
  16. 16. • emollick@Wharton.upenn.edu • @emollick

×