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

1,794

Published on

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,794
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×