In the monograph, gamification is considered as the use of game elements in everyday situations that are not directly related to games and manifest in game-unrelated contexts. In other words, gamification is an expedient activity of a company to achieve its goals through the use of game elements. As noted by Burke (2014), one of the major goals of gamification is to change consumer behaviour. Koivisto and Hamari (2014) maintain the view that the use of gamification should be oriented towards psychological and behavioural changes.

The latest research works on gamification employ the approach towards gamification as behaviour change. According to advocates of this approach (Hamari et al. 2014), the use of motivational affordances leads to a psychological outcome that changes consumer behaviour. This approach was proposed by Zhang (2008) who attempted to explain why consumers used ICT-based systems and how they should be created for consumers to use them. As already noted in Sect. 1 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”, gamification is based on ICT solutions; thus, gamification of company’s activities is associated with the development and use of a specific ICT system, which allows making an assumption that the discussed approach may be employed in the context of gamification research.

On the grounds of the approach of gamification as the means to change consumer behaviour, gamification in the conceptual model is treated as the construct expressing motivational affordances, the engagement construct corresponds to the psychological outcome and the construct of shared value is the result of behaviour change (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
A block diagram defines the flow of motivational affordances of gamification to the psychological outcome of consumer engagement and, in turn, to the behavior change of shared value creation.

Conceptual approach towards integration of gamification, consumer engagement and shared value constructs

Full size image

As noted by Hamari et al. (2014), gamification outcomes depend on the context of gamification employment and consumer motivation. In order to enhance intrinsic and extrinsic consumer motivation, companies use a variety of game elements (Bittner and Shipper 2014; Thom et al. 2012; Witt et al. 2011). According to Nicholson (2012), motivation is the core aspect of gamification. Because of these reasons, two components—game elements and motivation—are distinguished in the construct of gamification.

In response to external stimuli (game elements) and inspired by motives, consumers experience various psychological changes (Deterding 2011; Hamari et al. 2014). In the context of gamification research, one of the psychological changes is consumer engagement in a gamified activity caused by game elements and motives. Engagement in a gamified activity is based on the flow theory (see Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”), which explains the phenomenon of the flow state. On the grounds of this research, the conceptual model is designed following the view that flow is a state where people are so engaged in a game that everything else seems unimportant. The flow state encourages brand engagement. In respect of this, the engagement construct in the model consists of two components—the flow state and brand engagement.

The construct of behaviour change is associated with actions performed by consumers. The company employs gamification in order to achieve expedient consumer behaviour, i.e. their active participation in the process of shared value creation, which brings about value for the consumer and the company. On the basis of this logic, the construct of shared value consists of two components—consumer perceived value and value for company.

The integration of discussed gamification, consumer engagement and shared value constructs is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
A flow diagram defines how the game elements and motivation of gamification flow to the states and brands of consumer engagement and, in turn, to the consumer's perceived shared value.

The conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation

Full size image

The constructs in the model are discussed and substantiated in separation.

FormalPara Conceptualisation of the Gamification Construct

Within the framework of theoretical studies on gamification, the following conditions of employing gamification in activities of companies may be identified:

  • Successful gamification is based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to play games. Motivation to play games is treated as a factor at the consumer level.

  • Gamification is based on the use of game elements in the activities of companies (Gatautis and Vitkauskaitė 2014). Game elements are treated as a factor at the company level.

FormalPara Factors at the Consumer Level—Motivation to Play Games

The construct of motivation here is discussed following the self-termination theory-based approach (Chemolli and Gagne 2014; Gunnell and Gaudreau 2015) that motivation is to be treated as a multidimensional rather than one-dimensional construct. In order to assess the multidimensional nature of the motivation construct, it is necessary to compose different sets of measurement attributes for different types of motivation. Until recently, research works on the type of motivation dominating in the case of gamification have been scarce. Because of this, the analysis of motivation to engage in gamified activities may involve the principles of the motivation to play digital games. Such a decision does not contradict the scientific logic since the context of digital games is closely related to the context of gamification of company activities.

Following the theoretical studies conducted in Sect. 4 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”, it may be maintained that the construct of motivation to play games involves two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation refers to factors causing consumer engagement in activities that are naturally attractive and consumers experience satisfaction when they realise those activities (Deci et al. 1999; Ryan and Deci 2000; Gagné and Deci 2005). Intrinsic motivation involves consumer factors (motives) including such experiential motivation elements as concentration, perceived pleasure, escape and epistemic curiosity. Experiential motivation reflects social aspects, too, e.g. communication and cooperation with other customers and self-assessment in comparison with other participants of the process (aspect of social affiliation). Hainey et al. (2011) attributes these aspects to the type of interpersonal intrinsic motivation. In respect of this, experiential motivation is in fact intrinsic motivation integrating aspects of social motivation. Consequently, it is not expedient to include experiential motivation to the construct of motivation.

Extrinsic motivation refers to the facts causing consumer engagement in certain activities because of a reward or award (Rummel and Feinberg 1988; Ryan 1995; Deci et al. 1999; Ryan and Deci 2000). The impact of external factors is related to the instrumental perspective (manifesting through gamification elements in the context of gamification) because consumers expect tangible (although virtual) awards depending on the actions realised and consequences.

Research conducted by Bittner and Shipper (2014) confirm that both the intrinsic and the extrinsic motivation are crucial in composing the construct of motivation to play games.

FormalPara Factors at the Company Level—Game Elements

Based on theoretical studies of gamification, it may be stated that the usually acknowledged approach is Werbach and Hunter’s (2012) pyramid of gamification consisting of game components, mechanics and dynamics (Aparicio et al. 2012; Huotari and Hamari 2012; Rouse 2013). Although various researchers have different views towards gamification elements, the majority agree with groups of gamification elements proposed by Werbach and Hunter (2012).

The analysis of gamification studies in different fields (e.g. education, health care, tourism) allows identifying the most commonly researched game elements. For conceptualisation of the gamification construct following this analysis, game elements that are most often distinguished in the scientific literature are presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
A prism of 3 levels. It lists the elements of game components, game mechanics, and game dynamics, from bottom to top.

Game elements employed to gamify activities usually analysed in literature sources

Full size image

An important point here is that, based on theoretical studies, these game elements may be considered as most common; however, this is not the definite list of game elements ensuring the success of gamification. The analysis shows that PBL game components are typically analysed in scientific research works; on the other hand, this does not show that these three components are obligatory in gamifying activities of companies. To gamify activities, companies may employ from one to several dozens of various game elements. Thus, empirical research may help to identify additional game elements that are not listed in Fig. 3.

After game elements and motivation in the context of gamification have been substantiated, the monograph further conceptualises gamification-forced psychological changes, i.e. consumer engagement.

FormalPara Conceptualisation of the Construct of Consumer Engagement

The conceptual studies of consumer engagement show that this construct is typically analysed from the multidimensional perspective. According to Javornik and Mandelli (2013), the multidimensional approach serves as the basis of one of the four future research directions on consumer engagement. The adequacy of the multidimensional approach in the context of research of the monograph is confirmed by the fact that this research perspective creates conditions to conceptualise value co-creation-based consumer engagement. A combination of cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects from the multidimensional point of view ensures both consumer engagement and consumer involvement by the company into shared value creation.

Studies on the dimensions of consumer engagement (Brodie et al. 2011; Cheung et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011a, b; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014) have revealed that the dimensions used to measure consumer engagement are brought about not only by the nature of assessment of consumer engagement (one-dimensional and multidimensional) but by an engagement object (brand, brand community, advertising, virtual social platform, website or a social game) as well. Therefore, the substantiation of construct components and dimensions in the conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation remains an essential issue in further research studies on consumer engagement.

In respect of empirical research on the dimensions of the consumer engagement construct (Cheung et al. 2011; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014), measurement scales on consumer brand and virtual social platform engagement are to be considered most reliable. Based on the methodological quality indicators of the conducted research studies and the scope of the brand concept integrating elements of a product, communication, a trading place or a certain social platform, the brand is selected as the object of consumer engagement for the research purposes in the monograph. The expediency of the choice is justified by the fact that in the monograph brand engagement is analysed in the context of gamification. According to Zicherman and Linder (2010), gamification may be treated as a tool supplementing the initiatives of brand creation and development.

Brand engagement is treated in the monograph as one of the consequences of consumer engagement because of gamification. The analysis of theoretical approaches conducted in Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development” shows that a consumer experiences the flow state when engaged in a gamified activity where company- and consumer-level factors manifest (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). The flow state allows the consumer to move to another state, i.e. brand engagement. Considering that, two components of the construct of consumer engagement are singled out: engagement in a gamified activity and brand engagement. Hoffman and Novak (2009) assert that the construct of engagement in a gamified activity is grounded on the one-dimensional point of view, with the flow dimension being an essential one (see Sect. 2 in chapter “Expression of the Concept of Gamification in the Context of ICT Development”). The construct of consumer brand engagement is multidimensional. In summary of the research studies conducted on the dimensions of consumer engagement (see Sect. 4 in chapter “Consumer Engagement in the Context of Value Creation”), an opinion is maintained in the monograph that although the expression of consumer engagement dimensions may vary in different contexts, the majority of them may be attributed to three main dimensions, i.e. cognitive, emotional and behavioural.

Cognitive Dimension. It is a consumer cognitive status reflecting concentration and involvement with a certain object (company, brand, virtual social network, brand community). Hollebeek (2011a) illustrates the cognitive dimension of consumer engagement by examples of brand activities when the consumer focuses or gets especially interested in a certain brand. In their recent works, Hollebeek et al. (2014) identify the ‘cognitive assessment’ dimension, which is defined as the level of brand assessment and understanding during consumer–brand interaction. This dimension may be considered as the conventional cognitive engagement dimension.

It has to be noted that the utilitarian dimension distinguished by Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011) and the immersion dimension distinguished by Patterson et al. (2006) and Cheung et al. (2011) may also be treated as the cognitive dimension of engagement. The utilitarian dimension is revealed through the consumer’s cognitive assessment of profitability and excellence of online actions. The immersion dimension describes the level of consumer energy and mental flexibility in interacting with the company, the brand or other consumers. This dimension also reflects the disposition of a consumer to spend time and effort participating in the activities of a company.

Emotional Dimension. It is a state of emotional activity considered as a feeling of inspiration or pride caused by an engagement object. Research studies on consumer engagement in the field of advertising conducted by Heath (2007) show the importance of the emotional dimension. The author defines engagement as the subconscious emotional construct, and the level of engagement is defined as the amount of feelings that arise when watching commercials. The term emotion encompasses any inspiration of feelings, i.e. the emotional content of advertising refers to anything that may inspire feelings of the audience; however, it should not necessarily cause an emotional consumer’s response.

Abdul-Ghani et al. (2011) identify the hedonistic dimension of consumer engagement expressed through satisfaction the consumer feels when using online auction websites. The researchers claim that the consumer who is engaged in activities of such websites feels satisfaction, i.e. positive emotions.

In research studies with the brand as an engagement object, the emotional dimension is expressed through consumer commitment (Patterson et al. 2006; Cheung et al. 2011) or attachment (Hollebeek et al. 2014). According to Patterson et al. (2006), the term commitment refers to the feeling of consumer affiliation to something, i.e. the c consumer is proud of having a possibility to participate in the activities of the company he/she likes and performs his/her role enthusiastically and passionately. Hollebeek et al. (2014) assert that the emotional dimension of engagement may also be expressed as consumer attachment, i.e. positive feelings towards a certain brand.

Behavioural Dimension. The term engagement has a few different meanings; however, all of them emphasise the aspect of behaviour/action (Van Doorn et al. 2010). It refers to a state of consumer behaviour related to engagement objects and shows the effort and energy devoted to the interaction. The equivalent of the behavioural dimension identified by Patterson et al. (2006) is the dimension of energy/interaction referring to consumer communication with company staff, the interaction between the consumer and the company, the brand or other consumers. The behavioural dimension is also discussed by Hollebeek et al. (2014). The researchers maintain that it encompasses the level of energy, effort and time devoted by the consumer to the brand in a specific brand-consumer interaction.

After the substantiation of dimensions of both components of the consumer engagement construct, i.e. consumer engagement in gamified activities and consumer brand engagement, the monograph further presents the conceptualisation of gamification-based consumer engagement consequences, i.e. the construct of shared value.

FormalPara Conceptualisation of the Shared Value Construct

In the context of new marketing theories, the orientation towards creation, development and strengthening of lasting mutually useful relations leads to the analysis of value creation from the perspective of the consumer and the company. Mencarelli and Rivière’s (2014) analysis of the perceived value concept in B2C and B2V sectors reveals that along with two other identified dimensions there have been attempts in the scientific literature to single out the third-dyad-position corresponding to value dimension (Sweeney and Webb 2002), which is shared by both interested parties. On the other hand, researchers disagree that value perception depends on its recipient and the context where it is created, i.e. time, place and consumption (Vargo and Lusch 2004; Mencarelli and Rivière 2014). Because of this latter reason, two separate components are attributed to the construct of shared value: consumer perceived value and value for company.

Following Smith and Colgate (2007), consumer value emerges out of various consumer reactions that are the outcome of consumer cognition and experience. Companies may affect consumer perceived value through marketing actions; however, the final consumer perceived value forms in the consciousness of the consumer affected by a plethora of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Value for company is to be analysed in terms of the outcome, which depends on the level of consumer engagement in co-creation, that has been achieved in the process of co-creation. Both consumer perceived value and value for company are defined in the scientific literature sources as complex multidimensional constructs. Hence, in conceptualising the co-creation-based shared value construct, it is important to discuss the dimensions of two components—consumer perceived value and value for company—comprising the construct.

FormalPara The Component of Consumer Perceived Value

In analysing consumer perceived value dimensions and their definitions described by various scholars, it may be claimed that in the context of ICT development, the strongest theoretical and empirical framework is that of the four-dimensional consumer perceived value construct integrating economic, social, functional and emotional value.

Economic Value. This dimension is associated with psychological and personal consumer investment as well as personal, technological or strategic risk (Choo et al. 2012). It is quite often hypothesised in the scientific literature (e.g. Yang and Jolly 2009; Deng et al. 2010) that the main benefit of co-creation is expressed as financial aspects for consumers. Consumers in exchange for cooperation with companies in the process of value creation get special offers, rewards and exceptional conditions of purchase (Yang and Jolly 2009). Consequently, they see co-creation as economically useful cooperation. However, it has been noticed that sometimes consumers participate in co-creation apart from any financial motives (Nambisan and Baron 2009).

Social Value. Social value experienced because of participation in co-creation manifests through consumer recognition among other members of the community by treating them as valuable and important subsidiaries (Nambisan and Baron 2009). Participation in co-creation helps them to earn respect, establish contacts and acquire a specific status. Social value also encompasses the benefits of strengthening social contacts and epistemic benefit (knowledge, innovation, imagination), identified by Smith and Colgate (2007), as well as symbolic/expressive value (related to identity, self-respect, self-expression, social impact (status, prestige, image) and culture.

Functional Value. This dimension includes knowledge about a product acquired during co-creation, information that the consumer may share with other consumers, as well as the co-creation object-related outcomes associated with desired features of the product or the service, its usefulness, performance and final result (Smith and Colgate 2007; Chen and Lin 2011; Wang et al. 2013).

Emotional Value. It is related to sensory benefit with an appeal to feelings and senses, to pleasure, relaxation and excitement because of participation in the co-creation process, as well as to the anticipated outcome in connection to a particular product or service, the use of which brings about the feelings of safety, joy, pleasure, intimacy, fear and guilt (Wang et al. 2013; Miladian and Sarvestani 2012).

FormalPara The Component of Value for Company

In the scientific literature, value for the company is typically analysed with the emphasis on the economic dimensions. In the context of orientation towards lasting relationships with consumers, such constructs as consumer profitability (Kumar 2008) and consumer value over the life cycle (Kumar et al. 2010) have also been widely discussed. However, value obtained by the company from engagement in shared value creation together with the consumer does not necessarily have to be measured economically (Kumar et al. 2013). Apart from economic indices, consumer engagement in the process of value creation, their contribution to the development of company competences, communication of the word of mouth recommendation, etc. are also of importance (Walter et al. 2001; Larivière et al. 2013; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). In terms of consumer engagement in value creation, value for company depends on the level of consumer engagement. The associations between engagement and shared value have been studied by DeFillippi and Roser (2014) who assert that in the case of the highest level of consumer engagement, new and valuable products, services and processes are created; in the case of the medium level of consumer engagement, elements of the product or the process may be accordingly improved; and in the case of the lowest level of consumer engagement, consumers may be involved into communication activities, or help other consumers to solve purchase- or consumption-related problems. As one of the aspects of value for the company acquired because of co-creation, Nätti et al. (2014) distinguish innovation and development of products or services, which eventually affects the economic growth of the company. Thus, contextual analysis of the concept of value for company in terms of co-creation allows identifyingthree dimensions of the value for company construct: economic, functional and social.

Economic Value for Company. It is determined by consumer profitability and value over the life cycle reduced costs because of positive word of mouth communication and the impact thereof on the appearance of new consumers, reduced risk of failure of products/services and nonconformity to the market needs due to more comprehensive and high-quality information and insights about the consumer, as well as enhanced loyalty of existing consumers (Roser et al. 2009; Ramaswamy 2008).

Functional Value for Company. It is created in the process of co-creation and stays with the company after the process ends due to consumer engagement, their comments, feedback, provided knowledge about themselves as consumers, expressed opinions about services, suggested ideas regarding their improvement, modification or creation of new services (Roser et al. 2009; Van Doorn et al. 2010).

Social Value for Company. Active consumer participation in co-creation may contribute to the formation of adequate reputation of a company and/or brand recognition in the market (Van Doorn et al. 2010); it also creates conditions for a company to participate in the activities of relevant virtual communities together with consumers, thus engaging more consumers in co-creation (Ramaswamy 2009a; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014).

On the basis of the conceptual model of gamification-based consumer engagement in value creation, encompassing three essential constructs of theoretical studies—gamification, consumer engagement and shared value—the following chapter of the monograph presents the empirical research methodology.