The Effect of Perceived Socially Motivated Gamification on Purchase Intention: Does It Really Work?

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 3, 15 - 25, 27.12.2016

Mehmet Yüksel Ahmet Durmaz

Öz

Companies try to be innovative in
their relationships with customers. As organizations seek new ways to
differentiate themselves and to have more market share, gamification has
emerged as a new concept in their marketing efforts. Many third-party
organizations now utilize gamified services which grasp the attention and
interest of many potential customers with its game-like features. These
services form the basis of our research in understanding how people react to
such gamified experience. In order to gather data, survey method was
implemented to people who reside in Istanbul, use gamified websites, applications and mostly
under 25 years old. Results implicate that there is strong correlation between
users’ attitude towards gamification and their purchase intention regarding the
product which advertised in these gamified services. This paper contributes to
literature in a unique way in which a connection between purchase intention and
attitude towards gamification is proposed. Additionally, it is the first
empirical gamification research made in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gamification, Social Influence, Reciprocal Benefit, Network Exposure, Purchase Intention.

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
• Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
• Chen, M. F. (2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and preference, 18(7), 1008-1021.
• Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). ACM.
• Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effect of price, brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
• Dominguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., FernáNdez-Sanz, L., PagéS, C., & Martínez-HerráIz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1), 9-50.
• Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
• Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition. Pearson Education. New Jersey.
• Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic commerce research and applications, 12(4), 236-245.
• Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social Motivations To Use Gamification: An Empirical Study of Gamifying Exercise. In ECIS (p. 105).
• Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254-1263.
• Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45(1), 65-74.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011). Gamification from the perspective of service marketing. In Proc. CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification.
• Kelloway, K.E. (1989). Using Lisrel for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, London, Sage.
• Kim, J. T., & Lee, W. H. (2015). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(19), 8483-8493.
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
• Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G., (2014). Principles of Marketing. 15th Edition, Pearson Education, England.
• Kotler, P., & Keller K.L., (2014). Marketing Management. 14th Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
• Lages, L. F., Jap, S. D., & Griffith, D. A. (2008). The role of past performance in export ventures: A short-term reactive approach, Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 304-325.
• Lee, S. A., & Jeong, M. (2014). Enhancing online brand experiences: An application of congruity theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 49-58.
• Lindell, M.K. & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(1), 114-121.
• Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258-266.
• Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management science, 52(12), 1865-1883.
• Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In Systems sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on (pp. 14-pp). IEEE.
• Mangold, W. Glynn, and David J. Faulds, (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix, Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
• Menachemi, N. (2010). Assessing Response Bias in a Web Survey at a University Faculty. Evaluation & Research in Education. 24(1), 5-15.
• O’cass, A., & Fenech, T. (2003). Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet users Web retailing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer services, 10(2), 81-94.
• Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
• Salim, M., Javed, N., Sharif, K., & Riaz, A. (2011). Antecedents of knowledge sharing attitude and intentions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 56(1), 44-50.
• Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
• Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353.
• Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 893-898.
• Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidel, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, Fourth Edition, MA, Allyn& Bacon Inc.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
• Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(6), 779.
• Zichermann, G. (2011). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in gamification. Gamification Summit, San Francisco, 27.