Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full Length Article

How gamification marketing activities motivate desirable consumer T

behaviors: Focusing on the role of brand love
Chia-Lin Hsua,∗, Mu-Chen Chenb
a
Department of International Business Administration, Chinese Culture University, 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei, 11114, Taiwan
b
Department of Transportation and Logistics Management, National Chiao Tung University, 4F, No. 118, Section 1, Chung Hsiao W. Road, Taipei, 100, Taiwan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Gamification is increasingly applied as a design strategy when improving various behavioral outcomes in the
Gamification marketing online retailing domain. Understanding the attributes of gamification marketing activities (GMAs) is critical for
Value successful gamification, but perceived experience derived from the attributes of GMAs and its influence on
Brand love desirable consumer behaviors have not been addressed so far in gamified online retailing studies. Thus, this
Desirable consumer behaviors
paper aims to examine the relationships among GMAs’ experience, value, satisfaction, brand love, and desirable
consumer behaviors. To test these relationships in the research model, we developed a study using a sample of
242 online bookstore customers, and found that the experience of GMAs has a significant and positive effect on
hedonic value and utilitarian value. The findings also confirm that hedonic value and utilitarian value sig-
nificantly affect satisfaction and brand love. Finally, our results confirm that satisfaction has a significant and
positive effect on brand love, and in turn, on desirable consumer behaviors (i.e., brand loyalty, positive word-of-
mouth, and resistance to negative information). The findings of this study can permit online retailing companies
to predict the future behaviors of their customers more exactly and guide their management of assets and
gamification marketing activities.

1. Introduction though gamification is considered to be the next generation in mar-

keting techniques, with potential to revolutionalize human-computer
In recent years, the progress of online games and social software, interaction and user experiences by offering motivating, gameful ex-
when applied to e-business, has generated a new trend that appeals to periences (Hamari 2017), empirical studies providing evidence of ga-
user experience and creates active participation through “gamification” mification's impact on consumer behavior and marketing are still
(Rodrigues, Oliveira, & Costa, 2016). The concept of gamification and lacking (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Hamari, Koivisto, &
its mechanics in non-game contexts have become a fast-emerging Sarsa, 2014; Hamari 2017). Specifically, a study by Sigala (2015) has
practice in marketing (Yang, Asaad, & Dwivedi, 2017). Marketing in- investigated gamification experiences and perceived value obtained by
volves a certain degree of persuasion, motivation and manipulation, customers when using gamified websites and the impacts of these ga-
and thus gamification has great potential in marketing (Zichermann & mified experiences on customers' online behaviors, such as website use
Linder, 2010). However, this discussion on gamification has continued and engagement. Investigating the usage experience and value per-
mainly in the realm of game studies and human–computer interaction ceived by users of gamification is very important, as usage experience
(HCI) (Huotari & Hamari, 2017). Although games are used to improve and value better explain desirable consumer behaviors (i.e., brand
services to consumers, only a few academic articles are related to the loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, and resistance to negative informa-
service or marketing literature (e.g., Hsu & Chen, 2018; Sigala, 2015; tion). Gamification is increasingly being used in e-business. However, in
Yang et al., 2017). E-business is one of the fields where service mar- spite of the great potential of gamification in e-business, research in-
keting and technology are linked (Huotari & Hamari, 2017). Although vestigating the impact of gamification on users' experiences and beha-
empirical research is accumulating on the application of gamification in viors with a website and brand is also lacking. Moreover, research ex-
e-business, a gap still exists in our understanding about how gamifi- amining the perceived value provided by gamified websites is urgently
cation influences consumer behaviors. needed, because it can inform professionals on how to design engaging
Furthermore, as indicated by Zichermann and Linder (2010), even gamified applications. Since gamification effects are greatly dependent

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.-L. Hsu), [email protected] (M.-C. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.037
Received 3 March 2018; Received in revised form 27 May 2018; Accepted 29 June 2018
Available online 30 June 2018
0747-5632/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

on its implementation context (Hamari et al., 2014), studies using a satisfaction and brand love, and desirable consumer behaviors. Finally,
specific gamification context can also lead to more reliable results. this study investigates the key antecedents and consequences of brand
To address the gaps mentioned above, this paper examines the ap- love to understand how the mechanics of gaming, when applied to non-
plication and impacts of gamification marketing activities (GMAs) on game activities, drive desirable consumer behaviors.
the users' experience, value, satisfaction, brand love, and desirable In summary, this study provides several contributions. First, this is
consumer behavior within a specific e-commerce context. Specifically, the first research that provides a theoretical framework to identify the
we review previous studies on the relationship between gamification constructs of perceived GMAs, and to understand the effects of GMAs
and the online retail experience, attributes of interactive communica- that include entertainment, interaction, trendiness, intimacy, and no-
tion media, gamification of advertising, and characteristics of online- velty on perception of value, satisfaction, brand love, and desirable
shopping-related studies. The review of related studies ensures that the consumer behaviors. Second, this study investigates the key ante-
five constructs of entertainment, trendiness, interaction, intimacy, and cedents and consequences of brand love to understand how the me-
novelty are fitting to operationalize gamification mechanics (Insley & chanics of gaming, when applied to non-game activities, drive desirable
Nunan, 2014; Pesare, Roselli, Corriero, & Rossano, 2016; Terlutter & consumer behaviors. As the online environment is undergoing rapid
Capella, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize GMAs as use of gami- changes, this study will redefine the properties that affect the perfor-
fication mechanics that include entertainment, trendiness, interaction, mance of brands to help marketers manage and optimize these prop-
intimacy, and novelty in marketing activities to generate playful ex- erties. This study proposes a strategy to enhance brand love by defining
periences and influence customers' perception of value, satisfaction, specific factors related to perceived value. The findings will enable
brand love, and behavior. That is, the experience of GMAs may play a brands to forecast desirable customer behaviors and manage their
vital role in evoking consumers’ perception of value, satisfaction, and brands and gamification activities. This study makes an empirical and
brand love, which assist in bringing about desirable consumer beha- theoretical contribution to retailing literature by extending the
viors. knowledge on application of these important new online techniques
The customer experience forms consumer contexts and generates (i.e. GMAs).
perceived value through diversified marketing methods (Chen and Lin,
2015). Customer experience has become a product attribute in the 2. Gamification and GMA
economic sense — a value-added element applied to differentiate goods
and services (Wang, 2015). Consumers generate different psychological Gamification has rapidly become a trend in the marketing field.
valuations through customer experience to establish metrics for eval- Some marketers think of gamification as a new name for old marketing
uating the value that can be obtained from experiential services pro- tools or as a new way of exploiting customers. In contrast, others regard
vided by businesses (Vera & Trujillo, 2013). Several works in the it as a valid way to improve the value of a service. Gamification can be
marketing and information system domain have confirmed that per- situated in a previously unoccupied space of marketing thinking. For
ceived value after experiencing a product or service is a determinant of instance, previously, full games have been applied as a value-added
users’ satisfaction (e.g., Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Kesari & service on product web pages, and a series of games have been applied
Atulkar, 2016; Kim, 2015). Batra and Ahtola (1990) indicated that in educating consumers. Furthermore, loyalty programs can resemble
consumers use services for contributory, utilitarian purpose, and con- game mechanisms, and have been applied to tender economic benefits
summatory hedonic fulfillment. Moreover, Venkatesh and Brown to customers in exchange for their loyalty. However, the prior ways in
(2001) stated that utilitarian and hedonic value cover a broad set of which games and consumer behaviors have come together in marketing
factors that people consider important in use of information systems. are not exactly the same as in gamification's popular conception.
Thus, measures of utilitarian and hedonic dimensions of perceived From the perspective of service marketing, gamification can be
value enable retailers to test the effectiveness of product types that defined as “a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful
stress experiential strategies for potential customers. experiences in order to support user's overall value creation” (Huotari &
Satisfaction is different from brand love; that is, satisfaction is Hamari, 2012, p. 19). The conceptualization is rooted in service
perceived as transaction specific in contrast to brand love, which is dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), which suggests that customers
linked with a longer-term relationship with the brand (Drennan et al., are the creators of value, and the company can merely provide affor-
2015). Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) wrote that brand love is developed dances for the customer to experience gamefulness. This con-
through higher levels of satisfaction. The satisfaction level creates a ceptualization of gamification implicitly states that the customer in the
basis for the formation of brand love (Unal & Aydm, 2013). Brand love end determines whether they are engaged in gameful experiences and
can act as a motivator for consumers in developing and maintaining whether consequently the perceived value of the service is increased.
close relationships with companies (Reimann, Castaño, Zaichkowsky, & Additionally, Huotari and Hamari (2012) emphasized that gamification
Bechara, 2012). Marketers have taken love as a construct that depicts has an effect on retention and customer loyalty, but the customers
consumers’ strong emotional attachments to love objects, whether a should first be engaged in gameful experiences. Gamification simply
brand, product or service (Ahuvia, 2005). Although brand love has refers to adding game mechanisms into a service, which if well im-
emerged as an important consumer–brand relationship construct plemented becomes more engaging and attains better retention of
(Drennan et al., 2015), there is still less understanding about what customers.
causes a love relationship between a consumer and a brand, and what Embracing gamification can be a marketing and business strategy
its behavioral consequences may be (e.g. brand loyalty, word-of-mouth, applied to increase customer engagement and loyalty (Dubois &
and resistance to negative information). Tamburrelli, 2013). Gamification can increase marketing effectiveness
This study aims at addressing the knowledge gap by answering the in consumer markets (Hofacker, De Ruyter, Lurie, Manchanda, &
research question: how do gamification marketing activities motivate Donaldson, 2016). There are three marketing concepts related to the
desirable consumer behaviors? To develop our research model, we first gamification context: 1) engagement, which means the psychological
identify the constructs of perceived GMAs, which include entertain- investment of the consumer in the participating process (i.e., cognitive
ment, interaction, trendiness, intimacy, and novelty. Then, we review engagement), the development of emotional connections between the
prior literature on value to identify two typical types of value (i.e., brand and the consumer while fulfilling the activities (i.e., emotional
utilitarian and hedonic value), satisfaction, brand love, and behavior, as engagement), and the participation and the involvement of consumers
well as other context-related literature to theorize specific relationships in consumer markets and positive attitudes of the consumers during the
between model constructs. Specifically, this study evaluates the influ- GMAs (i.e., behavioral engagement) (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
ence of perceived GMAs on the perception of consumer value, 2004); 2) brand loyalty, which can be divided into two classes:

122
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

attitudinal and behavioral. Attitudinal brand loyalty is a psychological attachment between a consumer experience and a producer after using
construct, while behavioral brand loyalty is a substantive element a salient product or service provided by that supplier. Yoo, Lee, and
(Cheng, 2011). In detail, attitudinal brand loyalty means that customers Park (2010) mentioned that an economic or utilitarian approach is not
recommend the focal product to other customers (Kursunluoglu, 2011), sufficient to realize the intact picture of consumer value. Hirschman
whereas behavioral loyalty is a way of behaving, such as making re- and Holbrook (1982) regarded consumers as either problem solvers or
peated purchases (Cossío-Silva, Revilla-Camacho, Vega-Vázquez, & seekers of fun, fantasy, arousal, sensory stimulation, and enjoyment. In
Palacios-Florencio, 2016); 3) brand awareness, which means a basic this case, the overall perception of consumer value is evaluated by using
level of brand knowledge (Hoyer & Brown, 1990). Brand knowledge both utilitarian value and hedonic value. Perceived utilitarian value
comprises brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1998). Brand means the utilitarian aspect of consumer behavior, and in contrast,
awareness is related to consumers' ability to recall or recognize a brand; perceived hedonic value is related to the hedonic aspects of consump-
in turn, brand image consists of consumers' perceptions and associa- tion behaviors (Babin et al., 1994). Specifically, shopping with utili-
tions for the brand (Keller, 1998). The potential synergy of gamification tarian value (Childers, Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2002) versus shopping
with marketing is significant. Thus, in this paper, GMAs means applying with hedonic value (Babin et al., 1994; Childers et al., 2002) represents
gamification to marketing activities to increase customers’ engagement this dichotomy. Numerous prior studies have indicated that hedonic
and to encourage certain behaviors (Kuo & Chuang, 2016; Seaborn & and utilitarian value are most generally used in recent marketing lit-
Fels, 2015; Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013), effectively deepening erature (Babin et al., 1994; Jones, Reynolds, & Arnold, 2006; Park,
customer relationships. 2004). Overby and Lee (2006) defined hedonic value as ‘‘an overall
In addition to linking gamification with service dominant logic, the assessment of experiential benefits and sacrifices, such as entertainment
gameful experience could be linked with hedonic usage patterns and and escapism’’, and defined utilitarian value as an overall assessment of
consumption (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), as well as intrinsic (as functional benefits and sacrifices. Hence, Jarvenpaa and Todd (1997)
opposed to extrinsic) motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985) towards the use and Teo (2001) indicated that utilitarian value includes more cognitive
of information systems and services. Therefore, GMA can be viewed as aspects of attitude, such as economic value for the money and judg-
an attempt to convert utilitarian services into more hedonically or- ments of convenience and time savings.
iented ones. In terms of IS theory, this sits well in the long-run context Past studies have investigated hedonic and utilitarian value in off-
of studying technology acceptance (Davis, 1989), continuous usage line retailing (Jones et al., 2006; Kim & Han, 2011) and online retailing
intentions (Bhattacherjee, 2001; Hsieh, Rai, & Keil, 2008), and espe- (Huang, 2003; Kim, Galliers, Shin, Ryoo, & Kim, 2012). Kim and Han
cially the more recent understanding of the hedonic nature of novel (2011) adopted hedonic and utilitarian value to examine the relation-
services which has called for the measurement of more hedonic con- ships between perceived value and adoption intention. A product or
structs, such as perceived enjoyment, flow, immediate feedback, clear service can satisfy customers' needs as well as lead them to experience
goals (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990) and social comparison (Festinger, excitement, pleasure, and a sense of personal well-being. Therefore, the
1954). As such, gamification and GMA might offer an interesting vein nature of product or service experiences in offline or online retailing
for this continuum of research. suggests that managers should consider both the hedonic and utilitarian
In principle, GMA differs from loyalty programs, although it is often aspects of customers' experiences. Customers have various motivations
used for pursuing similar goals. Most loyalty programs aim to offer for purchasing products or services such as social interaction (Dawon,
economic benefits (redeemable by points) from the continuous use of Bloch, & Ridway, 1990), fun (Venkatesh, 2000), and efficiency
services, most likely invoking extrinsic motivations. These, in turn, (Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). Based on these motivations, customers
have been demonstrated to be detrimental to intrinsic motivations, often perceive utilitarian value by comparing product or service quality
autonomy and creativity (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Game me- with the money spent on the product itself and its services. Simulta-
chanisms in themselves, however, do not provide economic benefits for neously, customers perceive hedonic value in relation to the enjoyment
users, but are believed to add value to a service via transformation of and excitement evoked while consuming a product or service. Thus,
usage motivations and intentions (Huotari & Hamari, 2012). Thus, customers' perceptions of value regarding product or service experi-
gamification is distinguished from traditional loyalty programs by of- ences can be formed based on their evaluation of functional or eco-
fering added motivational and social benefits via user engagement ra- nomic benefits as well as emotional and affective factors. Accordingly,
ther than only expenditures (Blohm & Leimeister, 2013). this study considers hedonic and utilitarian value as the major value
dimensions for explaining customers’ product experiences in the online
3. Literature review context. Further, we also examine the relationships among perceived
value, customer satisfaction, and desirable consumer behaviors.
3.1. Hedonic value vs. utilitarian value Fig. 1 illustrates the research conceptual framework. This study suggests
that it is important to explore the concepts of hedonic and utilitarian value
Babin et al. (1994) indicated that consumers' perceived value is in order to clarify customer satisfaction and positive desirable consumer
conceived as what consumers get for what they give. Butz and behaviors in an online context. The detailed hypotheses and supporting
Goodstein (1996) defined consumers' perceived value as the emotional literature are discussed in the following sections.

Hedonic value Brand loyalty

H1 H3 H5 H8
The experience of
gamification marketing H7 H9 Positive word of
Satisfaction Brand love
activities mouth

H2 H4 H6 H10
Resistance to
Utilitarian value negative information

Fig. 1. The research model.

123
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

3.2. Satisfaction and brand love customer over time (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). However, despite
agreement that brand loyalty results in repeated purchasing, Van den
Satisfaction is one of the cores of marketing theories, and it has been Brink et al. (2006) indicated that this may not be its sole antecedent.
viewed as the key objective of marketing strategy for more than 60 Furthermore, Quester and Lim (2003) proposed that the underlying
years. Oliver (1999) defined satisfaction as a cognitive and emotional motivations for repeated purchasing remain unknown. Van den Brink
evaluation of the customer's experience with a product or service. Wirtz et al. (2006) pointed out that patronage actually may emerge from al-
and Bateson (1999) also proposed that satisfaction consists of partly ternative consumer motivations and dispositions, and the attitudinal
cognitive and partly affective evaluation of a customer's experience in conceptualization of brand loyalty. Additionally, Fournier and Yao
service settings. Satisfaction incorporates cognitive judgments and af- (1997) indicated that both attitudinal and behavioral components of
fective reactions during consumption (Oliver, 1992). Satisfaction has brand loyalty obtained strong advantage in the current literature. In
taken a crucial and dominant position in marketing theory and practice short, the definition of brand loyalty includes both attitudinal and be-
because, as a main outcome of marketing activities, it transforms the havioral concepts, yet limited empirical studies have included both
initial consumption and purchase to post-purchase phenomena such as dimensions. Thus, this study uses the concept of Dick and Basu (1994) –
re-patronage and brand loyalty (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982). How- specifically, customer loyalty is the outcome of psychological processes
ever, previous findings suggested that purely satisfying consumers and has behavioral displays, and should therefore include both attitu-
might not be enough to maintain success in the competitive market- dinal and behavioral components. Consequently, the research model
place nowadays (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Research has shown that advanced here attempts to empirically link attitudinal and behavioral
brand love predicts consumer behavior better than traditional models loyalty in an online shopping context.
related to satisfaction (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Brand love is a rela-
tively new marketing construct that helps in explaining and predicting 3.3.2. Positive word-of-mouth
variation in desirable post-consumption behaviors among satisfied Word-of-mouth has been confirmed to be a trustworthy and influ-
consumers (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Carroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 81) ential source of information (Higie, Feick, & Price, 1987). Word-of-
defined brand love as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment a mouth offers important information concerning a firm to consumers
satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name”. Based on the pro- that often assists consumers in deciding whether or not to patronize a
posed love prototype by Ahuvia (2005), brand love comprises passion firm (Yoo, Kim, & Sanders, 2015). Following this, word-of-mouth may
for a brand, attachment to the brand, positive valuation of the brand, be helpful in provoking a brand switch, and thereby help a firm in
positive emotions in response to the brand, and statements of love for acquiring new customers. East, Hammond, and Lomax (2008) indicated
the brand. that positive word-of-mouth encourages brand choice, and in contrast,
As discussed in Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), brand love differs from negative word-of-mouth discourages brand choice. Westbrook (1987)
the satisfaction construct. Consistent with the idea of Fournier and Mick defined positive word-of-mouth as the degree to which the consumer
(1999) and Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), we conceptualized brand love as communicates praise of the brand to others. Holt (1997) proposed that
a mode of satisfaction, that is, a response experienced by some, but not talking about a brand with other people is a critical part of identity
all, satisfied consumers. Brand love is different from the satisfaction construction, and a high level of word-of-mouth should also be asso-
construct in several parts (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). To begin with, sa- ciated with brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) found that brand
tisfaction is generally conceptualized as a cognitive judgment, but love, in turn, is linked to a higher positive word-of-mouth level. More
brand love has a much stronger affective focus. Furthermore, satisfac- precisely, their findings suggested that satisfied consumers are inclined
tion is usually viewed as a transaction-specific outcome, but brand love to engage in more positive word-of-mouth. Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi
is the consequence of a consumer's long-term relationship with the (2012) also confirmed that positive word-of-mouth is an important
brand. In addition, satisfaction is often related to the expectancy dis- consequence of brand love. Thus, this study takes positive word-of-
confirmation paradigm, but brand love requires neither expectancy nor mouth as one of the outcomes of brand love.
disconfirmation (e.g., the consumer experiences this emotional re-
sponse to the brand in the absence of cognition; the consumer knows 3.3.3. Resistance to negative information
what to expect from the brand, so little, if any, disconfirmation takes Eisingerich, Rubera, Seifert, and Bhardwaj (2011) defined resistance
place). Finally, brand love contains a willingness to express love (e.g., “I to negative information as “the extent to which consumers do not allow
love this brand!”) and involves integration of the brand into the con- negative information to diminish their general view of a firm — thus
sumer's identity, neither of which is requisite in satisfaction. [it] may indicate the strength of a consumer-firm relationship”. This
argument is in line with the work of Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004),
3.3. Desirable consumer behaviors which demonstrates that a strong relationship between consumers and
a firm enables consumers to show resistance to negative information.
3.3.1. Brand loyalty Van Lange et al. (1997) have shown that individuals are able to build a
Oliver (1999, p. 34) defined loyalty as “a deeply held commitment strong relationship with exchange partners and demonstrate restorative
to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in the relationship maintenance behaviors. In marketing, researchers have
future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set pur- successfully demonstrated that consumer-firm relationships can extend
chasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the beyond person-to-person interactions (Eisingerich et al., 2011). As
potential to cause switching behavior”. Brand loyalty has been broadly stated by many researchers (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Fedorikhin, Park,
discussed in the traditional marketing literature, with the central em- & Thomson, 2008; Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci,
phasis on two different dimensions, attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. 2010), consumers can develop relationships with firms, brands, and
Attitudinal brand loyalty is a multidimensional construct that includes special or favorite objects. Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon
affective, cognitive, and conative components (Oliver, 1997). As in- (2002) indicated that strong cognitive and affective attachment have
dicated by Van den Brink, Odekerken-Schroder, and Pauwels (2006), been shown to affect forgiveness based on a desire to continue a re-
the affective component means positive or negative emotions that lationship, and that they affect individuals' likelihood of making si-
consumers have towards a brand; the cognitive component implies tuational (as opposed to dispositional) attributions to explain re-
particular knowledge regarding the brand. The conative component is lationship mishaps, which lessens the impact of relationship
concerned with consumers’ behavioral disposition or an intention to transgressions (Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). Thus, strong consumer-
buy the brand. Behavioral loyalty captures more the patronage beha- firm relationships may be at the heart of consumers' resistance to ne-
vior and emphasizes repeated purchasing of a certain brand by a gative information (Eisingerich et al., 2011). We turn to exchange

124
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

theory to investigate potential drivers of consumers’ resistance to ne- Toorn, Lai, & Seo, 2016; Jones et al., 2006; Shin, 2017) have shown
gative information. Restricted exchange means two-party reciprocal linkages between satisfaction and both hedonic and utilitarian value.
relationships between consumers and a firm (Bagozzi, 1975). In- Thus, the following two hypotheses are developed.
dividuals perceive justice or fairness of an exchange between them-
H3. The hedonic value of experience of GMAs will positively influence
selves and other parties in terms of weighed justice inputs (e.g., time,
customer satisfaction.
effort, and opportunity cost associated with exchange) versus justice
outcomes (e.g., service outcomes including marginal utility and re- H4. The utilitarian value of experience of GMAs will positively
wards) (Deutsch, 1985). This suggests that individuals perceive in- influence customer satisfaction.
justice when they believe that justice inputs outweigh justice outcomes.
Consumer value has been identified as one of the key factors to
Individuals are less likely to go out of their way when an exchange is
successful business (Zeithaml, 1988) because consumers choose pro-
perceived as unjust (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2003). The relationships
ducts or services based on their various types of value such as func-
consumers have with a firm tend to be based not only on their current
tional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional value (Sheth,
and past information about it but also on potential future information
Newman, & Gross, 1991). Given the various forms of shopping value,
(Lemon, White, & Winer, 2002).
one has to question how judgment of value affects consumers’ evalua-
tions. Two value dimensions seem to be most universal, namely, he-
4. Hypotheses and research model donic and utilitarian value (Babin et al., 1994). Some previous studies
(e.g., Etemad-Sajadi & Ghachem, 2015; Overby & Lee, 2006) have re-
Marketing aims to develop communication by which a firm is able vealed that hedonic and utilitarian value have an obvious impact on the
to enlighten customers about its products and services and generate perception of Internet users. Hedonic value focuses on fun, entertain-
interest in its offerings (Kim & Ko, 2012). Marketing is viewed as a ment, playfulness, and emotional significance (Babin et al., 1994),
multidimensional process made up of various strategies; however, a whereas utilitarian value focuses on the efficiency of obtaining the
main goal of any marketing strategy is to enhance sales and profit- desired information on a website (Childers et al., 2002), and includes
ability. Marketing is an investment and enables the improvement of more cognitive aspects of attitude, such as economic “value for the
customer value (Kim & Ko, 2012). Additionally, Hofacker et al. (2016) money” (Zeithaml, 1988).
indicated that gamification means the use of game design elements to Value judgment positively influences preference (Cronin et al.,
increase the sales of non-game goods and services by enhancing cus- 2000), and preference signifies the disposition of a shopper to favor a
tomer value. Gamification means a process of improving a service with specific retailer. Batra et al. (2012) indicated that an individual cannot
affordances for gameful experiences to support users' overall value feel love towards a brand without the brand being liked and valued
creation (Huotari & Hamari, 2017). Gamification can create both highly. Overby and Lee (2006) have found that hedonic and utilitarian
epistemic value and social value (Nambisan & Baron, 2009). The former value have a significant positive impact on love for Internet retailers.
can be created by the cognitive benefits of skill development, in- Brand love may be affected by product or brand characteristics such as
formation acquisition, and learning, expanding users' knowledge and hedonic features. For a hedonic product, fun, pleasure or enjoyment are
expertise. The latter can be created by interaction involving apprecia- primary benefits (Drennan et al., 2015), and for a utilitarian product,
tion, compliments, and reciprocal exchange with others, and thus this is more reasoned, and more focused on reaching a goal or ac-
creating an atmosphere of camaraderie, building social bonds, and fa- complishing a task (Cramer & Antonides, 2011). Customers' perception
cilitating future interactions (with both the brand and other con- of hedonic value tends to cause stronger emotional responses such as
sumers). Gamification can be a value adding way to encourage and love towards products. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) found that con-
maintain participation (Feng, Ye, Yu, Yang, & Cui, 2018). In addition, sumers' hedonic perception has a positive effect on brand love. In ad-
some studies (e.g., Deterding et al., 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2012) dition, Batra et al. (2012) found that marketing in establishing brand
have shown that gamification can create positive value for consumers meanings that connect to deeply held value can facilitate consumers’
with more motivating and rewarding experiences offered by the game experience of brand love. We suggest that utilitarian and hedonic value
design elements. Hsu and Chen (2018) also revealed that gamification will have a direct and positive impact on love for the retailer. Thus, the
experience has a significant and positive influence on the value of a following two hypotheses are developed.
product or service. Gamification adds value by enhancing the enjoy-
H5. Hedonic value has a positive effect on brand love.
ment of consumer experience when conducting the behavior, thus
raising intrinsic motivation (Jung, Schneider, & Valacich, 2010). Be- H6. Utilitarian value has a positive effect on brand love.
cause a brand's engagement in gamification is taken as a marketing
We expect that satisfaction also influences customers’ brand love
activity to build a relationship with customers and increase corporate
directly. Talking about satisfaction is a crucial part of the process by
profits, brands' gamification activity is expected to positively affect the
which customers love brands (Albert, Merunka, & Valette-Florence,
drivers of customers' value. Thus, the following two hypotheses are
2008). Previous studies (e.g., Aro, Suomi, & Saraniemi, 2018; Drennan
developed.
et al., 2015) showed that customer satisfaction have a positive effect on
H1. The experience of GMAs will positively influence hedonic value. brand love. As such, customers are expected to increase their brand love
when the extent of their satisfaction is higher.
H2. The experience of GMAs will positively influence utilitarian value.
H7. Customer satisfaction will positively influence brand love.
Owing to satisfaction as an evaluative outcome (Deng, Turner,
Gehling, & Prince, 2010), Shin (2017) suggested that the evaluation of Satisfied customers' brand love is expected to increase both under-
utilitarian and hedonic value is the direct antecedent of satisfaction. standing and prediction of their post-consumption behavior. More
Numerous marketing researchers (e.g., Babin et al., 1994; Jones et al., specifically, this work hypothesizes positive direct effects of brand love
2006) have investigated perceived value by taking it as an antecedent on brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, and resistance to negative
of satisfaction, and have found a strong association between satisfaction information in a population of satisfied customers. Love is supposed to
and both hedonic and utilitarian value, suggesting that both kinds of affect future consumer outcomes, including intentions, willingness to
value have a positive impact on customer satisfaction (Babin et al., buy, and word-of-mouth (Bagozzi, 1992). Some studies (e.g., Aro et al.,
1994; Jones et al., 2006). Offline shopping research has confirmed that 2018; Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) showed that satisfied
value judgment positively affects satisfaction (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, customers have a tendency to be more loyal to a brand and to undertake
2000). Additionally, some studies (e.g., Babin et al., 1994; Guo, Xiao, more positive word-of-mouth about the brand. Furthermore, Drennan

125
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

et al. (2015) and Aro et al. (2018) found that satisfied customers have a based on the number of badges, he/she is awarded a badge.
positive impact on brand love, and in turn, have a positive impact on 8. If a member collects 200 badges, he/she is awarded an additional
brand loyalty. Additionally, Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Green (2005) badge.
found that a beloved brand is integrated into the consumer's identity, 9. If a member's total number of badges reaches a multiple of 200, he/
and people are naturally inclined to resist negative information about she receives another badge.
the brand. Turgut and Gultekin (2015) also confirmed that brand love
positively and significantly affects resistance to negative information 5.2. Instrument development
and repurchase intention. In short, satisfied customers who also love a
brand are expected to be more committed to repurchase, be more eager The constructs of this study are developed based on prevalidated
to spread “the good word” to others, and have stronger resistance to measures. All scale items are rephrased to relate specifically to the
negative information. Thus, the following three hypotheses are devel- context of an online bookstore. The two-item scale of entertainment and
oped. trendiness is adapted from measures developed by Kim and Ko (2012).
Interaction is also measured using a three-item scale adapted from Kim
H8. Brand love has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
and Ko (2012). Intimacy is measured using a five-item scale adapted
H9. Brand love has a positive effect on positive word-of-mouth. from Chelune and Waring (1984) and Tomasi (2007). To analyze no-
velty, four items are adopted from Huang (2003). The scales of hedonic
H10. . Brand love has a positive effect on resistance to negative
value and utilitarian value, consisting of four items each, are adapted
information.
from Overby and Lee (2006). The three items of satisfaction, which
Finally, the research model is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. measure user perceptions related to online bookstore usage, are
adapted from Maxham and Netemeyer (2003). The brand love scale
5. Research methodology consists of ten items adapted from Carroll and Ahuvia (2006). The
positive word-of-mouth scale comprises four items taken from Maxham
5.1. The design of GMAs for an online bookstore and Netemeyer (2002). Brand loyalty is measured by using a four-item
scale adapted from Carroll and Ahuvia (2006). The scale of resistance to
The GMAs for an online bookstore are designed based on the defi- negative information consists of four items taken from Eisingerich et al.
nition of gamification and prior literature (e.g. Hamari, 2017; Hanus & (2011). All constructs are measured by using multiple items and use
Fox, 2015). Specifically, as defined by Hofacker et al. (2016, p. 26), fully anchored, seven-point, Likert-type scales ranging from ‘‘strongly
gamification means “the use of game design elements to enhance non-game disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’.
goods and services by increasing customer value and encouraging value- Consistent with the way of Liao, Lin, Luo, and Chea (2016), to en-
creating behaviors such as increased consumption, greater loyalty, engage- sure precision and clarity, a preliminary version of the instrument was
ment, or product advocacy”. The perceived value is important in a ga- reviewed by two doctoral students and three experts in the e-commerce
mification context. Furthermore, within the gamification context, users field. Subsequently, the instrument was pretested and administered to
are often interested in a task (e.g. reading) with a badge system. They 47 selected respondents of different genders, ages, and levels of edu-
receive a badge for viewing and showing information to others, and can cation to verify appropriateness and comprehensiveness. Each re-
realize the requirements for getting a badge. Thus, they are not sur- spondent had more than 3 years of experience in online shopping. In
prised when they earn one. As Hamari et al. (2014) indicated, badges this way, the content validity of the instruments was evaluated. None of
have been one of the most common mechanics explored in gamification these phases revealed any significant problems. Additionally, consistent
studies, and have been investigated in a variety of contexts. Thus, we with the way of Yan, Wang, Chen, and Zhang (2016), after the initial
develop the GMAs for an online bookstore, as follows. survey refinement, we performed a pilot test with 47 responses to en-
A certain online bookstore has recently advertised an activity sure the acceptable reliability and validity of the instrument. SPSS
known as “My Thoughts on This Book”. Online members use the format Statistics Version 20 was used to check the reliability. Cronbach's alpha
of “company name Talk @ book name” to serve as a headline and post of each variable, as well as the entire questionnaire, is greater than the
their thoughts on best-selling books on the Facebook fan page of the recommended 0.70 level.
online bookstore. The online bookstore then calculates the amount of Moreover, we conducted exploratory factor analysis to measure
“approval, feedback, and sharing” activity for this book. Specifically, in convergent and discriminant validity of the items. We first checked
terms of the same best-selling book, if an online member gathers the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) and
most “approval, feedback, and sharing,” he/she obtains a coupon Bartlett's test of sphericity, and the results confirm that the collected
equivalent to the sale price of this book as a reward in the form of store data are suitable for factor analysis.
credit. (Note: If a certain member responds using two or more methods, Then, we measured the validity of the questionnaire by checking the
the number of responses is recorded as one.) The online bookstore factor loadings, cross loadings, and the average variance extracted
advertises as follows the activity of “My Customer Feedback.” (AVE). The factor loadings for each indicator on its corresponding
construct are greater than 0.70 and higher than the factor loadings on
1. Log in to the website; the online member gets a badge (only once per other constructs, thus supporting convergent validity. For each con-
day). struct, the average variance extracted is greater than 0.5, suggesting
2. If the value of merchandise purchased is over NTD 1000 (USD 30), that the explained variance is more than the unexplained variance
the member gets a badge. (Jalilvand, Samiei, Dini, & Manzari, 2012). The final measures obtained
3. If the online member recommends merchandise to his/her relatives, from the pilot test were used as indicator variables for the main study,
friends, or colleagues, he/she receives a badge. and the final version of the questionnaire items is presented in the
4. If the online member recommends items to his/her relatives, friends, Appendix.
or colleagues, and they actually make purchases, the member gets a
badge. 5.3. Sample and procedure
5. If the online member can gather the most responses of ‘approval,
feedback, and sharing’, the member receives a badge. Subjects for this study were experienced online bookstore pur-
6. If the online member visits the website to reach a multiple of 1000 chasers. To better target the desired subjects and maximize the sample
(2,000, 3,000, 4000 …) visitor, he/she receives a badge. size, consistent with the method of Hajli (2014), a paper- and web-
7. At the end of each month, if a member is in the top ten members based survey questionnaire were used to collect data from volunteers.

126
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

The online version of the questionnaire was set up on a survey portal Table 1
(mySurvey.tw). In designing the webpage for the questionnaire, we Demographic statistics (sample size: 242).
considered different issues to attract participants to become involved in Characteristics Distribution (%)
the research; these included good graphic design and an easy to navi-
gate questionnaire, as well as distribution throughout many forum and Gender
Male 155
online communities such as Facebook. The goal was to attract a variety
Female 87
of participants to this research. Age
In addition, as many people use online bookstores in Taiwan, a < =25 95
convenience sampling approach was used to collect data from in- 26-30 58
dividual volunteers in Taiwan. This approach has also been re- 31-35 36
> =36 53
commended for a quantitative method. Furthermore, consistent with
Education level (completed)
the method of Hsu, Chen, Chang, and Chao (2010), data for the main High school or below 15
study were collected in Taiwan in 2015 by asking respondents who had College 169
experienced online bookstore purchasing within a one-year period to Graduate school or above 58
Occupation
complete paper questionnaires or inviting them by email to participate
Public servant 27
in an online version of the questionnaire. To investigate respondents’ Manufacturing 16
perceptions of value, satisfaction, and brand love in a gamification Business 71
context, selecting only respondents who have experienced online Professional 14
bookstore purchasing within a one-year period is judicious, because Unemployed (e.g. student, retired, housewife) 114
Marital status
such respondents are likely to have clearer recall of their experience
Married 141
with online bookstores. Before conducting the survey questionnaire, all Single 101
respondents were first asked to read the design of GMAs for the online Income
bookstore for about 10 min, and then to complete the survey ques- < =NT$20,000 153
tionnaire. From emails and paper questionnaires distributed through NT$20,001- NT$30,000 21
NT$30,001- NT$40,000 41
different channels, 250 responses were received. Of those, 242 effective NT$40,001- NT$50,000 15
questionnaires were prepared for data analysis; 134 were online and NT$50,001- NT$60,000 4
108 were paper versions. > NT$60,000 8
Additionally, consistent with the method of Wang, Wang, and Liu
(2016), we evaluate potential non-response bias by comparing the early
respondents with later ones based on demographic variables, including 6.1. Manipulation check of GMAs
gender, age, level of education, and monthly income using independent
sample t tests. No significant difference is found between the early and the To measure how successfully this study manipulated the design of
later responses for gender (p = 0.43), age (p = 0.25), or level of education GMAs for the online bookstore, the participants were asked to indicate
(p = 0.36). The constructs of interest for early and late respondents are also the extent to which they found the following four items interesting (1
compared utilizing an independent samples t test. No significant difference and 2) or valuable (3 and 4): (1) participating in the activity of My
is found between the early and the later responses for the constructs of Thoughts on This Book, (2) participating in the activity of My Customer
interest, including entertainment (p = 0.33), interaction (p = 0.26), tren- Feedback, (3) participating in the activity of “My Thoughts on This
diness (p = 0.15), intimacy (p = 0.28), novelty (p = 0.19), hedonic value Book” and obtaining a financial reward, and (4) participating in the
(p = 0.59), utilitarian value (p = 0.44), satisfaction (p = 0.42), brand love activity of “My Customer Feedback” and obtaining a free book reward.
(p = 0.34), positive word-of-mouth (p = 0.58), brand loyalty (p = 0.39), or The results show that participants had higher agreement on the ex-
resistance to negative information (p = 0.16). perience of GMAs for the online bookstore; thus, the design of GMAs for
We also evaluate the overall homogeneity of the sample by com- the online bookstore is an appropriate subject of this study.
paring respondents from the two different questionnaire surveys based
on demographic variables and the constructs of interest using an in- 6.2. Constructs of perceived GMAs
dependent sample t test (Hair, Black Babin, and Anderson, 2010). The
results show that there are no statistically significant differences be- In advance of examining the impact of GMAs on desirable consumer
tween these two different questionnaire surveys in terms of demo- behaviors, the constructs of GMAs are perceived by consumers.
graphic variables, including gender (p = 0.53), age (p = 0.47), or level Consistent with the study of Kim and Ko (2012), confirmatory factor
of education (p = 0.65), or in the constructs of interest, including en- analysis (CFA) is conducted because the dimensions of GMAs are not
tertainment (p = 0.41), interaction (p = 0.36), trendiness (p = 0.55), obviously distinctive according to exploratory factor analysis. Cronba-
intimacy (p = 0.34), novelty (p = 0.29), hedonic value (p = 0.64), ch's α of constructs is assessed to show internal consistency of each
utilitarian value (p = 0.58), satisfaction (p = 0.40), brand love variable. First, a model to test the validity of the activities finds sa-
(p = 0.46), positive word-of-mouth (p = 0.30), brand loyalty tisfactory fit with the data: χ2 = 601.35, χ2/df = 2.23, GFI = 0.92,
(p = 0.60), or resistance to negative information (p = 0.27). These re- AGFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.041 and
sults show that the 242 valid survey responses can be used as a single RMSEA = 0.050. Thus, the five constructs of GMAs are confirmed.
sample in the following analysis. The demographics of valid re- The factor loading of the construct of entertainment is 0.86 and
spondents are presented in Table 1. 0.84, with a high Cronbach's α of 0.87. Factor loadings of interaction
range from 0.80 to 0.87, with a Cronbach's α of 0.82. Factor loadings of
6. Data analysis and results trendiness ranged from 0.88 to 0.92, with a Cronbach's α of 0.90. Factor
loadings of intimacy range from 0.80 to 0.88, with a Cronbach's α of
Statistical software SPSS 18.0 and Smart PLS 2.0 M3 are used for the five items at 0.86. Factor loadings of intimacy range from 0.81 to 0.90,
analyses. With SPSS 18.0, descriptive analysis is applied to analyze the with a Cronbach's α of four items at 0.89. The standardized factor
results of the pretest and to collect the demographic characteristics of loadings of all items in the model are significant (p < 0.001).
the sample, and Cronbach's α is adopted to test the reliability. Using The result shows that any such online bookstore marketing activity
PLS, the measurement model is first analyzed to measure reliability and using gamification mechanisms entertains customers by offering re-
validity, and the structural model is then tested. wards and social network activity, and enables customized information

127
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

searching. GMAs create interaction among users that can lead to in- Table 2
timacy effects and include fashion and trend attributes. Contrary to Loadings and AVEs.
current marketing activities that appeal directly to the value of real Construct Factor loadings AVE
products or services, GMAs focus more on hedonic and empirical value
that can be gotten by indirect user experience. Entertainment (ENT) 0.68
ENT1 0.8124
ENT2 0.7985
6.3. Measurement model analysis Interaction (INT) 0.71
INT1 0.8421
To measure the instrument validation and test the structural model, INT2 0.8354
this study uses Partial Least Squares (PLS), a commonly used structural INT3 0.7888
Trendiness (TRE) 0.73
equation modeling method, through SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Will,
TRE1 0.8944
2005). The PLS structure modeling test technique is able to handle a TRE2 0.8564
small sample and complex predictive model testing with no restriction Intimacy (INTI) 0.78
of normal distribution (Chin, 1998a). Furthermore, as indicated by INTI1 0.8111
INTI2 0.8234
Lohmoller (1989), PLS allows the researcher to test the relationship
INTI3 0.8755
within the measures (the measurement model) and the hypothesized INTI4 0.7998
relationships between the measures (the structural model) simulta- INTI5 0.8001
neously. Additionally, PLS is more appropriate for predictive applica- Novelty (NOV) 0.74
tions and theory building (Chin, 1997). To ensure the proper use of this NOV1 0.8897
NOV2 0.8546
technique, this study follows the general procedures indicated by Chin
NOV3 0.8744
(1998b). NOV4 0.8032
The data are evaluated by using tests of convergent validity, dis- Hedonic value (HV) 0.69
criminant validity, and reliability using commonly accepted guidelines. HV1 0.8412
The data are first analyzed with the initial construct validity tests. This HV2 0.8028
HV3 0.8433
paper examines factor loadings of variables to examine whether items HV4 0.8222
are loaded cleanly on separate components and to find evidence of Utilitarian value (UV) 0.66
cross-loading among items. UV1 0.8637
As all of the scales used in this research model are reflective in UV2 0.8913
UV3 0.8678
nature, multi-item scales are used to measure the constructs.
UV4 0.8321
Exploratory factor analysis is conducted to view item loadings, cross- Satisfaction (SAT) 0.67
loadings, and average variance extracted (AVE). To assess the con- SAT1 0.8811
sistency across multiple items, a convergent validity test is performed. SAT2 0.8097
Convergent validity is confirmed when the items load much higher on SAT3 0.8169
Brand love (BL) 0.66
their hypothesized construct than any other constructs (Herath & Rao, BL1 0.8713
2009; Loch, Straub, & Kamel, 2003). All items have a loading above the BL2 0.8764
threshold of 0.7 (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003), and show con- BL3 0.8845
vergent validity (see Table 2). AVE exceeding the threshold of 0.5 for all BL4 0.8099
BL5 0.8571
constructs is used in the study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
BL6 0.8609
Discriminant validity is established when the square root of AVE for BL7 0.8755
each construct is greater than the inter-construct correlation corre- BL8 0.8691
sponding with diagonal correlations of the construct to their latent BL9 0.8741
variables (Loch et al., 2003). As shown in Table 3, the square roots of BL10 0.8594
Brand loyalty (BLY) 0.70
AVE for all the constructs are greater than all other inter-construct BLY1 0.8777
correlations. BLY2 0.8699
To analyze reliability of the measurement model, the initial relia- BLY3 0.8289
bility scores from SmartPLS are obtained. The Cronbach's alpha and BLY4 0.8369
Positive word-of-mouth (POWM) 0.71
composite reliability are examined to ascertain the internal consistency
POWM1 0.8753
among the data. While Cronbach's alpha provides a lower bound esti- POWM2 0.8412
mate of the internal consistency, the composite reliability is a more POWM3 0.8521
demanding estimate of reliability (Chin & Gopal, 1995). A score greater POWM4 0.8439
than 0.70 is acceptable for the composite reliability scores of the re- Resistance to negative information (RNI) 0.68
RNI1 0.8794
flective variables for each construct (Gefen & Straub, 2005). As shown RNI2 0.8911
in Table 4, each construct has a Cronbach's alpha and composite re- RNI3 0.8654
liability greater than 0.7. Also, as proposed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, RNI4 0.8321
Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), the observed relationships are potentially
affected by common method bias (CMB) because of the self-reported
nature of collected data. The Harman's one-factor test shows that the
first construct only accounts for 31.69% of the variance, indicating that fit index), NFI (normed-fit index), SRMR (standardized root mean
CMB is unlikely to be of serious concern (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). square residual), and RMSEA (root-mean square error of approxima-
Next, to check whether the measurement model has a good fit with tion). The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that the mea-
the collected data, this study also conducts confirmatory factor analysis. surement model fits the data well, χ2 = 587.24, χ2/df = 2.17,
Consistent with structural equation modeling recommendations, this GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.043 and
study uses covariance matrices of observed variables as input, and RMSEA = 0.056. All the model-fit indices exceed the acceptance levels,
evaluates overall fit based on a χ2 goodness-of-fit test, GFI (goodness- indicating that the measurement model has a good fit with the collected
of-fit index), AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit statistic), CFI (comparative- data.

128
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

Table 3
Discriminant validity analysis.
ENT INT TRE INTI NOV HV UV SAT BL BLY PWOM RNI

ENT 0.852
INT 0.265 0.812
TRE 0.365 0.512 0.823
INTI 0.254 0.336 0.269 0.814
NOV 0.412 0.367 0.369 0.354 0.822
HV 0.336 0.367 0.412 0.367 0.412 0.841
UV 0.365 0.512 0.323 0.336 0.367 0.412 0.833
SAT 0.369 0.365 0.512 0.365 0.512 0.323 0.369 0.823
BL 0.357 0.254 0.336 0.367 0.412 0.284 0.357 0.378 0.815
BLY 0.385 0.354 0.365 0.512 0.323 0.365 0.512 0.323 0.512 0.822
PWOM 0.299 0.365 0.254 0.336 0.269 0.254 0.336 0.269 0.336 0.416 0.814
RNI 0.384 0.254 0.412 0.367 0.369 0.412 0.367 0.369 0.387 0.411 0.319 0.811

Note: The diagonal means the square root of AVE.

Table 4 Hence, the results indicate that the model has a satisfactory level of
Reliability analysis. explanatory power.
Construct Composite reliability Cronbach's α

GMA 7. Conclusions
ENT 0.8896 0.8356
INT 0.8795 0.8198 7.1. Summary and discussion
TRE 0.9253 0.8865
INTI 0.8798 0.8564
NOV 0.8875 0.8611 Given the importance of GMAs to online bookstores, understanding
HV 0.8756 0.8536 ways to increase desirable consumer behaviors is a crucial part of a
UA 0.9021 0.8745 successful online marketing strategy. Although behavioral intentions
SAT 0.8879 0.8597
and behaviors have been investigated in the online bookstore context
BL 0.8964 0.8722
BLY 0.9169 0.8814 (Lin, 2007), very few studies have discussed desirable consumer be-
PWOM 0.9012 0.8758 haviors in the GMAs context. The findings of this study fill this gap by
RNI 0.8876 0.8611 showing the significant effects of experience of GMAs on desirable
consumer behaviors. Specifically, this is the first study to investigate the
experience of GMAs including the five elements of entertainment, in-
6.4. Structural model analysis teraction, trendiness, intimacy, and novelty, and we theoretically and
empirically demonstrate that the experience of GMAs has particular
The path of the structural model is evaluated by using the boot- effects on desirable consumer behaviors.
strapping function of Smart-PLS 2.0 M3 with 5000 iterations. The Second, the current study extends existing knowledge of online
summary of path results, corresponding t-values and the estimated p- bookstores and contributes to the gamification marketing field.
value associated with each t-value is presented in Table 5, which shows However, the ability of gamification to elicit desirable consumer be-
that all paths are significant at the 0.05 level. Namely, all proposed haviors, particularly in the GMA context, has yet to be formally as-
hypotheses are supported. Furthermore, by examining how the model sessed. This study theoretically and empirically demonstrates that the
fits, R2 values show that almost 48% of variance in the consumer de- experience of GMAs is effective in explaining the subsequent desirable
sirable behavior is contributed by brand love, meaning that consumer consumer behaviors. Thus, this study extends GMA to the field of de-
desirable behavior is affected by brand love. The R2 for brand love sirable consumer behaviors and provides an insightful theoretical lens
means that almost 64% of variance in relationship quality is con- for future research.
tributed by customer satisfaction, utilitarian value, and hedonic value. Third, for the further exploration of the desirable consumer

Table 5
Results of structural model.
Path Expected sign Path coefficient (β) t-value Sig. Relevant hypothesis

Experience of GMAs→HV + 0.425 5.631 0.000 H1 is supported

Experience of GMAs→UV + 0.356 4.025 0.000 H2 is supported
HV→CS + 0.510 6.574 0.000 H3 is supported
UV→CS + 0.467 5.986 0.000 H4 is supported
HV→BL + 0.397 4.428 0.000 H5 is supported
UV→BL + 0.285 3.971 0.000 H6 is supported
CS→BL + 0.412 5.518 0.000 H7 is supported
BL→BLY + 0.532 6.988 0.000 H8 is supported
BL→PWOM + 0.573 7.219 0.000 H9 is supported
BL→RNI + 0.486 6.055 0.000 H10 is supported

129
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

behaviors of online bookstores, the current study also contributes to the non-game context, to change customers' participation and engagement
field of marketing for online bookstores by investigating the important behaviors. Moreover, to maximize the payoff from GMA investments,
role of brand love. Specifically, this study identifies the relationships companies need to assess their current marketing campaigns and ex-
between antecedents (i.e., utilitarian and hedonic value) and con- amine their effects on users' perceptions and behaviors.
sequences (i.e., desirable consumer behaviors) of brand love in an on-
line gamification marketing context. Although prior literature has ex- 8. Limitations and directions for future research
plored the antecedents and consequences of brand love (Carroll &
Ahuvia, 2006), to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to This study has several limitations which offer possible suggestions
empirically investigate the original five factors of experience of GMAs, for future research. First, the use of a limited market sample and in-
especially in the online bookstore context. Our inclusion of the utili- dustry category (i.e., online bookstore) limits the generalizability of
tarian and hedonic value contributes to the GMA context by demon- these findings to other service contexts. Thus, future studies might ex-
strating the mediating effects of utilitarian and hedonic value between amine the research model's applicability to other service contexts, such
GMAs and brand love. as e-banking and online booking services, to assess the generalizability
of these findings. Second, although the five constructs of perceived
7.2. Managerial implications GMAs were derived from prior literature, and their validity was con-
firmed in this study, discovering other dimensions could be necessary in
The findings of this study provide several practical implications for other contexts and with different types of consumers (Rodrigues et al.,
investment in and design and marketing of gamification. First, the re- 2016). Third, the experiment was a makeshift service in which re-
sults show that GMAs reliably influence utilitarian and hedonic value, spondents were asked to undertake a hypothetical scenario of a badge
and indirectly influence satisfaction, brand love, and ultimately desir- system, and they were aware of the temporary nature of the service. As
able consumer behaviors through utilitarian and hedonic value. Hence, indicated by Koivisto and Hamari (2014), using self-reported data
the research model provides much needed guidance about the complex might potentially reflect novel and glorified attitudes towards the idea
interrelationship among GMAs, user's perceptions of value, satisfaction, of using game mechanics. Thus, future studies might consider con-
brand love, and desirable consumer behaviors. The research model also ducting a field experiment in a real existing service to achieve a higher
provides a mechanism for understanding the relative impact of detailed level of validity. Finally, empirical findings in this study were drawn
GMAs, which provides important direction for managers of online from a sample of Taiwanese online bookstore customers, who are in-
businesses. For example, the proposed model can help managers of novative in use of technology and are fans of bookstore brands. How-
online businesses understand the effects of GMAs on desirable con- ever, Western consumers mostly use bookstore brands' social media due
sumer behaviors. Based on this understanding, managers of online to the challenges in language. Even though Taiwan is a test market for
businesses can consider the design of GMAs and determine what kinds online bookstores in the Asian market, it is necessary to replicate this
of changes have the most meaningful impacts on potential consumers. study's findings with customers of alternative online bookstore brands.
In summary, this study increases the possibility that online retailers can
use gamification strategies to better manage “desirable” consumer be- Acknowledgments
havior. In the early stages of establishing a relationship with their
customers, marketing managers should pay considerable attention to This work was partially supported by Ministry of Science and
GMAs. GMAs should incorporate the mechanics of gaming, applied to a Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under grant MOST 103-2410-H-034-017-.

Appendix. scale items

Construct Adapted item Citation

Entertainment ENT1. Participating in Internet bookstore activities and obtaining rewards (e.g., books Kim and Ko (2012)
or money) is fun.
ENT2. Activity contents shown in Internet bookstores seem interesting.
Interaction INT1. The Facebook page of the Internet bookstore enables information sharing with Kim and Ko (2012)
others.
INT2. Conversations or opinion exchanges with others are possible through the
Facebook page of the Internet bookstore.
INT3. It is easy to deliver my opinion through the Facebook page of the Internet
bookstore.
Trendiness TRE1. Contents (e.g., activities or products) shown in the Internet bookstore are the Kim and Ko (2012)
latest information.
TRE2. Purchasing from the Internet bookstore is very trendy.
Intimacy INTI1. I enjoy my time at the Internet bookstore and feel at ease. Chelune and Waring (1984)
INTI2. I think of the Internet bookstore as a friend. and Tomasi (2007)
INIT3. I choose the Internet bookstore without any hesitation when purchasing goods
on the Internet.
INTI4. I feel a sense of intimacy with the Internet bookstore.
INTI5. I feel purchasing goods from the Internet bookstore is a very important part of
my consumption life
Novelty NOV1. The Internet bookstore is imaginative. Huang (2003)
NOV2. The Internet bookstore is surprising.
NOV3. The Internet bookstore is innovative.
NOV4. The Internet bookstore is new.

130
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

Hedonic value HV1. Making a purchase from the Internet bookstore totally absorbs me. Overby and Lee (2006)
HV2. This Internet bookstore doesn't just sell product or services—it entertains me.
HV3. Making a purchase from the Internet bookstore “gets me away from it all.”
HV4. Making a purchase from the Internet bookstore truly feels like an “escape.”
Utilitarian value UV1. The prices of the products and/or services I purchased from the Internet Overby and Lee (2006)
bookstore are at the right level, given the quality.
UV2. When I make a purchase from the Internet bookstore, I save time.
UV3. The products and/or services I purchased from the Internet bookstore were a
good buy.
UV4. This Internet bookstore offers a good economic value.
Satisfaction SAT1. I am satisfied with the Internet bookstore. Maxham and Netemeyer
SAT2. Overall, I am not satisfied with the Internet bookstore. (−) (2003)
SAT3. How satisfied are you with the Internet bookstore?
Brand love BL1. This is a wonderful Internet bookstore brand. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006)
BL2. This Internet bookstore brand makes me feel good.
BL3. This Internet bookstore brand is totally awesome.
BL4. I have neutral feelings about this Internet bookstore brand. (−)
BL5. This Internet bookstore brand makes me very happy.
BL6. I love this Internet bookstore brand!
BL7. I have no particular feelings about this Internet bookstore brand. (−)
BL8. This Internet bookstore brand is a pure delight.
BL9. I am passionate about this Internet bookstore brand.
BL10. I'm very attached to this Internet bookstore brand.
Positive word-of- PWOM1. I have recommended this Internet bookstore brand to lots of people. Maxham and Netemeyer
mouth PWOM2. I “talk up” this Internet bookstore brand to my friends. (2003)
PWOM3. I try to spread the good word about this Internet bookstore brand.
PWOM4. I give this Internet bookstore brand tons of positive word-of-mouth
advertising.
Brand loyalty BLY1. This is the only Internet bookstore brand that I will buy from. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006)
BLY2. When I go shopping, I don't even notice competing Internet bookstore brands.
BLY3. If the Internet bookstore is out of the merchandise that I want to buy, I'll
postpone buying.
BLY4. If I don't buy at the Internet bookstore, I will not buy from another Internet
bookstore.
Resistance to negative RNI1. Negative information about the Internet bookstore does not change my general Eisingerich et al. (2011)
information view of the firm
RNI2. I readily change my view of the Internet bookstore based on negative
information about it
RNI3. Negative information about the Internet bookstore has no effect on me.
RNI4. Negative information about the Internet bookstore changes the way I think of the
firm. (−)

References satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311–329.
Blohm, I., & Leimeister, J. M. (2013). Gamification. Business and Information Systems
Engineering, 5(4), 275–278.
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, A. S. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Butz, H. E., Jr., & Goodstein, L. D. (1996). Measuring customer value: Gaining the stra-
Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16. tegic advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63–77.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585. Chelune, G. J., & Waring, E. M. (1984). Nature and assessment of intimacy. In P.
Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). The love prototype revisited: A qualitative exploration of contemporary McReynolds, & G. J. Chelune (Eds.). Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 277–
folk psychology. Working paper. 311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When consumers love their Cheng, S. (2011). Comparisons of competing models between attitudinal loyalty and
brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61, behavioral loyalty. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10),
1062–1075. 149–166.
Aron, A., Tudor, E. N., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the Chen, S. C., & Lin, C. P. (2015). The impact of customer experience and perceived value
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. on sustainable social relationship in blogs: An empirical study. Technological
Aro, K., Suomi, K., & Saraniemi, S. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of destination Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 40–50.
brand love–A case study from Finnish Lapland. Tourism Management, 67, 71–81. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian moti-
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic vations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.
and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644–656. Chin, W. W. (1997). Overview of the PLS method. available at: http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32–39. chin/PLSINTRO.HTM, Accessed date: 1 January 2017.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Chin, W. W. (1998a). The partial Least squares approach to structural equation modeling
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of con- Chin, W. W. (1998b). Commentary: Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling.
sumers attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Importance of beliefs. Data
1–16. Base Advances, 26, 42–64.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expecta- Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent
tion-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information

131
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

Systems Research, 14, 189–217. Herath, T., & Rao, H. G. (2009). Protection motivation and deterrence: A framework for
Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of security policy compliance in organisations. European Journal of Information Systems,
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504. 18(2), 106–125.
Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. A., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B. Higie, R. A., Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). Types and amount of word-of-mouth
(2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing, 63, 260–278.
1621–1625. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
Cramer, L., & Antonides, G. (2011). Endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian food methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
products. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 3–10. Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016).
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34,
value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service en- 25–36.
vironment. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. Holt, D. B. (1997). Post-structuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social pat-
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: terning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4),
Harper and Row. 326–350.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common,
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141–148.
Dawon, S., Bloch, P. H., & Ridway, N. W. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states, and Hsieh, J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing con-
retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408–427. tinued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and dis-
Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments ex- advantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 97–126.
amining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, Hsu, C. L., & Chen, M. C. (2018). How does gamification improve user experience? An
125(6), 627–668. empirical investigation on the antecedences and consequences of user experience and
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. its mediating role. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 118–129.
New York, NY: Plenum. Hsu, C. L., Chen, M. C., Chang, K. C., & Chao, C. M. (2010). Applying loss aversion to
Deng, L., Turner, D., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and investigate service quality in logistics: A moderating effect of service convenience.
continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 60–75. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(5), 508–525.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to Huang, M. H. (2003). Designing website attributes to induce experiential encounters.
gamefulness: Defining ‘‘Gamification’’. Proceedings of MindTrek. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 425–442.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective.
Yale University Press. Proceedings of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference, Tampere, Finland,
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Consumer loyalty: Towards an integrated conceptual ap- October 3-5, 2012, New York. New York, NY: ACM Press.
proach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in
Drennan, J., Bianchi, C., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Louriero, S., Guibert, N., & Proud, W. (2015). the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31.
Examining the role of wine brand love on brand loyalty: A multi-country comparison. Insley, V., & Nunan, D. (2014). Gamification and the online retail experience. International
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 47–55. Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(5), 340–351.
Dubois, D. J., & Tamburrelli, G. (2013). Understanding gamification mechanisms for Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. Y. (2012). Examining the structural
software development. Proceedings of the 2013 9th joint meeting on foundations of relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward
software engineering (pp. 659–662). ACM. destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination
East, R., Hammond, K., & Lomax, W. (2008). Measuring the impact of positive and ne- Marketing & Management, 1(1), 134–143.
gative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research Jarvenpaa, S., & Todd, P. A. (1997). Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the
in Marketing, 25(3), 215–224. world wide web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(2), 59–88.
Eisingerich, A. B., Rubera, G., Seifert, M., & Bhardwaj, G. (2011). Doing good and doing Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
better despite negative information? The role of corporate social responsibility in value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business
consumer resistance to negative information. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), Research, 59, 974–981.
60–75. Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference of information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal set-
groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), ting in group collaboration environments. Management Science, 56(4), 724–742.
339–348. Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
Etemad-Sajadi, R., & Ghachem, L. (2015). The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
online avatars on e-service quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 81–86. Kesari, B., & Atulkar, S. (2016). Satisfaction of mall shoppers: A study on perceived uti-
Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude: The effect of litarian and hedonic shopping values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31,
emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions. Journal of 22–31.
Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 281–291. Kim, Y. (2015). Assessing the effects of perceived value (utilitarian and hedonic) in LCCs
Feng, Y., Ye, H. J., Yu, Y., Yang, C., & Cui, T. (2018). Gamification artifacts and and FSCs: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Air Transport Management, 49,
crowdsourcing participation: Examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations. 17–22.
Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 124–136. Kim, C., Galliers, R. D., Shin, N., Ryoo, J. H., & Kim, J. (2012). Factors influencing
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), Internet shopping value and customer repurchase intention. Electronic Commerce
117–140. Research and Applications, 11, 374–387.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal Kim, B., & Han, I. (2011). The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents
in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality in a mobile data service environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38,
and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956–974. 2311–2318.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un- Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research,
39–50. 65(10), 1480–1486.
Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from
5–23. gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the Kuo, M. S., & Chuang, T. Y. (2016). How gamification motivates visits and engagement
framework of consumer brand relationships. International Journal of Research in for online academic dissemination – an empirical study. Computers in Human
Marketing, 14(5), 451–473. Behavior, 55, 16–27.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of Kursunluoglu, E. (2011). Customer service effects on customer satisfaction and customer
the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59e109. loyalty: A field research in shopping centers in İzmir city–Turkey. International
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(17), 52–59.
Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the AIS, 16(25), 91–109. Lemon, K. N., White, T. B., & Winer, R. S. (2002). Dynamic customer relationship man-
Guo, Z., Xiao, L., Toorn, C. V., Lai, Y., & Seo, C. (2016). Promoting online learners' agement: Incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision.
continuance intention: An integrated flow framework. Information & Management, Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1–14.
53(2), 279–295. Liao, C., Lin, H. N., Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2016). Factors influencing online shoppers'
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: repurchase intentions: The roles of satisfaction and regret. Information & Management,
A global perspective, seventh ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 54(5), 651–668.
Hajli, M. N. (2014). The role of social support on relationship quality and social com- Lin, H. F. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: An empirical test of
merce. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 87, 17–27. competing theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6, 433–442.
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of Loch, K. D., Straub, D. W., & Kamel, S. (2003). Diffusing the internet in the Arab world:
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478. The role of social norms and technological culturation. Engineering Management,
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A 50(1), 45–63.
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and Lohmoller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Cognitive
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. Science, 4, 333–369.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? –A literature review Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of
of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International shared values and perceived organizational justice on customers' evaluations of
Conference on System Sciences. complaint handling. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 46–62.

132
C.-L. Hsu, M.-C. Chen Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018) 121–133

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of research directions of in-game advertising, advergames, and advertising in social
voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation network games. Journal of Advertising, 42(2–3), 95–112.
Management, 26(4), 388–406. Tomasi, A. (2007). Technology and intimacy in the philosophy of georges Bataille. Human
Oliver, R. L. (1992). An investigation of the attribute basis of emotion and related affects Studies, 30(4), 411–428.
in consumption: Suggestions for a stage-specific satisfaction framework. Advances in Turgut, M. U., & Gultekin, B. (2015). The critical role of brand love in clothing brands.
Consumer Research, 19, 237–244. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(1), 126–152.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Unal, S., & Aydm, H. (2013). An investigation on the evaluation of the factors affecting
McGraw-Hill. brand love. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 76–85.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44. Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C.
Overby, J. W., & Lee, E. J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping L. (1997). Willing to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
value on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, Psychology, 72(6), 1371–1395.
59(10–11), 1160–1166. Van den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Pauwels, P. (2006). The effect of strategic
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out and fast food and tactical cause-related marketing on consumers' brand loyalty. Journal of
restaurant consumption in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 15–25.
23(1), 87–94. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic
two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17. motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
Pesare, E., Roselli, T., Corriero, N., & Rossano, V. (2016). Game-based learning and ga- Research, 11(4), 342–365.
mification to promote engagement and motivation in medical learning contexts. Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers
Smart Learning Environments, 3(5), 1–21. in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method 71–102.
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended Vera, J., & Trujillo, A. (2013). Service quality dimensions and superior customer per-
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. ceived value in retail banks: An empirical study on Mexican consumers. Journal of
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 579–586.
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. Wang, K. (2015). Determinants of mobile value-added service continuance: The med-
Quester, P., & Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/brand loyalty: Is there a link? The iating role of service experience. Information & Management, 52(3), 261–274.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(1), 22–38. Wang, W. T., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, E. R. (2016). The stickiness intention of group-buying
Reimann, M., Castaño, R., Zaichkowsky, J., & Bechara, A. (2012). How we relate to websites: The integration of the commitment–trust theory and e-commerce success
brands: Psychological and neurophysiological insights into consumer–brand re- model. Information & Management, 53(5), 625–642.
lationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 128–142. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 M3. http://www.smartpls.de/, purchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258–270.
Accessed date: 11 September 2015. Wirtz, & Bateson (1999). Consumer satisfaction with services: Integrating the environ-
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Costa, C. J. (2016). Does ease-of-use contribute to the ment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfirmation paradigm.
perception of enjoyment? A case of gamification in e-banking. Computers in Human Journal of Business Research, 44(1), 55–66.
Behavior, 61, 114–126. Yan, Z., Wang, T., Chen, Y., & Zhang, H. (2016). Knowledge sharing in online health
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International communities: A social exchange theory perspective. Information & Management,
Journal of Human-computer Studies, 74, 4–31. 53(5), 643–653.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption values and market choice. Yang, Y., Asaad, Y., & Dwivedi, Y. (2017). Examining the impact of gamification on in-
Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing. tention of engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context. Computers in
Shin, D. H. (2017). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of Human Behavior, 73, 459–469.
things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users. Information & Management, 54(8), Yoo, C. W., Kim, Y. J., & Sanders, G. L. (2015). The impact of interactivity of electronic
998–1011. word of mouth systems and E-Quality on decision support in the context of the e-
Sigala, M. (2015). The application and impact of gamification funware on trip planning marketplace. Information & Management, 52(4), 496–505.
and experiences: The case of TripAdvisor's funware. Electronic Markets, 25(3), Yoo, W. S., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2010). The role of interactivity in e-tailing: Creating value
189–209. and increasing satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 89–96.
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K- Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end
6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353. model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Teo, T. (2001). Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet usage Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game based Marketing: Inspire customer loyalty through
activities. Internet Research, 11(2), 125–137. rewards, challenges, and contests. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Terlutter, R., & Capella, M. L. (2013). The gamification of advertising: Analysis and

133