Mandatory Fun: Consent, Gamification and the Impact of Games at Work

198 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control (2020, background): “…game to algorithmically reward its salespeople for closing deals with customers: warm leads counted as “layups,” whereas cold calls were “jump shots,” and large display screens throughout the office floor showed basketball-based animations tracking the game status (Mollick & Rothbard, 2014).”
Psychological Capital: An Evidence-Based Positive Approach (2017, background): “If involvement is mandatory, it seems that gamification tends to lose its attractiveness and effectiveness (Mollick & Rothbard 2014).”
Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda (2018, background): “In an empirical study, Mollick and Rothbard (2014) found that consent to the addition of games in the workplace was a vital moderator such that the addition of games increased positive affect except when consent was lacking, in which case the addition of game elements decreased positive affect.”
Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance (2015, background): “Individuals tend to be aversive to the idea of “mandatory fun,” and Mollick and Rothbard (2014) demonstrated that gamification is more effective when individuals can choose whether or not to participate.”