4.5 Article

Gamification via mobile applications: A longitudinal examination of its impact on attitudinal loyalty and behavior toward a core service

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 948-964

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21467

关键词

engagement; gamification; loyalty; mobile application

资金

  1. School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management
  2. Fox School of Business
  3. Sport Industry Research Center
  4. Young Scholars Interdisciplinary Grant at Temple University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents findings from a research study on the impact of game design elements on consumer attitudes and loyalty, as well as the underlying processes and motives for using gamified applications. The study reveals how knowledge-focused affordances positively influence consumer loyalty and explains the factors contributing to attitudinal change.
Organizations increasingly use gamification to engage with, and influence, consumers' attitudes and behaviors. In this article, we present findings from a longitudinal, mixed-method research design that (1) examined the extent to which game design elements created by a third-party app lead to increased attitudinal loyalty toward core service providers and (2) sought to explain the underlying processes that invoke attitudinal change. Behavioral data collected from app users indicated that knowledge-focused affordances positively influenced consumer loyalty and explained 11.3% of the variance in attitudinal change. Follow-up interviews revealed that Rewards, Competition, Sense of Achievement, and Gaining Knowledge were representative of consumers' motives for using the app, and Engagement and Identity explained how using the gamified application influenced users' attitudinal loyalty toward the core service. Overall, we contribute to knowledge about how gamified affordances can be used to add value to consumer experiences, both in relation to the gamified consumption experiences, and the focal brand that is serviced by a third-party app.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据