Actionable Gamification

by Yu-kai Chou

  Slight Semantic Differences with the Self-Determination Theory

  Intrinsic Motivation versus Extrinsic Motivation is a popular topic within the gamification space and was heavily popularized by Daniel Pink’s book Drive224. The book explores how instead of being motivated by money (Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession) and punishment (Core Drive 8: Loss & Avoidance), people are motivated more by Purpose, Autonomy, and Mastery.

  While I believe Drive, as well as the Self-Determination Theory it advocates, are fantastic, I should point out that my terminology differs slightly from Pink on what Intrinsic Motivation consists of.

  When a basketball player practices by shooting hoops a thousand times a day, their motivation is to achieve Mastery, something that is characterized as Intrinsic Motivation within Pink’s theories225. However, within the Octalysis Framework, the activity itself is still monotonous and boring. It is only motivating because the athlete has a goal - an extrinsic motivation. That said, we will look at how Self- Determination Theory connects with White Hat Motivation within my framework in the next chapter.

  Here is the test I usually apply to determine if something is extrinsically or intrinsically motivated: if the goal or objective were removed, would the person still be motivated to take the Desired Action or not?

  In other words, at the end of the day, if the basketball player knows that whatever they do, they will lose all “progress” and everything obtained or accumulated, would they still choose to shoot hoops?

  Social hangouts and creative activities, such as solving fun puzzles, will pass the test for intrinsic motivation. However, accumulating goods, earning points, or even progressing towards mastery would likely not. What would you spend time doing if you knew the world was surely going to end tomorrow? It would be unlikely that you will decide to practice shooting basketball hoops - though you may decide to play a game of basketball with those you love and care about.

  Again, these are simply differences in terminology and grouping, not a fundamental difference in beliefs about what motivates people. Daniel Pink only differentiates between Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation, while I classify using the extra dimension of White Hat versus Black Hat motivation (you will soon see that Mastery falls into the White Hat camp of motivation). Hence our categorization and language differ slightly, while our overall beliefs in the nature and effectiveness of these drives do not.

  In a similar fashion, Michael Wu, Chief Scientist of the engagement platform Lithium, differentiates between Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation and Intrinsic/Extrinsic Rewards226.

  Motivation is what drives us to do any action, and Rewards are what we obtain once we perform the Desired Action.

  A person may receive Intrinsic Rewards after performing a certain task, such as gaining the appreciation of others or feeling a sense of accomplishment. However, since Intrinsic Motivation is derived from the activity itself without concern for the future outcome, if a person does something for any reward, including any Intrinsic Reward, it is not based on Intrinsic Motivation.

  This is slightly tricky to comprehend, but along the lines of Michael Wu’s concepts, Core Drive 2: Development & Accomplishment may utilize Intrinsic Rewards, but ultimately does not focus on Intrinsic Motivation. The Left Brain Core Drives are result (goal) focused, while the Right Brain Core Drives are process (journey) focused. Core Drive 2 focuses on progress and achievements, and as a result is based on Extrinsic Motivation in my framework.

  Motivation Traps in Gamification Campaigns

  Most gamification campaigns typically employ loyalty programs, badges, progress bars, and prize rewards, which focus on Left Brain Core Drives. This is because it is much easier to add an extrinsic reward to a desired activity than to actually make the activity intrinsically fun or enjoyable.

  However, there are many motivational traps which result from using too many Extrinsic Motivation techniques at the expense of Intrinsic Motivation227.

  Let’s pretend for a moment that I love to draw and drew very often without any compensation. Research has shown that one of the best ways for you to make me stop drawing is to first pay me to do it and then stop paying me after a certain time period228.

  In fact, from my own experience, I believe that a more effective way is for you to pay me successively less until you reached a very insulting amount - say $0.02 per drawing. At that point, I would feel insulted and no longer have any desire to continue drawing, even though I happily drew for free prior to meeting you. This is because the Intrinsic Motivation of drawing for joy through Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback, has now been shifted to an Extrinsic Motivation of drawing for money through Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession.

  As the pay decreased, drawing simply became less worthy of my time. Technically this is referred to as an “Overjustification Effect” - I become primarily engaged with the reward which subsequently eradicates and replaces the intrinsic motivation I originally had in the first place.

  What’s worse, if you still paid an acceptable amount for my drawings, say $20, more often than not, I would become incentivized to render the quickest, unrefined drawings possible in order to maximize the amount of money I would make. In essence, as long as I still get paid, I would have less focus on the quality of the work compared to the completion of the work. In fact, many studies have shown that Extrinsic Motivation, such as paying people money to perform a task, actually lowers the creative capability to perform the task.

  Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational, demonstrated in his experiments that people who were paid the most (5 months pay) for performing some relatively quick tasks performed far worse than people who were paid much less (only one day or two weeks pay for doing the same tasks)229.

  When people are thinking about the money, it distracts their focus from performance. Even the London School of Economics, after many experiments, concluded that, “’We find that financial incentives may indeed reduce intrinsic motivation and diminish ethical or other reasons for complying with workplace social norms such as fairness. As a consequence, the provision of incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”230

  This is because when we are doing something for Extrinsic Motivators, our eyes are set on the goal, and we try to use the quickest and most effortless path possible to reach it. As a consequence, we often give up our abilities to be creative, think expansively, and refine our work.

  Daniel Pink states that, “Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus. That’s helpful when there’s a clear path to a solution. They help us stare ahead and race faster. But ‘if-then’ motivators are terrible for challenges like the [creative] candle problem.”

  Of course, in routine and mundane tasks that don’t require any creativity and hold little Intrinsic Motivation to begin with, Extrinsic Motivation does often increase performance and results because of the goal-driven focus it generates. Dan Ariely points out in his New York Times article, “What’s the Value of a Big Bonus”231, “As long as the task involved only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance,” but if the task required any “rudimentary cognitive skill,” a larger reward “led to poorer performance” within his experiments.

  The Problem with Educational Systems

  The negative shift from Intrinsic Motivation to Extrinsic Motivation is a big issue within our educational systems.

  I hold a firm belief that we as a species are endowed with an innate desire to learn, often driven by Core Drive 7: Unpredictability & Curiosity - a Right Brain Core Drive, and Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback - the Right Brain desire to use that knowledge in different ways. However, when it comes to school and training, that intrinsic motivation to learn quickly shifts into the extrinsic desire to obtain good grades, appease parents and teachers, gain respect from classmates, and secure prestigious, career-requisite diplomas. All of which are powered by Left Brain Core Drives such as Core Drive 2 and 4.)<
br />
  Because of this, students often stop caring about the learning itself and do the minimum amount of work to achieve those extrinsic results (which sometimes involves copying each others’ home work or cheating on tests). They may even forget why they are learning the material in the first place.

  In early 2014, I had a research interview with a high school senior student on a variety of games. He was an overachieving student who was finishing high school two years earlier than his peers. He knew just about everything there was to know concerning the elite universities he was applying to. Over the course of our conversation, he stated (paraphrasing of course), “Well, Stanford is great at these things, but I’m not sure about this. Harvard is okay on this subject matter, but they have an amazing program that could help my future.”

  Then, somewhere in the conversation, I mentioned that math is a very useful subject to prepare for one’s career. To my surprise, this teenager who was polite and enthusiastic the entire time suddenly responded in an almost disdainful way:

  “Come on Yu-kai. When do people ever use advanced math after graduating from school?”

  I felt I had to justify myself: “I’m serious. Math is really useful. If you want to be a scientist, you need to use a lot of advanced math.”

  His eyes widened up. “Really?”

  “Yeah, of course. You need math to calculate sound waves, gravity, satellite positioning information and such. Also, you need math if you want to become an engineer, economist, or even an accountant. How else would you tell the President that the economy would dry up if he doesn’t bail out certain banks for nine billion dollars, or calculate how many days it takes for an asteroid the size of Texas to hit earth?” I said.

  He exclaimed, “Wow, I never thought about that, but it makes a lot of sense!”

  So here is a teenager who is doing everything he is supposed to do – get good grades, get good SAT scores, participate in extracurricular activities, write strong essays on his college applications, and research the schools he wants to attend. And yet, he does not know why he is studying math beyond the goals of getting into a good college and perhaps securing a good job.

  It was eye-opening for me to see how bad the impact of goal-oriented education was on our learning. I can say this from my own experience: many students who neglect school and get in trouble all the time aren’t like that because they are stupid or dislike learning. They just don’t see the purpose of learning the subjects that are taught in class.

  All too often, this tendency is even present at the college level. I do a fair amount of work with universities to improve their educational methodologies. I often ask professors about the students that attend their office hours. If humans were so passionate about learning, you would expect that these students should be thrilled that there’s a professor who is brilliant, has spent decades researching a subject, and is dedicating their time just to transfer that knowledge to them!

  With this in mind, every student should be excited about the opportunity to visit every single office hour and pick the professors’ brains. (For some reason, I’ve always felt this phrase to be rather gory in a Hannibal Lecter kind of way).

  As it turns out, the majority of their students that actually show up are only there when they have problems with their grades. Either they are approaching the professor because they are about to fail the course, or because they feel the professor incorrectly graded their tests and want to get their points back.

  As a result of this extrinsic focus, students often forget what they learned immediately after their exams.

  When I was a student, I once told a few friends, “Did you know that, since most people forget 80% of what they have learned after the test, if you simply remember 80% instead of forget 80%, you are immediately four times better than everyone else? That’s not just a 20% or 30% improvement. It’s a 400% improvement! What else can you do to quickly become four times better than others in the same major?”

  To my surprise, my friends responded, “Wow, that’s true Yu-kai! But… what’s the point? We’ve already finished the test.” At the time, I wasn’t sure how to respond to a statement like that, but I’m guessing the most appropriate response would have been, “You’re wrong. You still have to remember it for the Final Exam!”

  You can see that Extrinsic Motivation design and goals has clearly taken its toll on our desire to learn and curiously explore subject matters that benefit our society.

  Pay to Not Play

  Remember when I mentioned that Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback is the golden Core Drive, where people use their creativity and “play”? Often, if you can establish a strong Core Drive 3 element in your experience, it becomes an evergreen mechanic that continuously engages the mind of users without needing to add more content.

  Unfortunately, there are many examples where Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession (in the form of financial rewards) overtake Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback.

  There are studies that illustrate how our creative problem solving skills diminish when we are offered financial rewards. One of the more famous and effective demonstrations is the “Candle Problem” quoted earlier.

  Many of my readers may have seen the Candle Problem in other literature, but if you have not (and thank you for choosing my book over the other literature first!), first take a look at the image below:

  232

  Karl Duncker was the notable psychologist who created the Candle Problem in the 1930s. The goal of the problem was to figure out how to attach a lit candle to a wall using only the tools given, so that the melting wax would not drip on the table.

  Later in the 1960s, a psychologist named Sam Glucksberg divided participants into two groups to solve this problem. One group was promised $5 to $20 if they could solve the problem quickly - not bad for a few minutes of work. The other group was simply told that he was simply having them establish the norms for how long it typically took people to solve the problem.

  I’ll demonstrate the solution to the problem soon, but the originally findings were quite astonishing. It turns out that the people who were offered money to solve the problem took on average, three and a half minutes longer than those who weren’t offered money.233

  Getting paid resulted in the Left Brain Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession overtaking the Right Brain Core Drive 3: Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback, in producing inferior results.

  Before I present the solution, here’s another image of the same problem, just in another setting.

  234

  Remember that we talked about how Extrinsic Rewards enhance focus and increase performance towards straightforward tasks that require less creativity? If the problem is described using the Illustration above, the solution becomes more obvious. With this version, the people who were offered rewards did solve the problem slightly faster than those who weren’t.

  If you haven’t solved the problem yet, don’t worry - since you are in a “book reading” mode and less likely to be intensively focused on problem-solving. The solution is below:

  235

  As you can see, the way to solve the problem is to think “outside the box” and actually use the unassuming box itself.

  When a person is trying to solve the problem for free, the activity resembles play. The mind searches for new, creative ways to do things. This makes the right solution easier to find because the mind is flexible and dynamic.

  In contrast, when a person is offered a reward, the situation immediately becomes one devoid of play. Unless clear, simple directions are laid out for the person, performance will actually decrease because the mind is fixated on completing the assignment.

  How Market Settings Reverse Social Settings

  Giving people financial rewards through Core Drive 4: Ownership & Possession doesn’t simply reduce our intellectual curiosity (Core Drive 7) and our creative problem-solving skills (Core Drive 3), it also shifts the focus away from our social brain (Core Drive 5) to our eco
nomical brain. Depending on the actual goals of the gamification designer, this could become detrimental to the intended outcome.

  In Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely makes it clear that these aren’t just two different ways of thinking; they are completely different behavioral modes that make us act differently in everything we do. Ariely defines these differences as Social Norms versus Market Norms to show the significant contrast between these paradigms236.

  For example, Ariely demonstrated that people were often very willing to perform mundane tasks, leave candy for others, perform free legal work, teach martial arts, solve difficult puzzles, move large pieces of furniture, and work on open source projects, all without any material reward237. This was because their brains were following a social norm mode, “I will do them a favor as we appreciate each other. We take care of each other when we can.”

  But once we offer money for the service, the brain immediately shifts into a market mode norm. If we offer as little as 1¢ for the service, people will feel insulted with the amount of money and not only refuse to perform the activity, but question the social relationship itself. The social ties weaken and break, with everything boiling down to: “Are you paying me my worth to do this for you?”

  Suppose you were willing to do me a favor for free because you genuinely take pleasure in helping me improve my situation. But then I asked you, “Can you do this for me? I can pay you $5.” You are not likely to think that you are getting the pleasure of helping me out as initially intended, and making an extra $5 bonus on top of it. Our brains are either using the Social Norms, or the Market Norms. Once I offer to pay you, you begin to think, “My time is worth much more than $5. This is insulting.”