“Who cares about fireworks?” – A Study on Digital Coaching, Gamification and Exercise Motivation

Abstract

Digital coaching systems offer users support in their physical training through insights and advice based on the individual's activity data. Often these systems utilize gamification mechanisms to motivate users. In this study we conduct interviews with digital coaching users to understand how digital coaching systems are used to motivate physical activity, what kind of a role gamification plays, and how digital coaching systems should be developed further to better motivate users. We find that data itself is more motivating than gamification mechanisms, that players use data to play their own, internal games; and that data is also used for social purposes. We find that the benefits from digital coaches today are limited and mainly related to accurate exercise tracking and visualization of user data. Gamified elements are used on a low level and not perceived as value-adding by the users; deeper understanding of motivation theory and promoting intrinsic motivation is needed.

Motivational Effects of Gamification Apps in Education: A Systematic Literature Review

“…For instance, a typical game is recognized for its capability to occupy and motivate individuals. Furthermore, Helmefalk et al (2020) stressed that while playing games, people usually experience "supremacy, capability, pleasure and involvement", all of which intrinsically motivate individuals and change their behaviours towards a particular task (Kirmizi & Kirmizi, 2015).…”

Recommendations for Implementing Gamification for Mental Health and Wellbeing

“…Referring to this framework, one can see that most mainstream applications of gamification, such as the “PBL triad” (points, badges, and leaderboards; Chou, 2015 )—as well as commonly mentioned game elements such as progress markers, achievement-based rewards, and so on—rely mostly on agon ( Sicart, 2014 ; Idone Cassone, 2016 ). There is much room for designing and implementing gamification that takes advantage of the appeal of alea , mimesis , and ilinx , particularly in a way that supports intrinsic motivation ( Helmefalk et al, 2020 ) and promotes innate satisfaction with the activities the gamified service is intended to encourage ( Sicart, 2014 ).…”

“…Researchers have suggested that gamification designers could consider incorporating cooperative mechanics ( Helmefalk et al, 2020 ), thereby supporting connections between users. This could be achieved by drawing inspiration from contemporary digital games ( Cheng et al, 2019 ).…”

“…In their study comparing different versions of a pedometer app containing different functionalities, Zuckerman and Gal-Oz (2014) report that while a “quantified” version providing behavioral feedback outperformed baseline (the app in an inactive state with no functionality or interactions), “gamified” versions of the quantified app that added either virtual rewards (points) or social comparison (a leaderboard) did not outperform the quantified version. Similarly, an interview study by Helmefalk et al (2020) found that participants appeared to find the data tracking capabilities of their physical activity trackers more fulfilling than the gamification aspects (badges, fireworks, and social media sharing), as the former supported their basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (from self-determination theory; Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). Interviews with participants in both studies found that most participants did not see the gamification elements as meaningful, with Helmefalk et al (2020) suggesting that this could be because the added gamification elements did not directly address the basic needs of their participants.…”

“…Similarly, an interview study by Helmefalk et al (2020) found that participants appeared to find the data tracking capabilities of their physical activity trackers more fulfilling than the gamification aspects (badges, fireworks, and social media sharing), as the former supported their basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (from self-determination theory; Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). Interviews with participants in both studies found that most participants did not see the gamification elements as meaningful, with Helmefalk et al (2020) suggesting that this could be because the added gamification elements did not directly address the basic needs of their participants. This once again suggests that gamification should be applied in a more theory-driven manner, and that more game mechanics beyond the commonly seen points, badges, and leaderboards be explored to deliver the intrinsically motivating gamelike experience that the term and its definitions promise.…”