skip to main content
research-article

Incentives, Gamification, and Game Theory: An Economic Approach to Badge Design

Published:15 June 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Gamification is growing increasingly prevalent as a means to incentivize user engagement of social media sites that rely on user contributions. Badges, or equivalent rewards, such as top-contributor lists that are used to recognize a user's contributions on a site, clearly appear to be valued by users who actively pursue and compete for them. However, different sites use different badge designs, varying how, and for what, badges are awarded. Some sites, such as StackOverflow, award badges for meeting fixed levels of contribution. Other sites, such as Amazon and Y! Answers, reward users for being among some top set of contributors on the site, corresponding to a competitive standard of performance. Given that users value badges, and that contributing to a site requires effort, how badges are designed will affect the incentives—therefore the participation and effort—elicited from strategic users on a site.

We take a game-theoretic approach to badge design, analyzing the incentives created by widely used badge designs in a model in which winning a badge is valued, effort is costly, and potential contributors to the site endogenously decide whether or not to participate, and how much total effort to put into their contributions to the site. We analyze equilibrium existence, as well as equilibrium participation and effort, in an absolute standards mechanism Mα in which badges are awarded for meeting some absolute level of (observed) effort, and a relative standards mechanism Mρ corresponding to competitive standards, as in a top-ρ contributor badge. We find that equilibria always exist in both mechanisms, even when the value from winning a badge depends endogenously on the number of other winners. However, Mα has zero-participation equilibria for standards that are too high, whereas all equilibria in Mρ elicit nonzero participation for all possible ρ, provided that ρ is specified as a fixed number rather than as a fraction of actual contributors (note that the two are not equivalent in a setting with endogenous participation). Finally, we ask whether or not a site should explicitly announce the number of users winning a badge. The answer to this question is determined by the curvature of the value of winning the badge as a function of the number of other winners.

References

  1. A. Anderson, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and J. Leskovec. 2013. Steering user behavior with badges. In 22nd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Antin and E. Churchill. 2011. Badges in social media: A social psychological perspective. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. N. Archak and A. Sundarajan. 2009. Optimal design of crowdsourcing contests. In International Conference on Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Chawla, J. D. Hartline, and B. Sivan. 2012. Optimal crowdsourcing contests. In ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Yeon-Koo Che and Ian Gale. 2003. Optimal design of research tournaments. American Economic Review 93, 646--671.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Y. Chen, S. Jain, and D. Parkes. 2009. Designing incentives for online question and answer forums. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC'09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Darrell Duffie and Yeneng Sun. 2007. Existence of independent random matching. The Annals of Applied Probability 386--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. Ghosh and P. Hummel. 2011. A game-theoretic analysis of rank-order mechanisms for user-generated content. In 12th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC'12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Ghosh and P. Hummel. 2012. Implementing optimal outcomes in social computing. In 21st International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Ghosh and P. Hummel. 2013. Learning and incentives in user-generated content: Multi-armed bandits with endogenous arms. In 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS'13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Ghosh and R. P. McAfee. 2011. Incentivizing high-quality user generated content. In 20th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Ghosh and R. P. McAfee. 2012. Crowdsourcing with endogenous entry. In 21st International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Jain and D. Parkes. 2008. A game-theoretic analysis of the ESP game. In Proceedings of Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE'08). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ken Judd. 1985. The law of large numbers with a continuum of IID random variables. Journal of Economic Theory 35, 1, 19--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Edward Lazear and Sherwin Rosen. 1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy 89, 841--864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. B. Moldovanu and A. Sela. 2001. Increasing effort through softening incentives in contests. American Economic Review 91, 3, 542--558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. John Morgan, Dana Sisak, and Felix Vardy. 2012. On the Merits of Meritocracy. Retrieved April 22, 2016 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. L. von Ahn and L. Dabbish. 2008. General techniques for designing games with a purpose. In Communications of the ACM 51, 8, 58--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Incentives, Gamification, and Game Theory: An Economic Approach to Badge Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
      ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 4, Issue 3
      Special Issue on EC'13
      June 2016
      162 pages
      ISSN:2167-8375
      EISSN:2167-8383
      DOI:10.1145/2905047
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 June 2016
      • Accepted: 1 April 2016
      • Revised: 1 December 2015
      • Received: 1 September 2014
      Published in teac Volume 4, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader