Designing Gamification to Guide Competitive and Cooperative Behavior in Teamwork

  • Niko VegtEmail author
  • Valentijn Visch
  • Huib de Ridder
  • Arnold Vermeeren


Teamwork and team performance are increasingly important in business organizations. New types of teams are invented to increase effectiveness at work. Ideally a team works towards the optimal outcome, which is achieved when the individual goal of each team member effectively contributes to the collective team goal. However, in practice, individual concerns may lead to sub-optimal teamwork outcomes due to conflicts and group dynamics (e.g., because of hidden agendas). These individual concerns and the resulting behavior tend to be implicit, resulting in a chaotic process and sub-optimal outcomes. In order to deliver optimal outcomes the collaboration between team members needs to be improved. Structuring the process and aligning individual goals with collective goals through gamification may achieve this. In this chapter a framework for gamification of teamwork is introduced and illustrated by real-life cases from industry.


Cooperative and competitive behaviour Teamwork persuasive game design 



We would like to thank Ludwig Hoeksema and Tim Krechting from Berenschot for providing us the Red team case and critically reviewing this chapter. We thank Michael Bas and Dennis Haak from RANJ serious games for sharing their expertise with us, and Linda van Veen and Bas van Nuland from TU Delft Signature Games for providing extensive information about the game TeamUp. This research is funded within the Creative Industry Scientific Program (CRISP). CRISP is supported by the Dutch Ministry of Education.


  1. Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, B. (2013) Stanford experiment shows that virtual superpowers encourage real-world empathy. Standford report. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from
  6. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deterding, S. (2013). Skill atoms as design lenses for user-centered gameful design. CHI’13. Paris, France: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification. MindTrek’11. Tampere, Finland: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Edwoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(5), 277–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gajadhar, B. J., de Kort, Y. A. W., & Ijselsteijn, W. A. (2008). Shared fun is doubled fun: Player enjoyment as a function of social setting. Fun and Games.Google Scholar
  13. Hackman, R. J. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hackman, R. J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004) MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceeding of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game. San Jose, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification—A service marketing perspective. MindTrek 2012. Tampere, Finland: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2006). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kort de, Y. A. W., Ijsselsteijn, W. A., & Poels, K. (2007). Digital games a social presence technology: Development of the social presence in gaming questionnaire (SPGQ). Proceedings of Presence 2007, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  21. Kozlowski, W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.Google Scholar
  22. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2013). Mandatory fun: Gamification and the impact of games at work. The Wharton School research paper series.Google Scholar
  25. Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Games + Learning + Society 8.0, Madison. Google Scholar
  26. Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rozendaal, M. C., Braat, B. A. L., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2010). Exploring sociality and engagement in play through game-control distribution. AI & Society, 25(2), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). The game design reader: A rules of play anthology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  33. Schmierbach, M. (2010). “Killing spree”: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research, 37(2), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Signature Games. (2009). ‘TeamUp’, TU Delft signature games. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from
  35. van de Vliert, E., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Visch, V., Vegt, N. J. H., Anderiesen, H., & van der Kooij, K. (2013). Persuasive game design: A model and it definitions. CHI 2013 Workshop Designing Gamification. Paris: ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2007). Playing online games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2274–2291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winn, B. M. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  41. Winters, D., & Latham, G. (1996). The effects of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21, 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niko Vegt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valentijn Visch
    • 1
  • Huib de Ridder
    • 1
  • Arnold Vermeeren
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations