Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner

driver behavior, perceived motivation and user experience
Zachary Fitz-Walter a, b, *, Daniel Johnson a, Peta Wyeth a, Dian Tjondronegoro b,
Bridie Scott-Parker c, d
a
Games Research and Interaction Design Lab, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Queensland 4001, Australia
b
Mobile Innovation Lab, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Queensland 4001, Australia
c
University of the Sunshine Coast Accident Research, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, Queensland 4556, Australia
d
The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Queensland 4001, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Driving can be dangerous, especially for young and inexperienced drivers. To help address the issue of
Received 28 July 2014 inexperience, a gamified logbook smartphone application was designed and developed for learner
Received in revised form drivers in Queensland, Australia. The application aims to make it easy for learner drivers to record their
1 August 2016
mandatory practice sessions while the added gamification aims to encourage learners to undertake a
Accepted 31 August 2016
wider range of practice. Previous research reported on a lab-based study of a gamified version and a non-
Available online xxx
gamified version of this application. This paper presents an updated design of the application and in-
vestigates the effect of the application when tested in the field. Results are provided from a within-
Keywords:
Gamification
groups field study undertaken with 25 learner drivers over a four-week period, during which the ef-
Gameful fect of the gamification on behavior change, perceived motivation and user experience was studied.
Game design Although results suggest that the gamified logbook was perceived as more enjoyable and motivating
User experience than the non-gamified version, no significant change in behavior was found. This encourages discussion
Learner driver on the effectiveness of gamification to encourage behavior change and the feasibility of using gamifi-
Motivation cation in this particular context.
Behavior change © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Smartphone

1. Introduction
Younger drivers are at a greater risk of death and injury from
road crashes when compared to older, more experienced drivers.
Road crashes are the leading cause of death for persons aged 16e25
years (e.g., OECD & ECMT, 2006; World Health Organization, 2014)
and the second most common cause of disability for male and fe-
male adolescents alike (World Health Organization, 2014). In
Australia in 2013, young drivers aged 17e25 years contributed
21.3% of the fatally-injured drivers (BITRE, 2013). In the Australian
state of Queensland in 2014, 25.1% of all road user fatalities, and
34.7% of all road user hospitalized casualties, arose from a crash
involving a driver aged 17e24 years. These drivers themselves
* Corresponding author. S-Block, QUT Gardens Point, 2 George St, Queensland
4001, Australia.
E-mail addresses: z.fitz-walter@qut.edu.au (Z. Fitz-Walter), dm.johnson@qut.
edu.au (D. Johnson), peta.wyeth@qut.edu.au (P. Wyeth), dian@qut.edu.au
(D. Tjondronegoro), bscottpa@usc.edu.au (B. Scott-Parker).
totaled 18.8% of the state's fatalities (DTMR, 2013), despite only
comprising 12.9% of the licensed population (DTMR, 2014a). In
order to address this issue in Australia, state governments have
employed a range of strategies. In Queensland, Australia, learner
drivers are required to undertake 100 h of supervised driving
practice. Although undertaking 100 h of mandatory practice can be
seen as encouraging a greater amount of driving experience, it
doesn't necessarily encourage a greater variety of practice (Scott-
Parker, Bates, Watson, King, & Hyde, 2011). All drivers should be
able to handle themselves in a variety of different road conditions,
therefore, it is important that learner drivers undertake a wide
range of practice while learning to drive with a supervisor.
This paper presents the design of a gamified logbook application
that has been updated to address usability and playability issues
found in a previous lab-based study (Fitz-Walter, Wyeth,
Tjondronegoro, & Scott-Parker, 2013). A within-groups study was
undertaken in the field using the update design, with 25 learner
drivers recruited as participants. The effect of the updated gamifi-
cation design on behavior change, motivation and user experience

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
0747-5632/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
2 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
was studied. The results of the study suggest that the gamified
logbook was more enjoyable and more motivating than a non-
gamified version. However, no significant effect on behavior
change was measured.
2. Previous research
2.1. Learning to drive
As of July 2007, all learner drivers in the state of Queensland,
Australia under the age of 25, must undertake a minimum of 100 h
of supervised driving experience (including 10 h of driving at night)
before they can apply for a Provisional (intermediate) license
(DTMR, 2014b). In Queensland, practice hours are logged manually
in a large (approx. 16 cm
22.5 cm) logbook. The information
required to be logged for each driving session includes the date, the
time at the start and end of the session, the driving duration (mi-
nutes), the car's odometer at the start and end of the session (ki-
lometers), the license number of the supervising driver, the State in
which the supervising driver is licensed, the car number plate, and
if the person is a registered driving instructor. Once complete, the
logbook is submitted to the state licensing authority, the Depart-
ment of Transport and Main Roads, and audited for accuracy prior
to permitting the young novice driver to undertake their practical
driving assessment. In a previous study (Fitz-Walter et al., 2013) it
was proposed that a transition to a smartphone logbook application
would make this process easier and may be more appropriate for
the technologically-oriented youth of today. A smartphone appli-
cation could also streamline the logging process by using sensors
on the smartphone (e.g., location, time and date) and could backup
data to a server in case the smartphone is broken, lost, or stolen.
Given that a breadth of experience is an important part of driver
safety, it is imperative that learner drivers undertake a wide range
of practice while learning to drive. Although novice drivers repre-
sent those facing the greatest risk of death and injury on the road,
the learning-to-drive stage itself is one the safest periods of any
driving career. This is because learner drivers are required to be
supervised by an experienced driver throughout this period. In the
local context of Queensland, Australia, recent research suggests that
learner drivers should aim to spread the driving practice over the
learning period, be encouraged to continue to practice beyond the
mandated one hundred hours, and drive in a variety of different
circumstances that become progressively more challenging in na-
ture (Scott-Parker et al., 2011). In order to motivate such driving
practice, we employed the use of gamification.
2.2. An overview of gamification
Gamification is a design strategy where game design elements
are used in non-game contexts to encourage behavior change. A
game design element in this sense could include anything from
game aesthetics, such as graphics and progress bars, to complete
games with goals, rules, levels, quests, and achievements
(Deterding, Dixon, Kahled, & Nacke, 2011). Results from previous
studies have generally indicated that adding game elements can
lead to positive behavior change (e.g., Cafazzo, Casselman,
Hamming, Katzman, & Palmert, 2012; Chiu et al., 2009; De
Oliveira, Cherubini, & Oliver, 2010; Farzan et al., 2008; Flatla,
Gutwin, Nacke, Bateman, & Mandryk, 2011; Froehlich et al., 2009;
Fujiki et al., 2008; Gustafsson, Katzeff, & Bång, 2009; Landers &
Callan, 2011; Liu, Alexandrova, & Nakajima, 2011; Thom, Millen, &
DiMicco, 2012). Gamification could also be explored further as a
way to encourage learner drivers to undertake diverse practice.
This theory is supported by a previous lab-based study that
compared a gamified and non-gamified learner logbook application
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
(Fitz-Walter et al., 2013). The results of this study suggested that
there was potential for a gamified logbook to be more motivating
than a non-gamified logbook. However, this study was a
laboratory-based study using drivers who had recently graduated
from learner to provisional (intermediate/restricted) licensure.
Further research in the field is needed with learner drivers in order
to properly evaluate the effect of a gamified logbook application.
2.3. Evaluating the effect of gamification
A popular construct investigated by empirical gamification
studies has been behavior change (e.g., Chiu et al., 2009; De Oliveira
et al., 2010; Fujiki et al., 2008; Landers & Callan, 2011; Li, Grossman,
& Fitzmaurice, 2012). Behavior change has often been measured in
previous studies by recording a participant's time and frequency
spent on a gamified activity. This usage data is generally obtained
automatically by the gamified system using various sensors. For
example, Chiu et al. (2009) created a system that recorded daily
intake of water, and De Oliveria et al. (2010) created a system that
automatically recorded when medication was taken. Gamified us-
age data was often compared with usage data from either a pre-test
or control group. A number of these studies in various domains
have reported that the addition of game elements led to an increase
in desired behavior during the study (e.g., Cafazzo et al., 2012; Chiu
et al., 2009; De Oliveira et al., 2010).
However, behavior change is only one part of a user's experi-
ence. Most software applications also have usability goals, such as
efficiency, learnability, good utility, and ease of use. Other hedo-
nistic user experience goals exist as well, such as entertainment,
fun, and emotional fulfilment (Rogers, Sharp, & Preece, 2011). Some
empirical gamification studies have explored the effect of game
elements on usability (e.g., ease of use). Interestingly, some studies
have reported potential problems; for example, adding game ele-
ments to non-game contexts has led to usability issues (Guin, Baker,
Mechling, & Ruylea, 2012), confused users (Montola, Nummenmaa,
Lucero, Boberg, & Korhonen, 2009), and cheating (Singer &
Schneider, 2012). This suggests that in addition to the effect of
gamification on behavior change, it is worthwhile exploring the
effect of gamification on usability and user experience constructs as
well. Therefore, exploring the use of gamification in this study also
allows for further contributions to be made to this area of research.
3. Gamified learner logbook design
This section briefly describes the first version of the gamified
logbook evaluated in a previous study and then describes the
updated design of the logbook used for the field study.
3.1. First version
A learner logbook smartphone application was developed. This
application allowed learner drivers to record their driving practice
using a smartphone device and view a summary of all previous
practice sessions undertaken. The application made it easy to re-
cord practice by automatically capturing some of the information
required (e.g., start time and location, end time and location,
weather, time of day) using smartphone sensors. A gamification
experience was subsequently designed for the logbook application
by using a gamification design framework proposed in earlier
research (Fitz-Walter et al., 2013). The activity of undertaking a
virtual road trip around Australia formed the basis for the gamifi-
cation experience. A road trip is something often associated with
the primary target demographic, where it can be a coming of age
activity that young people may often undertake when they attain
their license (Tourism Australia, 2014). Using a road trip theme also
 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
provides a clear goal for the user e to make it all the way around
Australia e as well as provide smaller sub-goals, such as visiting
each state in Australia, and also visiting particular towns and
famous tourist attractions within these states. This gamification
design added an extrinsic fantasy layer on top of the process of
learning to drive in an attempt to encourage more regular, diverse
and extended driving practice.
An iterative design process was used where a number of pro-
totypes were created and used to gather feedback from a wide-
range of different people, including game designers and re-
searchers, learner drivers, driving supervisors, and experts in the
field of learner driver research. Rather than being simply reward-
based alone (e.g., drive for 10 h and receive points or a badge) the
road trip design aimed to provide an experience where interesting
choices could be made by the player (e.g., which route should the
player take? which car should the player choose?). A gamification
design document was created (similar to a game design document)
that outlined the story, mechanics, goals, rules, challenges, actions,
feedback, player strategies, and aesthetics of the design. Using the
gamification design document, a digital prototype was created (see
Fig. 1) that could run on iOS devices (iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad).
In this prototype, when learner drivers recorded real-life practice
they received virtual coins which could be used to buy fuel and
items to help them progress along their road trip. Bonus coins were
received when players undertook recording different driving skills
(e.g., reverse parallel parking), drove in different contexts (e.g.,
unsealed road), or practiced regularly (e.g., twice a week), in order
to encourage these desired behaviors.
A combined usability and playability study was undertaken in
order to evaluate the gamified logbook. The design of the gamifi-
cation and outcome of this study are detailed in the previous
publication (Fitz-Walter et al., 2013). To briefly summarize, 12
recent learner drivers were recruited to participate in a combined
usability and playability study testing both a gamified and non-
gamified version of the logbook application. The purpose of this
study was to identify potential usability and playability issues, as
well as compare the experience of the two different versions of the
logbook application. The findings of the study suggested that the
gamified logbook was more enjoyable and motivating than the
Fig. 1. Screenshots from the first road trip logbook prototype for iOS.
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
3
non-gamified logbook. However, participants did no prefer one
version over the other. The results also suggested that the proposed
gamification design added a level of complexity that created
confusion for some participants. Also, some participants noted that
they could potentially cheat by adding practice manually to receive
additional coins.
3.2. Second version
Using the results of this first study, an updated version of the
gamification design is proposed. The overall design has been
simplified while still retaining the same key functionality of the
original application; a logbook, a record practice function, and a
settings view. The updated logbook provides an overview of the
total amount of practice recorded using the application, as well as
details of each individual practice session (see Fig. 2 e left). Further
practice details are provided when a learner taps the total number
of minutes logged (see Fig. 2 e right).
Learners can press the record button at any time to begin
recording a new practice session. After entering the current
odometer reading of the car (see Fig. 3 e left) the application starts
to automatically record practice (see Fig. 3 e middle). Once learners
finish practicing, tapping the stop button allows them to finalize
the session by entering the vehicle details, odometer reading, and
supervisor (see Fig. 3 e right). All other information is calculated
automatically using smartphone sensors and the Internet.
The updated gamification design still encourages learners to
undertake a virtual road trip around Australia. However, rather
than have the learner collect coins to buy fuel to proceed further
along their road trip, the design has been simplified. The learner's
virtual car now drives 1 km for every kilometer the learner drives in
real life. The road trip overview page shows how close learners are
to reaching the next city on the road trip (see Fig. 4). This view also
provides links to a summary of the road trip, a list of friends and
their progress, achievements unlocked, and coins available to
spend.
Coins are still awarded when learners undertook diverse and
regular practice. These bonus coins can be used to upgrade to a
better car. New cars provide various bonuses that help learners
4 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. 2. Updated logbook design.

Fig. 3. Recording a trip.

complete the road trip (see Fig. 5 e left). Additionally, learners can
choose their next destination city for the journey in order to pro-
vide a greater sense of autonomy, as well as allow for some varying
strategy. Learners can often choose between taking a quick route
that is more difficult to travel without an upgraded vehicle, or a
slower route that is easier to travel with any vehicle (see Fig. 5 e
right).
A friends list allows learners to see how their friends who also
have the application are progressing on their own virtual road trip.
This aims to encourage friendly competition and create shared
experiences (see Fig. 6 e left). Learners can also unlock driving
achievements along the way for completing various milestones
(e.g., undertaking 200 h of practice) which provides extra goals for
those interested (see Fig. 6 e right).
After practice is recorded, a virtual road trip screen is displayed
(see Fig. 7 e left). This shows the learner's car travelling to the next

Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10 5

Fig. 4. Road trip overview before and after adding practice.

Fig. 5. Car and map views.

destination on the road trip. This aims to provide a greater sense of information is provided to the learner that instructs them on how
progression, along with a breakdown of bonus coins they received they could receive coins on the next trip. This aims to provide useful
to give strategic feedback. If they did not receive any coins, further feedback to the learner. If the learner unlocks an achievement after

Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
6 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. 6. Friends and achievements view.

Fig. 7. Post-practice road trip summary and achievement unlock views.

Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
practicing then this is displayed using an alert (see Fig. 7 e right).
4. Field study
4.1. Study overview
A field study was undertaken in order to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the updated gamification design. The aim of the eval-
uation was to investigate the effect the updated gamification design
had on the user experience, perceived motivation, and behavior of
the learner. The evaluation also aimed to identify any potential is-
sues with the gamification design. Three hypotheses were formed:
1. We predict that participants will have a more positive user
experience when using the gamified version compared o using
the non-gamified version.
2. We predict that participants will feel more motivated when
using the gamified version compared to using the non-gamified
version
3. We predict that the gamified version will have a positive effect
on behavior when compared to the non-gamified version.
In addition to these hypotheses, two research questions were
also investigated:
1. Does the addition of game elements negatively affect the ease of
use of the gamified application compared to the non-gamified
application?
2. Does the addition of game elements lead to any unintended
consequences compared to the non-gamified application?
The field study ran over four weeks during the months of July
and August 2013. Twenty-five participants undertook the study
(male ¼ 11, 44%; female ¼ 14, 56%). Their ages ranged from 16 to 28
years old, with an average age of 19.44 years (SD ¼ 3.43). All par-
ticipants held a Queensland Learners license during the period of
the study. On average, the participants had held their licenses for 22
months (SD ¼ 19.331). During the study all participants tried both a
gamified version and a non-gamified version of the application for
two weeks each, distributed in a random, counterbalanced order.
Driving practice was automatically captured by the device, and a
questionnaire and interview were administered at the end of each
two-week period to measure the effect of each application. Data
from four participants was unable to be captured due to technical
limitations of their devices, therefore only 21 sets of data were used
for behavior change comparisons.
4.2. Study measures
Driving behavior data was automatically sent to the researcher
each time a participant completed a practice session. In addition to
the amount of practice undertaken, the skills the participant
attempted in each practice session were also captured. The ques-
tionnaire administered to the participant after each two-week
period adopted validated multi-item measurement scales from
Koufaris (2002) for measuring concentration, enjoyment, perceived
control, challenge, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness.
These scales used 7-point, Likert-type responses. Additionally, in
order to measure participants' feelings of engagement and moti-
vation a two-item scale was developed (“While using the logbook
application I found it engaging”, “While using the logbook application I
found it motivating”). To assess the reliability of the additional scales
developed for the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha was calculated
for both the gamified and non-gamified responses and all scales
were found to have acceptable reliability (alpha between 0.7 and
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
7
0.94). A number of additional questions were administered after
the gamified version was used to gather feedback on the experience
of the gamification (e.g., “I found the game elements in this appli-
cation enjoyable”). Short, semi-structured interviews were also
undertaken to gather data to augment usage and questionnaire
findings, and to probe participants further about their experiences.
4.3. Study method
Participants were recruited via a Facebook event page created
for the study and by snowball-sampling techniques. Participants
had to meet two criteria for recruitment: (1) the participant had to
be currently learning to drive in Queensland, Australia, and (2) they
had to own and use an iOS mobile device (iPhone, iPod touch or
iPad) on which to use the application. Participants received a $50
gift voucher to thank them for their participation in the field study.
A 30-min introduction session took place with the participant
either in person or over the phone before the field study. Partici-
pants completed an online questionnaire to provide demographic
information and were interviewed regarding their current practice
habits and experience using the physical logbook. Participants
received one of the two interventions to install, along with an
introduction to the assigned application. Participants were asked to
use the application whenever they undertook driving practice over
the following two weeks. At the end of the two-week period an
online questionnaire was administered and a short, semi-
structured interview took place. Participants were then instructed
to delete the application and were given a link to download the
other version of the application. They were asked to use the alter-
native version for two weeks. The same procedure was followed for
the second intervention with the addition of a number of further
questions which asked participants to compare their experience of
both versions of the application (e.g., “Of the two applications, which
was more motivating to use? Why/Why not?”).
5. Results
To test the hypotheses, and to explore the first research ques-
tion, a series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted
comparing the non-gamified and gamified versions of the appli-
cation. To control the familywise experimental error rate we
applied a Bonferroni adjustment resulting in a required significance
level of 0.0055 for the nine Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Field,
2013). To explore research the second research question the inter-
view results were coded and common themes identified.
5.1. User experience results
The gamified version of the application elicited a statistically
significant median increase in enjoyment (z ¼ 4.037, p < 0.0001,
gamified median ¼ 6, non-gamified median ¼ 5) with 21 partici-
pants reporting a positive difference in enjoyment in response to
the gamified version, 3 participants reporting no difference, and 1
participant reporting a negative difference. There were no signifi-
cant median increases in reported concentration, perceived control,
challenge, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness when
using the gamified version compared to the non-gamified version.
5.2. Motivation results
The gamified version of the application elicited a statistically
significant median increase in reported motivation (z ¼ 2.804,
p ¼ 0.005, gamified median ¼ 6.5, non-gamified median ¼ 5.5)
with 16 participants reporting a positive difference in motivation in
response to the gamified version, 6 participants reporting no
8 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
difference, and 3 participants reporting a negative difference.
5.3. Behavior change
Of the 21 sets of captured data from participants it was found
that the gamified version of the application did not lead to a greater
time spent practicing; no statistically significant difference was
found between the gamified and non-gamified versions (gamified
median ¼ 117 min, non-gamified median ¼ 91 min). Similarly, no
statistically significant difference was found in terms of the total
number of skills recorded at the revised (bonferroni adjusted)
significance level of 0.0055 (z ¼ 2.19, p ¼ 0.029, gamified
median ¼ 1, non-gamified median ¼ 0). Across both conditions
participants reported that a number of factors influenced the
amount of practice undertaken. These factors included the limited
availability of a supervisor, the cost of hiring a professional driving
instructor, external commitments such as school and work
impacting on their time available to practice, and events outside the
control of the learner driver that affected their ability to practice,
such as falling ill.
5.4. Gamification experience results
The results from the coded short answer responses and inter-
view data suggest that the game elements were well received by
participants and that very few gamification design issues arose.
5.4.1. Goal alignment
Participants generally agreed that the game elements aligned
well to the goals of learning to drive. Participants reported that the
game elements linked to the practice sessions well: “It was just good
to see how many kilometers you'd actually done and see how far you
could have actually driven if you did those kilometers in real life” (P2).
In particular, participants discussed how the road trip provided a
sense of progress that was missing from the non-gamified appli-
cation: “I like how it shows you that (distance travelled around
Australia), because a lot of the time if you're just driving around your
neighborhood you don't really realize how far it actually is” (P6), “I like
how it does that (…) it shows you how far you've travelled in real life”
(P6), and “I liked how you could see it sort of going around the map
(…) you can see the progress you were doing, rather than just numbers
in a logbook” (P10).
5.4.2. Cheating
Two participants admitted to cheating during the study, one
participant cheated to progress further in the gamified version, and
the other cheated in the non-gamified version simply to see if he
could. A further six participants admitted in the questionnaire that
they may consider cheating if they continued to use the gamified
version beyond the study, but generally only if it wasn't an official
logbook that could be submitted for review: “It depends, if the road
trip part was official? Then no” (P19), “If it was like just a game then
maybe but because it's about me actually driving, related to the real
world, then I probably wouldn't” (P14) and “No! They would probably
catch me out” (P2).
Although the majority of participants said they would not cheat,
some participants did not necessarily trust other users not to cheat.
But this view seemed to come from the belief that some other
learner drivers currently fake their real practice in the physical
logbook in order to receive their license earlier, not because of game
elements; “I guess people would cheat in real life for hours, but in the
end it's a game” (P9), and “I guess some people may cheat with their
logbook hours to get their P (Provisional) license earlier, but I don't
really see a point” (P6).
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
5.4.3. Potential to distract
Participants were asked in the interview if the added game el-
ements distracted them from practicing. The majority of partici-
pants responded that they did not find the game elements
distracting. This included while driving; “the main aspect of the
application is pressing start and stop at the end, so looking at the game
elements was just where I'd gotten, and how fast I could look through
it. It wasn't in the way during the actual driving time or anything like
that” (P1), “it didn't affect my driving, it was just after the fact that I
wanted to see how far I'd gone and if I earnt any coins” (P2), and “If
you're driving, you don't pay attention to that. You're just paying full
attention to what you're doing e which is driving. And you only see
that after you stop driving. So it wouldn't be distracting at all” (P6).
Participants generally did not find the game elements distract-
ing while using the application; “It takes a little bit more time to pay
attention to it, but it's worth it because you're motivated in the first
place, if that makes sense” (P10), and “It just worked the same for me.
Apart from having the extra bits to play around with to see how far I
could go on the map” (P11). However, one participant thought the
application would be simpler without the game elements; “It's like,
it keeps it simpler (without the game). I play games because I'm in the
mood to play games but if I'm adding another game as well as driving
it sometimes gets me distracted while I'm driving” (P3).
5.4.4. Potential dangers
Participants were asked in the interview if they believed the
game elements did, or could, lead to dangerous driving behavior.
The majority of participants responded that did not believe the
game elements did: “No. I don't see how there could be dangers.
Unless you're driving too long, or using the app whilst you're driving, I
don't see there's anything from using it” (P11), and “No (…) the game
itself doesn't require you to do anything other than drive” (P13). Some
mentioned that they were not dangerous because interaction with
the game elements happened after driving was over: “No I don't
think there's any, because you don't have to be on the game while
driving, so that's not a problem. I think the game's a perfectly safe
addition” (P22), “when you've turned on the app, once you say start, it
will tell you don't touch your phone and nothing will happen until you
turn it off. So it's not invasive to your driving” (P9), and “Not really
because you do that (interact with the game elements) after the drive,
in theory at least. So I don't think it's really a problem, it's safe to drive
with” (P23). However, one participant did mention that they might
think about the game while they drive; “I do like games, but at the
same time I do like having my full attention on driving, because it's
driving and if you're like thinking 'Oh what I'm doing right now could
get me an achievement'” (P7).
5.4.5. Enjoyment
When participants were asked if there was a particular part of
the gamified version they preferred, a number of elements were
mentioned. Some participants mentioned they liked the competi-
tive aspect encouraged by some of the game elements: “it definitely
motivated me to want to practice more because there was that
competition factor” (P8), “I would just want to achieve them all (the
achievements), like to see what happens when you get it and try and
get it before anyone else. I'm so competitive, I love playing games and
beating people” (P8), and “for anyone who's competitive like me, that's
kind of a good thing to have” (P7). Other preferred elements included
achievements, upgrading the car, getting coins, and undertaking
the road trip. Although many thought the game elements were
enjoyable, one participant reported that adding game elements was
an unnecessary addition to an already serious application: “It keeps
it simpler (without the game). I play games because I'm in the mood to
play games but if I'm adding another game as well as driving it
sometimes gets me distracted while I'm driving” (P3).
 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
6. Discussion
The results indicate that adding gamification to this context did
not have negatively affect the user experience, rather a significant,
positive effect was measured on the perceived enjoyment and
motivation of participants. However, there were no significant
differences in participant practice behavior between the two ver-
sions. This suggests that designing an effective gamification solu-
tion is a challenging activity, and that the context and users may
play a role in the effectiveness of a gamification design.
6.1. The gamification did not negatively affect the user experience
In previous research discussed earlier, the addition of game el-
ements had the potential to affect the usability of the application.
Participants in this study reported that the added gamification had
no effect on the ease of use of the application This indicates that
participants found the gamified version just as easy to use as the
non-gamified version. The usability and playability testing under-
taken before this study are likely to have contributed to this result.
These results support the importance of using a user-centered,
iterative design process when designing a gamified experience.
6.2. The gamification enhanced application enjoyment and
motivation
Results suggest that reported enjoyment and motivation
increased when using the gamified version of the application
compared to the non-gamified version. A number of participants
liked the link between the game elements and undertaking practice
in real life. Using the road trip in particular to visualize real life
progress seemed to make the experience more interesting and
motivating for some participants. This suggests that adding game
elements to this context provided feedback and goals that were not
clear or present when using the non-gamified version and thus,
may have led to a more enjoyable and motivating experience.
The questionnaire and interview results also suggest the par-
ticipants enjoyed the game elements. It's also worth noting that
different participants enjoyed different parts of the game, indi-
cating that designing a gamification experience for different types
of users is important. One participant did describe the gamification
experience as underwhelming, because the use of the word 'game'
implied to them that they would be playing a complete gaming
experience comparable to some industry games. This suggests that
attention might be needed when it comes labelling similar
experiences.
6.3. There was little influence on behavior change
Although perceived motivation results were encouraging, both
the total amount of practice and total number of driving skills re-
ported were not significantly different when gamification was
present. Although the gamification was designed to encourage
behavior change, results suggest the addition had no significant
effect on behavior in this study. The small sample size (as well as
the use of a relatively conservative approach to familywise error
correction) might preclude definitive conclusions at this time, but
there may be other influencing factors in this particular context. As
mentioned in the results some participants reported that other
factors affected the amount of practice they undertook; such as the
supervisor availability, the cost of professional driving instructors,
external commitments and external events. However, this does not
necessarily account for the number of different driving skills
undertaken.
Nonetheless, behavior change was not positively influenced.
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
9
Although previous research indicates that gamification can posi-
tively affect behavior, it was not the case in terms of behavioral
outcomes of this study. The results of this study suggest that the
process of designing effective gamification is not a straightforward
process and that the addition of game elements to a non-game
context may not always result in a change of behavior. A previous
review investigating empirical studies of gamification (Hamari,
Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014), found that of the 24 papers reviewed,
most reported positive results for motivation affordances studied.
Of these 24, only two reported that all tests were positive while a
larger number (13) reported only part of the tests were positive.
Using this evidence, Hamari et al. (2014) proposed that the effects
of gamification could be greatly dependent on the context in which
gamification is being implemented, as well as the users that are
using it. And this could be the case for this logbook study e the
context may not be suitable for gamification, or the users may be
less receptive to the design. For example, the context provided a
number of design limitations such as legal limitations on using
mobile devices while driving. Additionally, recording 100 h of su-
pervised driving practice is mandatory for most learners to attain a
driver's license. Being a mandatory task, the perceived autonomy of
the learner is already likely to be low, and as such, the addition of
game elements might not affect behavior. The goal set by this
mandatory task is to undertake 100 h, but maybe this goal is mis-
aligned with what the real goal should be e encouraging the
learner to become a better driver. Therefore, the feasibility of
effectively using gamification in this particular context needs to be
questioned as there are contextual- and user-related issues that
may affect the influence of game elements when added to a
logbook.
6.4. The overall gamification experience was positive
The results suggest that the game elements were well received
by participants and that very few issues arose with the gamification
design. One participant did admit to cheating while using the
gamified application, and the effect of cheating in gamification
experiences like this needs to be considered further. Qualitative
results suggest that very few other participants would cheat
because of the added game elements. Additional participants re-
ported that they would be less likely to cheat if this was an official
logbook application. One other participant noted that the game
elements might lead to distractions while driving. However, this
was more of a concern rather than the participant reporting that
they were personally distracted. Results from other participants
found no issues in terms of the gamification design causing dis-
tractions and dangers while driving.
6.5. Study limitations
A few limitations of this field study include the novelty of the
smartphone application, the length of study, and the number of
participants involved in the study. The novelty factor of both ver-
sions of the application may have contributed to higher enjoyment
results. The length of the study meant that each application was
used for a minimum of two weeks. Although this was a good length
in terms of gathering application data and feedback, a longer study
may have provided a clearer picture of the effect of the gamification
design on long-term behavior change and helped minimise the
impact of external events beyond the control of some learners (e.g.,
falling ill). Having additional participants would help to provide
more significant results.
10 Z. Fitz-Walter et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2016) 1e10
7. Conclusion
This paper presented an updated design of a gamified learner
logbook application and the evaluation of it in a field study. The
results of the study found that the addition of game elements had a
positive effect on the enjoyment and engagement of participants.
Although adding game elements can add a level of complexity to a
system, results also found that the addition of game elements in
this context did not negatively affect the user experience. Perceived
motivation was significantly higher when participants used the
gamified version. We theorize that the iterative, user-centered
design approach used contributed to this. The qualitative results
suggest that the there were few problems with the design of the
gamification and that it was well received by participants. These
positive results alone might suggest that this design is likely to
encourage behavior change, however, there was no significant
change in behavior measured in either total recorded practice or
total recorded skills measured. This is an important finding, sug-
gesting that although the addition of game elements can lead to a
more enjoyable user experience, it does not necessarily mean it will
encourage desired behavior change. This raises important ques-
tions for gamification research, indicating that the addition of game
elements to a non-game context does not always result in behavior
change. These results also question the feasibility of using gamifi-
cation in this particular context. The context itself may not suitable
for gamification (due to various limitations), or the users may be
less receptive to the design (as the task of logging supervised
practice is already a mandatory task). Designing effective gamifi-
cation can be a challenging task, although an enjoyable design may
be created, identifying any contextual- and user-related issues and
predicting the effect on behavior change is likely going to be a
challenge for any gamification designer. Future work for this
particular study would involve revisiting the design to focus on
supporting the personal goals of the learner drivers and running a
longer study with more participants to further solidify the results
found in this study.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of the activities of, and
funded by, the Smart Services Cooperative Research Centre (CRC)
through the Australian Government's CRC Programme (Depart-
ment of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research). The authors
wish to thank the Learner driver experts who provided their time
for the interviews.
References
BITRE. (2013). Australian road deaths database. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://
www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx.
Cafazzo, J. A., Casselman, M., Hamming, N., Katzman, D. K., & Palmert, M. R. (2012).
Design of an mHealth app for the self-management of adolescent type 1 dia-
betes: A pilot study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3).
Chiu, M.-C., Chang, S.-P., Chang, Y.-C., Chu, H.-H., Chen, C. C.-H., Hsiao, F.-H., et al.
(2009). Playful bottle: A mobile social persuasion system to motivate healthy
water intake. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous
computing e Ubicomp ’09 Orlando, Florida, USA (pp. 185e194).
De Oliveira, R., Cherubini, M., & Oliver, N. (2010). MoviPill: Improving medication
compliance for elders using a mobile persuasive social game. In Proceedings of
the 12th ACM international conference on Ubiquitous computing (pp. 251e260).
New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements
to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international
academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp.
Please cite this article in press as: Fitz-Walter, Z., et al., Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of gamification on learner driver behavior,
perceived motivation and user experience, Computers in Human Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
9e15). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
DTMR. (2013). Current Queensland Driver's licences. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/safety/transport-and-road-statistics/licensing-
statistics.aspx.
DTMR. (2014a). Queensland weekly road toll report number 912. Year to date to
sunday 19 july 2015. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/
Safety/Transport-and-road-statistics/Road-safety-statistics.aspx.
DTMR. (2014b). Licensing. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/
licensing.aspx.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A.
(2008). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the
enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 563e572). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fitz-Walter, Z., Wyeth, P., Tjondronegoro, D., & Scott-Parker, B. (2013). Driven to
drive: Designing gamification for a learner logbook smartphone application. In
Proceedings of the first international conference on gameful design, research, and
applications (pp. 42e49). ACM.
Flatla, D. R., Gutwin, C., Nacke, L. E., Bateman, S., & Mandryk, R. L. (2011). Calibration
games: Making calibration tasks enjoyable by adding motivating game ele-
ments. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface
software and technology (pp. 403e412). Santa Barbara, California, USA: ACM.
Froehlich, J., Dillahunt, T., Klasnja, P., Mankoff, J., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., et al.
(2009). UbiGreen: Investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green
transportation habits. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on
Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1043e1052). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Fujiki, Y., Kazakos, K., Puri, C., Buddharaju, P., Pavlidis, I., & Levine, J. (2008). NEAT-o-
games: Blending physical activity and fun in the daily routine. Computers in
Entertainment, 6(2), 21:1e21:22.
Guin, T. D.-L., Baker, R., Mechling, J., & Ruylea, E. (2012). Myths and realities of
respondent engagement in online surveys. International Journal of Market
Research, 54(5).
Gustafsson, A., Katzeff, C., & Bång, M. (2009). Evaluation of a pervasive game for
domestic energy engagement among teenagers. Computers in Entertainment,
7(4), 1e19.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? e A literature
review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii
international conference on system science (pp. 3025e3034). USA: IEEE.
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to
online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205e223.
Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual Social Games as Serious Games: The
Psychology of Gamification in Undergraduate Education and Employee
Training. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious games and
edutainment applications (pp. 399e423). London: Springer. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/
m23uk0266722vm02/abstract/.
Li, W., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). GamiCAD: A gamified tutorial system
for first time AutoCAD users. In Uist’12: Proceedings of the 25th annual acm
symposium on user interface software and technology (pp. 103e112).
Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Gamifying intelligent environments.
In Proceedings of the 2011 international ACM workshop on Ubiquitous meta user
interfaces (pp. 7e12). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Montola, M., Nummenmaa, T., Lucero, A., Boberg, M., & Korhonen, H. (2009).
Applying game achievement systems to enhance user experience in a photo
sharing service. In Proceedings of the 13th international MindTrek Conference:
Everyday life in the Ubiquitous era (pp. 94e97). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
OECD, & ECMT. (2006). Drivers: The Road to Safety. Retrieved from http://www.
internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YoungDrivers.html.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond human e Com-
puter interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
Scott-Parker, B. J., Bates, L., Watson, B. C., King, M. J., & Hyde, M. K. (2011). The
impact of changes to the graduated driver licensing program in Queensland,
Australia on the experiences of Learner drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
43(4), 1301e1308.
Singer, L., & Schneider, K. (2012). It was a bit of a race: Gamification of version
control. In 2012 2nd international workshop on games and software engineering
(GAS) (pp. 5e8).
Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise
SNS. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooper-
ative work (pp. 1067e1070). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Tourism Australia. (2014). Australia for the youth(ful) traveller. Retrieved July 24,
2014, from http://www.australia.com/explore/things-to-do/youthful-travellers.
aspx.
World Health Organization. (2014). Health for the world's adolescents. A second
chance in the second decade. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://apps.who.int/
adolescent/second-decade/.