激励、游戏化和博弈论:徽章设计的经济方法

D. Easley, Arpita Ghosh
{"title":"激励、游戏化和博弈论:徽章设计的经济方法","authors":"D. Easley, Arpita Ghosh","doi":"10.1145/2482540.2482571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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, while others like Amazon and Y! Answers reward users for being amongst 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--- and therefore the participation and effort--- elicited from strategic users on a site.\n We take a game-theoretic approach to badge design, analyzing the incentives created by widely-used badge designs in a model where winning a badge is valued and 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, and equilibrium participation and effort in an absolute standards mechanism Mα where 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-\\rs 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 non-zero participation for all possible ρ, provided 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.","PeriodicalId":194623,"journal":{"name":"ACM Trans. Economics and Comput.","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"96","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incentives, gamification, and game theory: an economic approach to badge design\",\"authors\":\"D. Easley, Arpita Ghosh\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2482540.2482571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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, while others like Amazon and Y! Answers reward users for being amongst 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--- and therefore the participation and effort--- elicited from strategic users on a site.\\n We take a game-theoretic approach to badge design, analyzing the incentives created by widely-used badge designs in a model where winning a badge is valued and 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, and equilibrium participation and effort in an absolute standards mechanism Mα where 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-\\\\rs 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 non-zero participation for all possible ρ, provided 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":194623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Trans. Economics and Comput.\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"96\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Trans. Economics and Comput.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2482540.2482571\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Trans. Economics and Comput.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2482540.2482571","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 96

摘要

游戏化作为一种激励用户参与依赖用户贡献的社交媒体网站的手段,正变得越来越普遍。徽章,或类似的奖励,如用于识别用户在网站上的贡献的顶级贡献者列表,显然受到积极追求和竞争的用户的重视。然而,不同的网站使用不同的徽章设计,奖励徽章的方式和内容也各不相同——有些网站(如StackOverflow)奖励达到固定贡献水平的徽章,而其他网站(如Amazon和Y!答案会奖励那些在网站上贡献最多的用户,这与有竞争力的表现标准相对应。考虑到用户重视徽章,并且为网站做出贡献需要付出努力,徽章的设计方式将影响网站战略用户的参与和努力。我们采用博弈论的方法来设计徽章,分析了广泛使用的徽章设计在一个模型中产生的激励机制,在这个模型中,赢得徽章是有价值的,付出的努力是昂贵的,网站的潜在贡献者内生地决定是否参与,以及他们对网站的贡献投入了多少总努力。我们分析了绝对标准机制Mα中的均衡存在,均衡参与和努力,其中徽章是为满足某些绝对(观察到的)努力水平而授予的,以及相对标准机制Mρ中对应于竞争标准的顶级贡献者徽章。我们发现均衡总是存在于这两种机制中,即使赢得徽章的价值内因地取决于其他赢家的数量。然而,对于过高的标准,Mα具有零参与均衡,而Mρ的所有均衡都会引发所有可能的ρ的非零参与,前提是ρ被指定为一个固定的数字,而不是实际贡献者的一部分(注意,这两者在具有内生参与的设置中是不相等的)。最后,我们问网站是否应该明确宣布赢得徽章的用户数量;这个问题的答案取决于赢得徽章的价值作为其他获胜者数量的函数的曲率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incentives, gamification, and game theory: an economic approach to badge design
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, while others like Amazon and Y! Answers reward users for being amongst 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--- and 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 where winning a badge is valued and 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, and equilibrium participation and effort in an absolute standards mechanism Mα where 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-\rs 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 non-zero participation for all possible ρ, provided 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信