From gameful affordances to lasting engagement: deepening customer-brand connections in mobile environments

The rapid growth of mobile commerce (m-commerce) is reshaping consumer-brand interactions and marketing practices across services (Fan et al., 2025; Ma and He, 2025). With global revenues projected to exceed USD 2.4 trillion by 2030 (GlobeNewswire, 2025), m-commerce platforms are shifting their focus from short-term acquisition to long-term engagement. However, sustaining user engagement (SUE) remains a persistent challenge. High app-switching behavior, rising privacy concerns and declining retention rates continue to plague the industry. Despite evolving strategies, mobile commerce apps continue to face significant retention challenges, with an average 30-day retention rate lingering at only 5.6%, while marketplace apps, though performing better, still maintain modest retention of 8.7%, both substantially below the overall mobile app average across platforms (Sendbird, 2025; Statista, 2024a, b).

To address this challenge, several m-commerce platforms, such as CRED ^[1] Amazon, Flipkart and Shopee are integrating gamification features into their customer journeys. These include reward mechanisms, leaderboards, progress meters, avatars and interactive tasks, all designed to make transactions more engaging. For instance, CRED incentivizes timely credit card payments by awarding coins that can be used to participate in jackpot games or unlock exclusive offers. Industry reports suggest that such gamification strategies can increase engagement by up to 150% and improve customer retention by approximately 30% (Cowlishaw, 2025).

Despite these promising trends, the underlying experiential mechanisms that drive sustained user engagement in gamified m-commerce environments remain underexplored. Few existing studies have examined how specific design features, conceptualized here as gamification affordances, influence psychological gameful experiences and engagement outcomes (Barari, 2024; Disse and Olsson, 2023). Also, since the gamification research has increasingly moved toward disaggregating gameful experiences, there is a need for sharper theorization linking affordances to gameful experiences (GX) that further translate differentially to sustained user engagement, in the m-commerce context.

This study draws on an integrated theoretical lens of affordance theory and self-determination theory to bridge that gap. According to affordance theory, affordances are perceived action possibilities that emerge from interaction between users and system features (Moreno and D'Angelo, 2019). In a gamified app context, affordances such as achievement (e.g. points and rewards), identity (e.g. levels and badges), competition (e.g. leaderboards) and self-expression (e.g. avatar customization) motivate users to engage in specific ways aligned with their goals. These affordances are expected to evoke gameful experiences (GX), a multidimensional construct; this study adopts the GX scale comprising enjoyment, absorption, activation, creative thinking, dominance and absence of negative affect (Hsu, 2022; Eppmann et al., 2018). Further, self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 2000, 2013) posits that sustained user engagement emerges when these evoked experiences satisfy the fundamental psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness. The GX dimensions inadvertently reflect experiential manifestations of these needs. For instance, activation and dominance may deepen commitment through satisfaction of competence needs.

In addition, users differ substantially in their familiarity, competence, comfort and overall expertise with gamified systems. Expertise, defined as a consumer's self-perceived familiarity and proficiency with such apps, is likely to influence how users interpret and respond to gamified features. As expertise accumulates, users' motivational priorities and experiential expectations or goals may shift. Yet limited research has examined whether different GX dimensions drive engagement differently across expertise levels. We introduce customer expertise with gamified m-commerce platforms as a moderating variable to the GX–SUE relationships. We draw from goal orientation theory to build our argument (Deci and Ryan, 2000).

This research contributes to the literature through a theory synthesis approach by integrating affordance theory, self-determination theory and goal orientation theory to develop a coherent, multi-layered explanation of gamified engagement in m-commerce contexts (Jaakkola, 2020). Specifically, the study advances affordance theory by extending its traditional focus on action possibilities and task outcomes toward a richer conceptualization of affordances. In doing so, it explicates the mechanism through which specific gamification affordances activate distinct gameful experience dimensions, which in turn shape SUE. Further, by incorporating goal orientation theory as a boundary condition, the study explains heterogeneity in GX–SUE relationships, demonstrating that engagement pathways are contingent on customer expertise. This integration reveals differentiated experiential trajectories, wherein novice users respond more strongly to stimulation and creative exploration, while expert users are influenced more by immersion and perceived control. By synthesizing these theoretical perspectives, the study provides a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how gamification mechanisms translate into sustained engagement outcomes, thereby offering a conceptual foundation for designing adaptive and expertise-sensitive gamification strategies in mobile commerce environments.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review and develops the hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research methodology, including data collection and measurement procedures. Section 4 reports the data analysis and empirical results. Section 5 discusses the findings and their theoretical interpretation. Section 6 outlines the contributions and implications of the study. Finally, Section 7 presents the limitations and directions for future research.

Recent research has emphasized the strategic potential of gamification in shaping immersive and value-enhancing customer–brand interactions across digital platforms (Song et al., 2025a, b). In the context of m-commerce, gamified applications are increasingly deployed not only to drive transactions but also to cultivate sustained user engagement by embedding interactive design elements into everyday mobile experiences. These applications function as interactive environments in which features such as badges, reward points, leaderboards and avatars create perceived affordances or actionable possibilities, which guide and structure user behavior (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019). While prior research has largely examined gamification either in terms of technological features or aggregate experiential outcomes, a more fine-grained theoretical explanation of how specific affordances translate into sustained user engagement remains underdeveloped. To address this gap, the present study adopts a theory synthesis approach by integrating affordance theory, SDT and goal-orientation theory (Jaakkola, 2020). Within this framework, affordance theory explains how gamification features act as enabling mechanisms that activate distinct psychological gameful experiences; SDT provides the motivational basis through which these experiences translate into SUE; and goal-orientation theory introduces customer expertise as a boundary condition that explains variability in these relationships across users.

Building on the Affordance–Psychological Outcome–Behavioral Outcome logic (Huotari and Hamari, 2017), this study develops a mechanism-based model that explicates how specific gamification affordances embedded within m-commerce platforms activate differentiated psychological responses, and how these responses, in turn, shape sustained user engagement outcomes under varying levels of customer expertise.

Affordances refer to the action potentials or perceived opportunities for interaction that a system offers to its users (Gibson, 1985; Norman, 1988; Moreno and D'Angelo, 2019). In gamified digital contexts, affordances are intentionally designed features that nudge users toward engagement through motivational structures (Suh and Wagner, 2017; Tawira and Ivanov, 2023). This study focuses on four gamification affordances frequently observed in m-commerce platforms: achievement (for example, points and badges), identity (such as levels and personalized profiles), competition (like rankings and leaderboards) and self-expression (such as avatar customization). Specifically rooted in affordance theory, this study posits that each affordance is designed to activate gameful experiential outcome for m-commerce users, based on their goals, needs and perceived capabilities (Ivanov et al., 2023; Disse and Olsson, 2023). GX is defined as multidimensional psychological states that emerge during interaction with gamified systems (Eppmann et al., 2018; Song et al., 2025a, b). Prior research has often aggregated GX into a single index, potentially obscuring the distinct pathways through which different experiential states are evoked by specific gamification affordances (Song et al., 2025a, b; Habachi et al., 2024), leaving a critical gap. This study fills the gap and adopts a disaggregated view by examining six key experiential dimensions, drawn from recent literature: enjoyment, absorption, activation, dominance, creative thinking and absence of negative affect (Eppmann et al., 2018; Hsu, 2022; Song et al., 2025a, b).

While prior research has identified a broad range of gamification affordances, their relevance varies across contexts. In selecting the focal gamification affordances, this study adopts a context-sensitive approach grounded in the characteristics of m-commerce environments. Mobile commerce applications are inherently goal-oriented (e.g. transactions and reward accumulation), competitive (e.g. deals, rankings and leaderboards), socially embedded (e.g. sharing and comparison) and identity-relevant (e.g. brand affiliation and personalization). Accordingly, the present study focuses on four affordances – achievement, competition, identity and self-expression – that closely align with these dominant interaction patterns and user motivations. These affordances are not only theoretically central in gamification research but are also particularly salient within m-commerce contexts. In contrast, other affordances such as role-playing or narrative immersion are less central to typical m-commerce usage and are therefore beyond the scope of this study.

Disaggregating GX enables a finer understanding of how specific affordances drive unique psychological responses rather than assuming uniform effects across experiences. While previous studies have established that gamification can generate positive outcomes (Zhang and Tao, 2025), fewer have mapped the differential effects of individual affordances on discrete GX dimensions, especially in the m-commerce context (Barari, 2024; Högberg et al., 2019). Addressing this gap, the current study empirically examines the links between specific affordances and distinct GXs.

Achievement affordances, such as tasks, missions and reward points, align with users' desire for progress, mastery and feedback. These features are structured with goal-oriented feedback loops and reinforcement mechanisms that stimulate creativity (Eppmann et al., 2018), foster enjoyment through challenge resolution (Högberg et al., 2019) and promote arousal and excitement through high cognitive involvement. They may also buffer negative affect by instilling a sense of competence and success. Accordingly:

Identity affordances, such as status levels and personalized profiles, enable users to express self-image and track progress against personal or social benchmarks (Xi and Hamari, 2019). These affordances may promote a sense of autonomy and control (Hsu, 2022), which drives dominance. Through tailored tasks and visual representation of achievement, identity affordances may also stimulate creativity and excitement. Therefore, it is posited that:

Competition affordances (e.g. elements like leaderboards) enable users to compare their performances with others, feeding their motivation to surpass others (Leclercq et al., 2017). Also, competition affordances involve challenges that boost customers' commitment to a particular task. This further instills a positive experience and contributes to feelings of enjoyment that create a positive mood. Game competitions in such gamified m-commerce apps contribute to fantasy experiences and excitement about the prospects of winning more prizes (Shi et al., 2022). Drawing from these, it is posited that:

Self-expression affordances, such as avatar customization or public display of achievements, allow users to showcase individuality and autonomy. These affordances have been linked with emotional engagement (Peters et al., 2018), immersive attention (Nah et al., 2011) and a heightened sense of agency (Eppmann et al., 2018). They may also promote emotional stability by allowing users to act authentically in the gamified environment. Drawing from these studies, it is hypothesized that:

While the current study hypothesizes the relationships between specific gamification affordances and elements of GXs based on the available literature, it examines whether users could derive more experiences from the gamified app elements to identify all possible relationships.

Customer engagement in digital environments is a multidimensional construct, often conceptualized as behavioral and psychological responses that go beyond transactions (Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Eisingerich et al., 2019). SUE involves ongoing emotional investment, cognitive attention and behavioral participation over time (Webster and Ahuja, 2006). Building on SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2000, 2013), this study proposes that within gamified systems, sustained user engagement emerges when the evoked gameful experiences satisfy the fundamental psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

The GX dimensions inadvertently reflect experiential manifestations of these needs. For instance, “activation” and “dominance” dimensions may serve as a proximal experiential pathway, through which gamified interactions satisfy competence needs, while “creative thinking” and “enjoyment” dimensions may serve as pathways for satisfaction of autonomy needs and “absorption” for satisfaction of needs for relatedness, thereby leading to sustained engagement. While aggregated GX indices have often been used in past research (Eppmann et al., 2018), there is growing recognition that a dimension-level analysis yields more nuanced insights (Habachi et al., 2024; Song et al., 2025a, b). This study, therefore, contributes by evaluating the independent effects of each GX component (activation, creative thinking, dominance, activation, enjoyment and absence of negative effects) on SUE, enhancing both theoretical granularity and managerial applicability.

In the first of these dimensions, the imaginative and explorative components of GX are captured by the experience of creative thinking. The motivation to engage in these aspects is closely tied to users' propensity to develop skills and overcome challenges by manipulating the environment, which may lead to feelings of adventure and creativity. Furthermore, collaboration and team-based features can foster norms of reciprocity and help users explore the gamified app and its affordances more. Given that such explorations can enhance users' intellectual experience and creative thinking process, these ongoing, complex and interactive discoveries may be favorably associated with sustained user engagement (Berger et al., 2018). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

Furthermore, dominance is linked to feelings of autonomy and being in control. It relates to the sense of agency customers experience while interacting with immersion-related gamification components. The need for autonomy refers to a sense of volition and the desire to experience psychological freedom and choice while participating in activities (Deci and Ryan, 2000). This is consistent with research showing that offering customized options and minimizing restrictions within gamified services encourages expressive freedom (Peters et al., 2018), is inherently autonomy-satisfying and is likely to drive sustained user engagement. Hence, it is hypothesized that:

Additionally, the enjoyable experiences of using a gamified app make users feel good about the retailer. These emotional encounters can enhance user moods by evoking joy, delight and excitement (Schmitt, 2000), which, in turn, may increase their sustained engagement with the brand. Therefore, users are more likely to engage with a retailer when they associate the gamified app with positive emotions. Hence, it is hypothesized that:

The next dimension, absorption, is often evoked by challenges that require specific technical skills and demand a mix of action and awareness, resulting in a loss of self-consciousness, distortion of time and a sense of overarching control (Nah et al., 2011). Prior studies confirm that such challenges are critical for driving engagement, particularly long-term engagement, once users are successfully onboarded (Mulcahy et al., 2018). In addition, gamification features like personalized avatars enhance immersion and foster a stronger connection between the user and the gamified system, promoting sustained engagement (Mulcahy et al., 2018). Drawing from these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Next, the experience of positive affect, for instance, through connecting with other customers or outperforming peers (Wolf et al., 2020) or the absence of negative affect, such as shame or frustration from underperformance, reflects the emotional balance underpinning engagement. These emotionally uplifting or non-threatening experiences contribute to customer satisfaction, sustained participation and attention to brand-related content. Therefore, the proposed hypothesis is:

Lastly, activation reflects gamification's ability to stimulate excitement, arousal and energetic involvement, particularly when features demand higher cognitive effort and processing. Such experiences may increase customer enthusiasm and interest in engaging with the brand (So et al., 2014).

Despite the increasing sophistication of gamification systems, user responses are rarely uniform. Customer expertise, defined as a user's perceived proficiency, familiarity and confidence in navigating gamified environments, has emerged as an important yet underexplored moderator in digital engagement research (De Canio et al., 2021; Habachi et al., 2024). Gameful experiences arising from interactions with gamified app features may translate differently into SUE, based on customers' varying expertise with such platforms. Prior studies have broadly recognized user heterogeneity via gaming history or user types (Xi and Hamari, 2019; Bittner and Shipper, 2014), but few have systematically examined how customer expertise influences the strength and direction of GX–SUE relationships.

This study draws from goal orientation theory (Dweck, 1986) to investigate the impact of distinct motivational patterns of individuals (mastery-oriented and performance-oriented) on GX–SUE relationships. As users gain expertise with gamified apps, their motivational orientation evolves. Expert users may adopt a mastery orientation, prioritizing control and deep immersion, while novice users may approach gamified systems in an exploratory mode, prioritizing stimulation and experimentation. These differences are particularly relevant for m-commerce platforms, which often design adaptive gamification layers based on inferred user capability or engagement history. By modeling expertise as a boundary condition, this study enhances the explanatory power of the affordance–experience–engagement framework and contributes to more segmented and effective gamification strategies.

Specifically, for novice or low-expertise customers, who may lack deep familiarity with gamified systems, it is likely that they derive value from experiential dimensions that build confidence and offer intuitive appeal. Thus, creative thinking, enjoyment and activation may be more influential in their case. In contrast, expert users may seek complex and cognitively challenging experiences, making dimensions like dominance, absorption and enjoyment more impactful for them. This heterogeneity in the effectiveness of GX dimensions across expertise levels is expected to result in distinct customer engagement patterns. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

The proposed research model illustrating the hypothesized relationships among gamification affordances, gameful experiences, customer expertise and sustained customer engagement is presented in Figure 1.

All constructs in the research model were measured using multi-item scales adapted from validated sources. The four gamification affordances, namely achievement, identity, competition and self-expression, were each measured using three items adapted from Sigala (2015), Poncin et al. (2017) and Shi et al. (2022). Gameful experience was conceptualized using six psychological dimensions: enjoyment, absorption, creative thinking, activation, dominance and absence of negative affect, with measurement items drawn from Eppmann et al. (2018). Sustained user engagement was measured using items adapted from Brodie et al. (2011). Customer expertise was assessed using multiple reflective items adapted from Sharma and Patterson (2000), capturing respondent's perceived familiarity, usage confidence and self-assessed competence with gamified mobile commerce applications. The complete list of measurement items used in this study is provided in the  Appendix to ensure transparency and replicability. All responses were recorded using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Prior to the main survey administration, the measurement instrument was pre-tested with a small group of respondents and two academic researchers familiar with gamification and mobile commerce research. The pre-test was conducted to evaluate item clarity, face validity, wording adequacy and contextual appropriateness. Based on the feedback received, minor modifications were made to improve questionnaire readability and flow before final data collection.

This study was conducted in India, a mobile-first market with a rapidly growing digital consumer base. The total count of cell phone users is expected to hit 7.92 billion by 2028, marking 15 straight years of growth (Electro IQ, 2026). Popular m-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, Myntra, Ajio and CRED have increasingly integrated gamified features, including badges, spin-wheels, leaderboards and reward points, into their interfaces. This digital ecosystem presents a suitable and theoretically relevant context for investigating how gamification affordances shape gameful experiences and sustained user engagement in mobile commerce environments.

The target population consisted of Indian users who actively use m-commerce applications incorporating gamified elements. India represents one of the largest and fastest-growing mobile-first digital markets, making it an appropriate context for examining gamification in m-commerce. The global gamification market is expected to reach an estimated $57.4 billion by 2031 with a CAGR of 23.9% from 2025 to 2031 (Research and Markets, 2026). Respondents were invited to participate through a structured online questionnaire hosted on a secure survey platform. The survey link was circulated via digital channels, including email, messaging applications and social media communities associated with online shopping. The landing page clearly outlined the academic purpose of the study, explained data privacy and confidentiality protocols and obtained informed consent before allowing respondents to proceed. Out of approximately 1,700 individuals contacted, 387 responses were received, yielding a response rate of 22.8%. After eliminating incomplete, duplicate and invalid entries, the final sample consisted of 336 valid responses. The use of a convenience-based sampling approach is consistent with prior research in gamification and digital consumer behavior, where studies frequently rely on accessible user populations to examine psychological and behavioral mechanisms in technology-mediated environments (Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Eppmann et al., 2018; Xi and Hamari, 2019). Given that the objective of this study is theory testing rather than population estimation, such an approach is appropriate for capturing relevant user experiences within gamified m-commerce contexts. The demographic distribution of the sample, including gender, age, education, marital status and occupation, is presented in Table 1.

The data analysis was carried out in three stages. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model. Second, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test the hypothesized relationships (H1 to H5). Finally, multi-group analysis (MGA) was performed to evaluate the moderating role of customer expertise (H6).

The CFA model demonstrated acceptable fit with the data, with chi-square (CMIN) = 833.329, degrees of freedom (df) = 440, and a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio of 1.894 (p < 0.001). Other fit indices were also satisfactory: GFI = 0.947, AGFI = 0.922, NFI = 0.931, IFI = 0.941, CFI = 0.941, RMR = 0.058, RMSEA = 0.064 and SRMR = 0.040. These values are within commonly accepted thresholds, indicating adequate model fit (Hair et al., 2019).

Construct reliability was established, as Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability values for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70. Convergent validity was supported by average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.50. Discriminant validity was assessed using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The square root of AVE for each construct was greater than its inter-construct correlations, and all HTMT values were below the conservative threshold of 0.85, providing further evidence of discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Given that all constructs were adapted from well-established and previously validated scales, the objective of the analysis was to confirm the hypothesized measurement structure rather than to explore underlying factor patterns. Therefore, consistent with established SEM practices, CFA was deemed appropriate, and EFA was not required (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Kline, 2016). Detailed reliability and validity statistics, including Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, AVE, skewness and kurtosis are reported in Table 2.

Given the self-reported and cross-sectional nature of the data, both procedural and statistical remedies were implemented to mitigate potential common method bias, following established guidelines (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Baumgartner and Weijters, 2021). Procedurally, respondent anonymity was ensured, clear instructions were provided to reduce evaluation apprehension, item wording was refined to minimize ambiguity and predictor and criterion constructs were psychologically separated within the questionnaire. Statistically, Harman's single-factor test indicated that the first factor accounted for less than 40% of the total variance, suggesting that no single factor dominated the data. Additionally, an unmeasured latent method construct was incorporated into the measurement model and its inclusion did not result in any substantial changes in factor loadings or structural path estimates. Taken together, these results indicate that common method bias is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the study.

The structural model also showed acceptable fit (CMIN = 885.564, df = 87, chi-square/df = 2.343, GFI = 0.947, AGFI = 0.930, NFI = 0.955, IFI = 0.964, CFI = 0.966, RMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.040, SRMR = 0.028). The results of hypothesis testing are presented in Table 3. The model explained a substantial proportion of variance in sustained user engagement, with an R² value of 0.451 indicating moderate to strong explanatory power. In contrast, the R² values for other endogenous constructs ranged from low to moderate, suggesting varying levels of explanatory strength across the model. Detailed R² values for all dependent variables are reported in Table 4.

As presented in Table 3, achievement affordance had significant positive effects on enjoyment (β = 0.553, p < 0.001), creative thinking (β = 0.498, p = 0.001), activation (β = 0.352, p = 0.009) and absence of negative affect (β = 0.151, p = 0.039), but not on absorption (β = 0.103, p = 0.214) or dominance (β = 0.124, p = 0.184). Identity affordance positively influenced creative thinking (β = 0.402, p = 0.003), dominance (β = 0.287, p = 0.026) and activation (β = 0.253, p = 0.036) but did not show significant effects on enjoyment, absorption or absence of negative affect. Competition affordance had significant effects on enjoyment (β = 0.403, p = 0.004), dominance (β = 0.347, p = 0.012), activation (β = 0.297, p = 0.018) and absorption (β = 0.208, p = 0.043), but not on creative thinking or absence of negative affect. Self-expression affordance significantly impacted dominance (β = 0.402, p = 0.007), enjoyment (β = 0.316, p = 0.014), absorption (β = 0.303, p = 0.024) and absence of negative affect (β = 0.183, p = 0.049), but not creative thinking or activation.

All six GX dimensions significantly predicted sustained user engagement: enjoyment (β = 0.604, p < 0.001), absorption (β = 0.452, p < 0.001), creative thinking (β = 0.498, p = 0.002), activation (β = 0.423, p = 0.005), dominance (β = 0.378, p = 0.009) and absence of negative affect (β = 0.183, p = 0.032) (refer Table 3). Among these, enjoyment, creative thinking and absorption exhibited comparatively stronger standardized effects. These coefficients represent moderate effect sizes based on established statistical benchmarks (Cohen, 1988; Hair et al., 2019). The corresponding f² values for the structural relationships are presented in Table 5. Given that statistically significant relationships may vary in substantive importance, the findings are interpreted cautiously, and their relative strength is examined in the Discussion section (Section 5) to avoid overgeneralization (Aguinis et al., 2005; Kelley and Preacher, 2012).

For H3, competition affordance significantly influenced enjoyment (H3a: β = 0.403, p = 0.004), dominance (H3f: β = 0.347, p = 0.012), activation (H3d: β = 0.297, p = 0.018) and absorption (H3b: β = 0.208, p = 0.043). Competition affordance exerted relatively stronger effects on enjoyment and dominance, followed by activation and absorption. Competition affordance did not significantly affect creative thinking (H3c: β = 0.079, p = 0.235) or absence of negative affect (H3e: β = 0.056, p = 0.276).

For H4, self-expression affordance showed significant positive effects on dominance (H4f: β = 0.402, p = 0.007), enjoyment (H4a: β = 0.316, p = 0.014), absorption (H4b: β = 0.303, p = 0.024) and absence of negative affect (H4e: β = 0.183, p = 0.049). Dominance emerged as the most strongly affected GX dimension. However, self-expression affordance did not significantly affect creative thinking (H4c: β = 0.124, p = 0.196) or activation (H4d: β = 0.101, p = 0.228).

For H5, all sub-hypotheses based on GX dimensions were tested for their impact on sustained user engagement. Enjoyment (H5a: β = 0.604, p < 0.001), creative thinking (H5c: β = 0.498, p = 0.002), absorption (H5b: β = 0.452, p = 0.001), activation (H5d: β = 0.423, p = 0.005), dominance (H5f: β = 0.378, p = 0.009) and absence of negative affect (H5e: β = 0.183, p = 0.032) significantly and positively influenced sustained user engagement. The comparatively weaker effect of the absence of negative affect is acknowledged and examined further in the discussion section.

To test H6, a multi-group analysis was conducted using two subgroups based on customer expertise levels, classified as high expertise and low expertise. Prior to multi-group comparisons, measurement invariance was systematically assessed to ensure the validity of group-level interpretations. Configural invariance was first established, indicating that the same factor structure was applicable across both groups (χ² = 1981.369, df = 1,110, χ²/df = 1.802, CFI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.035). Measurement invariance was then tested by constraining factor loadings to be equal across groups. This model yielded χ² = 2003.700 with 1,135 degrees of freedom, resulting in a non-significant change in chi-square (Δχ² = 22.330, Δdf = 25, p = 0.684) and no change in CFI. These results support full measurement invariance across expertise groups. Structural invariance was subsequently tested by constraining all structural paths to equality. This model produced χ² = 2154.597 with 1,141 degrees of freedom, resulting in a significant deterioration in model fit (Δχ² = 173.228, Δdf = 31, p < 0.001) and a CFI decrease of 0.015, exceeding recommended thresholds. Therefore, structural invariance was not supported, indicating that the strength of relationships differs across expertise levels. Accordingly, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

Table 6 presents the pooled model estimates alongside group-specific path coefficients. Following Byrne (2010), a series of constrained models was estimated to identify non-invariant structural paths across groups. This procedure revealed that several GX dimensions exerted differential effects on sustained User engagement depending on customer expertise.

For the low-expertise group, enjoyment (β = 0.679, p < 0.001), creative thinking (β = 0.643, p = 0.001) and activation (β = 0.472, p = 0.002) emerged as the strongest predictors of sustained User engagement, followed by absorption (β = 0.398, p = 0.014) and dominance (β = 0.319, p = 0.021). Absence of negative affect was not significant (β = 0.102, p = 0.112). In contrast, for the high-expertise group, enjoyment (β = 0.542, p = 0.001), absorption (β = 0.502, p = 0.003) and dominance (β = 0.471, p = 0.004) showed comparatively stronger effects, followed by creative thinking (β = 0.448, p = 0.005), activation (β = 0.276, p = 0.011) and absence of negative affect (β = 0.221, p = 0.044).

These findings support the moderating role of customer expertise while also indicating that the magnitude and configuration of effects vary systematically across expertise levels. The differential salience of GX dimensions across groups is interpreted cautiously and discussed further in relation to theoretical expectations and boundary conditions (Aguinis et al., 2005; Kelley and Preacher, 2012).

This study examined how gamification affordances influence specific gameful experience dimensions and how these, in turn, impact sustained user engagement in mobile commerce. Responding to recent calls for greater conceptual clarity in gamification research (Habachi et al., 2024; Song et al., 2025a, b), the study adopts a disaggregated perspective to examine how different affordances are associated with distinct psychological experiences and how these experiences relate to engagement outcomes. The findings extend prior work by empirically unpacking these relationships within a mobile commerce context. The results indicate that enjoyment, creative thinking, absorption and activation significantly predict SUE, which aligns with earlier studies emphasizing the role of immersive and affective experiences in gamified environments (Eppmann et al., 2018; Hsu, 2022). These findings reinforce the view that gamification supports sustained user engagement not merely through entertainment but through emotional and cognitive involvement that sustains user interaction over time (Wolf et al., 2020).

In contrast, dominance and absence of negative affect exhibited comparatively weaker direct effects on SUE in the pooled sample. This suggests that these dimensions may play a more conditional or context-dependent role in engagement formation. Their relevance became more apparent when customer expertise was considered, indicating that the influence of certain GX dimensions varies across user segments rather than operating uniformly across all users (Xi and Hamari, 2019; De Canio et al., 2021). This pattern cautions against interpreting all gameful experiences as equally central drivers of engagement.

The multi-group analysis further demonstrates that customer expertise moderates the relationship between GX dimensions and SUE. For novice users, creative thinking and activation emerged as relatively stronger predictors, suggesting that early-stage users benefit more from experiences that encourage exploration, experimentation and structured stimulation (Bitrián et al., 2021; Bittner and Shipper, 2014). In this context, achievement and identity affordances, such as reward systems, points, levels and status cues, appear to support engagement by providing orientation and reinforcing progress rather than by fostering deep immersion (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Barari, 2024). These affordances help reduce uncertainty and cognitive effort for less experienced users.

For expert users, absorption and dominance showed comparatively stronger effects on engagement. This finding suggests that experienced users respond more to immersive experiences that allow greater autonomy, control and expression of competence (Nah et al., 2011; Mulcahy et al., 2018). Features associated with self-expression and competition, including leaderboards, avatars and strategic challenges, align with the preferences of users who are already familiar with the platform and seek depth and mastery rather than external guidance (Peters et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2022). However, these effects should be interpreted as moderate in magnitude, indicating differentiated rather than dominant pathways to engagement.

Enjoyment remained a consistent predictor of engagement across both expertise groups, although the underlying sources of enjoyment differed. For novice users, enjoyment appears to stem from simplicity, rewards and ease of navigation, whereas expert users derive enjoyment from challenge, personalization and opportunities for self-directed interaction (Suh and Wagner, 2017). This distinction highlights that enjoyment is not a monolithic construct but one that emerges from different experiential mechanisms depending on user familiarity and competence. Accordingly, the findings support prior arguments that universal gamification strategies may be insufficient to sustain engagement across heterogeneous user groups (Huang et al., 2019; Jang et al., 2018).

Taken together, the results underscore the importance of aligning gamification design with user proficiency. Rather than relying on a fixed configuration of game elements, mobile commerce platforms may benefit from adjusting gamification features based on users' experience levels and behavioral patterns. For newer users, simplified tasks and reward-based feedback may facilitate initial engagement. For more experienced users, deeper customization, strategic challenges and autonomy-supportive features may help sustain continued participation. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of gamification lies not in the intensity of game elements but in their alignment with users' evolving experiential needs within m-commerce environments.

In addition to the supported hypotheses, several proposed relationships were not statistically significant, offering meaningful theoretical insights. For instance, achievement affordance did not significantly predict absorption or dominance. This suggests that reward-based or progress-oriented mechanisms may stimulate goal pursuit and activation without necessarily fostering deep immersion or perceived control. Achievement elements may function as motivational triggers rather than immersive drivers.

Similarly, identity affordance did not significantly influence enjoyment or absence of negative affect. This pattern indicates that identity cues, such as status or personalization markers, may enhance cognitive engagement and perceived competence but do not automatically translate into affective uplift. Identity-based features may operate more strongly through self-concept alignment than through hedonic stimulation.

Competition affordance also failed to significantly predict creative thinking and the absence of negative affect. Competitive mechanics may energize users and enhance dominance perceptions, but they can simultaneously introduce evaluative pressure, which may limit exploratory thinking or emotional relief. This aligns with the view that competition is activating but not uniformly positive in experiential terms.

Finally, self-expression affordance did not significantly influence activation, suggesting that personalization and expressive features may deepen engagement qualitatively rather than intensify behavioral energy. Together, these non-significant paths reinforce the argument that gamification affordances exert differentiated psychological effects rather than functioning as universally beneficial design elements.

While prior affordance research has primarily focussed on how technological features enable user actions and task outcomes, this study extends affordance theory by conceptualizing affordances as drivers of multidimensional psychological experiences.

Further, by combining affordance theory, SDT and goal orientation theories, this study provides a layered explanatory framework for how the gamification affordances activate distinct psychological responses and how these responses shape sustained User engagement, within m-commerce platforms.

Next, it contributes to gamification theory by adopting a disaggregated approach to examine how specific affordances are associated with distinct psychological experiences and, in turn, sustained user engagement in mobile commerce. While prior research has increasingly acknowledged the multidimensional nature of gameful experience, many studies continue to operationalize gameful experience at an aggregate level, thereby offering limited insight into the differentiated effects of individual design features (Barari, 2024; Suh and Wagner, 2017). By applying affordance theory, this study provides empirical evidence that achievement and identity affordances are more strongly associated with creative thinking and activation, whereas competition and self-expression show stronger associations with absorption and dominance (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Hamari et al., 2014). Rather than redefining existing frameworks, these findings refine current understanding by clarifying the experiential pathways through which gamification features relate to engagement outcomes in a mobile commerce context (Eppmann et al., 2018; Högberg et al., 2019).

The study also extends prior work by incorporating customer expertise as a boundary condition shaping the effects of gameful experiences on engagement. It draws on SDT and goal orientation theories for the same. The results re-affirm the distinct motivational orientations of the two segments: novice users are relatively more responsive to exploratory and energizing experiences such as creative thinking and activation, whereas expert users exhibit stronger responses to immersive and autonomy-oriented experiences such as absorption and dominance (Bitrián et al., 2021; De Canio et al., 2021; Xi and Hamari, 2019). This pattern reinforces existing arguments that gamification effectiveness is contingent on user characteristics. By empirically linking experiential dimensions to sustained engagement under different levels of expertise, the study connects psychological experience research with user engagement literature in a more granular manner. As such, it provides a theoretical basis for future research to further examine how adaptive and user-sensitive gamification mechanisms influence long-term engagement and related relational outcomes in digital commerce settings (Jang et al., 2018).

The findings of this research offer practical guidance for marketing and product professionals seeking to enhance user engagement through gamification in mobile commerce platforms. Rather than applying generic game elements uniformly, the findings support a more intentional and experience-focused approach to gamification design (Eisingerich et al., 2019; Rather et al., 2023). By identifying how different affordances are associated with specific psychological responses, the study helps managers make more informed decisions regarding which gamified features to deploy for engagement objectives. For instance, when the objective is to encourage user exploration and cognitive stimulation, achievement and identity affordances, such as progress indicators, personalized milestones or status levels, may be more appropriate (Poncin et al., 2017; Sigala, 2015). In contrast, when the objective is to enhance emotional intensity or competitive involvement, affordances related to self-expression and competition, including customizable avatars and leaderboards, are more likely to support these outcomes (Shi et al., 2022; Peters et al., 2018).

An important implication for practitioners concerns the role of customer expertise in shaping responses to gamified features. The findings suggest that novice users are relatively more responsive to structured, rewarding and energizing experiences, whereas experienced users are more influenced by immersive and autonomy-oriented interactions (Bittner and Shipper, 2014; Song et al., 2025a, b). This distinction indicates that a single, static gamification configuration is unlikely to be equally effective across user segments. Instead, firms may consider adaptive gamification approaches that adjust feature intensity or presentation based on observable indicators such as usage history, interaction frequency or onboarding stage. Such adaptations can often be implemented through rule-based logic or modular design elements, rather than through costly system overhauls, making them feasible for large-scale platforms (Suh and Wagner, 2017; Disse and Olsson, 2023).

The findings also suggest that evaluating gamification effectiveness requires moving beyond short-term behavioral metrics. While click-through rates or session duration provide useful operational indicators, they may not fully capture the experiential mechanisms that sustain engagement over time. Monitoring psychological experience indicators, such as enjoyment, absorption and perceived dominance, can offer additional insight into whether gamified features are fostering deeper and more durable forms of engagement (Eppmann et al., 2018). Aligning design decisions with these experiential outcomes may help managers better justify gamification investments and assess their strategic value.

For digital-first brands operating in highly competitive mobile commerce environments, these implications underscore the need to treat gamification as an experience design tool rather than as a novelty or peripheral feature (Koivisto and Hamari, 2019). By applying a more experience-oriented and user-sensitive perspective, practitioners can move beyond feature-based thinking toward a more integrated approach that links design choices, user psychology and sustained engagement outcomes. This alignment may contribute to improved customer retention and more stable brand relationships over time.

This study highlights that gamification mechanisms influence psychological states that sustain digital engagement, extending their impact beyond commercial outcomes. Enjoyment, dominance and absence of negative affect dimensions of gameful experience significantly drive continued platform use, suggesting that design choices can meaningfully shape user motivation and persistence. While such mechanisms may enhance satisfaction and digital participation, they also raise concerns regarding excessive engagement and digital fatigue, particularly among less experienced users who are more responsive to activating features. The moderating role of expertise underscores the need for inclusive and adaptive design that accommodates varying user capabilities. In mobile-first economies, responsibly implemented gamification may support digital inclusion and confidence-building. However, sustained engagement strategies should align with ethical principles, emphasizing transparency, user autonomy and well-being. Policymakers and platform designers should therefore consider balancing performance objectives with long-term societal welfare when deploying gamified systems at scale.

This study is subject to several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings: (1) The empirical context is limited to Indian mobile commerce applications, which may constrain the generalizability of the results across cultural, economic and technological environments. Although India represents a relevant and rapidly evolving digital market, future studies could replicate the model in other national or cross-cultural contexts to assess the robustness and boundary conditions of the observed relationships. (2) The study relies on cross-sectional, self-reported survey data, which may be affected by common method bias and respondents' subjective evaluations. While procedural and statistical remedies were applied, future research could employ longitudinal designs, experimental methods or behavioral data to capture how gamification affordances and gameful experiences evolve over time and to strengthen causal inference. Tracking engagement trajectories across different stages of the customer journey and across multiple platforms would provide deeper insight into sustained engagement dynamics. (3) Customer expertise was operationalized based on app usage and self-assessed familiarity. Although this approach is consistent with prior research, it represents a simplified proxy for expertise. While the present study operationalizes expertise using established measures, future research could extend this by adopting multidimensional conceptualizations that capture task proficiency, domain knowledge and experiential depth (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996). Such distinctions would enable researchers to differentiate between platform-specific expertise and broader digital or gaming-related expertise, offering a more granular understanding of how expertise shapes user responses in gamified environments (Novak et al., 2000). Such refinements may help clarify the moderating role of expertise more precisely. (4) While the study included the absence of negative affect as a dimension of gameful experience, its comparatively weaker effects suggest that this construct may function differently from more activation-oriented experiential dimensions. Such inquiry would help clarify whether this dimension captures a distinct experiential mechanism or reflects a complementary aspect of affective evaluation. Additionally, future studies may explore the conditions under which this dimension becomes more salient in shaping engagement outcomes (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Eppmann et al., 2018). (5) Future research could extend the model by incorporating additional psychological or relational variables, such as personality traits, self-efficacy, goal commitment, trust or downstream behavioral intentions, including purchase intention or advocacy. Examining ethical considerations and potential unintended consequences of gamification, such as over-engagement or fatigue, would also contribute to a more balanced and responsible understanding of gamification in digital commerce environments.

The study involved human participants in the form of a questionnaire-based survey. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional authority prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained from all respondents and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study.

Gamification Affordances (Adapted from Li, 2018; Sigala, 2015; Poncin et al., 2017; Ma and Agarwal, 2007; Shi et al., 2022)

1. AAR1: Playing games on m-commerce offers me the possibility to obtain financial gains as achievements of my participation.

2. AAR2: While playing games on m-commerce, I may achieve good performance and receive rewards.

3. AAR3: Playing games on m-commerce helps me obtain more discounts and spend less.

1. IA1: Playing games offers me the possibility to customize my profile among others.

2. IA2: Playing games offers me the possibility to obtain a higher level of status than others.

3. IA3: Playing games on m-commerce helps me enhance my unique identity.

1. CA1: It challenges my best skills to compete with others.

2. CA2: It stretches my capabilities in order to compare my performance with that of others.

3. CA3: I challenge myself to achieve better performance than that of others.

1. SE1: Playing games on m-commerce offers me the possibility to express my characteristics through game elements.

2. SE2: Playing games on m-commerce helps me express myself in the way I want.

3. SE3: It helps me present my virtual social image to others.

1. ENJ1: Playing the game was fun.

2. ENJ2: I enjoyed playing the game very much.

3. ENJ3: My game experience was pleasurable.

1. ABS1: After playing the game, I felt like coming back to the “real world” after a journey.

2. ABS2: While playing the game, I was completely oblivious to everything around me.

3. ABS3: While playing the game, I lost track of time.

1. CT1: Playing the game sparked my imagination.

2. CT2: While playing the game, I felt creative.

3. CT3: While playing the game, I felt that I could explore things.

1. ACT1: While playing the game, I felt activated.

2. ACT2: While playing the game, I felt frenzied.

3. ACT3: While playing the game, I felt excited.

1. ANA1a: While playing the game, I felt upset.^a

2. ANA2a: While playing the game, I felt hostile.^a

3. ANA3a: While playing the game, I felt frustrated.^a

1. DOM1: While playing the game, I felt dominant / I had the feeling of being in charge.

2. DOM2: While playing the game, I felt autonomous.

3. DOM3: While playing the game, I felt confident.

1. SUE1: I am willing to try new features of the m-commerce apps.

2. SUE2: I would not want to stop using m-commerce apps in the future.

3. SUE3: I am motivated to continue using m-commerce apps in the future.

1. CEXP1: I possess good knowledge of gamified m-commerce apps.

2. CEXP2: I am quite experienced with gamified m-commerce apps.

3. CEXP3: I can understand almost all aspects of the gamified app of my retailer.

^a Reverse-coded item.