Rhythm of the game: how time-of-day and gamification rewards influence pay-what-you-want payments Open Access

Gamification, defined as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), has become a wildly popular method for improving marketing outcomes (Ciuchita et al., 2023). Industry uptake seems to confirm this. The global spend on gamification is expected to touch US$30.7bn by 2025 at a staggering compound annual growth rate of 27.4% (MarketsAndMarkets, 2022). Marketing-focused gamification research suggests that the goal of such implementations is to motivate consumers to behave in a manner leading to positive marketing outcomes such as continued usage, engagement and patronage (Jain et al., 2023; Krishna et al., 2023; Aydınlıyurt et al., 2021). However, there is still a lot we do not know. Wünderlich et al. (2020) pointed out that while research suggests that gamification leads to higher sales due to a richer customer experience, empirical evidence on its impact on consumers’ pricing decisions has received less attention.

A small but evolving body of gamification research has focused on traditional consumer price decisions such as price comparison, revenue management, effects of price discounts (De Canio, et al., 2021; Bauer et al., 2020; Temnyalov, 2019; Insley and Nunan, 2014). For example, Temnyalov (2019) showed that gamification approaches such as rewards programs could be the key to an effective pricing strategy for sellers. More recently, Ghose et al. (2024) investigated the effectiveness of a participative pricing model, pay-what-you-want (PWYW), in the live streaming context. Their study specifically examined whether access to non-monetary gifts enhanced or reduced voluntary paid gift giving in a PWYW live streaming context. This inquiry is significant as current researchers advocate for further investigation into how and which game features might influence PWYW prices in real-world settings (Riar et al., 2020; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Gneezy et al., 2012). Despite the early work by Ghose et al. (2024), research at the junction of gamification and PWYW remains nascent. We address this important gap in the literature as to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has looked at the influence of gamification reward types (e.g. verbal, symbolic, tangible) on PWYW pricing strategy.

PWYW is a pricing phenomenon under which the seller delegates full pricing control to the buyer, and the seller cannot withdraw the offer even if the buyer choses to pay nothing for the product or service (Kim et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2021). Some scholars question if this pricing strategy is sustainable, as businesses like Panera Bread have abandoned it in the past (Viglia et al., 2019). Despite this, PWYW practices still exist. Recent real-world applications of PWYW include Sainbury Centre in Norwich (BBC, 2023), National Gallery London (Frankel, 2023) and the world-renowned Metropolitan Museum of Art (TheMet, 2025). Korean live-streaming platform AfreecaTV has successfully pioneered PWYW in the area of live streaming, with social media powerhouses Facebook, TikTok and Twitch follow their lead (Ross, 2020). Similarly, organisations like Humble Bundle (Humble Bundle, 2025), Bandcamp (BandCamp, 2025) and ExtraLife (ExtraLife, 2025) are already integrating gamification into their PWYW pricing models. This suggests significant potential for broader industry adoption, where gamification elements, particularly rewards, could enhance the effectiveness of PWYW pricing, a direction already hinted at by early research (Ghose et al., 2024). This is particularly relevant given that extant marketing scholars question the sustainability of the PWYW strategy (Viglia et al., 2019), underscoring the need for further research to identify conditions that will increase PWYW payments (Kim et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2016a; Roy et al., 2021). In the present work, we argue that gamification (reward types) will increase the effectiveness of PWYW pricing strategy, thereby extending early work of Ghose et al. (2024).

The current PWYW literature suggests pro-social motivations guiding PWYW prices (Gneezy et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2009). Previous research has applied dictator and trust games to understand PWYW behaviour (Kim et al., 2009). Past gamification literature suggests that gamification rewards can involve both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Griffin and Parker, 2022), with intrinsic motivation further influencing pro-social actions (Batson et al., 1991; Grant, 2008). Interestingly, time-of-day literature suggests that human motivation can vary throughout the day (Benedetti et al., 2015; Riley et al., 2017). Given the nuanced role of motivation across PWYW (e.g. pro-social motives), rewards (intrinsic and extrinsic motives) and time-of-day (motivational resources depleting from morning to evening), it is plausible that PWYW prices could be guided by gamification rewards, with this relationship being further contingent upon time-of-day (e.g. morning versus evening). Our innovative conceptual model (Figure 1), therefore, studies the role of gamification rewards on PWYW prices and how it is moderated by time-of-day.

We underpin our hypotheses based on the gamification and PWYW literature to argue that reward type (tangible versus verbal versus symbolic) can have a differential impact on PWYW prices (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 further studies this differential impact of reward type by ruling out alternate explanations. The PWYW payment decisions are further moderated by time-of-day, also known as circadian rhythm (Hofstra and de Weerd, 2008), with this effect mediated through internal reference price (IRP). Although time-of-day has been known to moderate consumer decisions like variety seeking and charitable donations amongst others (Fisher et al., 2008; Gullo et al., 2018), no previous work has proposed and empirically tested how the joint influence of time-of-day and gamification rewards may influence PWYW payments – a novel contribution of our work (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 is conducted in the field to further establish external validity of our findings.

Findings from this work could be of strategic importance to managers of PWYW businesses who can formulate effective strategies to drive higher PWYW payments as well as to managers who are interested in, and may wish to consider, this innovative pricing mechanism. We begin by discussing the gamification, PWYW and time-of-day literature leading to our hypotheses. We follow up the literature section with three laboratory experiments along with a field study and discuss their findings. We end with general discussion, implications for theory and practice, as well as limitations and future research directions.

Gamification, commonly defined as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), has been implemented in a wide range of contexts such as environment. learning, health, community building, finance, tourism and advertising (Colombero and Zotto, 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Bayuk and Altobello, 2019; Yang and Li, 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Mishra and Malhotra, 2021; Du et al., 2020). Gamification is a design approach that enhances systems, processes and operations through the use of game design elements (called gameful affordances) that induce game-like fun and enjoyment (gameful experiences), that in turn lead to positive behavioural outcomes (Huotari and Hamari, 2012, 2017). Past research has reported mixed effects of gamification, with certain studies demonstrating positive effects on brand engagement and product adoption (Müller-Stewens et al., 2017; Berger et al., 2018). Yet, other studies have reported negative and undesirable effects on consumer attention, experiences and motivation (Bekk et al., 2022; Leclercq et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2020). These mixed findings suggest the need for continued research into how and when gamification works.

Huotari and Hamari (2012, 2017) discussed how gamification can enhance customer experience within service settings. They argue that a gamification provider (e.g. Starbucks) can enhance its core service (e.g. café) through an enhancing service (e.g. a loyalty program). This enhancing service should further support the core service experienced by the user. For instance, in the café example, the enhancing service (loyalty program) leverages psychological tendencies related to progress, which may increase the perceived value of using the same café (Starbucks). The core and enhancing service, therefore, work together to create a gamified experience which leads to positive psychological and behavioural outcomes (Huotari and Hamari, 2017). Earlier work by Deterding et al. (2011) also suggests that the focus of gamification is primarily related to achieving favourable psychological outcomes. In the current work, our core argument is that in the PWYW context, an enhancing service (e.g. a virtual game featuring different rewards) may augment the core service (e.g. PWYW restaurant), leading to a positive psychological outcome (e.g. increased motivation), which in turn may lead to higher PWYW payments (gamified service).

Past research has predominantly studied gamification in the context of traditional, but not PWYW, pricing with Ghose et al. (2024) being a notable exception. For example, Insley and Nunan (2014) suggested that by integrating game elements into shopping carts, retailers can effectively manage price comparison behaviours. Similarly, Bauer et al. (2020) demonstrated that engaging gamification without monetary rewards can enhance customer related outcomes. Modern technology such as social media has further encouraged gamification of prices. Some brands have started allowing consumers to unlock discounts by tweeting, sharing status updates or checking in Yeoman, et al. (2017). Companies have further encouraged more efficient pricing to boosts sales through rewards, such as an airline selling unsold seats to frequent flyers (Temnyalov, 2019). For the current work, we engage a key gameful affordance (i.e. rewards) to explore its impact on PWYW payments. Next, we discuss gamification rewards and other relevant literature leading to our hypotheses.

Rewards are a cornerstone of gamification, featuring in almost all gamified implementations. They tap into the motivational drivers of human behaviour (Robson et al., 2015). In gamified systems, rewards can take many forms, including points, badges, levels, achievements and virtual or physical prizes. They are typically combined with several game design elements and tied to specific actions or behaviours that the gamification system designers want to encourage. Grounded in the substantial self-determination theory (SDT) literature (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Deci, 1975; Ryan et al., 1983), rewards have been shown to span the continuum of human motivation from extrinsic (rewards that can modify behaviour irrespective of task interest e.g. participating in a game solely to be rewarded) to intrinsic (rewards that encourage participation or engagement for the pure pleasure of playing e.g. participating in a game due to feelings of competence, mastery or performance-satisfaction).

Intrinsic motivation is an innate propensity that describes people’s natural inclination to do something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable (Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde, 1993). Consequently, it is considered a highly desirable psychological outcome of gamification that promotes positive user activity (Sreejesh et al., 2021), drives beneficial user behaviours (Kittelberger et al., 2017), increases consumer engagement (Shankar, 2016) and promotes or enhances altruistic behaviour (Holzer et al., 2020). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to doing something to achieve a separable outcome (Deci and Ryan, 2008; Ryan and Connell, 1989; Ryan and Deci, 2000a). It includes factors other than enjoyment of the task itself – such as compliance with some external regulation. Extrinsic motivation represents intentional behaviour and can vary greatly across a continuum (Ryan and Connell, 1989) depending on the degree of autonomy (Heider, 2013). At its very core, gamification is about human motivation and “no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation,” (Ryan and Deci, 2000b, p. 70).

The gamification literature suggests that rewards can be on a motivational continuum and points to three reward types (Pallak et al., 1982), namely, (a) symbolic – rewards that symbolise success through social recognition, status or other means with no material benefit in themselves, thereby enhancing intrinsic motivation based on competence and task mastery (e.g. digital badges or trophies received in-game); (b) verbal – any form of spoken or written positive feedback, praise or reinforcement of success, promoting feelings of success and autonomy thereby also driving intrinsic motivation but not as strongly as symbolic rewards (for example: congratulatory, encouragement or celebratory messages at various times in the game); and (c) tangible – monetary or non-monetary extrinsic rewards that can be assigned a financial value which may tempt, challenge or force the recipient to play for the reward rather than the joy of playing the game (for example: cash or cash-equivalent rewards). We further show (Table 1) that our rewards classification is grounded in the extant literature that incorporates rewards as gameful affordances. In the current work, we study the role of gamified rewards in PWYW pricing.

PWYW is an innovative pricing strategy that empowers buyers to decide their own prices (Kim et al., 2014). In other words, buyers can pay any amount of money after consumption of the product or service, and the seller cannot thereafter withdraw the offer (Kim et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009). Previous research shows that delegating pricing control to buyers can drive higher perceptions of fairness and satisfaction amongst consumers (Haws and Bearden, 2006). Although economic considerations would predict that buyers are better off without paying anything, research findings suggest otherwise. PWYW is guided by social exchange rather than economic exchange and the average price paid to the seller is significantly greater than zero (Machado, 2013; Mak et al., 2015; Santana and Morwitz, 2011). In fact, past studies show that several economic and social variables (like altruism, price consciousness, fairness and satisfaction) can significantly influence prices paid in the PWYW context (Kim et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2016b).

PWYW is driven by significant social considerations. Socially influenced relationships are guided by non-economic considerations like norms of reciprocity, cooperation and distribution (Heyman and Ariely, 2004). Research suggests that people are less likely to violate social norms, as such actions would cause distress and social disapproval. For example, recent work by Roy et al. (2021) suggests that during the time of making PWYW payments, consumers could be under a spotlight. In other words, people perceive greater attention on themselves, especially in the social presence of others, while making PWYW pricing decisions (Roy et al., 2021). Similarly, previous work suggests that consumers feel judged while making PWYW payments and may further avoid this payment altogether if an alternate low-price strategy was made available (Gneezy et al., 2012). Recent evidence also suggests that music and presence of others can motivate higher PWYW payments (Roy and Das, 2022). Based on extant research, it appears that PWYW prices could be driven by pro-social considerations.

Intrinsic motivation focusses on expending effort as the task itself is inherently enjoyable and interesting (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). On the other hand, for extrinsic motivation, the desire to engage in the task is based on outcomes (e.g. incentives) external to the work (Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2000c). Furthermore, the decision to expend effort when a task is enjoyable is fully self-determined and autonomous (Grant, 2008). SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985) introduces the notion that motivators can lie on a continuum ranging from entirely controlled (extrinsic) to entirely autonomous (intrinsic). Building on their seminal work on self-determined human behaviour, Ryan and Deci (2000c) demonstrated that external rewards significantly undermine human self-regulation impairing intrinsic motivation. Extending this line of work, recent research shows that tasks that require creativity (and are inherently self-determined and enjoyable) are more conducive to intrinsic (versus extrinsic) motivation (Malek et al., 2020).

In the previous section, we discussed that gamification rewards could be more intrinsically or extrinsically motivating. On the motivation continuum (Deci and Ryan, 1985), symbolic rewards are likely to be more intrinsically motivating compared to tangible and verbal rewards. Recent research demonstrates that symbolic rewards can indeed increase intrinsic motivation (Griffin and Parker, 2022). Alternately, tangible rewards lean towards some form of external inducement (e.g. incentives) that may undermine intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000c). Finally, verbal rewards (e.g. positive feedback or praise) sit somewhere along the intrinsic–extrinsic motivational continuum.

Previous research suggests that intrinsic motivation can further strengthen the motivation underlying pro-social behaviour. For example, acts of altruism are deemed selfless and intrinsically motivated (Batson et al., 1991). Similarly, prior literature suggests that when intrinsic motivation is high, people will experience more autonomy and self-regulate their behaviour to engage in prosocial acts (Grant, 2008). The PWYW literature shows that prosocial motives can drive higher PWYW payments (Kim et al., 2009). Finally, given that rewards can motivate pro-social behaviours (White et al., 2020), we hypothesise that:

Human beings are guided by physiological functions (such as the sleep/wake cycle) and cognitive performance based on a biological clock or circadian rhythm, which systematically fluctuates throughout a 24-hour period (Hofstra and de Weerd, 2008). Research suggests that such physiological functions can reach a peak as the day progresses, while seemingly attaining a trough during the night (Hofstra and de Weerd, 2008). More importantly, circadian rhythms help organisms to coordinate their daily functions based on this physiology (Hastings et al., 2003). For instance, the human body may respond by releasing sleep hormones when the sun sets and evening progresses (Schmidt et al., 2007). Explained differently, circadian rhythm attunes itself to the external time cues (sunrise, sunset) when such cues are available in the environment. Since an individual’s circadian rhythm seems to oscillate during the same time every day, time-of-day is used as a proxy to measure circadian rhythm in human beings (Gullo et al., 2018).

Human motivation and cognition can be further contingent on time-of-day. Early research argued that humans are more energetic in the morning compared to afternoon and evening (Thayer, 1987). Experimental studies showed that exertion of effort during the course of the day leads to fatigue (Broadbent, 1979). Similarly, cognitive functioning could also deplete over the day, including a “post lunch” dip in sustained attention (Benedetti et al., 2015; Smith et al., 1991, p. 127). As Riley et al. (2017) point out, on average attentional abilities are highest in the morning and decline as the day progresses. Past evidence suggests that elevated cognition levels can increase human motivation (Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2016).

Collectively, the above findings suggest resource depletion (motivation, cognition) over the course of the day. This in turn may have implications for intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated tasks which are inherently more enjoyable could be perceived as more effortful as the day progresses and resources are depleted (Benedetti et al., 2015). Supporting this, findings indicate that psychological benefits of performing a task for intrinsic reasons diminish as the day progresses (Benedetti et al., 2015). This suggests that mornings may be more conducive to tasks that need higher volition and autonomy, the underpinnings of intrinsic motivation. Recent PWYW research argues that consumers are able to make more favourable pricing decisions when they are less fatigued (Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, symbolic rewards (e.g. a social recognition) that promote intrinsic motivation should be most appealing in the morning.

The implication of motivation for verbal and tangible reward types as the day progresses may be interesting too, given that fatigue can negatively influence PWYW pricing decisions (Wang et al., 2022). Recent research suggests that when internal resources are relatively depleted, human beings can draw on an external pool of resources to keep up their motivation (Gerpott et al., 2022). For example, when employees had a resource-draining experience resulting from an aversive morning commute, they could still maintain positive motivational states at work when they had access to external resources such as a good work environment (Gerpott et al., 2022). Given the afternoon slump mentioned above, verbal rewards may act as an external resource to boost motivation and may be more effective during this time. For tangible rewards, evening would be the most suitable time to enhance their appeal. Following the day, human beings would experience the most resource depletion (e.g. fatigue) in the evening. Past research suggests that when resources are expended (e.g. fatigue, cognitive depletion), people behave intuitively to focus on immediate tangible rewards to earn resources (Boucher and Kofos, 2012; Hochstein, et al., 2017). Based on the above discussion, we posit that:

Our discussion about the effectiveness of reward types leading to our first hypothesis involves intrinsic motivation. We also argued that time-of-day could have implications for human motivation, as people may experience resource depletion from morning to evening. Based on this, we posited that the influence of reward type on PWYW prices paid would be further contingent on time-of-day. Mornings could be very conducive to intrinsic motivation and hence a symbolic reward could be more effective. As the day progresses, depending on the depletion of motivation, verbal could be more effective in the afternoon and tangible in the evening. In essence, the joint effect of reward type and time-of-day should influence PWYW prices, with this influence being mediated through intrinsic motivation. The proposed mediating role of intrinsic motivation is based on past work. Firstly, past research shows that PWYW payments could be driven by intrinsically motivating factors like non-economic and social considerations (Kim et al., 2009; Heyman and Ariely, 2004). Secondly, prior research also reports that intrinsic motivation is an antecedent to PWYW prices (Roy et al., 2016a). Given the role of intrinsic motivation in reward and PWYW prices, it is possible that time of day and reward type will jointly influence PWYW prices through intrinsic motivation.

A large body of PWYW literature also suggests that IRP could additionally mediate this process. The literature defines IRP as a memory-resident price that works like an internal compass and is shaped by actual, fair or past price experiences from shopping episodes (Kim et al., 2009; Lowengart, 2002). IRP could also be conceptualised as a predictive price expectation shaped by consumers’ previous shopping experiences and operationalised as the amount of money consumers think a product is going to cost them (Kim et al., 2009). In the context of PWYW, consumers’ IRP plays a key role as a proximal antecedent to PWYW payments. Past research indicates that consumers can allocate up to 86% of their IRPs (across product categories) to decide PWYW payments (Kim et al., 2009). The PWYW literature also argues that IRP exercises the biggest influence and can further mediate the effect of a number of antecedent variables on PWYW prices paid (Kim et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2016b). Specific to our context, given the role of reward type and time-of-day, it is possible that these variables would jointly impact PWYW prices, through one’s IRP. Based on the above theorisation, we think there could be multiple pathways (e.g. intrinsic motivation, IRP) through which reward type and time-of-day can jointly impact PWYW prices. We therefore posit:

Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

Experiment 1 was conducted as a one factor between subjects experiment. Reward type was the single factor with three levels (symbolic versus verbal versus tangible). 255 participants from the general Australian population (mean age = 38.04, 55% female) were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. Furthermore, participants were randomly allocated across any time of the day, starting from morning (7 a.m.) to evening (9 p.m.). Participants were recruited through PureProfile (PP), an online research panel provider. Based on the account holder’s profile information, PP is able to draw a sample in line with the client’s request for target samples. Online panel providers such as MTurk and PP provide accessible, externally valid research participants. Furthermore, the data provided have been shown to be of the same quality and reliability as traditional samples (Goodman et al., 2013).

From the participants’ perspective, the experiment was conducted in two parts. In the first part, subjects were told that they were taking part in a website engagement study for a wildlife park where they noticed a pop-up virtual “koala game” on the park’s website. Participants were asked to undertake three simple point-and-click tasks to achieve the outcome of a happy koala. Following this, the reward manipulation was presented as part of the gamified implementation. All participants were presented with a game screen showing that they had successfully scored 100/100 points and won a reward.

Under symbolic reward, on playing the game, respondents received the “Koala Hero” digital badge. Under verbal reward, they received the congratulatory message “Congratulations […] You’re a ’Koala Hero”. Finally, under tangible reward they received a “Koala Hero” Toy. The experimental manipulation was adapted from the gamification literature (Kim and Ahn, 2017). In that study, the authors engaged in a similar reward type manipulation using different gamified vignettes of a loyalty program. After the gamification manipulation, participants responded to a series of manipulation check questions, realism of the scenario and attitude towards koalas.

Immediately following this, they moved onto the second part of the study, which they were informed was about “shopping decisions.” In this part, respondents were advised that while on the wildlife park website, they received a special pricing promotion called PWYW Lunch at the “Koala Café,” located within the wildlife park. Following Viglia et al. (2019), the scenario for the restaurant involved good food, ambience and excellent reviews from customers. Furthermore, respondents were advised that part of their PWYW payment would be donated towards a charity to protect koalas. Past PWYW research recommends PWYW pricing to be linked to charitable causes to stimulate higher payments (Kim et al., 2009). A sample of both parts of the stimuli can be found in the Appendix. Following this, subjects responded to the key dependent variable, PWYW prices paid. A number of control variables linked to the PWYW literature (fairness, satisfaction, price consciousness, altruism and social desirability) were also measured (Kim et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2021). In addition, subjects reported their intrinsic motivation, IRP and responded to demographic questions (age, gender and income). Following this, participants were thanked for their contributions. Details of all scale items and experimental stimuli are available in the Web appendix.

Manipulation check questions for “reward type” involved asking the respondents whether they perceived the reward received to be tangible, verbal, or symbolic on a seven-point Likert scale. For example, the corresponding items were presented as manipulation checks. “The reward I received in this game is” – “Tangible, because I received an actual gift”, “Verbal, because I received spoken or written positive feedback” and “Symbolic, because I received a badge that signals success”. Realism was measured using three items – “The situation described in this scenario seems realistic”, “It is easy to imagine being in such a situation” and “Something like this can happen to me” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88). Attitude towards koalas was measured with three items – “I love koalas”, “I have a good word for koalas” and “I am concerned about koalas” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). PWYW prices paid was measured with an open-ended question about how much money the respondent would pay in dollars for the meal (Kim et al., 2009).

Several control variables were also measured following Kim et al. (2009). Satisfaction was measured with a single item, “I think I will be satisfied with the meal”. Fairness was measured with the single item, “I think my price paid was fair toward the seller”. Price consciousness was measured using five items, examples being, “I usually purchase items on sale only”, “Before I buy a product, I often check the prices of different retailers to obtain the best benefit”, (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82). Social desirability was measured with five items, exemplars being, “I am always courteous even to people who are disagreeable”, “I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget”, (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.57). Altruism was measured with five items like, “I love to help others”, “I have a good word for everyone” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Intrinsic motivation was measured with three items, namely, “It was interesting to engage in this gamified app”, “It was enjoyable to engage in this gamified app” and “It was fun to engage in this gamified app” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). Finally, IRP was measured by asking respondents how much money they were willing to pay for a similar meal at a fixed-price restaurant. All scales were seven-point Likert-type with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree as the endpoints and are presented in the Web appendix.

The index for realism (M = 4.63) and attitude towards koalas was subjected to a one-way ANOVA with reward type as the independent variable. Findings showed that neither realism of the scenarios [F (2, 252) = 2.16, p = 0.17], nor attitude towards koalas [F (2, 252) = 0.24, p = 0.78] differed significantly by reward condition. Therefore, subjects did not perceive the realism of the scenarios nor how they evaluate koalas to be different across reward type conditions. We also subjected the reward type manipulation check items to a one-way ANOVA. Respondents in the tangible (versus verbal versus symbolic) reward condition perceived the reward to be more tangible (Ms of 4.77 versus 3.51 versus 4.08, F (2, 252) = 10.02. p < 0.001). Similarly, respondents perceived the reward to be more verbal versus tangible versus symbolic (Ms of 5.14 versus 4.63 versus 4.42, F (2, 252) = 3.89. p < 0.05) and more symbolic versus tangible versus verbal (Ms of 5.34 versus 4.63 versus 4.97, F (2, 252) = 4.92, p <0.01) in the respective reward conditions, compared to other conditions. Based on this, we can conclude that the reward type manipulation was successful.

To test for H1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with reward type as the independent variable and PWYW prices paid as the dependent variable. As predicted, subjects were willing to pay more in the symbolic followed by verbal and tangible reward conditions (Ms of 30.89 versus 23.44 versus 16.52, F (2, 252) = 10.16, p < 0.001). Findings from contrast analyses showed that symbolic compared to tangible reward had a significantly higher impact on PWYW prices (Ms of 30.89 versus 16.52, t(252) = 4.5, p <0.01). Similarly, symbolic had a significantly higher impact on PWYW prices compared to verbal reward (Ms of 30.89 versus 23.44, t(252) = 2.39, p < 0.05). Finally, verbal had higher impact on PWYW prices compared to tangible (Ms of 23.44 versus 16.52, t(252) = 2.17, p < 0.05). The effect for reward type was also significant after controlling for variables like “fairness”, “satisfaction”, “altruism”, “social desirability” and “price consciousness” (F (2, 247) = 8.33, p <0.001). Findings, therefore, supported H1.

Based on our underlying theory of gamification and PWYW pricing, we had posited that the amount of PWYW payment is contingent on the type of reward. The gamified platform we used involved either a symbolic or verbal or tangible reward, followed by the PWYW restaurant offer. We had hypothesised that a symbolic reward would involve intrinsic motivation, which has been linked to prosocial behaviour (in our case higher PWYW payments). The effect of gamification on payments was obtained after controlling for a number of variables linked to the PWYW literature, including fairness, price consciousness, social desirability and altruism amongst others. Ruling out these alternate explanations provides confidence that gamification is indeed driving the higher payments for the PWYW business. The first study, therefore, supported our hypotheses about the influence of reward types on PWYW payments. We now turn to Experiment 2, which provides more rigorous support for H1 by ruling out alternate explanations.

Experiment 2 was designed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the reward and PWYW manipulation in the first experiment was designed for subjects to be on their own (e.g. playing games on a computer). PWYW payments can vary depending on whether they are in a public versus private setting (Gneezy et al., 2012). Studies have also suggested that social settings (private versus public) can influence intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation underpinning PWYW payments (Roy et al., 2016a). Recent literature has further shown that social recognition underpinning symbolic rewards can involve intrinsic motivation (Griffin and Parker, 2022). Therefore, the effect of reward type on PWYW payments must be teased out from private versus public setting. Secondly, unlike Experiment 1, where our PWYW business was linked with charity (Kim et al., 2009), the second experiment did not have a charitable angle. Finally, we engaged a different gamification manipulation (e.g. restaurant-related reward) in the second study as compared to the koala-related reward in experiment 1.

Thus, Experiment 2 was designed to provide more rigorous evidence and extend the findings about reward type. Based on the above, Experiment 2 engaged a 3 (reward type: symbolic versus verbal versus tangible) × 2 (social setting: private versus public) between subjects design. A total of 838 subjects (mean age = 39.9, female = 53%) from the Australian general population and recruited through PP were randomly allocated to the experimental conditions across any time of the day between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m.

The experiment was conducted in seemingly unrelated parts. In the first part, subjects played a game centred around a fictitious restaurant named “Cucina”. The gamification manipulation involved naming a dish challenge based on the ingredients, with three different reward types. Across the three reward type conditions, participants were invited to name the dish from the restaurant menu by looking at the ingredients on the screen. The symbolic reward involved a “VIP” status badge, the verbal reward focussed on a “congratulatory message” from the Executive Chef, while the tangible reward involved a gift hamper. This was followed by manipulation checks for reward type and scenario realism.

In the second part, subjects were invited to dine in at “Cucina”, either on their own (private setting) or with a group of friends (public setting). Furthermore, participants received their reward while they were alone (versus in front of others). For example, while dining on their own (versus with friends), the manager came and handed the reward (communicated the message from executive chef, handed the badge or gift hamper). This manipulation was adapted from the literature (Roy et al., 2016b). The stimuli for the reward type and social setting manipulation can be found in the Web appendix. The restaurant scenario was followed by reporting PWYW prices paid (either on their own or in front of friends), along with control variables (fairness, satisfaction, altruism, price consciousness and social desirability) and IRP. Subjects also reported their intrinsic motivation and demographics. Finally, subjects were thanked for their participation.

The same items were used from experiment 1 to measure different constructs. Scenario realism was measured with three items: “This is a realistic scenario”, “The scenario is easy to imagine” and “This could happen to me” and showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88). The scales for intrinsic motivation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95), price consciousness (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85), social desirability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.48) and altruism (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) all demonstrated adequate reliability.

The manipulation check for reward type was subjected to a two-way ANOVA with reward type and social setting as the independent variables. For tangible reward, findings showed a main effect of reward type [F (2,832) = 40.06, p < 0.001], with tangible reward perceived as being more tangible compared to verbal and symbolic (Ms of 5.13 versus 4.02 versus 3.79). Similarly, a main effect was obtained for verbal reward [F (2,832) = 17.45, p < 0.001] and verbal reward was perceived in the correct way compared to tangible and symbolic (Ms of 5.03 versus 4.36 versus 4.32). Finally, a main effect was obtained for the symbolic reward [F (2,832) = 7.51, p < 0.001] and this reward type was also perceived in the desired manner compared to tangible but not verbal (Ms of 4.69 versus 4.24 versus 4.71). The realism check (M = 4.04) variable was also subjected to a two-way ANOVA, with findings showing that it was not affected by the individual independent variables or the interaction between them.

We had argued previously that symbolic reward has the highest influence on PWYW prices. We obtained support for this hypothesis, albeit when participants played games on their own in the first experiment. Based on this theorisation, we should be able to replicate the effect of symbolic reward in private but not public setting. In other words, we expect prices paid to be higher for symbolic reward in the private (versus public) setting. Similarly, tangible and verbal rewards should lead to higher prices, albeit in the public (versus private) setting. Based on this theorisation we conducted a two-way ANOVA with prices paid as the dependent variable while social setting and reward type served as the independent variables. Findings showed a significant two-way interaction between the independent variables [F(2,828) = 7.41, p < 0.001]. Results of contrast analyses showed that tangible rewards drove higher prices in the public versus private setting [Ms of 44.84 versus 38.31, t(832) = -0.244, p <0.05]. Similarly, verbal rewards led to higher prices in the public versus private setting [Ms of 37.19 versus 31.26, t(832) = 2.09, p < 0.05]. On the other hand, symbolic reward led to higher prices in the private versus public setting [Ms of 37.36 versus 31.83, t(832) = −2.03, p < 0.05]. The two-way interaction between reward type and social setting remained significant after controlling for variables like “fairness”, “satisfaction”, “altruism”, “social desirability” and “price consciousness” [F (2, 827) = 7.42, p <0.001].

Our second study extended and validated the findings from study 1, albeit with important differences. Firstly, we used a different gamification manipulation leading to the different reward types. Secondly, while we again used a PWYW restaurant, this time there was no charitable linkage. Thirdly, based on our symbolic (versus verbal and tangible) reward being on the intrinsic–extrinsic motivation continuum, we tested if the private versus public setting will have an impact. The reward and PWYW manipulation for our first study involved subjects shopping on their own. In contrast, the second experiment engaged reward and PWYW manipulations involving shoppers either on their own or in groups. Having a social setting (e.g. public) was also motivated by the possibility that symbolic could have social signalling effects and could be effective in public setting as well, even though recent literature has shown that social recognition underpinning symbolic rewards can also involve intrinsic motivation (Griffin and Parker, 2022). Further, if verbal and tangible are leaning towards the extrinsic motivation continuum, they should have a higher impact in a public setting as past PWYW studies have shown that private versus public settings can be influenced by intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (Roy et al., 2016a). Consistent with this, we found that symbolic reward works better in the private (versus public) setting leading to higher PWYW payments. On the other hand, both tangible and verbal rewards led to higher payments in the public (versus private) setting. Next, we discuss Experiment 3, which was designed to test H2 and H3.

Experiment 3 engaged a 3 (time-of-day: morning versus afternoon versus evening) × 3 (reward type: symbolic versus verbal versus tangible) between subjects design. A total of 561 subjects (mean age = 39.4, female = 54.7%) recruited through PP and drawn from the general population in Australia were randomly allocated to the experimental conditions. PP randomly allocated consumers to the nine experimental conditions, based on the local time, i.e. specifically during morning versus afternoon versus evening timeslots.

The experiment was conducted in seemingly separate parts. The first part involved a time-of-day manipulation recommended by the literature (Hossain and Saini, 2014). Respondents participated in the survey during specific time windows – morning (7 a.m.–9 a.m.); afternoon (1 p.m.–3 p.m.); and evening (7 p.m.–9p.m.), based on the local time in various parts of Australia. For each time-of-day, respondents randomly received one of the reward type manipulations, i.e. symbolic, verbal or tangible. The same reward type manipulation from Experiment 1 was engaged. Reward type manipulation was followed by the same manipulation check questions from Experiment 1. Subjects were then exposed to the PWYW restaurant offer and reported their prices paid along with the same control variables (fairness, satisfaction, altruism, price consciousness and social desirability) from Experiment 1. Subjects also reported their IRP, intrinsic motivation and responded to realism of the scenario and demographics. Finally, respondents were thanked for their participation. Details of all scale items and experimental stimuli are available in the Web appendix.

The same items from Experiment 1 were used to measure the constructs. In addition, the scales for price consciousness (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) and altruism (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) all showed good reliability. All the scales were averaged to form an index and used in the analyses.

We subjected the manipulation check measures to a two-way ANOVA with reward type and time-of-day as independent variables. For the tangible reward manipulation check, only a main effect of reward type was obtained [F (2, 552) = 66.94, p <0.001] with subjects perceiving the reward to be more tangible compared to verbal and symbolic conditions (Ms of 5.02 versus 3.03 versus 3.49). Similarly, the verbal reward was considered by participants to be more verbal compared to tangible and symbolic conditions [Ms of 5.17 versus 4.63 versus 4.42, F (2, 552) = 13.45, p <0.001]. Finally, the symbolic reward was also perceived correctly compared to verbal and tangible reward conditions (Ms of 5.35 versus 4.81 versus 4.70, F (2, 552) = 10.27, p <0.001) conditions. Thus, based on the findings, the manipulation of reward type was deemed successful. Furthermore, we also subjected the realism (M = 4.68) measure to a two-way ANOVA and findings did not show any significant main or interaction effect.

We conducted a two-way ANOVA with time-of-day and reward type as the independent variables and prices paid as the key dependent variable. As predicted, only the two-way interaction between reward type and time-of-day was significant [F (4, 552) = 5.68, p <0.001]. Findings from contrast analyses showed that symbolic reward was more effective in the morning compared to the afternoon (Ms of 25.5 versus 18.58, t(552) = 2.55, p <0.01), as well as when morning was compared to the evening (Ms of 25.5 versus 16.78, t(552) = 3.22, p <0.01), with no difference between afternoon and evening (Ms of 18.58 versus 16.78, t(552) = 0.67, p = 0.50). The verbal reward was more effective in the afternoon versus evening [Ms of 26.29 versus 19.75, t(552) = 2.61, p <0.01] as well as afternoon versus morning [Ms of 26.29 versus 20.85, t(552) = −2.132, p <0.05] and no significant difference between morning and evening [Ms of 20.85 versus 19.75, t(552) = 0.44, p = 0.65]. Finally, the tangible reward was more effective in the evening versus morning [Ms of 24.67 versus 19.06, t(552) = −2.11, p <0.05] and no significant difference between evening versus afternoon [Ms of 24.67 versus 20.41, t(552) = −1.56, p = 0.1]) nor morning versus afternoon [Ms of 19.06 versus 20.41, t(552) = −0.49, p = 0.62]. Findings therefore support H2 for symbolic and verbal, and partially for tangible reward type. The two-way interaction was still significant after controlling for confounds such as fairness, altruism, satisfaction and price consciousness [F (4, 548) = 4.81, p < 0.001]. Figure 2 depicts the two-way interaction.

To test for our moderated mediation H3, we engaged Hayes (2012) Model 7 with 5,000 bootstrap analyses. PWYW prices paid served as the dependent variable with reward type as the independent variable and time-of-day as the moderator. Both intrinsic motivation and IRP served as the mediators. In addition, both independent variables were specified as multi-categorical with three levels, i.e. time-of-day (morning, afternoon and evening) and reward types (symbolic, tangible and verbal). Findings showed that symbolic reward in the evening reduced intrinsic motivation (β = −0.94, t = −2.49, p < 0.05) as well as IRP (β = −12.23, t = 3.54, p < 0.001). Further, symbolic reward in the afternoon also reduced IRP (β = −11.19, t = −3.13, p < 0.01). Intrinsic motivation, however, did not have a significant impact on prices paid (β = 0.3, t = 1.12, p = 0.26). IRP, on the other hand, had a significant impact on prices paid (β = 0.82, t = 27.35, p < 0.001). An inspection of the indirect effect showed that presenting a symbolic reward in the afternoon (conditional indirect effect = −3.43, 95% confidence interval does not straddle zero, LLCI = −6.23 ULCI = −0.58) and evening (conditional indirect effect = −4.28, 95% confidence interval does not straddle zero, LLCI = −8.28 ULCI = −0.17) can reduce IRP, with significant index of moderated mediation for afternoon (index = −9.15, LLCI = −15.66 ULCI = −3.39) and evening (index = −10.01, LLCI = −17.26 ULCI = −3.48). Based on the findings, it seems that presenting a reward (e.g. symbolic) at a specific time-of-day (afternoon, evening) can lower PWYW payments by lowering IRP. H3b is supported while H3a is not supported.

Experiment 3 manipulated both time-of-day and reward type to study their joint impact on prices paid. We had posited that based on differential levels of motivation across time-of-day, the effectiveness of reward type on PWYW payment decisions would vary. We tested this hypothesis in our third study. We also engaged a number of control variables related to the PWYW literature. Our findings showed that, in a gamified PWYW context, symbolic reward worked best in the morning while the verbal reward worked best in the afternoon. However, tangible reward was more effective only in the evening compared to the morning. Findings therefore support that the impact of reward type on PWYW prices is further moderated by time-of-day. In terms of mediation hypothesis H3, we had posited that the joint impact of reward type and time-of-day on prices paid will be mediated through multiple pathways of intrinsic motivation and IRP. We found that presenting a symbolic reward in the evening can actually lower intrinsic motivation; however, this effect did not carry further to influence PWYW prices. On the other hand, presenting symbolic reward in afternoon and evening led to lower PWYW payments through IRP. Based on the evidence, the role of IRP as the mediator is supported.

The field study was conducted at Currumbin wildlife park, a popular heritage-listed zoological park in Queensland, Australia. The study was conducted across three different days of a week, towards the beginning (Monday), middle (Wednesday) and over the weekend (Saturday). On these days, participants were randomly allocated to different reward conditions throughout the day. Consistent with our laboratory Experiment 1, we only approached subjects who were on their own, and not with others. Over the course of data collection, 118 subjects (45% female) who were on their own completed the study.

Participants were informed that they were taking part in a study about koalas and offered the chance to play a Virtual Koala game on an iPad to win the reward based on their allocated condition. Consistent with Experiment 1, all participants received 100/100 points in the game. Following this game, subjects were offered three types of rewards. Under the tangible reward condition, participants received a real koala toy, while they received an actual “Koala Hero” button badge under the symbolic condition. In the verbal reward condition, they were verbally congratulated and praised for their performance in the game. Immediately following this, participants were given a PWYW offer to buy a limited-edition koala coffee travel mug. Subjects then reported how much they enjoyed playing the game. The field study was conducted in line with extant research (Morales et al., 2017), which recommends that a field study should deploy realistic dependent variable. In our case, it was the amount of money subjects paid for the koala coffee mug.

The data was analysed using one-way ANOVA. Firstly, we used “joy of playing the game” (M = 5.19) as the dependent variable, with reward type as the independent variable. Findings showed that reward type did not influence joy of playing the game significantly [F(2,115) = 0.16, p = 0.85]. We then conducted a one-way ANOVA with contrast analyses using PWYW prices as the dependent variable. Reward type was engaged as the independent variable. Findings showed that reward type had a significant influence on PWYW prices [F(2,115) = 8.37, p < 0.001]. Findings from contrast analyses showed that symbolic rewards had higher impact on PWYW prices compared to verbal [Ms of 31.27 versus 26.54, t (115) = 2.15, p < 0.05] and tangible [Ms of 31.27 versus 21.97, t (115) = 4.08, p < 0.001]. Further, verbal had a higher impact on PWYW prices compared to tangible [Ms of 26.54 versus 21.97, t (115) = 2.00, p <0.05]. Findings from the field experiment once again support H1.

The field experiment was conducted to further enhance external validity of our findings. The study was conducted at a wildlife park and engaged actual payments made towards a koala coffee travel mug. The field study engaged a different product (i.e. a coffee travel mug) unlike restaurants used in our laboratory experiments. Findings from the field study also controlled for joy of playing the game. Findings once again supported H1.

In the current research, we tested the basic concept of whether gamification can encourage higher PWYW payments. We specifically tested an isolated gameful affordance, rewards and examined whether a particular reward type affected PWYW payments, and whether this effect was further moderated by time-of-day or circadian rhythm of an individual. Three laboratory experiments and a field study were conducted to examine our conceptual model and empirically test our hypotheses. Drawing on the theory of gamification and intrinsic motivation, we posited that different reward types (symbolic versus verbal versus tangible) will differentially impact PWYW payments for a restaurant linked to charity. To test this, a gamified PWYW context was engaged, which was further linked to a PWYW offer. Findings showed that respondents in the symbolic reward condition were willing to pay the most money, followed by verbal and tangible reward conditions. This was followed with a second experiment which implemented a different gamification manipulation within the context of a restaurant which was not linked to charity. Findings showed that symbolic rewards led to higher PWYW payments in private, while tangible and verbal rewards drove higher payments in public (e.g. when the customer was with a group of friends). Across both experiments, we were able to find robust support for symbolic rewards involving intrinsic motivation, while verbal and tangible being externally motivated.

In the third experiment, findings indicated that the effect of reward type on PWYW payments could be made more effective by choosing when (i.e. time-of-day) it is pitched to the target audience. Symbolic rewards seem to be most effective in the morning, followed by verbal rewards in the afternoon and tangible rewards in the evening. This is suggested based on how human motivational resources could deplete during the course of the day. Symbolic rewards which promote intrinsic motivation seem to be most effective during mornings which are considered the most motivating time of the day. Verbal rewards were more motivating during the afternoon when people’s motivational resources are depleted, and they needed an external boost. Finally, motivational resources are lowest at night and subjects might prefer a tangible reward to acquire motivational resources. The two-way interaction between time-of-day and reward type further influenced prices paid through a subject’s IRP. This is consistent with past PWYW literature which demonstrates IRP to exercise the biggest influence on PWYW prices paid (Kim et al., 2009; Roy et al., 2016b). Finally, a field study was conducted to enhance the external validity of our findings.

We engaged a number of control variables related to the PWYW literature. For example, variables like price consciousness, fairness, satisfaction, altruism and social desirability can influence pricing. This is based on the social (e.g. reciprocity), rather than economic (e.g. profit maximisation) considerations underpinning PWYW pricing. We also controlled for joy of playing the game in our field study. By ruling out these alternate explanations across different experiments, we provide consistent evidence that the effects posited in our research are indeed driven by reward types. The engagement of laboratory experiments, control variables (e.g. based on PWYW literature), accompanied by different gamification stimuli and products and services (e.g. restaurant, coffee mug), provides confidence that the current findings are consistent, robust and demonstrate both internal and external validity. The overall findings across our studies are presented in Table 2.

In this present work, we engaged gamification rewards to study their influence on a unique pricing strategy, PWYW. In the past, gamification literature has paid relatively less attention to PWYW pricing strategy and implications (Wünderlich et al., 2020). The current research is a novel study of how a key gameful affordance, rewards, can affect PWYW prices paid. By doing so, we provide further evidence of when and how gamification can actually influence pricing decisions.

Our findings contribute to gamification literature in general and more specifically to the evolving body of previous literature that has studied the role of gamification in pricing decisions (Temnyalov, 2019; Bauer et al., 2020; De Canio et al., 2021). In terms of gamification literature, our work extends that of Mullins and Sabherwal (2020) by demonstrating that progression mechanics (e.g. our reward types) can positively influence player actions (specifically, PWYW payments). Furthermore, extending the work of Huotari and Hamari (2017), we show that gamification rewards can act as an enhancing service to further augment the core service and result in higher PWYW payments. We also contribute to time-of-day literature. While prior research has shown the influence of time-of-day on consumer decisions like variety seeking (Gullo et al., 2018), to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has shown an impact of time-of-day on PWYW pricing strategy.

The current PWYW literature strongly recommends future work to study how this unique pricing strategy can be sustained by delineating conditions that drive higher PWYW payments (Kim et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2016a; Viglia et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2021). Previous research has studied the role of various social and psychological variables that influence PWYW payments. However, the concept of gamification and time-of-day impacting PWYW payments is novel and has neither been previously conceptually proposed nor empirically studied. Our research, therefore, builds on the PWYW literature by studying a psychological variable (e.g. time-of-day) and its interactive influence with reward type, to provide new insights about how pricing decisions in PWYW businesses are driven. Furthermore, the underlying mechanism through which payments are influenced (e.g. joint influence of time-of-day and reward type) provides additional insights about how consumers make these payment decisions, especially through their IRPs. This further contributes to the reference price literature, which had previously demonstrated that this internal price guide can be influenced by external anchors, social influences and previous shopping experiences, amongst others (Adaval and Wyer, 2011; Wong and Kwong, 2000).

PWYW is a practice-driven pricing strategy and widely engaged by a range of businesses like hotels, tourism and music (Kunter, 2015; Mak et al., 2015). Several businesses have started to weave gamification into their PWYW efforts. Some examples that match our current studies - gamified intervention supported by gameful affordances (such as rewards) lead to PWYW for products/services – include Humble Bundle, a digital platform that allows customers to choose how much they pay for bundles of games, books or software. It incorporates gamification through tiered unlockable content (gamification), which encourages higher payments through leaderboards (gameful affordance/reward) and ultimately lets users determine their price (PWYW). The platform’s continued success underscores the relevance of our research context. Another example is the hugely popular Twitch Streaming with Gamified Incentives (link to twitchLink to the cited article.). Twitch streamers frequently use gamified mechanics such as real-time alerts, loyalty badges and interactive polls. Viewers, motivated by these gameful elements and rewards (e.g. shout-outs, special interactions), contribute using a PWYW structure (Kunigita et al., 2023). This live, interactive environment exemplifies how gamified affordances directly influence participative pricing decisions in a real-world digital service.

The findings from the present work can inform gamified approaches designed to enhance their core service, ultimately leading to higher PWYW payments. Furthermore, given the nascent research on PWYW and gamification in live streaming contexts (Ghose et al., 2024), our findings can help managers create favourable conditions to increase PWYW payments. Imagine a musical performance or restaurant website taking bookings for the day. The website can engage customers in a gamified approach to booking with different reward types linked to the PWYW offer. For example, in the morning, customers can be shown their symbolic status (prominently displaying their platinum or gold customer status), while in the afternoon, the reward can involve positive feedback or praise (thanking them for their loyalty or congratulating them on their last engagement). In the evening, bookings could trigger tangible rewards (presenting a voucher or financial reward to the customer).

The implications from our study extend well beyond the digital or online domain. For managers of brick-and-mortar businesses, our findings present some powerful strategies for driving higher PWYW payments. Consider an Asian restaurant that already leverages gamified approaches to enhance customer experience, with in-restaurant “games” being viewed as an unexpected innovation within the industry (Etiemble, 2017). It is plausible that such a restaurant might explore gamified strategies for a PWYW price promotion, perhaps for its opening night or a special occasion (e.g. its 10th anniversary). This approach should further aid in expanding the customer base, as historical practice indicates that PWYW can serve as an effective promotional tool (Stafford, 2009). Furthermore, based on our field study, an institution that seeks to attract charitable giving (e.g. a wildlife hospital) may greet visitors with gamified badges, warm feedback or animal toys to influence PWYW prices paid. Based on our laboratory experiment, such reward types can be varied throughout the day, e.g. badges in the morning, verbal praise in the afternoon and toys in the evening. We believe that managers can use our rewards classification to go beyond the usual, enhancing the canon of gamification rewards they present (for instance, customised avatars or hidden levels in online implementations or unique tokens or exclusive experiences in physical bricks and mortar implementations). We further believe that presenting different reward types, contingent on time-of-day, would drive higher PWYW payments.

Our current work makes useful contributions but is not without limitations. We have studied a restaurant and a coffee mug across our experiments. This was done to maintain consistency in product stimuli across the laboratory experiments and to rule out confounds like product involvement. Furthermore, holding the product category constant enabled like comparison of results. Future work can replicate and extend our findings in the context of different product categories. Our work has manipulated gamification rewards in multiple ways across studies 1, 2 and 3. We have posited and received consistent support for the influence of gamification rewards. It is, however, possible that people may perceive tangible or symbolic rewards as more attractive and valuable than others (e.g. verbal). Future work may therefore delineate such conditions when different reward types carry differential value proposition to affect consumer pricing decisions. Future work may further manipulate reward types in multiple ways. For example, gameful experiences may be built into the PWYW experience (e.g. leaderboards); reward type may be contingent on performance, be certain versus uncertain; provided feedback on game performance; or be awarded with or without playing a game. These approaches are beyond the current theoretical scope, but future research could enrich the literature by studying them. Similarly, future work could compare task versus performance contingent rewards or whether rewards paid before or after consumers make PWYW decisions would be more effective.

All our studies were conducted amongst the Australian general population. Future work can compare results based on a cross-cultural sample (e.g. the USA versus China). We controlled for confounds related to PWYW literature. Future work can study if existing variables known to influence PWYW prices (e.g. time pressure) can interact with gamification reward to influence payments. Future work can also study if our conceptual model holds for other types of pro-social behaviours such as charitable donations, ethical consumption and consumer activism (White, et al., 2020). PWYW literature has noted different variations (e.g. pay-it-forward, pay-what-you-feel) of this pricing strategy. Future work can also compare our model across the different types of PWYW strategies.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.