近年來台灣逐漸開放數位金融相關法規，金融業者也積極推廣數位金融相關服務。在高度監理的法令限制之下，各家銀行提供的數位金融服務大同小異，大多以現金回饋、活儲利率、轉帳次數等作為競爭策略，並無太大變化。數位金融服務跟傳統金融服務最大的差異是消費者與銀行互動型態的轉變，更重視客戶服務體驗之優化，除導入人工智慧、大數據分析等技術之外，遊戲化是一種有溫度的互動模式。在其他營銷市場、學術研究皆可證實導入遊戲化機制對營收、消費者購買意圖是有正面的影響，對變化不大的商品組合有加分的效果，現行國內有許多金融業者開始導入遊戲化設計，學術上對此相關研究仍有限。本研究目的是探討遊戲化機制對使用數位金融服務意願之影響，並將其提供給金融業者制定策略之參考。
本研究以量化的方式進行分析，並以遊戲化八大核心設計問卷情境。從問卷結果中發現：(1)數位金融遊戲化的重點在於是否引發情緒感染，情緒感染對開始及持續使用意願比知覺有用、知覺有趣影響力更大； (2)強連結比弱連結更容易引發情緒感染； (3)消費者自我評估遊戲能力對於知覺有用、知覺有趣有正向影響； (4)弱連結對於女性而言影響較小，男性則是強弱連結皆會影響； (5)知覺有用、知覺有趣、情緒感染會影響非學生之開始及持續使用意願，但學生只會受到情緒感染影響開始使用意願； (6)有使用數位金融經驗的人，會受到自我效能及情緒感染影響使用意願，沒有使用數位金融經驗的人只因情緒感染影響使用意願。

With the regulation of digital finance becoming loose in Taiwan these years, the financial industries are promoting related services of digital finance enthusiastically. However, the biggest difference between digital financial services and traditional financial services is the transformation of interacting mode between customers and banks. It's an enhancement on optimizing the experience of customer service with new technology. In addition to introducing emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data analytics, gamification may be a more enthusiastic interactive mode in digital financial services. More and more domestic banking industries nowadays have already put gamification into effect while they still have a lack of academic research. Regarding to this, instead of providing awards and bonus, the research aims to discover ways not only entertaining customer, but increasing customers' using willingness with the concept of gamification for financial industries’ reference.
This research is analyzed by quantitative methods and designs the questionnaire with eight core values of gamification. The results of the questionnaire are shown as below: (1) The emotional contagion gives much more affection to the starting usage intention than the perceived playfulness and the perceived usefulness (2) Strong ties are much easier to cause emotional contagion than weak ties. (3) Consumers' self-evaluation of their ability to play games is positively affecting the perceived playfulness and the perceived usefulness. (4) Males are affected by strong and weak ties while weak ties get little affection for females. (5) The perceived playfulness, the perceived usefulness, and the emotional contagion will positively affect starting usage intention from the non-student group while only the emotional contagion could give positively affection to starting usage intention from students. (6) The using the willingness of people with experience in using digital finance will be affected by self-efficacy and emotional contagion. And, the willingness of people without experience in using digital finance will be affected only by emotional contagion.

English part
1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you are having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
2. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
3. Alt, R., Beck, R., & Smits, M. T. (2018). FinTech and the transformation of the financial industry.
4. Angelshaug, M. A. G. N. E., & Saebi, T. I. N. A. (2017). The Burning Platform of Retail Banking. The European Business Review, 5, 30-35.
5. Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business research, 49(2), 91-99.
6. Bagozzi, R. P., & Fornell, C. D. (85). F. and Larcker, DF (1981). Canonical Correlation Analysis as a.
7. Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative science quarterly, 459-489.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
10. Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-3.
11. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.
12. Berman, Saul J., Peter J. Korsten, & Anthony Marshall. (2016). Digital Reinvention in consumer products.
13. Brockmeier, J. (2011). Gartner Adds Big Data, Gamification, and Internet of Things to Its Hype Cycle. Read-Write Enterprise, Trend Analysis, 11.
14. Bruner II, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. Journal of business research, 58(5), 553-558.
15. Chou, Y. K. (2015). Octalysis Tool. URL: http://yukaichou.com/octalysis-tool/(visited on 04/12/2019).
16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
17. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011, May). Gamification: Toward a definition. In CHI 2011 gamification workshop proceedings (Vol. 12). Vancouver BC, Canada.
18. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI'11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2425-2428). ACM.
19. Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.
20. Granovetter, M. S. (1973).The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology,78(6),1360–1380.
21. Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 629-686.
22. Haythommthwaite, K. (2005). Characterized social networks as having the following components: Actors. New York: Nodes.
23. IBM Institute for Business Value (2015). Banking redefined-Disruption, transformation and the next-generation bank. Retrieved at October, 2015. From https://www.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/bankingredefined/
24. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587-605.
25. King, B. (2012). Bank 3.0: Why banking is no longer somewhere you go but something you do. John Wiley & Sons.
26. Kraiger, K., Billings, R. S., & Isen, A. M. (1989). The influence of positive affective states on task perceptions and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(1), 12-25.
27. Li, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, Z. (2017). Associations between a Leader's Work Passion and an Employee's Work Passion: A Moderated Mediation Model. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1447.
28. Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. psychology press.
29. MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193-210.
30. Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces, 63(2), 482-501.
31. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7(1), 64.
32. Monin, J. K., Levy, B. R., & Kane, H. S. (2017). To love is to suffer: older adults’ daily emotional contagion to perceived spousal suffering. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 72(3), 383-387.
33. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & management, 38(4), 217-230.
34. Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in education and business (pp. 1-20). Springer, Cham.
35. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2.
36. Raymer, R. (2011). Gamification: using game mechanics to enhance eLearning. ELearn, 2011(9), 3.
37. Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS quarterly, 147-169.
38. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
39. Weber, M., & Quiring, O. (2019). Is it really that funny? Laughter, emotional contagion, and heuristic processing during shared media use. Media Psychology, 22(2), 173-195.
40. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
41. Wingfield, C. (2012). All the world’sa game, and business is a player. The New York Times, A1.
42. Workman, B. (2013). Gamification: Companies of all sizes are using this strategy to win customers and pummel competitors. Business Insider, 10.
43. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
44. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

Chinese part
1. 王妍文 (2017). 滑App理財存到100萬. 遠見心金融特刊, 8-26.
2. 李尹暘, 林曉佩, & 林君怡 (2007). 自我效能理論之分析與應用. 澄清醫護管理雜誌, 3(2), 46-52.
3. 李沃牆 (2017). 臺灣發展數位金融的機會與挑戰. 國土及公共治理季刊, 5(4), 28-37.
4. 李昆翰 (2014). 遊戲化的機制與設計. 國教新知, 61(4), 13-21.
5. 劉冠佑 (2013). 球場氣氛與觀眾情緒之研究：兼論情緒感染的中介效果. 國立嘉義大學觀光休閒管理研究所碩士論文.
6. 歐勁麟 (2012). 以科技接受模式探討智慧型手機購買之行為意圖 - 以iPhone手機為例. 國立高雄應用科技大學企業管理系碩士在職專班碩士論文.