767102

research-article2018
NMS0010.1177/1461444818767102new media & societyFox et al.

Article

new media & society

Player experiences in a
1­–18
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
massively multiplayer online sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461444818767102
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818767102
game: A diary study of journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

performance, motivation, and

social interaction

Jesse Fox, Michael Gilbert

The Ohio State University, USA

Wai Yen Tang

University of Münster, Germany

Abstract
Video game researchers have struggled to capture players’ personal experiences in
natural gaming contexts. We used longitudinal diary methods to examine the everyday
experiences of new and experienced players within a massively multiplayer online game,
Team Fortress 2. Participants (N = 38) completed diaries about gameplay and negative
social interactions such as trash-talking and harassment. Themes included frustrating
play and performance as motivator, as well as six themes regarding social interaction:
skill disparagement, fairweather friends, toxic masculinity, vicious cycles, “kicking” players,
and reporting differences. Some findings supported existing research; others challenge
previous research using other methods. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of using diary methods in video game research.

Keywords
competition, diary methodology, enjoyment, intrinsic motivation, online harassment,
online social interaction, task performance, teamwork, toxic masculinity, video games

Corresponding author:
Jesse Fox, The Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH, USA.
Email: fox.775@osu.edu
2 new media & society 00(0)

Introduction
Playing video games is often a social activity (Eklund, 2015), and with the growth of Internet
accessibility, massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) have attracted millions of play-
ers (Quandt et al., 2014). These games are notable on many levels, including the ability to
play not just with physically co-present individuals but also with friends or complete stran-
gers from around the world. Most popular online video games focus on competition wherein
individual gamers face opposing players, collaboration wherein multiple players face a
common opponent, or a combination of the two in which teams of players compete against
each other to achieve a goal. These games facilitate social interaction among players through
text chat, voice chat, and other channels, such as avatar expressions known as emotes.
Gaming in social contexts is important for researchers to consider given that research
has documented both positive and negative effects, and these effects occur not only
within the game but also extend offline after play. The presence of other people—or even
the perceived presence of others—can affect enjoyment and game performance (Bowman
et al., 2013). Playing with other people leads to greater physiological arousal and engage-
ment than playing alone (Ravaja, 2009). Game experiences differ, however, based on
whom we are playing with (Eklund, 2015; Ravaja, 2009) as well as the nature of interac-
tions among players (Velez et al., 2014).
Several studies have demonstrated benefits from cooperation and positive interac-
tions within games, including friendship development, social capital, and social support
both online and offline (e.g. Cole and Griffiths, 2007; Trepte et al., 2012). There is a dark
side to co-play, however, as features of online video games may also facilitate hostility
between players. The competitive nature of a game has been associated with more
aggressive outcomes (Adachi and Willoughby, 2011; Schmierbach, 2010). Game out-
come and player skill are also key; Shafer (2012) found that participants who played a
first-person shooter competitively and lost reported greater hostility and diminished
enjoyment. Similarly, Przybylski et al. (2014) found that feelings of frustration and
diminished competence within the game lead to aggression. Negative experiences within
gaming environments may trigger socially aggressive behavior toward other players.
Targets of hostile communication online may experience a number of negative outcomes
offline, including psychological distress, rumination, and social withdrawal (Fox and
Tang, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2014; Runions, 2013).
More clarity is needed on the nature of communication in multiplayer games with
both cooperative and competitive elements, where players may interact with both team-
mates and opponents. In this study, we adopted a methodology rarely used in video game
research: diary keeping. Diaries offered two key benefits, allowing us to investigate
social interactions in games in more natural settings and to track players’ experiences
over time (Reis and Gable, 2000). Specifically, we sought to understand how players’
performance and enjoyment were related to the social experiences they had within the
gaming space, particularly negative interactions.

Verbal aggression online: trash-talking and harassment

The social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE; Lea and Spears, 1991) and
the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) explain why people may behave more
Fox et al. 3

aggressively in computer-mediated communication compared to face-to-face environ-

ments. Due to anonymity and limited nonverbal cues, online users experience deindi-
viduation, or a loss of a sense of self. Similarly, others are depersonalized. With fewer
cues to our humanity and a diminished sense of accountability, the anonymous user
feels disinhibited and may engage in deviant or antisocial behavior online (Lea and
Spears, 1991; Suler, 2004).
Indeed, several studies have found negative social interaction to be common within
online games (Ballard and Welch, 2017; Cote, 2017; Fox and Tang, 2017; Gray, 2012)
and more broadly in gamer culture (Braithwaite, 2014; Consalvo, 2012; Salter and
Blodgett, 2017). Researchers have adopted several terms to cover the scope of negative
social interaction, which may include hostile comments, exclusion, and interfering with
the target’s goals (Gray, 2012; Kuznekoff and Rose, 2013; Tang and Fox, 2016). Because
trolling, griefing, and flaming are all intended to annoy, frustrate, or hurt the target, these
behaviors are easily recognized as harassment. Other behaviors, such as trash-talking,
are less clear. Trash talk entails verbal communication that can range from lighthearted
teasing to mean comments, delivered with the intention to interfere with another person’s
focus or play (Conmy et al., 2013). Consistent with Einarsen (2000), however, we define
harassment as unwelcome or hostile behavior toward another that leads to distress or
anxiety for the target, regardless of the harasser’s intentions. Thus, some trash talk may
constitute harassment, although players may feel it is a normal part of the game and not
consider it as harassment.
Research investigating harassment in online games has found that it is common for
players to observe, experience, or perpetuate harassment (Tang and Fox, 2016; Fox and
Tang, 2017). In one study, over half of MMO players experienced cyberbullying and
over a third admitted to cyberbullying others (Ballard and Welch, 2017). It is important
to examine negative social interactions and harassment online because it can lead to
emotional distress and withdrawal (e.g. Fenaughty and Harré, 2013; Pew Research
Center, 2014). Harassment within games specifically has been shown to diminish enjoy-
ment, trigger negative emotions, promote retaliation, or cause players to quit their ses-
sion (Cote, 2017; Gray, 2012; Ross and Weaver, 2012). Some players even choose to quit
games entirely due to harassment (Fox and Tang, 2017).
At this time, much of what we know about communication in games is through exper-
iments and one-shot retrospective self-report methods (such as surveys and interviews);
studies have rarely tracked players’ everyday experiences in natural gaming contexts
over time. This study aims to remedy this shortfall by employing a diary approach to
gather more nuanced information about the nature, context, and consequences of social
interaction in games.

Diaries as method: understanding player experiences

Various methods of video game research have endured criticism by scholars. Cross-
sectional surveys are criticized for not capturing the scope of gaming experiences and
trying to draw conclusions from a single point in time (Kahn et al., 2014; King et al.,
2009). Surveys and interviews also rely on retrospective accounts, which makes them
subject to memory bias (Kahn et al., 2014). Many video game survey and interview
4 new media & society 00(0)

studies are also based on volunteer samples from a motivated population of existing
game players (e.g. recruited from game forums), which differ from other populations
(Khazaal et al., 2014). Only players who are also passionate enough to engage outside of
a particular gaming environment are included, whereas individuals who have avoided or
quit playing games are excluded, thus limiting the conclusions we can draw. Laboratory
experiments often include individuals with varying levels of gaming experience, but are
often criticized for their artificiality (King et al., 2009; Ravaja and Kivikangas, 2009;
Sherry, 2001). Manipulations may not reflect natural or typical gameplay experiences.
Lab-based observational studies permit more natural gameplay, but participants may
react differently in a sterile lab under the watchful eye of a researcher than they would
sitting on their own couch (King et al., 2009; Ravaja and Kivikangas, 2009). Furthermore,
lab studies are often limited to a single point of observation.
Therefore, we adopted an event-based diary method for this study. Diary methods are
intended to “capture life as it is lived” (Bolger et al., 2003: 580). Definitively, diary
methods entail the self-reporting of one’s experiences and typically include qualitative,
open-ended data collected from free responses, responses to prompts, or open-ended
questions (Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000). Other self-report data may be
gathered as part of the diary process, such as time logs or survey questions; alternatively,
diaries may be complemented by other techniques, such as physiological data captured
by a tracker (Bolger et al., 2003). These additional data can provide insight to open-
ended responses and also facilitate more uniform comparisons across participants. In
addition to the types of data collected, diary methods also vary as to when participants
complete diaries. We chose an event-contingent procedure because they are preferred for
examining social interaction (Wheeler and Reis, 1991). For event-contingent techniques,
participants fill out diaries every time they complete a relevant task (Bolger et al., 2003;
Wheeler and Reis, 1991), in this case playing the MMO Team Fortress 2 (TF2).
There are several benefits to using diary methodology. Diaries, particularly with
open-ended responses, provide rich insights into intra-individual variation over time
(Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000). Few video game studies have tracked indi-
viduals’ experiences and reflections over time. Moreover, given the natural variation that
occurs in video game play as well as the inherent historical factors of repeating a behav-
ior over time (e.g. skill development), longitudinal approaches offer far more insight and
richness than one-shot retrospective surveys. Diary studies have a high degree of eco-
logical validity, as data are collected within the participant’s natural environment.
Participants can play the game as long as they wish, and at times they would normally
engage in leisure activity, thus capturing more organic play experiences. Importantly,
event-based diary methods enable researchers to capture participants’ responses and state
of mind immediately following an experience, which is less subject to bias than retro-
spective accounts (Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000).
Diary studies also have some weaknesses. They are demanding and require partici-
pants to be conscientious and diligent in completing the diaries over the course of the
research. Diary measures are typically condensed and brief to reduce the burden on par-
ticipants as lengthy or repetitive measures can lead to habituation or participant attrition
(Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000). Thus, diary studies often face a methodologi-
cal tradeoff as thorough measures are replaced with truncated scales or single items.
Fox et al. 5

Diaries also entail subjective responses, and are thus subjected to the same limitations as
other self-report methods (e.g. biased recollection, social desirability). Having partici-
pants complete them immediately following the event and in their natural environment,
however, may reduce these issues (Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000).
Although diary methods are not commonly employed in video game research, a hand-
ful of scholars report their use. Some studies have tracked video gameplay through media
use diaries, which typically gather information on what was played and for how long
with the goal of associating media consumption with traits, attitudes, or broader life
experiences (e.g. Fikkers et al., 2016). A few studies have used diaries to gather richer
data about the gameplay experience. Ribbens and Malliet (2015) had 26 males play a
violent video game of their choosing and record their thoughts every 45 minutes of play.
Two studies used diaries to track players’ engagement with games and characters over
time (Iacovides et al., 2015; Mallon and Lynch, 2014).
These studies, however, were not focused on how the dynamic social context of games
relates to players’ experiences. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we posed broad
research questions that allowed us to probe the breadth of participant experiences. Knowing
our sample would include a more variant sample of players than some previous studies, we
sought insight on how factors such as gender and gaming experience may influence game-
play, social interactions, and outcomes. In addition, given the very limited longitudinal
research on team-based gaming experiences (particularly among novices), we were unsure
what to expect in terms of players’ performance, mood, or social interactions. Thus, we
adopted a diary approach to address the following broad research questions:

RQ1. What factors influence players’ gaming and social experiences within an MMO
(TF2)?
RQ2. How do players’ experiences within an MMO (TF2) vary over time?

Diaries have been employed in a handful of studies examining negative social interac-
tions, including experiences with ethnic discrimination (Broudy et al., 2007), workplace
bullying (Cowie et al., 2002), and interpersonal aggression in schools (Pellegrini and
Bartini, 2000). Researchers have noted the need to obtain richer detail and conduct longi-
tudinal studies regarding the nature of communication in video game environments (Ivory,
2013; Quandt et al., 2014). Given that previous gaming studies have addressed supportive
communication and relationship development (e.g. Cole and Griffiths, 2007; Domahidi
et al., 2016; Trepte et al., 2012), we decided to focus on the dark side of communication
within online games. Although previous studies have examined negative social interaction,
many studies have assessed incidence very broadly (e.g. “How frequently do you observe
harassment?”) rather than tracking it more specifically session by session. Thus, we asked,

RQ3. What is the nature, frequency, and context of negative social interactions within
an MMO (TF2)?

Previous studies that have elaborated specific types of harassment in games have
selected samples based on demographic characteristics (Cote, 2017; Fox and Tang, 2017;
6 new media & society 00(0)

Gray, 2012; Tang and Fox, 2016). Furthermore, the sampling techniques employed have
been skewed toward experienced players. In this study, we sought a more varied sample
to address the following question:

RQ4. Are there differences across players in the types of negative social interactions
that they observe or experience within an MMO (TF2)?

Method
Sample and procedure
Participants were recruited from a class focused on video games offered at a large
Midwestern university in the United States. All students played TF2 as part of the class
and volunteered for the research study. No incentives were offered for participation. A
total of 40 students agreed to participate in the study; 2 later dropped the course.
Participants are identified here by a code and gender identity (M for men and W for
women). The final sample (N = 38) included 28 men and 10 women ranging in age
from 20 to 33 years (M = 22.84; SD = 3.01). They identified as 63.2% White/Caucasian/
European (n = 24), 10.5% Asian/Asian American (n = 4), 10.5% Black/African/African
American (n = 4), 5.3% Latino/Latina/Hispanic (n = 2), 5.3% multiple races or ethnici-
ties (n = 2), and 5.3% other (n = 2). Participants reported playing an average of
16.89 hours (SD = 15.10) of video games a week, and of those hours, 9.42 (SD = 12.09)
were online games. Participants were also asked to list the games they were currently
playing. Only two participants (18M and 27M) reported currently playing TF2.
TF2 is an online, multiplayer, team-based first-person shooter game (Valve, 2007).
We selected this game because it was highly acclaimed by critics, features collaboration,
and competition and is accessible across multiple platforms, which was necessary to
accommodate our sample’s technological access. TF2 is popularly played on PC, but is
also available on Xbox and PlayStation consoles.
The goal of the game is for each team to cooperate to complete an objective, such as
capturing a flag or moving a cart from one end of the playing area to the other, while the
other team tries to thwart their opponents’ efforts and complete an objective of their
own. Different characters within the game have different roles organized in the typical
tripartite fashion (offense, defense, and support). We also selected this game because all
of the avatars are male and customization is somewhat limited; gendered representa-
tions are often inequitable (as female characters are typically more sexualized than male
characters; e.g. Downs and Smith, 2010), so this game helped us best address our
research questions by minimizing other factors. Games can include up to 32 players,
although it is normally played with 24. On default server settings, players can choose
teams whenever space is available, or they can be randomly assigned. Teams may per-
sist across matches, although depending on server settings they may be periodically
shuffled to equalize the teams. Players are only able to play with others on the same
platform (e.g. a PC player cannot play with an Xbox player).
Effective multiplayer gameplay requires collaboration and coordination among
teammates. At the time of data collection, TF2 enabled multiple methods of
Fox et al. 7

communication, including text chat and voice chat. There are some basic avatar emotes,
many of which are tied to the character class (e.g. the spy character smoking, the scout
swinging his baseball bat). Additional emotes could be purchased in the game store.
Keypresses can elicit canned statements relevant to gameplay (e.g. alerting the presence
of a spy or calling for a medic); other statements are cues to gameplay and are automatic
(e.g. obtaining a kill).
Participants completed an initial online survey which included items regarding
gaming experience, current gaming, and demographic information. During the course
of the study, participants were instructed to play TF2 at least once a week and to com-
plete a diary via an online link immediately following each gaming session, which was
intended to reduce reappraisals and bias in recollecting the event (Wheeler and Reis,
1991). On average, participants completed 5.40 diaries (SD = 2.59) over the course of
the study.

Measures
Because we wanted to gather information on some potential factors (e.g. time) and
ensure some consistency in reporting across sessions, we chose to incorporate quantita-
tive measures in addition to the open-ended responses. Given the repetitive nature of
diary data collection, we included brief and condensed survey measures to prevent habit-
uation and exhaustion (Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000). These measures were
selected to offer insight into participants’ open-ended diary entries for each session, to
track frequencies, and to observe changes over time.

Quantitative items.  For each session, participants reported the time they spent playing in
hours and minutes, which was converted to minutes (M = 65.13; SD = 26.51). They were
also asked to evaluate their performance with a single 7-point item about how they
played the game during the session (1 = Very poorly; 7 = Very well).
Participants were asked about their mood after playing the game. To account for their
existing mood before playing, the six items were phrased as follows: “Compared to my
mood before the game, I feel …,” and participants responded on a fully labeled 7-point
scale (1 = Much less/worse; 4 = About the same; 7 = Much more/better). The items
included better/worse, relaxed, anxious, angry, frustrated, and happy.
Three items asked participants about insults, trash talk, and harassment in the game.
They were asked three separate items regarding negative communication: if they were
targeted, if they observed this behavior among others, or if they engaged in this behavior
during the session (1 = Never; 5 = Almost constantly).

Diary entries. Open-ended diary data were solicited through two essay boxes in the
online form. Similar to Ribbens and Malliet (2015), participants were asked to describe
their gaming experience in general during that session. Because we also wanted partici-
pants to reflect specifically on harassment and trash-talking, we also included a more
specified prompt with another essay box that asked participants to describe any negative
interactions that occurred in the game.
8 new media & society 00(0)

Analysis
Given the small sample size of this study, quantitative data were used primarily to inter-
pret the qualitative responses. The first and second authors engaged in thematic coding,
and a constant-comparative method was applied to identify, elaborate, and clarify cate-
gories conveyed by participants (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). These categories were
examined within each participant’s collective set of diaries as well as across participants
to determine salience and recurrence. Codes were synthesized and compared to achieve
investigator triangulation (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). We interpreted participants’
responses considering the scope of their data (e.g. individuals’ previous video game
experience, gender, and in-game experiences for that session and previous sessions).
This method of triangulation helped us clarify participants’ narrative experiences and
also provide insight into possible relationships that could be probed in future research
using alternative methods.

Results and discussion

Frustrating play
Although players usually find video games an enjoyable activity, one theme that stood
out was that our participants frequently reported feeling frustrated, which was evidenced
in both qualitative and quantitative data. Two subthemes of frustrating play were identi-
fied based on cause: poor performance and technological issues.
Because our sample included participants who do not regularly play games as well as
regular gamers who do not play games in this genre, it is not surprising that frustration
due to poor performance was common. Most games have a learning curve, and many
require several hours of play to develop sufficient skills. In the meantime, participants
may not enjoy a new game, even if they regularly play games. As 32M, who identified as
a gamer, noted after his second session, “Still having trouble getting used to the game.
Not performing well which is getting frustrating and making me dislike the game.”
Similarly, 33M stated about his second session, “I am not very good, so it is hard to enjoy
it at times.” Although several participants reported less frustration over time, more expe-
rience in the game did not necessarily lead to enjoyment. As 6M, a player who did not
usually play competitive online games, noted, “The more I play TF2, the less I like it.”
The variation in 12W’s diaries showed the tenuous nature of enjoyment. In one session,
she reported a positive mood and was pleased with her performance: “I thought I did
really well! I like the game more now.” In the next session, however, she played poorly
and stated, “I hated it. Seriously.” Because our participants were continuing to play
regardless of enjoyment, our findings lend further insight into Neys et al.’s (2014) find-
ings on persistence and enjoyment. That is, even participants who reported high levels of
video game play before the study did not necessarily enjoy the game more over time.
One reason participants may not enjoy the learning process in games is due to the
social context. Social inhibition suggests that when faced with a difficult task, indi-
viduals perform more poorly in a social context than when performing the task alone
(Zajonc, 1965). In TF2, other players can also provide feedback on a new player’s
Fox et al. 9

performance; negative comments may add to the recipient’s frustration (Ross and
Weaver, 2012). Interestingly, these comments seemed just as likely to come from
teammates as opponents. For example, 13W reported being very frustrated after a ses-
sion in which her teammates “said things like ‘get it together’ and ‘come on’ to me
because I’m not very good.” Inexperienced player 7M said he was “singled out” by his
teammates in one session, who tried to tell him what to do “in a harsh way”: “I get the
big picture, but when people are yelling at me to do things differently, there [sic]
‘advice’ doesn’t mean anything to me because I have no idea what it means.” Thus,
newer players’ enjoyment may be diminished as they are forced to learn under the fire
of both opponents and critical teammates. The social pressure may be an additional
force driving new players to quit games. Furthermore, these findings challenge the
generalizability of experimental research showing that cooperation within games leads
to less aggression (e.g. Schmierbach, 2010; Velez et al., 2014). In the social context of
online games, frustrating cooperative experiences may be just as likely to evoke
aggression among players as competition.
Frustrating play due to poor performance was not limited to inexperienced partici-
pants; some experienced gamers occasionally reported a frustrating session where they
self-evaluated their performance lower than usual. Furthermore, an individual player
could have a good game, but still end a session feeling worse. On a few occasions,
participants noted feeling frustrated even when they ranked their own performance
relatively highly. Open-ended responses revealed that this is likely due to the team-
work required by TF2: even if the individual plays relatively well, if other players are
not playing well or the team is not working well together, playing can still be frustrat-
ing. For example, 14W indicated playing well in a session yet also ending in a worse
mood: “The other team was dominating us … everyone was noticeably getting more
frustrated and annoyed.” 24M reported frustration when their team failed to adapt to
their opponent’s strategy during his fifth session, saying, “Nobody was [playing as] an
engineer [class] so we kept getting swamped.” Similarly, 22M wrote that “uncoordi-
nated teams” were the reason he ended a session very frustrated. These insights are
relevant to experimental findings suggesting that cooperation leads to positive out-
comes: if cooperative efforts are frustrating or unsuccessful at achieving the goal,
negative outcomes may be more likely.
The second subtheme of frustrating play involved participants reporting technologi-
cal issues. Some frustrations were due to participants’ hardware. Four participants
specifically complained in the first or second diary that the mapping of the game con-
trols was not intuitive for them and made play frustrating. 26W noted, “Controls and
navigation are confusing.” 6M chalked it up to his experience with other hardware: “I
believe some of my problems/lack of motivation with playing the game is the platform.
Coming from almost solely a console background, the mapping is very unnatural for
me, even though it may make sense to many.” Indeed, Rogers et al. (2015) found that
regardless of how natural mapping may be, game controllers that do not match a play-
er’s mental models are frustrating. Although some may conquer the learning curve and
adjust, for others, this frustration may persist. As gaming novice 35W noted in her fifth
session, “It is still annoying, I don’t think it is user friendly at all. Maybe if I had a
mouse, but even then, it’s terrible.”
10 new media & society 00(0)

The other recurring technological issue had to do with connection issues at various
time points. Four participants (7M, 9M, 12W, and 34M) complained of visible lag, one
(19M) had router issues, and one participant’s (14W) laptop overheated and shut down.
Two participants (34M and 35W) reported feeling physically ill from playing the game,
likely due to issues with lag. In all of these cases, these issues eventually led participants
to quit the session.

Performance as motivator
Because most of our participants were unfamiliar with TF2, many reported feeling good
as their performance improved over time. This theme reflects the claims of self-determi-
nation theory, which suggests that feelings of competence are intrinsically motivating
(Ryan and Deci, 2000). Several inexperienced participants seemed to take a “small vic-
tories” approach; although they reported not playing well in a given session, they would
state they played better than the previous time or had achieved smaller self-established
goals within the game, which made it more enjoyable. These successes may help allevi-
ate an otherwise negative mood about one’s experience or performance (Rieger et al.,
2014). For example, 14W noted, “I played poorly but I assisted in some kills and helped
my teammates.” Improvement and playing well were cited by many participants as moti-
vating, and higher self-rated performance was typically associated with greater enjoy-
ment within sessions. Fulfilling a need to feel competent appears to be a fundamental
part of gaming enjoyment (Tamborini et al., 2010).
One way participants evaluated their performance was by comparing themselves to
others, although this mostly tended to be upward social comparison. 33M commented
that he was not very good at the game, and “most of the people that still play Team
Fortress are very experienced.” 18M acknowledged he was not playing “up to standard”
for his team during his second session, which resulted in him being harassed. Other play-
ers enjoyed receiving validation from the game itself. For example, after a well-played
session, 4M reported, “This was by far the best run for me. I got MVP and felt really
good about how I played.”

Social interaction
Six themes emerged regarding social interaction within the game. We also examined the
quantitative data to address RQ3 about the frequency of negative interactions within the
game. Overall, the majority of participants (76.32%) encountered harassment in the game
during the course of the study. Specifically, 68.42% observed others being harassed,
55.26% were targeted for harassment, and 28.95% harassed others at some point. In terms
of sessions, participants encountered harassment in 41.46% of their gaming sessions. They
reported observing harassment in 37.07%, being targeted for harassment in 22.93%, and
harassing others in 10.73%. Several themes clarified the nature of this behavior.

Skill disparagement. A large proportion of the negative communication participants

reported referred to players’ skill within the game. These ranged from generic (“noobs,”
“you fucking suck”) to more specific insults or taunts regarding play.
Fox et al. 11

Interestingly, many participants seemed to accept or excuse skill disparagement.

Given the game requires teamwork and for teammates to support each other, participants
found this sort of negative feedback understandable. Indeed, participants’ attributions
typically blamed the poor performing player rather than the harasser, even when the
participant was the target. Several inexperienced players noted they were being targeted
by skill disparagement or suspected that unspecified skill taunts they heard were directed
at them (e.g. 12W). As 16M stated, “Most of the harassment is for me to do the right
things because I have no clue what I am doing in the game, which frustrates the other
players who play it all the time.” 33M wrote that he wanted to get better after reporting
that people might have been calling him a “noob”: “… I am typically driven to do well
in games/ sports. Since I suck at the game I was driven to do better.”

Fairweather friends. In a few sessions, participants noted that skill commentary from
teammates was positive. Importantly, though, these compliments were noted when the
team was playing well; when the team was playing poorly, insults and disparagement
prevailed. For example, one participant (33M) reported that in a game they played well,
“people were generally friendly and helpful.” The same participant reported in different
entries, however, that players were being “kind of rude” when giving advice and that
“people were being upset after they lost.” Similarly, 14W reported a match where her
team was playing poorly: “one person on my team kept saying ‘where the fuck is my
team’ or ‘my team fucking sucks’.” Among teammates, good play seems to beget good-
will and compliments, whereas poor play yields negativity. Although a couple of partici-
pants were motivated by insults, most reported feeling frustrated or demotivated,
indicating this pattern of communication may be counterproductive for teamwork and
success.

Toxic masculinity.  When participants provided details about the nature of harassment they
observed within the game, a recurring theme was toxic masculinity in the form of sexist
and misogynistic comments, preoccupation with sex and genitalia, homophobia and gay
bashing, and sexual callousness. As 24M summed up one session, “Typical mom jokes.
Bashing. Talking about dick size. Really immature stuff.” 13W, a participant who rarely
played video games, quoted specific sexist comments such as “go back to the kitchen”
and “take it, you slut.” Homophobic comments were reported by three participants.
Other offensive language was also reported, such as a player repeatedly saying he “raped”
others in the game.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, women reported proportionally more sexist comments than
men. It is possible that having a woman in the game evoked more of this language; alter-
natively, it may be that women are more attuned to sexist comments during gameplay
given this is directed at their ingroup, whereas men may not notice them or may be
desensitized to the extent that they do not consider it hostile.

Vicious cycles.  Social aggression in games can yield retribution (Ross and Weaver, 2012):
if a player initiates a hostile act, another player may respond with similar hostility. We
were able to observe vicious cycles in two ways. First, we examined the quantitative data
on negative communication. Although we cannot demonstrate a clear cycle, we found
12 new media & society 00(0)

that in 86.36% of sessions in which participants reported harassing others, they also
reported being harassed. The qualitative data also revealed a few incidents in which par-
ticipants retaliated against aggression, such as 14W stealing another player’s kill because
he was constantly swearing at others or 18M trading insults with his harasser. One par-
ticipant who frequently played video games (27M) detailed his own efforts at retaliation
within the game after being targeted for harassment by other players:

I was berated almost constantly in chat from about the 15 minute mark on, as I was playing very
well and several players became convinced I was cheating. They became very verbally abusive
towards me from that point on, particularly when I refused to respond to their taunts in chat.
This is my favorite situation in any game, as it signals the opponent can’t even rationalize how
badly they are being dominated … [I] played quite well, although frankly, in an abusive way (I
was deliberately playing in such a way as to annoy or humiliate my opponents, seeking out the
trolls and wiping the floor with them, resulting in more insults).

After describing his retaliation, the participant also made an interesting disclosure
about his disposition:

I had a difficult day, and many factors outside of my control were stressing me out. Being able
to put a “face” on the stress and then repeatedly burn it to death in the form of internet punks
was very gratifying.

In this situation, it seems the vicious cycle may have started outside the gaming con-
text and carried over into the game. The participant closed by noting that he stopped
playing shortly after his opponents quit, satisfied with his session.

“Kicking” players.  To deal with negative behavior in TF2, players can initiate a vote to
remove or “kick” a toxic or problematic teammate from the server; four participants
reported votes during sessions. Indeed, in one case (2W), the participant was not taking
the game seriously (“I was horsing around”) and so was targeted for a vote; in the other
three cases, however, the votes seemed arbitrarily invoked. 9M was surprised that other
players were trying to “kick somebody for no reason a couple of times”; similarly, 37M
reported a session where “People were constantly trying to kick other people; all votes
failed.” 33M reported being kicked: “I have no idea what I did. I did not say anything at
all and I was active. So that kind of sucked.” Although our data are limited here, it
appears that the features built into the system to manage negative social interactions and
trolling may themselves be repurposed for negative or troll-like behavior.

Reporting differences.  In reviewing the scope of participants’ reports, we identified some

key differences in how individuals described negative social interactions in the game. As
previously noted, women were more likely than men to note sexist language and sexual
talk. Another difference is that several participants who regularly played video games
(e.g. 18M, 24M, and 25M) reported negative interactions during sessions as “general
trash talk” or “the usual.” If they provided detail, participants described behaviors as
taunting opponents, swearing, or “rubbing it in” after a win. Conversely, inexperienced
players tended to report harassment in more detail and more often across their sessions.
Fox et al. 13

For example, in separate sessions, novice player 35W noted that “Someone said that I
was a legendary POS [piece of shit] twice,” and in another session reported that a player
taunted, “Ready to get killed again?”
There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. Experienced players
may be less likely to be targeted for harassment than novices; however, experience
should not make one less likely to observe others’ harassment. One possible explana-
tion is that experienced players are more focused on the game and tune out communi-
cation that does not facilitate the task at hand. However, such focus may be just as
likely for inexperienced players; both 35W and 36W reported being too concentrated
on trying to learn the game in their first sessions to discern what others’ were saying.
Another possibility for this discrepancy is that experienced players are desensitized to
negative communication occurring in the game. A recent study found that players
become desensitized to in-game emotional experiences over time (Grizzard et al.,
2017). Particularly given the mild or dismissive ways in which experienced players
reported negative behavior, it may be that players become desensitized to social
aggression over time, and harassment hardly registers because it no longer triggers
negative affect. Novice players, in contrast, may be more affected.

Conclusion
Our exploratory findings identify three prominent themes that influenced people’s expe-
riences in the game. The first, frustrating play, encompasses multiple negative experi-
ences that hindered enjoyment of the game. Our participants reported a range of problems,
including technological issues, unfamiliarity with the game, and poor social interactions.
One issue rarely mentioned in gaming research is the presence of physiological symp-
toms while playing MMOs. These symptoms may be due to individual differences or the
quality of Internet connection. One interesting direction for future research may be to
investigate whether the relatively high system and connection demands of many MMOs
have created a sort of digital divide among those who play and those who do not.
The second theme, performance as motivator, captures how participants enjoyed the
game more if they improved over time or received recognition from other players and the
game itself. One contribution of this study was identifying specific ways players moti-
vated themselves, including engaging in social comparison with other players, compar-
ing their current performance to previous sessions, and acknowledging the achievement
of smaller self-established goals within the game regardless of what the game itself was
tracking. In contrast, players who felt they were not improving did not usually report
increased enjoyment over time.
Several themes emerged within the scope of social interaction. Although teammates
can be fairweather friends and offer compliments when teammates are doing well, par-
ticipants did not report observing positive interactions when the team was doing poorly.
Skill disparagement encompasses a common type of trash talk where players insulted
other’s ability to play the game. An interesting finding of this study is that skill dispar-
agement was generally accepted or excused, even by targeted players who reported nega-
tive emotions. Although players may consider such behavior mere trash talk, this
experience may constitute harassment, particularly those with limited experience.
14 new media & society 00(0)

Furthermore, this finding has implications for both gaming companies and research-
ers. Gaming companies may be hesitant to monitor or restrict what experienced players
consider trash talk, but this behavior may be driving inexperienced players from the
game. Researchers should consider carefully how they pose questions about negative
social interactions within gaming environments. Future research should also explore
the frequency, nature, and intentions of skill taunts and compliments over the course of
gameplay. In their elaborations, our participants indicated that skill disparagement
may serve multiple purposes: to distract, frustrate, or upset an opponent in hopes of
affecting their gameplay; to issue corrective action or galvanize a poorly performing
teammate; to punish, ostracize, or troll another player; or to defend oneself or retaliate
against similar insults. Future studies could parse apart the uses and effects of these
different intentions.
The theme of toxic masculinity reflected how some players of TF2 embrace traditional
masculinity, reject and disparage other social identities, and use sexist or homophobic
language. Our finding is consistent with other scholarship identifying sexist beliefs among
gamers (Fox and Tang, 2014) and links between gamer culture and toxic masculinity (e.g.
Braithwaite, 2016; Consalvo, 2012; Salter and Blodgett, 2017). Furthermore, embracing
this salient identity and engaging in hostile behavior within an MMO is consistent with
the predictions of SIDE (Lea and Spears, 1991). We also observed how hostile behavior
can evoke more hostile and retaliatory behavior. Vicious cycles demonstrate how some-
times harassment begets more harassment, leading to feedback loops in which player
continually harass each other and create a hostile gaming environment. These findings
correspond with previous research and theorizing on bullying and cyberbullying, which
suggests that targets often develop into aggressors (e.g. Runions, 2013).
A final theme identified reporting differences among participants. Specifically,
women reported more sexist communication, and more experienced participants dis-
missed many negative social interactions as normative, but newer players did not.
This finding has implications for how researchers investigate online harassment, as it
indicates there may be systematic bias in self-report data. Additional research should
examine differences in how experience with MMOs, experience with a particular
game, social identities, and cognitive load may impact the degree to which players
acknowledge, initiate, and respond to both task relevant and task irrelevant commu-
nication within the game. Furthermore, gathering objective data (e.g. game tran-
scripts, performance metrics) could help illuminate the nature of irregularities or
biases in self-reporting.
One strength of our study, and the reason we could observe these reporting differ-
ences, is that our sample included a variety of types of players: experienced and
inexperienced players, experienced players with little experience in this genre (MMO
shooters), and players who like and dislike this type of game. In our sample, 15 indi-
viduals reported not currently playing online video games at the start of the study, and
six of these reported not playing video games at all. The nature of recruitment and
sampling in many video game studies, such as online surveys gathering convenience
samples from gaming forums, often only includes current (and committed) players.
We acknowledge, however, that this decision is a tradeoff; the limitations of our
approach include that participants did not select the game they played and may have
Fox et al. 15

continued to play the game for class, which does not reflect the typical nature or moti-
vations of game players (Ivory, 2013).
Diary methods also have limitations, as they provide self-report data and are thus
subject to bias and error (Bolger et al., 2003; Reis and Gable, 2000). As we note, there
may also be additional biases tied to individual differences among our participants, such
as gaming experience. There are also limitations specific to our sample of students
enrolled in a university class about video games. The course (as well as the study sample)
had a nearly 3:1 ratio of men to women. Although qualitative research is not expected to
be generalizable, it is important to note the nonrepresentativeness of a college sample
from the United States. Although confidentiality was assured during the course of the
study, social desirability may have been a factor. Participants may not have felt comfort-
able admitting their own harassing behavior or reporting behavior that reflected nega-
tively on the gaming community. Future studies should recruit different types of samples
and continue recruiting both typical and nontypical players of video games.
Because of the prevalence of video games as a social leisure activity, it is important
for researchers to understand game players’ everyday experiences within their natural
gaming contexts. Future research should examine the themes identified in this study
across different genres and types of games, explore potential predictors or moderators for
these experiences, and experimentally test ways to facilitate positive experiences and
mitigate negative ones. Online video games have the potential to be positive, inclusive
social spaces; perhaps researchers can help the medium realize its potential.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Adachi PJC and Willoughby T (2011) The effect of video game competition and violence on
aggressive behavior: which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence
1(4): 259–274.
Ballard ME and Welch KM (2017) Virtual warfare: cyberbullying and cyber-victimization in
MMOG play. Games and Culture 12(5): 466–491.
Bolger N, Davis A and Rafaeli E (2003) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review
of Psychology 54(1): 579–616.
Bowman ND, Weber R, Tamborini R, et al. (2013) Facilitating game play: how others affect per-
formance at and enjoyment of video games. Media Psychology 16(1): 39–64.
Braithwaite A (2014) “Seriously, get out”: feminists on the forums and the War (craft) on women.
New Media & Society 16(5): 703–718.
Braithwaite A (2016) It’s about ethics in games journalism? Gamergaters and geek masculinity.
Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 7 October. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116672484.
Broudy R, Brondolo E, Coakley V, et al. (2007) Perceived ethnic discrimination in relation to daily
moods and negative social interactions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 30(1): 31–43.
Cole H and Griffiths MD (2007) Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing
gamers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 10(4): 575–583.
Conmy B, Tenenbaum G, Eklund R, et al. (2013) Trash talk in a competitive setting: impact on
self-efficacy and affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43(5): 1002–1014.
16 new media & society 00(0)

Consalvo M (2012) Confronting toxic gamer culture: a challenge for feminist game studies schol-
ars. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 1(1). DOI: 10.7264/N33X84KH.
Corbin J and Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cote AC (2017) “I can defend myself”: women’s strategies for coping with harassment while gam-
ing online. Games and Culture 12(2): 136–155.
Cowie H, Naylor P, Rivers I, et al. (2002) Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent
Behavior 7(1): 33–51.
Domahidi E, Breuer J, Kowert R, et al. (2016) A longitudinal analysis of gaming-and non-gaming-
related friendships and social support among social online game players. Media Psychology.
Epub ahead of print 15 December. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2016.1257393.
Downs E and Smith SL (2010) Keeping abreast of hypersexuality: a video game character content
analysis. Sex Roles 62(11–12): 721–733.
Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 5(4): 379–401.
Eklund L (2015) Playing video games together with others: differences in gaming with family,
friends, and strangers. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds 7(3): 259–277.
Fenaughty J and Harré N (2013) Factors associated with distressing electronic harassment and
cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior 29(3): 803–811.
Fikkers KM, Piotrowski JT and Valkenburg PM (2016) Beyond the lab: investigating early ado-
lescents’ cognitive, emotional, and arousal responses to violent games. Computers in Human
Behavior 60: 542–549.
Fox J and Tang WY (2014) Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine
norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior 33: 314–320.
Fox J and Tang WY (2017) Women’s experiences with harassment in online video games:
Rumination, organizational responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping strategies. New Media
& Society 19(8): 1290–1307.
Gray KL (2012) Intersecting oppressions and online communities: examining the experiences of
women of color in Xbox Live. Information, Communication & Society 15(3): 411–428.
Grizzard M, Tamborini R, Sherry JL, et al. (2017) Repeated play reduces video games’ abil-
ity to elicit guilt: evidence from a longitudinal experiment. Media Psychology 20(2):
267–290.
Iacovides I, Cox AL, McAndrew P, et al. (2015) Game-play breakdowns and breakthroughs:
exploring the relationship between action, understanding, and involvement. Human–
Computer Interaction 30(3–4): 202–231.
Ivory JD (2013) Video games as a multifaceted medium: a review of quantitative social science
research on video games and a typology of video game research approaches. Review of
Communication Research 1: 31–68.
Kahn AS, Ratan R and Williams D (2014) Why we distort in self-report: predictors of self-report
errors in video game play. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(4): 1010–1023.
Khazaal Y, Van Singer M, Chatton A, et al. (2014) Does self-selection affect samples’ repre-
sentativeness in online surveys? An investigation in online video game research. Journal of
Medical Internet Research 16(7): e164.
King D, Delfabbro P and Griffiths M (2009) The psychological study of video game players:
methodological challenges and practical advice. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction 7(4): 555–562.
Kuznekoff JH and Rose LM (2013) Communication in multiplayer gaming: examining player
responses to gender cues. New Media & Society 15(4): 541–556.
Fox et al. 17

Lea M and Spears R (1991) Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and group deci-
sion-making. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34(2): 283–301.
Lincoln YS and Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Mallon B and Lynch R (2014) Stimulating psychological attachments in narrative games: engag-
ing players with game characters. Simulation & Gaming 45(4–5): 508–527.
Neys JL, Jansz J and Tan ES (2014) Exploring persistence in gaming: the role of self-determina-
tion and social identity. Computers in Human Behavior 37: 196–209.
Pellegrini AU and Bartini M (2000) An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression
and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(2): 360–366.
Pew Research Center (2014) Online Harassment. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, et al. (2014) Competence-impeding electronic games and
players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 106(3): 441–457.
Quandt T, Chen V, Mäyrä F, et al. (2014) (Multiplayer) gaming around the globe? A comparison
of gamer surveys in four countries. In: Quandt T and Kröger S (eds) Multiplayer: The Social
Aspects of Digital Gaming. New York: Routledge, pp. 23–46.
Ravaja N (2009) The psychophysiology of digital gaming: the effect of a non co-located opponent.
Media Psychology 12(3): 268–294.
Ravaja N and Kivikangas M (2009) Designing game research: addressing questions of validity. In:
Ritterfeld U, Cody M and Vorderer P (eds) Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. New
York: Routledge, pp. 404–410.
Reis HT and Gable SL (2000) Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday expe-
rience. In: Reis HT and Judd CM (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and
Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge, pp. 190–222.
Ribbens W and Malliet S (2015) How male young adults construe their playing style in violent
video games. New Media & Society 17(10): 1624–1642.
Rieger D, Wulf T, Kneer J, et al. (2014) The winner takes it all: the effect of in-game success
and need satisfaction on mood repair and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior 39:
281–286.
Rogers R, Bowman ND and Oliver MB (2015) It’s not the model that doesn’t fit, it’s the control-
ler! The role of cognitive skills in understanding the links between natural mapping, perfor-
mance, and enjoyment of console video games. Computers in Human Behavior 49: 588–596.
Ross TL and Weaver AJ (2012) Shall we play a game? How the behavior of others influences
strategy selection in a multiplayer game. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods,
and Applications 24(3): 102–112.
Runions KC (2013) Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression:
rage, revenge, reward, and recreation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42(5): 751–771.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiva-
tion, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 551(1): 68–78.
Salter A and Blodgett B (2017) Toxic Geek Masculinity in Media: Sexism, Trolling, and Identity
Policing. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmierbach M (2010) “Killing spree”: exploring the connection between competitive game play
and aggressive cognition. Communication Research 37(2): 256–274.
Shafer DM (2012) Causes of state hostility and enjoyment in player versus player and player ver-
sus environment video games. Journal of Communication 62(4): 719–737.
Sherry JL (2001) The effects of violent video games on aggression: a meta-analysis. Human
Communication Research 27(3): 409–431.
Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 7(3): 321–326.
18 new media & society 00(0)

Tamborini R, Bowman ND, Eden A, et al. (2010) Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of
intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication 60(4): 758–777.
Tang WY and Fox J (2016) Men’s harassment behavior in online video games: Personality traits
and game factors. Aggressive Behavior 42(6): 513–521.
Trepte S, Reinecke L and Juechems K (2012) The social side of gaming: how playing online com-
puter games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior 28(3):
832–839.
Valve (2007) Team Fortress 2 (Video Game). Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation.
Velez JA, Mahood C, Ewoldsen DR, et al. (2014) Ingroup versus outgroup conflict in the context
of violent video game play: the effect of cooperation on increased helping and decreased
aggression. Communication Research 41(5): 607–626.
Wheeler L and Reis HT (1991) Self-recording of everyday life events: origins, types, and uses.
Journal of Personality 59(3): 339–354.
Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149(3681): 269–274.

Author biographies
Jesse Fox (MA, University of Arizona; PhD, Stanford University) is a kentuckian and an associate
professor in the School of Communication at The Ohio State University. Her research interests
include video games, virtual environments, social media, and issues surrounding sex and gender in
online spaces.
Michael Gilbert (BS, University of Michigan) is currently a PhD student in the School of
Communication at The Ohio State University. His research interests include video games, popular
music, objectification, and portrayals of gender in media.
Wai Yen Tang (MA, PhD, The Ohio State University) is a postdoctoral fellow in the Institute of
Communication Science at the University of Münster. His research interests include video games’
influence on behavior and the communication processes between players.