Video game toxicity, endemic to online play, represents a pervasive and complex problem. Antisocial behaviours in online play directly harm player wellbeing, enjoyment, and retention-but research has also revealed that some players normalize toxicity as an inextricable and acceptable element of the competitive video game experience. In this work, we explore perceptions of toxicity and how they are predicted by player traits, demonstrating that participants reporting a higher tendency towards Conduct Reconstrual, Distorting Consequences, Dehumanization, and Toxic Online Disinhibition perceive online game interactions as less toxic. Through a thematic analysis on willingness to report, we also demonstrate that players abstain from reporting toxic content because they view it as acceptable, typical of games, as banter, or as not their concern. We propose that these traits and themes represent contributing factors to the cyclical normalization of toxicity. These findings further highlight the multifaceted nature of toxicity in online video games.

No abstract

Game developers, researchers, and players recognize the harm of toxic behaviour in online games-yet toxicity persists. Players' coping strategies are limited to tools that focus on punishing toxic players (e.g., muting, blocking, reporting), which are inadequate and often misused. To address the needs of players experiencing toxicity, we took inspiration from research in other online spaces that provide support tools for targets of harassment. We iteratively designed and evaluated in-game tools to support targets of toxicity. While we found that most players prefer tools that explicitly address toxicity and increase feelings of control, we also found that tools that solely provide social or emotional support also decrease stress, increase feelings of control, and increase positive affect. Our findings suggest that players may benefit from variety in toxicity support tools that both explicitly address toxicity in the moment and help players cope after it has occurred.

No abstract

Video games frequently invoke high-pressure circumstances in which player performance is crucial. These high-pressure circumstances are incubators for ‘choking’ and ‘clutching’—phenomena that broadly address critical failures and successes in performance, respectively. The eruption of esports into the mainstream has vitalized the need to understand performance in video games, and particularly in competitive games spaces. In this short workshop paper, we present a selection of findings and insights from a full paper (submitted for review) exploring potential mechanisms behind choking and clutching. We find that propensity to choke is positively predicted by trait reinvestment—a predisposition to ‘focus inwards’ in high pressure contexts, reverting to slower ‘declarative’ processing in lieu of more automated ‘procedural’ processing. We also find that propensity to clutch is positively predicted by player experience with competitive gaming. We propose that such findings can be utilized to scaffold and support performance in high-pressure gaming spaces, such as esports.