The light, the dark, and everything else: making sense of young people's digital gaming

Abstract

Whether gaming has a beneficial or detrimental effect on young people's lives is a defining feature in both the research and the public discussion of youth digital gaming. In this qualitative study, we draw from a thematic analysis of the experiences of 180 game players in Finland, aged 15–25 years. Utilizing the digital gaming relationship (DGR) theory, we explore how different aspects of gaming actualize in their lives, and how different features of gaming culture participation come together to form their experience. We contend that framing gaming as a balancing act between beneficial and detrimental obscures much of the complexity of young people's gaming, reinforces a partially false dichotomy, and overlooks young people's agency. Based on our results, we suggest alternative approaches that help reduce and avoid these problems.

Young video game players’ self-identified toxic gaming behaviour

“…In light of the long and troubled history of aggression linked to gaming (e.g., Mathur & VanderWeele, 2019) as well as the documented hostility of especially competitive gaming cultures, we also wish to draw attention to the crucial distinctions between emotional reactions, aggressive conduct, and malicious behaviour. Intense positive and negative emotional reactions will often occur during competitive games, and for many players they are a key part of gaming's appeal (e.g., Meriläinen & Ruotsalainen, 2023). These reactions can sometimes manifest as aggressive cognitions and conduct (Kahila et al, 2022;Moreau et al, 2023) which, assuming that they are expressed in a manner that is not hurtful to others or oneself, are not particularly problematic and can sometimes be argued to be morally justified and even empowering, such as when pushing back against discrimination.…”

“…For the understanding of the phenomenon, it is important to note that the distinction between a perpetrator and a victim, or a 'toxic' and a 'non-toxic' player is often not a dichotomy, nor is 'toxicity' an essential quality. Player behaviour is not a constant, and those players who consider themselves well-mannered may also get swept up by the intensity of the gaming situation and at times conform to gaming culture norms that encourage hostile and aggressive behaviour (Meriläinen & Ruotsalainen, 2023), use hostility as a form of self-defence or resistance (Gray, 2018), resort to hostility in defence of others, or behave in a different manner when playing with friends than when playing with strangers. Echoing findings on traditional bullying (Walters, 2020) and cyberbullying (Ballard & Welch, 2017), there is considerable overlap between perpetration and victimization (Kordyaka et al, 2020).…”

“…Negative behaviour was also connected to situational intensities, such as how competitive the situation was and how much it personally meant to a player. This highlights both the influence of affective investment (Grossberg, 1992) and the situated and situational nature of instances of gaming (Apperley, 2010;Meriläinen & Ruotsalainen, 2023), as elements both internal and external to players fed into negative social interactions.…”

“…Players may come into games, especially competitive ones, with different expectations in terms of both competitiveness and acceptable conduct. For example, if players looking for a casual game and players looking for serious competition end up on the same team, the different expectations can result in frustration on both sides, and escalate into hostility (e.g., Kou & Gui, 2021;Meriläinen & Ruotsalainen, 2023) as both sides may perceive and accuse the other of breaching an imagined social contract. Similarly, what some players experience as extremely hostile speech may for the other party be routine, strategic trash talk, perceived as appropriate for the competitive situation (Karhulahti, 2022).…”

“…Games are a special environment, simultaneously very much a mundane activity yet also often considered to be separate from 'real life' (e.g., Stenros, 2014). While the mental and social freedom this escapist quality provides is precisely what many people find enjoyable (e.g., Meriläinen & Ruotsalainen, 2023), it also opens the door to hostility that can render this kind of enjoyment taxing or impossible for others (e.g., Passmore & Mandryk, 2020). The quote above reflects a common view: in a game, being angry does not matter-or at least it matters less.…”