Abstract
The proliferation of hostile behaviors among players in online multiplayer video games has become a growing concern in recent years. Toxic behaviors negatively impact individual and team performance, diminish game enjoyment, and risk the psychological well-being of gamers. This paper overviews current scientific knowledge on the manifestations and characteristics of this phenomenon, provides a taxonomy of the various behaviors, and outlines future research directions. The authors suggest that further research needs to focus on a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying toxicity. Prevention and intervention efforts are crucial to reduce the harms associated with engagement in toxic interactions and to improve the safety and inclusivity of online gaming environments.
The proliferation of cyber-aggression with the extension of online social spheres
Hostile communication interactions in the online sphere have been extensively studied over the past two decades (Herrerías, Torres, Terrón, & Guerrero, 2023). Peer aggression in digital environments has traditionally been investigated under the umbrella term of cyberbullying, defined as “any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). The prevalence, antecedents, underlying motivations, and consequences of cyberbullying have been widely researched since the 2000s, particularly as social media has become a dominant platform for online interpersonal communication, broadening the spectrum of both opportunities and potential risks (Montag et al., 2024; Moretta, Buodo, Demetrovics, & Potenza, 2022; Vismara, Girone, Conti, Nicolini, & Dell’Osso, 2022). The emergence of novel online social spheres (e.g., streaming platforms) has broadened the scope of aggressive behaviors to novel forms, such as happy slapping (i.e., video-recording of assaults, and sharing these recordings publicly online; Chan et al., 2012) and cyber-sabotage (i.e., crimes committed through advanced knowledge of technology, such as stealing data; Maasberg, Zhang, Ko, Miller, & Beebe, 2020). These behaviors may not align with traditional definitions of cyberbullying, which often emphasize criteria such as power imbalance or repetition (Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013). Consequently, Grigg (2010) proposed a broader definition encompassing a wide range of negative behaviors in various online social contexts, collectively termed cyber-aggression. According to Grigg's (2010) suggestion, cyber-aggression encompasses a broad range of behaviors delivered through electronic devices to individuals who perceive these acts as harmful or undesired. These behaviors include cyberbullying, harassment, stalking, and other violent acts (e.g., happy slapping) that may not fit conventional definitions of cyberbullying (e.g., an incident of happy slapping may not be repeated). Grigg (2010) also underlined the evolving nature of these behaviors, predicting that trends in Internet and mobile phone use would inevitably lead to the proliferation of negative online communication practices.
More recently, the growing concern over disruptive behaviors in online multiplayer game environments has gained considerable research attention (Frommel, Johnson, & Mandryk, 2023; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023). These acts, often referred to as toxic behaviors (Kou, 2020), can be viewed as forms of cyber-aggression specific to the context of online multiplayer video games. We would like to draw attention to the problem of toxic behaviors in the gaming community by providing a brief overview of the core features, manifestations, and ongoing debates surrounding this phenomenon, without the intention to provide an exhaustive review of empirical research findings.
Contextualizing toxic behaviors in the literature of cyber-aggression
More than ten years ago, Thacker and Griffiths (2012) provided a comprehensive picture of gaming trolls in their exploratory study, describing behaviors that now are clearly classified as toxic interactions. Although some studies used trolling as a synonym for toxic behaviors, there is growing consensus that trolling refers to annoying yet relatively benign behaviors that may be unintentionally hurtful to others. In contrast, toxic behaviors encompass negative acts that adversely affect in-game performance and players' well-being (Beres, Frommel, Reid, Mandryk, & Klarkowski, 2021; Canossa, Salimov, Azadvar, Harteveld, & Yannakakis, 2021; Cook, Tang, & Lin, 2023; Kordyaka & Kruse, 2021). Similar to trolling and cyberbullying, toxic behaviors are often fueled by anonymity and invisibility (Nexø, 2024), suggesting some overlaps between the constructs and taxonomies of these phenomena. Nevertheless, each has a distinct, well-established literature (Cook et al., 2023). However, a notable difference between cyberbullying and toxicity is that toxic interactions are typically temporal and situational, limited to the context of online multiplayer video gaming, while cyberbullying is repeated and can be performed through various online platforms and electronic devices (Kordyaka, Klesel, & Jahn, 2019). Similar to cyberbullying, there is a large overlap between roles in toxicity (i.e., players exhibiting toxic behaviors frequently become targets and vice versa; Frommel et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2020), suggesting that toxicity can be a maladaptive emotional or behavioral response to highly stressful situations within the gaming context (Kordyaka, Jahn, & Niehaves, 2020). Based on the available literature, we have suggested a taxonomy and brief definition of toxic behaviors (Table 1).
Types and definitions of toxic behaviors
| Toxic behavior | Definition | Source |
| Flaming | Using offensive, aggressive, provocative, and hostile language in verbal or written communication with other players in a gaming chat or forum. | Beres et al., 2021; Blackburn & Kwak, 2014; Kordyaka et al., 2019; Kou, 2020; Kowert, 2020; Kwak, Blackburn, & Han, 2015; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023 |
| Harassment | Using insulting language to intimidate, threaten, or annoy other players, often repeatedly. | Beres et al., 2021; Kordyaka et al., 2019; Kou, 2020; Kowert, 2020 |
| Sexual harassment | Engaging in behaviors such as making sexual jokes, offering unwelcome sexual advances, sharing sexual content without consent, cyberstalking, simulating sexual violence within the game. | Kowert, 2020; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023; Reynolds, 2023; Tang & Fox, 2016; Tang, Reer, & Quandt, 2020 |
| Trash talking | Belittling, disrespecting, or making fun of other players (mostly opponents) to intimidate or demoralize them, often based on their skills and ranks. Trash talking can also be directed towards others (e.g., teammates, coaches, or fans in esports). | Andika, Nor Shahizan Ali, Redza, & Arsi Lestari, 2024; Irwin, Naweed, & Lastella, 2024; Kowert, 2020; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023 |
| Hate speech | Using language that is offensive and discriminatory against other players based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. | Kowert, 2020; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023; Tang & Fox, 2016; Tang et al., 2020 |
| Inappropriate username | Creating and using usernames that contain offensive and provocative elements or suggest hate speech or profanity. | Blackburn & Kwak, 2014; Kwak et al., 2015; Urbaniak et al., 2022 |
| Griefing | Irritating other players by sabotaging, undermining their efforts to achieve game objectives, blocking their paths, destroying their in-game creations, providing misinformation, or taking other actions to intentionally annoy them. | Beres et al., 2021; Kordyaka et al., 2019; Kowert, 2020; Nexø & Kristiansen, 2023 |
| Assisting the enemy | Hindering teammates' or one's own performance to favor the enemy, or assisting opponents in achieving their goals. | Blackburn & Kwak, 2014; Kordyaka, Laato, Jahn, Hamari, & Niehaves, 2023; Kwak et al., 2015 |
| Feeding | Dying repeatedly to the enemy without attempting to fight back, giving the enemy an advantage. | Kordyaka, Laato, Jahn, et al., 2023; Kou, 2020 |
| Spamming | Repeatedly taking the same actions, flooding the chat with repetitive or irrelevant messages, or using the same commands in a short period of time to annoy and distract other players. | Beres et al., 2021; Blackburn & Kwak, 2014; Kwak et al., 2015; Kowert, 2020 |
| Doxxing | Publicly sharing personal or highly sensitive information (e.g., real name, address) about players without their consent. | Kowert, 2020; Kowert & Cook, 2022 |
| Cheating | Using unauthorized methods, scripts, and tools, or exploiting bugs and glitches to increase in-game efficiency and gain an unfair advantage over other players. Cheating also involves making arrangements with other players (e.g., exchange victory) to manipulate the outcome of the match for personal gain. | Kou, 2020; Kowert, 2020 |
| Smurfing | Skilled and experienced gamers with higher ranks creating new accounts to play against less skilled players in unbalanced matches. | Kou, 2020; Monge & Matthews, 2024 |
| Boosting | Paying or asking highly skilled gamers to increase the rank and skills of less experienced players using the customer's account in the gameplay. | Conroy, Kowal, Toth, & Campbell, 2021; Kou, 2020 |
| False reporting | Submitting a false or inaccurate report or complaint about a player in the game's reporting system with malicious intent. | Kordyaka et al., 2023; Kou, 2020 |
| AFK (Away From Keyboard) | Leaving the computer and becoming inactive, often without notifying fellow players and teammates to the disadvantage of the team. AFK often suggests player disengagement. | Canossa et al., 2021; Kordyaka et al., 2019; Liu & Agur, 2023 |
Note. The main categories of toxic behaviors are marked in bold, while subcategories of the respective types are listed below the main categories. Types and definitions of toxic behaviors have been reviewed within the framework of a pre-registered systematic review project on research related to toxic behaviors: https://osf.io/bnxrp/.
According to Kou (2020, p. 89), toxic gaming behaviors are “situated sequence of player emotions or actions at either the individual or the collective level that put teamwork at a disadvantage”. Some examples of toxic behaviors include griefing, feeding, or spamming (see Table 1 for a detailed list and descriptions). These negative behaviors have a detrimental effect on individual achievement and team performance (Monge & O’Brien, 2022), reduce game enjoyment (Kordyaka et al., 2020), and generate stress, frustration, and anger in players (Kordyaka et al., 2019; Neto, Yokoyama, & Becker, 2017), negatively impacting well-being and online social experiences (Kordyaka et al., 2019). Based on these characteristics, we define toxic behaviors as negative behaviors in online multiplayer game environments that can impair individual or team performance, gaming experience, and mental well-being of players.
Beres et al. (2021) emphasized that classifying a certain type of behavior as toxic may depend on the context and situation, suggesting that a negative act in one game might be an acceptable strategy in another (e.g., speed running, which refers to the strategy of completing the game or specific game objectives as quickly as possible, often at the expense of team cooperation, prioritizing individual performance and personal gains over a collective, consensual strategy; Scully-Blaker, 2014). In line with this notion, Canossa et al. (2021) highlighted that the definition of toxicity can vary across games. Recognizing the importance of gaming context in the perception of toxic behaviors, Kowert (2020) proposed the term “dark participation” to encompass all types of deviant behaviors in the online sphere, identifying toxicity as an outcome of such behaviors that deteriorates other users' well-being. Based on these theoretical inquiries, we view toxic behaviors as a context-specific (i.e., online multiplayer games) subcategory of antisocial online behaviors (“dark participation”) similar to how cyberbullying fits within the broader spectrum of cyber-aggression.
Regarding the context-specific nature of toxic behaviors, Cook et al. (2023) explored the differences between trolling (defined broadly as negative communication directed towards others; Cook, Patel, Guisihan, & Wohn, 2021) in online games and social media. According to the findings, trolling on social media platforms primarily involves personal (e.g., teasing) and verbal (e.g., flaming) insults, while trolling in games predominantly manifests in behaviors (e.g., inhibiting other players' goal acquisition). Participants perceived online game environments as more toxic and less controlled spaces than social media spheres in this study. However, Cook et al. (2023) emphasized that both games and social media platforms vary largely in community rules and norms. Research suggests that esports (Nexø, 2024) and highly competitive games such as multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) and first- and third-person shooter (FPS and TPS) games are more likely to foster in-group conflicts and aggression due to the competitive nature, increasing the occurrence of toxic interactions between players (Kordyaka, 2018; Kordyaka et al., 2020; Kou, 2020). However, engagement in toxic behaviors can be influenced by individual, social, and situational factors (Kowert, 2020).
The psychological background of toxic behaviors
Since the late 2010s, the underlying motives and psychological correlates of personal involvement in toxic behaviors have been intensively researched. Despite the novelty of this research field, several empirical studies have accumulated on the antecedents and consequences of toxicity, contributing to a better understanding of this phenomenon.
Research indicated that women (Fox & Tang, 2017), younger (Ballard & Welch, 2017), beginner (Türkay, Formosa, Adinolf, Cuthbert, & Altizer, 2020), LGBTQ+ (Ballard & Welch, 2017), and ethnical minority players (Oritz, 2019) are more likely to become targets of toxic behaviors. More frequent toxic encounters were associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety, psychological distress (Wong & Ratan, 2024), rumination (Fox & Tang, 2017), suicidal thoughts (Anti-Defamation League, 2019), and gaming disorder (Gandolfi et al., 2023; Zsila, Shabahang, Aruguete, & Orosz, 2022). Targets of toxic behaviors also reported decreased self-efficacy (Kordyaka, Laato, Weber, & Niehaves, 2023) and in-game social capital, relatedness, and higher perceived loneliness (Frommel et al., 2023). More frequent toxic behaviors were associated with reduced team performance over the course of the game (Monge & O’Brien, 2022), and increased withdrawal from online games (Fox & Tang, 2017). Similar to the pattern observed in cyberbullying (Vismara et al., 2022), targets of toxic behaviors often become toxic players and vice versa (Frommel et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2020).
Players exhibiting toxic behaviors are commonly experienced gamers with higher ranks or levels in the game (Shen et al., 2020). Moreover, male gender, impulsivity (Lemercier-Dugarin, Romo, Tijus, & Zerhouni, 2021) and personality traits such as psychopathy, machiavellianism, sadism (Tang et al., 2020), hostile sexism, and social dominance orientation (Tang et al., 2020; Tang & Fox, 2016) were associated with sexual harassment in online multiplayer games. Cook, Schaafsma, and Antheunis (2018) identified motives such as retaliation, personal enjoyment, and thrill-seeking behind toxic behaviors. Additionally, Achterbosch, Miller, and Vamplew (2017) found that players may engage in toxic behaviors to gain an advantage over others, demonstrate their skills, and feel powerful. Interestingly, McLean, Waddell, and Ivory (2020) found that toxic interactions are more common among teammates compared to opponents, particularly in matches without a cooperative teammate in the gameplay, compared to the condition when a supportive teammate is present. The authors suggested that more frequent communication interactions between teammates than opponents, anonymity, and the lack of group identity in quick matches could explain the higher occurrence of conflicts within the team (McLean et al., 2020).
Beres et al. (2021) explained the dynamics of toxic behaviors through the mechanisms of moral disengagement and toxic online disinhibition. Moral disengagement refers to the cognitive process of rationalizing engagement in morally questionable acts to avoid negative self-evaluation (Bandura, 1999). An example within a video gaming context could be “The opponent cheats, so why shouldn't I cheat, too?” Toxic disinhibition, a hostile manifestation of the online disinhibition effect, posits that individuals feel less constrained to exhibit certain behaviors in online settings compared to offline circumstances due to anonymity and invisibility (Suler, 2004). In the context of video games, perceived distance from other players and the justification of hostility towards others (e.g., revenge) contribute to the perception that consequences of hostile actions in online games are not so harmful (Beres et al., 2021). This mechanism can also be attributed to the normalization of toxic behaviors in the gaming community (Beres et al., 2021; Liu & Agur, 2023).
Perception of toxicity in the gamer community: ongoing debates and future directions
Overall, demographic (e.g., gender distribution, age specifics, minority status) and psychological characteristics (e.g., mental health concerns, motivation) of those involved in toxic behaviors show considerable similarity to those described in relation to cyberbullying (see Slonje et al., 2013 for a review). However, an important difference is that toxic encounters have become a common experience among gamers, and are often viewed as a normal part of online gaming culture (Beres et al., 2021; Liu & Agur, 2023). According to the report by the Anti-Defamation League (2023) on a representative sample of US gamers aged 10–45 years, 76% of adults reported being harassed in online multiplayer games in 2023. Although the proportion of affected adults in these incidents has decreased by 10% from 2022, the involvement of adolescents has substantially increased. Specifically, 3 in 4 adolescents aged between 10 and 17 years experienced harassment from other players in online multiplayer games in 2023 (Anti-Defamation League, 2023). Most gamers perceive toxic behaviors as a severe problem, particularly those frequently becoming targets of such acts (Zsila et al., 2022), and 62% believe the gaming industry should take action to make online gaming spaces safer (Anti-Defamation League, 2019). Video game developer companies such as Riot Games, Blizzard Entertainment, and Epic Games have made efforts to combat toxic behaviors by establishing the Fair Play Alliance, a global collaboration aimed at creating safe and inclusive online gaming environments (Kordyaka et al., 2020). A recent report by Riot Games indicates that only 5% of gamers engage in toxic behaviors repeatedly (Aguerri, Santisteban, & Miró-Llinares, 2023), suggesting that most players seek enjoyment and socialization rather than hostility in online multiplayer spaces. Video games providing clear guidance on behavioral expectations for players with different values can help foster a safer and more inclusive gaming environment that could attract more players, which is also beneficial for the game industry (Sparrow, Gibbs, & Arnold, 2021).
Recent studies suggest that targeting social norms in the gaming community could help reduce toxic interactions. Nexø and Kristiansen (2023) reviewed strategies, including the cultivation of prosocial norms by influential players, increasing activism among bystanders, and weakening norms and common beliefs that justify the presence of toxicity. Hilvert-Bruce and Neill (2020) also emphasized that decreasing the common acceptance and legitimacy of toxic behaviors among players is crucial for effective prevention and intervention. Adaptive strategies against toxic behaviors include ignoring, muting, or reporting disruptive players (Türkay et al., 2020).
Despite the growing body of research on toxic behaviors, more studies are needed on the individual differences among players in terms of cultural background and socialization norms to gain a comprehensive understanding of factors predisposing players to toxicity (Cary, Axt, & Chasteen, 2020). Moreover, the exploration of possible mediating or moderating factors that can alter the effect of toxic interactions on players' mental health could also contribute to the present knowledge of this phenomenon. Prevention and intervention programs are necessary to reduce toxicity and foster mental health in players affected by the adverse psychological consequences of involvement in toxic interactions. Educating youth on online cooperation dynamics and prosocial communication could enhance social sensitivity, empathy, and the acquisition of behavioral norms that are beneficial for the community (Reid, Mandryk, Beres, Klarkowski, & Frommel, 2022; Wijkstra, Rogers, Mandryk, Veltkamp, & Frommel, 2024; Zsila et al., 2022).
Overall, online multiplayer game environments have become fertile ground for cyber-aggression in recent years. The pervasiveness of toxic behaviors and associated mental health concerns highlight the importance of addressing interpersonal hostility within the gaming community, which predominantly comprises adolescents and young adults (Statista, 2023). Reducing toxicity could greatly enhance the safety of online multiplayer game environments, improve gaming experience, and support young players' well-being.
Funding sources
None.
Authors' contributions
ÁZ: conceptualization, writing–original draft. ZD: conceptualization, writing–original draft.
Conflicts of interest
ZD is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Behavioral Addictions.
References
Achterbosch, L., Miller, C., & Vamplew, P. (2017). A taxonomy of griefer type by motivation in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(8), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1306109.
Aguerri, J. C., Santisteban, M., & Miró-Llinares, F. (2023). The enemy hates best? Toxicity in league of legends and its content moderation implications. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 29(3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-023-09541-1.
Andika, D., Nor Shahizan Ali, M., Redza, A., & Arsi Lestari, C. (2024). Unveiling the essence of trash-talking: A phenomenological study of teenagers’ behavior in online games. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2024.2420702.
Anti-Defamation League (2019). Free to play? Hate, harassment, and positive social experiences in online games. Retrieved on 8 July, 2024 from: https://www.adl.org/free-to-play.
Anti-Defamation League (2023). Hate is no game: Hate and harassment in online games 2023. Retrieved on 9 July, 2024 from: https://www.adl.org/resources/report/hate-no-game-hate-and-harassment-online-games-2023.
Ballard, M. E., & Welch, K. M. (2017). Virtual warfare: Cyberbullying and cyber‐ victimization in MMOG play. Games and Culture, 12(5), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015592473.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3.
Beres, N. A., Frommel, J., Reid, E., Mandryk, R. L., & Klarkowski, M. (2021, May). Don’t you know that you’re toxic: Normalization of toxicity in online gaming. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.344515.
Blackburn, J., & Kwak, H. (2014). STFU NOOB! predicting crowdsourced decisions on toxic behavior in online games. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web (pp. 877–888). https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2567987.
Canossa, A., Salimov, D., Azadvar, A., Harteveld, C., & Yannakakis, G. (2021). For honor, for toxicity: Detecting toxic behavior through gameplay. In Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction (Vol. 5, pp. 1–29). CHI PLAY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474680.
Cary, L. A., Axt, J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2020). The interplay of individual differences, norms, and group identification in predicting prejudiced behavior in online video game interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(11), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12700.
Chan, S., Khader, M., Ang, J., Tan, E., Khoo, K., & Chin, J. (2012). Understanding ‘happy slapping’. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 14(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2012.14.1.252.
Conroy, E., Kowal, M., Toth, A. J., & Campbell, M. J. (2021). Boosting: Rank and skill deception in esports. Entertainment Computing, 36, 100393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100393.
Cook, C. L., Patel, A., Guisihan, M., & Wohn, D. Y. (2021). Whose agenda is it anyway: An exploration of cancel culture and political affiliation in the United States. SN Social Sciences, 1(9), 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00241-3.
Cook, C., Schaafsma, J., & Antheunis, M. (2018). Under the bridge: An in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3323–3340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817748578.
Cook, C. L., Tang, S. Y. C., & Lin, J. H. T. (2023). Comparing shades of darkness: Trolling victims’ experiences on social media vs. online gaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1163244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1163244.
Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. (2017). Women’s experiences with general and sexual harassment in online video games: Rumination, organizational responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping strategies. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1290–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481663577.
Frommel, J., Johnson, D., & Mandryk, R. L. (2023). How perceived toxicity of gaming communities is associated with social capital, satisfaction of relatedness, and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, 100302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100302.
Gandolfi, E., Ferdig, R. E., Krause, K., Copus, A., Ostrowski-Delahanty, S., & Alemagno, S. (2023). Problematic gaming at a crossroad: Exploring the interplay between internet gaming disorder, toxic attitudes, and empathy in digital entertainment. Games and Culture, 15554120231211991. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231211991.
Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143.
Herrerías, A. I. F., Torres, M. G. J., Terrón, P. D., & Guerrero, A. J. M. (2023). Cyberaggression and cybervictimisation in adolescents: Bibliometric analysis in web of science. Heliyon, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23329.
Hilvert-Bruce, Z., & Neill, J. T. (2020). I'm just trolling: The role of normative beliefs in aggressive behaviour in online gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.003.
Irwin, S. V., Naweed, A., & Lastella, M. (2024). Consuming esports and trash talking: How do social norms and moderating attributes influence behaviour? Sport in Society, 27(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2023.2200732.
Kordyaka, B. (2018). Digital poison – Approaching a theory of toxic behavior in MOBA games. In Thirty ninth international conference on information systems, San Francisco. Retrieved on 12 March, 2025 from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bastian-Kordyaka-2/publication/327981557_Digital_Poison_-_Approaching_a_Theory_of_Toxic_Behavior_in_MOBA_Games/links/5c7b99daa6fdcc4715aa2ae9/Digital-Poison-Approaching-a-Theory-of-Toxic-Behavior-in-MOBA-Games.pdf.
Kordyaka, B., Jahn, K., & Niehaves, B. (2020). Towards a unified theory of toxic behavior in video games. Internet Research, 30(4), 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-08-2019-0343.
Kordyaka, B., Klesel, M., & Jahn, K. (2019). Perpetrators in league of legends: Scale development and validation of toxic behavior. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2486–2495).
Kordyaka, B., & Kruse, B. (2021). Curing toxicity–developing design principles to buffer toxic behaviour in massive multiplayer online games. Safer Communities, 20(3), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-10-2020-0037.
Kordyaka, B., Laato, S., Jahn, K., Hamari, J., & Niehaves, B. (2023). The cycle of toxicity: Exploring relationships between personality and player roles in toxic behavior in multiplayer online battle arena games. In Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction (Vol. 7, pp. 611–641). CHI PLAY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611043.
Kordyaka, B., Laato, S., Weber, S., & Niehaves, B. (2023). What constitutes victims of toxicity-identifying drivers of toxic victimhood in multiplayer online battle arena games. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1193172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1193172.
Kou, Y. (2020, November). Toxic behaviors in team-based competitive gaming: The case of league of legends. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 81–92). https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414243.
Kowert, R. (2020). Dark participation in games. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 598947. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.598947.
Kowert, R., & Cook, C. (2022). The toxicity of our (virtual) cities: Prevalence of dark participation in games and perceived effectiveness of reporting tools. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii international conference on system sciences | 2022 (pp. 3180–3189).
Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3739–3748). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702529.
Lemercier-Dugarin, M., Romo, L., Tijus, C., & Zerhouni, O. (2021). “Who are the Cyka Blyat?” how empathy, impulsivity, and motivations to play predict aggressive behaviors in multiplayer online games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0041.
Liu, Y., & Agur, C. (2023). “After All, They Don’t Know Me” exploring the psychological mechanisms of toxic behavior in online games. Games and Culture, 18(5), 598–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120221115397.
Maasberg, M., Zhang, X., Ko, M., Miller, S. R., & Beebe, N. L. (2020). An analysis of motive and observable behavioral indicators associated with insider cyber-sabotage and other attacks. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.2989108.
McLean, D., Waddell, F., & Ivory, J. (2020). Toxic teammates or obscene opponents? Influences of cooperation and competition on hostility between teammates and opponents in an online game. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v13i1.7334.
Monge, C. K., & Matthews, N. L. (2024). Blaming the smurf: Using a novel social deception behavior in online games to test attribution theories. New Media & Society, 14614448241235638. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241235638.
Monge, C. K., & O’Brien, T. C. (2022). Effects of individual toxic behavior on team performance in league of legends. Media Psychology, 25(1), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1868322.
Montag, C., Demetrovics, Z., Elhai, J. D., Grant, D., Koning, I., Rumpf, H. J., … Van den Eijnden, R. (2024). Problematic social media use in childhood and adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 153, 107980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.107980.
Moretta, T., Buodo, G., Demetrovics, Z., & Potenza, M. N. (2022). Tracing 20 years of research on problematic use of the internet and social media: Theoretical models, assessment tools, and an agenda for future work. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 112, 152286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152286.
Neto, J. A., Yokoyama, K. M., & Becker, K. (2017, August). Studying toxic behavior influence and player chat in an online video game. In Proceedings of the international conference on web intelligence (pp. 26–33). https://doi.org/10.1145/3106426.3106452.
Nexø, L. A. (2024). Toxic behaviours in esport: A review of data-collection methods applied in studying toxic In-Gaming behaviours. International Journal of Esports, 1(1). Retrieved on 12 March, 2025 from: https://www.ijesports.org/article/127/html.
Nexø, L. A., & Kristiansen, S. (2023). Players don’t die, they Respawn: A situational analysis of toxic encounters arising from death events in league of legends. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 29(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-023-09552-y.
Ortiz, S. M. (2019). The meanings of racist and sexist trash talk for men of color: A cultural sociological approach to studying gaming culture. New Media & Society, 21(4), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818814252.
Reid, E., Mandryk, R. L., Beres, N. A., Klarkowski, M., & Frommel, J. (2022). Feeling good and in control: In-game tools to support targets of toxicity. In Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction (Vol. 6, pp. 1–27). CHI PLAY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3549498.
Reynolds, L. (2023). The perfect storm: Addressing sexual harassment in esports. Retrieved on 10 July, 2024 from: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/the-perfect-storm-addressing-sexual-harassment-in-esports/.
Scully-Blaker, R. (2014). A practiced practice: Speedrunning through space with de Certeau and Virilio. Game Studies, 14(1). Retrieved on 12 March, 2025 from: https://www.gamestudies.org/1401/articles/scullyblaker.
Shen, C., Sun, Q., Kim, T., Wolff, G., Ratan, R., & Williams, D. (2020). Viral vitriol: Predictors and contagion of online toxicity in world of tanks. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106343.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.
Sparrow, L. A., Gibbs, M., & Arnold, M. (2021). Ludic ethics: The ethical negotiations of players in online multiplayer games. Games and Culture, 16(6), 719–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412020971534.
Statista (2023). Share of gaming audiences who ever play games online in the United Kingdom (UK) as of 2023, by age group. Retrieved on 9 July, 2024 from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/301350/online-gaming-in-the-uk-by-age/.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295.
Tang, W. Y., & Fox, J. (2016). Men's harassment behavior in online video games: Personality traits and game factors. Aggressive Behavior, 42(6), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21646.
Tang, W. Y., Reer, F., & Quandt, T. (2020). Investigating sexual harassment in online video games: How personality and context factors are related to toxic sexual behaviors against fellow players. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21873.
Thacker, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). An exploratory study of trolling in online video gaming. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 2(4), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2012100102.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Türkay, S., Formosa, J., Adinolf, S., Cuthbert, R., & Altizer, R. (2020). See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: How collegiate players define, experience and cope with toxicity. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376191.
Urbaniak, R., Tempska, P., Dowgiałło, M., Ptaszyński, M., Fortuna, M., Marcińczuk, M., … Wroczyński, M. (2022). Namespotting: Username toxicity and actual toxic behavior on Reddit. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, 107371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107371.
Vismara, M., Girone, N., Conti, D., Nicolini, G., & Dell’Osso, B. (2022). The current status of cyberbullying research: A short review of the literature. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 46, 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101152.
Wijkstra, M., Rogers, K., Mandryk, R. L., Veltkamp, R. C., & Frommel, J. (2024). How to tame a toxic player? A systematic literature review on intervention systems for toxic behaviors in online video games. In Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction (Vol. 8, pp. 1–32). CHI PLAY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677080.
Wong, S., & Ratan, R. (2024). How does exposure to general and sexual harassment relate to female gamers’ coping strategies and mental health? Games and Culture, 19(5), 670–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231177600.
Zsila, Á., Shabahang, R., Aruguete, M. S., & Orosz, G. (2022). Toxic behaviors in online multiplayer games: Prevalence, perception, risk factors of victimization, and psychological consequences. Aggressive Behavior, 48(3), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22023.
