Content uploaded by Vivian Hsueh Hua Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vivian Hsueh Hua Chen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Understanding Social Interaction in World of Warcraft
Vivian Hsueh-hua Chen
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information, Nanyang Technological University
31 Nanyang Link
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
637718
65-67905833
chenhh@ntu.edu.sg
Henry Been-Lirn Duh
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Egineering,
Nanyang Technological University
50 Nanyang Avenue
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
639798
65-67905151
mblduh@ntu.edu.sg
ABSTRACT
Research has argued that social interaction is a primary driving force
for gamers to continue to play Massive Multiple Online Role
Playing Games (MMORPGs). However, one recent study argues
that gamers don’t really socialize with other players but play alone.
Part of the confusion over whether players socialize much and/or
enjoy socializing while playing MMORPGs may be due to the lack
of a conceptual framework that adequately articulates what is meant
by ‘social interaction in MMORPGs to understand how users
experience interactions within the game. This study utilized
ethnography to map out social interaction within the game World of
Warcraft. It provides a broad framework of the factors affecting
social interaction. The framework developed can be further verified
and modified for future research.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.8.0 [Computing Milieux]: Personal Computing - Games; J.4
[Computer Applications]: Social and behavioral sciences
General Terms
Human Factors, Languages, Theory
Keywords
Social interaction, Social computing, MMORPG
1. INTRODUCTION
Social interaction in massively multiplayer online role-playing
games (MMORPGs) contributes to a large part of players’ gaming
experience. Griffiths, Davies & Chappell [9] found players’ favorite
aspect of the game is social interaction (41%). Yee [15] found that
39.4% of male gamers and 53.3% of female gamers felt their
MMORPG friends were comparable or better than their real-life
friends. Social interaction is also found as a key factor that makes
gamers become more engaged and play the game continuously [3].
However, a recent study on World of Warcraft [7] suggested that
players spend most of their time playing by themselves rather than
interact with other players.
Part of the confusion over whether players socialize much and/or
enjoy socializing while playing MMORPGs is due to the lack of a
conceptual framework that adequately address social interaction in
MMORPGs’. Therefore, this study explores patterns of social
interaction within a popular MMORPG: World of Warcraft (WOW).
It aims to provide insights for better understanding of social
interaction within the game. It is a stepping stone for more future
research to fully develop a framework for social interaction in
MMORPGs.
2. SOCIAL INTERACTION IN MMORPGs
2.1 Research problems
Ducheneaut & Moore [6] studied players’ popular social gestures in
Star Wars Galaxies. Ducheneaut, et al. [7] developed a custom
application that takes a census of the game world every 5 to 15
minutes in 4 WoW servers. They found that players prefer playing
alone rather than interact with other players. Some other researchers
have quantified the importance of social interaction in gaming
through survey questionnaires [10, 15].
Jakobsson & Taylor [10] compares the social networking in
Everquest to popular conceptions of Mafia networks as portrayed by
the TV show The Sopranos. They found that social networks within
the game Everquest bear a striking similarity to the classic mafia
stereotype. Steinkuehler [13] performs discourse analysis on
language gamers use to discern the forms of life and the way
Lineage gamers identify himself within the larger Lineage
community. Castronova [2] also conducted an ethnographic study
of Everquest to outline the forms of economic activities.
None of the studies can adequately articulate what “social
interaction” is in MMORPGs. This exploratory study addresses this
under-investigated area by asking two research questions: What are
the factors that affect social interaction in WOW? What are different
forms of social interaction in WOW?
2.2 Theoretical assumptions
In WoW, players interact with one another through their in-game
avatar. The game environment presents a stage for players to
literally play out their symbolic selves [8]. In order to understand the
symbolic construction of players within the game, symbolic
interactionism theory [1] is applied as a guiding conceptual
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
ACE’07, June 13–15, 2007, Salzburg, Austria.
Copyright 2007 ACM 978-1-59593-640-0/07/0006...$5.00.
21
approach. Symbolic interactionism studies how individuals create
symbolic meanings through their interactions with other people. It
posits an individual’s capacity for self-reflexive behavior allows
him/her to attempt different roles in social interaction.
An individual’s self-conception is therefore reconstructed by each
interaction with an Other. Individuals invest symbolic meanings into
these interactions to make them socially real. In the process of
meaning-making, individuals use language to communicate and
interpret meanings. Through constant symbolic interpretation of
their interaction with others, individuals are able to understand who
they are and how to function in a society. It is through the
framework of the Self-Other interaction, theorists are able to
understand the process of social interaction. Corresponding to the
theory, a qualitative research is design.
3. METHODOLOGY
Due to the lack of previous research on the various forms of social
interaction in WOW, this study employs a qualitative approach. The
strength of qualitative method is to make sense of under-studied
areas. It can obtain rich and in-depth data to inform research.
The authors conducted virtual ethnography for a period of a year,
from December 2005 to 2006. Both researchers spent on average 2-3
hours in one sitting, 3-4 hours a day, 6-7 days a week in WOW to
observe and interact with other gamers on an American server.
Although many players live in the U.S., researchers also have
frequent interaction with players from Canada, Australia, Singapore,
and Britain. The server is a player v.s. player server where you can
fight with anther player in the contested area in WOW.
Researchers have leveled up their characters to the highest level
possible. They have explored all the geographical areas and engaged
in gaming activities that require only single player, 5-men group, 10-
men, 20-men and 40-men raid group. One of the researchers has
played a leadership role in a guild of approximately 80 players.
Taking leadership role in a guild enjoys privileges other plays do not
have, such as grant guild membership, distribute in-game resources,
give command in raid…etc.
Particular attention was paid to the forms of language used during
interactions and the “epiphanic moments” [4] in WoW. Epiphanies
“radically alter and shape the meanings which people assign to
themselves and their life projects” [4]. Data collected include 87
screenshots, 10 video of in-game events, 350 pages of in-game
dialogue and field notes.
Data analysis was guided by theoretical framework discussed above
as well as Lincoln and Cuba’s [12] constant comparison method.
They recommended “unitizing and categorizing…units of
information,” in order to systematically arrive at emergent themes
and categories. “Unitizing” is assigning a meaning and value to an
idea that is the “smallest piece of information about something that
can stand by itself” [12]. Categorizing process starts with grouping
similar ideas identified during utilizing process into one category.
The criteria for grouping are on a “look-alike feel-alike basis” [12].
The common themes represent patterns observed in the data. It
illustrates “the underlying existential structures of a relationship or
situation” [4].
The next section presents data analysis from two aspects: factors
influencing social interaction and the patterns of social behaviors.
To understand possible factors that influence social interaction
within the game, concepts derived form symbolic interactionism are
adopted to analyze contextual and in-game factors in section 4.
Specifically, this study adapts the Self-Other framework discussed
in section 2.2 to explore patterns of social interaction within the
game world in section 5. The theoretical concepts have guided the
unitizing and categorizing process.
4. FACTORS INFLUENCING SOCIAL
INTERACTION IN WOW
4.1 Contextual factors
4.1.1 Historical Context
Based on Blumer’s theory [1], social interaction in MMORPGs is
viewed as a dynamic process of meaning-making occurring within a
historical context and examinable through the analysis of in-game
language and in-game joint actions of players. Players’ gaming
history, and the progression of the game server (a temporal factor)
are two factors that can potentially influence social interaction.
4.1.2 Interactional Arena
In-game spatiality is important in the study of social interactions in
MMORPGs [5]. From a symbolic interactionist approach viewpoint,
interactional settings affect the way social interaction develops. In
the presence of two or more actors, ‘interactional settings’ are
transformed into ‘interactional arenas’ where meaningful symbolic
exchange can take place [3]. Interactional arena helps study how in-
game spatiality can influence social interactions.
4.1.3 Level of Social Aggregation
Kolo & Baur [11] in a study of Ultima Online, define levels of social
aggregation in MMORPGs are: 1) the social micro-level of
individual players. It could be the specific motivation to play or the
strategy used; 2) the meso-level of social formations among players
(for example, player clubs, offline events) or among characters (for
example, guilds); 3) the social macro-level, spanned by the
community of all MMORPG players.
4.2 In-game factors
There are two major factors built within the game design that
influences social interaction within the game: instrumental joint acts
and rules of conduct.
4.2.1 Instrumental Joint Acts
Symbolic interactionism argues that social structures are formed
when many social actors experience and understand joint actions
similarly thus developing ‘collectivities’ of joint actions such as
marriage, trading transactions or church services. In the game world,
joint actions are also observed. The term Instrumental Joint Acts
refers to social interaction for instrumental purposes. These can be
trading exchanges, crafting services or lockpicking services in
WOW. These can also be “looking for group” broadcasts, finding
players to finish tasks in the game, asking for directions, asking for
help do fight with real players, or begging.
4.2.2 Rules of Conduct
According to Denzin [4] “rules of conduct … specify the dimensions
and conditions under which the set of actions can be and will be
carried out.” Proposed categorizing rules of conduct are as follows:
1) Civil-legal rules. In WoW, this refers to official rules imposed by
Blizzard, the game company. 2) Looting rules. They are rules that
define how tangible items such as armor and weapons should be
distributed in a group. 3) Guild rules. They define how member
should behave in an organized group led by gamers. 4) Socializing
22
norms. In the game, people utilize in-game emoticons, jargons,
abbreviations, and items to socialize with others. Norms are
developed and learned. Players who violate those norms or fail to
follow the norms will be considered as unskillful, inexperienced and
disliked.
5. SOCIAL INTERACTION IN WOW
Different forms of social interaction in WOW can be understood by
self-other dynamic. In a role-playing game, everyone can
experiment forms of self-representation. The ways people express
their views about others is another element that construct social
interaction.
5.1 Self
5.1.1 Staging Oneself
Aspects of one’s represented identity within the game stems
interactions among gamers. To take on a role in the game, every
player is conscious of the appearance of his/her own avatar in the
game. Those include the gear wore and carried, class played, race,
level (level relative to the location you are seen), player v.s. player
rank, and gendered identity.
Players tend to “one-up the other” to show that they are good at the
game. People often out brag each other by comparing what they
have accomplished for their previous avatar without actual proof.
There are many instances of such behavior where players try to up
another’s claim often in very unbelievable brags.
Players also tend to disclose certain aspects of real-life situations to
others (e.g. sharing information on your age, education, place of
resident…etc). Self-disclosure is typically very selective and partial.
5.1.2 Gaze
Gaze refers to the ‘spectatorial’ social element in WoW. It is a form
of passive social interaction that involves ‘glancing’, ‘looking’ at the
other or simply viewing the collective social activity taking place. It
is also one of the most prevalent forms of interaction. Different
forms of gaze include: 1) Watch out for players’ status such as
armor, character capability, and guild development; 2) Glance at the
public. For example, watching others kill morbent fei, watching
others duel each other in the main cities, watching players in
ironforge dance naked…etc. 3) Screen for needs. This includes
watching out for tips on quest locations, prices in trade channel, free
give-away like enchantments. Those information are obtain through
various text-based chat channels in the game.
5.1.3 Superiority
As the game is designed to be competitive, players often seek
opportunities to show that they are better than others. Such
behaviors include: 1) Authoritarian acts. For example, in a guild,
guild leader can decide a player’s status and privileges. In groups,
some players tend to give unsolicited advice to others on how to
play their in-game character. 2) Skill competition. People like to
compare their skills in killing targets or making items in the game. A
typical example is that players argue about strategies in a group
situation. A mage instructed the group to kill multiple mobs in one
go. Everyone in the group died. Another player, a rogue, then argued
that it is best to kill them one by one and blamed the mage for stupid
decision. 3) Familiarity with game/ characters. Players argue their
character is stronger than the others (i.e;“paladin is better healer than
priest”) and how much they know about each role in game. Players
also tend to show off tricks to complete tasks in game. 4) Self-
reinforcing encounters. These are social interactions that give one’s
self-conception an ego boost. Common forms of social interactions
exhibiting this are helping low level players to finish their tasks
faster and give away items to people who cannot obtain them.
5.2 Other
5.2.1 View of the individual other
Typically, encounters take in two forms: other-reinforcing
encounters and labeling encounters. Other-reinforcing encounters
are social interactions that boost the Other’s self-conception.
Common forms of such behavior includes giving people
compliments on their gear and returning others’ complements (e.g.
“Dude, cool mace, where you got it?” or cheering others during
player versus player duels… etc).
Labeling encounters are encounters of significance, where one actor
is defined in a new novel and typically deviant ways [4]. Based on
the field notes, examples include: 1) Whistle-blowing (e.g. So-so is a
Chinese Gold Farmer; So-so is botting! Reported! So-so is corpse
camping, that 's lame); 2) Exclusionary (e.g. All
American/Singaporean/Australian Guild…etc. racism; Don 't
group with so-so he has bad attitude…etc.); 3) Guild competition
(e.g. So-so guild is the best guild on this server.)
5.2.2 View of the collective other
This refers to how a player views himself/herself relative to a larger
community. Often the player shares a similar attribute with the
‘collective Other’ which defines him/her as part of the group. These
attributes may be race, guild or a common group goal. When the
relationship is positive, there is a sense of belonging. Players view
oneself as part of the ‘collective other’ and place group’s needs and
goals above one's own goals and needs. They would turn down
real-life commitments to play with a group/guild they belong to.
They would give up items to others who need it more than
themselves.
When the relationship is negative the players finds oneself in the
renegade club. Players view oneself as distinct or excluded from the
`collective other' and place one's needs and goals above group
's goals and needs. Group deviant behaviors would be observed.
(e.g. threatening to leave in the middle of a fight if certain conditions
aren't met; abusive language used on others or frequent guild
switching behaviors…etc).
With regards to how aforementioned factors influence social
interaction, it is found that historical context influences gamers'
desire to keep on playing in a given sever, a given guild, and interact
with certain (type of) players. The depth and breath of social
interaction change as the game server matures (temporal factor).
There are qualitative differences in the kind of social interactions
occurring in different regions within WoW (interactional arena/
spatial factors). Level of social aggregation usually influences the
topic and nature of the conversation. Superiority, sense of belonging,
and the renegade club occurs at the meso level while other forms of
social interaction occurs at the macro and micro level However, the
change of the game features can also change the dynamic. Findings
on how in-game social interactions in MMORPGs can be studied is
graphically presented in Figure 1.
6. CONCLUSION
This study maps out the different forms of social interaction and
explains the different factors that influence social interaction within
23
WOW. It understands social interaction through a self-other
relationship. Previous quantitative research was limited by game
features and did not take into account spatial and temporal factors.
Research of this type may obtain different outcomes depending on
where and when researchers start their research. Therefore, studies
of social interaction should take into account that interactional
settings, historical context may influence the type of social
communication/ interaction that occurs within the game. This study
is part of a series of research project on social interaction within
MMORPG. Further research will focus on validating and modifying
the current framework by quantitative measures.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Blumer, H. Society in action. In S.E. Cahill(Ed.), Inside social
life: Readings in sociological psychology and microsociology,
Roxbury Publishing Company, Los Angeles, 2004, 320-324.
[2] Castronova, E., Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of
Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier, CESifo Working
Paper Series No. 618 (2001).
[3] Chen, V.H.H., Duh, H.B.L., Phuah, P.S.K., Lam, D.Z.Y.
Enjoyment or Engagement? Role of Social Interaction in
Playing Massively Mulitplayer Online Role-playing Games
(MMORPGS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
4161(2006), 262 – 267.
[4] Denzin, N. K. The methodological implication of symbolic
interactionism for the study of deviance. The British journal of
sociology, 25, 3 (1974), 269-282.
[5] Denzin, N. K. Symbolic interactionaism and cultural studies:
The politics of interpretation. Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell,
1992.
[6] Ducheneaut, N. and Moore, R.J.. "The social side of gaming: a
study of interaction patterns in a massively multiplayer online
game." In Proc. CSCW 2004, ACM Press, 360-369.
[7] Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R.J. Alone
Together? Exploring the Social Dynamics of Massively
Multiplayer Games." In Proc. CHI2006, ACM Press, 407-416.
[8] Goffman, E. The presentation of self. In S.E. Cahill(Ed.),
Inside social life: Readings in sociological psychology and
microsociology. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Publishing
Company, 2004, 108-116.
[9] Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. Breaking
the stereotype: The case of online gaming. Cyber Psychology
and Behavior, 6 (2003), 81–91.
[10] Jakobsson, M.& Taylor, T.L. The Sopranos meets EverQuest.
Social networking in massively multiplayer online games.
Paper presented in the Digital Arts and Culture Conference
2003. http://www.informatik.umu.se/~mjson/
[11] Kolo, C., Baur, T. (2004) “Living a virtual life: social
dynamics of online gaming”, Game Studies: International
Journal of Computer Game Research, 4, 1 (2004).
[12] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, Sage, CA, USA, 1985..
[13] Steinkuehler, C. A. A Discourse analysis of MMOG talk. In
Proc. Other Players conference 2004, IT University of
Copenhagen.
[14] Yee, N. The Psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional
Investment, Motivations, Relationship Formation, and
Problematic Usage. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.),
Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in
Shared Virtual Environments, Springer-Verlag, London,
Britain, 2006, 187-207.
[15] Yee, N. The Demographics, Motivations and Derived
Experiences of Users of Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical
Environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 15 (2006), 309-329.
Server maturity
p
revious ex
p
erience
Micro Meso Macro
Social interaction
Self
Other
Staging oneself
Gaze View of the other
View of the Collective Other
Rules of conduct Instrumental
Joint Acts
Superiority
Interactional Arena Levels of social aggregation Historical Context
Figure 1. Social interaction in WOW
24