Content uploaded by Rachel Kowert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Kowert on Nov 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Loading… The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association
Vol 9(14): 70-87
http://loading.gamestudies.ca
Going Beyond the Game:
Development of Gamer Identities Within
Societal Discourse and Virtual Spaces
Jan Grooten, BA
University of Erfurt
jan_hendrik.grooten@uni-erfurt.de
Rachel Kowert, PhD
University of Münster
rkowert@gmail.com
Abstract
What is a ‘gamer’? And what does it mean to be a gamer today? This paper will address these
questions through a theoretical discussion of the gamer identity in terms of its construction
within society, both virtual and within offline communities. A multi-modal model of gamer
identity will then be proposed that incorporates the relationships between the gamer identity and
the various contexts in which it is developed and maintained. Drawing from social identity
theory, it is argued that the gamer identity is multifaceted and extends beyond game playing
habits or preferences.
Author Keywords
Social identity; gamer; gaming; stereotyping; self-categorization; self-identification
Introduction
Digital games (or video games) have grown to be an integral part of everyday life for millions of
people around the globe. Representative data gathered from the Entertainment Software
Association (ESA) in 2014 reported that 59% of all Americans play video games, with nearly
equal distribution across gender lines (52% of male/48% female) (ESA, 2014). Similar rates of
play have been found in other countries around the world, including Flanders (the Dutch-
speaking area of Belgium, 41.2%) and Singapore (41.1%) (Quandt, Chen, Mäyrä, & Van Looy,
2014). University student surveys report even higher rates of video game play, with an average
of 90% reporting a history of video game use (see Colwell & Kato, 2003; Kowert, Griffiths, &
Oldmeadow, 2012).
Almost since the advent of this new, playful technology, and its popularization through arcade
parlors and home consoles, we have referred to those who enjoy playing video games as
71
“gamers”. Despite the ubiquity of this term in our everyday vernacular, what this term actually
means and whom it refers to remains actively debated, particularly among researchers. While
some use the term gamer as a simple denotation to categorize people who play video games and
those who do not, others have adopted it as an identifier of one’s personal and social identity.
The latter use of the term has been slowly gaining popularity among researchers in the last few
years as the advent of gaming communities, such as the numerous clans, guilds and online web
forums
1
, hinted at a sense of group identity amongst people who play and enjoy video games.
However, a consensus is far from being reached. Some have even argued that the term gamer
should no longer be used to classify certain individuals, because traditional understandings of the
gamer identity are outdated - i.e. young, socially outcast, white males (Alexander, 2014;
Golding, 2014). The core message of this identity, it is argued, was clear: “Have money. Have
women. Get a gun and then a bigger gun. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Defeat anyone who
threatens you. You don’t need cultural references. You don’t need anything but gaming”
(Alexander, 2014, para. 13). This identity hailed from gaming being an unusual activity, a
sociocultural niche, and was established to define and unite a group of male players, whilst
differentiating it from other subcultural movements (Golding, 2014). This began to shift when
gaming extended out of the niche of being an exclusive phenomenon predominated by mostly
male players, through the increasing number of female players to the current state of almost
equal distribution between the genders (ESA, 2014). Since society experiences these
“fundamental shifts in the videogame audience, and a move towards progressive attitudes within
more traditional areas of videogame culture” (Golding, 2014, para. 8), it is argued that the
traditional gamer identity is rendered culturally obsolete. In Alexander’s (2014) words, the
gamer “is over” – in its meaning of being a solely male and market-shaped identity.
This, in turn, raises the question what it means if an individual chooses to call themselves a
gamer apart from the traditional image. Who is the gamer of the ‘new videogame audience’? An
individual might still choose to adopt a gamer identity because it is important to him/her. But
how does one constitute this identity along individual significances? As it stands now, the only
agreement one can come to about the term gamer seems that it holds a negative connotation in
social discourse (Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008; Shaw, 2012; Kowert et al., 2012; Kowert,
2014) and is still often discussed as a socially marginal phenomenon.
This paper will take a closer look at the term gamer and explore its relevance among the game
playing community in terms of its association with personal and social identities. This will
include an exploration of who is a gamer, what it means to be a gamer, and the connotations this
term holds for game players themselves as well as society at large. This will be done by
presenting in-depth analysis of the term gamer across micro (i.e., the gamer as an individual) and
macro (i.e., the gamer in the context of virtual communities) perspectives. Following this, we
will present a multi-modal theoretical framework for approaching the gamer identity.
Exploring the gamer identity
While we hear the term gamer often in the media, popular culture, and perhaps within our own
social group, it is not exactly clear who or what this term is referring to. Is it simply a way to
differentiate between people who play video games and those who do not? Is it referring to a
specific subset of video game players? Perhaps, those who not only play video games often but
72
also are interested in video game news, video game fashion, and video game lore. The following
section will discuss three potential interpretations of the term gamer in an attempt to understand
what this term actually refers to – Is it a social identity? A social group? Or an interpersonal
identity? This will be followed by a discussion of who the research community categorizes as a
gamer. A core problem of interpreting the term gamer is that, regardless of which approach one
may take, it remains relatively unclear who exactly is being referred to when enlisting such a
label.
‘Gamer’ versus ‘Player’
Before discussing the term gamer, we need to point out the possible differences from the term
player. Following Juul (2010), being a player of digital games is primarily defined through
engaging in the interactional activity of playing:
A player is someone who interacts with a game, and a game is something that
interacts with a player; players choose or modify a game because they desire the
experience they believe the game can give them.
Juul (2010), p. 9
This interaction requires different levels of skill and effort (Juul, 2010) and varies in motivation
to play (Dalisay, Kushin, Yamamoto, Liu & Skalski, 2014; Lin, Lin & Yang, 2015) and
gratifications sought by the player (Klimmt, 2006; Wimmer, 2013). How involved a player may
be within the gameplay and associated community depends on their experiences with and
expectations towards multiple motivational variables such as personal gaming performance,
interaction possibilities, sociability, status concerns, believability of game contents, involvement
in game narratives, escapism and pastime or also moral self-reaction (De Grove, Cauberghe &
Van Looy, 2014). The game itself provides the player with these gaming experiences through
interaction with the narrative and game mechanics, framed by the overall social context during
playing (Elson, Breuer, Ivory & Quandt, 2014). These factors, along with demographics such as
age and gender, can be used to describe a player and their engagement with digital games. Thus,
in accordance to Juul’s (2010) assertion, we define a player as a person, who performs the act of
playing a digital game under the conditions of his/her personal patterns of media usage.
However, engaging in a media-related activity such as playing games does not essentially
involve internalization of related sociocultural aspects other people might hold towards it. For
example, a person watching a game of football on TV does not necessary inhabit the fan culture
and practices related to a team or view him-/herself as a fan of sport at all. As is to be shown,
considering oneself a gamer requires a complex construct of multidimensional social influence
factors that reach beyond the mere act of playing digital games.
As such, the terms player and gamer should be distinguished from each other based on their
level of personal importance they might hold for an individual. This is also meant as a
differentiation by short-term and long-term effects of (medial) socialization: A player is a
temporary, functional status as the role of an interactor one obtains while playing a digital game.
73
This means that a person who has never played a digital game would be considered a player the
moment they interact with a game. A gamer, in contrast, is a concept that comprises longtime
aspects of self-construction and self-perception, as well as individual societal and cultural
positioning.
In the following sections, we will explore this distinction further as we explore the gamer as a
self-concept and its associations with sociocultural dimensions that mark it a social identity.
What is a gamer?
According to Kirkpatrick’s (2012) analysis of UK gaming magazines from the 1980s and 1990s,
gaming culture and the gamer identity evolved around strategies of “distancing the playing of
computer games from other elements of the computer culture” (Kirkpatrick, 2012, para. 53). In
this sense, gaming media was “centrally concerned with the construction of a sense of
community among gamers” (ibid., para. 42), addressing and ultimately helping formulate the
predominantly male gamer identity as described by Alexander (2014) and Golding (2014). This
construction through differentiation from other sociocultural contexts within video game history
indicates that gamer identities are not independent from pre-existing societal structures: “Identity
as a gamer, like all identities, exists as a conversation between the individual and social,
structural discourses” (Shaw, 2013, para. 5). Thus, within these societal structures, we also need
to consider it a chosen identity:
As an identity defined by consumption, identifying as a gamer is more clearly a
choice than are identities more directly written on the body, defined by kinship
structures, and/or dictated by legislation. […] Like other forms of identity, being a
gamer is defined in relation to dominant discourses about who plays games, the
deployment of subcultural capital, the context in which players find themselves, and
who are the subjects of game texts.
Shaw (2013), para. 1
As noted by De Grove, Courtois & Van Looy (2015), consumption of digital games as well as an
individual’s knowledge of digital games and related paratextual material (e.g. gaming
magazines) add to the cultural capital of performing a gamer identity. This cultural capital also
connects to available social capital: “Having the opportunity to talk about digital games to other
people can provide a means through which one can identify as a gamer at given moments” (p.
347). Reviewing possible contextual dimensions of influence on what is a gamer, it becomes
apparent that these social indicators in need of recognition are complex and may extend beyond
allocations applied to an individual by others:
While the term is often used as a shorthand to organize the world into people who
play video games and people who do not, self-identifying as a gamer also signifies a
shared identity with other members of the broader gaming community and culture
and denotes an alignment with the group’s idiosyncrasies, traditions, and social
practices. […] Being a ‘gamer’ is more than just a label given from the outside; it is a
74
part of one’s self-conception and an expression of one’s affiliation with a group of
society.
Kowert (2014), para. 5
At this point, we can decipher two main social levels between which processes of developing the
gamer identity can occur: On the one hand, there is society with an embedded cultural
understanding of gaming. On the other hand, there is the individual gamer with his/her general
self-concept, shaped by self-categorization and personally negotiated in the social contexts with
others. In these contexts, the gamer identity is a choice to communicate and perform, based on
the individual’s self-perception. This makes the gamer identity subject to social and cultural
indicators such as the individual’s embedding in friendship networks, social groups and overall
social environment as well as his/her position towards societal perceptions of gaming (De Grove,
Courtois & Van Looy, 2015). The gamer identity is also tied to the use and consumption of
digital games as its value-centered medium. Practicing this identity thus likely involves not only
playing the games, but attributing a certain importance to them, displaying knowledge of and
communicating about them. To further explore the gamer identity, we therefore need to consider
different dimensions of personal and societal identification as well as social connections to the
virtuality of digital games.
I am a gamer: Gamer as an interpersonal / a social identity
The term gamer has come to be used by some to identify as a member of the gaming community.
As mentioned previously, the gamer identity and gamer cultures have been given widespread
mainstream recognition through their integration in media and popular culture, such as in the plot
of several television programs (e.g., South Park, The Big Bang Theory) and premise for many
Hollywood blockbusters (e.g., Tomb Raider, Street Fighter, Hitman) (Bergstrom, Fisher &
Jenson, 2014). Fashion trends have also begun catering to the gaming community, with
numerous web-based stores selling apparel that celebrates all things gaming related. For
example, jinx.com describes their online clothing store as providing unique apparel for “gamers
and geeks”. The gamer identity has developed alongside its cultural emergence, and has come to
be associated with its own traditions and behaviors.
Choosing to self-identify as a gamer is a vastly different process than being given a ‘gamer’
categorization from an outside source. As such, there are many important differences between an
individual who plays video games and does not identify as a gamer and someone who does. As
discussed by Hall (1966), identification within a particular social group (such as gamers) is the
self-definition of the individual rather than categorizations based on static definitions of identity
applied from the outside. This social identity (i.e., the ways in which one socially defines oneself
in relation to others) becomes “part of an individual’s self-concept” (Tajfel, 1979, p. 255) and
contributes to feelings of belongingness and self-worth (Branscombe & Wann, 1991) and
positive self-esteem (Barreto & Ellemers, 2000; Branscombe, 1998).
2
Besides a social or group
identity, individuals who self-identify as a gamer are also adopting a personal identity associated
with the group, which comprises personal characteristics, preferences and interests. These, again,
allow for comparison with other individuals’ personalities and recognizing similarities shared
with other people (Turner & Oaks, 1989).
75
The interplay between personal and social identity can be illustrated in the following example.
Imagine an American teacher, who is forty years old, married and has two children. All these
aspects categorize his/her social identity within society (by categories of nationality, profession
and civil status). However, the teacher might also be particularly interested in the field of gaming
and likes to share his/her experiences with friends. This interest itself and the recognition that
his/her friends share the same interests are aspects of the teacher’s personal identity
(additionally, the teacher might consider him-/herself a gamer). Both these identity structures
allow for (self) identification within society as well as (self) perceptive identification with or
belonging to certain social groups. Thus, identification as a gamer derives from the personal self-
concept as well as from situating oneself in an overall societal context.
They are gamers: Gamers as social group
Despite a lack of general consensus about who is a gamer, a clear ‘gamer stereotype’ has
emerged in popular culture. Often referred to as the stereotype of gamers (Williams, 2005;
Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2012; Kowert et al., 2012), gaming and gaming cultures are widely
discussed as a socially marginal phenomenon, with gamers themselves being associated with a
range of negative attributes and outcomes. Described by Williams (2005) as “isolated, pale-
skinned, teenage boys” (p.2), this stereotypical gamer has been the target of ridicule and satire
for numerous television shows and web series (Kowert et al., 2012; Bergstrom, Fisher & Jenson,
2014). Thus, the social consensus as to what constitutes a gamer, or stereotype of online gamers,
is quite clear: gamers are young males who are isolated, unattractive, overweight, and obsessed
with playing video games as well as “social outcasts that are unable or unwilling to integrate into
mainstream society” (Kowert, 2014, para. 8). This stereotypical characterization continues to be
perpetuated by representations in the media today. As a source of popular culture (Consalvo,
2006; Kowert et al., 2012), media outlets are transporting these images to both recipients with
and without a personal link to gaming and gamers alike. Despite this, it should be noted that
these sort of negative characterizations, while widely held as cultural beliefs, are only endorsed
as accurate representations by those who do not consider themselves a member of the gaming
community (Kowert et al., 2012). Thus, self-identified gamers may define being a gamer in
contrast to these perceived societal stereotypes and formally reject these negative
characterizations, perhaps in an attempt to differentiate their social group from other groups
(Hebdige, 2002; Hall, 1996). Alternatively, gamers may attribute perceived stereotypes to other
gamers rather than to themselves, denying common stereotypes’ applicability to their own self-
concept (Bergstrom, Fisher & Jenson, 2014), in the sense of perceived third-person effects
(Davison, 1983) or because of a desire to not be socially stigmatized. However, the individual’s
possibilities to differentiate him-/herself from the stereotypes are limited to a certain degree on at
least two levels. Firstly, they are physiognomically limited in that one’s outward appearance
might correspond with the stereotypes, making it difficult for the individual to contrast these
components of the stereotype towards others. Secondly, they are limited in performance in that
the individual has to ‘prove’ that he/she does not live up to the stereotype. For example, a self-
identified gamer may lead a healthy social life and may still be judged an ‘isolated outcast’ upon
stating that he/she enjoys playing digital games. Thus, while the individual may try to
differentiate him-/herself from the gamer stereotypes, others might still judge him/her according
to the stereotypes.
76
Additionally, there is a lack of general consensus about who is a gamer among the gaming
community itself. Self-identified gamers may hold a broad variety of opinions on what one needs
to be a ‘legitimate’ member of their social group (Shaw, 2013; Kowert, 2014; De Grove,
Courtois & Van Looy, 2015). For example, criteria hereof may be the amount of knowledge
about digital games and their references, gaming experiences in general or the ability to join in a
conversation about games and follow up discussions on recent gaming subjects. If someone does
not meet these terms or plays the ‘right’ games, he/she might face the problem of not being
‘allowed’ to be called a ‘real’ gamer in the face of the social group of gamers (Golding, 2014).
Thus, the gamer identity is dependent on how gamers see themselves as representatives of the
gaming community.
Taken together, we can conclude that identification with the social group of gamers is shaped by
sociocultural representations of the gamer image within society as well as depends on the extent
to which an individual contrasts with or adopts these representations as a heteronomous concept.
The mere act of social stereotyping hints at the uniqueness of the social identity of gamers,
however, who is self-identifying as a gamer and what individuals constitute the gaming
community remains somewhat debatable.
We are gamers: Gamers as a (virtual) community identity
Social identity is particularly pertinent within public, situational contexts (Hall, 1996) as in a
social space, an individual becomes a member within the broader community. It is in this social
space that individual identities become further developed through interaction with other
members of one’s community (Hecht, 1993). In the context of gaming for example, discussing
one’s favorite games can provide a common ground for conversation with one’s peers. Playing
games together can also help to strengthen peer bonds by providing shared experiences (Fritz,
Lampert, Schmidt, & Witting, 2011). Personal performance and outward expression within the
community further contribute to the strength of one’s individual gamer identity. One’s personal
gamer identity thereby not only becomes visible and potentially strengthened through social
interactions, but it also provides the opportunity to create a shared identity with one’s peers.
These interactions and relationships with other gamers can be strong connectors for establishing
a communal spirit, which, in turn, may help to strengthen one’s interpersonal, social and virtual
identities through the adoption of common objects (Hebdige, 2002), such as specific ways of
dressing, speaking, sociocultural practices or interactional behavior.
In relation to the gaming community, we can find these mechanisms in the use of pop-cultural
references drawn from digital games. Examples here include actual icons (the Triforce from The
Legend of Zelda games), solid objects (a replica of digital game weaponry) and also phrases (the
saying ‘The cake is a lie’ from the Portal games), behavior (cosplay – portraying game
characters) and music (humming the Tetris theme). Referring to these symbols (and also
recognizing the reference itself) makes a person identifiable as a member of the social group of
gamers and, by enlisting these objects and icons, validates one’s social identity as a gamer within
the gaming community. By adopting these symbolic values and practices, gamers “form a unity
with the group’s relations, situation, experiences” (Clarke, Hall, Jefferson & Roberts, 2004, p.
77
56). Additionally, attaching the group-related symbolic meaning to one’s self-concept can
contribute to the strength of one’s self-categorization as a gamer (Hecht, Jackson & Pitts, 2005).
However, one cannot fully understand gaming identities without discussing their uniqueness in
the way that they relate to a specific medium – digital games. The gaming environment itself
enables individuals to explore aspects of secondary, virtual identities while interacting in digital
environments (Klimmt, 2006; Fritz, 2011). For example, virtual in-game representations of the
players, or their avatar, can become an essential part of the identification process (Fritz, 2011)
and may be tightly connected to a gamer’s personality (Banks & Bowman, 2014). Furthermore,
just as it is the case for public contexts of the physical world, a gamer’s avatar is not alone in the
virtual game world. He/she is surrounded by dozens of players interacting with and within the
game simultaneously, which affects elements of gameplay. There is also a need for interaction
created by the players present in the virtual game context, shaping an expanding in-game society
of its own:
Players rely on other players’ characters for training, information, and resources,
forming groups and intergroup collaborations. Players’ reliance on others gives rise
to robust communities in which players transact their relationships through their
virtual characters not only in the game but also through instant messaging, Web
forums, e-mail, and voice over IP networks.
Bessière et al. (2007), p. 530
Technology and interaction have created an overlap between the virtual and the physical societal
world, forming what we could call an ‘in-game-out-of-game’ community. Community structures
built up by gamers within the game extend into physical world communities ‘outside’ the game.
For example, players often create organized in-game collaborations, to achieve common goals or
achieve successful at the game. Such formations consist, for instance, in computer-based game
communities with long-term focus including clans, guilds and alliances (Geisler, 2009). The
formation’s members then might not only chat in-game, but also stay in contact through
networking as stated above. Platforms like a clan forum, for example, can be used to discuss the
current game, plan future in-game interactions or chat in and out of context of the game.
Members of a virtual community thereby do not actually have to be present in the game to link to
their guild or clan. Relationships initially established in-game can thus be transported into out-of-
game contexts, where they might also include potential face-to-face meetings of clan members in
the physical world. Identification with the virtual community this way may reach into the
individual’s out-of-game community.
Like the physical world, virtual communities also hold a set of shared practices and symbolic
values to refer to so that members can identify with it and show or prove their belonging. Virtual
formations like clans and guilds also refer to symbolic objects to demonstrate their factional
status in the virtual game world. In Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games
(MMORPGs) like Guild Wars and World of Warcraft, it is common practice to let the avatar
wear a certain guild’s coat of arms, once the player belongs to that guild (Wimmer, 2013). This
may be used to express identification with the guild, while distinguishing oneself from other
guilds. While playing the game and traversing the game world with the coat of arms visible on
78
the avatar, the gamer symbolizes that he/she acts in the name of their respective in-game group
of choice – whether it be done intentionally or not. This illustrates how aspects of a gamer’s in-
game identity may be perceived by third parties if made visible. Originally virtual symbols like
coats of arms might also be used in out-of-game contexts to represent affiliation. A clan or guild
might decorate their web forums with it, for example. Gamers, in turn, might then refer to their
clan’s coat of arms with other gamers in physical world contexts to state their allegiance. This
way, clan emblems and coat of arms become icons of symbolic value that represent the clan as
collaborating community within and beyond the game context.
The reciprocal interplay of the aspects stated above form bridges between the virtual gaming
community (what happens in-game) and the out-of-game gaming community (what it feels like
to be a gamer). While this bridging aspect is not specific to gamer identities (as players may
experience the same described mechanisms), it could be an integral part of an individual’s
identification as a gamer as gamers may engage in these bridging aspects in a meaningful way,
actively perceiving and seeking them as a way to connect to the overall gaming culture and its
community structures. Conversely, players who do not self-identify as gamers may enjoy the
level of social interaction provided by these mechanisms or the multiplayer game mechanics as a
source of entertainment without personally linking them to sociocultural identification processes.
It is then a question of personal value, if one attributes said mechanisms to defining his/her
personal and social identity.
Interaction in the context of actual online multiplayer gameplay often requires creation of a
virtual character as a representative of one’s self, which marks a crucial step of identity reference
in the gaming world. As Bessière et al. (2007) note, “players are referred to by their character’s
name, and they interact with others as that character” (p. 531). If a gamer does not give away any
other personal information (true name, personality, behavior etc.), his/her in-game identity may
thus only be addressed through the avatar.
It needs to be taken into account that not all genres and forms of digital games are equally potent
in projecting and producing virtual identity. For example, the identity mechanisms represented
through avatar creation and the in-game community discussed here are primarily limited to
MMORPGs, as they allow for these specific forms of identity exploration. When playing within
other genres, such as action-adventure, puzzle, or strategy/simulation, one is unlikely to
experience the same feeling of having a persistent virtual representation of self. However, a
player of these kind of games would still likely experience the embodiment of a temporary,
virtual role, for example that of an emperor, major, or Italian plumber. Also, given the
possibilities of contributing to online gaming community platforms, a player may also be active
within a community belonging to these games (for example, he/she might discuss game elements
of a puzzle game on a corresponding online forum). In this sense, even games without creation of
avatars (or online components at all) can contribute to the production of relationships within a
gaming community. Identity aspects regarding the virtual in-game space as presented in this
paper mainly focus on elements of character creation and online multiplayer interaction.
79
Who is a gamer? – Academic perspectives
As we can derive from the aspects stated above so far, the social identity of gamers appears to be
a multi-faceted concept with numerous influences from physical and virtual worlds. However,
quantification of the term gamer from a research perspective is far from integrating these various
influences. When reviewing the literature it becomes clear that an integrative definition of the
term gamer does not exist. In fact, gamers seem to be primarily addressed through defining
characteristics of certain player types (online players, casual players, problematic players). The
description of gamers then tends to be based on categorization sets. For example, one may differ
between casual gamers (players who primarily engage in gaming spaces that do not require a
large amount of time or special skills to complete) and hardcore gamers (players who spend a
large amount of time gaming, aim at completing every feature of a certain game or have several
years of gaming experience) (Shaw, 2012). Schott & Horrell (2000) focus on self-identified “girl
gamers” and their relation to the field of gaming, examining differences in playing styles and
gaming orientation of female players. Jansz & Martens (2005) address visitors of LAN gaming
events as a specific group of gamers, an approach that exemplifies how gamer identity may be
described depending on a certain social context. Pearce (2008) focuses on age in relation to
gamer identities, more specifically “Baby Boomer Gamers”. Other identity concepts may address
game involvement or playing styles, such as power gamers (Taylor, 2003; Malone, 2009), who
basically play to be the best and most efficient. Finally, Stein, Mitgutsch, & Consalvo (2013)
discuss players of sports video games as sports gamers in relation to their overall media usage
and general sports preferences, demonstrating an identification approach related to the genre of
game played.
However, all of the above categorizations are oriented towards one-dimensional attributes
(gender, age, gaming habits like playing time, play patterns, game involvement or game
preferences). Gamer identities may thus be interpreted through characteristics limited to a
selected specific perspective, and the criteria required to call one a gamer becomes difficult to
define. Is someone a gamer when he/she plays games, certain types of games or a certain amount
of games? These questions answered may leave out perspectives on how the individual
perceives, conceptualizes and identifies him-/herself as a gamer (Shaw, 2012). As Shaw (2012,
2013) and Kowert (2014) argue, labeling someone a gamer only because he/she plays digital
games does not come up to the contextualized social interactions and processes of self-reflection
that shape the gamer identity. As found by De Grove, Courtois & Van Looy (2015), play
frequency is a highly important predictor of self-categorization as a gamer, but yet can not be
seen as a stand-alone factor independent from relating contexts of social group identification. As
we have discussed, connections to social structures like communities, societal processes like the
public discourse and, not least, the media need to be considered. Eklund (2013; 2014a; 2014b)
address socio-structural elements that shape these processes in virtual game spaces and gameplay
contexts by focusing on aspects of social gameplay and social grouping among MMOG players.
Social interactions and temporary group formations in online in-game spaces require the players
to willingly put a certain amount of social effort into engaging with others. If these social costs
are perceived too high or if social norms among the players and a game’s mechanics do not
suffice to sanction social non-conformity, players’ investment in the virtual social situation will
likely be low (Eklund & Johansson, 2013). This indicates the importance of willingness to
engage in social interactions for group formation processes among gamers. In the specific case of
80
digital gaming, social grouping is also a question of preferences about who to game with. Social
gaming might be preferred among family members, friends or strangers and can also be subject
to societal variables such as occupation, education, or class (Eklund, 2014a). However,
regardless of who one decides to play with, gaming with others becomes social as it centers
around shared experiences and actions, including the possibility of meeting another person in-
game (Eklund, 2014b). Due to the social nature of these spaces, gamers often join online in-game
groups like guilds whose members may share similar personal characteristics as themselves in
out-of-game (offline) contexts (ibid.).
While these aspects do not describe how players or gamers define themselves, they do illustrate
the variety of possible factors that premise the formation of social groups in virtual in-game
contexts, framed by out-of-game situations of actual gameplay (e.g. playing with friends and
family).
According to Shaw (2010), the question of the existence of a gamer culture evokes the need for
discussing how it is implemented in or set apart from other cultural senses. She points to the
importance of a cultural studies oriented gaming research, since games “are played by many if
not all ages, genders, sexualities, races, religions, and nationalities” (p. 416). The notion of
gendered gaming is taken into account by several intersectional works addressing the shift in the
historically grown, formerly male shaped gaming culture, including articles by Cassell & Jenkins
(1998) and Kafai, Heeter, Denner & Sun (2008).
3
Research by Vermeulen, Van Looy, De Grove
& Courtois (2011) indicates that gender differences in game design preferences may diminish
due to similar interests and experience. However, as indicated by Ratan, Taylor, Hogan,
Kennedy & Williams (2015), the social climate during gameplay may restrain female players’
enjoyment of and confidence in an online game. The researchers argue that female players of
League of Legends were likely hindered from gaining confidence or could have adopted the
feeling of not belonging in the game (or mainly playing supportive roles) due to a hostile social
climate and the stereotype that the game is not meant for women. This, again, points to the
importance of regarding the sociocultural contexts aside from a one-dimensional focus on
demographics in researching the gender gap in gaming.
However, the importance of demographic attributes still needs to be taken into account. As a part
of identity concepts and social connotations, they may still influence identification as a gamer.
Negative connotations relating to gamer demographics, such as stereotypes, may constrict
processes of identification as a gamer and have an impact on how the game industry constructs
the market along these connotations (Shaw, 2012). In this context, it is important to consider that
gamer identities, in turn, relate to this industry to a degree, as they are connected to
entertainment media. They are likely not only influenced by the public discourse, but by
technological progress and the communities’ notion of game structures. As such, gamer identities
might change substantially along with changes and development of the gaming industry. The
way how individuals, who may consider themselves gamers, relate to the market state, also
shapes a social context for understanding gamer identities in between the discourse of self-
reflection and society.
81
Moving forward: A proposed model of gamer identification
The lack of consensus among the academic community is particularly troubling as it makes it
impossible to design and interpret research among such a population. In an attempt to generate a
better understanding of gamers and the identity processes that are related to identifying as a
gamer in both virtual and non-virtual contexts, we propose a new model of gamer identification.
This model is the first to consider the potential overlap of the gamer identity between the
physical (out-of-game) world and virtual (in-game) worlds. As seen in Figure 1, there are three
levels of the gamer identity being proposed here: personal identity, group identity and virtual
(group) identity. Together, they form an integrated identification model.
Figure 1: A model of integrated gamer identity
The individual (depicted as Me, see Figure 1) with his/her personal background (consisting of
socio-demographic, identity-related attributes such as gender, ethnic group, education, social
class and overall socialization) and his/her self-identification as a gamer are framed by a
perceived membership in a gaming community. This community functions as a social group by
sharing identity aspects, for instance through referring to a set of symbolic objects that hold the
group’s values. The gaming community itself is situated in the overlap between the physical and
the virtual world: on one hand, the gamer is part of collaborative organized in-game communities
such as guilds or clans; on the other hand, the gamer is in contact with an out-of-game
community existing beyond the game (e.g. his/her friends and peer-group members, known
through mediatized interpersonal interaction). The virtual gaming community can leap into the
physical space by use of networking technology or the possibility of interpersonal relationship
building, thus becoming one with the out-of-game community. Vice versa, it can be assumed that
members of the gamer’s out-of-game community may also be invited into the in-game
community.
82
The gamer’s self-categorization in the societal out-of-game space relates to the social
environment and the public. The gamer might define him-/herself in relation to elements of this
environment. Both the gamer’s societal self-categorization and out-of-game community relate to
and influence each other, shaping the perception of the gamer’s self within society. Stereotypes,
among other things transmitted by media, influence identification processes of the gamer’s self,
the out-of-game community and the gaming community. Awareness of stereotypes might, for
instance, lead to identifying oneself or a group in contrast to these or attributing the stereotypes
to others rather than to oneself.
In-game, the gamer’s identity corresponds with his/her virtual representations embodied by the
avatar. Creation of avatars allows for testing out secondary identities and role models in the
virtual game context. Those role models again relate to the gamer’s in-game community, for they
influence the gamer’s position within the virtual community and his/her representation amongst
other players in the in-game world. The attributes of the personal background relate to both the
individual’s societal self-categorization and his/her interactions within the virtual space. As a
result of said aspects, we argue that the social identity of gamers is overall developed through
‘between-worlds’ (in-game/out-of-game) processes which are determined by the gamer’s
(inter)acting in societal physical and virtual spaces.
The model’s limitation is that – considering the virtual space – it mainly focusses on digital
games that allow for online multiplayer gaming and identity construction through character
creation. As stated above, the model’s virtual component may be more applicable for certain
types of games, such as MMORPGs. However, while certain games may not allow for identity
creation, they still may allow for role-taking. For example, in the strategy game Civilization V,
the player takes up the role of an emperor or head of state leading his/her nation through history.
Additional research is needed to better understand how games without character creation can
potentially contribute to identification processes beyond perceiving these games as leisure
activity (Eklund, 2014b).
The proposed model is also limited in its ability to define the gamer as a fixed term. This is due
to the understanding that identities are constantly evolving and never become unified (Hall,
1996). Hence, even among self-defined gamers there will likely be different notions about what
it means to be a gamer. Instead, the current model helps to understand how the individual may
construct his/her self-identification as a gamer through interplay of societal dimensions. This
allows for further exploring how digital games and gaming influence the daily life of people,
who link personal importance to gaming, perceiving it to be more than ‘just a hobby’ and
valuably connected to their personal and social self-being.
While the dimensions of the model allow us to approach contexts of social influences on how the
individual positions him-/herself as a gamer toward different socialization agents (such as
family, peer-group, educational institutions and media), additional research is needed to
understand the meaning of the gamer identity at different points of people’s lives. For example,
exploring the development of the gamer identity throughout consecutive age phases may
contribute to the understanding of how gaming and games are tied to socialization and the
development of societal and media competences. This may also contribute to understanding how
83
gaming-related identification processes are constructed along the model’s dimensions as a part of
people’s personal biographies.
By conceptualizing the gamer identity as a multi-faceted and multi-tiered identity process, rather
than defining gamers by static characteristics like play patterns and categorizing people who play
video games and people who do not, we will begin to understand the importance of this medium
and its related identity concepts in society and what position it holds in people’s lives.
Conclusions
The ‘gamer’ has grown to become a staple in our everyday jargon, news media, and a common
feature in television programs, web series, and movies. However, the term gamer is far more
than simply an individual who plays video games, as it refers to a multi-faceted social identity
that spans personal, social, and virtual contexts. The gamer identity is somewhat unique in this
sense as it is part of both virtual and physical communities and by extending beyond the gaming
spaces and into one’s everyday life. Relating to the individual social environment, the gamer is
not a static concept but rather develops through societal interaction according to or contrasting
with this environment. Through a consideration for the multiple influences on gamer identity and
cultures, we now have a better understanding of what makes digital games a part of people’s life
and how they relate to gaming as an activity. These constantly evolving societal processes
beyond actual gameplay will continue to grow in importance as gaming continues to morph into
a staple of everyday life.
References
Alexander, L. (2014). ‘Gamers’ don’t have to be your audience. ‘Gamers’ are over. Gamasutra
online article. Retrieved November 28, 2014 from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience
_Gamers_are_over.php
Banks, J. & Bowman, N. (2014). Avatars are (sometimes) people too: Linguistic indicators of
parasocial and social ties in player-avatar relationships. New Media and Society.
Barreto, M. & Ellemers, N. (2000). You can’t always do what you want: Social identity and self-
presentational determinants of the choice to work for a low-status group. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 891-906.
Bergstrom, K., Fisher, S. & Jenson, J. (2014). Disavowing ‘that guy’: Identity construction and
massively multiplayer online game players. Convergence: The International Journal of
Research into New Media Technologies.
Bessière, K., Seay, A. F. & Kiesler, S. (2007). The ideal elf: Identity exploration in World of
Warcraft. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social networking, 10(4), 530-535.
Branscombe, N. R. & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of
sports team identification. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15(2), 115-127.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one's gender group's privileges or disadvantages:
Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology,
37(2), 167-184.
84
Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1998). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Gender and computer games.
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Clarke, J., Hall, S., Jefferson, T. & Roberts, B. (2004). Subcultures, cultures and class: A
theoretical overview. In S. Hall & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Resistance through rituals: Youth
subcultures in post-war Britain (pp. 9-74). London: Routledge.
Colwell, J. & Kato, M. (2003). Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-
esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 6(2), 149-158.
Consalvo, M. (2006). Console video games and global corporations: Creating a hybrid culture.
New Media & Society, 8(1), 117-137.
Dalisay, F., Kushin, M. J., Yamamoto, M., Liu, Y. I. & Skalski, P. (2014). Motivations for game
play and the social capital and civic potential of video games. New Media & Society.
First published online on March 3, 2014.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly,
47(1), 1-15.
De Grove, F., Cauberghe, V. & Van Looy, J. (2014). In pursuit of play: Toward a social
cognitive understanding of determinants of digital play. Communication Theory, 24(2),
205-223.
De Grove, F., Courtois, C. & Van Looy, J. (2015). How to be a gamer! Exploring personal and
social indicators of gamer identity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
20(3), 346-361.
Eklund, L. & Johansson, M. (2013). Played and designed sociality in a massive multiplayer
online game. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, 7(1), 35-54.
Eklund, L. (2014a). Gaming together: Patterns and practices of engaging in digital games with
others. Stockholm Internet Research Group Research Reports, SIRR 2014: 2. Stockholm:
Stockholm University. Retrieved July 21, 2015 from http://www.sirg.se/publications/
Eklund, L. (2014b). Bridging the online/offline divide: The example of digital gaming.
Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 527-535.
Elson, M.; Breuer, J.; Ivory, J. D. & Quandt, T. (2014). More than stories with buttons:
Narrative, mechanics, and context as determinants of player experience in digital games.
Journal of Communication, 64(3), 521-542.
ESA (2014). Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry.
Entertainment Software Association. Retrieved October 27, 2014 from
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf
Fritz, J. (2011). Wie computerspieler ins spiel kommen. Theorien und modelle zur nutzung und
wirkung virtueller spielwelten. Berlin: Vistas.
Fritz, J., Lampert, C., Schmidt, J. H. & Witting, T. (2011). Kompetenzen und exzessive nutzung
bei computerspielen: Gefordert, gefördert, gefährdet. Berlin: Vistas.
Geisler, M. (2009). Clans, gilden und gamefamilies. Soziale prozesse in
computerspielgemeinschaften. Weinheim: Juventa.
Golding, D. (2014). The end of gamers. Tumblr online article. Retrieved November 28, 2014
from http://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers
Hall, P. M. (1966). Identification with the delinquent subculture and level of self-evaluation.
Sociometry, 29(2), 146-158.
Hall, S. (1996). Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of Cultural
Identity (pp. 1-17). London: Sage.
85
Hebdige, D. (2002). Subculture. The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.
Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002 – A research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication
theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60(1), 76-82.
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L. & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and
identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Communication. Multiple
Perspectives (pp. 21-42). New York: Peter Lang.
Jansz, J. & Martens, L. (2005). Gaming at a LAN event: The social context of playing video
games. New Media & Society, 7(3), 333-355.
Jansz, Avis & Vosmeer, M. (2010). Playing the Sims2: An exploration of gender differences in
players’ motivations and patterns of play. New Media & Society, 12(2), 235-251.
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution. Reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Kafai, Y. B., Heeter, C., Denner, J. & Sun, J. Y. (2008). Beyond barbie and mortal kombat. New
perspectives on gender and gaming. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Kirkpatrick, G. (2012). Constitutive tensions of gaming’s field: UK gaming magazines and the
formation of gaming culture 1981-1995. Game Studies: The International Journal of
Computer Game Research, 12(1). Retrieved July 30, 2015 from
http://gamestudies.org/1201/articles/kirkpatrick
Klimmt, C. (2006). Computerspielen als handlung. Dimensionen und determinanten des erlebens
interaktiver unterhaltungsangebote. Cologne: Halem.
Kowert, R. & Oldmeadow, J. (2012). The stereotype of online gamers: New characterization or
recycled prototype? Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2012 Conference: Local and Global
Games in Culture and Society, Tampere, Finland. Retrieved 25 October 2014 from
http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/12168.23066.pdf
Kowert, R., Griffiths, M. D. & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2012). Geek or chic? Emerging stereotypes of
online gamers. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 32(6), 471-479.
Kowert, R. (2014). The gamer identity crisis. Towards a Reclamation. First Person Scholar
online article. Retrieved 14 October 2014 from http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/the-
gamer-identity-crisis/
Lin, Y. L., Lin, H.W. & Yang, Y.T. (2015). Players’ value structure in digital games.
Games and Culture.
Malone, K. L. (2009). Dragon kill points: The economics of power gamers. Games and Culture,
4(3), 296-316.
Pearce, C. (2008). The truth about baby boomer gamers. A study of over-forty computer game
players. Games and Culture, 3(2), 142-174.
Quandt, T., Chen, V., Mäyrä, F. & Van Looy, J. (2014). (Multiplayer) gaming around the globe?
A comparison of gamer surveys in Four Countries. In S. Kröger & T. Quandt (Eds.),
Multi-player: The social aspects of digital gaming (pp. 23-46). London: Routledge.
Ratan, R. A., Taylor, N., Hogan, J., Kennedy, T. & Williams, D. (2015). Stand by your man: An
examination of gender disparity in league of legends. Games and Culture.
Schott, G. R. & Horrell, K. R. (2000). Girl gamers and their relationship with the gaming culture.
Convergence, 6(4), 36-53.
Shaw, A. (2010). What is video game culture? Cultural studies and game studies. Games and
Culture, 5(4), 403-424.
86
Shaw, A. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New
Media & Society, 14(1), 28-44.
Shaw, A. (2013). On not becoming gamers: Moving beyond the constructed audience. Ada: A
Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology, 2. Retrieved July 31, 2015 from
http://adanewmedia.org/2013/06/issue2-shaw/#footnote-1
Shaw, A. (2015). Gaming at the edge. Sexuality and gender at the margins of gamer culture.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stein, A., Mitgutsch, K. & Consalvo, M. (2013). Who are sports gamers? A large scale study of
sports video game players. Convergence, 19(3), 345-363.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5),
96-102.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-
93.
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183-190.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, T. L. (2003). Power gamers just want to have fun? Instrumental play in a MMOG.
DiGRA, Level Up Conference Proceedings 2003, University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Retrieved November 16, 2014 from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-
library/05163.32071.pdf
Turner, J.C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
The social dimension. European developments in social psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 518-538).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B.
Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence, 2nd edition (pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Vermeulen, L., Van Looy, J., De Grove, F. & Courtois, C. (2011). You are what you play? A
quantitative study into game design preferences across gender and their interaction with
gaming habits. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design
Play, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Retrieved August 1, 2015 from http://www.digra.org/wp-
content/uploads/digital-library/11313.31106.pdf
Williams, D. (2005). A brief social history of game play. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005
Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved October
16, 2014 from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06278.32314.pdf
Williams, D., Yee, N. & Caplan, S. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the
stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993-
1018.
Wimmer, J. (2013). Massenphänomen computerspiele. Soziale, kulturelle und wirtschaftliche
Aspekte. Constance: UVK-Verlagsgesellschaft.
87
1
See Geisler (2009) for a broader discussion of clans, guilds and game families as a part of social processes in
gaming communities.
2
For a more detailed discussion of social identity see Tajfel (1970, 1974, 1982); Tajfel & Turner (1979);
Turner (1984).
3
Relating to this aspect and for a broader discussion of research on digital games and gendered gaming culture see
Jansz, Avis & Vosmeer (2010); see also Shaw (2012, 2013, 2015); Ratan et al. (2015).
