ProQuest Number: 22585465




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 22585465

Published by ProQuest LLC (2019 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Gamers Defining Gamers: Exploring Gamer Identities and The Subculture from Their

Perspectives

by

Melody Stotler

Abstract

As a multi-billion-dollar industry, gaming has become a prevalent research topic. However,

understanding gamers has alluded researchers because there is a lack of consistency when

defining what it means to be a gamer. Previous research notes that those who play games may

not identify as gamers because of stigmatization. Rather than say everyone who plays games is a

gamer this dissertation focuses on asking gamers to define themselves and their community. Two

studies were done, one qualitative and one quantitative. An exploratory qualitative open-ended

questionnaire was given to participants from across gaming genres and community platforms

(e.g., Twitch) to ascertain how gamers define the gamer identity. A second study, adapted from

the Fan Identity Scale was distributed to gamers across a variety of gaming platforms, genres,

and game-related forums to determine if gamers followed the same patterns of enthusiasm,

appreciation, and socialization as fans of other popular media. Additionally, a measure for

explicit self-identity was used to determine the degree to which gamers are comfortable

explicitly self-identifying as such. In the first study, gamers consistently stated that gamers are

set apart from non gamers in their passion for games, consistent game play, and participation in

communities with fellow gamers. Consistent with those results, the second study found that the

Gamer Identity Scale is a useful measure of the gamer identity, and that there is a significant

relationship between the Gamer Identity Scale and the Explicitly Defined Gamer Identity

measure. In contrast, those who took the Fan Identity Scale scored low on measures of self-

ii
definition. For gamers, however, both measures accurately predicted whether someone identified

as a gamer. Future studies should include these measures in gamer research, to more accurately

describe the gamer community.

Key words: gamers, gaming, video games, identity, stereotype, marginalization, sub-cultures,

nerd, in-group, out-group, identity theory, social identity theory, fan identity scale, gamer

identity scale

iii
 Copyright by

MELODY STOTLER

2019

iv
To my daughter, Brielle, who probably thinks this whole dissertation is a completely made up

excuse to get out of playing World of Warcraft with her.

*installs updates*

Wait until I make her read this.

v
 Gamers Defining Gamers: Exploring Gamer Identities and the Subculture from Their

Perspectives

Video games have become such a pervasive medium that it is hard to imagine life

without them. Gaming has been a hot topic for researchers over the past several years, especially

research focused on media violence. One area of research which needs further research is gamer

identity. Even with the popularity of gaming research, however, there is a distinct need for

exploration in gamer identity. With stereotypes about gamers in the media, being a gamer is

construed by some as a marginalized identity. Many who play games do not identify as gamers

yet are still counted as gamers in research. In order to truly understand gamers, we need to

understand who they are. This study includes two studies designed to understand what a gamer is

from gamers’ perspectives and based on existing fan identity research.

Gaming, specifically video game playing, is prevalent as a research topic due to its

society-wide economic and social impact. It is a multi-billion-dollar global industry (Schubert,

2010) that includes professional gaming leagues (aka eSports) similar to those of sports such as

football and baseball (“Major League Gaming,” 2015), college scholarships (Ravitz, n.d.), and

live streaming where viewers can watch hosts play video games live while interacting with the

host and their communities (“Partner Program Overview,” n.d.). The video gaming industry

creates jobs. Not only are developers and publishers profitable, but players around the world can

make gaming a very profitable career (Keng, 2014). Research studies have documented the

educational, psychological, and social benefits of gaming (Barnett & Coulson, 2010; Deterding,

Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, & Dixon, 2011; Ramirez, Seyler, Squire, & Berland, 2014; Rosas et al.,

2002). While some research claiming to measure gamer behaviors exists, members of the gaming
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 2

community believe they remain misunderstood and misrepresented (Williams, Yee, & Caplan,

2008).

Researchers have even noted the need for a clear definition of gamer (Griffiths, Davies,

& Chappell, 2004a). Although research about the benefits of gaming has become more prevalent

(e.g., Blumberg, 2014; Frostling-Henningsson, 2009; Neys, Jansz, & Tan, 2014; Rosas et al.,

2002), much of the existing research about games and gaming culture has focused on the

negative (e.g., Fischer, Kastenmüller, & Greitemeyer, 2010; Ivory, 2006; Kirsh, 2003; You, Kim,

& Lee, 2015). Stereotypes about gamers have been debunked but continue to have negative

impacts on the gaming community (Kowert, Festl, & Quandt, 2014; Paaßen, Morgenroth, &

Stratemeyer, 2017; Ramirez et al., 2014; Shaw, 2012; Williams et al., 2008). Parents, peers, and

counselors who understand gaming culture and what it means to be a gamer may develop better

communication, stronger relationships, and lower stress interactions with gamers compared to

people who do not understand gamers and gaming culture (Cade & Gates, 2017).

The way identity is measured depends on how it is being defined, just as the behavior

being measured is determined by the definition used (Abdelal, Herrera, Johnston, & Martin,

2001). There is a difference between people who play video games and people who identify as

gamers, much like there is a difference between people who write and people who identify as

writers (Deshbandhu, 2016). Identity is fluid and influenced by perception making it difficult to

measure empirically. One recent study presented a measure for fan identity salience which may

apply to the assessment of a gamer identity (Vinney, Dill-Shackleford, Plante, & Bartsch, 2018).

To be meaningful, identity research should be comprised of both group and role identity

measures (Abdelal et al., 2001; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Stryker & Burke, 2000).
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 3

A Gamer Identity Strength (GIS) measure applied social identity theory to gamers

(Bartholomé, 2012). The GIS suggested that the more knowledgeable someone was about video

games, the more likely he or she was to identify as a gamer. Another study using social identity

theory to assess gamer identity argued that people were less likely to identify themselves as

gamers because of the heavy stereotyping of the group (De Grove, Courtois, & Van Looy, 2015).

As such, De Grove and colleagues asked participants to identify gamer-related qualities found in

friends that they identified as gamers. Gamer as a negative stereotype, and therefore unappealing

identity, echoes Shaw (2012) who interviewed individuals who were hesitant to identify as

gamers. One study asked gamers to self-identify as gamers, allowed them to specify variations

in type of gamer identities, and asked why they identified as such (Kallio, Mäyrä, & Kaipainen,

2011). Other researchers have asked gamers to self-identify as either gamer or non gamer but

did not assess the gamer identity beyond self-identification (Ramirez et al., 2014). In both cases,

defining attributes of those who identified as gamers were not mentioned.

As the definition of gamer remains somewhat elusive in the literature, the gamer culture

continues to be stigmatized (Shaw, 2012). The parameters of gamer as an identity remain

largely unexplored in psychological research (Shaw, 2012). Little gamer research is predicated

upon gamers as an identity, but rather on people who play games. Shaw (2012) contended that

identifying as a gamer is different than behaving as a gamer.

Shaw's contention has not gone unnoticed in gamer research. Deshbandhu (2016) uses an

ethnographic approach to understanding individuals who identify as gamers. Interviews were

conducted with gamers over the course of a year. Each gamer identified what type of gamer they

considered themselves to be and why, explained what they considered gamers, and profiled the

ideal gamer. This research suggested that gamers "define themselves in relation to the games
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 4

they play, their patterns of play and the way in which they define themselves in relation to the

larger world of gaming" (p. 59). This author also suggests that future research seeks to

understand commonalities in gamers across platforms and genres.

The creation of a measure of the gamer identity should be built on identity research. The

fields of psychology and sociology have taken various approaches to the study of identity. Social

identity (e.g., social identity theory) remains the predominant theory in psychology, while role

identity (e.g., identity theory) remains the predominant theory in sociology (Hogg et al., 1995;

Stets & Burke, 2000). Although social identity theory has been applied to gamer identity (e.g.,

Bartholomé, 2012; De Grove et al., 2015) identity theory has not. Identity theory research has

measured several variables in identity including salience, commitment, role and person identity

standards, and verification (Burke & Stets, 2009). Identity theory has been applied to role

identity standards in measures of gender identity, student identity, spouse identity, parent

identity, and task leader identity (Burke & Stets, 2009). Many measures of identity theory

require the participant to choose between opposing sets of behaviors or qualities to differentiate

roles and standards for roles (Burke & Stets, 2009; Callero, 1992). Person identity measures

include such bipolar measures, and have been applied to environmental identity, moral identity,

and sociable identity (Burke & Stets, 2009). This requires established counter-identities and

specific behaviors associated with roles. Although research has studied people who play games,

but not gamers, gamer attributes would have to be assumed in order to create such a measure.

Self-in-role is a variant of Burke and Tully’s (1977) measure of role identity (Callero, 1992) that

measures multiple aspects of one’s identity and does not require pre-established counter-

identities. Self-in-role also correlates highly with Burke and Tully, which further indicates the

validity of the measure.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 5

Stigmatization

Stigmatization affects interactions between individuals, between groups, and within

oneself (Bos, Pryor, Reeder, & Stutterheim, 2013). Some stigmas serve to promote beneficial

behaviors such as healthy or safe lifestyle choices (Eckstein & Allen, 2014). Other stigmas are

the result of stereotypes; these are used to assess a group or person in order to determine their

threat to our safety and/or wellbeing (Fiske, 2012). Therefore, stigmatization is contextual.

While negative stereotypes can lead to stigmatization, stigmas in and of themselves are not

inherently negative (Eckstein & Allen, 2014). The effects of stigmatization, however, can be

harmful (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Understanding why groups are stigmatized can lead to

more effective communication about the parameters of the group, how it is stereotyped, and its

members while also reducing stigmatization and its effects (Eckstein & Allen, 2014).

Stigmatization effects have been studied in the LGBT community, in ethnic minorities,

and in gender studies (Nadal, 2013). These and other biological qualities can contribute to

stigmas about group associations (aka tribal stigmas) that deviate from the perceived norm

(Flowerdew, 2008). Another type of stigmatization revolves around characteristics which are

thought to be malleable. Deviations of this type include personality traits, opinions, and

interests; qualities that have been observed or perceived by others as outside the norm

(Flowerdew, 2008). Researchers have studied stigma effects on several groups including, but not

limited to, women in roller derby (Pavlidis & Fullagar, 2013), writers using English as an

additional language (Flowerdew, 2008), non-traditional relationships (Lehmiller, 2006), singlism

(DePaulo & Morris, 2005), and career choices (e.g., Binik & Meana, 2009; Koken, 2012).

Gaming can be categorized as the latter type of deviation because it is a behavior or interest that

is chosen.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 6

Shaw (2012) suggests that this stigmatization is the reason people who play games

choose not to identify as gamers. Shaw notes that this stigmatization is due to social

constructions of what it means to be a gamer, both in research and general society. In spite of

the fact that gamers generate hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly for not-for-profit

companies, such as the Children’s Miracle Network (“What Is Extra Life?,” n.d.), support each

other financially through donations (“Partner Program Overview,” n.d.), provide emotional and

practical guidance for other community members (Frostling-Henningsson, 2009), are hard-

working problem solvers (Neys et al., 2014), are socially driven (De Grove et al., 2015), and

intelligent (Williams et al., 2008), they remain stigmatized (Shaw, 2012). This stigmatization is

the result of a lack of understanding about gamer identity, motivations, values, and behaviors

(Fiske, 2010; Shaw, 2012). Regardless of whether these stereotypes are true, both expected and

perceived stigmatization can have negative effects (Myers, 2010).

Effects of Stigmatization

Members of stigmatized groups may experience negative effects such as distress, poor

self-image, and psychopathologies (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Some identities are overt, and some

concealable. McKenna and Bargh (1998) explain that refusal to accept an identity creates

additional distress and may not be altogether possible. However, concealable identities do not

necessarily produce a less negative effect. For example, a gay man may refuse to come out and

take on more heteronormative roles to avoid marginalization. McKenna and Bargh also argue

that overt stigmatized identities may be easier to cope with, as other group members are more

easily identified making support more readily accessible.

Identity theories can be used to add clarity to defining and researching gamers. While

research on gamers exists, inconsistencies confound the results. The availability of games, and
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 7

the number of people who play them, make it unlikely that just playing games will lead to

stigmatization. However, research on other stigmatized identities gives insight into how gamers

may be stigmatized. Obtaining and disseminating information about stigmatized communities

facilitates a reduction in stigmas and resulting micro-aggressions (Nadal, 2013).

Inconsistencies in Research on Gamers

Definitions. As media becomes more complex, previous measures used to understand

gaming behaviors may no longer be valid (Prensky, 2001; Williams et al., 2008). Researchers

typically define a gamer using quantitative measures, such as the amount of time spent playing

games (e.g., Ogletree & Drake, 2007), or whether a gamer has played an online game within a

given period (e.g., Teng, Lo, & Wang, 2007). Many do not include a clear definition at all

(e.g.,Wang, Khoo, Liu, & Divaharan, 2008). Therefore, existing research does not provide an

accurate or consistent measure of a gamer identity (De Grove et al., 2015; Shaw, 2012). Within

the gaming community, there is a distinction between those who identify themselves as gamers,

and people who play games (Shaw, 2012). Frequency and duration of game play are not always

related to an individual’s self-identification as a gamer which can lead to confusing a behavior,

such as pursuit of a hobby, with an identity (Schubert, 2010; Shaw, 2012). This distinction

undermines the relevance of existing research and its applicability to gamers.

Demographics. Barnett and Coulson (2010) note that discrepancies in stereotypes about

gamers are prevalent when researchers rely on demographics. This is likely due to the numerous

ways in which demographic information is collected, where it is collected, and the definition of

the gamer being used. Some research shows that gamers of every age are predominantly male

(e.g., Greenberg, Sherry, Lachlan, Lucas, & Holmstrom, 2008; Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006),

while other research reports that older gamers are more likely to be female (e.g., Williams,
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 8

Consalvo, Caplan, & Yee, 2009). Many researchers have participant populations largely gathered

from offline places, such as colleges or public schools (e.g., De Grove et al., 2015; Greenberg et

al., 2008; Teng et al., 2007). This hinders accurate demographic information, as the population

being measured is restricted to one place or one age group.

Genre Studies. Game designs change rapidly as media and technology changes. New

games based on new technologies (e.g., new consoles, computer component upgrades) present

new ways to play. Studies in specific games or genres (e.g., massively multiplayer online role-

playing games) may not be generalizable to all gamers because player differences such as gender

(Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Williams et al., 2009) and motivation (Williams et al., 2008; Yee,

2006), determine game or genre preferences (Johnson, Nacke, & Wyeth, 2015). This means

research including participants from game-specific forums and game-specific communities (e.g.,

World of Warcraft, Call of Duty); (Gabbiadini, Mari, Volpato, & Grazia Monaci, 2014; Griffiths

et al., 2004b) may not apply to gamers in general. Therefore, measuring one type of game or one

generation of technology can yield outdated and inconsistent results because interactions

between the game and the player are constantly changing.

Identity

Identity has been a ubiquitous research topic in the social sciences for over 100 years

(Callero, 1992). The scope of identity research is far-reaching, including several social sciences

and several theories within each discipline. Many of these disciplines use different definitions of

identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). These variant definitions make identity difficult to measure

empirically because every definition measures a different behavior. Yet variables that are

measurable present consistent aspects of identity, even across theories; identity formation,

salience, and moderation, among them (Abdelal et al., 2001). In addition, new media has
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 9

increasingly influenced ways in which identities are constructed, acted on, and measured (Fornäs

& Xinaris, 2013). In general, identity research focuses on three categories: societies, groups, and

individuals (Abdelal et al., 2001; Callero, 1992; Desrochers, Andreassi, & Thompson, 2004;

Fornäs & Xinaris, 2013). These categories can be closely linked to three predominant theories of

identity: Class identity theory focuses on societies (Bottero, 2004; Savage, Silva, & Warde,

2010), social identity theory focuses on groups (Brown, 1999; Hogg et al., 1995), and role

identity, or identity theory, focuses on individuals (Stryker & Burke, 2000).

In class identity theory, researchers focus on how an individual’s perception of larger

social structures, such as financial status and race, leads to self-concept and behavior (Bottero,

2004). These theories have undergone transformations in recent years, redefining class, as well

as shifting focus to how individuals view themselves within these classes (Bottero, 2004).

Although measurable, the general nature of class identity leaves actions open for interpretation.

Actions vary depending on how the individual perceives his or her place within a class (Abdelal

et al., 2001). The changing focus and subjectivity of measurable actions makes class identity

theory less than ideal for measuring a gamer identity.

Social identity theory focuses on how groups interact, how individuals in those groups

see themselves in the contexts of the groups, and how identification with said groups influences

behavior in individuals (Brown, 1999). Individuals define themselves based on the qualities of

the groups to which they belong (Hogg et al., 1995). This theory focuses on the importance of

groups being greater than individuals. Social identity theory also accounts for in-group and out-

group stereotyping, and self-categorization theory (Hogg et al., 1995). The influence of group

behaviors or expectations on the individual is measurable, stemming from observable differences

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 10

in group behaviors (Abdelal et al., 2001). This theory is valuable because it allows analyses of

differences between social groups, as well as how individuals identify with these groups.

Identity theory focuses on the roles in which individuals see themselves, how society

defines those roles, and how they affect individual behavior (Stryker & Burke, 2000). The focus

in this theory is on the jobs, or roles, with which people identify. The duties and qualities of

these roles are defined by society and intuited by the individual as a function of membership in

that society. Therefore, the individual compares the roles as he or she understands them, to the

social responses of those around him or her, to verify the identity (Stets & Burke, 2000).

Measurable actions related to identity theory are those which the individual perceives as

expected from the role (Abdelal et al., 2001). This theory is valuable because it allows

researchers to observe the contents of identities, as well as identity effects on the individual

(Abdelal et al., 2001; Stets & Burke, 2000).

Social identity theory and identity theory tell us different things, both valuable. These

identity theories, both coming from different disciplines one from sociology and one from

psychology measure similar things, and their focuses, while different, are complementary (Hogg

et al., 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000). Effective identity measurement will include aspects of both

theories (Abdelal et al., 2001; Hogg et al., 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000).

Research Questions

This dissertation is aimed at understanding how gamers perceive and define being a

member of the gaming subculture; what it means to be a gamer. First, an exploratory qualitative

study with open-ended questions based on research in both role-identity theory and social

identity theory was used to find descriptions of gamers and gamer behaviors, and differences

between gamers and non gamers. Second, a quantitative approach was used to measure gamer
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 11

fandom and identity. In this study, a modified version of the Fan Identity Scale was created to

measure gamer identity, the Gamer Identity Scale. These two studies were both used in order to

consider gamers from multiple perspectives, allowing for a more robust understanding of the

identity. Which qualities are attributed to gamers by members of the gamer subculture?

Additionally, do scores of enthusiasm, appreciation, and socialization predict the importance of

gaming and explicit self-definition as a gamer?

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 12

Study 1

Method

Participants. Participants (n = 49) were gathered from popular gaming culture sites such

as Twitch.tv, Steam, and Reddit, as well as game-based communities representing a variety of

gaming sub genres, such as League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Counterstrike, and Pokémon.

Participants came from a variety of game genres, interests, ages, backgrounds, and gender

identities. The snowballing method was also used to reach a wider variety of participants.

Measure. An exploratory content analysis of 10 open-ended gamer identity questions

(see Appendix A) was conducted. This study asked participants whether they identify as gamers,

what genre(s) of games they play, and questions comparing behaviors of gamers and non gamers,

as well as stereotypes about gamers. The survey was hosted via Survey Monkey and informed

consent was requested prior to participation (see Appendix B).

Responses were downloaded from Survey Monkey with no identifiers and uploaded into

Dedoose as media. Each question was labeled, and codes were collected per question. Every

unique response was given a code; responses that recurred were grouped under the same codes.

Code occurrences were counted and placed in order from most hits to least hits. The percentages

of codes recurring for each question were found for number of participants, and the number of

total times a code was applied to the question. Codes used by less than 10% of the total number

of participants were excluded from the results.

A content analysis of all 10 open-ended questions was performed using Dedoose. In

Dedoose, raters apply codes to textual data, organizing it into themes. In the first phase, one

coder read all the responses and generated a working coding book. In Dedoose codes are

organized into hierarchies with top-level codes referred to as “parent” codes and subsidiary
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 13

codes as “child” codes. A codebook was created from responses given for each of the first nine

questions. Each question was coded separately. Responses to questions were labeled with codes.

Code frequencies were calculated for each of the first nine questions by both number of total

respondents and number of codes given total per respective question (see Appendix E).

Responses that were chosen by less than 10% of the participants were excluded from the results.

The total number of participants remained the same for each question (n = 49), while the

number of code applications varied per question. Question 1 had 77 code applications total with

seven unique codes used by at least 10% of participants. Question 2 had 44 code applications

with only one code being used by more than 10% of participants. Question 3 also had 77 code

applications with five unique codes being used by more than 10% of participants. Question 4 had

68 code applications with three codes being used by more than 10% of participants. Question 5

had 49 code applications also with three codes being used by more than 10% of participants.

Question 6 had 51 code applications with three codes being applied by more than 10% of

participants. Question 7 had 56 code applications with five codes being used by more than 10%

of the participants. Question 8 had the highest number of codes applied with 81; five codes were

applied by more than 10% of the participants. Question 9 had 61 applied codes and six codes

used by more than 10% of the total participants.

Because Question 10 was a yes/no question, it was not coded for descriptions of gamer

stereotypes. Instead, the number of times “yes” and “no” were given as responses was counted.

Overwhelmingly, participants asserted that gamers are stereotyped, marginalized, or seen in a

negative light (n = 40). Most of the remaining participants asserted that gamers used to be

stereotyped but believe that gamers are becoming normalized (n = 6). The remaining participants

asserted that gamers are not stereotyped (n = 3).

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 14

Study 2

Methods

Participants. Participants (n = 445) were gathered from popular gaming sites such as

Twitch.tv, Steam, and Reddit, as well as via Twitter, Facebook, and Discord. These gaming sites

include players and enthusiasts playing on PC, consoles, and in person and include games from

genres such as first-person shooters, massive online battle arenas, massive multiplayer online

role-playing games, retro games, rhythm games, racing games, pen-and-paper games (e.g.,

Dungeons and Dragons), card-trading games, and board games. Snowball methods of participant

recruiting were also used. Participants were told that they could quit the survey at any time

without consequence.

Measures. A questionnaire was administered using Qualtrics (see Appendix D).

Participants were asked to read an Informed Consent (see Appendix C) and agree to the terms of

participation prior to continuing the survey. This survey included gaming habits, attitudes about

gaming and video games, and measures of self-in-role. Identity research often includes

descriptions of traits and behaviors most closely associated with the identity being measured.

Gaming research to date has largely been built on stereotypes and research about gamers

predicated on assumed traits and qualities. There has been little research differentiating between

people who play games and those who identify as gamers. However, research about subcultures

very closely associated with gaming has been studied in terms of identity. This study adapted

questions from the Fan Identity Scale (aka FIS) due to its close topical proximity to the gamer

identity.

Gaming Identity Scale. The FIS by Vinney, Dill-Shackleford, Plante, and Bartsch (2018)

measures fan enthusiasm, fan appreciation, and fan socialization. Responses are given on 9-point
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 15

Likert scale questions, based on qualities about fans most notably mentioned in pre-existing

research. The Gamer Identity Scale (GIS) was based on the FIS. In the FIS, the original 54-item

pool was analyzed and narrowed down to nine items for fit and parsimony. The scale was then

divided into three subcategories: enthusiasm (a = 0.81), appreciation (a = 0.90), and socialization

(a = 0.83). They found that the scale was reliable (a = 0.85).

The GIS was derived from the original 9-items used in the Fan Identity Scale. This scale

was used because the variety of fandoms represented in FIS research suggests it can be used to

measure other media fandoms, such as fans of video games. Questions adapted from the original

FIS items were modified to include questions about video games. For example, “How much do

you love your favorite television show or movie?” was modified to “How much do you love your

favorite video game?”. The GIS measures enthusiasm, appreciation, and socialization.

Explicitly Defined Gamer Identity measure. The second measure used included four

questions assessing explicit self-definition as a gamer. To measure self-definition in gamers, an

additional four items were used, adapted from the original 54-item pool included in the FIS. The

four items comprised the Explicitly Defined Gamer Identity (EDGI), and measured willingness

to explicitly define oneself in terms of gaming. These items were not included in the final FIS

because they were not items that fit in the structural equation model. However, the authors noted

that while fans reported that while they were enthusiastic about their favorite show or movie,

TV they did not endorse items as strongly when asked if the fan object was part of who they are.

The items were included here because in Study 1, those who identified as gamers also noted that

there were very few, if any, times when they did not identify as gamers. Therefore, that indicated

that gamers might embrace an explicit identity more so than movie or television fans did in

previous research (Vinney et al., 2018) The word gamer was avoided in the adaptation, based on
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 16

research suggesting that the term may trigger a negative response in participants (Myers, 2010).

Instead, the word gaming was used to replace “television show or movie.” For example, “I

wouldn’t be the person I am today without my favorite television show or movie” was modified

to “I wouldn’t be the person I am today without gaming.”

Results

Responses were exported from Qualtrics and loaded into SPSS. Questions which

comprised the GIS were transformed into a composite score (n = 315, M = 6.99, SD = 1.63). The

three subscales of the FIS were also adopted by the GIS. Questions pertaining to gaming

enthusiasm (questions 1-3) were transformed into a composite variable (n = 315, M = 7.23, SD =

1.70), gaming appreciation questions (questions 4-6) were transformed into a composite variable

(n = 315, M = 6.54, SD = 1.97), and gaming-related social interactions (questions 7-9) were

transformed into a composite variable (n = 315, M = 7.15, SD = 1.91). This scale was found to be

reliable (a = 0.92).

Questions for the EDGI were transformed into a composite variable (n = 314, M = 6.09,

SD = 2.40). This scale was found to be reliable (a = 0.93).

A one-tailed Pearson correlation was performed in order to determine whether

enthusiasm, appreciation, and socialization items were correlated with explicit self-definition as

a gamer. A significant positive correlation was found between the FIS and the EDGI (r = 0.78, p

< .0001, n = 314). Individuals’ response to whether gaming is a part of who they are predicts

their answers to their enthusiasm and passion for gaming, appreciation for gaming, and

socialization with others involved in gaming.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 17

Discussion

The current research was designed to understand how the gamer in-group defines the

gamer identity. In a qualitative study, participants consistently mentioned three themes in the

definition of what it means to be a gamer: playing games frequently, a passion for playing

games, and participation in the gaming community. In a second study, the Fan Identity Scale was

modified into the Gamer Identity Scale. Gamers were able to respond on this scale and responses

were reliable. Gamer Identity as measured by the GIS correlated positively with explicit gamer

identity. Furthermore, scores on the explicit identity items, modified from the original Fan

Identity Scale items, were correlated with the GIS items. There was a trend for gamers to report

higher gamer identity (M = 6.09) than in past research on movie and TV fans (M = 3.33)

This dissertation also demonstrated that the GIS and the EDGI were highly positively

correlated. Results from one assessment are highly likely to accurately predict results for the

other assessment. Both measures are reliable measures for assessing the extent to which an

individual can be accurately described as a gamer. These measures are based on existing research

done in fan identity research and adapted for the gaming fandom. GIS scores positively

correlated with EDGI scores, making this a valid measure of gamer identity.

Unlike the FIS, the GIS can accurately predict the extent to which an individual considers

his or her fandom (in this case, gaming) to be an important part of his/her life. In Vinney et al.

(2018) enjoyment and enthusiasm were 8.41 and 7.54 on a scale of 1 to 9, whereas the explicit

fan identity items, which the authors called “self-definition,” were the least endorsed items, with

a mean of 3.33 on the same scale. The conclusion is that gamers are more apt than film and TV

fans to endorse their fandom explicitly, in that they are willing to say that gaming has helped

make them who they are.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 18

This research consists of two studies: one qualitative content analysis study focused on

the gamer identity from a gamer’s perspective, and one quantitative study consisting of two

measures assessing enthusiasm, appreciation, and socialization in gaming, as well as explicit

self-identification with the gamer identity.

Study 1

The first study was used to ask the in-group to define what it means to be a gamer. These

questions were asked in order to understand what gamers consider the requirements of their in-

group. Participants were asked about what they believe it means to be a gamer, differences

between gamers and non gamers, how salient the identity is for them, and how and when they

identify as gamers. Identity theory (Stets & Burke, 2000) suggests that an individual’s identity is

self-assessed in comparison with feedback from members of the in-group. Social identity theory

(Hogg et al., 1995) suggests that the in-group assesses the individual to determine his or her

membership status. Both theories suggest that an understanding of how the in-group defines

itself is necessary to study the group and its members. Each question asked in the first study

contributes to our understanding of the gamer identity, as defined by gamers.

Question 1: Do you consider yourself to be a gamer? Why or why not? Those who

self-identified as gamers say that they do so because they play games often, have a history of

playing games, and enjoy playing games. They note that they tend to play a variety of games,

enjoy gathering gaming knowledge, and that they feel a part of the gaming community (e.g.,

have friends that game, or participate in forums based on gaming). While the amount of time

spent playing games and length of gaming history are mentioned, no specific number was ever

mentioned, nor were any specific game genres mentioned. Interestingly, however, when
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 19

mentioning gaming habits, sports games and “Facebook” games were pointed out as non-gamer

games; non gamers play them, but gamers do not.

Question 2: If you answered yes to question 1, are there times you do not identify as

a gamer? If so, when?. Of the responses to this question, one response only was used by more

than 10% of respondents. Respondents who identified as gamers overwhelmingly said that there

was never a time they did not identify as a gamer. Respondents who said that there were times

when they did not identify as a gamer noted either fear of marginalization or a desire to appear

more professional, the latter response insinuating that gamers appear unprofessional. Ultimately,

participants who refrained from identifying as a gamer did so because they were concerned with

others’ opinions or behaviors regarding the identity.

Question 3: Compared to people in general, a gamer is more likely to…. The

responses to this question were concise. No answer was used by less than 10% of participants.

The answer that was most frequently coded, however, was that gamers are more likely to play

games compared to people in general. The second most frequently coded response to this

question was that gamers tend to socialize more with gamers than non gamers. In other words,

gamers tend to stick together. Responses to this question also suggest that gamers consider

gamers to be more intelligent and imaginative than people in general. However, 12% of

participants stated that there is no difference between gamers and people in general.

Question 4: What do you think it means to be a gamer?. Responses to this question

echo responses given in question 1; gamers tend to enjoy playing games, play games regularly,

and remain engaged in the gaming community. Together, these three codes accounted for over

86% of the total responses coded in relation to this question. These responses seem to be a key to

differentiating people who play games from people who are likely to identify as gamers.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 20

Question 5: Are gamers different from people in general? If so, how?. Over 60% of

respondents stated that there is no difference between gamers and non gamers compared to the

12% of participants who said there was no difference in question 3. In question 3 participants

were asked what gamers were more likely to do, while in question 5 gamers were asked if they

were different. This suggests that gamers do not see themselves as different, but rather as

participating in differing activities than the general populace. Additionally, gamers stated that

they are different because they participate in the gamer subculture, which is also mentioned in

responses to questions 1 and 4. Finally, responses to question 5 suggest that gamers are more

passionate (i.e., feel a “density of traits”) compared to people in general.

Question 6: What types of games do gamers play? Are they the same or different

from non gamers?. Gamers noted in their responses to question 6 that gamers play all types of

games. They also noted that there was no difference between games that gamers and non gamers

play, the most consistent exception being the assertion that gamers are more likely to play games

that are more involved (e.g., more immersive, complicated, steeper learning curve).

Question 7: Are there behaviors typical of gamers that are not typical of non

gamers?. Nearly 43% of the participants asserted that there are no behavioral differences

between gamers and non gamers. Behavioral differences that were mentioned include gamers

being more passionate about games, that they are more likely to participate in the subculture and

that the subculture is more inclusive than non-gamer culture, that gamers are more likely to play

games, and that gamers are more agile thinkers than non gamers. It is interesting that gamers

assert they are more inclusive than non gamers. Future research could examine relationships

between the idea of inclusion and minority group micro-aggressions against gamers. For

example, are gamers like an older sibling who is protective of their younger sibling, but still
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 21

picks on them? Do gamers feel that they are excluded from general society, and therefore feel

that they as a subculture are more inclusive than the outgroup?

Question 8: Describe a gamer. Responses to this question mimic questions 2 and 5; the

three criteria for being a gamer are a passion for games, playing regularly, and having a more in-

depth knowledge of games and gaming. Most participants said that gamers can be defined as

people who enjoy games. Nearly as many said that a gamer is someone who plays games

regularly. About 10% of participants noted that gamers are people who both learn about games,

and see gaming as a part of life, respectively. Finally, the remaining responses noted that gamers

cannot be defined.

Question 9: Does this description differ from a non gamer? If so, how?. Responses to

question 9 once again support the three results that questions 3, 5, and 8 suggest. The most

common result for this answer was that there is no difference between gamers and non gamers.

As far as specific differences, the most common response was that non gamers play games less

often than gamers. Gamers also asserted that non gamers are less interested in games, do not

enjoy games as much as gamers do, do not consider themselves gamers, and are less involved in

gaming communities. This supports the idea that gamers play more often, enjoy games more, and

are more involved in gaming communities than non gamers.

Question 10: Do you think gamers are stereotyped? Why or why not?. Previous

research has shown that gamers are negatively stereotyped. These stereotypes have been shown

to inhibit people from identifying as gamers, regardless of whether these stereotypes are

representative of the gaming culture (Shaw, 2012). This question was included for gamers to

discuss their perception of gamer stereotypes. Answers to this question were not included in the

content analysis due to the extremely varied responses. However, responses to this question
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 22

show that gamers largely feel they are stereotyped in one way or another. Only 3 of the 49

participants in the study felt that gamers were not stereotyped in some way. Future research

should focus on stereotype research compared to the perception of gamer stereotyping as

perceived marginalization can be as harmful as actual marginalization.

Study 2

This study’s purpose was to determine if there was a correlation between people who

self-identify with the term gamer, and people who are enthusiastic about gaming. As predicted,

individuals who scored high in enthusiasm about gaming were also more likely to explicitly self-

identify as a gamer. This suggests that individuals who are passionate about gaming are also

highly likely to explicitly say that gaming is a part of who they are. Unlike fans, there was a

very strong correlation between enthusiasm for gaming and a willingness to label oneself as a

gamer. This means that while people who are enthusiastic about their favorite TV show are

unlikely to say that the show is an important part of their lives, people who are enthusiastic about

gaming are highly likely to say that gaming is an important part of who they are.

While there is no way to know whether there is a difference between gamers who prefer

one genre over another genre of gaming, this correlation does indicate that gamers in general

tend to be proud of being gamers. This correlation also falls in line with the results from the first

study in participants’ assertions that gamers enjoy playing games more than non gamers do and

that enjoying games is one of the key elements necessary to the gamer identity. The GIS also

included measures of appreciation for games, as well as social interactions revolving around

games. As with the FIS, measures of enthusiasm, appreciation, and social interactions were all

highly correlated with one another. This also supports the first study, showing that a love of

games and participation in the gaming culture are elements of the gamer identity.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 23

High enthusiasm about games is significantly positively correlated with people likely to

explicitly identify as a gamer making either of these short measures useable to identify

individuals as gamers. The three-part question about game enthusiasm may be used to determine

whether someone is a gamer. Using this short assessment, researchers will be able to more

accurately label their participants as gamers, while keeping a consistent measure across

researchers and types of studies allowing for more accurate understandings of gamers, and

possibly reducing marginalization and stigmatizations.

There is a sparse body of literature on gamers as an identity. The primary goal of the

current research was to build a more compelling foundation for the definition of gamer. This

includes a measure for gamers as an identity. Researchers may not have been operationalizing

gamers in a way that accurately reflects the gaming community. Inaccurate judgments about this

social group and the individuals therein are common (Williams et al., 2008).

Based on suggestions for future research goals in stigmatized communities (Eckstein &

Allen, 2014; Nadal, 2013), it is also hoped that a better understanding of this subculture will

reduce stigmatization and encourage non-confrontational interactions between non gamers and

gamers. Judgments are made to protect society from harm. While fluidity in social construction

is possible, it is slow (Burke & Stets, 2009). Therefore, painting an accurate picture of the gamer

subculture can contribute to a better understanding of the subculture by members of out-groups.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 24

References

Abdelal, R., Herrera, Y. M., Johnston, A. I., & Martin, T. (2001). Treating identity as a variable:

Measuring the content, intensity, and contestation of identity. In American Political

Science Association. Retrieved from

http://dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Johnston_Treating.pdf

Barnett, J., & Coulson, M. (2010). Virtually real: A psychological perspective on massively

multiplayer online games. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 167–179.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019442

Bartholomé, A. A. J. (2012). Exploring gamer identity: Validation of a gamer identity scale and

its impact on motivational need fulfillment and persistence (Master’s thesis). University

of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=447579

Binik, Y. M., & Meana, M. (2009). The future of sex therapy: Specialization or marginalization?

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 1016–1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-

9475-9

Blumberg, F. C. (Ed.). (2014). Learning by playing: Video gaming in education. Oxford, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in

theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147

Bottero, W. (2004). Class identities and the identity of class. Sociology, 38(5), 985–1003.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504047182

Brown, R. (1999). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future

challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 634–667.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 25

Burke, P., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10329671

Burke, P., & Tully, J. (1977). The measure of role identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881–897.

Cade, R., & Gates, J. (2017). Gamers and video game culture: An introduction for counselors.

The Family Journal, 25(1), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480716679809

Callero, P. (1992). The meaning of self-in-role: A modified measure of role-identity. Social

Forces, 71(2), 485–501.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup

affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12114

DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2005). Singles in society and in science. Psychological

Inquiry, 16(2-3), 57–83. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2005.9682918

Deshbandhu, A. (2016). Player perspectives: What it means to be a gamer. Press Start, 3(2), 48–

64.

Desrochers, S., Andreassi, J., & Thompson, C. (2004). Identity theory. Organization

Management Journal, 1(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2004.14

Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using

game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 26

Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2425–2428). ACM. Retrieved from

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979575

Eckstein, J., & Allen, M. (2014). Reclaiming stigma: Alternative explorations of the construct.

Communication Studies, 65(2), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2014.893708

Fischer, P., Kastenmüller, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2010). Media violence and the self: The

impact of personalized gaming characters in aggressive video games on aggressive

behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 192–195.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.010

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. American Psychologist,

65(8), 698. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/65/8/698/

Fiske, S. T. (2012). Warmth and competence: Stereotype content issues for clinicians and

researchers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 53(1), 14–20.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026054

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can

Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77–86.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002

Fornäs, J., & Xinaris, C. (2013). Mediated identity formation: Current trends in research and

society. Javnost - The Public, 20(2), 11–25.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2013.11009112

Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2009). First-Person shooter games as a way of connecting to people:

“Brothers in blood.” CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 557–562.

https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0345
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 27

Gabbiadini, A., Mari, S., Volpato, C., & Grazia Monaci, M. (2014). Identification processes in

online groups: Identity motives in the virtual realm of MMORPGs. Journal of Media

Psychology, 26(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000119

Greenberg, B. S., Sherry, J., Lachlan, K., Lucas, K., & Holmstrom, A. (2008). Orientations to

video games among gender and age groups. Simulation & Gaming, 41(2), 238–259.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108319930

Griffiths, M., Davies, M. N., & Chappell, D. (2004a). Online computer gaming: A comparison of

adolescent and adult gamers. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 87–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.007

Griffiths, M., Davies, M. N., & Chappell, D. (2004b). Demographic factors and playing variables

in online computer gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 479–487. Retrieved

from http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.479

Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 910–931.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00301.x

Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A

psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 707–730.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441

Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of

identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269.

Ivory, J. D. (2006). Still a man’s game: Gender representation in online reviews of video games.

Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), 103–114.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0901_6
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 28

Johnson, D., Nacke, L., & Wyeth, P. (2015). All about that base: Differing player experiences in

video game genres and the unique case of MOBA games. Presented at the 2015 SIGCHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea: Queensland

University of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/82070/

Kallio, K. P., Mäyrä, F., & Kaipainen, K. (2011). At least nine ways to play: Approaching gamer

mentalities. Games and Culture, 6(4), 327–353.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412010391089

Keng, C. (2014, April 21). Online streaming and professional gaming is a $300,000 career

choice. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/04/21/online-

streaming-professional-gaming-is-a-300000-career-choice/

Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The effects of violent video games on adolescents. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 8(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00056-3

Koken, J. A. (2012). Independent female escort’s strategies for coping with sex work related

stigma. Sexuality & Culture, 16(3), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-011-9120-3

Kowert, R., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Unpopular, overweight, and socially inept:

Reconsidering the stereotype of online gamers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 17(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0118

Lehmiller, J. J. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic

relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 40–51.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278710

Major League Gaming. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity

“demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 29

Social Psychology, 75(3), 681. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/75/3/681/

Myers, D. G. (2010). Social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Nadal, K. L. (2013). That’s so gay!: Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender community (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Neys, J. L. D., Jansz, J., & Tan, E. S. H. (2014). Exploring persistence in gaming: The role of

self-determination and social identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 196–209.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.047

Ogletree, S. M., & Drake, R. (2007). College students’ video game participation and perceptions:

Gender differences and implications. Sex Roles, 56(7-8), 537–542.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9193-5

Paaßen, B., Morgenroth, T., & Stratemeyer, M. (2017). What is a true gamer? The male gamer

stereotype and the marginalization of women in video game culture. Sex Roles, 76(7-8),

421–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0678-y

Partner Program Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2015, from

http://help.twitch.tv/customer/en/portal/articles/735069-partner-program-overview

Pavlidis, A., & Fullagar, S. (2013). Narrating the multiplicity of “Derby Grrrl”: Exploring

intersectionality and the dynamics of affect in roller derby. Leisure Sciences, 35(5), 422–

437. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.831286

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Ramirez, D., Seyler, S., Squire, K., & Berland, M. (2014). I’m a loser, baby: Gamer identity &

failure. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2014: <Verb that ends in “ing”> the <noun> of Game

<plural noun>.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 30

Ravitz, J. (n.d.). Varsity gamers: Making history and dumbfounding parents. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07/us/varsity-gamers-american-story/

Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., … Salinas, M.

(2002). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first

and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(2003), 71–94.

Savage, M., Silva, E., & Warde, A. (2010). Dis-identification and class identity. Retrieved from

http://oro.open.ac.uk/21486/

Schubert, D. (2010). The casual/hardcore continuum. Game Developer, 17(8).

Shaw, A. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New

Media & Society, 14(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410394

Stets, J., & Burke, P. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.

Teng, C.-I., Lo, S.-K., & Wang, P.-C. (2007). How to know and choose online games:

Differences between current and potential players. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6),

837–840. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9944

Vinney, C. J., Dill-Shackleford, K. E., Plante, C., & Bartsch, A. (2018). Development and

validation of a measure of the popular media fan identity and its relationship to well-

being. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wang, C. K. J., Khoo, A., Liu, W. C., & Divaharan, S. (2008). Passion and Intrinsic Motivation

in digital gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 39–45.

https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0004
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 31

What Is Extra Life? | Extra Life. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.extra-

life.org/

Williams, D., Consalvo, M., Caplan, S., & Yee, N. (2009). Looking for gender: Gender roles and

behaviors among online gamers. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 700–725.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01453.x

Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. E. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the

stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993–

1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–

775. Retrieved from http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772

You, S., Kim, E., & Lee, D. (2015). Virtually real: Exploring avatar identification in game

addiction among massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) Players.

Games and Culture. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015581087

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 32

Appendix A

Open-Ended Questions about Gamers’ Perception of Gamer Identity Definitions

1: Do you consider yourself to be a gamer? Why or why not?

2: If you answered yes to question 1, are there times you do not identify as a gamer? If so,

when?

3: Compared to people in general, a gamer is more likely to…

4: What do you think it means to be a gamer?

5: Are gamers different from people in general? If so, how?

6: What types of games to gamers play? Are they the same or different from non gamers?

7: Are there behaviors typical of gamers that are not typical of non gamers?

8: Describe a gamer.

9: Does this description differ from a non-gamer? If so, how?

10: Do you think gamers are stereotyped? Why or why not?

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 33

Appendix B

Informed Consent for Study 1

You are being asked to participate in this study because of your participation in online

gaming communities. Participation involves completing an online questionnaire and will take

approximately 15 minutes to complete. The purpose of this study is to understand ways in which

gamers describe themselves and the gaming community. All information gathered in this study

will be used to that end; this study is intended for positive use only. The results of this research

will be published in Melody Metcalf Stotler’s dissertation and possibly published in subsequent

journals, books or presentations.

Participation is voluntary. You are free to decline to participate or to withdraw from this

study at any time, either during or after your participation, without negative consequences.

Should you withdraw, and your data become unusable, your data will be eliminated from the

study and will be destroyed.

The risks to you are considered minimal and it is very unlikely that you will experience

emotional discomfort during or after your participation. There are no likely benefits to you, the

participant, for participation in this study. Additionally, there is no compensation for

participation in this study.

Study related records will be held in confidence. Your consent to participate in this study

includes consent for the researcher and supervising faculty who may also see your data. You

research records may also be inspected by authorized representatives of the Fielding Graduate

University, including members of the Institutional Review Board or their designees. They may

inspect, and photocopy as needed, your records for study monitoring or auditing purposes. In

addition, parts of your record may be photocopied.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 34

The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Informed consent forms

and will be kept separate from the data. No records will be kept that may identify you. The

security of data transmitted over the Internet cannot be guaranteed, therefore, there is a slight risk

that the information you send to me via email will not be secure. The collection of such data is

not expected to present any greater risk than you would encounter in everyday life when sending

and/or receiving information over the Internet.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please tell

Melody before continuing onto the study. You may also contact the supervising faculty if you

have questions or concerns about your participation in this study. The supervising faculty has

provided contact information at the bottom of this form.

If at any time you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant,

contact the Fielding Graduate University IRB by email at irb@fielding.edu or by telephone at

805-898-4034.

The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University retains the right to

access to all signed informed consent forms.

By continuing to participate, you agree that you have read the above informed consent

document and have had the opportunity to ask questions about this study. Continuing also means

you agree that your participation in this research is completely voluntary.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 35

Appendix C

Informed Consent for Study 2

You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Melody Metcalf

Stotler, a doctoral student in the School of Media Psychology at Fielding Graduate University,

Santa Barbara, CA. This study is supervised by Media Psychology faculty member, Dr. Karen

Shackleford. This research is part of Melody's Fielding PhD dissertation.

Before you agree to participate in this research study, it is important that you read and

understand the information provided in this Informed Consent Form. If you have any questions,

please ask Melody for clarification.

You are being asked to participate in this study because of your participation in online

gaming communities. Participation involves completing an online questionnaire and will take

approximately 5 minutes to complete. The purpose of this study is to understand ways in which

gamers describe themselves and the gaming community. All information gathered in this study

will be used to that end; this study is intended for positive use only. The results of this research

will be published in Melody Metcalf Stotler’s dissertation and possibly published in subsequent

journals, books or presentations.

Participation is voluntary. You are free to decline to participate or to withdraw from this

study at any time, either during or after your participation, without negative consequences.

Should you withdraw, and your data become unusable, your data will be eliminated from the

study and will be destroyed.

The risks to you are considered minimal and it is very unlikely that you will experience

emotional discomfort during or after your participation. There are no likely benefits to you, the

participant, for participation in this study. Additionally, there is no compensation for

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 36

participation in this study.

Study related records will be held in confidence. Your consent to participate in this study

includes consent for the researcher and supervising faculty who may also see your data. You

research records may also be inspected by authorized representatives of the Fielding Graduate

University, including members of the Institutional Review Board or their designees. They may

inspect, and photocopy as needed, your records for study monitoring or auditing purposes. In

addition, parts of your record may be photocopied.

The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Informed consent forms

and will be kept separate from the data. No records will be kept that may identify you. The

security of data transmitted over the Internet cannot be guaranteed, therefore, there is a slight risk

that the information you send to me via email will not be secure. The collection of such data is

not expected to present any greater risk than you would encounter in everyday life when sending

and/or receiving information over the Internet.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please tell

Melody before continuing onto the study. You may also contact the supervising faculty if you

have questions or concerns about your participation in this study. The supervising faculty has

provided contact information at the bottom of this form.

If at any time you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant,

contact the Fielding Graduate University IRB by email at irb@fielding.edu or by telephone at

805-898-4034.

The Institutional Review Board of Fielding Graduate University retains the right to

access to all signed informed consent forms.

By continuing to participate, you agree that you have read the above informed consent
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 37

document and have had the opportunity to ask questions about this study. Continuing also means

you agree that your participation in this research is completely voluntary.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 38

Appendix D

Items Adapted to Create the Gamer Identity Scale

Using the scale below, please:

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Very much)

1. How much do you love gaming?

2. How passionate are you about gaming?

3. How big a fan of gaming would you say you are?

Using the scale below, please indicate how much you agree that gaming:

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Very much)

4. is relevant to my life.

5. has helped me grow as a person.

6. helps me think about the things I value.

Using the scale below, please indicate how much you agree that gaming:

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Very much)

7. I often talk about gaming with a friend.

8. I often talk about gaming with a friend.

9. I have friends who are also fans of gaming.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 39

Using the scale below, please indicate how much you agree that gaming:

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Very much)

10. I wouldn’t be the person I am today without gaming.

11. Gaming is part of who I am.

12. Gaming is important to my identity.

13. Gaming helps define who I am as a person.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 40

Appendix E

Percentages of Coded Responses per Question by Number of Participants and Number of

Responses

Question 1: Do you consider yourself to be a gamer? Why or why not?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

Plays often 19 38.80% 24.68%

Enjoys playing 17 34.70% 22.10%

Played for a long 12 24.49% 15.58%

time

Does not identify as 6 12.24% 7.79%

a gamer

Plays a variety of 6 12.24% 7.79%

games

Has gaming 6 12.24% 7.79%

knowledge

Gaming community 5 10.20% 6.49%

member/ socializes
with gamers

Note: 77 codes were applied to question 1. Only responses used by 10% or more of participants

were included.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 41

Question 2: If you answered yes to question 1, are there times you do not identify as

a gamer? If so, when?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

Never 27 48.98% 61.36%

Note: 44 codes were applied to question 2. Only one response was used by more than

10% of participants.
GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 42

Question 3: Compared to people in general, a gamer is more likely to…

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

Play games 15 30.61% 19.48%

Socialize with 8 16.33% 10.39%

gamers

More intelligent 6 12.24% 7.79%

No difference 6 12.24% 7.79%

More imaginative/ 5 10.20% 6.49%

quick witted

Note:77 codes were applied to question 3. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 43

Question 4: What do you think it means to be a gamer?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

Enjoys gaming 23 46.94% 33.82%

Plays regularly 21 42.86% 30.88%

Engaged in gaming 15 30.61% 22.06%

industry

Note: 68 codes were applied to question 4. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 44

Question 5: Are gamers different from people in general? If so, how?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

No difference 30 61.22% 61.22%

Have own 6 12.24% 12.24%

subculture

Density of traits/ 5 10.20% 10.20%

more passionate

Note: 49 codes were applied to question 5. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 45

Question 6: What types of games to gamers play? Are they the same or different

from non gamers?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

All types 19 38.79% 37.25%

More involved 12 24.49% 23.53%

games

No difference 10 20.41% 19.61%

Note: 51 codes were applied to question 6. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 46

Question 7: Are there behaviors typical of gamers that are not typical of non

gamers?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

None 21 42.86% 37.50%

Passionate about 8 16.33% 14.29%

games

More inclusive/ 6 12.24% 10.71%

participates in
subculture

Plays games 6 12.24% 10.71%

More agile thinkers 5 10.20% 8.93%

Note: 56 codes were applied to question 7. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 47

Question 8: Describe a gamer.

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

Enjoys games 21 42.86% 25.93%

Plays regularly 19 38.78% 23.46%

Cannot define 6 12.24% 7.41%

Learns about games 5 10.20% 6.17%

Gaming is a part of 5 10.20% 6.17%

life

Note: 81 codes were applied to question 8. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 48

Question 9: Does this description differ from a non-gamer? If so, how?

Code Times Used % of n % of Codes Used

No different 15 30.61% 24.59%

Non gamers do not 9 18.37% 14.75%

play as often

Less interested in 7 14.29% 11.48%

games

Does not play/ 7 14.29% 11.48%

enjoy games

Does not consider 6 12.24% 9.84%

self gamer

Less involved in 5 10.20% 8.20%

gaming community

Note: 61 codes were applied to question 9. Only responses used by 10% or more of

participants were included.

 GAMER IDENTITIES AS DETERMINED BY GAMERS 49

Appendix F

Study 2 Correlations

Gamer Identity Scale Explicit Self-

Definition

Gamer Identity Scale Pearson Correlation 1 .784**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 315 314

Explicit Self- Pearson Correlation .784*** 1

Definition
Sig. (1-tailed) .000

N 314 314

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.