Social Identity and Video Games: Online Communities and the “Gamer” Identity
Posted: February 20, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Gamer, social identity, Social Psychology, Video Games Leave a commentThe concept of social identity is seen at work in a variety of contexts, such as sports teams, political parties, ethnic groups, and many other affiliative groups. One interesting context in which social identity can be observed at work is the online communities that have sprung up around video games. Video games themselves are a relevantly new phenomenon, being only commercially sold since 1971. However, the prominence of video games has risen in a similar fashion to the prominence and prevalence of the internet. As such, the fans of video games, much like the general populace of the world, have taken readily to the internet, convening often on message boards, like NeoGAF and Penny Arcade. These sorts of websites have been able to provide a virtual community in which those who enjoy video games can meet to talk about video games or even just have a general discussion. These communities have served to solidify an emerging social identity, that of the “gamer”. Many who frequent these message boards (or forums) refer to themselves and other enthusiasts as “gamers”. The gamer identity existed for a significant period of time as a relatively socially undesirable identity, often negatively stereotyped as a “nerd” identity for social outcasts and associated with images such as immature adults huddled around a computer screen in their parents’ basement.
Googling "gamer" results in this.
However, the gamer identity has eventually evolved into a more relatively common identity to embrace, with celebrities professing their love for games and featuring prominently in advertisements for video games. The gamer identity may seem to not be a social identity until you consider the role of gaming forums in the development of the gamer identity. Those who frequently played video games were fairly isolated before the prevalence of the internet, as they could only talk to their friends and others they saw in person about video games, limiting the number of people they could communicate and share their enthusiasm with. However, with the emergence of the internet as commonplace in society, gaming forums also started up as a way for video game fans to share their opinions and also make new friends with similar interests. Furthermore, even though the “gamer” identity coalesced with the help of online communities, one such community, Penny Arcade, has translated the virtual gathering of gamers into a real, physical gathering of gamers at an event called Penny Arcade Expo (or PAX). PAX is a convention focused specifically on gamers, especially those who are fans of the Penny Arcade comic strip and also frequent the Penny Arcade forums, with attendance figures reaching 70,000 people last year. For a more concise and visually affecting description of PAX, I present:
PAX has served as an effective way to bring gamers with similar interests together, further solidifying the social identity of gamers by adding on to virtual interactions with in-person face-to-face interactions. Despite the value in meeting other gamers face-to-face, the evolution of the “gamer” social identity has shown that identities can be constructed through the medium of technology, and that you don’t need to physically meet to have a shared sense of community.
Photo Credit: http://www.motifake.com/tags/gamer
“They Saw a Game” in a Modern Context
Posted: February 6, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Social Psychology, They Saw a Game Leave a comment
Hastorf and Cantril’s (1954) seminal case study relating to differing versions of a Dartmouth-Princeton game perceived by fans on either side remains remarkably relevant today. Back in the 50s, sports fans were constructing their own realities about what transpired in a game, influenced by their own affiliations and biases. This phenomenon continues to today, as sports fans continue to differ from each other on what they “see” in a game, dependent on whom their rooting interest lies with or their other biases and prejudices that they bring with them. For example, in a recent college basketball game, Illinois and Minnesota were locked in a close game, with Illinois up three points late in the game. With less than 10 seconds left, a Minnesota player drove into the lane, even though he would need to be fouled and make the basket to have a chance to tie the game. As luck would have it, the referees called a foul on Illinois’s best player, Meyers Leonard, as the Minnesota player converted the bucket. This foul was especially crucial, as it was Leonard’s fifth, and therefore disqualified him from the rest of the game, including the soon-to-come overtime period. However, immediately this foul was the subject of heated debate online by Illinois fans, Minnesota fans, and neutral observers. Some fans saw it one way and some saw it the other. Quite tellingly, on a Illinois sports message board, a pair of the fans, reviewing a photo of the foul, came to the following pair of conclusions:
So one fan saw it as a foul, and another didn’t see it as a foul, even though they were looking at the exact same picture and presumably were both watching the game in real time. Whoever is right is actually inconsequential for our purposes; rather, it is purely interesting that these two fans came to opposite conclusions on what is the same evidence. However, as Hastorf and Cantril, and other social psychologists have noted after them, these fans may not have really been seeing the seem evidence in a way. Since we construct our own realities, and these realities are affected by our past experiences, our group affiliations, our biases, and a whole host of other factors, what information we might actually make a judgment on may differ wildly from person to person. However, considering that, why would two fans of the same team come to different conclusions, as in our example? Well, to posit one explanation, the fan who thought it was a foul might be invested in the Illinois basketball team, and he saw this game as unfairly taken away from the team by the referees, who may have called Leonard for a borderline foul in a crucial moment. And perhaps the other fan, who did not think it was a foul, thinks of himself as a more “impartial” fan, is making up for what he perceives as the other fan’s bias favoring Illinois, and takes it upon himself to set the record straight. Now, if we read further in the forum, we find that the rhetoric between these two fans, and others who join either side of the argument about the foul, escalates, as the two are both expressing disbelief that the other is actually looking at the right picture of the foul. And in that point, in an anecdotal sense, is modern evidence for what Hastorf and Cantril saw in the 1950s with Dartmouth and Princeton fans.
Photo Credit: http://forums.illinihq.com/topic/21682-the-officiating/
The Crowd Mind 