2018

TOXIC BEHAVIOR IN DOTA 2

– a Survey Study
TOPIAS MATTINEN

a
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE, Faculty of Communication Sciences
Information Science & Interactive Media
MATTINEN, TOPIAS: Toxic Behavior in Dota 2 – a Survey Study
Bachelor’s thesis, 23 pp., 2 apps.
June 2018

Abstract
Keywords: online games, toxic behavior, computer-mediated communication, competitiveness,
toxic disinhibition, statistical analysis, survey study
This thesis is a survey study of Dota 2 players and the toxic behavior that happens within that game.
Dota 2 is usually seen as a game that has a lot of problems with player interactions. Cursing,
shouting, threats and slander are just some of the types of flaming players have come to expect from
Dota 2 sessions. The aim of this study is to gain insight from the player’s themselves on different
aspects of toxic behavior in Dota 2. To accomplish this, a questionnaire was created and shared on
multiple social media platforms and chat rooms. From a total of 373 responses, 362 were used for
this study. This thesis uses that data to answer four research questions regarding the frequencies of
toxic behavior, both experienced and done; the seriousness of different toxic behavior acts; and how
toxic behavior, in general, affects the gameplay experience of Dota 2.
Results of this study suggest that seeing flaming (Communication Abuse) in Dota 2 is quite
common, while the griefing aspects (Intentional Ability Abuse & Intentional Feeding) are seen in
much lower frequencies. Reported partaking in toxic behavior is in much lower levels all
throughout, compared to the seen frequencies. The results here also suggest an order of seriousness
to these acts, with Communication Abuse being the least detrimental out of the three, Intentional
Ability Abuse in the middle, and Intentional Feeding the most heinous. A clear majority of the
players seem to think that all three toxic behavior acts reportable in the game are serious issues that
ruin enjoyment of games, negatively affect ability to play the game, and with the exception of
Communication Abuse, are largely unignorable.
Even though this study does discuss some of the causes for toxic behavior, more research is needed
to more accurately answer what causes toxic behavior in games and what could be done to prevent
it. Future studies, especially ones focusing on the correlations of competition, computer-mediated
settings and aggression could perhaps yield very interesting results.
Abbreviations
TB toxic behavior
TBA toxic behavior act
CA communication abuse
IAA intentional ability abuse
IF intentional feeding
CMC computer-mediated communication
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND & PURPOSE OF STUDY ............................................... 1

2. KEY CONCEPTS AND PRIOR RESEARCH ............................................................................ 2

2.1 Key concepts .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Toxic behavior in Dota 2 ............................................................................................................ 4

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 6

3.1 Creating the questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Data analysis............................................................................................................................... 8

4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 10

4.1 Background information........................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Reported toxic behavior in Dota 2 (RQ1 & RQ2).................................................................... 11

4.3 Seriousness of specific TBAs in Dota 2 (RQ3) ........................................................................ 14

4.4 Effects of TB on gameplay (RQ4) ........................................................................................... 15

5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 17

5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 17

5.2 Limitations and further research............................................................................................... 19

6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX 1: The questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX 2: Most commonly played regions (N=362) ................................................................. 34

APPENDIX 3: First game of Dota 2 (N=350) ................................................................................... 35

1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND & PURPOSE OF STUDY

At the moment of writing this thesis, Dota 2 frequently ranks as one of the top five most played
games on the Steam digital distribution platform1. The question of Dota 2’s popularity becomes
even more evident, when looking at the prizes of its biggest tournament, the International. TI, as it
is called, has year after year broken records of e-sport tournament prize pool amounts2. Last year,
the seventh iteration of the International had a record prize pool of over US$24 million, with the
final match of the tournament holding a combined audience of 845,000 viewers on twitch.tv3.

Besides Dota 2’s fame as an e-sport, it is an incredibly popular among more casual gamers, as well.
Based on Steam charts, Dota 2 is, at the moment of writing, the second most popular game on
Steam with an average player base of 484,000 in the last 30 days4. Furthermore, Dota 2 as well as
similar games of the genre, have an unfortunate reputation, namely their toxic environment. With its
high learning curve, Dota 2 is not a game many would call new player friendly. The competitive
nature of the game with the inherent pseudonymous aspect of Steam and free-to-play access can be
a breeding ground for delinquent behavior.

Dota 2 has had a personal influence as well. I have played Dota 2 on and off since 2012, and have
witnessed aggressive behavior, toxic use of language, threats, slander and general mischievous
plays countless times while playing Dota 2. Contrarily, I have also seen a good share of solid
teamwork, good sportsmanship and friendly chitchat. Dota 2, in my mind, is first and foremost a
game of teamwork and competitiveness, as well as personal skill. Sometimes those aspects can
create situations where, at the end of the game, you are left with feelings of accomplishment,
frustration or disappointment, either with yourself or your teammates.

The main purpose of this thesis is to study the digital video game Dota 2 and its players and inspect
the relationship between the players of the game and the toxic behavior (TB) that happens during
gameplay. First, it introduces some prior research done on the online toxic disinhibition effect and
provides background for the concepts of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and provides
some prior statistics for toxic behavior that happens in online competitive games. Furthermore, the

1
http://steamcharts.com/top
2
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-dota-2-international-prize-pool-has-comfortably-broken-its-record/
3
https://cybersport.com/post/dota-2-and-the-international-2017-broke-its-viewer-peak-record-of-last-year
4
http://steamcharts.com/app/570

1
relationships between competitive settings and aggression are looked at as well. Second, with the
data gathered through the questionnaire, this thesis provides statistics to answer the research
question put forward. Finally, it will try to tie in the results of the research questions with
contemporary research of toxic behavior in online games, toxic disinhibition in CMC and
aggression related to competitive settings. By doing this, this thesis can hopefully build on the
earlier work done on toxic behavior in online games.

2. KEY CONCEPTS AND PRIOR RESEARCH

In this chapter, I will go through the key concepts and prior research related to the study. This is
done to introduce the reader to the main concepts and research used within this study. This also
helps the reader to understand what is being studied, and why.

2.1 Key concepts

Dota 2 & Other MOBAs

Dota 2 is a free-to-play multiplayer battle arena (MOBA), developed and published by Valve. The
main objective of the standard version of the game is to defeat the other team by defeating their
base. The two teams are made up of five Heroes each, which are individually controlled by human
players. The ten Heroes gather money, level up and participate in fights with the aim of destroying
the enemy main building called Ancient. Other similar, but still distinctly different MOBAs, include
League of Legends by Riot and Heroes of the Storm by Blizzard.

Dota 2 is inherently a team-based game, meaning that it is hard to win a game of Dota 2 alone.
True, an excellent player can make the difference between a win and a loss, but the same can be
said of most team-based competitions. Especially in the higher ranks of the game, and in
tournaments, solid teamwork and cooperation will often win the game.

Computer-mediated communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to communication that happens between people

through electronic devices in a computer-mediated formats (Thurlow, Lengel, Lengel, & Tomic,
2004). In the context of this study, CMC refers to the synchronous text-, and voice-based
communications that happen during the gameplay sessions of Dota 2.

Multiple studies have shown that in anonymous CMC, one can see increased amounts of aggressive
and/or hostile interactions (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Dyer, Green, Pitts, & Millward,

2
1995). The Steam account system is quite pseudonymous since people can switch their name and
profile picture at any time. The interaction in Dota 2 is based on pseudonyms and avatars, rather
than real faces and names. This may result in situations, where the player considers others as mere
tools to win, rather than actual people. However, the Steam profile is also connected to one’s Dota 2
profile, so tracking individuals is technically possible at any time.

The online disinhibition effect

The online disinhibition effect is a term coined by John Suler, an American professor of
psychology. According to Suler, people using CMC are more prone to a lack of restraint when
communicating with others compared to people communicating in-person (Suler, 2004). This lack
of restraint can be attributed to multiple things, such as the anonymity and invisibility CMC often
provides, asynchronous communications and lack of empathy and knowledge of the person they are
speaking to (Suler, 2004; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). This disinhibition effect can lead to what
Suler called benign disinhibitions and toxic disinhibitions. In this thesis, the focus will be on the
toxic disinhibition, which can be a linked to aggressiveness, hostility and anger in online
interactions (Suler, 2004; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012).

Competitive settings and aggression

In 1992, Arnold Buss and Mark Perry studied aggressive behaviorisms with a questionnaire they
created. With data gathered from 1,253 subjects, they attempted to find correlations between certain
characteristics and four different dimensions of aggression (Physical Aggression, Verbal
Aggression, Anger & Hostility). Through analyzing the data, Buss and Perry, among other things,
concluded that the competitiveness characteristic correlated with all of the four previously
mentioned aggression scales. Furthermore, they did not find a difference between the sexes for
assertiveness and competitiveness linking to aggression (Buss & Perry, 1992).

A study done in 2011 by Adachi and Willoughby focused on the effects of video game competition
and violence on aggressive tendencies. Within the course of the study, Adachi and Willoughby had
two experiments. In the first experiment, the participants played two competitive games, one
violent, and one nonviolent. In the second experiment, the participants played four different games,
two of which were violent and competitive, the other being more competitive, and two nonviolent
competitive games, with the other again being more competitive. The study concluded that in these
games, violence alone was not sufficient in elevating aggression levels. The competitive games
produced significantly greater levels of aggression than the games that did not have a competitive
element (P. J. Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). Following this, a 4-year longitudinal study by the same

3
researchers studied young adults and adolescents and focused on what effects competitive gaming
had on their aggressiveness. Published in 2016, the study concluded that even after controlling for
stability in aggression and other variables, competitive gaming is strongly associated with
aggression over time in both study groups (P. J. C. Adachi & Willoughby, 2016).

Other survey statistics of toxic behavior in online games

Published in 2018, a study part of the City of Helsinki and the Finnish Esports Federation’s two-
year Non-toxic – non-discriminating gaming culture-project surveyed 15–29-year-old active gamers
in Finland. Through analyzing 156 responses, the researchers concluded that both hate speech and
harassment are widely prevalent in gaming culture. (Alin, 2018).

Analyzing the data gathered through the survey, the researchers found out that 94 % of the
responders had seen belittling of one’s skills, 85 % name calling and 83% some slander. In addition
to these statistics, 58 % of the responders claimed that the communication abuses they had faced
negatively affected their concentration while playing, and 68 % said that communication abuse
affected the way they play. (Alin, 2018).

As well as looking into the toxic behavior of Dota 2, this thesis will aim to build on the work done
in the field of analyzing toxic behavior in online games. And in addition to simple frequencies, RQ4
concerning the effects of toxic behavior can further this work as well.

2.2 Toxic behavior in Dota 2

Toxic behavior (TB) in online games can be present in many different forms (Foo & Koivisto,
2004; Kwak, Blackburn, & Han, 2015; Saarinen, 2017). This chapter will introduce the different
toxic behavior acts (TBA) that are possible to report in Dota 2 and connects those categories to
prior research done on TB in online gaming.

4
Picture 1. Current player report screen in Dota 2 (patch 7.16).

Communication Abuse

The Communication Abuse (CA) category is used when reporting a player for being abusive via a
communication channel. CA is very closely related to a toxic behavior called flaming, which has
been studied since the 1980s (Kiesler et al., 1984; Dyer et al., 1995). Flaming is most commonly
defined as verbal hostility of some sort towards others in CMC (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012).

Since the nature of CA is not really uniform and quite context dependent, how CA is interpreted
often depends both on the player doing it, and on the other players who are affected by it.
Sometimes people who flame have different motives. Flaming might be malicious and hostile, or
perhaps deceitful and inciting. Sometimes the person doing it can just be joking around and having
fun, in their mind.

Intentional Ability Abuse

The Intentional Ability Abuse (IAA) category refers to incidents, where the perpetrator used their
Hero’s abilities to intentionally cause harm to their own team or to generally disrupt the gameplay
sessions of their teammates. This might include things like preventing your teammates movement,
using defensive abilities in vain, and maliciously controlling the team’s item deliverer (courier).

The disruptive nature of this TBA categorizes itself as griefing, or grief play, which is commonly
defined as intentional efforts to make the game less enjoyable for others, sometimes to the
perpetrator’s enjoyment (Foo & Koivisto, 2004).

5
Intentional Feeding

The Intentional Feeding (IF) category is quite specific, and refers to incidents where the perpetrator
intentionally, and repeatedly, dies to “feed” the enemy team, thereby giving the enemy Hero’s
experience points and gold, thus upsetting the balance of the teams and causing major disruption.

Like IAA, IF can also be categorized as griefing. Reasons for intentional feeding can usually stem
from the game state. The game might already be over in some respects, when a player resorts to
feeding, either to troll others or just to make a mockery of the game. Sometimes it is possible that a
player starts to feed out of pure frustration, either with themselves or with teammates.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter will introduce the research questions that are being studied in this thesis, as well as the
methodology used to answer them. Introductions to the research questions contain a brief
explanation on why this research question was chosen for this study. For more detailed findings of
the research questions, see chapter 4.

First, the methodology portion will include some general thoughts about the creation process of the
questionnaire. Some insight into the data collection method will be given, as well as some in-depth
explanations on how the gathered data was analyzed to provide the statistics.

RQ 1: “How frequently does one encounter toxic behavior in Dota 2?”

This is the most straightforward question that this thesis tries to answer. Answering this research
question gives a general view of the amounts of toxic behavior that is seen while playing the game,
according to the players. Furthermore, the statistics this question provides can offer a valuable
reference point for possible future studies interested in amounts of toxic behavior in online games.

RQ 2: “How frequently does one partake in toxic behavior in Dota 2?”

Since players are the leading cause of toxic behavior in the game, getting statistics on how the
players themselves partake in toxic behavior is quite valuable. Although in a self-report study such
as this one, the data produced by this question can be quite biased. It is possible that the responders,
consciously or unconsciously, downplay or exaggerate their own toxic behavior.

RQ 3: “How serious the responders rank the three reportable toxic behavior acts in Dota 2?”

This research question is in place to determine the variety in seriousness, if there is any, among the
TBAs. One interest lies in finding out how serious the responders think Communication Abuse is,
6
since some players might not take flaming so seriously. The data this question provides is also
useful when analyzing the results from the other three research questions.

RQ 4: “How does toxic behavior affect the gameplay experience in Dota 2?”

The last research question of this study is one of great importance. Getting data for this question
could answer some valuable questions on how toxic behavior actually affects the gameplay
experience, according to the players. Besides simple statistics that the other research questions
provide, this one can offer some insight into how different toxic behavior in Dota 2 affects
enjoyment of the game, the ability to play and how ignorable the toxic behavior act in question is.

3.1 Creating the questionnaire

Creation of the questionnaire began in early 2018. The original plan was to have a quantity-based
survey, where most of the questions in the questionnaire would be closed questions on a Likert
scale, with a few open questions available in between. The questionnaire went through a lot of
iterations, and with the help of feedback from friends, university colleagues and teachers, the final
iteration was completed around February 2018.

The final version had very few technical errors in it. Some comments arose immediately after the
questionnaire was published, which stated that the Behavior Score grading system the questionnaire
used was erroneous, since they no longer use the alphabetical rating system. This claim is still not
supported by the Dota 2 wiki site5, which states that the possible grades are still, in a descending
order, Normal, A+, A-, B+, B, C, D, E and F.

One clear error the questionnaire had, was one of humane error. When checking all the available
servers for question no. 21: “In which region do you most commonly play in?” from the game
client, there was no Australian server available to connect to. Thus, Australia as an option for a
most commonly played server was mistakenly omitted in the final version.

Another problem in the questionnaire arose due to not limiting the answer of age and the first game
of Dota 2, to a defined numerical value. This resulted in a few responses that were omitted to
maintain overall coherence, e.g. where the responder put a negative number, or an arbitrarily high
number, as their age.

5
https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Matchmaking#Behavior_Score_and_Account_Flags

7
3.2 Data collection

The questionnaire was published on the 2nd of March and received responses up until the 5th of
March. It was shared on multiple subreddits on Reddit.com, Dota 2 forums on
Steamcommunity.com, some Discord channels, Dota 2 game client chatrooms, and on Facebook
through personal shares. The questionnaire was completed a total of 373 times, from which a total
of 11 responses were categorized as nonresponses and were not used within this study.

The idea of doing a quantitative study on Dota 2 players and the TB that they encounter had been
floating around since late 2017. The only way I thought this was possible to do properly, was to do
a survey study, using an online questionnaire. An online questionnaire could be shared through
multiple channels very quickly, thus increasing the chances of getting responses. The data
collection method was quite successful, as evidenced by getting a total of 373 completed responses
in just a few days. It could be argued that getting as many responses in such a short time period
could not have been done any other way.

But even though conducting an online survey has its benefits, the general problems of a typical
online survey are apparent in this one as well. Some removals of the responses had to be done, since
they were completed seemingly out of spite, or had data that made the response troublesome for
comparison. It is important to note as well, that the accuracy and reliability of a self-report measure,
such as this one, can be brought into question (Prince et al., 2008).

3.3 Data analysis

The majority of the gathered data is quantitative in nature, although some qualitative data was
gathered as well. Since this thesis only uses some of the qualitative data the questionnaire provided
to answer its research questions, the focus will be on how the qualitative data was analyzed.

Quantitative analysis

Out of the 28 questions in the questionnaire, 25 provided quantitative data. This thesis uses 11
questions out of those 25 to answer its research questions. Three questions were used in profiling
the responders, such as gender, age and playing habit. The rest of the questions provided the data to
answer the research questions introduced at the beginning of this chapter.

The responder’s gender was defined as either “Male”, “Female” or “Other”. In the age field, the
responder was required to input a numerical value. The playing habit section was a scale from

8
“Daily” to “Less than once a year” with “Weekly”, “Monthly” and “Yearly” in between. All the
question used to answer the research questions were closed questions with a seven-point Likert
scale. For seen and partaken amounts of TB, for each TBA the responder was required to answer on
a scale from “Every game” to “Never”, with “90%, 70%, 50%, 30% or 10% … of my games”
averages in between. To get an evaluation of seriousness for each TBA, the questionnaire asked the
responder to place their evaluation of the TBA on a seven-point Likert scale with “Very serious” on
one end, and “Not at all serious” on the other. In determining the effects of TB on gameplay
experience, for each TBA the responder was faced with three different statements regarding the last
game they experienced it. The responder was then asked to place their agreement on a seven-point
Likert scale from “Agree completely” to “Disagree completely” with “Agree”, “Somewhat agree”,
“Neither agree nor disagree”, “Somewhat disagree” and “Disagree” in between.

After submitting responses was no longer possible, the data was exported from Google Forms to
Excel, where each individual answer was coded as a numerical value. The coded values were then
exported into SPSS, where they were further analyzed. The answers were then manually scouted for
signs of dishonest answers such as excessive amounts of seen and partaken TB and odd frequencies
of playing, and general extremities. All responses that had either an arbitrarily high, or a negative
number for submitted age, were removed nonetheless. In total, four responses were removed due to
incorrect age, one due to the responder seemingly never having played Dota 2, and the rest were
labeled as troll answers due to reasons previously mentioned. This method of qualifying the
responses was done through personal observations only. It is quite likely that the final data still has
some troll responses in it, but that is to be expected when dealing with an internet survey that
anyone can fill up. The evaluation of the responses was heavily focused on appropriate answers in
certain questions (i.e. age not being negative, too high, too low), and not having extremely high
frequencies for certain answers. Since this qualification was done through personal observations
only, it is rather impossible thoroughly checking all 373 responses containing over 12,000
individual points of data.

After removing a total of 11 responses from the data set, the rest were analyzed and used within this
thesis. For RQ1 and RQ2, the answer rates for each frequency of seen and partaken TB were
calculated and are presented in tables 4 and 5. The same was done to answer RQ4, except the
answer rates are presented in a compiled form in table 7. For gender and playing habits, simple
answer rate percentages were gathered and presented in tables 1 and 3, respectively. For age (table
2), and the seriousness scale (table 6), quartiles, median and mean values were calculated. For age,
the lowest and the highest value, as well as the standard deviation is shown as well.

9
4. FINDINGS

In addition to providing some findings the research questions answered, this chapter will provide
some background information6 of the survey participants. For each research question, relevant
statistics will be presented. In addition to the visualization of gathered data, some key points are
made to connect them to prior research.

4.1 Background information

This chapter will introduce some background information for the survey participants. Giving a
profile of the survey participants provides a sense of context for the analyzed data.

Age

N = 362 Mean Lowest Q1 Median Q3 Highest

Age 23,56 12 20 23 26 55
Table 1. Age of the responders. SD = 5,372.

Table 1 shows the age of the responders from the lowest value up to the highest with quartiles and
median in between. The highest value (55) could perhaps be considered as an outlier, since there is
quite a huge difference in value between it and the Q3. I chose not to omit this response, since it had
no elements of being a troll answer and is, in fact, one of the few female responders the survey has.
The Q1, median and Q3 values are not so surprising, but instead there were quite a few answers of
16 or lower (N=18), and a few 35 or higher (N=9).

Gender

Gender Male Female Other

N = 362 342 (94,5 %) 12 (3,3 %) 8 (2,2 %)

Table 2. Gender of the responders.

As seen by table 2, the gender of this data group was quite uniform, with a 94,5 % male answer rate.
The fact that the number of males in this survey is so high can mean a couple of things. Firstly, it
can bring this whole study under scrutiny, through arguments of selection bias during data
collection. Secondly, if the first one is true and there has been some selection bias in the data
collection, it is possible for future studies to actively try to get more female participants. Thirdly, it

6
For most commonly played region, see appx 2. For first game of Dota 2, appx 3.

10
is possible that these results portray the average gender ratio of Dota 2 players somewhat truthfully.
Finally, if the third point holds true, there is room for future studies to figure out what makes Dota 2
such a male-dominated game.

Playing habits

Playing habit Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Lto* a year

N = 362 186 (51,4 %) 135 (37,3 %) 25 (6,9 %) 7 (1,9 %) 9 (2,5 %)

Table 3. Playing habit of the responders. Lto* = less than once.

Table 3 shows the playing habits of the responders. As the data shows, over 50 % of the responders
consider themselves daily players. Due to the percentage sum of daily and weekly players (88,7 %),
it is quite fair to say that a clear majority of the responders are avid Dota 2 players, with a total of
4,4% of the responders playing yearly or less than once a year. In the light of this data, and since
this study uses data from all of the responders, the statistics provided here more accurately portray
the experiences of more frequent Dota 2 players, than ones who play infrequently.

4.2 Reported toxic behavior in Dota 2 (RQ1 & RQ2)

This chapter analyzes frequencies of both seen TB, and of the TB the responders have partaken in.
To gather data for this analysis, the questionnaire included two questions. Both were similar
questions on a seven-point Likert scale from “Never” to “Every game”, with average frequencies of
“90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of my games” on the middle. In the questionnaire, the section for
seen TB started with “On average, I see __” and for partaken TB, “On average, I partake in__ ” and
then the responder was required to fill in the frequency for each TBA.

This chapter analyzes the gathered statistics and tries to tie in the findings within the area of studies
done on toxic behavior, both in CMC and in online games. To improve both the reader experience
and interconnectivity of the findings, the two tables providing frequency statistics of seen and
partaken TB have been placed next to each other. As well as improving coherence, it makes doing
some visual examinations between the tables much easier.

11
 Communication Intentional Ability Intentional
Frequencies of seen toxic behavior
Abuse (%) Abuse (%) Feeding (%)
Every game 4,7 0,3 0,0
Very frequently, in about 90% of my
0,6 0,3
games 19,3
Often, in about 70% of games 27,3 2,2 2,5

Sometimes, in about 50% of games 19,9 5,0 5,0

Occasionally, in about 30% of games 20,4 17,4 14,6

Rarely, in about 10% of games 8,3 63,8 66,9

Never 0,0 10,8 10,8

Table 4. Average frequencies of seen TB. N = 362.

Communication Intentional Ability Intentional

Frequencies of partaken toxic behavior
Abuse (%) Abuse (%) Feeding (%)
Every game 1,1 0,3 0,0
Very frequently, in about 90% of my
2,2 0,6 0,6
games
Often, in about 70% of games 3,6 0,3 0,0
Sometimes, in about 50% of games 6,6 0,6 0,3
Occasionally, in about 30% of games 21,3 3,0 0,8
Rarely, in about 10% of games 42,8 15,7 12,2
Never 22,4 79,6 86,2
Table 5. Average frequencies of partaking in TB. N = 362.

Frequencies of seen and partaken CA

As seen in table 4, CA is the most experienced TBA, with over half the responders (51,3 %)
claiming to see it “Often” or more frequently. In fact, the data shows that 0% of the responders
claimed never to have seen Communication Abuse in Dota 2.

The seen amounts of CA in the upper brackets (total of 51,3 % often or more frequently) has a clear
difference when comparing the same levels in CA partaking (total of 6,9 % often or more
frequently). Still, only 22,4 % of the responders claimed to never partake in CA, and 42,8 % partake
in it rarely.

12
Due to the high amounts of CA seen while playing Dota 2, it can be argued that it is an environment
where one can often see abuse in the form of communication. And although specific reasons for this
are not clear, Dota 2 is a action paced, competitive game with, arguably, at least a pseudonymous
communication system. Thus, the frequencies of communication abuse reported here can support
the arguments that a pseudonymous CMC and/or competitive settings can increase disinhibition and
allow aggressive behavior and hostility towards others to emerge. The fact that 77,6 % of the
responders claim to partake in CA at least rarely, further support these arguments.

Regarding the survey study by Alin in 2018, these statistics support the argument that
communication abuse is prevalent in some gaming cultures. In the study by Alin, out of the 156
responders, almost everyone had seen some form of communication abuse while playing online.
Similarly, these statistics suggest that every responder has seen some communication abuse while
playing Dota 2. (Alin, 2018).

Frequencies of experienced and partaken IAA and IF

The seen frequencies of both IAA and IF are interestingly quite similar, according to the data. These
frequencies are nowhere near the levels of CA, and with the available data, can arguably be
generalized as rare or occasional occurrences in the game. The much lower levels of seen IAA and
IF compared to CA might indicate that the deterrence mechanisms in place to punish people, who
frequently abuse their abilities or intentionally feed, are working at least in some respects.

79,6 %, and 86,2 % of the responders claimed to never partake in IAA and IF, respectively. Besides
the reported “Rarely” partaking rate of 15,7 % in IAA, and 12,2 % in IF, the answer rates for both
are near 0% in higher frequencies. As explained in chapter 2.4, IAA and IF are closely related to
griefing. The arguably low frequencies of these TBAs, both seen and partaken in, supports a
narrative that one is more likely to run into flamers than griefers while playing Dota 2. Still, even
with the lower frequencies of IAA and IF, both acts are, according to the responders, quite serious
(chapter 4.2) and detrimental in how they affect the gameplay experience (chapter 4.4).

The difference of frequencies between table 4 and table 5 can be due to a couple of reasons. First
and foremost, toxic behavior is something that can be done by a single player, but still affect every
player in the game. Therefore, the frequencies of seen TB are naturally assumed to be higher than
frequencies of partaken TB. Second, it is possible that the number of toxic players participating in
this survey is low, and/or some of the omitted troll responses were made by people who, effectively,
like to troll. Third, as mentioned in chapter 3.2, in a self-report study such as this one, problems
regarding validity are always present. Exaggeration in the amounts of TB experienced may occur,

13
and under-reporting about the responder’s own TB may happen as well. Finally, the differences
seen in CA between the graphs compared to IAA and IF might indicate that the act of CA is
sometimes hard to evaluate. It is possible that what one player might think of as CA, is not CA to
another. This argument is somewhat further supported by the seriousness scale of CA seen in
chapter 4.2. This line of thinking might explain why, although partaking in CA is reported in lower
frequencies, only 22,4 % of responders claim to never do it at all.

The findings here suggest that behaving abusively over a communication channel in Dota 2 is quite
a common occurrence. And although the reasons for this are not quite clear, these statistics can at
least give us some insight into the toxic behavior levels of Dota 2, as reported by the players of the
game themselves.

4.3 Seriousness of specific TBAs in Dota 2 (RQ3)

To answer this research question, the questionnaire asked the responder to rate each of the TBAs on
the level of their seriousness. The question was a in a form of a seven-point Likert-scale, with one
end being “Not at all serious”, and the other “Very serious”.

1 = Not at all serious

Mean Q1 Median Q3
7 = Very serious
Communication Abuse 4,40 3 5 6
Intentional Ability Abuse 5,17 4 6 7
Intentional Feeding 6,26 6 7 7
Table 6. Seriousness of specific TBAs. N = 362.

Table 6 depicts the seriousness of the TBAs in Dota 2, as reported by the responders. Not
surprisingly, the two griefing TBAs, IAA and IF, rank higher than CA. Since both IAA and IF are
TBAs the player has very little control over, it is not surprising that they ranker higher than CA in
terms of seriousness. Especially IF is seen as a very serious TB since it quite simply breaks the
game in terms of gameplay. Effects of both IAA and IF on gameplay are looked at more in chapter
4.4.

Compared to IAA and IF, CA is clearly a more controversial TBA, according to the responders. It
has the lowest mean and median values, and even has a Q1 value crossing over to the “Not so
serious” side. The reasons for CA being lower here can somewhat be explained by the fact that it is

14
more easily avoidable and ignorable, due to the muting option7. The low Q1 value can also be
explained by the background of the survey responders. Since the majority of the responders play
frequently, it can be argued that some of the players have grown accustomed to CA due to its high
frequency levels, and therefore do not take it so seriously. The overall effects of CA on gameplay
experience are looked at more on chapter 4.4.

4.4 Effects of TB on gameplay (RQ4)

This chapter answers RQ4 and analyzes the effects of the different TBAs on gameplay experience.
To answer this, the questionnaire included a portion that required the responder to place their
agreement to a statement of effects a TBA had in the last game they experienced it. The statements
were as follows:

1. It completely ruined the enjoyment of that game.

2. It negatively affected my ability to play the game.
3. I was able to ignore it.

For each of the three statements, the responder was required to place their agreement on a seven-
point Likert scale rating, from “Disagree completely” to “Agree completely” with “Disagree”,
“Somewhat disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree”, “Somewhat agree” and “Agree”, in between.

From the gathered data, a table was created that compiled these answers to an agreement scale.
“Agree completely”, “Agree” and “Somewhat agree” were put on the agreement side, while
“Disagree completely”, “Disagree” and “Somewhat disagree” were put on the disagreement side.
Comparing the data this way allows for more simplicity and clearness when discussing overall
results. This analysis provides some insight into how these TBAs affect gameplay session. Below is
the table compiling the scales of agreement to the agreement side and the disagreement side.

7
Muting a player means that you can no longer see or hear any communication from that particular player.

15
 “It completely ruined the “It negatively affected my “I was able to ignore
The statement
enjoyment of that game.” ability to play the game.” it.”

Communication 55,5% agree, 60,5 % agree, 60,3 % agree,

Abuse 35,3% disagree 32,6 % disagree 28,8 % disagree

Intentional 75,9 % agree, 73,1 % agree, 20,5 % agree,

Ability Abuse 13,2 % disagree 16,0 % disagree 68,5 % disagree

Intentional 90,9 % agree, 76,8 % agree, 11,6 % agree,

Feeding 6,3 % disagree 13,3 % disagree 81,4 % disagree
Table 7. Scales of agreement on how TBAs affect the gameplay experience. N = 362.

TBAs ruining enjoyment of the game

For each TBA, a majority of the responders agreed that it ruined the enjoyment of the last game
they experienced it. Overall, the scales presented here seem to correlate with the seriousness scale
in chapter 4.3. CA is the most controversial and both IAA and IF are clearly disruptive elements.
Due to the nature of IAA and IF, the results shown here are not so surprising. For CA, though, it is
somewhat interesting that a majority of the responders agreed that CA ruined the enjoyment of the
previous game they experienced it. And although 55,5 % is not that clear of a majority, only a bit
over a third (35,3 %) of the responders thought that CA did not completely ruin the enjoyment of
their previous game where they had experienced it. With these statistics, it can be argued that all
three TBAs are in fact elements that can ruin enjoyment of games.

TBAs negatively affecting the ability to play

Again, a majority of the responder seem to think that all three TBAs negatively affect their ability to
play the game. The agreement rates here seem to line up with the previous statement, in that IF is
the worst offender, IAA is in the middle and CA is the least agreed upon. And although CA is the
least agreed upon out of the three, the responders are more in agreement that CA negatively affects
one’s ability to play than ruins enjoyment. Interestingly, the agreement rate is a little higher for the
previous statement (75,9 % vs. 73,1 %) for IAA, and much lower here for IF (90,9 % vs. 76,8 %).

Ignoring TBAs

The agreement rate for ignoring TBAs is similar to the previous statements, in that CA can be
ignored most, IAA is in the middle and IF is again the most detrimental. In the case of CA, even
though it can be detrimental in some respects, a majority agreed it to be ignorable. It also had a
lower disagreement rate than for the two previous statements. The option to mute another player is

16
perhaps a large factor in why CA can be ignorable. Muting a player makes their chat text invisible
and silences their voice-based chat. This creates a possibility to ignore players who, for example,
are aggressive, hostile or provoking, thus making the gameplay experience more enjoyable and less
distracting.

For IAA and IF, it is not so surprising that the responders seem to agree that they were not able to
ignore them. The disruptive nature of IAA, and especially IF, make them extremely detrimental to
the overall aim of the game, which is to win. And while IF simply breaks the balance of a game,
constant ability abuse can create situations where it feels like one teammate has suddenly betrayed
the whole team.

5. DISCUSSION

In the final chapter of this thesis, some discussion will be made based on the findings of the
research questions, and their significance. In addition, the limitations of this thesis will be
discussed, as well as some possibilities for future studies.

5.1 Conclusions

The high frequencies of communication abuse reported suggest that Dota 2 can often be an
aggressive and a hostile environment. The data gathered consisted mainly of male (94,5 %) players
aged 20–26 (Q1=20, Q3=26) who played weekly or more frequently (88,7 %). It is quite fair to say
that the results of this study are somewhat biased in these respects.

Out of the 362 responders used within this thesis, all had seen Communication Abuse at some point,
and only 22,4 % of the responders claim to never partake in CA. Furthermore, the findings seem to
suggest that even though CA can be ignored according to a majority (60,3 % agreed), it is still an
element that ruins enjoyment (55,5 % agree) and negatively affects one’s ability to play (60,5 %
agree).

With a median seriousness of 5 out of 7, CA ranked lowest in the seriousness scale, and even had a
Q1 value of 3, placing it over to the “Not so serious” side. The reasons for this might vary. One
explanation can be found in the possibility of player muting, which allows one to ignore another
completely in terms of chat. Another explanation might be that some players been exposed to
flaming for a long time and take it as a norm, maybe even approach it playfully, or ignore it
altogether. One other explanation can be found in the nature of CA in Dota 2, in that in essence, it is

17
pseudonymous communication that takes away all forms of context, besides the ongoing game.
Some players may take some things more personally than others, perhaps due to personal reasons,
and get defensive or aggressive at the slightest annoyance. Some may chuckle at the silly things
others are getting all worked up about, thinking “It is only a game, why you have to be mad?”. The
overall results of CA in Dota 2 seem to suggest that it is quite common to experience it while
playing, but the effects of it on gameplay can vary according to the nature of the experienced CA at
hand, and the player experiencing it.

Intentional Ability Abuse (IAA), like CA is one of some controversy. Although not experienced
nearly as much as CA, it had a median of 6 out 7 on the seriousness scale. Interestingly, IAA also
had a Q1 value of 4, placing it on neither side on the scale. When looking at how IAA affects
gameplay, a clear majority agreed that it did in fact both ruin the enjoyment of the game (75,9 %),
and negatively affected their ability to play (73,1 %), in the last game they experienced it in.
Furthermore, only 20,5% of the responders agreed that they were able to ignore it. These results can
somewhat be explained by the nature of IAA, in that even though it is a momentary act, if not
repeated, it still can ruin an individual’s play session. Being a target of IAA can break your flow of
playing, since it is something quite unexpected and abnormal. IAA is a toxic behavior act that is
quite hard to prepare for, and sometimes hard to even identify (a new player or griefer?). And if the
act is repeated, it can definitely ruin enjoyment and negatively affect one’s ability to play,
especially if being a direct target of it.

Not surprisingly, Intentional Feeding (IF) was ranked as the most serious toxic behavior act, with a
clear majority agreeing that it had a detrimental effect on the last game they experienced it. Even
though the frequencies of seeing IF were even lower than for IAA, it is an act that upsets the very
balance of the game and causes permanent harm to the rest of the team. It is absolutely vital for the
game developers to focus on how to detect and deter IF in Dota 2, since it basically throws the game
out of balance, and makes a mockery of playing it.

In conclusion, this study did not in fact set out to find reasons for toxic behavior, and instead
focused on the frequencies and the nature of toxic behavior itself. The statistics provided in the
Non-toxic study by Alin are quite similar to the ones provided in this thesis. Communication Abuse
in Dota 2 is rampant, and every responder claimed to have seen it, more often than not. Similarly, in
the Alin study, 94 % of the responders had seen belittling of one’s skills, 85 % some name calling
and 83 % some slander. In addition to these frequencies, the effects of communication abuse on
gameplay experiences are similar in both studies. 60,5 % of the responders in my survey agreed that
CA negatively affected their ability to play in the last game they experienced it in. In the Alin study,
18
68 % of the responders claimed that some form of communication abuse had an effect on their
ability to play, and 58% claimed they had trouble concentrating due to it whilst playing. (Alin,
2018).

The reasons as to why hostility and aggression over communication channels are as common as
evidenced here, and in earlier studies, can perhaps be explained by the research done on toxic online
disinhibition in anonymous CMC, and on the relation of competitive gaming and aggression. The
nature of a pseudonymous CMC, like the chat in Dota 2, can effectively lower levels of inhibition
(Suler, 2004; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012), and allows aggressiveness and hostility to emerge
from its users more easily. And as has been discussed previously, links between competitive gaming
and higher aggression levels have been studied and proven (P. J. Adachi & Willoughby, 2011; P. J.
C. Adachi & Willoughby, 2016). The frequent communication abuse happening in Dota 2 can thus
somewhat be explained by the inherent competitiveness of the game, as well as providing a
pseudonymous, faceless chat for players to flame in when tensions rise.

5.2 Limitations and further research

Even though great amounts of useful data were collected, the questionnaire could have been
improved upon. Some flaws, like omitting the Australia server and not limiting the values of age
and first game of Dota 2 to a specific numeral value were explained in chapter 3, but some
important questions could have been asked as well. Rather than ask the players for the date of their
first game (which, in hindsight, is rather useless information due to multiple factors), a more fruitful
question could have asked about the amount of games played, or the hours spent, which are both
easily checkable within the game client and Steam app, respectively. If this kind of variable was
available, it could prove to be very useful in future studies, where an interest in how CA, for
example, affects the gameplay experience of players who have played multiple hundreds of games.

With the data the questionnaire provided, it could have been possible to use more variables when
analyzing the results. However, the goal of this study was to try and give some overall frequency
analyses of toxic behavior in Dota 2. In the end, using a larger number of variables, and perhaps
doing some cross-referencing across multiple variables, would have resulted in more work than
needed for a bachelor’s thesis.

Regarding limitations, it is clear that a study based on self-reported data always has its validity
issues and limitations, such as the inherent biases of certain data, like asking responders how much
they partake in toxic behavior. In addition, the statistics this thesis provides are more akin to overall

19
frequency analyses and do not have in-depth analyses between specific variables. Thus, this study
can not provide answers to question concerning frequencies of seen TB in certain ranks of play,
differences in age groups and gender regarding partaken TB, and how, if somehow, playing habits
affects how serious one thinks the different TBAs are, for example.

However, the overall results of this study can prove to be of some use. If similar survey studies of
Dota 2 players are done in the future, the results here can be used as a good comparison. Similarly,
if studies comparing the frequencies of toxic behavior between different games are done, the results
from this study allow data from Dota 2 players to be used.

Overall, there still needs to be more discussion and research on how playing competitive games and
toxic behavior are related, both online and in real life. Are the increased levels of aggression a result
of competitive settings, game design, anonymous CMC, other players – or perhaps a mixture of
some, or all of these? This study did not provide clear answers for all of these questions, nor did it
intend to, but the results of this study could be used in future research focusing on similar questions.

20
6. REFERENCES

Adachi, P. J., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more

than just the violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1), 55-62.

Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2016). The longitudinal association between competitive video

game play and Aggression among adolescents and young adults. Child Development, 87(6),

1877-1892. doi:10.1111/cdev.12556

Alin, E. (2018). Non-toxic – Selvitys kilpailullisia tietokone- ja konsolipelejä pelaavien nuorten

kokemuksista vihapuheesta ja häirinnästä. Helsingin kaupunki kulttuuri ja vapaa-aika /

nuorisopalvelut: Non-toxic – syrjimätön pelikulttuuri -hanke. Retrieved from

https://www.hel.fi/static/nk/Julkaisut/non-toxic.pdf

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 63(3), 452.

Dyer, R., Green, R., Pitts, M., & Millward, G. (1995). (1995). What's the flaming problem? or

computer mediated communication-deindividuating or disinhibiting? Paper presented at the

Bcs Hci, 289-302.

Foo, C. Y., & Koivisto, E. M. (2004). (2004). Defining grief play in MMORPGs: Player and

developer perceptions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGCHI

International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, 245-250.

Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1067375

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-

mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.

21
Kutateladze, A. (2017). Dota 2 and The International 2017 broke its viewer peak record of last year.

Cybersport.com. https://cybersport.com/post/dota-2-and-the-international-2017-broke-its-

viewer-peak-record-of-last-year (Cited 13.06.2018)

Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015). (2015). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic

behavior in team competition online games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd

Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3739-3748. Retrieved

from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.02305.pdf

Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact

on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434-443.

Prescott, S. (2017). The Dota 2 International prize pool has comfortably broken its record. PC

Gamer. https://www.pcgamer.com/the-dota-2-international-prize-pool-has-comfortably-

broken-its-record/ (Cited 13.06.2018)

Prince, S. A., Adamo, K. B., Hamel, M. E., Hardt, J., Gorber, S. C., & Tremblay, M. (2008). A

comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A

systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(1), 56.

Saarinen, T. (2017). Toxic behavior in online games (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from

http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201706022379.pdf

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Lengel, L. B., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication

Sage.

22
WEB SOURCES

Most popular games on Steam – http://steamcharts.com/top (Cited 13.06.2018)

Dota 2’s popularity on Steam – http://steamcharts.com/app/570 (Cited 13.06.2018)

Dota 2 official wiki –

https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Matchmaking#Behavior_Score_and_Account_Flags (Cited

13.06.2018)

23
APPENDIX 1: The questionnaire
APPENDIX 2: Most commonly played regions (N=362)
APPENDIX 3: First game of Dota 2 (N=350)