Consuming esports and trash talking: how do social norms and moderating attributes influence behaviour?

Abstract

Whilst understanding the social norms of trash talking is an emerging field of research, the extent to how esport consumers perceive its practice in esports is currently limited. Guided by Chung and Rimal (2016) framework to identify how social norms and moderating attributes influence behaviour, this study investigated consumers perceptions of trash talk in FPS esports. Focusing on Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Overwatch and Rainbow Six: Siege scenes, this study used data harvesting through the popular social media forum – Reddit and gathered 1,724 comments for analysis. Subjective and descriptive norms were influenced around the context of trash talk and the moments it occurred. Behavioural, individual, and contextual moderating attributes also influence consumers perspectives on why esport players do, or do not engage in trash talk. As an area of research still in its infancy, this paper aids in enhancing how communities reflect, discuss and debate relevant themes within esports.

Keywords:

• Trash talk
• esports
• social norms
• moderating attributes
• consumers

Esports is a thriving digital environment where spectators congregate to watch their favourite professional player, or team, compete. It extends across various games and genres, such as the First-Person Shooter (FPS), which dates back to the 1990s with games like Doom (1993) and Quake (1996) and has established a highly competitive scene in Western culture in its own right (Bryce and Rutter 2002; Jonasson and Thiborg 2010; Therrien 2015; Wagner 2006). Current esports literature focusses largely on the consumptive needs of esport spectators (Qian et al. 2020; Pu, Xiao, and Kota 2022). Established fandoms and communities have developed emotional and consumptive ties to their chosen esport scene (Irwin and Naweed 2020; Johnson and Abarbanel 2022). Esport consumers have also used online forums in digital and social media to observe the attitudes and attributes of professional players (Spinda and Puckette 2018; Wong and Meng-Lewis 2022; Xue, Newman, and Du 2019).

Online forums serve as an information media where consumers can discuss and debate topics relevant to esports (Kow and Young 2013). However, social media has allowed fans to openly judge and criticise behaviour, particularly if spectators witness acts perceived to go against their social norms, reflecting the values and beliefs shared within the community (Hilvert-Bruce and Neill 2020; Türkay et al. 2020). In conventional sports, spectators engage in publicly shaming practices centred around an athlete’s violation of social norms, which can lead to withdrawal of support and adversely impact their careers (MacPherson and Kerr 2021; Sanderson 2013; Sanderson and Truax 2014). Whilst research has acknowledged that esport spectators ‘judge’ behaviour perceived to go against social norms, it is how, and to what extent, consumers communicate and distinguish social norms that is less understood (Cheung and Huang 2011; Naweed, Irwin, and Lastella 2020).

One practice governed primarily by its social norms is trash talk, where taunts and insults are directed towards others in a competitive scene, including opponents, fans, coaches and team members (Cook, Schaafsma, and Antheunis 2018; Cote 2017; Eveslage and Delaney 1998; Kershnar 2015). The normative boundaries of trash talk differ across conventional sporting communities (Conmy et al. 2013; Rainey and Granito 2010; Trammel et al. 2017) and has been debated as a fair act of mental fortitude (Howe 2004; Omine 2017) or rather a practice which goes against the values and ethics in competition (Dixon 2018). In casual video gaming, it has been described as part of the social ethos where it is used to formulate friendships (Cote 2017; Nakamura 2012; Wright, Boria, and Breidenbach 2002) or alternatively, to promote discomfort (Cook, Schaafsma, and Antheunis 2018; Kordyaka, Jahn, and Niehaves 2020). In a digital environment, esport players can manipulate the in-game mechanics to create unique trash talk practices (Irwin and Naweed 2020; Myers 2019). Verbal acts, however, have been considered an experience enjoyed and shared if they do not discriminate against socio-cultural themes of race, sex and gender (Cote 2017; Nakamura 2012; Ortiz 2019a; Tang, Reer, and Quandt 2020; Wright, Boria, and Breidenbach 2002).

In a recent study focused on the esports scene, Irwin, Naweed, and Lastella (2021) observed that trash talk was perceived to be dialectical and mediated through three core elements: its motive, the context, and the people involved in a given act. Irwin, Naweed, and Lastella (2021) concluded that further research of these elements would help increase our understanding of the ethics, acceptability, and underlying philosophy around its practice (188). As esports continue to grow in professionalism and popularity, understanding how its communities perceive and debate social norms is currently limited, and further research is required to aid in promoting positive satisfaction to consumers (Hilvert-Bruce and Neill 2020; Irwin, Naweed, and Lastella 2021; Cheung and Huang 2011).

Theoretical framework

To examine how esports communities perceive trash talk, this study draws on Chung and Rimal (2016) theoretical framework. This framework synthesises various social theories to predict how social norms and moderating attributes influence behaviour, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1991), norm and attitude accessibility (Fazio 1986, 1990), dual-processing models of cognitive processing (Gibbons et al. 1998) and the Theory of Social Normative Behaviour (Rimal and Real 2005). Whilst other research has broadened and modified these theories, Chung and Rimal (2016) argue that, individually, such frameworks can prevent delineating underlying conditions how behaviour is evaluated and processed.

As shown in Figure 1, Chung and Rimal (2016) framework emphasises the relationship between core social norms and moderating attributes in given situations, and how they shape behaviour.

Figure 1. Chung and Rimal (2016) revised theoretical framework how social norms and moderating attributes influence behaviour.

Descriptive norms refer to beliefs about what behaviours occur within a social group and Injunctive norms refer to behaviours driven to avoid social sanctions (Byron et al. 2016; Chung and Rimal 2016; Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren 1990; Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini 2000). Put succinctly, the former refers to what people actually do whereas the latter refer to what they ought to do (Byron et al. 2016; Chung and Rimal 2016). In video gaming, players will avoid performing aggressive behaviour towards others as it goes against the normative beliefs shared within the community (i.e. descriptive norms) and avoids social repercussions, such as being reported and banned from the match (i.e. injunctive norms) (Hilvert-Bruce and Neill 2020; Türkay et al. 2020; Adinolf and Turkay 2018). On the other hand, Subjective norms refer to behaviours which are acted in accordance to perceived social pressure(s) of a given group (Ajzen 1991; Chung and Rimal 2016). A key premise here is how the influence of norms and attributes will alter depending on the time in a given situation, particularly as when:

An individual makes a spontaneous decision, she will likely enact a behaviour that is informed by the most salient attitude or norm that comes to mind in that moment… In contrast, when an individual has time to deliberate before acting, she will have the cognitive ability to consider both attitudes and norms when making her decision (Chung and Rimal 2016, 19).

In diverse circumstances, Chung and Rimal (2016) believe that certain moderating attributes can be amenable to change. Moderating attributes are underlying cognitive factors which affect the relation between the perceptions of social norms and behavioural intentions (Rimal and Real 2005). Chung and Rimal (2016) extend previous theories on normative behaviour to further identify moderating attributes at a behavioural, individual, and contextual level. Apart from functionality, which is based on Katz (1960) approach towards functional analysis, Chung and Rimal (2016) use previous theories to develop their own definitions of each attribute. Table 1 provides an overview of these attributes.

Table 1. Moderating attributes as defined by Chung and Rimal (2016).

Moderating attributes	Definition
Behavioural
Functionality	Behaviour can serve utilitarian, value expressive, social adjustive, and/or ego defensive functions
Cost	Normative influence is affected though different costs. Can be conceptualised as both objective attributes (e.g. money) and subjective perceptions (e.g. time)
Privacy	Understanding how behaviour is moderated when it occurs in a public or private setting
Outcome expectations	The belief that engaging in behaviour will have either a positive or negative outcome
Addictiveness	The more addictive a behaviour, the less likely norms will influence behavioural intent
Individual
Group involvement	Influence of norms will increase with the goal to fit in a certain group
Ego identity	The extent one’s self-identity aligns with a given issue or behaviour
Self-efficacy	Confidence in ability to exert personal control
Age	Influence of norms will vary depending on age
Past experience	Behaviour relies less on injunctive norms if one has previously experienced behaviour
Self-monitoring	Regulating behaviour to favour public appearance
Social comparison	Influence of descriptive norms will be stronger if one compares themselves with social peers
Emotional intelligence	Peer norms are less influenced if individual has a greater ability to handle emotional information
Gender-based stereotyping	The influence to behave in reinforced gender stereotypes
Contextual
Time constraints	Immediate, salient norms are more likely to influence behaviour than one’s attitudes in time-constrained situations
Injunctive norms	The moderating relationship between descriptive norms and behaviour (i.e. what should be done)
Social distance	Understanding that norms emanating from close figures (e.g. relatives) are more influential than those from distal people
Ambiguity	When behaviour occurs in an environment unfamiliar to the individual and accepted norms are not fully understood
Interpersonal discussion	The extent, and accuracy, of interpersonal discussion in a group will impact the way norms influence behaviour
Media exposure	Descriptive norms are affected by how an individual consumes media agenda
External monitoring	Rules and sanctions are enforced by exogenous entities

While social norms become established in a given setting, moderating attributes can influence the impact one acts in accordance with them (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren 1990; Lapinski and Rimal 2005; Rimal and Real 2005). For example, smoking among adolescents can be influenced by ‘group involvement’, where the behaviour can be encouraged within an individual’s peers and friendship group (Chung and Rimal 2016; Kobus 2003). In an esports context, it can be speculated that a player will engage in ‘trolling’ (verbal and in-game harassment) when they witness others performing similar behaviour (Cook et al. 2019; Cook, Schaafsma, and Antheunis 2018). In current trash talking literature, the impact of moderating attributes has thus far been explored through ‘self-efficacy’, (Conmy et al. 2013; Rainey and Granito 2010) and ‘outcome expectations’ (McDermott and Lachlan 2021). However, the extent to which consumers observe various moderating attributes and their influence on social norms and behaviour has not been identified. Through the lens of Chung and Rimal (2016) framework, the aim of this study was to see how communities react, judge and analyse acts of trash talk witnessed in esports. The research question guiding this study asks what governs community perceptions of trash talk in esports?

Methodology

Study design

This study adopted qualitative orientation with a convergent approach (Creswell 2014) and focused on three FPS esport communities/games that were considered the most popular of the genre at the time of data collection (Ramsey 2020). These were: Counter Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO) (Hidden Path Entertainment 2012), Overwatch (Blizzard Entertainment 2015) and Rainbow Six: Siege (Ubisoft Montreal 2015). Due to the limited research on trash talk in esports, and this study’s focus towards discovering how consumers perceive its practice, a qualitative approach was required (Maxwell et al. 2020; Sparrow et al. 2020). Specifically, the use of a convergent approach facilitated ease of access and showed how these games were contrived through diverse esport environments. For the purpose of this study, and aligned with previous literature, esport consumers are defined as all individuals who engage in esports – ranging from not only fans and spectators, but also includes professional players, commentators, tournament developers and other prominent industry workers (Abarbanel and Johnson 2019; Huettermann et al. 2020; Ji and Hanna 2020; Weiss and Schiele 2013).

Data harvesting occurred between October 2019 to February 2020 and was undertaken on Reddit, a public and online media forum. Use of public, online forums has been recognised as an effective method to encapsulate perspectives within video gaming and esports culture (Cheung and Huang 2011; Sparrow et al. 2020). Reddit was chosen due to its popularity among esport consumers (Seo 2013; Sparrow et al. 2020). The ‘subreddits’ (i.e. central hubs for consumer congregation) used were r/GlobalOffensive (1.2 m members), r/Overwatch (5.3 m members), r/OverwatchLeague (75.7k members), r/RainbowSixSiege (85.1k members) and r/R6ProLeague (98.8k members).

Procedure

To gather comments relevant to trash talk, an inclusion and exclusion method was applied to identify and remove off-topic discussions (Hawkins and Filtness 2017) using key search terms (Trash talk, banter, taunt/s, shit talk) (Irwin, Naweed, and Lastella 2021). Once relevant threads appeared, all of the quotes, opening thread statements, and responses significant to trash talk were extracted systematically. During this, it became clear that the communities had developed their own terminology/jargon that corresponded to trash talk (i.e. Pop offs and Roasting) (Irwin and Naweed 2020; Seo 2013). These new terms were added with the inclusion terms. Table 2 provides an overview of inclusion and exclusion search terms.

Table 2. Overview of all search terms and exclusion themes with examples.

Inclusion/search Terms	Example Reddit thread titles/comments and general descriptions
Trash Talk	uNKOE With the Quality Trash Talk (thread title)
Banter	Dogman just pulled his mic away from his mouth and yelled “KRUISE IS A FEEDER!” to the crowd. This is the kind of banter and trash talk we need boys. #OWL2019 (thread title)
Taunts	As everyone said, he’s a really nice guy to hang out with and he just likes to play a sarcastic and taunting character. (comment)
Shit talk	They are friends. He’s just talking shit during a match, it doesn’t mean anything (comment)
Pop off	Bardolph: If you’re upset at the pop offs have a wank and go to sleep, competitive gaming is clearly not for you (thread title)
Roasting/ed	VP deserves a roasting I feel like they have been making excuses for 2 years. (comment)
Exclusion themes
*Harassment towards other users	Personal attacks and vulgarity directed towards other Reddit users within the thread and not towards the topic
Memes / Jokes	Shahzam was the rat king before the rat king became the rat king (comment)
*Deleted comments	Comments deleted by user or moderators
*Non – English	Any comment not in written English
Irrelevant / off topic discussion(s)	God why did Troy have to leave e.g… (comment)

* Specific examples replaced by general descriptions

Table 3 summarises the total number of quotes that were gathered. Across the three esports, a total of 106 threads were read, with number of comments across threads reaching 13,284 comments in total. After applying the exclusion themes, a total of 1,724 (12.97%) comments were analysed as part of a final dataset.

Table 3. A summary of the data obtained for this study.

	Game and year of release			Total
	CS: GO (2012)	Overwatch (2017)	Rainbow 6: Siege (2015)
Number of forums /threads used	50	29	27	106
Total number of comments in threads	8,826	2,821	1,637	13,284
Total number of comments collected	755	576	393	1,724

Data analysis

To evaluate the data corresponding to Chung and Rimal (2016) framework, this study applied both an inductive and deductive approach for data analysis. This was necessary as Chung and Rimal (2016) framework does not specify social norms, but instead, concedes how they can be broad and altered in certain environments. To then uncover the types of social norms associated with trash talk, all data was first analysed inductively using descriptive coding (Saldana 2014) with NVivo (ver. 12). Coding consisted of highlighting sections of a text and developing shorthand labels (i.e. codes) to describe content and create a condensed overview of the main recurring points. Following this, a constant comparative method was adopted through Thematic Analysis (Gibson and Brown 2009), where key words identified patterns and created key themes to cover and formulate overarching classifications, and elements, associated with trash talk and social norms.

The second stage of analysis comprised of deductively coding the data through Chung and Rimal (2016) moderating attributes. Using the definitions all 21 attributes, key phrases were corresponded accordingly to how esport consumers perceive these attributes in esports. Table 4 shows an example how deductive coding was achieved. Using the definition of emotional intelligence in Chung and Rimal (2016) framework, comments with key words (seen below in bold) which aligned with this attribute were detected. In NVivo, these comments were then added to the emotional intelligence ‘code’ to monitor the frequency this attribute was identified. Out of the original 21 attributes, 14 achieved saturation and were included in the final results. Table 5 provides a summary of the moderating attributes analysed in this study.

Table 4. An example of how deductive coding was achieved illustrated by showing two comments gathered in the data collection which informed the definition for the moderating attribute of emotional intelligence. Colour fonts in data and definition columns used to show correspondence in coding.

Moderating attribute	Definition	Comment number and data ^1
Emotional intelligence	Peer norms are less influenced if individual has a greater ability to handle emotional information	Maybe this is your mentality [ability] in your own matchmaking games [Peer norms], but when it’s a high-pressure situation [emotional information], small things can get to you [handle], many pro players [Peer norms] have said this. [CS:GO, 2014]
		His response after the fact was basically taking [Professional player’s] tweet and treating it like a copypasta [emotional information]. That, IMO, looks like he doesn’t give a shit [Peer norms] about the gravity of the situation here. It’s like he’s unwilling [handle] to back down [ability], cool off, [ability] and rethink [ability] how to handle [handle] his thirst for banter [emotional information] [Overwatch, 2019]
		Agreed man lol. I was always taught to [Peer norms] act like you’ve been there before with no matter what you do [ability]. But sometimes we all get excited [emotional information] and have to [handle] talk a little crap lol [RS6, 2020]

1. Coding with square bracketing used to show linking between data and definition

Table 5. Frequency of coded moderating attributes observed in this study in accordance with Chung and Rimal (2016) framework.

Moderating attributes		Frequency of codes	Total for each attribute
Behavioural	Functionality	54	135
	Cost	28
	Privacy	27
	Outcome expectations	26
Individual	Group involvement	40	174
	Ego identity	33
	Self-efficacy	24
	Age	14
	Self-monitoring	41
	Emotional intelligence	22
Contextual	Ambiguity	38	116
	Interpersonal discussion	19
	Media exposure	35
	External monitoring	24

Results and discussion

Results revealed forms of social norms associated with trash talk in esports and the influence of moderating attributes. Supporting literature is referenced throughout to support these views and perspectives. Direct quotes from the data are also provided, in convention with the year they were published and the esport community they derive from. The first results will discuss the social norms of trash talk, then followed by the moderating attributes affiliated with their use.

Injunctive, descriptive and subjective norms of trash talk

Esport consumers debated the use of trash talk in relation to their social norms throughout discussions. For instance, the subjective norms around the use of trash talk varied around the match. If trash talk occurred before the match, it was perceived to promote hype and add excitement for the game (Su 2010). After a match, perspectives around acceptability altered depending on the level of respect shown towards the opposing team, after all the trash talking, having good sportsmanship and handshaking each other, even hugging after the game was over, [CS:GO, 2019] and:

I just hope that they can tell where the line is drawn. If you win, the post-match interview you are going to get after lifting the trophy is not exactly the best place, be respectful to opponents that you beat, you can trash talk them next time you face them and rubbing that match on their faces, but immediately after beating them is not a good moment. [CS:GO, 2017]

Descriptive and injunctive norms of trash talk were evident depending on the context and five subthemes recurred throughout: Sub forms of trash talk where trash talk was focused on a player’s personal matters or their performance, the current status of the player/team, whether the trash talk was excessive and if the trash talk was to offend others or defend oneself. Conventional sport and video gaming literature have acknowledged the different sub-forms of trash talk which alter its perceptions across given communities such as Banter, has been associated to provide humour and release tension (Duncan 2019; Wright, Boria, and Breidenbach 2002) whereas Toxicity can demote player and viewership satisfaction (Türkay et al. 2020). Consumers indicated that the difference between banter and toxicity depends on the attitudes expressed by professional players:

Banter and trash talk is fine, as long as it is done in good taste. Just calling the other team an expletive is boring and just damages your image. But finding a creative way to banter is funny and can add flavor to the league. [Overwatch, 2018]

In casual video gaming research, personal topics such as race, gender and sexuality, have been described as unsettling and offending to one’s opponents (Cote 2017; Trammel et al. 2017). These views were found to be similar in the esports communities, with assertions that the acceptability of trash talk depended on whether the topic was centred on a player’s performance or their personal issues: trashing and taunting has to be respectful. You wouldn’t bring up [pro player’s] sick father or something like that. But a bit of gesturing a choke or telling your opponent they’re shit, is just psychological warfare [CS:GO, 2017].

The current status of the team/players also influenced perspectives of trash talk with feelings of acceptance varying based on prominence of skill level, Honestly, I dont see any problems with trash talkung [sic] if they can back it up [R6:S, 2019] to whether the team would trash talk a lesser opponent, Rule of thumb is never punch down. [Team 1] are favorites vs [Team 2] and [Team 3] so bming them a little bit is seen as an imbalance. Trash talking your equals or superiors can be exciting though [CS:GO, 2018]. The morality of trash talk was questioned where deemed excessive, [pro player] was overdoing it yesterday with shooting at dead bodies, no need to do that like every round [CS:GO, 2017]. Lastly, the context of trash talk also alters if it was used as a means to offend an opposing team or to defend oneself: This isn’t your average individual, it’s a competitive guy before a final who’s asked in front of a camera and crowd to respond to someone confidently saying his team will lose. Of course he will defend himself, [CS:GO, 2017].

Moderating attributes

Behavioural attributes

The data identified several behavioural attributes to reflect their attitudes towards trash talk. An overview of these attributes are as follows:

Outcome expectations and Functionality

Chung and Rimal (2016) defined two forms of behavioural attributes – Outcome Expectations and Functionality. Outcome expectations refer to when social norms become inconsequential if the benefits of the outcome are of high value (Chung and Rimal 2016). For example, one spectator said that a player, were trying to get the mental advantage by rubbing salt in the wound. [RS:6, 2019]. Functionality is based on Katz’s (1960) functions of attitudes and in line with these, Table 6 illustrates how esport consumers view these functions with trash talk, and it was evident that the behavioural intentions behind trash talk varied depending on the motive towards its act.

Table 6. An overview of the functional analysis of attitudes (Katz 1960) and discussions of motives behind trash talk.

Function	Definition	Illustrative quote from present study
Utilitarian functions	Help an individual gain rewards and avoid punishments	If it’s a legitimate tactic, why not bind all your keys to also say a different insult, lob out thousands of insults per round. Punish them for daring to not block communication with you [CS:GO, 2014]
Value-expressive functions	Serve to communicate and individuals’ principles and identity.	BM is, literally, bad manners and it comes with all the implication therein. It reflects on you as a person. If it works for you, and you feel good using that tactic, fine- it’s a competition and everyone’s trying to win. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be judged for it [CS:GO, 2014]
Social-adjustive function	Helps identify the individual with a group to gain approval	I feel like it could also hinder them, as you never know and it might just put more pressure on them. Cause at the end, if they make a mistake in a hyped-up game, mostly they’re the ones who are going to get trashed for [Overwatch, 2019]
Ego-Defensive functions	Desire to project one’s internal, intrapsychic conflict	I want to see that fire and hunger to destroy those who beat them before [CS:GO, 2017]

Cost

Normative influence changes depending on the perceptions of behaviours and monetary cost. For esport consumers, cost prominently referred to the type of tournament players competed in, where higher monetary costs (i.e. more prestigious tournaments/greater prize money on offer) would deter players from engaging in trash talk. As noted by one consumer, think about competing on a stage to secure an extra $35k and potential $430k on top of that. it’s not ‘far too serious’, it’s competition [CS:GO, 2017]. However, Chung and Rimal identified that not all costs are monetary and could also be classified through subjective perception. In esports, trash talk can be seen as a form of distraction: It’s purely personal. Some players will flame and blame others, some keep their cool all time….as the skill difference is so little in the pro scene you are better off practicing 24/7 than blaming and shit talking others. [Overwatch, 2017]

Privacy

Across the reddit forums, esport consumers acknowledged that their understanding of players relationships and frequency to trash talk is limited if an action occurs offline or not within tournaments. In a thread discussing the forms of trash talk occurring in competitive CS:GO matches, one spectator noted how the commentators observed the in-game chat, and argued how it could have prevented other players from engaging in trash talk:

The difference is American football players diss each other on the field when they aren’t mic’ed up. CS players have everything recorded. Unless they make a secret channel to chat that the general public doesn’t see, they’ll be under greater scrutiny [CS:GO, 2014].

Individual attributes

Self-monitoring, group involvement and ego identity

Beyond behavioural attributes, consumers observed the individual attributes of professional players and how they influenced behaviour (Chung and Rimal 2016). For instance, Self-monitoring refers to regulating one’s behaviours to ensure an appropriate and desirable public appearance. In one aspect, spectators believed that players trash talk to promote hype for the community; It’s just a bit of banter to up the stakes and nothing more. A sizeable portion of this community have been asking for more of this. [Overwatch, 2019] and, ‘[Professional RS:6 player] just tries to be a little toxic to build the scene, I think. [sic] Drama is just interesting and being respectful al [sic] the time gets boring and [Professional RS:6 player] understands that and tries to bring eyeballs to the screen’. [RS:6, 2020].

Likewise, higher group involvement is likely to increase the influence of social norms on behaviour for the goal to fit in with a group identity central to one’s self-concept (Chung and Rimal 2016, 16). Trash talk could negatively affect group involvement, and spectators noted the caution they perceived players to implement towards its use: It’s always trash talk until some people don’t like what’s been said. The drama on reddit and social media is why players don’t trashtalk in the first place. [CS:GO, 2017]. This was observed in another discussion:

As a professional, if you have beef, you take that up with the person in a DM or something similar, or real life. You don’t blow shit up publically [sic] because it makes you look like an asshole and you burn a LOT of bridges. As an org, do you want to hire a player that’s liable to vehemently shittalk you as soon as his contract runs out? [CS:GO, 2019]

Some consumers were also aware that players can be hesitant to trash talk as it can diminish their esport team reputation:

[Trash Talk] is an issue when they are representing an org and sponsors. It’s a double edged blade. Money talks, and if you’re not f0rest, GTR, s1mple, C9 etc. (who have a huge, built in fan base without needing to try and grab attention) then shit-talking can make you stand out and bring in that attention. But if your players are kids who don’t know where to draw the line and have the potential to cause a huge PR shit-storm, that attention becomes a negative. [CS:GO, 2018]

In contrast, higher ego identity perceives that certain personal attributes could go against contextual norms. Professional players can develop villain personas – where their actions during tournaments are exaggerated and thespian compared to their behaviour out of the game. Here, fans talk about the enjoyment of seeing villain identities and that they provide entertainment and other impacts to the community:

Honestly if [professional RS:6 player] ever broke his whole demeanor [sic] would be ruined. It’s the fact that he literally never quits it and acts like a normal person. Like you know he’s not a bad dude or anything, and clearly behind the scenes he’s just another guy, but when the cameras on or there’s an audience dude is just on 100% deadpan shit talking with no limits. It’s amazing [RS:6, 2018].

Emotional intelligence

Trash talk literature has debated its function as a form of psychological advantage (Eveslage and Delaney 1998; Howe 2004; Johnson and Taylor 2020; Nakamura 2012). Emotional Intelligence in Chung and Rimal (2016) framework is defined as the mental ability to handle emotional information influenced by peers. It could be understood that a core individual attribute for trash talk is to prevent it overcoming and distracting the players’ performance or to use it as an advantage. Regarding testing mental commitment, one user stated, Taunting should be a legitimate strategy that targets the opponent’s mental weakness. That said, I fully expect pros to have the mental fortitude to ignore the taunting. [Overwatch, 2017]

Age

A common agreement among esport consumers is how the competitive scene attracts, not only a young audience, but also young professional talent. As such, consumers reflected on the age of players and how, these players although are adults, are still kids that average 19yo that aren’t experienced alot of emotional maturity that older traditional sport players have, [Overwatch, 2019].

Self efficacy

Chung and Rimal (2016) noted Self efficacy as someone’s confidence to exert personal control. Yet, consumers observed that the pressure and impulse could overwhelm a professional player, resulting in a need to, let off steam and trash talk towards an opponent and reduce their self efficacy. One consumer perceived:

It’s an incredibly high-pressure situation, these guys are pumping with adrenaline and this is how they let it off. When they are taunting the other team, they aren’t actually trying to insult them, it’s just how they vent their emotions [CS:GO, 2017]

This was further reiterated in other reddit discussions:

To be fair they all get caught up in the moment - most of the [Team 1] guys get on with and play with the [Team 2] guys weekly on stream/scrims etc, it’s not like they hate each other, they just have good banter in the heat of the moment [RS:6, 2017].

However, it was also noted that the impulse could be directed towards one’s team members in an effort to further increase performance:

I don’t even get how you can take it out of context, this is sooo clearly just motivational talk to hype your team up. But we also had Twitch Chat go crazy laughing and hating the Shock against the [Team 1] when [Player 1] said something like “We are so much better then [sic] them!”. I don’t get why some people just try their hardest to take it the worst way possible. [Overwatch, 2019]

Contextual attributes

External monitoring

As a professional environment, esports are governed through external monitoring, where tournament organisers and game developers can enforce rules and sanctions. Comparing esports to conventional sports, a consumer stated, I linked the nfl rules… taunting not allowed. I mean every league has rules like that but that doesnt [sic] stop the players from trying to gain every advantage they can over their opponent. [Overwatch, 2017]. In regard to the esports scene itself, a consumer noted that a professional players behaviour outside of the competitive scene is also observed by the community and officials:

I think being a pro player for a certain game requires you to behave well in that particular game, and everything which happens ingame and outside of it in its community is relevant to the pro player career. So in this case being toxic towards other players in R6 definitely warranted the attention it got. [RS:6, 2017]

Ambiguity

As a multicultural environment, esport consumers emphasised that cultural differences between players can impact their intentions to engage in trash talk. Esports is an international scene, and each of the chosen FPS communities compete across various regions and international tournaments. Culture clashes, and second English professional players could impact their willingness to participate in trash talk:

We’re also dealing with people who don’t speak English as a primary language so if their trash talk is good for their culture, it may sound ridiculous when they translate it to English… Maybe it’s a Cultural Thing, I’d say for Most people in Germany this behaviour appears to be waaay too aggressive. Never liked people who lost their Minds about a competition. Luckily for me, my those [sic] people hardly win anything because they can’t stay cool [CS:GO, 2017].

Interpersonal discussion and media exposure

Esport consumers can be aware of the interpersonal discussions established around trash talk. Yet, as with conventional sports, esports consumers can engage in harsh online practices towards professional players. Formations of online ‘witch hunts’ and the promotion of drama has previously been associated with acts that go against the social norms of esports (Carter and Gibbs 2013; Irwin and Naweed 2020). In this study, it is believed that their discussions were observed among professional players, which could prevent them from engaging in trash talk:

Definitely, love the “shittalking” (come on now, hardly shittalking, more like banter) from [Player 1], even though it backfires. But the way fans react because they have never done anything competitive in their life is probably why most people refrain from shittalking. [CS:GO, 2017]

Media exposure further aids in interpersonal discussion, where consumers immerse in digital environments and study the norms of given themes. In this case, it is the professional players who are the consumers, looking towards the discussions of the esport community to observe the perceived acceptability of trash talk.

It doesn’t matter if he thinks it’s not disrespectful. The perception by the others does. The way our society works is that the individual conforms to the society. If they do not conform, they get ostracized in one way or another. [Professional CS:GO player] may not mean anything bad by it, but his lack of self-awareness enables it to happen in the first place. It’s his flaw, not everyone else’s. [CS:GO, 2018]

Another user responded to this by stating that professional players should be able to express personal emotions in a tournament setting:

I am torn. On the one hand, I agree with you wholeheartedly. On the other, I think that within the realm of competition and sporting there is room for people to express themselves with raw emotion. The key is finding the balance – perhaps he needs to tone it down a bit. [CS:GO, 2018]

General discussion

This study aimed to investigate how communities react, judge and analyse acts of trash talk witnessed in esports. Through a conceptual framework by Chung and Rimal (2016), this study uncovered, not only how social norms on trash talk are observed, but also how esport communities judge and analyse in respect to underlying attributes which influence players behaviour. Based on these results, esports consumers generally believe that pro players, before trash talking, will evaluate the social norms and reflect on their moderating attributes to determine whether to engage in its practice. With this framework, the study findings proceed to evaluate how esport consumers analyse the relationship between core social norms (i.e. descriptive, subjective, and injunctive) and moderating attributes (i.e. behavioural, individual and contextual) in a single incident of trash talk. For example, a player who trash talks towards their opponent before a match opens up a discussion to assess its acceptability through analysing the social norms (i.e. its context/when it occurred) and the underlying salient attributes (i.e. the motive behind its use, the persona/individual factors of the players, cultural influences). Figure 2 summarises the results where social norms and moderating attributes influence potential reasons professional players will or will not engage in trash talk. Attributes formulated by Chung and Rimal (2016) conceptualised to how esport spectators observe and speculate the use of trash talk in FPS esports.

Figure 2. The attributes moderating trash talk in esports as viewed through Chung and Rimal (2016) framework. Attributes not discussed in this study are in grey.

This study proposes practical and theoretical contributions for investigating esport consumer behaviour. First, this study offers tangible insight how consumptive needs are fulfilled within esport communities. Research on esport consumer behaviour validates how fans require social needs to be satisfied (Rietz and Hallmann 2023; Jenny et al. 2018; Qian et al. 2022; Tang, Cooper, and Kucek 2021; Xiao 2020). While research has investigated the social atmospherics components at live esport events (Jang, Kim, and Byon 2020), this study exhibits how consumers utilise online forum discussions for engagement practices within their own communities. Esport organisations and tournament developers would benefit by exploring similar methods to encapsulate spectator needs to further understand how consumers perceive professional players behaviour (Naweed, Irwin, and Lastella 2020; Macey et al. 2022).

Through the lens of Chung and Rimal’s framework, this study has further opened a plethora of themes how spectators engage within the esport environment. Whilst this research focused on trash talk, it would be no surprise that these communities apply parallel evaluations to other, more imperative issues in esports. For instance, Johnson and Abarbanel (2022) recently observed how esport spectators perceive and discuss cheating in esports, noting the affiliation between written rules of its practice, the ethics behind its use and how fans personal experiences influence their perceptions of the act. Johnson and Abarbanel (2022) further concluded that investigating perspectives of cheating can become complex and alter upon various circumstances. This study proposes that frameworks such as Chung and Rimal (2016) are beneficial in discovering underlying aspects which influence perceptions of behaviour within the esports ecosystem. As new esport scenes are constantly developing, seeing how newcomer communities formulate social norms and discuss moderating attributes and behaviour within these games merit examination.

Limitations and Future research directions

Online forum methodologies allow researchers to gain rich and diverse themes in a given area of research, but they are not without limitation. First, esport consumers did not deliberate other moderating attributes identified in Chung and Rimal (2016) framework. For instance, Tendency to engage in social comparison is an individual attribute which reflects how, ‘people who socially comparing themselves with their peers are more strongly influenced by descriptive norms’ (Chung and Rimal 2016, 17). A reason for this is because this study aimed to investigate these attributes from a consumer perspective, and not from other prominent figures within the professional scene, including professional players, coaches, and tournament developers. Future research should aim at uncovering missing attributes from these other valuable industry perspectives to gain further insight towards the behaviours and perceptions towards trash talk.

Secondly, previous research on trash talk provides implicit themes that, whilst unseen in this study, would be applicable in this framework. For example, in reflection of the functionality behind trash talk, Kershnar (2015) observes that trash talk can also occur towards a disliked opponent; harming them as a person with no motive reflecting the goal of the game. This is plausible as this study did not include professional player insights on their own specific motives and perspectives of trash talk, complete with their own underlying attributes.

A third limitation of this study is that Chung and Rimal (2016) framework do not include further socio-cultural factors previously addressed in trash talk literature. Themes on race, sex and gender have been used to target minoritized groups in both casual video gaming (Cook et al. 2019; Cote 2017; Nakamura 2012; Ortiz 2019b) and conventional sports (Kilvington and Price 2019; Lawless and Magrath 2021; Long and McNamee 2004; Simons 2003). As representation of marginalized groups is becoming a focus in esports (Darvin, Vooris, and Mahoney 2020; Witkowski 2018), future research should explore how trash talk and socio-cultural components interrelate with each other within the professional environment.

Lastly, though this method allowed us to gain a grasp how esport communities react to trash talk, it is unknown whether these views reflect the majority of spectators and fans in these esports scenes (Sparrow et al. 2020). This may be problematic with the given respondent bias evident in online forums, where the consensus of discussion is often weighted towards agreement (Alsinet et al. 2018). Other qualitative and quantitative approaches could be beneficial in addressing this gap.

Conclusion

Strong fandoms and communities have been established in esports, where supporters develop emotional and consumptive ties to their chosen esport scene. The findings of this study identified how esport consumers use online forums to observe, analyse and debate how professional players engage in trash talk. Whilst esport consumers identify the descriptive, injunctive, and subjective social norms of the practice of trash talk; they also recognise how moderating behavioural, individual, and contextual attributes influence players behaviour. In turn, esport communities combine these factors to discuss the implications and its acceptability. It is hoped that future research will extend and broaden these findings to uncover further underlying attributes which influence trash talk.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest are reported by the authors.