To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships

Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships Emese Domahidi a,⇑, Ruth Festl b, Thorsten Quandt a a b

Universität Münster, Bispinghof 9-14, 48143 Münster, Germany Universität Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 20 March 2014 Keywords: Social online gaming Social embeddedness Friendships Social gaming motives Modality switching

a b s t r a c t Social online games are a mass phenomenon and, for most of the users, a social activity. Even though there are numerous studies on social online games they do not explicitly investigate the offline contacts of the gamers, which play a significant role for their social embeddedness. Regarding the online gamingrelated contacts possible strong ties such as friendship relationships are often neglected. Additionally modality switching between the two spheres is not further investigated. In this paper, we strive to extend the research on the interrelation of social game use and the social embeddedness of social online gamers, as well as modality switching between the online and offline context. In doing so we provide new insights into the emergence and quality of gaming-related relationships. We collected information on everyday life as well as on gaming-related friendships from a representative sample of 2213 gamers and 287 non-gamers in Germany. Our results show that social online gamers do not differ significantly from other gamers or non-gamers regarding the number of their good friends. However, we found a significant impact of social online gaming frequency on the probability of meeting exclusively online friends. Different social motives played an important role for modality switching processes. Players with a pronounced motive to gain social capital and to play in a team had the highest probability to transform their social relations from online to offline context. We found that social online gamers are well integrated and use the game to spend time with old friends—and to recruit new ones. Our results suggest that gaming-related ties might be very useful: especially modality switching between the two spheres might lead to strong ties and accordingly to additional bonding social capital. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Social online games and users’ sociability Fischer (1982a, p. XIII) stated that ‘‘Few ideas saturate Western thought as does the conviction that modern life has destroyed ‘community’.’’1 It is a commonplace idea that our happiness for the most part depends on our social contacts such as friends and family (Smith & Mackie, 2007). Research has shown that friendships not only increase psychosocial well-being (Demir & Weitekamp, 2007; Siu & Phillips, 2002) but also help prevent depression (La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003) and are essential to our lives and mental health. Recently, the impact of computer-mediated communication (CMC), especially digital games, on social interactions has become an issue of concern ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0)251 83 22406. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Domahidi), ruth. [email protected] (R. Festl), [email protected] (T. Quandt). 1 Fischer’s diagnosis refers to the increasing emergence of cities in the United States and the associated concerns about the possible social isolation of the urban dweller. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023 0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

for the public in modern societies. Digital games are a mass phenomenon (Lenhart, Jones, & Macgill, 2008), and most digital game users are engaged in social gaming (Lenhart et al., 2007). Online games have been the focus of research on the social consequences of game use (e.g. Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Ducheneaut, Yee, Nickell, & Moore, 2006; Klimmt & Hartmann, 2008; Trepte, Reinecke, & Juechems, 2012; Williams et al., 2006) because of their possibly high impact on gamers’ sociability. On the one hand, CMC environments provide users with the opportunity to meet other users and interact with them. Because of their peculiarities (e.g. visual anonymity, asynchronity), they could also provide additional chances to socialize, especially for socially problematic populations (Desjarlais & Willoughby, 2010; Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2013; Bessiere, Pressman, Kiesler, & Kraut, 2010). On the other hand, relationships built through online media are seen as less valuable because they do not provide bonding, but instead help allocate mostly bridging social capital (Putnam, 2001; Williams, 2006). This difference in the value of online and offline ties makes the disproportionate focus on solely gaming-related ties disadvantageous. In the context of gaming

108

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

addiction research, social isolation is mentioned as a possible consequence of frequent online gaming (Domahidi & Quandt, 2014; Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Wan & Chiou, 2006). Online gamers are thought to be particularly vulnerable to this loss of bonding social capital because they might focus on exclusively online friendships and thus might be affected by reduced psychosocial well-being. Given the increasing importance of gaming and the related lingering fears, it is crucial to learn more about the social embeddedness (Barrera, 1986) of gamers. However, research on social online games and friendships has some serious limitations. First, studies often do not explicitly investigate the gamers’ offline contacts, which play a significant role in their social embeddedness. A small but notable body of research on the transformation of social relations from a gaming to a real-world context (e.g. Trepte et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2006) or vice versa (Shen & Williams, 2011) suggests that this might help individuals accumulate social support. Second, researchers have emphasized that playing alone cannot explain the social outcomes of gaming (Collins & Freeman, 2013), and that social motivations might play an important role in explaining gaming-related sociability (Shen & Williams, 2011). Third, most studies focus on one particular online game and not on social online gaming as a general phenomenon (e.g. Williams et al., 2006). Finally, social online games, like other CMC, are mostly assumed to support only the emergence of weak ties (Ducheneaut et al., 2006), while possibly strong ties such as friendship are often neglected. To fill this academic void, we investigated the relationship between social online gamers’ gaming involvement, social motives, and gaming-related friendships. Our study relied on a large representative sample of computer and console gamers in Germany.

1.1. Friendships and computer-mediated communication Granovetter (1973) mentioned the importance of weak ties. However, according to Fischer (1982a, 1982b), close ties such as friendships are more strongly associated with personal well-being and social support. Social psychology examines close relationships intensely because they ‘‘make us healthy as well as happy’’ (Smith & Mackie, 2007, p. 393). Social relationships are highly important to persons, primarily because they serve as sources of rewarding interactions and social support. Barrera (1986) described three broader concepts of social support in the literature: social embeddedness, perceived social support, and enacted social support. Research on enacted social support examines the actions that individuals perform when they maintain social support from others. Research on perceived social support investigates whether individuals feel integrated and connected to others. Research on social embeddedness, in contrast, quantifies the social relationships of individuals. It is assumed that having social relationships already implies the possibility of using them as sources of social support. This seems to be important, as actors’ ‘‘attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations’’ (Granovetter, 1985, p. 487). Therefore, it is necessary to consider the social environment and not just the isolated individual. Stegbauer (2008) revealed that friendships are conceived inconsistently and lack a shared definition in the scientific literature. According to Smith and Mackie (2007, p. 405), ‘‘Researchers define a close relationship not in terms of positive feelings, but as a connection involving strong and frequent interdependence in different areas of life.’’ Additionally, the meaning of ‘‘friendship’’ to interviewees is ambiguous. Different people might understand and characterize the term ‘‘friendship’’ differently and unsystematically use it as a category for non-kin and long-term associations, as well as their acquaintances (Fischer, 1982b). Despite this imprecision,

most studies do not provide a definition of friendship (e.g. Wang & Wellman, 2010), but ask only for the number of (close) friends. In communication research, close relations are analyzed in connection with personal well-being, social capital, and social support. With the success of the Internet, and lately of the Social Web, recipients spend more time online and interact more intensively with others via the computer. Research has examined whether and how this affects the users’ social relationships. Early studies often anticipated a negative change of social ties (e.g. Kraut et al., 1998). Relationships based on typical contact areas such as an individual’s residence, working place, and origin were expected to diminish or completely disappear (e.g. Stegbauer, 2008). Empirical findings are heterogeneous, either supporting the negative or positive effects of Internet use on social life (for an overview, see Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, 2001; Nie & Hillygus, 2002; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). Stressing the importance of physical proximity and the tendency to build relationships with persons nearby, Kraut et al. (1998) found that Internet usage has negative consequences on social involvement and psychological well-being. Other studies did not find detrimental effects of the Internet on the social embeddedness of its users (e.g. Hampton & Wellman, 1999; Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2011). Some even found that heavy users tend to have more friends, both online and offline (Peter, Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2005; Wang & Wellman, 2010). Some studies have revealed that online and offline relationships are different in terms of their observed quality. According to Mesch and Talmud (2006), the former are perceived as less close and merely auxiliary relationships. In a pioneer study, Walther (1992) argued that online communication, and therefore online relationships, can meet the same needs as face-to-face communication over time when people use nonverbal cues to communicate. Follow-up studies (e.g. Chan & Cheng, 2004) confirmed that the differences between online and offline friendship quality diminished over time. Current research has defined new concepts to describe the role of new and old media in communication with close relationships. Offline and online contacts are linked through modality switching, which is ‘‘the shifting of interactions from one communication channel to another’’ (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007, p. 288). The conceptually related media multiplexity theory (Haythornthwaite, 2005) suggests that strong ties rely on the use of different media for relationship maintenance, while weak ties are often cultivated through a single medium. Modality switching processes therefore might lead to strong ties and sources of rewarding interactions such as social support. However, communication with multiplex media can also be problematic because of different concepts of self-disclosure in the online and offline environment (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). It can offer chances (in the early stage) and risks (in the late stage) for personal relationships. Overall, research has found that CMC plays an important role in building and maintaining relationships. Most studies did not find detrimental effects of the Internet on the social embeddedness of its users. On the contrary, communication through multiplex media can actually help build strong relationships. 1.2. Friendships and social online games Digital games are part of the discussion concerning CMC and social relations. In particular, online games have been blamed for a decrease in social relationships, mainly in the context of gaming addiction research (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Wan & Chiou, 2006). However, studies have also shown that games are mainly a joint activity for an increasing number of people (Lenhart et al., 2007). When people share leisure time activities, they build and maintain social relationships such as friendships (Feld & Carter, 1998). For example, Schaefer, Simpkins, Vest, and Price (2011) found that

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

activity settings play a key role in adolescents’ friendships by supporting existing ties and the development of new friendships. Social online gaming could accordingly strengthen existing friendship ties and create new ones by providing a shared focus of activity (Domahidi, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2013). Research has shown that it is important to distinguish between different gaming-related relationships. Using the Internet to meet new people was found to be detrimental to players’ sociability, while communicating with friends and family had slightly positive effects on psychosocial outcomes (Shen & Williams, 2011). Scholars investigating the characteristics of in-game relationships found empirical evidence that playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) does not really connect players to one another. In their analysis of social interactions in World of Warcraft (WoW), Ducheneaut et al. (2006) stated that ‘‘playing the game is therefore like being alone together’—surrounded by others, but not necessarily actively interacting with them’’ (p. 9). The other players seem to serve as an audience, not as friends. The structures of guilds—associations of players—are characterized by low density; players mostly do not build strong gaming ties or friendships with other guild members. Modality switching between the online and offline contexts is important because media multiplexity (Haythornthwaite, 2005) of ties can lead to close relationships and therefore to increased social support. Klimmt and Hartmann (2008) emphasized that interplayer communication has an impact on video game enjoyment and on the formation of social relationships beyond the actual game contexts. Friendship between gamers occurred if they met in the game on a more or less regular basis. The authors found that inner-group communication had the largest potential to bind gamers together and to ‘‘facilitate a transformation of online relationships into offline relationships’’ (Klimmt & Hartmann, 2008, p. 325). Many studies dealing with the transformation of in-game relationships assumed a positive impact of gaming on users’ offline social lives. They further emphasized that online gaming can lead to strong ties and contact with partners who serve as possible sources of rewarding interactions such as social support (Cole & Griffiths, 2007). In particular, playing in a guild or being a member of an e-sports clan was beneficial to players’ social embeddedness. Williams et al. (2006) found that players use WoW and the guild structure not only to maintain existing ties, but also to form new social contacts and to extend their existing networks. Trepte et al. (2012) also stated that ‘‘gaming in clans may foster the gamers’ offline contacts to other clan members, and may thus provide them with additional social support’’ (p. 837). Their study showed that gamers might gain more social capital if they do not focus on competition and engage more strongly in team issues. Overall, research on modality switching has confirmed that social online gaming could play a significant role in building relationships and enhancing social support (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Trepte et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2006). 1.3. Social motives and social online games Different authors (Collins & Freeman, 2013; Zhong, 2011) have stressed that playing alone does not explain the social outcomes of gaming, and that social motives might be important (Shen & Williams, 2011) in explaining differences between users. Most social online games support communication and cooperation between players through social features, as certain tasks require interactions based on cooperation or competition among the gamers. Additionally, players of digital games perceive their hobby as an opportunity for sociability (Lenhart et al., 2007). The uses and gratifications paradigm assumes an active audience that makes decisions about what media to use based on expected gratifications (Blumler & Katz, 1974). This paradigm

109

was modified as new media such as the Internet, social networking sites, and online gaming emerged. Studies have analyzed different reasons for Internet and social media use (Chen, 2011; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Joinson, 2008; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000) and have found social motives to be important in understanding differences between users. Playing in a team and the search for social capital or competition with others emerged as important reasons for playing digital games (Yee, 2006). Research on gaming motives offers various player typologies and different motivation scales for specific groups and genres, as well as more general lists of motives mainly tested in exploratory studies. In general, the research literature provides social, ego-centered, and content-related motives for playing digital games (Fritz, 2004; Olson, 2010; Raney, Smith, & Baker, 2006). According to a representative study (Scharkow, Festl, Vogelgesang, & Quandt, 2012), content-related and social motives have the largest impact on gamers. Additionally, social motives have been identified as important predictors of playing time as well as gender- and agebased playing differences (De Schutter, 2010; Jansz & Tanis, 2007; Sherry, Lucas, Greenberg, & Lachlan, 2006). These findings highlight the need for scholars to differentiate between motivations and activities instead of just focusing on users’ playing time. As Shen and Williams (2011, p. 125) stated, ‘‘Clearly, as every single player is able to create unique experiences within the same MMO, it is essential to consider the multitude of motivations and activities and their respective impact, rather than to assume that game play is a homogeneous causal agent.’’ In a similar vein, Williams, Yee, and Caplan (2008) argued that social motivations and achievement nearly equally explained playing time among users of MMORPGs. These differences in the use of digital games can affect the formation of online friendships as well as the integration of online friends into the offline world and vice versa. 2. Research interest The relationship between social motives, exposure, and actual gaming-related social relations remains an academic void. In addition, findings on gaming and sociability are somewhat conflicting. Recent studies have shown that gaming is not a lonesome hobby, but often a shared activity for an increasing number of people (Lenhart et al., 2007, 2008). The use of digital games can provide additional options to expand the users’ social network in online and offline contexts (e.g. Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Trepte et al., 2012). Other studies have confirmed fears that gamers could neglect their real-life friendships, mainly if they play too much (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Wan & Chiou, 2006). Following these findings, we formulated our first research question: RQ1: How are social online gamers socially embedded, as indicated by their number of general friends? Scholars have pointed out that gaming can mean very different activities to different people, resulting in different social outcomes (Zhong, 2011). Thus, it is crucial not only to perceive gaming as a monolithic activity, but also to differentiate between different kinds of gamers. Games could be a focus of activity that could provide new relationships and strengthen old ones (Feld & Carter, 1998). Therefore, in this paper, we focus on persons who use digital games in an online context, where they have the option to meet new social contacts. According to Cole and Griffiths (2007) and Trepte et al. (2012), playing online in a team context strengthens existing ties and provides additional options for social relationships, whereas playing alone obviously does not provide the opportunity to meet new people. We therefore expect social online gamers to have even more friends independent of the context (online or offline):

110

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

H1a: Social online gamers have more friends than non-social online gamers and non-gamers. Regarding the exposure to social online games, the literature again contains some contradictory findings. An excessive use of digital games is feared to restrict gamers’ social contacts to this form of leisure activity and lead to general social isolation in the long term (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Wan & Chiou, 2006). In contrast, other studies have found that frequent media use and time spent on the Internet (Wang & Wellman, 2010) and on social online games (Zhong, 2011) are positive predictors of social embeddedness in terms of general friendships. Additionally, a study by Klimmt and Hartmann (2008) revealed that inner-group communication based on regular gaming interaction facilitates the transformation of online contacts in the offline world. Therefore, we expect that more frequent use of social online games will lead to increased general social embeddedness: H1b: Social online gamers who play more frequently have more friends than casual social online gamers. Social online gamers play digital games in a social context via the Internet together with other co-players. They can meet new friends in the game, get to know them outside of the game, or bring their offline friends into the game (Klimmt & Hartmann, 2008). For the second research question, we specifically focus on these in-game relationships as well as modality switching processes between online and offline contexts, which might lead to strong and multiplex ties (see Ramirez & Wang, 2008; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). Previous studies have shown that social motivations are central elements when analyzing the social outcomes of gaming (see Shen & Williams, 2011; Williams et al., 2008). We therefore focus on these aspects and try to explore which motivations might lead to which kind of social embeddedness in the gaming context: RQ2: How are different groups of social online gamers socially embedded, as indicated by their probability of making online friends and their modality switching processes between the online and offline worlds? Again, we assume that social online gamers who play more frequently tend to build more online friendships because they share an important focus of activity on a regular basis (Wang & Wellman, 2010; Zhong, 2011). Moreover, spending a lot of time on social online games increases the likelihood that friends originally known from an offline context are also integrated into the game, as activity settings support multiplex ties (Feld & Carter, 1998). Following Klimmt and Hartmann (2008), transformation processes from the game to the offline world can also be reinforced, as inner-group communication increases with regular, frequent gaming interaction. H2a: Social online gamers who play more frequently have a higher probability of making online friends and performing modality switching between online and offline contexts. Regarding the social motives to play, we expected different directions of influence. The use of social online games for users’ social embeddedness is assumed to be more prominent among gamers who want to socialize online (Paul, Jensen, Wong, & Khong, 2008). Bonding social capital is generally understood as a concept to describe strong ties such as friends or family, and is associated with psychological well-being. Therefore, it seems to be the most important social relationship for individuals (Barrera, 1986; Putnam, 2001; Williams, 2006). As modality switching can lead to stronger ties (Haythornthwaite, 2005) and more social capital, we expect that social online gamers with pronounced motives to gain social capital have more online friends and perform more modality switching from online to offline contexts:

H2b: Social online gamers with a pronounced motive to gain social capital through gaming have a higher probability of making online friends and performing modality switching from online to offline contexts. Accordingly, the use of digital games for teamplay is also assumed to be more prominent among social online gamers who find new friends online. Social capital research emphasizes the importance of and relationship between teamplay and multiplex ties for individuals (Putnam, 2001). In contrast to the former, social online gamers with pronounced motives for teamplay are thought to have more online friends and to perform more modality switching from offline to online contexts. Thus, we expect them to enjoy playing with their offline friends in a team context and to use the game as a shared focus of activity (Feld & Carter, 1998): H2c: Social online gamers with a pronounced motive for teamplay have a higher probability of making online friends and performing modality switching from offline to online contexts. Earlier research has shown that competition might cause problems in friendships (Schneider, Woodburn, del Toro, & Udvari, 2005), and that competition and social capital are two opposing things (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). Therefore, a pronounced motivation to compete with others may cause the contrary effect, as competition requires an opponent but not necessarily a friend: H2d: Social online gamers with a pronounced motive to compete with others have a lower probability of making online friends and performing modality switching between online and offline contexts.

3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure The present study relied on a large representative sample of computer and console gamers in Germany. Sampling and recruiting were conducted using a two-stage approach. First, we asked a representative sample of 50,000 persons aged 14 and above about their basic gaming behavior in an omnibus telephone survey. The sample was drawn using a standard Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) sampling procedure and had an average daily response rate of 55%. About 25% (N = 12,587) of the respondents were identified as playing digital games at least occasionally From this first sample, we recruited a stratified random sample of 2500 participants for a second, more comprehensive telephone interview. In this subsample, gamers (N = 2213) were oversampled and complemented by a smaller control group of 287 non-gamers. With an average age of 41.5 years, the gamers were younger than the non-gamers (50.7 years, t = 8.4, p < .01) and were more often male (56% vs. 42% among the non-gamers, t = 4.6, p < .01). Moreover, they were more media literate and spent an average of more than 100 min/day using the Internet for private reasons, compared to 70 min/day among the non-gamers (t = 4.7, p < .01). The gamers played digital games for nearly 50 min/day. Within the gamer subsample, we oversampled gamers who played social online games at least occasionally with other co-players (39.1%). These social online gamers were mostly male (71.8%) and considerably younger (M = 35.1 years) than the typical German player. They spent a lot of time on social online gaming (M = 54.6 min/day) and played digital games in general more frequently (M = 79.1 min/day). The data were collected in March and April 2012 by a professional market research institute in Germany. The participants were not compensated.

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

3.2. Measures To obtain reliable measures while minimizing respondent burden in the telephone interviews, we employed already introduced short scales for many constructs as a compromise between using the full versions and single items. All scales were pretested in an online survey among university students. 3.2.1. Social embeddedness The social embeddedness of the participants was measured using friendship questions. We were interested in the numeric aspect of these relations, as this is used in the literature as an indicator of a person’s social embeddedness (e.g. Burt, 1987; Feld, 1991; Wang & Wellman, 2010). We first asked the participants about their general number of friends (1). The gaming-related friendship questions (2–4) were adapted from the study of Wang and Wellman (2010), who primarily dealt with friendships in a general Internet context. (Table 1) Then, combining questions 2 and 3, we calculated the number of friends that a person got to know in the context of social online gaming; these were labeled as ‘‘online friends.’’ Question 1 was answered by all participants, while questions 2–4 were answered only by social online gamers. 3.2.2. Social online gaming frequency Social online gaming frequency was measured in minutes per day. The participants provided information about their general gaming frequency, as well as the average duration of a typical social online gaming session. The answers were standardized in minutes per day. Even though self-reports on time spent on media use have been found to be only moderately correlated with the actual time spent on media use (e.g. Burke, Marlow, & Lento, 2010), we argue that in surveys, this measure still gives valuable hints about the perceived differences between various media users. 3.2.3. Social gaming motives As gaming often involves computer-controlled opponents and co-players, as well as takes place in interaction with real human beings (e.g. in multiplayer games), the social character of this form of media must be considered when analyzing general and gamebased friendships. Although some well-tested gaming motivation scales exist (e.g. Yee, 2006), the present study was part of a larger gaming project that also included the design of a new comprehensive gaming motivation scale. For the present study, we adapted three subscales from this instrument dealing with the social appeal of gaming, each measured by two items indicating social-based reasons for the use of digital games (see Table 2). 3.2.4. Control variables Within the analyses, we controlled for socio-demographic variables such as age and gender, as these are assumed to generally influence individuals’ number of friends (e.g. Fischer, 1982a, 1982b; Fischer & Oliker, 1983; Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985). In research about CMC and the sociability of individuals, these variables were found to be significant predictors of different forms of social capital (e.g. Burke, Kraut, & Marlow, 2011) and differences in motivations to play (Yee, 2006). To avoid confounding age- and gender-

111

based differences between participants with media effects, we decided to control for these variables. 3.3. Data analysis In some cases, participants provided friendship information that significantly strayed from the average value; thus, an outlier control was necessary. For the friendship question, we analyzed the boxplots of the variables and eliminated all extreme values whose distance from the upper percentile was more than three times the interquartile range (Q3 + IQR  3) (Tukey, 1977). Following this approach, we deleted 4.1% of the cases for the general friendship question. We used linear regression analysis for the numerical indicator ‘‘number of general friends’’ and logistic regression analyses for the gaming-related friendship indicators. For all findings, significant results are indicated as follows: p < .05 = , p < .01 = . 4. Results 4.1. Social online gamers’ friendship relations The social online gamers reported an average of 6.3 close friends (SD = 5.3). Slightly more than half (55.5%) of the social online gamers reported that they had already gotten to know a friend while engaging in online game play. Those who had already made an online friend reported an average of nearly 10 online friends. Furthermore, 60% of the social online gamers had already met an online friend personally, and 73.8% had played with friends they know from outside the gaming context. Regarding the transformation processes between the online and the offline world, more online friends (an average of eight) stayed within the virtual world, while an average of three of these friends were integrated into the offline world. Social online gamers integrated an average of four offline friends into the virtual world (see Table 3). 4.2. General social embeddedness of social online gamers To answer our first research question, we analyzed in more detail the social online gamers’ general social embeddedness that was not restricted to the game world. Compared to social online gamers, non-gamers (M = 5.2, SD = 4.9) and gamers who do not play social online games (M = 5.2, SD = 4.7) had slightly fewer good friends. However, when controlling for age and gender, we could not identify a gaming effect. Social online gamers did not have significantly more good friends than other gamers or non-gamers, rejecting our first hypothesis (H1a). In contrast, male and younger participants showed a higher level of general social embeddedness, as indicated by their number of friends (Table 4). Nonetheless, only a small proportion of variance (10%) could be explained by the socio-demographics. Our second hypothesis (H1b) assumes that an intensive use of social online games would be associated with more social embeddedness, as indicated by the number of general friends. In the next step, we focused on the sample of social online gamers (N = 849) and analyzed the influence of game use frequency on social embeddedness. Again, we found a higher level of general

Table 1 General and gaming-related friendship generators. 1. 2. 3. 4.

How many good friends do you have? (Friends) How many friends you got to know when playing online, that you have not met personally? (Online friends, not met personally) How many friends you got to know when playing online, that you have also met personally? (Online friends, also met personally) How many friends from your non-medial life (that means friends that you know from everyday life, and not from the internet), you also meet online to play digital games? (Friends, also play online games with)

112

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

Table 2 Descriptive specification of the social gaming motives. Dimension

Items

M

SD

Cronbach’s alpha

Teamplay

‘‘I use computer and video games. . . to play with others’’ to play with others together in a team’’

3.0 2.6

1.6 1.5

.86

Social capital

to find new friends’’ to get to know other players’’

1.4 1.6

0.8 1.0

.75

Competitiveness

to defeat my co-players’’ to compare my performance with others’’

2.1 2.1

1.3 1.2

.81

Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘1 = totally disagree’’ to ‘‘5 = totally agree’’.

Table 3 Descriptive specification of the social embeddedness of social online gamers.

1. General friends Good friends 2. Gaming-related friends Online friends . . .not met personally . . .also met personally Friends, also play online games

Percentage of agreement

Number of friends

%

Mean

Standard deviation

96.9

6.3

5.3

55.5 85.5 60.6 73.8

9.6 7.7 2.7 4.4

8.6 8.1 3.1 3.1

N = 849; a = mentioned at least one person for the described social relationship.

Table 4 Explaining the general social embeddedness of social online gamers. Number of friends Model 1 All participants (N = 2500)

Intercept Age Female Gaming Social online gaming

R2 Model 2 Social online gamers (N = 849) R2

10.35 .09 1.10 .39 .17 .10

Intercept Age Female Social online gaming frequency

11.32 .13 1.23 .00 .14

Note: Multiple linear regression analyses were calculated; for both models the unstandardized beta coefficients are indicated. Significant results are indicated as follows: p < = .05, p < = .01.

embeddedness in younger and male social online gamers, whereas social online gaming frequency did not affect gamers’ general friendships (see Table 3). Therefore, we had to reject our second hypothesis (H1b), since social online gamers who play more frequently do not have more friends.

4.3. Gaming-related social embeddedness of social online gamers An analysis of the general friendships of different groups of social online gamers revealed that the use of social online games does not provide additional general social capital for its users. However, the focus should not be on the numerical aspect of friendships, but on the reasons that social online gamers make online friends and integrate (or do not integrate) them into their offline lives. As there is some variance within these variables (see Table 3), this approach seems to be more promising than the mere numerical component. When testing hypotheses H2a–H2d, age and gender were controlled, as these variables are known to influence a person’s social embeddedness (e.g. Fischer, 1982a, 1982b; Fischer & Oliker, 1983;

Fox et al., 1985). The number of good friends was also included to control for the general level of a person’s social capital. Following hypothesis H2a, a higher social online gaming frequency was expected to be associated with an increased probability of making online friends and transforming social contacts from the online to the offline world and vice versa. The results suggest that an intensive use of social online games increases the probability of getting to know online friends who remain in the online context (Exp[B] = 1.02) (see Table 5). In contrast, the probabilities of making online friends and performing the transformation processes were not influenced by the length of time the medium was used. Hypotheses H2b–H2d refer to the social motives and analyze how different dimensions affect the gaming-related social embeddedness of the social online gamers. A pronounced motive for winning social capital through gaming was predicted to be associated with more online friends and modality switching from online to offline contexts. Hypothesis H2b was confirmed, as a higher approval of this dimension enhanced not only the probability of getting to know friends while playing (Exp[B] = 2.01), but also the probability of meeting these friends in a non-gaming context (Exp[B] = 1.29). A pronounced motive for teamplay was also hypothesized to be associated with a higher probability of making online friends and transforming friends originally known from the offline context into the virtual world (H2c). This could only be partly confirmed, as a higher agreement with the teamplay dimension did not increase the probability of making online friends, but transformed the friendships in both directions. Besides the expected integration of offline friends into the virtual world (Exp[B] = 1.35), social online gamers who like to play in a team also met more often with friends in real life that they originally knew from the gaming world (Exp[B] = 1.40). Finally, it was predicted that social online gamers with a pronounced motive to compete with others would have a lower probability of making online friends and performing modality switching, as they do not necessarily need (new) friends to compete with (H2d). This hypothesis was not confirmed, as the motive to compete did not affect the probability of making online friends

113

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115 Table 5 Explaining the gaming-related social embeddedness of social online gamers.

Age Female Number of good friends Social online gaming freq. Social capital Teamplay Competitiveness R2

Online friends EXP[B]

. . .not met personally EXP[B]

. . .also met personally EXP[B]

Friends, also play online games EXP[B]

1.00 .95 1.00 1.00 2.01 1.16 .94

1.03 1.85 1.01 1.02 1.22 .94 .99

.99 .91 1.03 1.00 1.29 1.40 .84

.96 .84 1.08 1.00 .86 1.35 1.13

.16

.14

.09

.20

Note: Multiple logistic regression analyses were calculated; odd ratios and Nagelkerkes R2 are indicated. Significant results are indicated as follows: p < = .05,

or switching the social contacts between the online and the offline context. The control variables, namely age and the number of good friends, affected the probability of playing online games with friends from the offline context. In particular, this kind of modality switching was performed by younger social online gamers (Exp[B] = 0.96) with a higher number of general friends (Exp[B] = 1.08). Taken together, 9–20% of gaming-related social embeddedness could be explained by the control variables, the frequency of game use, and the social motives to play social online games.



p < = .01.

According to the media multiplexity theory (Haythornthwaite, 2005), these transformed friendships are close relationships and could help accumulate even the most valuable bonding social capital. For game designers, this could be an important tip when developing games to ease social play among users. Game designers should focus on teamplay settings because, according to our results, motivations for teamplay have a significant relationship with building strong multiplex ties. Easing these modality switching processes through the game mechanics and offline events2 could be a promising approach to build strong relationships among gamers.

5. Discussion 5.1. Limitations Our results show no significant differences between the number of general friends of social online gamers, non-social online gamers, and non-gamers. This contradicts the fears that gaming in general and social online gaming in particular have a negative impact on gamers’ general social embeddedness (Kraut et al., 1998). These findings are in line with existing research outlining that playing time alone does not explain the sociability of gamers (Collins & Freeman, 2013). However, our results indicated a higher level of general embeddedness in younger and male social online gamers, a population that has been thought to be particularly vulnerable to the negative aspects of gaming (e.g. Griffiths, Davies, & Chappell, 2004). Our respondents were well embedded, regardless of their gaming frequency or the gaming form. Gaming therefore does not seem to substitute for real-life contacts and does not lead to social isolation. We found a significant effect of social online gaming frequency on the probability of meeting friends online. In contrast, playing frequency did not affect the integration of these online friends into real life or the integration of offline friends into the game. In line with existing studies (Shen & Williams, 2011), we found that social motivations are central elements when analyzing the social outcome of gaming. Social motives play an important role in these modality switching processes (i.e. integrating online friends into the offline context and vice versa). Online gamers with a pronounced motive of searching for social capital and teamplay had a higher probability of meeting originally online friends personally. These results are particularly meaningful in light of the possibilities of CMC for socially inept populations; CMC could help socialize the anxious (Desjarlais & Willoughby, 2010) or the socially unskilled (Kowert & Oldmeadow, 2013). Social online gaming could be a good opportunity, especially for these populations, to meet new online friends and turn them into offline friends, should they wish to do so. The probability of integrating offline friends into the game was higher among social online gamers who searched for teamplay. Thus, gaming provides an additional opportunity to spend time with offline friends and to strengthen friendship ties.

While the current study offers surprising insights into the social side of gaming and the associations between social motives and gaming-related friendships, several limitations must be considered. First, the data are cross-sectional; thus, any inference of causation must be tentative. Second, the survey was based on the respondents’ self-reports and could therefore be problematic. Social desirability might have caused them to report lower gaming frequency. Finally, we did not cover the composition of the gamers’ friendship circles or the quality of these relationships. Future studies should investigate the composition of the social circles; social network analysis seems to be an appropriate method for this. In our study, we focused on social online gamers; however, not everyone plays socially, and gaming activities have significant nuances that may lead to different outcomes. Future studies should explore more detailed, specific social online gaming activities, as well as the games played and their impact on gamers’ social embeddedness.

5.2. Conclusion The methodology and findings of this study offer some insights into the interplay between in-game and out-of-the-game social experiences. Investigating general and gaming-related social contacts, we found that CMC did not have negative effects on the social embeddedness of our respondents. Social online gamers meet new online friends and include their offline friends in the game world. This modality switching might lead to strong ties and consequently to additional bonding social capital. Social online games might be advantageous for social online gamers, at least for those who seek sociability. 2 There are already social online games that focus on game mechanics and player relationships both online and offline. One recent example is Ingress, a geo-locationbased game from Google.

114

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115

Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007– 2013) under Grant Agreement No. 240864 (SOFOGA). References Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.55.090902.141922. Barrera, M. Jr., (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413–445. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00922627. Bessiere, K., Pressman, S., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Effects of Internet use on health and depression: A longitudinal study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1149. Blumler, J., & Katz, E. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 571–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979023. Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social wellbeing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1909–1912). New York, NY: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 1753326.1753613. Burt, R. S. (1987). A note on strangers, friends and happiness. Social Networks, 9(4), 311–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(87)90002-5. Chan, D. K.-S., & Cheng, G. H.-L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 305–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407504042834. Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 755–762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023. Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(4), 575–583. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9988. Collins, E., & Freeman, J. (2013). Do problematic and non-problematic video game players differ in extraversion, trait empathy, social capital and prosocial tendencies? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1933–1940. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.002. De Schutter, B. (2010). Never too old to play: The appeal of digital games to an older audience. Games and Culture, 6(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1555412010364978. Demir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). I am so happy ‘cause today I found my friend: Friendship and personality as predictors of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(2), 181–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9012-7. Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys and girls’ computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for the social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 896–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2010.02.004. Domahidi, E., & Quandt, T. (2014). ‘‘And all of a sudden my life was gone. . .’’: A biographical analysis of highly engaged adult gamers. New Media & Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521791 [Epub ahead of print]. Domahidi, E., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Real friends and virtual life? Computer games as foci of activity for social community building. In P. Moy (Ed.), Communication and Community (pp. 149–169). New York: Hampton Press. Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. J. (2006). ‘Alone together?’: Exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. In E. Cutrell, R. Grinter, R. Jeffries, G. Olsen, & T. Rodden (Eds.), Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 407–416). New York, NY: ACM. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124834. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media and Society, 13(6), 873–892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389. Feld, S. L. (1991). Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1464–1477. Feld, S., & Carter, W. C. (1998). Foci of activity in changing contexts for friendship. In R. G. Adams & G. Allan (Eds.), Placing friendship in context (pp. 136–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, C. S. (1982a). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, C. S. (1982b). What do we mean by ‘friend’? An inductive study. Social Networks, 3(4), 287–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(82)90004-1. Fischer, C. S., & Oliker, S. J. (1983). A research note on friendship, gender and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62(1), 124–133. Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9(4), 489–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-6402.1985.tb00898.x. Fritz, J. (2004). Zwischen Lust und Frust. Warum Computerspiele faszinieren können [Passion or frustration: Why computer games fascinate]. In J. Fritz (Ed.), Computerspiele(r) verstehen. Zugänge zu virtuellen Spielwelten für Eltern und

Pädagogen [Understanding computer game(r)s. Approaches to virtual game worlds to parents and educators] (pp. 96–111). Bonn, Germany: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2004). Online computer gaming: A comparison of adolescent and adult gamers. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.007. Griffiths, M. D., & Hunt, N. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents. Psychological Reports, 82(2), 475–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/ pr0.1998.82.2.475. Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline: Observing and surveying a wired suburb. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 475–492. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955290. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication and Society, 8(2), 125–147. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13691180500146185. Jansz, J., & Tanis, M. (2007). Appeal of playing online first person shooter games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(1), 133–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ cpb.2006.9981. Joinson, A. N. (2008). ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up’ with people?: Motives and use of Facebook. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1027–1036). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 1357054.1357213. Klimmt, C., & Hartmann, T. (2008). Mediated interpersonal communication in multiplayer video games: Implications for entertainment and relationship management. In E. A. Konjin, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 309–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kowert, R., & Oldmeadow, J. (2013). (A) Social reputation: Exploring the relationship between online video game involvement and social competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1872–1878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.003. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017. La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 49–61. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2007). Teens, video games and civics (Pew Internet project data memo). . Lenhart, A., Jones, S., & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Adults and video games (Pew Internet project data memo). . Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2006). Online friendship formation, communication channels, and social closeness. International Journal of Internet Science, 1(1), 29–44. Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(4), 546–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_7. Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–435. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957277. Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). Where does Internet time come from? A reconnaissance. IT and Society, 1(1), 1–20. Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14, 180–187. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018984. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15506878jobem4402_2. Paul, S. A., Jensen, M., Wong, C. Y., & Khong, C. W. (2008). Socializing in mobile gaming. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts (pp. 2–9). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/ 1413634.1413641. Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2005). Developing a model of adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8(5), 423–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.423. Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Use of social network sites and instant messaging does not lead to increased offline social network size, or to emotionally closer relationships with offline network members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 253–258. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0161. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Ramirez, A., & Wang, Z. (2008). When online meets offline: An expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 20–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00372.x. Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 287–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750701543493.

E. Domahidi et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 107–115 Raney, A. A., Smith, J. K., & Baker, K. (2006). Adolescents and the appeal of video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 165–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schaefer, D. R., Simpkins, S. D., Vest, A. D., & Price, C. D. (2011). The contribution of extracurricular activities to adolescent friendships: New insights through social network analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1141–1152. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024091. Scharkow, M., Festl, R., Vogelgesang, J., & Quandt, T. (2012). Choosing digital games: The relationship between gaming motives and genre preferences. In Paper presented at the 2012 international communication association conference, Phoenix. Schneider, B. H., Woodburn, S. S., del Toro, M. P. S., & Udvari, S. J. (2005). Cultural and gender differences in the implications of competition for early adolescent friendship. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(2), 163–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ mpq.2005.0013. Shen, C., & Williams, D. (2011). Unpacking time online: Connecting Internet and massively multiplayer online game use with psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 38(1), 123–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650210377196. Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. S., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 213–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Siu, O. L., & Phillips, D. R. (2002). A study of family support, friendship and psychological well-being among elder women in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 55(4), 299–319. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Stegbauer, C. (2008). Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie: Einige Anmerkungen zu einem neuen Paradigma [Network analysis and network theory: Some remarks about a new paradigm]. In C. Stegbauer (Ed.), Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie: Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften [Network analysis and network theory: A new paradigm in social science] (pp. 11–20). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

115

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Juechems, K. (2012). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 832–839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2011.12.003. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis (1st ed.). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/009365092019001003. Wan, C. S., & Chiou, W. B. (2006). Why are adolescents addicted to online gaming? An interview study in Taiwan. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 762–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.762. Wang, H., & Wellman, B. (2010). Social connectivity in America: Changes in adult friendship network size from 2002 to 2007. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1148–1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764209356247. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x. Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2006). From tree house to barracks: The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture, 4(1), 338–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412006292616. Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. E. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993–1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2008.00428.x. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 772–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772. Zhong, Z. J. (2011). The effects of collective MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) play on gamers’ online and offline social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2352–2363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2011.07.014.