π€ AI Summary
This study addresses the persistent challenge of ineffective toxicity moderation in online games, attributed to playersβ lack of trust in and ambiguous motivations for using in-game reporting systems. For the first time, the expectancy-value theory is applied to this domain, integrating a large-scale survey (n=98) with semi-structured interviews (n=19) through a mixed-methods approach to examine playersβ perceived value of reporting, outcome expectations, and trust determinants. Findings reveal that players are driven by both altruistic and retaliatory motives, and identify developer reputation, system transparency, and community alignment as critical mediators of trust. The research further delineates divergent player expectations regarding immediate feedback versus long-term governance efficacy, offering empirical insights and theoretical innovation for designing digital content moderation mechanisms.
π Abstract
Reporting systems in multiplayer video games allow players to express their dissatisfaction with others and combat in-game toxicity. In this work, we examined the act of reporting through the lens of expectancy-value theory. Using a distributed survey (n = 98) and follow-up interviews (n = 19), we explored the value players place on reporting, their desired outcomes, and their expectations that these outcomes will be achieved. Our findings revealed that reporting is motivated by both altruistic and retributive factors, with players seeking short-term revenge while also looking to foster an improved long-term community. Yet, players felt that reporting may not always meet these goals, with belief in the system being mediated by factors such as developer reputation, reporting transparency, and alignment with the community. By understanding the value and expectancy of reporting systems, we discuss their implications on broader digital moderation and consider current and potential future designs of reporting systems.