Over half of all game players have experienced abuse in games, with nearly a third (28%) reporting that they experienced it regularly (McBean and Martin, 2020). In 2022, the Anti-Defamation League reported that four out of five adults (86%) reported experiencing harassment in online multiplayer games, representing over 67 million adult gamers. The ADL also found that harassment is increasing among those in the gaming community, with 77% of adults having experienced severe harassment in 2022 (defined as physical threats, stalking, and/or sustained harassment), up from 65% in 2019. Prevalence rates of witnessing abuse in digital games are closer to eight out of 10 of all game players (85.9%; Kowert and Cook, 2022).

It is unclear why harmful actions are so prevalent in gaming spaces. One contributing factor may be the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). When individuals are online they have a sense of anonymity (“You do not know me”) and invisibility (“You do not see me”) that can reduce their inhibitions to use inciting language. The presence of “toxic gamer cultures” have also been discussed in the academic literature for the last decade (Consalvo, 2012; Busch et al., 2015; Paul, 2018), suggesting a potential cultural element to consider when talking about toxicity in gaming communities. While it is difficult to compare the rates of toxicity across online spaces directly, research has found that individuals perceive gaming spaces as more toxic than social media (Cook et al., 2023). These differences suggest that the toxicity in gaming communities may be unique in the landscape of digital spaces.

Within discussions around toxicity in games, there has been a general failure to differentiate between the different types of hateful or “toxic” behaviors occurring in games. While prevalence assessments, such as the ones noted above, have been helpful in elucidating the prevalence of toxicity, hate, and dark participation more broadly, most have failed to assess the rates of extremist behaviors separate from general hate and toxicity. Extremist rhetoric is a distinct phenomenon from traditional forms of toxicity. However, the expression of “toxic” behavior is, in many cases, a tactic of or gateway into extremist movements (Kowert and Newhouse, 2022, 2023; Braddock et al., 2024).

Extremism is the advocacy of extreme views, including the belief that an in-group’s success or survival can never be separated from the need for hostile action against an out-group (Berger, 2018). Extremist ideology can take many different forms, including the hatred of women (e.g., misogyny) or a particular ethnic group (e.g., racism) or be a more specific set of beliefs and ideologies around a collection of ideas (e.g., White Nationalism, Islamism). There has been a rise in concern regarding extremist sentiments in games for the last several years, by policy makers (Schlegel, 2021; Good, 2022) and the public at large (Kamenetz, 2018; D’Anastasio, 2021). As a growing field of interest, there have been strides in recent years in understanding the using of gaming iconography in propaganda (Schlegel, 2020; Kingdon, 2024), the role of gamification of offline terrorist attacks (Lakhani and Wiedlitzka, 2023), and the organization and mobilization of designated terror groups in these spaces (Ruskin, 2014; Newhouse and Kowert, 2024). For example, a 2021 report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) found significant evidence of extremist communities in gaming and adjacent spaces (i.e., third-party chat servers and streaming platforms). Specifically, they found Steam (an online gaming platform) houses a diverse range of public servers created for far-right political parties and violent neo-Nazi groups. In 2019, the ADL did the first known assessment of the prevalence of extremist rhetoric in gaming spaces, finding 23% of online game players are exposed to discussions about white supremist ideology within game spaces. Apart from this work, little remains known about the prevalence or nature of extremist sentiment in gaming spaces.

The aim of this paper is to address the gaps in our research knowledge and growing concern around the expression of extremist sentiment in games by evaluating the prevalence and nature of extremist sentiment in gaming spaces.

Participants were asked to complete an online survey and were treated in accordance with ethical and IRB guidelines from Middlebury University. Data were collected for 6 weeks in Q1 of 2023.

In total, 423 respondents completed the survey. Fifty-six participants had to be removed from the analyses as they did not reside in the United States or United Kingdom. An additional six participants were removed who failed an embedded validity question or showed patterns of data disruption. The final dataset resulted in 361 observations.

Most participants identified as men (49.6%), with women (30.2%) and non-binary gender non-conforming, or questioning (19.7%) constituting most of the rest of the sample. Two participants (0.6%) declined to provide their gender. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 63, with an average age of 33 (SD = 7.71). Most participants resided in the United States (85.3%), while a smaller proportion resided in the United Kingdom (14.7%).

Dark participation in games is a topic of active discussion among scholars and the public alike. There is great concern over the presence, prevalence, and normalization of hate, harassment, and other harmful behaviors within our digital playgrounds. However, when it comes to discussing dark participation in games, it is important to understand that not all behaviors are created equal. This paper assessed the prevalence and nature of extreme forms of dark participation by analyzing the prevalence of direct and indirect exposure to extreme ideologies within gaming spaces. Results show an alarmingly high rate of frequency for being the direct target of, as well as a witness to, all forms of extremist content: misogyny, racism, anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment, White Nationalism, anti-government sentiment, and Islamism.

Most of the incidents were reported to be text-based and in-game. This finding may be related to greater psychological detachment present in text-based communication via the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). That is, the sense of invisibility and anonymity may be heightened when using text-based, versus voice based chat, leading individuals to feel more emboldened to share hateful rhetoric. Regardless of the reason, finding most of the incidents to be in-game and text-based may be the best-possible scenario, as many gaming companies and third-party platforms are already addressing text-based toxicity with their ongoing moderation efforts. However, the sheer prevalence of encounters with extremist behavior indicates a lack of effectiveness of existing tools.

It is promising that reporting these behaviors was the primary action taken by players for most of the players. This supports previous work that has found most people actively report toxic behaviors in gaming spaces (Kowert and Cook, 2022). However, it is notable how common “ignoring” these actions are. This could point to the ubiquity and normalization of extremist content in gaming spaces as well as a general lack of trust in moderation systems (which has been noted in previous research, see Cook et al., 2018; Kowert and Cook, 2022). Notably, anti-government sentiment is the only extreme sentiment where the primary strategy was to ignore, both as a direct target and a witness. It is unclear why this is the case, but it may be because anti-government rhetoric may be less likely to be language directed at another player directly. Further research is needed to better understand why these behaviors are not actioned by players. It is also worth highlighting that not a single direct target of Anti-LGBTQIA+ agitation reported that they confronted these behaviors publicly. This may reflect a fear of retaliation or a lack of faith in the effectiveness of existing reporting systems.

Perhaps the most alarming finding is the normalization of extreme behaviors within gaming communities. All forms of extreme behavior were found to be a relatively commonplace experience, with misogyny, racism, and anti-LGBTQIA+ agitation being noted as more the norm than the exception. White Nationalism, anti-government sentiment, and Islamism were also witnessed by more than one in five of all players. The sheer prevalence of these findings should raise concern from game makers, members of the gaming community, parents, and policy makers alike.

Notably, female players were more likely to note the normalization of most forms of extremist rhetoric. While it is unclear why this is the case, it is possible that the marginalization of women in gaming spaces (Gray et al., 2017) has contributed to a heightened awareness of extreme behaviors, particularly as they often report a lack of agency to push back or change the hostile norms they observe (Drury and Kaiser, 2014). Further research is needed to explore this possibility.

Moving forward, it is imperative to consider extremist sentiment when discussing “toxicity” in games. As even mere exposure to extremist ideologies can have significant interpersonal and societal consequences, future policy and intervention work should focus on prioritizing their efforts to reduce extremist language in gaming spaces. Individuals adjust to the norms of their culture (even across digital spaces; Smith et al., 2021; Kowert et al., 2022).The normalization, and cultural embeddedness, of extremist language in games puts players are at risk of being socialized into hateful and extreme ideologies from within their own groups as well as through contagion from the broader gaming community (Sooknanan and Comissiong, 2017). The sheer prevalence of this language also makes gaming spaces more vulnerable to more direct forms of extremist exploitation, such as propaganda dissemination (Kingdon, 2024) and recruitment efforts (Koehler et al., 2023; Kowert and Newhouse, 2023). The adoption of extreme beliefs online is often discussed as the beginning of a radicalization pipeline that begins with the normalization of extremist rhetoric, grows into to acclimation, and ends with the dehumanization of others, which is the foundation for escalated action and an important psychological prerequisite of violence (Munn, 2019).

Industry efforts should reevaluate their policies to ensure they are addressing these particular vulnerabilities. While the kinds of tools and strategies will likely be tailored to each particular studio or community, there are commonalities across spaces making industry-wide conversations about these topics are vital (Kilmer and Kowert, 2024). For example, while text-based harm was the most common modality reported here, text-based moderation cannot be the only solution. A significant number of players also reported experiencing and witnessing extremist rhetoric through the use of iconography, pictures, and images. It will be important to consider these other modalities when developing new policies and moderation tools.

The propagation of extremist ideologies in gaming spaces is multi-faceted and includes the development of bespoke games, the creation of propaganda, as well as social influencing (Wells et al., 2024). We also know that the opportunity for these behaviors to propagate in gaming spaces is unique as compared to other spaces on the internet (Kowert and Newhouse, 2022), due to a lack of effective moderation (Makuch, 2019; Davey, 2021), the high prevalence of “toxic” behavior within these spaces [McBean and Martin, 2020; Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 2022], as well as the unique social features of games themselves (Kowert and Newhouse, 2022). Despite this, there has remained a dearth of knowledge regarding the kinds of ideologies that are being propagated and normalized within these spaces. This study brings some needed clarity to the landscape of extremist sentiment in games, illustrating the prevalence, nature, and scope of extremist rhetoric in game (and game adjacent) platforms. The results of this work confirm what has long been feared: the ubiquity of, and cultural normalization, of extremist rhetoric and behavior within gaming spaces. Moving forward, it is important to consider extremist sentiments as part of the landscape of so-called “toxic” behavior when developing moderation and resiliency efforts within gaming and game-adjacent spaces (Kilmer and Kowert, 2024). However, it is important to clarify that these findings do not suggest that gaming causes radicalization or extremism. Rather, extremist language is commonplace in gaming spaces. Such consistent exposure is cause for considerable concern in and of itself and may be setting the foundation for direct extremist exploitation of our digital playgrounds.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving humans were approved by Middlebury Institute of International Studies. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

RK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EK: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. AN: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.