Blaming the smurf: Using a novel social deception behavior in online games to test attribution theories

Abstract

Despite their popularity, online video games possess pervasive toxicity. However, players do not categorically judge toxic behaviors as wrong. Attribution theories are well suited to disambiguate such judgment variance, but debate exists on the usefulness of motivated versus socially regulated blame perspectives. By exploring a new, potentially toxic behavior called “smurfing,” we innovate on methodological barriers that make experimentally disentangling socially regulated and motivated attribution perspectives difficult. In Study 1, we empirically present, describe, and explore smurfing and its perceived effects as a novel cheating behavior in online gaming. In Study 2, we extracted player-generated reasons for smurfing and manipulated the stakes of games to manipulate transgression salience (a key factor of blame attribution) across a moral continuum. By having participants use a mock crowd-sourced judgment platform, we observed the (in)stability of stakes across a continuum of reasons. We subsequently replicated our findings with a novel sample in Study 3.