"YOU PLAY LIKE A GIRL" - DIVA

“You play like a girl”

An investigation of the gender-typing of Esports as well as the effect
 of gender stereotypes on player performances

 Kevin Shaw

 GYMNASTIK- OCH IDROTTSHÖGSKOLAN
 Självständigt arbete på grundnivå: 23:2021
 Fristående kurs: Idrott III VT 2021
 Handledare: Kerstin Hamrin
 Examinator: Karin Söderlund

Abstract

Purpose and research questions: The purpose of this study has been to critically examine Esports through a
gender perspective. The study therefore investigated the gender-typing of Esports and if these stereotypes affect
players’ performance. The research questions were: Do players gender-type Esports to be a neutral, feminine, or
masculine sport? Do gender stereotypes in Esports affect female players’ performance? Do gender stereotypes in
Esports affect male players’ performance?

Method: A quantitative research design was used, and two different surveys were sent out to respondents. Both
surveys contained the exact same information and questions on the first page. These were aimed at answering
questions regarding gender-typing (i.e. if the respondents perceived Esports to be a neutral, feminine or
masculine activity and how appropriate they perceived Esports to be for women respectively men). The survey’s
second page had identical questions on both surveys, however the respondents got to see different texts of
information (stereotypes) depending on which survey they participated in. The first survey (Group 1) included
two different conditions groups (women = stereotype threat; men = stereotype lift) and primed the respondents
with the stereotype that “women are inferior to men in Esports”. The second survey (Group 2) also included two
different condition groups (men = stereotype threat; women = stereotype boost) and primed the respondents with
the alternative stereotype manipulation that “women are equally as good as men in Esports”. After participating
in the surveys, the respondents played three games of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive that were then analyzed
against the respondents’ three most recent matches before partaking in the study. As such, the players’
performance could be evaluated and a result could be determined (i.e. either an improvement or impairment in
performance). A control group (Group 3) that did not partake in the surveys was used as a reference group and to
evaluate the participants’ performances. As a total, 290 persons participated in the study, of which 50 were
women and 240 men.

Results: The results showed that the players perceived Esports to be more of a masculine sport. For the
stereotype effects on players’ performance, an ANOVA of the results showed that stereotype threat had a
statistically significant effect on female players’ performance (p = .008), whereas stereotype boost did not. For
the men, the results showed that neither stereotype threat nor lift had any statistically significant effect on male
players’ performance.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that players gender-type different aspects of Esports in different ways. The
participants perceived Esports to be more of a masculine activity but on the other hand to be almost equally as
appropriate for women and men. As a whole, the respondents perceived Esports to be more of a masculine sport
than neutral or feminine. The findings from this study also suggest that women in Esports are more affected by
gender stereotypes than men are, and that negative gender stereotypes about women’s ability may impair female
players’ performance. Finally, the findings suggest that the awareness as well as the occurrence of gender
stereotypes in Esports are widespread among players. However, players in Esports consider themselves to not
fully endorse these stereotypes but believe that other players do, especially the negative stereotypes about
women’s ability in Esports. This finding generates an interesting area for further research and investigation.

Sammanfattning

Syfte och frågeställning: Syftet med denna studie har varit att kritiskt granska Esport ur ett genusperspektiv.
Studien undersökte därmed könsstereotypningen (”gender-typing”) av Esport samt huruvida dessa stereotyper
påverkar spelares prestationer. Frågeställningarna var: Könsstereotypar spelare Esport som en neutral, feminin
eller maskulin sport? Påverkar könsstereotyper inom Esport kvinnliga spelares prestationer? Påverkar
könsstereotyper inom Esport manliga spelares prestationer?

Metod: En kvantitativ forskningsdesign användes, och två olika enkäter skickades ut till respondenter. Båda
enkäterna innehöll exakt samma information och frågor på den första sidan. Dessa var ämnade att besvara frågor
kring könsstereotypning (dvs. om respondenten ansåg Esport var en neutral, feminin eller maskulin aktivitet
samt hur lämpligt de ansåg Esport vara för kvinnor respektive män). Enkätens andra sida hade identiska frågor
på båda enkäterna men respondenterna fick ta del av olika texter av information (stereotyper) beroende på vilken
enkät de deltog i. Den första enkäten (Grupp 1) inkluderade två olika tillståndsgrupper (kvinnor = stereotype
threat; män = stereotype lift) och grundade respondenterna med stereotypen att ”kvinnor är sämre än män inom
Esport”. Den andra enkäten (Grupp 2) inkluderade även den två olika tillståndsgrupper (män = stereotype threat;
kvinnor = stereotype boost) och grundade respondenterna med den alternativa manipulationen av stereotypen att
”kvinnor är lika bra som män inom Esport”. Efter att ha deltagit i enkäterna spelade respondenterna tre matcher
av Counter-Strike: Global Offensive som sedan analyserades mot respondenternas tre senaste matcher innan de
deltog i studien. Som sådant, kunde spelarnas prestationer utvärderas och ett resultat kunde fastställas (dvs.
antingen en förbättring eller en försämring i prestation). En kontrollgrupp (Grupp 3) som inte deltog i enkäterna
användes som referensgrupp och för att utvärdera deltagarnas prestationer. Totalt deltog 290 personer i studien
varav 50 var kvinnor och 240 män.

Resultat: Resultatet visade att spelarna uppfattade Esport som mer av en maskulin sport. Angående
stereotypeffekterna på spelarnas prestationer visade en ANOVA av resultaten att stereotype threat hade en
statistisk signifikant effekt på kvinnliga spelares prestationer (p = .008), medan stereotype boost inte hade det.
För männen så visade resultaten att varken stereotype threat eller lift hade någon statistisk signifikant effekt på
manliga spelares prestationer.

Slutsats: Resultaten tyder på att spelare könsstereotypar olika aspekter av Esport på olika sätt. Deltagarna
uppfattade Esport som mer av en maskulin aktivitet men å andra sidan som lika lämpligt för kvinnor och män.
Som helhet uppfattade respondenterna Esport som mer av en maskulin sport än neutral eller feminin. Resultaten
från denna studie tyder även på att kvinnor inom Esport påverkas mer av könsstereotyper än män och att
negativa könsstereotyper om kvinnors förmåga kan försämra kvinnliga spelares prestationer. Slutligen, resultaten
tyder på att medvetenheten samt förekomsten av könsstereotyper inom Esport är utbredd bland spelarna.
Spelarna inom Esport anser dock inte att de själva stödjer dessa stereotyper fullt ut men tror att andra spelare gör
det, särskilt de negative stereotyperna om kvinnors förmågor inom Esport. Detta resultat genererar ett intressant
område för vidare forskning och undersökningar.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................
SAMMANFATTNING ...........................................................................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
 1.1 DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 2
 1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4
 1.3 PROBLEM BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 5
 1.4 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 12
 2.1 SOCIAL ROLE THEORY ................................................................................................................................. 12
 2.2 GENDER-TYPING OF SPORTS ........................................................................................................................ 15
 2.3 STEREOTYPE THREAT THEORY .................................................................................................................... 17
 2.4 STEREOTYPE LIFT THEORY .......................................................................................................................... 20
 2.5 STEREOTYPE BOOST THEORY....................................................................................................................... 21
3. PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTIONS..................................................................................... 22
 3.1 HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................................................... 23
4. METHOD......................................................................................................................................... 24
 4.1 DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
 4.2 APPROACH .................................................................................................................................................. 24
 4.3 QUANTITATIVE METHOD ............................................................................................................................. 24
 4.3.1 Online survey...................................................................................................................................... 24
 4.3.2 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................. 27
 4.3.3 Statistical analysis of performance ..................................................................................................... 30
 4.4 OPERATIONALIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 30
 4.4.1 Survey................................................................................................................................................. 30
 4.4.2 Statistical analysis .............................................................................................................................. 33
 4.5 QUANTITATIVE QUALITY MEASURES ........................................................................................................... 34
 4.5.1 Validity ............................................................................................................................................... 34
 4.5.2 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 34
 4.6 ETHICS ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
 4.7 METHOD OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 36
 4.8 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 37
5. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 37
 5.1 DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................................... 37
 5.1.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................ 37
 5.1.2 Age ..................................................................................................................................................... 38
 5.1.3 Identification as gamer ....................................................................................................................... 39
 5.1.4 Level of play ....................................................................................................................................... 39
 5.2 GENDER-TYPING OF ESPORTS ...................................................................................................................... 41
 5.3 STEREOTYPE ENDORSEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 42
 5.4 STEREOTYPE AWARENESS ........................................................................................................................... 44
 5.5 PERFORMANCE OUTCOME ON THE TASK (MATCHES) ................................................................................... 46
 5.5.1 Female players’ performance ............................................................................................................. 47
 5.5.1.1 Group 1 (female players): stereotype threat ........................................................................... 47
 5.5.1.2 Group 2 (female players): stereotype boost ........................................................................... 47
 5.5.1.3 Group 3 (female players): control group ................................................................................ 48
 5.5.2 Male players’ performance ................................................................................................................. 49
 5.5.2.1 Group 1 (male players): stereotype lift .................................................................................. 49
 5.5.2.2 Group 2 (male players): stereotype threat .............................................................................. 50
 5.5.2.3 Group 3 (male players): control group ................................................................................... 51
 5.5.3 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) ......................................................................................................... 52
 5.5.3.1 ANOVA (female groups) ....................................................................................................... 52
 5.5.3.2 ANOVA (male groups) .......................................................................................................... 54

6. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 55
 6.1 GENDER-TYPING OF ESPORTS ...................................................................................................................... 55
 6.2 GENDER STEREOTYPE EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................... 58
 6.2.1 Gender stereotype effects on female players’ performance ................................................................ 58
 6.2.2 Gender stereotype effects on male players’ performance ................................................................... 60
 6.3 REFLECTION OF METHOD ............................................................................................................................. 62
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 63
 7.1 FURTHER RESEARCH.................................................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Esports revenue growth ........................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 1.2 Difference in earnings between genders in Esports and traditional sports ............................................ 6
Figure 1.3 Share of participation between genders in Esports, gaming and traditional sports ............................... 7
Figure 2.1 Process model of social role theory .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.2 The present study’s proposed model of stereotype effects on players’ performance .......................... 22
Figure 4.1 Timeline for the study’s surveys and collection of data ...................................................................... 26
Figure 4.2 Model used for measuring performance (HLTV-rating 1.0)............................................................... 33
Figure 5.1 Gender representation ......................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.2 Age representation .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 5.3 Gamer identification ........................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.4 FACEIT rank ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.5 Esportal rank ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.6 Gender-typing of Esports as an activity .............................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.7 Gender-appropriatness of Esports ....................................................................................................... 42
Figure 5.8 Stereotype endorsement of female players’ level of play ................................................................... 43
Figure 5.9 Stereotype endorsment of male players’ level of play ........................................................................ 44
Figure 5.10 Stereotype awareness of female players’ level of play ..................................................................... 45
Figure 5.11 Stereotype awareness of male players’ level of play ........................................................................ 46
Figure 5.12 Bar chart for female players with difference in performance means across condition groups .......... 54
Figure 5.13 Bar chart for male players with difference in performance means across condition groups ............. 55

List of tables
Table 4.1 Collectors for the surveys ..................................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2 Number of respondents and dropouts for the study regarding the gender-typing of Esports ............... 28
Table 4.3 Number of respondents and dropouts for the study regarding stereotype effects on performance ....... 29
Table 4.4 Number of respondents that completed the task of playing three matches........................................... 29
Table 4.5 Operationalization of surveys ............................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.6 Constants (averages of players) ............................................................................................................ 34
Table 4.7 Cronbach’s alpha .................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 5.1 Female players in Group 1’s performances on the matches (condition: stereotype threat for women) 47
Table 5.2 Female players in Group 2’s performances on the matches (condition: stereotype boost for women) 48
Table 5.3 Female players in Group 3’s performances on the matches (condition: control group for women) ..... 48
Table 5.4 Male players in Group 1’s performances on the matches (condition: stereotype lift for men) ............. 49
Table 5.5 Male players in Group 2’s performances on the matches (condition: stereotype threat for men) ........ 50
Table 5.6 Male players in Group 3’s performances on the matches (condition: control group for men) ............. 51
Table 5.7 Descriptive statistics for mean difference in performance among the condition groups ...................... 52

List of Appendixes
Appendix 1 – Literature search ................................................................................................................................ i
Appendix 2 – Esports and gaming landscape ......................................................................................................... iii
Appendix 3 – Survey 1 (Group 1) .......................................................................................................................... iv
Appendix 4 – Cronbach’s alpha ............................................................................................................................ vii
Appendix 5 – ANOVA of female groups............................................................................................................. viii
Appendix 6 – ANOVA of male groups .................................................................................................................. ix

1. Introduction
Historically, Esports has had to live with a stigmatized image hanging over itself. The
negative thoughts traditionally attributed to Esports originates from stereotypes formed about
gaming and the people who played video games (Thiborg, 2006). Those who participated –
often young men and so called “gamers” were seen as socially inept and undesirable. The
consensus was that these individuals dedicated themselves to an unhealthy activity and that
those who participated were less popular and less attractive – often described as nerds
(Kowert, Griffiths & Oldmeadow, 2012; Kane & Spradley, 2017). Despite this, Almer et al.
(2005) showed how common it actually was to play computer games. The authors (ibid)
argued that in Sweden, there were more people that played computer games than football and
ice hockey combined. Yet, gaming was seen as a form of subculture, where those who
participated often were perceived to be of lower social status than other groups (Kowert, Festl
& Quandt, 2014).

Today the very best of professional Esports players are considered global superstars in the
same way as in traditional sports, in many instances reaching the same level of social status
(Thiborg, 2006). According to Jonasson & Thiborg (2010) the reason for this change in
perception is an increased cultural- and social acceptance in society when it comes to
computer games and the people who play them. As Esports have finally overcome the rough
years of being outcast by society, it seems strange that not everyone has been welcomed into
Esports itself. Just like traditional sports, Esports has traditionally been perceived as an area
mainly reserved for men (Koivula, 1995; Plaza, Boiché, Brunel & Ruchaud, 2017;
Ruotsalainen & Friman, 2018). As a result, women continue to be under-represented in
Esports and research show that female players are at an increased risk of receiving harassment
from other players (Ruvalcaba, Shulze, Kim, Berzenski & Otten, 2018). Gender stereotypes
such as “women are less skillful than men” and “they don’t belong in Esports” continue to
divide representation (e.g. Ratan, Taylor, Hogan, Kennedy & Williams, 2015; Kim, 2017;
Paaßen, Morgenroth & Stratemeyer, 2017). Furthermore, studies in traditional sports literature
have found that negative gender stereotypes can affect both participation and performance
(Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Fontayne, Boiché & Clément-Guillotin, 2013). These findings cause
concern about women’s future in Esports. Thus, the present study aims to critically

 1

investigate the gender-typing of Esports as well as the potential effect that gender stereotypes
may have on players’ performance.

1.1 Definitions
Esports
 …a form of sports where the primary aspects of the sport are facilitated by electronic
 systems; the input of players and teams as well as the output of the Esports system are
 mediated by human-computer interfaces. (Hamari and Sjöblom, 2017)

The difference between Esports and gaming
Even though Esports and gaming have a lot in common, it is important to highlight the
difference between them. The fundamental difference of Esports compared to gaming is that a
game can only be considered an Esport if it is competitive and played against other players,
much like traditional sports. Gaming on the other hand is often played more casually and
made up of a much broader spectrum; all video-, computer- and mobile games can be
considered as gaming (see Appendix 1 for a presentation of the Esports and gaming
landscape).

Counter-Strike Global Offensive
Counter-Strike Global Offensive (commonly known as CSGO) is one of the biggest Esport
titles in the world. It is a successor to the renowned Counter-Strike 1.6 and was released on
August 21st, 2012. Originally, Counter-Strike 1.6 was created as a modification for Half-Life
but was later acquired by the game developer Valve Corporation, who then developed CSGO.
The game is often played online, however, in the professional scene, tournaments are mostly
played at a set location or more commonly known as LAN (Local Area Network). It is an FPS
(First-Person Shooter) multiplayer game where the objective is to win rounds. The game is
played 5-versus-5 and the team that reaches 16 rounds first win. The game can go to overtime
if both teams reach 15 rounds. You play two halves, one as Counter-Terrorist (CT) and one as
Terrorist (T). As Counter-Terrorist your objective is to defend two bombsites and prevent the
opponent from planting and blowing up the bomb. As Terrorist your objective is the opposite,
to attack the bombsites and blow up the bomb. To win a round you either have to eliminate all
five opponents, defuse the bomb (as Counter-Terrorist) or blow up the bomb (as Terrorist).

 2

You can also win a round as CT if the time (each round is 1 min 45 sec long) runs out and the
opponent have yet to plant the bomb. The game revolves around an economy-based system
where the players can buy weapons and utility that can be used to increase your chances of
winning a round. In CSGO teams often apply tactics just like any other sport, hence, it is very
team-based and every player in the team are assigned different roles. According to Clement
(2021) there were 24 million active players in February of 2020.

HLTV.org & rating
HLTV.org provides coverage of the game Counter-Strike Global Offensive as well as
statistics and ratings. It is the leading platform in delivering news, results and rankings about
CSGO (Liquipedia, 2021). HLTV.org has also developed the popular rating systems “HLTV-
rating 1.0” and later “HLTV-rating 2.0”, which serve to rate players’ performance on
matches. This study uses HLTV-rating 1.0 to measure the respondents’ performance.

Esportal.com
Esportal.com is a Swedish-based platform which offers CSGO players better servers, a better
matchmaking structure and an anti-cheat system to avoid cheaters. The users on the platform
can search for matches, and in minutes, get matched with teammates and opponents from their
own country. The built-in matchmaking system is intended to match players equally against
each other based on their rank. The individual rank changes when you win or lose matches,
you either gain or lose points (ELO). Most of the active users on Esportal come from the
Nordics region but there are also players from other countries, e.g. Poland and Germany.
According to Esportal, there are currently over 500,000 registered users on the platform
(Esportal, 2021).

Faceit.com
Faceit.com is like Esportal an Esports platform where players can play with and against each
other. It was created in 2011 and the company is based in the UK. The slight difference
between Esportal and Faceit is that you can play other Esport titles on Faceit, nonetheless,
most users play CSGO. Another difference is that users on Faceit are comprised of a more
international character, with players from several different nationalities, whereas Esportal
mostly focuses on Nordic players.

 3

1.2 Background
On October 19, 1972 the first ever video-game competition was held at Stanford University.
The so called “Intergalactic Spacewar Olympics” provided a prize of a one-year subscription
to the Rolling Stone magazine (Verhoeff, 2019). Through competitions like this, the term
Electronic Sports emerged, which later changed into the abbreviation “Esports”.

Although competitions were held as early as the 1970’s it wasn’t until the 2000’s that Esports
really began to flourish. By large, the early progress of Esports can be deduced to the
technical and digital development in society, e.g. the creation of the internet or “world wide
web” (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010). Esports had by this time established itself as a domain and
people started to compete more seriously against each other which led to the creation of
several organizations (Taylor, 2012). Other important key actors in the early days of Esports
were tournament organizers, e.g. WCG, ESWC and CPL who made it possible for players to
compete to a greater extent than before (Jonasson & Thiborg, 2010).

In recent years, Esports has become increasingly popular and is now a global phenomenon
with several million viewers (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017). Despite the rapid growth, Esports
has yet to be legitimized as a real sport in Sweden (Johansson, 2020). Due to lack of physical
elements, the Swedish Sports Confederation (i.e. Riksidrottsförbundet) have declined
applications on several occasions (Dagens Nyheter, 2019). Research however has found that
Esports does in fact fulfill the requirements and characteristics of sports (Jonasson & Thiborg,
2010; Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Cunningham et al., 2018). Hence, the authors (ibid) argue
that it should be considered a real sport. Other countries have already accepted Esports as an
official sport, e.g. China, South Korea, Russia, France, United States, Germany and Finland
(Taylor, 2012; Bräutigam, 2016; IESF, 2017; Tassi, 2013; Auxent, 2015; Anastasopoulos,
2018; Chen, 2020). Finally, Cunningham et al. (2018), argues that Esports indeed has a place
in the future of sport management scholarship and discourse.

Despite not being recognized as a sport in several countries, the number of players and
viewers have continuously grown over the years (Newzoo, 2020) – demanding that brands
and investors pay attention to Esports. The increase in popularity and the opportunity to
connect and market to the notoriously hard-to-reach and highly sought-after demographic

 4

group of esports (i.e. young people, especially males) have compelled companies to enter the
Esports industry (Newzoo, 2016 b). Statistics from Newzoo (2016 a, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020)
and Souza (2015) show the historical growth of revenue within Esports and predicts it will be
a billion-dollar industry in the near future (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1
Esports revenue growth

 Esports Revenue Growth (2014-2023)*
 2000

 $1598M
 Millions in dollars ($)

 1500

 $958M $950M
 1000
 $776M
 $655M
 $493M
 500 $325M
 $194M

 0
 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2023

Note. *Covid revised projections for 2020-2023.

As Esports continue to grow, most of the reports have historically focused on the financial
benefits, leaving little room for issues regarding gender representation and gender
inequalities. However, recent research has shown that gender issues are common within
Esports (e.g. Hao et al., 2020; Paaßen et al., 2017).

1.3 Problem background
As of late, the gender inequalities in Esports have become more and more apparent. For
example, in 2018, Riot Games (arguably the largest Esports company in the world) were sued
by their female employees over gender discrimination and decided to settle for 10 million
dollars (Dean, 2019). Additionally, more than 70 women have recently spoken out about
sexism and harassment within the gaming and Esports community (Lorenz & Browning,
2020). Allegations toward leading figures in the industry were posted on Twitter, leading to a
#MeToo movement in Esports and gaming (Richardson, 2020).

 5

Another typical gender inequality that occur frequently in everyday life as well in traditional
sports, is the massive pay gap between men and women. Interestingly, a study by Women’s
Sport Week (Thompson & Kopczyk, 2017) show encouraging developments; gender pay gap
is narrowing, with 83% of traditional sports now compensating men and women equally.
However, the top ten male athletes in traditional sports still earn 6x more than the top ten
women do (Daniels, 2020; Badenhausen, 2020). When comparing Esports to traditional
sports, statistics show an even greater divide between athletes as the top ten male players earn
43x more than the top ten women do (Esports Earnings, 2020). Figure 1.2 demonstrate the
gender difference in total earnings within Esports and traditional sports.

Figure 1.2
Difference in earnings between genders in Esports and traditional sports

 The difference in total earnings between
 genders within Esports and traditional sports
 1000
 $819,2M
 Millions of dollars ($)

 800

 600 Top 10 Women

 Top 10 Men
 400

 200 $135M
 $52,9M
 $1,23M
 0
 Traditional sports Esports

Furthermore, when examining the gender participation rate, the divide in Esports become
even more apparent. Women continue to be under-represented with slightly over one third of
esports players being female (Interpret, 2019). In gaming on the other hand, women make up
almost half (over 1 billion) of all gamers reports show, which is comparable to the gender
participation rate for traditional sports in Sweden (Newzoo, 2019 b; Riksidrottsförbundet,
2019). Figure 1.3 shows the difference in gender participation within Esports, gaming and
traditional sports.

 6

Figure 1.3
Share of participation between genders in Esports, gaming and traditional sports

 Share of participation between genders in Esports,
 gaming and traditional sports
 100%

 54% 56%
 65%
 50%

 46% 44%
 35%
 0%

 Esports Gaming Traditional sports
 Women Men

Although women and men nowadays play video games in approximately equal numbers,
Esports is still strongly associated with men – resulting in gender inequalities and negative
stereotypes about women who participate (Paaßen et al., 2017). Further, Kendall (2011) argue
that the nerd identity that is often associated with gamers is closely protected by a hegemonic
masculinity and that women therefore are excluded from the community. Kendall (2011) also
argue that gamers regularly described as “nerds” are often white males who enjoy computers.
Moreover, Fox & Tang (2017) argue that the most common reason for women to discontinue
their participation in gaming and Esports is harassment. The findings of Kuznekoff & Rose
(2013) further strengthen this claim as female players are 3x more likely than men to receive
negative comments about their voice, instigating women to have to use coping strategies (e.g.
avoiding in-game communication) in order to mitigate stereotype threats. Furthermore,
women that are good enough to achieve a moderate success are often rendered invisible,
causing many women to feel unwelcomed and hesitant to enter the community (Paaßen et al.,
2017). Consequently, negative gender stereotypes can heavily influence female participation
rate (ibid).

Studies in traditional sports have also shown that negative stereotypes can affect individuals’
performance through a phenomenon commonly referred to as “stereotype threat” (Chalabaev
et al., 2013). Steele, Spencer & Aronson (2002) defines stereotype threat as “the fear of

 7

stigmatized individuals to be judged or treated stereotypically”. It often relates to tasks that
some people are perceived to be worse at than others and affect individuals whenever they
become cognitive of a negative stereotype about themselves (Gentile, Boca & Giammusso,
2018). An example is the stereotype that women in Esports are less skillful than men (Paaßen
et al., 2017). Negative gender stereotypes of women in Esports might therefore affect both
performance and participation – ending up being a potential hazard to female players.
Accordingly, Chalabaev et al. (2013) argue that negative stereotypes about females in the
traditional sport context may hinder women from performing to their true potential. As a
result, female athletes may underperform when exposed to a stereotype threat (Hively & El-
Alayli, 2014). Moreover, being subjected to negative stereotypes on a regular basis have been
shown to cause domain avoidance, self-handicapping and disengagement (Gentile et al.,
2018). Such stereotypes may perhaps also cause females to avoid the domain of gaming and
Esports. Indeed, Shaw (2012) argues that negative stereotypes can lead to women not
identifying as gamers or not participating at all, hence men are more likely to identify as
gamers (Paaßen et al., 2017). Considering these findings, the consequences of negative gender
stereotypes in Esports have become an important subject for further discussion.

1.4 Problem discussion
Researchers have extensively covered how gender stereotypes may negatively affect
performance outcomes in the traditional sports domain. For example, Chalabaev, Sarrazin &
Fontayne (2009) found that female soccer players with a high level of stereotype endorsement
(i.e. that female soccer players are inferior to male players) performed significantly worse
than others. Moreover, the authors (ibid) suggest that masculinity may be positively linked to
perceived sports ability. This is consistent with the findings of Gentile’s et al. (2018) study,
where the researchers found that the effect of negative stereotypes (i.e. stereotype threat) was
significantly higher for sports that are perceived as particularly suited for males (masculine
sports). Furthermore, Hermann & Vollmeyer (2016) researched female soccer players’
dribbling ability and found that females that were primed with a negative stereotype
performed worse than those in the control group, thus replicating the study of Chalabaev,
Stone, Sarrazin & Croizet (2008). Hively & El-Alayli (2014) researched female and male
tennis and basketball student athletes. The authors (ibid) then primed the participants with the
information that there were gender differences on the tasks. Results showed that female

 8

athletes performed worse on the task and that women’s and men’s perception of general
ability were affected by the information that ability differed between genders (ibid). Further,
negative stereotype effects on performance have also been researched in the domain of golf-
putting (e.g. Beilock & McConell, 2004; Beilock, Jellison, Rydell, McConnell & Carr, 2006;
Stone & McWhinnie, 2008). For example, when expert male golfers were primed with a
negative stereotype about themselves (i.e. that women are better at golf putting than men),
their performance significantly decreased relative to the experts in the control condition
(Beilock & McConell, 2004; Beilock et al., 2006). Stone & McWhinnie (2008) also
researched golf-putting but investigated the effects of negative stereotypes on female players’
performance. The authors (ibid) found that females that were told that there are gender
differences in sports, performed significantly worse than those in the control condition.

In the domain of casual gaming some studies have researched stereotype effects on female
players’ performance (e.g. Ratan & Sah, 2015; Vermeulen, Castellar, Janssen, Calvi & Van
Looy, 2016; Kaye & Pennington; 2016; Kaye, Pennington & Mccann, 2018). Kaye &
Pennington (2016) found that female gamers that were under stereotype threat
underperformed on a casual gaming task relative to male players that were in the control
condition. Correspondingly, Vermeulen et al. (2016) also researched stereotype threat effects
on a gaming task. The authors (ibid) manipulated the leaderboard on the game “Super Puzzle
Platform HD” to show three different conditions; 1) neutral (no gender information on the
leaderboard), 2) stereotype boost (majority of female names on the leaderboard), and 3)
stereotype threat (majority of male names on the leaderboard). Their findings showed that
female gamers in the stereotype threat condition performed worse than the other groups (ibid).

However, Kaye et al. (2018) later found contradicting results, i.e. that priming a negative
gender stereotype did not have any significant negative effect on females’ gameplay
performance. The authors (ibid) proposed two potential explanations for the non-significant
result. The first explanation was that females’ participation rate in casual gaming is
significantly greater than in other domains of gaming (e.g. Esports), and that they therefore
may not be as under-represented and feel as stigmatized, resulting in a lowered susceptible to
stereotype threat (ibid). The second explanation proposed by Kaye et al. (2018) was that
casual gaming is not a “high stakes” setting in comparison to other settings (e.g. more
competitive or professional types of gaming, i.e. Esports). As such, negative gender

 9

stereotypes may not have as significant effect on female players’ performance in the domain
of casual gaming compared to the domain of Esports. Further, the study by Vermeulen et al.
(2016) showed no difference between the boost condition and the control condition,
suggesting that exposing female gamers to a positive stereotype did not positively affect their
performance. Kaye et al’s. (2018) findings also showed that gameplay performance was not
affected by gender-manipulation of the gaming avatar, further strengthening the idea that a
positive stereotype for females (i.e. choosing a female gaming avatar) does not positively
affect performance. Ratan & Sah (2015) researched if gendered avatars (male or female) in
gaming would affect performance on a math task. The respondents first played a digital
sword-fighting game (using either a female or male avatar), then completed the math task.
Results showed that participants that used a male avatar performed better at the math task
than did those that played with a female avatar (ibid). Hao et al. (2020) extended the research
of using gendered avatars further in the Esports domain. The authors (ibid) findings showed
that gender-swapping (i.e. a female using a male avatar or a male using a female avatar) had
an indirect effect on continuous participation in Esports. As far as the present author is aware,
no other study of the potential effects of stereotypes on players’ performance have been
conducted in the domain of Esports.

Moreover, Gentile et al. (2018) argue that negative stereotypes about the gender-
appropriateness of sports (e.g. that women should not play masculine sports) can affect
female participation and performance. Indeed, sports has traditionally been perceived to be
more appropriate for men than women (Gentile et al., 2018). The gender-typing of traditional
sports has been extensively covered in research literature (e.g. Koivula, 1995; Koivula, 2001;
Fontayne, Sarrazin & Famose, 2001; Hardin & Greer, 2009; Alvariñas-Villaverde, López-
Villar, Fernández-Villarino & Alvarez-Esteban, 2017; Plaza et al., 2017). The idea that some
sports are more appropriate for men than women has its origin in biological gender
differences and social role beliefs that are conformed as early as childbirth (Koivula 1995).
Thus, gender stereotypes in sports often happen non-intentionally as they are automatically
activated and a part of people’s everyday life (Plaza et al., 2017). For example, as men are
perceived to be more physical, they are expected to participate in masculine sports that are
more focused on teamwork, aggressiveness and physical contact (Chalabaev et al., 2013). On
the other hand, women are often perceived to be more graceful and thus expected to
participate in feminine aesthetic sports that tend to be more individual with less focus on

 10

physical contact (Alvariñas-Villaverde et al., 2017). As such, gender stereotypes become
attached to sports (Plaza et al., 2017). Consequently, Alvariñas-Villaverde et al. (2017) argue
that the choice to participate in one sport or the other is highly influenced by gender
stereotypes and the idea that some sports are appropriate for men and others for women.
Therefore, it is important to understand how different individuals gender-type Esports.

Although Esports is often associated with men and male players, the absence of physical
characteristics provide a gender-neutral alternative to traditional sports. Kane & Spradley
(2017) argue that Esports should have an advantage over traditional sports as women and men
can play together without having to be defined by their gender or restricted by their physical
abilities. As such, men and women can practice together or against each other, which is not
possible to the same extent in traditional sports (ibid). In most traditional sports, participants
are expected to be strong and masculine. Hence, much of the focus lie on physical abilities
(Coakley & Pike, 2009). Furthermore, Coakley and Pike (2009) argue that most traditional
sports are organized around masculine values, which may cause women to refrain from
participating. Women who participate in traditional sports must be exceptionally good to even
get the chance to play with men (ibid). Considering this, Esports has true potential to be the
biggest gender-neutral sport in history. Thus, it is surprising that women continue to be under-
represented. A possible reason for this might be the fact that Esports is closely related to
technology – as highlighted by Salter & Blodgett (2012), technology is also closely
intertwined with masculinity.

Indeed, based on the statistics it seems that many women prefer to play casually and
individually rather than competitively with others (Interpret, 2019; Bosman, 2019). This is
consistent with the findings of Hardin & Greer (2009) and Eagly & Wood (2012). Hardin &
Greer (2009) suggest that women choose traditional sports that are more individual and non-
violent. Supplementary, Eagly & Wood (2012) suggest that men are more likely than women
to be competitive. The fact that gaming is more individual and less competitive while Esports
is team-based and competitive may provide a possible explanation for the under-
representation of women in the latter. On the other hand, Alvariñas-Villaverde et al. (2017)
have found that underlying gender stereotypes can hinder women from entering certain sports
based on the fear of confirming the stereotype itself. Thus, it may be negative stereotypes in
itself that cause the under-representation of women. As social groups tend to behave in line

 11

with what’s normal and expected of them, negative stereotypes about women and gender gaps
in Esports serves to legitimize the status quo (Plaza et al., 2017; Chalabaev et al., 2013).

Furthermore, Hardin and Greer (2009) have found that female adolescents are 6x more likely
to discontinue their sports participation than their peers. Hence, Ross and Shinew (2008)
highlights the importance of studying those who persist. Moreover, Costello, Bieuzen &
Bleakley (2014) have raised concerns about the under-representation of female participants in
sports research, further confirming the relevancy of the present study. Kane & Spradley
(2017) argue that there is gap in research of Esports, especially those about gender equality.
Additionally, the authors (ibid) suggest that gender stereotypes of women are common within
Esports, and in many instances women are perceived to not fit in. Plaza et al. (2017)
highlights the significance of conducting new studies of the gender-typing of sports in order
to further understand how different populations view them. Hardin & Greer (2009) further
suggest that gender-typing of sports should be reassessed on a regular basis. As far as the
present author is aware, no other study of the gender-typing of Esports and/or gaming have
been made. Thus, this study is the first of its kind, i.e. categorizing Esports as a feminine,
neutral, or masculine sport, and therefore setting a precedent for future studies. In accordance,
Alvariñas-Villaverde et al. (2017) points out the importance of establishing benchmark
studies of the gender-typing of sports.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Social role theory
The social roles of genders have been thoroughly investigated in several different disciplines,
including biology, sociology, economy as well as evolutionary and developmental research
(Eagly & Wood, 2012). The present study adopts a social-psychological vantage point.

In the late 80’s the social role theory was developed by Eagly (1987), which suggest that
behavioral sex differences originates from the social roles that men and women are given.
Historically, men and women were assigned to different kind of labor depending on their
physical characteristics (Eagly & Wood, 2012). This kind of labor division (specialization)
was socially constructed in hopes of gaining economic, social and technological
advancements (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). Eagly and Wood (2012) argue that due to

 12

differences between the sexes (regarding physical traits), some activities and labor tasks were
more efficiently handled by one sex or the other. As men were perceived to be stronger, faster
and better equipped to work outside of the home, they were assigned labor tasks traditionally
synonymous with masculine behavior, e.g. leadership and assertiveness (Vogel, Wester,
Heesacker & Madon, 2003). Women on the other hand, were perceived to be more caring as
they were often responsible for taking care of the family’s children (Eagly & Wood, 2012).
Thus, women were assigned tasks related to family and home, traditionally associated with
feminine behavior such as nurturance and concern over personal relationships (Vogel et al.,
2003).

As a result of the labor division and social roles given to men and women, people started to
form beliefs about gender roles (Harrison & Lynch, 2005). These beliefs were based on the
expectations of men’s and women’s behavior and characteristics. As such, it was expected
that men would fulfill their masculine role and women their feminine role, even though they
were not performing their daily labor task (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Through socialization
processes, society acts to promote personality traits and skills that prepare, uphold and
facilitate gender role performance (Eagly & Wood, 2012). The authors (ibid) argue that
gender roles influence behavior through an additional three biological and psychological
processes; hormonal fluctuations (biological), self-standards (psychological) and other
people’s expectations (psychological). Hormonal fluctuations work as chemical signals that
regulate role performance whereas the psychological processes functions as social norms that
regulate behavior (ibid).

Indeed, it has been found that social norms has an impact on upholding traditional gender
roles and behavior (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991). The authors (ibid) argue that people
look to others of same-sex to determine what type of behavior is accepted and how to behave
in certain situations, especially in situations that are vague or unclear (e.g. a female might
wonder what to wear to a party or what sport to participate in). Descriptive norms are
perceptions of other people’s behavior; those that are typical. Failing to adhere to descriptive
norms may not necessarily cause social disapproval, however it often prompts surprise
(Cialdini et al., 1991). On the other hand, injunctive norms are the perceptions of how people
should behave, a sort of guideline. These norms, when defied, often cause social disapproval.
Because deviations from descriptive and injunctive norms are expected to elicit hostile social

 13

reactions, they together work as system to help confirm traditional gender roles (ibid).
However, Harrison & Lynch (2005) argues that an increasing amount of men and women are
starting to disrupt norms about gender roles as they assume social roles that are traditionally
held by the other sex (e.g. participation in masculine or feminine sports). As such, Eagly,
Wood & Diekman (2000) states that an individual can change social role depending on their
perceived gender role orientation (feminine or masculine). Rather than being constrained to
their sex, their social role changes to the field they now occupy, as predicted by social role
theory (ibid). Nonetheless, gender role beliefs have today become so established in our
society that they are part of everyday life and consensually shared. Wood & Eagly (2002)
argue that gender roles are hard to change because they seem to reflect inborn traits of sexes.
As women and men act in line with their social roles and behave in a gender-typed way, they
end up confirming gender stereotypes (Vogel et al., 2003). Accordingly, Eagly (1987) claims
that social theory is one of the most significant explanations for why gender stereotypes are
confirmed. Figure 2.1 explains the process of the social role theory and the collective impact
that society has on individuals in creating and reproducing social gender roles and stereotypes
(a, b & c), as well as how they impact society in different ways (d & e).

Figure 2.1
Process model of social role theory

 Collective Individual Collective
 (macro) (micro) (macro)

 Social (gender) Psychological Outcomes
 Impact of society Impact on society
 roles processes

 Classification of
 Physical Socialization sports as masculine,
 specialization of neutral or feminine.
sexes (e.g. men are
strong, and women Stereotypes Gender gap in
 Sex-differentiated
 are caring). participation of
 Gender roles affect, cognition
 Stereotypic Esports
 and beliefs and behavior
 expectations
 Difference in
 Esports
 Division of labor
 performance
 between genders

 a b c d e

 14