1

“Friending someone means just adding them to your friends list, not much

else”: Children’s casual practices in virtual world games

Rebekah Willett, Dec. 2014

Convergence (in press)

Abstract: This article analyses young preteens’ uses and understandings of

virtual world games, with a focus on the structures which create different online

experiences. The study involved working with a group of 28 children ages 8-10.

Data analysed in this article are paper-based activities, semi-structured interviews,

and field notes. The article investigates dominant constructions of children as “not

yet complete” and as “active, knowing beings” (Cook, 2005). These dichotomous

constructions are explored across the literature concerning children and virtual

world games, particularly in relation to online risks and opportunities. The analysis

focuses on ways data collected for this project challenge constructions of children

as either at risk or active and empowered. The analysis reveals that many

children’s online engagements in virtual world games are casual (that is, they are

not investing time or money in the games) and structured by factors such as age,

socio-economic status, and internet access. The article suggests that studies of

children online need to distinguish between different digital childhoods, particularly

in relation to research and policy suggestions.

2

Children’s use of the internet is commonly framed in public and academic

discourse in terms of the valuable opportunities available online as well as the

potential for exposure to online risks (Livingstone, 2009). Livingstone describes

the “great expectations” which surround families’ investments in computers and

the internet, particularly “new opportunities for self-expression, sociability,

community engagement, creativity and new literacies” (2009: 28). At the same

time, discussions are dominated by concerns about risks related to unwanted

content, contact, and conduct (Hasebrink et al., 2009). In the midst of these

discussions are websites such as Disney’s Club Penguin, presenting itself as the

safe social networking space for children, as is evident on the Parents page of the

site: “From live moderators and filtered chat, to an ad-free play environment and

special parent tools, we strive to be the safest place on the internet” (Club

Penguin, 2012). Not only does Club Penguin tap into safety discourse, the site

makes claims about various “learning and development” aspects of children’s

experiences on Club Penguin (categorized as motor skills, creativity, teamwork,

money management, global awareness, socialization, and responsibility). By

presenting itself as “the safest place on the internet” where children engage in

constructive learning activities, Club Penguin is drawing on and (re)producing

discursive constructions of children as at risk online if not carefully monitored, and

3

online spaces as offering valuable opportunities for children as active online

learners.

Club Penguin is one many virtual world game sites designed for children which

feature some aspect of socialization (friends lists, restricted or open chat, guilds)

as well as gaming activities and in-game economies (earning and spending points

or in-game money). This article discusses issues around children’s experiences of

online risks and opportunities connected with virtual world games designed for

children. Importantly, the data focus on children ages 8 to 10, an age group which

is increasingly taking part in online activities (Child Trends, 2013; Rideout et al.,

2010), yet one which is frequently excluded in the field which is dominated by

research about teens online (Grimes and Fields, 2012). The analysis argues that

with this age group (8-10 year olds) factors such as age, gender and socio-

economic status combine to create approaches to online games which contrast

with the understanding of children as at risk or as active learners online as

presented in this introduction. Rather, many children’s uses and understandings of

virtual world games are very limited. This indicates that future research as well as

recommendations for regulation and education need to make clearer distinctions

between different children’s experiences and uses of varying online spaces.

Without taking account of varying structures in children’s online experiences, we

4

run the risk of over-protection (assuming all children are at risk) or over-celebration

(assuming all children are empowered). In Livingstone’s words, without making

these distinctions, we will “fail to bring to fruition the great expectations society

holds not only for the internet but…for children and young people” (2009: 209).

Before presenting the analysis of the data, the article discusses current literature

in the field, looking specifically at how the ideas identified in this introduction relate

to children and virtual world games.

Literature review

As with other areas of children’s media consumption, academic literature

concerning children’s experiences of online risks and opportunities constructs

children and media in various and contradictory ways. Cook (2005) argues that in

relation to the consumption of commercial culture, ‘the child’ is positioned

dichotomously by discourses from scholars, marketers, politicians and parents

amongst others. On the one hand, the child is positioned as a “not-yet competent,

not-yet complete social actor who is at risk” (156); and on the other hand, the child

is constructed as empowered, in Cook’s words, “As an active, knowing being who

makes her or his own meaning out of every morsel of culture…” (156). The review

which follows traces these two discursive constructions – children as at risk and

children as empowered – throughout the research literature on children’s online

5

gaming and social interactions. Extensive research by Livingstone et al. (2012)

shows the more children take advantage of opportunities online, the more risks

they encounter; and Livingstone (2009) argues that the challenge for key

stakeholders (regulatory agencies, educators, parents) is to find ways to balance

opportunities with exposure to risks. However, as the following review shows,

much of the research focuses on one area or the other, constructing children and

online environments in dichotomous ways.

Children as “at risk” “not-yet complete social actor[s]”

There are few academic studies which focus specifically on risks within virtual

world games for children; however, concerns from literature on children’s online

activities more generally can be applied to virtual world gaming. The most

comprehensive research study in relation to online risk and children is the EU Kids

Online project (see Livingstone et al., 2012). This group of researchers argues

that “risk of harm does not necessarily result in actual harm”, theorizing risk as “a

probabilistic judgment” (Livingstone et al., 2012: 330). Their findings indicate that

probabilities of actual harm to children in the EU are relatively low, particularly for

younger children (aged 9-10). In their “typology of user types classified by risk and

harm”, Livingstone et al. classify a majority of 9-10 year olds (48%) as “low risk

novices”. This group uses the internet less frequently than older children and

6

conducts a smaller range of activities. However, as their digital skills are relatively

low, this group also seems more vulnerable to harm, and the studies have found

that parents of these children are more restrictive of their activities.

The EU Kids Online researchers identify three areas of concern connected with

children and online risks (Hasebrink et al., 2009). In relation to online social

interactions (including chat in some virtual world games), a key concern is around

unwanted contact, namely bullying and ‘stranger danger’. Another concern is that

children are recipients of unwanted content including aggressive (violent or

hateful), sexual, or racist, biased or misleading content. Here, the worry is that

children experience emotional distress when receiving aggressive or sexual

content, particularly unexpectedly. This may be particularly true for younger

internet users who have less experience in dealing with such content online

(Livingstone, 2009). A third area of risk related to social interactions is conduct in

which the child acts in ways which might cause harm. From a legal point of view,

Bloomfield and Duranske (2009) argue that based on previous attempts to

regulate children’s online media and videogames in relation to sexual exploitation

and explicit content, it is unlikely virtual worlds will be able to be regulated in the

future. However, safety features in children’s virtual world games including

7

scripted or filtered chat address a variety of concerns about risks related to

unwanted contact and content.

Concerns about children online also focus on commercial exploitation. As virtual

world game spaces have proliferated, immersive forms of advertising and cross-

promotional marketing have developed. Analyzing what they termed “Neopian

economics of play”, Grimes and Shade (2005) highlight the capitalist ideology

present through the various activities on the Neopets website, as well as through

product placement, sponsorship, cross-media promotion and branding (see also

Wasko, 2010). Grimes and Shade describe Neopets as “a culture which fosters

deepening levels of intimacy between marketers and children by dissolving

traditional barriers between ‘content and commerce’ ” (2005: 183). One of the

concerns related to online marketing is that children are particularly vulnerable

because of their stage of development in relation to understanding advertising.

Much of the research concerning children’s understanding of advertising and

marketing follows a developmental model, charting out a sequence of stages

which children go through in their development of advertising literacy (e.g. APA,

2004; Calvert, 2008). Calvert (2008) describes online advertisements aimed at

children as more interactive, targeted, and responsive to children’s developmental

needs and desires. Most widely reported are concerns about ways online

8

advertisements blur the boundaries between commercial and noncommercial

content (see APA, 2004). From a developmental perspective, this raises particular

worries in relation to children who are still developing their advertising literacy.

Again, perhaps in response to these concerns, Club Penguin markets itself as

containing no third party advertising.

One final more general concern related to children spending time online is that

children’s media engagements are displacing other, more valuable activities such

as reading or physical exercise which are important for children’s development.

These ideas are reinforced by reports from health organizations such as the

American Academy of Pediatrics which recommends that screen time be limited to

one to two hours per day, purporting that “Time spent with media often displaces

involvement in creative, active, or social activities” (AAP, 2010). The implication

here is that children’s development will be effected negatively by too much screen

time. Perhaps in response to these concerns, virtual world game sites discursively

construct children’s activities on these sites as good for children’s learning and

development, as discussed in relation to Club Penguin in the introduction.

In this review of literature on risks related to virtual world games, it is apparent that

all children are constructed as vulnerable due to their lack of competencies.

9

Importantly, virtual world game sites reinforce these research findings and

successfully market their sites as safe spaces that meet children’s developmental

needs.

Children as “active, knowing being[s]”

In contrast with the arguments above, some researchers assert that rather than

displacing activities, electronic media are creating situations in which children are

reading for different reasons and in different ways as well as engaging in a variety

of new forms of learning, participation, and communication (Jenkins et al., 2007;

Steinkuehler, 2007). Research on children’s virtual world games is dominated by

this standpoint, and the review of literature that follows focuses primarily on this

body of literature.

A majority of the literature on children’s engagements in virtual world games

places the child firmly in Cook’s “active, knowing being” construction. Much of this

work focuses on the learning, literacy, and identity practices that are occurring on

these sites. In studying the sites, researchers indicate the opportunities offered for

children’s development of “technoliteracies” and “Literacy 2.0”, including skills

such as online collaboration and multimodal communication (Wohlwend, 2010:

147). Other textual analyses of sites indicate opportunities for problem solving and

10

“new literacies” connected with the development of online community (Meyers,

2009); as well as skills, knowledge, and attitudes associated with participatory

cultures (Carrington, 2013). Research which includes observational, interview, or

chat log data confirm that children are experiencing a range of new literacies

through their involvement in virtual world games. Marsh (2013), for example,

analyses ways children read and write texts on the sites as a way of making sense

and order out of “complex and even chaotic social systems” which are present in

Club Penguin (85). Analyzing school-based virtual world projects, Gillen (2009)

found that participants employ new literacies and complex forms of collaboration

and communication in a variety of online spaces connected with the world (see

also Merchant, 2009).

However, comparing affordances for learning, literacy and engagement on two

different sites, Carrington (2013) demonstrates the need to differentiate between

children’s virtual world game sites, particularly in terms of the opportunities

available for players to engage in new literacy practices. A number of researchers,

whilst analyzing children’s practices on virtual world game sites indicate limitations

due to the structures of the sites. Analyses indicate the ways spaces limit

potential for learning and literacy practices due in part to designs aimed at creating

11

“safe” spaces for children (Black, 2010; Carrington and Hodgetts, 2010; Marsh,

2010; Meyers et al., 2010; Reich and Black, 2012).

In addition to focusing on literacies and learning, research also considers

children’s social and identity practices in relation to virtual world games. Research

here indicates ways virtual world games offer “a sense of affiliation or community”

and “a way of maintaining and developing relationships” (Merchant et al., 2013:

254). Marsh (2011) demonstrates connections between children’s online and

offline social practices, arguing that children maintain an “interaction order” online

through the social, material, and cultural structures of their offline worlds.

Researchers argue that children explore aspects of identity such as gender,

sexuality, and ethnicity online as well as offline, and that virtual worlds in particular

allow for play and meaning-making in relation to identity (Kafai, 2008; Kafai et al.,

2009; Kafai et al., 2010; Marsh, 2010). In a study focusing on virtual world game

design, Jackson et al. (2008) found that children wanted more ways to express

their own interests and persona via their avatars, including more “fashionable

clothing and hair styles”, as well as specific ethnic forms of clothing such as head

scarves for Muslim girls. Similarly, Kafai et al. (2010) found some children were

frustrated with the lack of non-White avatar options, and they adopted a “Latino”

identity rather than African-American as originally desired or became a pixie (with

12

purple skin). The limitations in avatar designs might be seen as reinforcing

stereotypes and social hierarchies based on ethnic or racial identity (Everett, 2005;

Leonard, 2006). Further, researchers studying commercial sites comment on the

hierarchies based on socioeconomic inequalities these sites reinforce between

children with and without membership (Black, 2010; Marsh, 2013). However, in

line with the construction of children as active knowing beings, Kafai et al. (2009)

conclude that identity-related activities “might be seen as part of the girls’

developmental learning paths to create culturally recognizable ‘looks’ with the

available resources and social constraints” in virtual world games (6); and Marsh

(2008) indicates ways the children are learning to critically analyze the commercial

structures that might limit or frustrate them.

This necessarily brief overview of literature on children’s virtual world games

indicates the focus of research contains a strong interest in what children gain

from interactions on the sites. In some cases, the research focuses on children

who are particularly active online – Kafai et al.’s (2009) work, for example, often

discusses “core gamers” (7% of their data set), rather than the 59% of “peripheral

gamers”. Further, although many of the studies provide astute analyses of

children’s online engagements, often there is little sense of the structures in their

lives that are shaping their online literacies. The analysis which follows focuses on

13

more peripheral gamers and takes account of the various structures in their lives

which may account for their position as casual players. This article, therefore, adds

an important counterpoint to both discursive constructions of children online –

rather than being anxious or excited about the possibilities of virtual world games,

this article suggests that the games are one of any number of resources in

children’s lives which are used in very limited ways.

Research methods

The data analyzed in this article were collected as part of a study investigating

children’s experiences with and understandings of commercial practices and

friendships in virtual world games. Specifically, the study aimed to answer the

following questions:

• What is the relationship between online and offline play in relation to young

children’s friendships and social networks?

• What understandings of commercialized spaces and the intentions of media

producers do children transfer across online and offline spaces?

• What sort of consumer identities do children adopt in these different

environments?

14

The research site was an elementary school containing grades 3 through 5 (ages

8 to 11) in a mid-sized university city in the upper Midwest in the US. Two

researchers (names will appear in final publication) worked on the data collection,

both Euro-American women from the university. The school was very diverse and

contained several Spanish-English bilingual classrooms, and one of the

researchers spoke Spanish. The student population was 27% Limited English

Proficiency (LEP) - Spanish, 7% LEP - Hmong, and 6% LEP – other; and 71% of

the student population was considered economically disadvantaged.

Data were collected in a ‘Virtual world games club’ that met every day for 20-25

minutes before school started for three weeks (15 sessions). We met after school

buses arrived and before school started in an attempt to provide access to the club

to as many children as possible. Parent letters and consent forms in English and

Spanish were sent home with all children ages 8 to 11 (284 children). We received

28 signed consent forms, and the club was formed with these children: 11 boys

and 17 girls; seven 8-year-olds, nine 9-year-olds, and twelve 10-year-olds

representing different ethnic backgrounds, with Latino/a children making up almost

half the group (see Appendix: Tables 1-3). This low rate of return implies that

many children may not have been interested in the club, parents may not have

consented, or forms were lost. However, the group reflected the diversity of the

15

school in terms of age and ethnicity, as well as having groups of both boys and

girls. Because our interest was in understanding different consumer and friendship

practices within specific sociocultural contexts, this sample of children met the

needs of our project. Although we were not able to collect data regarding their

socio-economic status, the school is an area of the city with the lowest household

incomes and the highest percentages of Latino and African-American families, and

we were able to ask children about internet access. The school’s catchment area

also contains higher-income households from outside the local area. Ethical

approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board and the relevant school

board. Names and screen names have been anonymised, and no data from non-

participant players on the websites were collected.

A variety of research-related activities were conducted with the games club

including two paper-based activities as well as game play and interviews. In

relation to commercial practices, after a brief discussion about whether or not

virtual world games make money (in which children more or less agreed that

games create some revenue), children selected a game they felt they knew fairly

well and created a spider diagram on paper of how the game makes money. They

also indicated the revenue-creation activities in which they had participated. A

similar activity elicited children’s understanding and experiences of friendships

16

online, by asking children about their friending practices in games, how they made

decisions about who to friend, links with offline friendships, and differences

between online and offline friendships. After these two paper-based activity

sessions, subsequent games club meetings took place in a computer lab so that

we could interview children as they were playing virtual world games. Children

were able to choose games to play within the restrictions of the available software

(therefore Minecraft was not available, for example). Choices in order of popularity

were Poptropica, Club Penguin, Animal Jam, Webkinz, Fantage, and MovieStar

Planet. Semi-structured interviews about their paper-based activities took place at

computers, allowing participants to show examples in their games and for

interviewers to ask context-based and follow-up questions. Over the course of the

project, we also kept field notes about the games they were playing, different

components of the games in which they were engaged, and general observations

about events such as difficulties in logging onto websites. The combination of

methods (diagrams, interviews, field notes) provided in-depth data on children’s

understandings of and experiences in virtual world games.

Employing an inductive approach and using thematic analysis informed by

grounded theory (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007), the data were reviewed

repeatedly and first coded for emerging categories. This process involved

17

discussing categories during the data collection phase, as well as looking for

repetitions, particular repeated expressions, similarities and differences, and

missing data (see Ryan and Bernard, 2003). Categories largely centered around

our research topics (friendships, consumption, and economic literacies), and a

fourth category that emerged was styles of play. These four major categories

were broken down into sub-categories (eg. consumption was broken into

‘practices’ and ‘knowledge of hierarchies’) and sub-sub-categories (eg.

‘consumption practices’ was broken into ‘what they purchase’, ‘how they acquire

goods’, and ‘decision making’). After this initial reviewing process, both

researchers coded all data separately, and then codes and coding were compared,

discussed, and revised. Analytical themes (eg. ‘different digital childhoods’) were

developed through a process of constant comparison whereby data in each

category were repeatedly reviewed in relation to the emerging themes (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967). This is not to say that we were able to ignore our prior knowledge

of literature in the field as we developed the themes; however, the focus of the

process of analysis was on themes emerging from the data rather than on

preconceived analytical themes from existing literature (Charmaz, 2000). The

analytical themes were investigated further with reference to literature in the field.

The resulting analysis presented here is not intended to suggest generalizations

for a larger population. Rather, the analysis highlights theoretical inferences and

18

raises questions which are intended to guide further research.

The following analysis draws on the discursive constructions of children online

discussed in the literature review and, in analyzing data from this study, raises

questions about these constructions. Drawing on theories from the sociology of

childhood, the analysis highlights that there are many different ways of being

online which are shaped and given meaning within sociocultural contexts (James,

Jenks and Prout, 1998). The analysis does not refute the evidence discussed in

the literature review; rather, the analysis shows that both constructions have a

tendency to elide children into a single category which ignores children’s everyday

lives and how these shape their experiences of online risks and opportunities

(Burnett and Merchant, 2014; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007).

Analysis

Different digital childhoods

From the literature review above, it appears that all children are at risk and able to

take advantage of the opportunities offered by free virtual world gaming sites (with

notable exceptions, Livingstone et al., 2012, Marsh, 2011). However, in relation to

online access, studies show that age, gender, socio-economic status, and ethnicity

are linked with various access divides. These divides include technology, skills,

19

time spent online, kinds of activities done online, social support, motivation, and so

on (van Dijk, 2005; Livingstone et al., 2012). In the games club, 25 out of 28

children reported having internet access outside of school, but some children

reported having multiple working laptops, others said their internet was slow and

unreliable, others reported accessing the internet at their relatives’ homes, and

one boy said he had intermittent access that he helped pay for so that he could

play his X-box Live games. Only the five experienced game players said they went

online most days. This aligns with findings from the EU Kids Online study, which

indicate a significant difference between the daily use of the internet by 9-10 year-

olds versus 11-16 year-olds (33% of 9-10 year-olds reported going online daily

versus 80% of 11-16 year-olds) and the amount of access different children had

depending on their parents’ level of education (seen as a predictor of socio-

economic status) (Livingstone et al., 2012).

There are several possible explanations for the low frequency of daily internet use

in the current study. One reason is material access: many participants in the

current study did not have frequent access to a computer (they did not have one in

their home, they had to share with other family members), and internet access was

slow or intermittent. With 71% of the school population considered economically

disadvantaged, daily use of the internet is likely reflecting a socio-economic digital

20

divide documented in numerous reports (e.g. Zickuhr and Smith, 2012). Another

explanation is that children ages 8 to 10 might have more restricted time online,

possibly because of rules established in homes or earlier bed times. In Rideout et

al.’s (2010) study, 64% of 8-10 year-olds indicated they had rules about what they

were allowed to do on the computer (compared with 36% of 15-18 year-olds), and

38% of 8-10 year-olds reported that their parents enforced media rules most of the

time (compared with 16% of 15-18 year-olds). Children in the games club

mentioned various restrictions on their time due to after-school activities,

homework, chores, and “limited electronic time”.

As indicated above, our participants’ online access varied, and as a result their

experience and knowledge of virtual world games also varied. Five games club

participants were experienced virtual world gamers: they all had internet access at

home; they had been playing one or two games for over a year, and most had

membership to one virtual world game; and they navigated their game confidently

with some indication of use of advanced features. About one-third had mid-level

experience of a virtual world game. These participants usually had reliable internet

access at home and played virtual world games, however, they did not have

membership and played lots of different games; they could use some advanced

features such as interacting with others in games. The remaining half the

21

members of our games club were novice players. These participants played

mainly at school because they shared a computer at home and/or they had limited,

slow, or no internet access; they had recently started playing virtual world games;

they told us about basic experiences in their games, and they displayed no

advanced gaming skills. These categories align roughly with the distribution rates

across Kafai et al.’s (2009) categories in relation to children’s activity levels in the

virtual world game, Whyville (7% of the players were categorized as ‘core gamers’,

34% semi-core gamers, and 59% peripheral gamers). In our study, these

experience levels were largely connected with ethnicity and possibly socio-

economic status, with Latino/a and African-American children representing 10 out

of 12 novice players, and Euro-Americans representing 4 out of 5 experienced

players (see Appendix: Tables 1-3).

Our field notes from the first time we took the games club to the computer lab

indicate that many did not know their usernames and passwords and subsequently

started new accounts. Although we were not surprised to find this was the case

with our novice players, we also found that our mid-level and experienced players

had multiple accounts. Further, we noted that children played different games on

different days of the games club; and we saw very few children taking part in some

of the more advanced features such as guilds in Club Penguin. On the whole, we

22

found the novice and mid-level experienced players (over three-quarters of our

group) had few long-term goals in their games (for example, some children spent

sessions playing mini-games). Most of our participants were not invested in

developing their characters, spaces, and gaming repertoire/skills. Our most

dedicated players, the five experienced gamers, tried new games during the

sessions as well as returning to their more familiar games; and the two

experienced Webkinz players had multiple accounts and even shared one account.

These observations indicate the casual approach to virtual world gaming that

children adopted, at least in this context. This casual approach to virtual world

games is reflected across the data and is particularly relevant when considering

financial investments in these spaces.

Only three participants had paid memberships to games. One player had paid for

her membership (to Animal Jam for $6 per month which she said took her “a long

time” to save); and two other participants had memberships through Webkinz toys

which were given to them as gifts (the toys come with a code to unlock the virtual

toy in the online game). This indicates that a majority of our participants were not

investing time or money in the games, rather they were taking a casual approach.

This contrasts with studies which indicate that videogamers ages 8 - 18 play for

almost two hours per day on average (Rideout et al., 2010), as well as with Ito et

23

al.’s (2010) studies of 12-18 year-olds in which they describe their participants as

“always on” the internet. For children in the current study, age, gender, socio-

economic status, and ethnicity overlap to create contexts whereby online access in

general and virtual world games in particular appear to involve less investment in

terms of time compared with older children; as well as different experiences of

these digital environments.

Online friendships – opportunities and risks

As discussed in the literature review, research on social aspects of online

communication indicate possibilities for extending friendships and developing

important new communication skills as well as concerns over high profile risks

such as unwanted contact and content. On the paper-based activity about

friendships in virtual world games, just over half of the games club participants (16

out of 28) said they chat with others in their games. However, this figure needs to

be understood in terms of different types of online communication and game play.

The two most popular games in our club were Poptropica and Club Penguin.

These were played by almost all of the novice and mid-level experienced players

as well as two experienced gamers. Poptropica only allows scripted chat (children

are provided with options of messages rather than being able to type messages);

and Club Penguin contains a scripted chat option, “Ultimate Safe Chat”, which is

24

set by default, and a heavily monitored open chat option which is accessed by

making changes in the parent controls area. Of our 16 participants who chat, six

only used Poptropica and four others were novice players in Club Penguin,

indicating they most likely only experienced scripted chat. When participants

mentioned chatting, they often couched responses in safety discourse, explained

that they used scripted chat, mentioned limitations their parents placed on their

use of chat, or said they were aware that sites monitored chat for abusive or

offensive language. These limitations indicate that online chat needs to be

understood and delineated in order to avoid making generalizations about either

the risks or benefits of online chat.

Examining participants’ understanding of online ‘friends’ and their approach to

‘friending’ provides further insight in relation to social risks and opportunities.

Children had different approaches to ‘friending’ in virtual world games. As the title

of this article suggests, many participants described virtual world game ‘friends’ as

“random”, unrelated to friendships, a name on a list and “not much else”. Ben (age

10) is a mid-level experienced virtual world game player, although he is limited to

free games available on the internet. He says he has never chatted with someone,

and he does not see the point of having ‘friends’ in virtual world games, “because

there’s nothing really to do”. Unlike older children or children engaged in more

25

“interest-driven” online spaces (Ito et al., 2010), Ben is not motivated to chat or

have friends online. Motivation is an access issue discussed in digital divides

research (e.g. van Dijk, 2005), and in this case it could be that Ben’s limited

participation is due in part to his lack of motivation. Ben’s statement, “there’s

nothing…to do” indicates that friendship for him is about joint activities rather than

chat. This might reflect developmental aspects of communication which indicate

that talk plays a more central role in children’s lives as they grow older (Coleman,

2011) as well as gendered patterns of communication which indicate that girls are

more verbal than boys (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). It could also be that the

limitations on Ben’s practices (parental regulation as well as the structures of the

websites) restrict Ben from finding spaces in which information and communication

are relevant to his interests.

One of the experienced girls described many of her virtual world friends as

“random friends”, and explained the difference between online and offline friends:

Random friends I don’t know, and I don’t know what they’re like. And so

they’re not best friends. We can’t talk about things that we actually know

about and have with each other (Nina, age 10).

Other participants similarly said they did not feel they knew ‘friends’ in their virtual

worlds, and their relationship was either completely non-committal (they never

26

interacted with them) or they only played games against one another (which did

not involve chat apart from some scripted options). One boy responded that a

friend in a virtual world game simply means that “you can see them in the game”

(Enrique, age 8). All of these definitions of online friends align with the discussion

above in relation to Ben’s comments – for these children, there is little motivation

to chat or develop friendships, because there is nothing relevant or meaningful to

connect to (in Nina’s words “We can’t talk about things that we actually know

about and have with each other”). This adds to Marsh’s (2011) discussion of the

literacies children develop as they make sense of the ‘social order’ in Club

Penguin – understanding what a ‘friend’ means in these specific contexts indicates

that children are making meaning around friendships in different contexts of their

lives. For the children in this study, virtual world friendships are extremely limited.

Although ‘friending’ and chat practices were fairly impersonal and non-social,

when asked about why they started playing, the participants almost always

mentioned a friend or relative who had introduced the game and/or taught them

something about it. Ten-year-old Brett, for example, generally did not play with

other people in games, although he described how he and his friends helped each

other learn to play games (Poptropica and Minecraft) when they were at each

other’s homes. Brett also mentioned playing at his home with a friend two years

27

younger, sharing gaming tips for Club Penguin and also playing ‘hide and seek’ in

the game when he was on one computer and his friend was on another in a

different room of the house (see also Marsh, 2010). Potentially, our participants

could play games with friends and relatives online, and frequently participants

showed us one or two ‘friends’ in their game who were known to them. However,

our participants said they were not online at the same time, and for the most part,

they did not seem interested in chatting with friends or relatives in their games.

This contrasts with Marsh’s (2010) findings which indicate that some children

arranged to meet friends and relatives online; and with studies of 12-18 year olds

who are described as using social media as spaces to “hang out” with peers (Ito et

al., 2010). Again, this indicates that our participants have more restrictions in their

lives, possibly due to their age, such as parental regulations, earlier bedtimes

which means less free time, less access to computers due to sharing amongst

family members, and so on. These restrictions seem to lead to less investment in

games as social spaces, and therefore, their use is more casual and more related

to the gaming than the social aspects of the games.

The one exception to this casual type of play was Jillian (age 9) who was an

experienced player and paid for her Animal Jam membership. Jillian had 93

‘friends’ in Animal Jam including three cousins who introduced her to the game,

28

and she had access to open chat (which she said was determined under parental

controls). She had clear ideas about friends and friendships, saying that she did

not friend random players, rather she only friended “people” she had played with,

defining a friend in Animal Jam as “someone to play games with, talk to, work with

and is nice”. She was aware that some players were not nice: “Like sometimes

they tell mean jokes, and so I don't friend them. I kinda block them.” According to

Jillian, one of the big advantages of having friends in Animal Jam is to trade

objects, and the site contains rooms where there are friendship parties for players

to make friends. Marsh (2011) argues that high amounts of social, cultural and

economic capital offline provide children with all three forms of capital in Club

Penguin, and Jillian’s understanding of friendships echo this finding, as is evident

in this statement by Jillian: “Cuz you can trade. Cuz not many people play this that

I know, and so… Some are for trading…see, I traded a lot of this stuff” (showing

the researcher her trade list). (In fact, a player does not need to be friends with

another player to trade, however, it may be that Jillian has found that trading with

players who are not friends is less successful.) Although Jillian’s comments

indicate some lack of digital literacy in this space, they also indicate opportunities

for learning about online social practices (evaluating potential friends, developing

procedures for friending, blocking players, building social and cultural capital).

29

Jillian mentioned one player she met online (ChewingGum) who she played with a

lot; and she was deputy of ChewingGum’s clan, although the distinction of ‘clan’

and ‘deputy’ were somewhat fuzzy.

INTERVIEWER: …tell me about clans.

JILLIAN: ChewingGum’s the leader. I’m deputy.

INTERVIEWER: How’d that happen? How’d you become a deputy?

JILLIAN: I don’t know. I was like the first member, so I became deputy.

INTERVIEWER: And what does that mean?

JILLIAN: I get to, like…

INTERVIEWER: So what do deputies get to do that other people don’t get

to do?

JILLIAN: I kinda just, I kinda just help him and follow her orders [sic].

INTERVIEWER: What kinds of orders does she give?

JILLIAN: Like, go get new members and stuff. We have, like, ten members

now.

INTERVIEWER: Ok. How do you recruit members?

JILLIAN: ChewingGum’s, I just start dancing around, and I’m like “clan at

my den”.

Although Jillian was more invested in her game than other games club participants,

this excerpt demonstrates that she was still unclear about the role of friends and

30

socializing in the game. Further she seemed unaware of and perhaps uninterested

in the game play element of ‘clans’ (which are formed for purposes of fighting

other clans). Primarily, her social interactions on the site seem to be about her

appearance in the game, as indicated by an interview which focused heavily on

her avatar’s castle, pets, and accessories. Whilst this indicates Jillian’s interest in

displaying and perhaps playing with her identity as discussed in Kafai et al.’s

(2009) work, Jillian’s understanding of and engagement with more advanced

social activities are limited. Whilst previous literature provides evidence that

preteens (approximately aged 8 – 12) and teens socialize online and use online

social sites to reinforce and extend offline relationships (e.g. Ito et al., 2010), it

may be that the socializing is very limited for preteens in particular. As shown

throughout this section, there are technical limitations such as scripted chat on

sites aimed at children; and further, developmental research indicates that peer

groups play a more significant role in the lives of teens compared with younger

children (Coleman 2011). This indicates that risks and opportunities connected

with online social practices may be limited for a variety of reasons in online spaces

designed for children.

Children as economic agents

31

Children are often positioned as having economic power or at least having

influence over purchases (see Buckingham, 2011). In the eyes of many children’s

advocates, companies are taking advantage of children’s vulnerability to the

persuasion of advertising. With an annual revenue of about $50 million dollars

through subscriptions alone, Club Penguin seems to offer evidence that

companies are taking advantage of children’s spending power (Chmielewski and

Pham, 2008). However, children in the games club insisted that they did not make

online purchases, partly because they did not have credit cards; and further, they

indicated that they rarely tried to negotiate online purchases with parents (at least

in relation to virtual world games). Further, products are often purchased for

children rather than by or with children – one girl mentioned being given ten

Webkinz toys as presents over two years, although she was losing interest in the

game. This highlights complication in the discursive construct of children as having

enormous amounts of spending power.

Although membership to the virtual world games was appealing to many of the

children in the games club, when asked if they would spend money on

membership, some children said they had other priorities. To some extent we

could see children’s budget priorities connected with socio-economic status and

ethnicity. Estella and Carlota, two Latina girls with slow and limited internet access,

32

explained that they would not ask their parents to spend money on online games.

Estella (age 8) said she needed money to buy clothes, and if she had money she

would buy herself some Cheetos (snack food); and Carlota (age 8) said she did

not play Poptropica or Club Penguin very often so she would not spend money on

them, and similarly said she would rather spend money on candy. In contrast,

Jillian (discussed above) paid for her Animal Jam membership and explained that

her mother taught her how to budget money: “My mom has this whole separating

thing…one for college, one for my religion”. These responses indicate that children

are not as vulnerable, at least to the appeal of virtual world game advertising, as

portrayed in public discourse; and further, different childhoods are being enacted

in relation to online purchases, with children with less access to financial

resources largely excluded from spending even small amounts of money online.

In our games club, we found evidence of some degree of skepticism about the

value of online goods, as well as wariness due to risks of online purchasing. For

example, two experienced Euro-American girls (both age 10) commented:

Sofia: I don't think [Webkins’ Deluxe membership] is worth it because you

only get to play like one or two more games…

Anna: I got a pet of the month once, but it didn't really, it wasn't that good.

In contrast, a novice Latina girl with limited internet access said:

33

If you spent money maybe you don’t get the stuff you paid for…and then

you lose your money. (Carlota, age 8)

Whilst these excerpts demonstrate a level of media literacy in relation to risks, they

also indicate different experiences which may be connected with differences in

age, expertise, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Sofia and Anna have direct

experience through their micro-transactions (Webkins’ Deluxe membership is

$4.49 for one month); whereas Carlota’s comment indicates lack of direct

experience (as indicated by “if” and “maybe”) and a less sophisticated

understanding of financial risk (loss of money rather than disappointment). Sofia

and Anna take a consumer literacy stance (be skeptical of the value of online

products), whereas Carlota takes an avoidance stance (don’t spend money online).

An argument could be made that without experiencing online spending through

micro-transactions, that is, without being able to experience risk, children’s

understanding of online financial risk and other consumer areas remains limited.

Whilst these different understandings and approaches may be a result of the

different ages of the girls, they may also link with socio-economics. For families on

limited incomes, even micro-transactions represent a higher proportion of their

expendable incomes and therefore greater risk than for families on higher incomes.

Research shows that material access is closely related to skills access: children

with greater material access (more availability and higher quality computer/mobile

34

devices, faster internet) develop a broader range of skills (see van Dijk, 2005). As

van Dijk argues, “The more information and communication technology is

immersed in society and pervades everyday life, the more it becomes attached to

all existing social divisions” (2005: 2). As is evident in the excerpts presented here,

girls are developing different understandings and skills related to online

purchasing, which reflect their differing access to the internet.

Conclusion

The analysis demonstrates that children’s virtual world game activities in this study

do not match common concerns associated with children online: spending many

hours every day, taking social risks, and being exploited by companies. Nor does

the study indicate that children are engaging in participatory cultures in ways that

are discussed in relation to more dedicated internet users (e.g. Ito et al., 2010;

Jenkins et al., 2007). Rather, their engagements in virtual world games are more

casual in terms of investments in time, friendships, and economics. Importantly,

this analysis avoids eliding all children’s experiences of online spaces into single

categories. Rather, this analysis shows how different structures – age,

technological limitations, discursive constructs concerning children and online risk,

socio-cultural structures including socio-economic status - shape experiences

online as children develop their understandings of these spaces. The divides in

35

relation to children’s understanding of friendships and economics mirror divides

related to children’s access to online spaces. This indicates that we need

individualized approaches in research and recommendations which take account

of different digital childhoods. A potential risk of taking a universal approach to

children online is to over- or under-regulate, or to provide education that does not

address the needs of children. We need to be aware of the assumptions we are

accepting and reproducing as we make suggestions about children and online

risks and opportunities. Regulatory practices and recommendations about children

online from key stakeholders including government, NGOs, educators, parents,

and the industry need to be based on current empirical data which distinguishes

amongst different populations online (see Livingstone et al., 2012). Without

making these distinctions, we run the risk of ignoring the need for education and

regulation, assuming that all children are members of the digital generation who

are developing skills needed for a constantly changing media environment; or we

risk over-regulating and limiting the opportunities available to children as they

engage in online spaces. In both these scenarios, we would be doing a disservice

to children by not preparing them to make decisions and judgments about online

spaces.

Acknowledgements

36

I would like to thank [name of researcher] for her research assistance on this

project.

Works Cited

American Academy of Pediatrics (2010) Policy Statement—Media Education.

Pediatrics 126(5):1012 -1017.

American Psychological Association (2004) Report of the APA task force on

advertising and children. Washington, DC: Author. Available at:

http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/advertising-children.pdf(accessed 29 July

2013).

Black R (2010) The language of Webkinz: Early childhood literacy in an online

virtual world. Digital Culture and Education 2(1):7–24.

Bloomfield R and Duranske B (2009) Protecting Children in Virtual Worlds Without

Undermining Their Economic, Educational, and Social Benefits. Washington and

Lee Law Review 66(3):1175-1213.

37

Buckingham D (2011) The Material Child: Growing up in Consumer Culture.

Cambridge: Polity.

Burnett C and Merchant G (2014) Points of view: reconceptualising literacies

through an exploration of adult and child interactions in a virtual world. Journal of

Research in Reading 37(1):36-50.

Calvert S (2008) Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing. The Future

of Children: Children and Electronic Media 18(1):205-234.

Carrington, V (2013) Barbies and Chimps: Text and Childhoods in Virtual Worlds.

In: Merchant G, Gillen J, Marsh J, and Davies J (eds.) (2013) Virtual literacies:

Interactive spaces for children and young people. London: Routledge. Pp.41-56.

Carrington V and Hodgetts K (2010) Literacy-lite in barbiegirls. British Journal of

Sociology of Education 31(6): 671–682.

Charmaz K (2000) Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In:

Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd edition.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 509-535.

38

Child Trends (2013) Home Computer Access and Internet Use. Available at:

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=home-computer-access(accessed 29

August 2013).

Chmielewski D and Pham A (2008) Disney adds fantasy lands. Los Angelas Times.

Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/28/business/fi-

virtualdisney28(accessed 29 August 2013).

Club Penguin (2012) Parents. Available at:

http://www.clubpenguin.com/parents(accessed 14 August 2013).

Coleman, J. (2011) The Nature of Adolescence, 4th edition. New York: Psychology

Press.

Cook, D (2005) The dichotomous child in and of commercial culture. Childhood 12

(2):155–159.

39

Everett A (2005) Serious play: Playing with race in contemporary gaming culture.

In Raessens J and Goldstein J (eds.) Handbook of computer game studies.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pp.312-325.

Gillen J (2009) Literacy practices in Schome Park: a virtual literacy ethnography

Journal of Research in Reading 32(1):57–74.

Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Grimes S and Fields D (2012) Kids Online: A New Research Agenda for

Understanding Social Networking Forums. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at

Sesame Workshop.

Grimes S and Shade L (2005) Neopian Economics of Play: Children’s Cyberpets

and Online Communities as Immersive Advertising in Neopets.com International

Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 1(2):181-198.

Leonard D (2006) Not a hater, just keepin’ it real: The importance of race- and

gender-based game studies. Games and Culture 1(1):83-88.

40

Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New

York: Routledge.

Hasebrink U, Livingstone S, Haddon L and Ólafsson K (2009) Comparing

children’s online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national

comparisons for EU Kids Online. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.

Ito M, Baumer S, Bittanti M, Boyd D, Cody R, Herr B, et al. (2010) Hanging out,

messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Jackson L, Gauntlett D, and Steemers J (2008) Children in Virtual Worlds:

Adventure Rock Users and Producers Study. Communication and Media

Research Institute, University of Westminster.

James A, Jenks C, and Prout A (1998) Theorising Childhood. Polity Press: Oxford.

Jenkins H with Clinton K, Purushotma R, Robison AJ and Weigel M (2007)

Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st

Century. The MacArthur Foundation. Available at:

41

http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-

E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF(accessed 14 August 2013).

Kafai Y (2008) Gender Play in a Tween Gaming Club. In: Kafai Y, Heeter C,

Denner J and Sun J (eds.) Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives

on gender and gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp.111-124.

Kafai Y, Cook M, and Fields D (2010) ‘‘Blacks deserve bodies too!’’ Discussion

and design about diversity and race in a tween virtual world. Games and Culture

5(1): 43-63.

Kafai Y, Fields D, and Giang M (2009) “Transgressive Gender Play: Profiles and

Portraits of Girl Players in a Tween Virtual World.” Breaking New Ground:

Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory: Proceedings of DiGRA 2009.

Livingstone S (2009) Children and the Internet: Great Expectations, challenging

realities. Cambridge: Polity.

Livingstone S and Helsper E (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young

people and the digital divide. New Media Society 9(4):671-696.

42

Livingstone S, Haddon L, and Gorzig A (2012) Children, risk and safety on the

internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Policy Press.

Marsh J (2008) Out-of-school Play in Online Virtual Worlds and the Implications for

Literacy Learning. Paper presented at the Centre for Studies in Literacy, Policy,

and Learning Cultures; University of South Australia, July 2008.

Marsh J (2010) Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early

Childhood 8(1):23-39.

Marsh J (2011) Young Children's Literacy Practices in a Virtual World: Establishing

an Online Interaction Order. Reading Research Quarterly 46 (2):101-118.

Marsh J (2013) Countering Chaos in Club Penguin: Young Children’s Literacy

Practices in a Virtual World. In: Merchant G, Gillen J, Marsh J, and Davies J (eds.)

(2013) Virtual literacies: Interactive spaces for children and young people. London:

Routledge. Pp.75-88.

Merchant G (2009) Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of Research in Reading

32(1): 38-56.

43

Merchant G, Gillen J, Marsh J, and Davies J (eds.) (2013) Virtual literacies:

Interactive spaces for children and young people. London: Routledge.

Meyers E (2009) Tip of the Iceberg: Meaning, Identity, and Literacy in Preteen

Virtual Worlds. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

50(4):226-234.

Meyers E, Nathan L, and Unsworth K (2010) Who’s watching your kids? Privacy

and surveillance in virtual worlds for children. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research

3(2):4-28.

Reich S, and Black R (2012) Missed opportunities on Webkinz when

developmental abilities are not considered. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology 33(3):136–145.

Rideout V, Foehr UG and Roberts D (2010) Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-

to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ryan G and Bernard H (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods

15:85-109.

44

Steinkuehler C (2007) Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of

literacy practices. eLearning 4(3):297-318.

van Dijk J (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wasko J (2010) Children’s Virtual Worlds: The latest commercialization of

Children’s Culture. In: Buckingham D and Tingstad V (eds.) Childhood and

Consumer Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Pp.113-129.

Wohlwend K (2010) A is for Avatar Literacy: Young Children in Literacy 2.0 Worlds

and Literacy 1.0 Schools. Language Arts 88 (2):144-152.

Youness J and Smollar J (1985) Adolescent Relations with Mothers, Fathers and

Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zickuhr K and Smith A (2012) Digital Differences. Pew Research Center’s Internet

and American Life Project. Available at:

45

http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_04131

2.pdf(accessed 14 August 2013).

46

Appendix

Table 1: Games club demographics – Gender and experience

novice mid-level experience experienced Total

Girls 5 7 5 17

Boys 7 4 0 11

Total 12 11 5 28

Table 2: Games club demographics – Age and experience

novice mid-level experience experienced Total

Age 8 5 2 0 7

Age 9 3 5 1 9

Age 10 4 4 4 12

Total 12 11 5 28

Table 3: Games club demographics – Ethnicities and experience

novice mid-level experience

experienced Total

Latino/a 8 5 0 13

Asian 2 0 1 3

African-American 2 0 0 2

47

Euro-American 0 4 4 8

Mixed race 0 2 0 2

Total 12 11 5 28