Toxic behavior is a problem in online gaming platforms such as League of Legends (LoL), undermining player well-being and fairness. Platforms increasingly optimize “engagement” without distinguishing between positive and negative participation. Drawing on dual-process theory, we ask when hostile interactions can become economically productive. In an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study with LoL players, Study 1 (N = 430) models how reflective, System~2 brand bonds (i.e., brand personality, brand involvement, brand engagement) and negatively valenced, System~1 reactive responses (self-reported toxic behavior) relate to in-game spending. Study 2 (N = 80) uses reflexive thematic analysis to show how players interpret, repair, and channel frustration and hostility through cosmetics, events, and progression systems. Across studies, toxic behavior is positively associated with self-reported purchases and partially transmits the association between reflective brand attachments and spending. We contribute a dual-pathways account of how governance and monetization infrastructures can fold harmful engagement into value extraction, and we outline critical design provocations for centrally governed, highly monetized platforms.
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems