Pathological gaming: Look out gamers, you may have a problem?
I am what many would consider a gamer. I spend a lot of time playing videogames, looking at reviews, listening to podcasts, and even researching videogames. Am I obsessed? Maybe. However, I do consider videogames to be one of my many passions and it is but one piece of my complex identity; I am also a student, sports fan, family member, and friend. It is true that I spend what some would call excessive amounts engaging in gaming, but does that make it pathological? I subscribe to the “everything in moderation” rule. Over the past couple of decades, researchers have set out to determine exactly what makes someone a pathological gamer. If you don’t feel like reading the rest of this post, let me provide you with a quick summary: nobody has a clue.
So what are the problems? First, researchers cannot reach a consensus on what constitutes, i.e. what criterions and symptoms, pathological gaming (or internet gaming disorder, as defined in the DSM-5). Multiple tests have been developed in order to assess different populations on pathological internet use and gaming, but none seem to really agree on: (1) defining what pathological gaming is (impulse control problems? addiction?), and (2) what criteria are important to measure when assessing pathological gaming. This is nicely summarized in a systematic review by King, Haagsma, Delfabbro, Gradisar, & Griffiths (2013). Basically, the DSM-5 has criteria which mirror the criteria for gambling disorder, such as withdrawal and tolerance, but ignores other (what I would deem) crucial criteria, including sleep conflicts (King et al., 2013; Petry et al., 2014). I don’t want to go into too much detail about these issues, as they are very similar to reliability and validity issues we see and discuss about other psychological tests in practice and research. A bigger problem with this “diagnosis” has to do with the changing norms in our society, and how technology is becoming more common place in the everyday environment. Science just can’t seem to keep up.
There is always a bit of a lag between current issues and scientific research. A lot of our motivation to conduct research stem from our own understanding of the world and society around us. Social Psychology, as we know, came into being though humankind’s attempt to understand the rationale behind the atrocities witnessed in War. Now, as technology and gaming become more normal and accepted, so does our curiosity in trying to understand the implications of their every day implementation. The issue is, however, that technology and gaming is constantly improving. It’s an arms race. Innovation is considered normal in order to get the upper hand on competitors. That means that science and our understanding of the impact technology and gaming have on our population is left to academics, and unfortunately left in the dust.
To this day, research is still being published that looks at the motivational impact of games like Mario 64 (released in 1996). Does this game really still have play in the general population? We always talk about representative samples; this is definitely not representative of the gaming landscape. Furthermore, the populations tested in these experiments and correlational research are rarely representative of the actual make-up of the gaming population. Largely, like many other areas of research, populations of university students make up the bulk of subjects, whereas the average age of a gamer today is around 30 years old (SPIL, 2013). On top of this, research has only recently started looking at mobile gaming and platforms. This has not even been touched upon by the researchers trying to operationalize and develop tests for pathological gaming. This creates many more issues and criticisms surrounding the controversy of this disorder. Mobile gamers are largely a different population than the more traditional PC/console gamers. There are many more females, children, and even elderly that engage in mobile gaming (SPIL, 2013). Are different criteria more or less apparent when comparing the two modes of delivery? What motivations are different between mobile and PC/console gamers? Are the developed tests and proposed internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5 still valid?
These are the questions and issues surrounding gaming. In 2012, 17% of the World’s population was gaming (SPIL, 2013). That number will only increase. Some will game on and off, some a bit more excessively, and some maybe pathologically so. Until then, if you would consider yourself a pathological gamer, you’re in the clear while these issues are being debated. So until then nerds, game on.
References
Diele, O. (2013). State of Online Gaming Report. Retrieved from www.spilgames.com
Kings, D. L., Haagsma, M. C., Delfabbro, P. H., Gradisar, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: A systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 331–341.
Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J. S., Rumpf, H., Mößle, … O’Brien, C. P. (2014). An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach. Addiction, 109, 1399–1406.
ID: 260377526
