A prospective study of the motivational and health dynamics of Internet Gaming Disorder

Weinstein, Netta; Przybylski, Andrew K; Murayama, Kou

doi:10.7717/peerj.3838

Cited by 60 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, data transparency is generally low ( Elson & Przybylski, 2017 ; Wicherts, Borsboom, Kats, & Molenaar, 2006 ). As far as we are aware, only three of the dozens of publications in the gaming disorder literature openly share their data and materials ( Przybylski, 2016 ; Przybylski et al., 2017 ; Weinstein, Przybylski, & Murayama, 2017 ). The fact that so few data sets are publicly available is problematic, because it raises the concern that errors in these data sets will go undetected ( King, Haagsma, Delfabbro, Gradisar, & Griffiths, 2013 ).…”

Section: Further Arguments In Favor Of Cautionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We greatly appreciate the care and thought that is evident in the 10 commentaries that discuss our debate paper, the majority of which argued in favor of a formalized ICD-11 gaming disorder. We agree that there are some people whose play of video games is related to life problems. We believe that understanding this population and the nature and severity of the problems they experience should be a focus area for future research. However, moving from research construct to formal disorder requires a much stronger evidence base than we currently have. The burden of evidence and the clinical utility should be extremely high, because there is a genuine risk of abuse of diagnoses. We provide suggestions about the level of evidence that might be required: transparent and preregistered studies, a better demarcation of the subject area that includes a rationale for focusing on gaming particularly versus a more general behavioral addictions concept, the exploration of non-addiction approaches, and the unbiased exploration of clinical approaches that treat potentially underlying issues, such as depressive mood or social anxiety first. We acknowledge there could be benefits to formalizing gaming disorder, many of which were highlighted by colleagues in their commentaries, but we think they do not yet outweigh the wider societal and public health risks involved. Given the gravity of diagnostic classification and its wider societal impact, we urge our colleagues at the WHO to err on the side of caution for now and postpone the formalization.

show abstract

Section: Further Arguments In Favor Of Cautionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We remain optimistic for the future. Some preregistered and methodologically rigorous papers have recently been published in this field (e.g., Weinstein et al, 2017) and valuable qualitative work is starting to appear more widely, challenging the disorder model in some cases (Snodgrass et al, 2017(Snodgrass et al, , 2018. In the meantime, we would strongly encourage the WHO to err on the side of caution, halt further formalization of new gaming disorders, and stimulate better research into the role that screen time plays in our lives.…”

Section: How To Move Forward: Beyond the Echo Chambermentioning

confidence: 99%

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

Rooij¹,

Ferguson²,

Carras³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We greatly appreciate the care and thought that is evident in the ten commentaries that discuss our debate paper, the majority of which argued in favor of a formalized ICD-11 gaming disorder. We agree that there are some people whose play of video games is related to life problems. We believe that understanding this population and the nature and severity of the problems they experience should be a focus area for future research. However, moving from research construct to formal disorder requires a much stronger evidence base than we currently have. The burden of evidence and the clinical utility should be extremely high because there is a genuine risk of abuse of diagnoses. We provide suggestions about the level of evidence that might be required: transparent and preregistered studies, a better demarcation of the subject area that includes a rationale for focusing on gaming in particular versus a more general behavioral addictions concept, the exploration of non-addiction approaches, and the unbiased exploration of clinical approaches that treat potentially underlying issues such as depressive mood or social anxiety first. We acknowledge there could be benefits to formalizing gaming disorder, many of which were highlighted by colleagues in their commentaries, but we think they do not yet outweigh the wider societal and public health risks involved. Given the gravity of diagnostic classification and its wider societal impact, we urge our colleagues at the WHO to err on the side of caution for now and postpone the formalization.

show abstract

“…At this point it should be noted that Ryan, Lynch, Vansteenkiste, and Deci (2013) differentiated “need frustration” from “low need-fulfilment”, based on the external disruptive factors occurring on a daily basis. Not surprisingly, studies have demonstrated that higher frustration ( Mills, Milyavskaya, Mettler, & Heath, 2018 ) and lower fulfilment ( Weinstein, Przybylski, & Murayama, 2017 ) of basic psychological needs in daily life are risk factors to the development of IGD. These findings have prompted recommendations for further research focusing on the complicated interplay between IGD and SDT associated factors ( Mills, Milyavskaya, Mettler, Heath, & Derevensky, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Need fulfilment and internet gaming disorder: A preliminary integrative model

Scerri

Anderson

Stavropoulos

et al. 2019

Addictive Behaviors Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The need for a better understanding of the risk factors underpinning disordered gaming has been consistently emphasized. Although, gaming may offer a simple and straightforward means of alleviating distress, relying on gaming to address one's unmet psychological needs could invite problematic usage. Self-determination theory highlights the significance of three universally inherent psychological needs for relatedness, competency, and autonomy. A motivation to engage in gaming may be to address unmet needs and may become problematic. Objective This study aimed to assess whether experienced levels of loneliness, depression and self-esteem mediate the association between Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) behaviours and Need-Fulfilment deficits. Method The participants comprised of 149 adults (83 males, 66 females), aged between 18 and 62 years. A series of self-reported questionaries assessing their levels of IGD behaviours, depression, loneliness, self-esteem and need-fulfilment were completed. Results Need-fulfilment deficits were linked to higher IGD behaviours. Interestingly, this association was mediated by the reported levels of self-esteem and depression and not loneliness. Conclusions The findings lend further empirical support for the mediating role of psychological distress between need fulfilment deficits and IGD behaviours.

show abstract

A prospective study of the motivational and health dynamics of Internet Gaming Disorder

Cited by 60 publications

References 123 publications

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution

Need fulfilment and internet gaming disorder: A preliminary integrative model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About