Draconian policy measures are unlikely to prevent disordered gaming

Abstract

In August of 2021, China imposed severe restrictions on children’s online gaming time. We argue that such a policy may seem useful on the surface but does not reflect the current evidence concerning prevention of disordered gaming. Videogame play is normal for children worldwide, and like other leisure activities can lead to benefits for the majority and problems for a minority. Problematic or disordered play results from the interaction of multiple risk factors that are not addressed by draconian policy measures. Identifying these factors through stakeholder-engaged research and current evidence will be much more likely to succeed in preventing disordered gaming and promoting youth wellbeing.

Reserve your judgment on “Draconian” Chinese video gaming restrictions on children • Commentary on: Draconian policy measures are unlikely to prevent disordered gaming (Colder Carras et al., 2021)

“…Firstly, in relation to (in)effectiveness, Colder Carras et al (2021) discussed how purely reducing young people's gameplay time is not a sufficiently nuanced policy response and the potential negative consequences thereof (e.g., that young people's overall wellbeing would not be improved and may indeed be harmed). However, with the benefit of hindsight, in the few months since restrictions were imposed, it cannot be denied that this policy has been effective at what it set out to do: reduce gameplay time.…”

“…Based on studies of predominantly Western videogame players (and the literature has recognised that research results derived from so-called WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples are not necessarily generalisable to non-WEIRD societies (Henrich et al, 2010)), Colder Carras et al (2021 suggest that this reduction in videogame time potentially leads to negative consequences, but does it in fact do so? It is not known whether this reduction has led to any positive consequences (besides the already evident loot box consumer protection benefits detailed below), e.g., reduced prevalence of myopia amongst young people (Rose et al, 2008) and more time spent engaging in physical social activities, studying, or exercising outdoors (some of these were identified and cited by the NPPA as the regulatory intent (国家新闻出版署 [National Press and Publication Administration (PRC)], 2021b)), and whether those positive consequences outweigh the negative concerns.…”

“…Secondly, in relation to the policy being identified as 'draconian ' by Colder Carras et al (2021), this is their expression of a subjective opinion. Whether a measure is 'draconian' is a matter of degree and where the proverbial line in the sand should be drawn as to when a policy becomes 'draconian' is a value judgment informed (or coloured) by one's cultural backgrounds and political opinions.…”

“…Whether a measure is 'draconian' is a matter of degree and where the proverbial line in the sand should be drawn as to when a policy becomes 'draconian' is a value judgment informed (or coloured) by one's cultural backgrounds and political opinions. It is inappropriate for Colder Carras et al (2021) to use a Western conceptualisation of what is 'excessively harsh or severe' to conclude that the policy of the PRC is 'draconian' and 'need to be revised' (p. 2).…”

“…The National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) imposed strict restrictions on the participation in videogaming by young people (aged under 18) beginning from 1 September 2021 (Xiao, 2021b; 国家新 闻出版署 [National Press and Publication Administration (PRC)], 2021a), as commented upon by Colder Carras et al (2021) in the Journal of Behavioral Addiction, who referred to this policy as 'draconian,' which is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English as 'excessively harsh and severe' (Stevenson, 2015). This note makes three points in response and counterargues that any judgment and comments on whether these measures are 'effective' ought to be reserved until empirical evidence proves one way or the other.…”