|
Today’s video game addict has many places to go. Websites like Online Gamers Anonymous, Quit Wow Now, and Video Game Addiction all exist to offer him relief. There are even clinics specifically aimed at helping video game addicts.
On top of that, research has found that video game playing can release as much dopamine in your brain as a shot of intravenous amphetamines. This dopamine is, among other things, the “damn-I’m-so-good” neurotransmitter involved in learning and achievements.
So are video games the drug of our generation, or might something else be going on?
Definition of Addiction
To know if video game addiction exists at all, we have to know what an “addiction” truly is. In common day speech an addiction is a “persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful”. For every day use, this definition is great.
You can say you are addicted to cashew nuts, because 3 bags a day is really too many. You can say that you are addicted to taking the car to work, because walking/biking would be so much healthier but you cannot bring yourself to do it. In the same way, you can say you are addicted to playing video games, because you play more than you think is good for you.
However, this Merriam Webster definition is not enough to define clinical addiction. That is the type of addiction that you get treatment for, because it is considered a mental illness. The definition of a clinical addiction is a lot more elaborate. You can find it in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the bible of mental illnesses.
This bookwork contains all the criteria for all recognized mental disorders. It is put together by the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest group of psychologists in the world that ever sat down together to write a book. If a disorder is not in the DSM, then it is traditionally not considered a mental problem (in the Western World).
They are not infallible, of course. Homosexuality was recognized as a disorder in the DSM from 1952 through to 1973. They publish a new version of the book every few years, updating the criteria and recognized conditions based on recent research. Currently they are considering video game addiction as a candidate.
Not under that name though. “Addiction” is not a term that they use in the DSM. Right now they recognize substance-related disorders and impulse-control disorders. Video games cannot fall in the first category as they do not come in pills, syringes, or any other form that would make it pleasant to insert them into your body.
The category of impulse-control disorders is more hopeful. One of its members is “pathological gambling”. You can find the criteria here. Some criteria might apply to video games too, while others really cannot. Most notably, the life-destroying-criteria do not apply: Gamers do not need to play more and more to get the same effect (2). Gamers do not involve themselves in criminal activity to support their addiction (8).
Gamers do not generally need to financially rely on others because they lost money gaming (10). If they did lose money gaming then it was probably a gambling game. Also, a gamer cannot “chase his loses” because there are none (6). So four out of ten criteria for a gaming addiction similar to that of gambling already fall away.
Now, the criteria for pathological gambling have one big footnote. This diagnosis only applies if the symptoms cannot be better explained by another disorder (in this case Manic Episode). Now, the question is, could “pathological gaming” be added to the DSM in a similar form to its gambling cousin?
The American Medical Association (AMA) sure thinks so. They urged the APA to do so in a report they brought out in 2007. This report reviews the effect of video games on our health. They conclude the research so far is inconclusive but that they still encourage “internet/video game addiction” to be included in the DSM.
Based on the report, we can only conclude that they reason that it is better to include this diagnosis “in case video game addiction exists”. This lack of research evidence will hardly convince the APA to add such an addiction in the next version of the DSM.
Research
There are two major issues plaguing all research into video gaming addiction. The first is the most important: a causal link. They need to find healthy, balanced people whose lives gaming ruined. This is a lot harder than it sounds. Part of what makes gaming so alluring is that it so good at making us forget about our daily concerns.
Escapism is a powerful way of dealing with negative emotions. There is nothing wrong with this. If you dread a visit to the dentist, then it is better to distract yourself with a game than to indulge in agonizing mouth surgery fantasies. In the same way, gaming is often a symptom of other problems in people’s lives.
Anything from depression, to grieving for a loved one, to anxiety, can make a powerful fantasy world very appealing. So if gaming can be a symptom of other problems, then it becomes much harder to find cases in which the games are the sole cause of the problems. I have not been able to find any research showing a significant causal link between gaming and the symptoms of an addiction/compulsion.
The second major problem is definition. There is a lot of research into the prevalence of video gaming addiction. Many researchers assume that there is a problem, pick a set of criteria and see who fits into that slot. There is even research that uses the Merriam Webster definition. That was the definition we declared irrelevant a few paragraphs up. Fortunately, the more common criteria are adjustments of the substance-related disorder and the pathological gambling diagnosis.
As mentioned before, the first definition is meaningless until the day that gaming molecules can pass through the blood-brain barrier. A definition based on pathological gambling might be a more hopeful road. However, we should all agree what that should be. Some papers simply mention they adapted criteria from pathological gaming, without saying what adjustments they made. Others try to find reliable criteria, but admit there is still a way to go.
One interesting area of research into video game addiction is brain research. Avid gamers do activate the same brain pathways that substance abusers do. Dopamine was mentioned before, but the general brain activity of video game enjoyment is also very similar to getting high on drugs.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with these pathways being activated. It is probably a big part of why games are so much fun in the first place. It will be interesting to see where such research will lead.
Who’s the Addict?
Though video game addiction is not a clinical diagnosis, there are still people who adopt or receive the label. According to the information we have now, those people fall into one of four categories (based on work by Richard T.A. Wood):
1. People who are labeled video game addicts by others even though they do not experience any problems with their gaming behavior themselves.
2. People who have labeled themselves as addicts as a result of “being convinced” by the media or others of their problems.
3. People who are not good at managing their game time and communicating about it with their friends and family.
4. People who use video games as an escape from deeper problems.
If you feel you might have a problem with your gaming behavior, then try to find out in which category you fall. Categories 1 and 2 are harmless. If you are a healthy and balanced person, then do not worry about your gaming habits.
If there is more going on, try to see if it is simply a matter of time management and communication. If none of this applies to you and you still feel there is a problem, then you might want to look more closely at your life. Gaming is offering you a relief, but a relief from what?
If you are interested in reading in more detail about this topic, I highly recommend reading this literature review. It is an overview of the solid facts without any media distortion.
“But what about gaming clinics and people who play themselves to death?”. Clinics like the one in Amsterdam obviously have an audience. If people feel these programs help them, then I am the last one to try to convince them otherwise.
However, might these clinics not simply be teaching people those time management skills we talked about? Or maybe they treat the underlying issues that cause gamers to go overboard on the play hours?
As for the extreme cases of gamers playing to exhaustion or death, there is most likely more going on with these individuals than meets the eye. The extreme cases will always get a lot of media attention, and “uninteresting” details might be left out in favor of hyping a good story. Check out the literature review for some case studies and explanations.
For now, we have seen that the concept of a video game addiction is more likely to be a media hype or symptom of an underlying problem than a true addiction. Of course, in daily speech most of us are probably video game addicts. Just like most of the Western population is a TV addict or a car addict.
However, clinically speaking, there is no such thing. All the research so far that says otherwise is based on shoddy premises. One day new facts might come to light that change the whole situation. For now, just focus on leading a healthy and balanced life. And game on!
If you want to, of course :)
[Cross-posted from my blog at www.thinkfeelplay.com. If you liked this article, please pay a visit there. The website is completely revamped as of today. Also, if you were signed up for the RSS feed in the past, please sign-up again. The last version was a Beta that crashed, but the new website is now the real deal. Enjoy :) ]
|
It seems that people with problems use games for personal reasons. From everything I have ever read on the subject, personally, I really doubt that "game addiction" exists as it does for "drug addiction".
"Who’s the Addict?
Though video game addiction is not a clinical diagnosis, there are still people who adopt or receive the label. According to the information we have now, those people fall into one of four categories (based on work by Richard T.A. Wood):
1. People who are labeled video game addicts by others even though they do not experience any problems with their gaming behavior themselves.
2. People who have labeled themselves as addicts as a result of “being convinced” by the media or others of their problems.
3. People who are not good at managing their game time and communicating about it with their friends and family.
4. People who use video games as an escape from deeper problems.
If you feel you might have a problem with your gaming behavior, then try to find out in which category you fall. Categories 1 and 2 are harmless. If you are a healthy and balanced person, then do not worry about your gaming habits."
This is my favorite part of the article and underscores what I have believed for a very long time about so called "game addiction".
Great article!!!
I encourage you to check out Richards Woods article (linked above). It's something you can point to whenever people make unfounded claims on the topic.
Of course, you're allowed to point to me as well in that case. I don't mind, haha ;-)
It might be ridiculous to qualify much of the behaviors associated with gaming as 'addiction' - but there does seem to be evidence that some individuals can indeed reach the point of engaging the dopamine release cycle through interaction with digital games. There is actually an emerging body of work on developing measures to determine a person's likelihood of reaching such a point.
Ed Castronova's Exodus to the Virtual World highlights some of the potential social impact of digital gaming - and it can't be qualified an unmitigated good. Social responsibility isn't something designers should shy away from - if we want the "Games ARE fine Art" argument to be culturally accepted (which it will be eventually) then we'll have to stop whining when the (real) negatives are pointed out...(which will happen eventually)
That's article where video game addiction is assumed to exist.
The article that involving brain research can be found here (watch out for this long link. Hyperlinks seems to disappear in comments on Gamasutra, so here goes):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8T-4TW53G C-1&_user=1
0&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=sear ch&_sort=
d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1518939251&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct= C00005022
1&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bac219c87045421b87d9be01dfb10 32c&searc
htype=a
I'll check out the article that you reference.
My point is not that video games are "only" good. I'm considering picking a more nuanced topic in the future to highlight just that point. However, I'm strongly against assuming that something is bad when there is no evidence for it. Also, your reference the dopamine cycle, but you're treating that as if everything that triggers that too much "has to be bad". The fact that gaming can have overlap with substance addiction in how our brains "enjoy" them, does not mean the whole picture is the same. That's like saying exercise is bad for you because it can trigger the same pathways as some opiates when you start releasing your own painkillers into your system.
Misuse and overuse are always bad. No matter the activity or the substance (even water can be toxic!). However, we need to watch out how we explain these things away and what type of consequences we should attach.
And, if reliable research starts showing video game addiction is truly an issue, then I'll be the last to contest that. It just seems that psychology, being a rather fuzzy science, is being flooded with speculation and "common-sense"-reasoning that has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with imposing our own view of the world on others.
The only negative to video games that I can think of are Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, Epilepsy, and exposing young children to violent content (though this is hardly inherent to the medium!). Maybe there are more physical problems we could run into that I'm not aware of, but apart from that, I'm not aware of any problems being caused by video games as a medium. Note that the content of the medium can always be bad, but this is true for paintings, television shows and books, too.
Don't take my tone as being aggressive :) I'm a debating-type-of-person, and I appreciate your well-considered input in the discussion.
I think that the incredible power of the medium is inherently ambivalent. Ultimately the percentage of individuals who are candidates for addiction in the dopamine response cycle is very low (<1%)based on the research that i've seen, and pieces like the one you've written above help sort that out. I think it's vital that the developer and gamer communities acknowledge that a real problem exists before critics can be defeated on rational grounds; that is, we have to be entirely honest ourselves before we can convince others of the truth.
However, it isn't with that small minority where the most powerful effect of digital games will be - there are millions of gamers who aren't addicts but who have made 'gaming' (in whatever niche they choose) a significant part of their lives. The future will see 'games' that are universally lauded as magnificent works of art - and we'll see increased use of simulation-as-propaganda as well, to potentially catastrophic effect.
It's a brave new world :)
Take a good FPS for example, and take out leader boards, challenges, leveling, unlocks and all the goodies the game has to offer, will people play it for hours and months?
One thing I would point out is that there are people who commit criminal acts of one kind or another in order to support their gaming habits or perhaps as a consequence of said habits. This makes a claim that such acts do not happen with habitual gamers somewhat "grey" in nature, and may not convey what you really mean.
With respect to activation of pathways, good research would have to analyze not only gaming, but also many different types of gaming, including areas such as physical sports (team and individual), as well as nongaming activities that activate the same or similar pathways. For example, marathon runners get a "high" from similar inherent releases of endorphins. Same thing with sex.
It's also worth noting that the DSM-IV is the current manual but it still contains details that generate disagreement in the profession, and these disagreements continue to be heard for the ongoing DSM-V revisions.
About the criminal acts, I might have phrased it better by saying that it seems very uncommon that gamers commit criminal acts to support they're addiction. I'm not aware of any statistics on the topic. It was a common-sense argument, I admit.
I've recently been referred to an academic article on the topic of behavioral addictions in general. I haven't had the time to look at it, no do I have the time to look it up for you right now ... It's linked to on my website though (www.thinkfeelplay.com), in the comments on this article there.
And the DSM is a bible under eternal revision. That's for sure. That's why I quoted the homosexuality case :)
The thing is, the true nature of 'addiction' doesn't show itself until the activity in question comes to a complete stop. Some may say that I'm addicted to the Yessongs live album much in the same way one's addicted to meth; I do it twice a day, and consider it the best way to start and end the day. But if you take away my Yes album, I'm not going to lose control of myself, get shivers, and find existence painful (literally, painful, every breath like a thousand searing daggers in my pancreas). But take the meth away from a junkie, and then the true beast of addiction appears. Their body breaks down. Their psyche crumbles. Life becomes terrifyingly excruciating.
Gamers are similar in that one will consider them 'addicted' in the casual sense. They do it a lot. But while some may say they're addicted to a game, they'll attest they're just too bored with everything else. Disconnected? Ambivalent? Apathetic? Whatever the word is, it certainly isn't addiction, because it doesn't take a team of doctors, medicine, or patches to gradually bring them down from their crutch. If the Internet goes down or the power cuts out, you aren't going to see local hospitals flooded with gamers demanding treatment to cope with the pain of withdrawal.
Because there is none.
No withdrawal symptoms, no addiction.
Excellent article. A great read.
Gamers do not generally need to financially rely on others because they lost money gaming (10). If they did lose money gaming then it was probably a gambling game. Also, a gamer cannot “chase his loses” because there are none (6). So four out of ten criteria for a gaming addiction similar to that of gambling already fall away.
[/quote]
If you just search and replace gambler with gamer in the above I think that is insufficient.
re: gamers not needing to play more and more to get the same effect
Really? This seems difficult to quantify when a particular candidate for diagnosis of "gaming addict" is spending extremely long periods of time gaming. How would gamblers be any easier to quantify? By how much money they lose presumably? As if there was a price escalation to identify addiction. Aspects of the gambling criteria sound more like the basis for a legal defense than criteria for diagnosis.
re: Gamers do not involve themselves in criminal activity to support their addiction
This seems to be an out of left field sort of criteria to exist in the handbook with regards to any addiction. But who's to say there aren't "pathological gamers" who cheat on their time sheets to make more money so they can get paid for the overtime they need without actually working it... so they can game instead? I'm sure you can expand a mighty list of fraud related crimes alone that compulsive gamers might commit to support their addiction. There is perhaps a slight hint of bias in denying that gamers don't commit crimes to support an addiction... a sort of minimizing of the severity of the behavior seems evident? (not sure that sounded right... it's as if ultimately we say "Come'on, it's just gaming, it's not like they're stealing car stereos like a junkie!". Maybe it's because we can identify or at least somewhat relate with the gamer and not with the junkie? What does that say?
re: Gamers do not generally need to financially rely on others because they lost money gaming
Well perhaps they rely on others to support them financially to allow them the time to game rather than earn a living. I know there are gamers out there who were fired over playing games too much either in the office or because of too many fake sick days and late arrivals due to excessive gaming. These gamers might end up moving back in with their parents or becoming homeless. Unrelated to finances but very significant is the fact that there are marital problems and divorces over excessive gaming.
re: Also, a gamer cannot “chase his loses” because there are none
This seems another strange criteria to exist in the APA's handbook. The wording is obviously tailored specifically for gamblers, but a broader notion of playing a game where even "winning" is constantly fleeting, there's always someone who's better or has a higher ranking and so the gamer is always chasing a carrot... seems to me would fit this criteria.
re: Now, the question is, could “pathological gaming” be added to the DSM in a similar form to its gambling cousin?
To play devil's advocate some more, if the APA can list certain excessive / destructive forms of gambling to a list of impulse control disorders, than in my mind it's quite logical that gaming can be as well.... and frankly, any activity including exercising at the gym if taken to levels that start to negatively impact one's finances, health, social life and relationships and work environments should qualify as well.
And this just maybe starts to poke a hole in the attempt at listing ANY non chemical/physically addicting activities as a unique disorders rather than as manifestations of a singular disorder such as impulse control disorder. My layman gut instinct tells me that it would be possible to make anyone who had some void in their being, an addict of some substance or some activity because in my layman (I'm qualifying myself as a layman again because I have no proper right to make the opinions I'm making) opinion, their pathological behavior of choice (eg. gambling) is one of many potential activities they could have chosen in an attempt to fill that void had circumstances been different.
What is a pathological gambler in a hypothetical world where there are no cards, dice, or means of placing a bet? Does his disorder go away? If he has a real disorder than of course it doesn't go away, it simply finds another way to manifest itself given the right opportunity and circumstances. But if it does go away... was it really a disorder?
And strictly speaking, you do bring up some valid points. You're challenging assumptions that, I think, most people take for granted.
For instance, as to the specifics of how the clinical definition of Pathological Gambling can be translated to gaming:
It might be done, but my main point is that it is not clear cut. In the research that I have found so far, it's not clearly stipulated how the researchers translate these criteria. Until we all agree on how this can reliably be done, it will be meaningless to compare statistics about video game addiction because every one uses a different measure. The research should focus on "if" a gaming addiction exists, and if so, what the criteria for it are. Only after that can we look at prevalence and other factors. Your points illustrate that there are many possible translations from gambling addiction criteria to gaming addiction criteria. And that's where the danger lies. Everyone might feel that they're using common sense, but common sense often leads to disagreements and bad science.
Now I have been referred to a strong article in favor of gaming addiction. I haven't had the chance to take a closer look at it, but if you're interested you can find it at http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/3/306 (hyperlinks on Gamasutra have let me down in the past).
Your final question about what a pathological gambler is in a world free of temptation: a healthy person. Well, assuming he has no other problems. There are personality disorders that are persistent no matter the conditions, and there all other mental disorders. All other mental disorders are triggered by the environment, biology or experience, or even sometimes by unknown factors. We get triggered into addictions. If there is no temptation, then there is no addiction.
And sorry for the late reply. I try to get back to everyone as soon as I can, because I really appreciate the input and feedback :) Thanks!
Video games are often described as "crack cocaine for people on the autistic spectrum", and as someone with Asperger's syndrome I can fully agree with that! But again it's not a problem with the games as such. People on the autistic spectrum, even those like me on the very mild end, find the real world frighteningly complex and unpredictable. It's wonderful to spend time in a much simpler place where cause-and-effect is easy to grasp and you don't have to interact with those scary things called people.
As a footnote, I suppose that "involving oneself in criminal activity to support the gaming habit" would describe pirate downloaders.