Anytime the topic of video game addiction is discussed, it’s prudent to start with the definition of addiction itself as the starting point. This is where the first issue comes to light: there are varied definitions of what it means to be addicted to something. The most commonly applied standard is the DSM-5 definition of a substance abuse disorder, but that is difficult to apply to gaming because games aren’t really a chemical substance. Still, those criteria are:
· Hazardous use: You’ve used the substance in ways that are dangerous to yourself and/or others, i.e., overdosed, driven while under the influence, or blacked out.
· Social or interpersonal problems related to use: Your substance use has caused relationship problems or conflicts with others.
· Neglected major roles to use: You’ve failed to meet your responsibilities at work, school, or home because of your substance use.
· Withdrawal: When you’ve stopped using the substance, you’ve experienced withdrawal symptoms.
· Tolerance: You’ve built up a tolerance to the substance so that you have to use more to get the same effect.
· Used larger amounts/longer: You’ve started to use larger amounts or use the substance for longer amounts of time.
· Repeated attempts to control use or quit: You’ve tried to cut back or quit entirely, but haven’t been successful.
· Much time spent using: You spend a lot of your time using the substance.
· Physical or psychological problems related to use: Your substance use has led to physical health problems like liver damage or lung cancer, or psychological issues, such as depression or anxiety.
· Activities given up to use: You’ve skipped activities or stopped doing activities you once enjoyed in order to use the substance.
· Craving: You’ve experienced cravings for the substance.
Some of these criteria work to look at game use (the ones I’ve bolded in particular). What works better as a reference point, however, is the modified understanding of addiction utilized by most practicing psychologists who study addiction to non-chemical agents. In these cases, the definition of “addiction” is made by looking at only four major factors: (1) the ritualization of behavior, (2) detriments resulting from the behavior, (3) lack of understanding of behavior vs. social norms and (4) compulsion to engage in said activity.
Let me explain this method of diagnosis with an example. It’s all derived from modifying the DSM-5. “Ritualization” is the key, but it can be deceiving. To engage in ritualized behavior means that a person plans for, makes preparation for, and repeats specific behaviors. This is actually how the human mind works (we are pattern recognizers). We ritualize going to work, eating meals, going to the doctor, going to church, watching sports events, watching television, etc. If you listen to NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me every Sunday morning (which I do), that’s a ritualized behavior. I also never miss an Indianapolis Colts game, and I attend monthly IMS staff meetings. Both those things are ritualized, too. Likewise these allow for a definition of “compulsion” that can be applied, since the ritualization leads to action at specific times.
The second and third criteria are where the actual problem of addiction comes into play: does the behavior cause negative consequences, and does the person see the behavior in a way that doesn’t align with those around her? One of the most hot-button areas for research on these criteria right now is the use of text messaging and social media. Almost everyone who uses these services fulfills criteria one: we text at certain times, we check social media at certain times, and many of us at some point feel compelled to check (perhaps after a news event breaks). The dividing point comes when we observe those who are so engaged with their social media that they stare at their phones during times that other things are happening—they miss out on conversations, perform poorly at work, cannot drive cars correctly, neglect loved ones—and when confronted about their behavior, these same folks often exhibit criteria 3 above in that they do not realize their social media use is contrary to social norms.
With this understanding, we can then turn to looking at games and gamer behaviors with attention to the potential for video game addiction. Don’t take my approach here as dismissive: people ARE addicted to video games. The number of people who are, however, isn’t nearly as high as some attempt to express. As I have said to people before—often to their scoffing or outright rejection—is that less people are addicted to video games than are addicted to illegal opioids.
In a study at Oxford University it was found that roughly 3% of a sample of 19,000 people fulfill some of the criteria of being video game addicted while only 1% actually exhibited enough of the criteria to have been diagnosed (those criteria from the APA are almost identical to the WHO criteria). The full study can be accessed here: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.
By comparison, twice that number of people exhibited gambling addiction in a similar study. And in 2016, 4.1% of the American population used prescription opioids illegally.
What is more important still, however, is context for gaming. We live in an era where people can be professional video game players. We also live in an era where games are more elaborate and require more specific activity. This context and understanding matters when determining how gamer behaviors work, as Daria Kuss explains. But I can give an even more specific, pointed example of this from my own research.
In 2009-2010, I spent almost a year researching a World of Warcraft raiding guild. I wrote a book about it and received my PhD for the dissertation I wrote from the experience. Playing World of Warcraft is not an insignificant activity, but understanding how it works can help a person to differentiate between being “addicted” to it and simply engaging in a pleasure activity that takes a certain amount of time. A typical end-game, invested player raiding guild plays together for two-or-three three-hour-long sessions a week. In addition to this, each player is likely to put in another two-three hours of game time gathering materials and “warming up” for those sessions. That means an invested raider would spend 12 hours a week on this activity. Many spend more. And a small percentage literally spend too much time playing WoW (there is a documentary called Second Skin that details how negative WoW playing works).
I spent those 12 hours, plus several hours of just random play while interviewing my participants, every week during my research. I was clocking around 25-hours-a-week in-game. Of course a portion of my work was part of my academic work. I mention that, because there’s overlap time when playing a game like WoW. I was writing while I was playing, and at least one of my participants was doing work for her self-owned business. That is one thing that makes the statistics on gaming misleading. There’s no easy way to figure out how much of that occurs, but it’s a factor that needs to be considered as context.
But let’s break down 12 hours of gaming a week in 3-hour sessions. A typical NFL football game takes 3 hours and 12 minutes to play out. Numerous Americans watch two of these on Sunday (some three) and one on Monday. They also watch an hour of pre-game each day, and most watch anywhere from half-an-hour to an hour of post-game. So the fan who watches 4 football games a week (a 1 pm Sunday, 4:30 Sunday, Sunday Night, Monday Night) has already exceeded the amount of game time a WoW raider puts in during a week. And the people considering football addiction aren’t being taken very seriously.
The average opera performance is 3 hours and 10 minutes. The average concert for an act with two openers is around 4 hours. That’s not including the time parking, driving to venues, etc. The average feature film is two hours long, but there are 25-35 minutes of previews before the film. And with new television watching trends brought about by streaming and video-on-demand, the typical viewer watches 3-6 episodes at once (roughly 3 hours of TV).
In short, many pleasure based activities clock in at around 3 hours per session. This aligns with typical gaming sessions when taken at the “long” end. The reason for dissecting this by time is that when speaking casually on the topic, many refer to playing games for more than two hours a day to be a sign of addiction, but that’s not scientifically accurate. Two hours of gaming per session is short of the typical amount of time spent on a leisure activity. It is when a person gets to 4-5 hours of play a day, every day, that things can become problematic, but this also ignores another issue. One of the key points in that article is that 5 hours of gameplay a day cuts into time for children to socialize, but gaming is highly social. Making a split between time to socialize and time to game is in most cases attempting to apply a faulty understanding. The number of gamers who play without social interaction for more than an hour at a time is low.
So to summarize and re-state, yes, there are people who are addicted to gaming and who game in unhealthy ways, though research hasn’t been done—yet—to determine if they do this because of the gaming itself or if the addictive gaming is the end result of some other disorder. The number of people in question, however, is so low (1%) that it barely breaks the margin of error. What is problematic however is the understanding of what gamers are doing and how gamers behave in their non-gaming lives. I mentioned my research above. All of the 10 people in my research had regular jobs and family lives that they maintained in spite of their playing time. This is true of most gamers (they tend to be from higher-than-average socio-economic groups, and Twitch statistics show that they tend to be employed full time). The stereotypes of the unemployed person living in the basement playing games and using drugs are grossly inaccurate (though if that person does exist, the drug use is the major problem). It would do us good as educators to be hypervigilant watching our students for signs of destructive behavior, but any fear of a game addiction epidemic is largely unfounded. Far more statistically significant problems (drug and alcohol use and sexual misconduct being high on the list) exist for college-age students.