Prolonged gaming time combined with impulsivity emerges as dual predictors of gaming disorder risk, yet they operate independently, according to new research from Jagiellonian University. With the number of gamers worldwide surpassing 3 billion by 2023, concerns grow over the addictive nature of gaming and the risks it poses for certain individuals.
The study, which includes 82 participants, reveals significant correlations between gaming time and the severity of symptoms associated with gaming disorder (GD). It also highlights how impulsivity—often tied to poor self-regulation—contributes uniquely to this risk. The insights from this research could pave the way for interventions aimed at reducing gaming-related problems.
Gaming disorder, recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as affecting individuals who face difficulties controlling gaming behavior, is characterized by prioritizing gaming over other interests and engaging with it persistently, even when experiencing negative repercussions. What researchers seek to understand is what underlying factors contribute to this condition.
The findings show compelling evidence of the relationship between different types of impulsivity—measured through both self-report surveys and behavioral assessments—and the risk of GD. Impulsivity alone, particularly when assessed through self-reported metrics, appears to predict the likelihood of developing this disorder when considered alongside the time spent gaming.
Said one of the study's authors, “Impulsivity and gaming time, though associated with gaming disorder risk, are independent variables.” This discovery points to the complexity of factors at play and raises questions about how much one’s gaming habits may exacerbate impulsivity or vice versa.
To explore these dynamics, researchers asked participants about their gaming habits and assessed their impulsivity levels through standard psychological measures. They discovered strong links; individuals spending more time gaming were more likely to exhibit symptoms associated with GD. This investigation could help elucidate preventative measures.
Interestingly, only self-reported impulsivity and one behavioral measure indicated correlation with GD, underscoring the distinction between subjective perceptions of one’s impulsivity versus quantifiable behavioral responses. Such discrepancies hint at future research avenues, particularly how self-reported versus behavioral assessments might yield different insights.
To bolster their findings, the study suggests enhancing research methodologies to examine additional moderational or mediational variables—like emotional regulation and executive deficits—in the pursuit of clarifying the impulsivity-GD connection.
“Further research should aim to clarify these relationships and explore potential interventions targeting both DGI and impulsivity to mitigate gaming disorder risk,” the authors concluded, encouraging future explorations of not just the relationships identified but also the contexts within which gaming occurs.
This investigation shines light on the need for careful consideration of how daily gaming behaviors are assessed and understood within broader frameworks of addiction and impulse control. The interplay of time spent gaming and impulsive actions could well define the next steps for both researchers and clinicians working to address gaming disorders.