Psychology Division Nottingham Trent University. Summary.-As computer game playing is a popular activity among adolescents, a questionnaire study was ...
PsychologicalReportr, 1998,82,475-480. O Psychological Reports 1998
DEPENDENCE ON COMPUTER GAMES BY ADOLESCENTS ' MARK D. GRIFFITHS AND NIGEL HUNT
Psychology Division Nottingham Trent University Summary.-As computer game playing is a popular activity among adolescents, a questionnaire study was undertaken with 387 adolescents (12-16 years of age) to establish their "dependence" using a scale adapted from the DSM-III-R criteria for pathological gambling. Analysis indicated that one in five adolescents were currently "dependent" upon computer games. Boys played signiFicantly more regularly than girls and were more likely to be classified as "dependent." The earlier children began playing computer games it appeared the more likely h e y were to be playing at "dependent" levels. These and other results are discussed in relation to research on other gaming dependencies.
Computer game playing appears to be the adolescent leisure phenomenon of the 1990's. To date, there have been few studes on whether computer game playing is addictive or dependence-forming probably because it is such a recent phenomenon. Reviews of the literature (e.g., Loftus & Loftus, 1983; Grdfiths, 1991, 1993) have indicated that video game playing is primarily an adolescent pastime and that boys play more regularly than girls. The most common argument against playing computer games is that it is potentially addictive and like any other behavioural addiction (e.g., Soper & Miller, 1983). The only study carried out into computer addiction has been by Shotton (1989) using a sample of 127 people (half being children, half adult and 96% male) who had been self-reportedly dependent on computer games for at least five years. Seventy-five of these were measured against two control groups, and Shotton reported that those dependent upon computers were highly intehgent, motivated, and achieving people but often misunderstood. After a five- ear follow up, it was reported that the younger cohort had done well educationally, gone on to university, and then into high ranlung jobs. However, Shotton's research was done with people who were famibar with the older generation of computer games, e.g., ~ a h x ians, Donkey Kong, which were popular in the earlier part of the 1980's. The games of today may be psychologically different from the games of a decade ago in that these require more complex sk&, improved dexterity, and feature socially relevant themes and better graphics. It could be that the newer games are more dependence-inducing. It may also be that the children of today are playing games at a significantly earlier stage of their development
'Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Mark G r l t h s , P s ~ c h o l o yDivision, Nortingham Trent University, Burton Street, Notdngham, NGI 4BU, Unite IOng om
476
M. D. GRIFFITHS & N.HUNT
than those people tested in Shotton's study. Such a speculation might lead us to conclude that the long-term effect on an 8-yr.-old child might be far more detrimental (given potential dependence) than if the child began playing computer games in adolescence. Perhaps the biggest criticism of Shotton's research is that her subjects were only addicted because they said they were. If computer games are dependence-forming or addctive in a nonmetaphorical sense, they must be compared using chical criteria against other addictions and dependencies. Such a method for making behavioural excess more chically identifiable has recently been proposed f i r both addctions to television (Mc~lwraith,Jacobvitz, Kubey, & Alexander, 1991) and amusement machines (Griffiths, 1991, 1992). The lack of either operational definitions or diagnostic criteria may account for the dearth of hard data concerning computer game dependence. As can be seen from the brief overview, there is little in the way of information about computer game dependence. It is with this in mind that the study to be reported was undertaken. An estimate of prevalence in an adolescent population using an dependence measure based on pathological g a m b h g (see next section for details) would be useful. Since the study was essentially exploratory, there were no specific hypotheses although it was predicted that computer game dependence would be more predominant among males than females, as previous findings indicate.
Subjects 387 adolescents aged between 12 and 16 years (mean age= 13.5 yr.; SD = 1.1 yr.) a t a comprehensive school in Exeter were administered a questionnaire examining factors in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of behaviours associated with playing computer games at home; the results of this study were published by Grdiths and Hunt (1995). Of the 387 adolescents who participated, 58% were male and 42% were female. Only 5 adolescents had not played home computer games which meant 98.7% of the sample were deemed to be players. Design and Materials The study used an adapted version of the DSM-111-R criteria for pathological gambling (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) so that it related directly to playing computer games. Eight questions relating to the DSM111-R criteria were adapted for computer-game playing and examined a number of components of dependence includmg sahence ("Do you frequently play most days?"), tolerance ("Do you frequently play for longer periods of time?"), euphoria ("Do you play for excitement or a 'buzz'?"), chasing ("Do you play to beat your personal high score?"), relapse ("Do you make re-
ADOLESCENTS' COMPUTER GAME DEPENDENCY
477
peated efforts to stop or decrease ~laying?"),withdrawal ("Do you become restless if you cannot play?"), and conflict ("Do you play instead of attending to school related activities?" and "Do you sacrifice social activities to play?"). A cut-off point of four was assumed to indicate a participant was at dependent levels a t the time of the study. Players were also asked about their perceptions of computer games. RESULTS
The 'Good' and 'Bad' Things About Computer Games All players were asked what they considered to be the good and bad things about computer games. The good things reported were very similar to the reasons why they play computer games (see Griffiths & Hunt, 1995). For instance, those reported by the 382 players included that the games were fun (48%), something to do (35%), exciting (11.5%), and challenging (lO%). Somewhat less frequently reported good things included that games were educational or enabled you to learn new skills (4%), had good graphics (4%), cheered you up (3.6761, kept you out of trouble and off the streets (2.8%), and aided hand-eye coordination and reaction times (2.8%). The bad things reported by players about computer games were that they were adlctive (33%), expensive (20%), gave some people epileptic fits (8%), gave you eye strain (7.5%), made you moody (7.5%), made some people aggressive (5.80h), were boring after a while (5.5%), gave you headaches (5.2%), too hard to lay or win (3.4%), antisocial (2.6%), and a waste of time and money (2.6%). Less frequently reported bad things included that the games were frustrating, affected schoolwork, led to committing crime, and made your hand ache. Computer Game-playing Dependence Scores on the adapted DSM-III-R scale indicated that 62 players (19.9%) were currently dependent on computer games, i.e., scored four or more on the scale, and that a further 21 players (6.8%) used to play at dependent levels. The dependence score correlated with sex ( r = -.21, p< .OOl). Significantly more boys (60/83, 72%) than girls were dependent (x2= 14.18, p < .001). Dependence score also correlated with how often they played computer games (r = .53, p < .001), the mean playing time per session (r = .42, p < .001) and the longest single playing time (r = .43, p < .001). Dependence score was also negatively correlated with starting age ( r = -.42, p < .001). Dependent computer-game players started playing on computer games at a mean age of 7.2 yr. (SD=2.4 yr.), significantly earlier than nondependent players, mean 8.9 yr. (SD=2.4 yr.; t=5.58, p< .001). Further analysis indicated that dependent adolescents were significantly more likely to have started playing computer games to impress fr~ends,be-
478
M. D. GRIFFITHS
& N. HUNT
cause there was nothing else to do, for a challenge, and to meet friends. They were also signd~cantlymore likely to be playing computer games now for the same reasons except for the 'nothing else to do' category (see Table 1). With regards to affective states, dependent players were significantly more likely t i be in a bad mood and excited before, during, and after play, and s~gnlf~cantly more likely to be in a good mood before and during play. They were also significantly more likely to report not wanting to stop playing and wishing they were still playing after they had stopped (see Table 1). On all other dependent variables, only one other significant drfference was found. Dependent players were significantly more &ely to report aggressive feehgs as a direct result of their computer-game playing (see Table 1). TABLE 1 S~CN~P~C DIFFERENCES ANT BETWEEN DEPENDENT AND NONDEPENDENT (N=387) COMPUTER GAMEPLAYERS % Players Dependent
Reasons For First Starting Playing To impress friends Nothing else to do For a challenge To meet friends Reasons For Playing Now T o imprebs f r ~ e n d s For a challcngc T o meet fr~endh Cannot stop playing Negative Consequences Reported % More Acrrcssive
9
% Players Nondependenr
x2
0 17
37 43 7
22
0
15.81t 13.54t 13.46t 12.99*
12 51 10 27
9 26 0 8
20.56t 17.537 12.42* 20.33t
41
12
30.7
Drscuss~o~ When asked why computer games were good, most replies were very similar to reasons previously found for playing (fun, excitement, a challenge, etc.). Very small percentages of players reported educational benefits and improved psychomotor skLUs similar to those reported by advocates of computer games (e.g., Malone, 1981). However, children clearly see the positive benefits as related more to leisure. In relation to the bad things, a third of the players considered them to be addctive (33%), and this was by far the most often reported negative comment. Whether they thought themselves to be addicted or what exactly they meant by this can only be speculated. Many other comments related to various physical risks including eye strain, headaches, hand aches, and epileptic fits. Most of the players reported that these physical effects had happened to them personally apart from epileptic
ADOLESCENTS' COMPUTER GAME DEPENDENCY
479
fits which were usually reported in the third person or written in a way which suggested they had read about it in the papers. Two other closely related negative comments about computer games which appeared to be written from personal experience were that they make you moody and make you more aggressive. It is unclear from the responses how serious this is, what the exact effects are and how long they last. However, the fact that it was reported at all suggests it is more than just a trivial matter. Other comments by the players (that games were a waste of time and money, antisocial, were boring after a while, affected schoolwork, etc.) were less widely reported and suggested that these responses were based more on personal experience than what they had read or seen second hand elsewhere. The only other negative comment was. that computer games were too expensive. The scores on the dependence scale indicated that one in five adolescents were currently dependent and that one in four adolescents had been at some point in their lives. Perhaps unexpectedly, the dependent players were no more likely to be truant to play computer games, steal to buy new games or to report having bad schoolwork marks as a result of their playing. However, they reported themselves as significantly more Uely to be more aggressive. Perhaps the scale used to measure dependence (and adapted from criteria for pathological gamblmg) is not sufficiently vabd or that dependence on computer games is not the same as other behavioural dependencies in the negative consequences it produces. Although the criteria for the scale were all based on the ddferent components of dependence common to other addictive behaviours, e.g., salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal, confltct, relapse, etc., these may be less relevant for excessive computer game playing. Alternative explanations may require that excessive computer game playing not be conceptualized in terms of dependency or the scale may be more a measure of preoccupation rather than dependence. Present results seem to favour the second alternative as on the whole, the negative consequences of video game playing, e.g., stealing, truancy, etc., were not associated with dependence scores. The dependent players were significantly more &ely to be boys and to have started playing at a significantly earlier age than nondependent players. These findmgs have also been reported for excessive fruit machine playing (see Grdfiths, 1990). Unsurprisingly, the players' dependence scores correlated with how often they played games, the mean playing time per session, and the longest single playing session which suggests they are not independent constructs. These are indicators of preoccupation with computer games, i.e., salience, and youth would therefore be expected to score highly on them and the dependence scale. The need to establish the incidence and prevalence of significant problems associated with computer-game dependence is of paramount importance as are the long-term effects of aggressive
480
M. D. GRIFFITHS
& N. HUNT
reactivity to the games. Clearer operational definitions are required if this is to be achieved. Also needed is a general taxonomy of computer games as particular types of games may have positive effects while other types do not. Griffiths (1993) o u h e d the nine types of computer games reported in children's computer-game magazines. If chddren work with this amount of definitional refinement, researchers should also do that. Computer games are here to stay and wdl continue to be developed and refined to reach the widest audience. At present this is a much neglected research area which is certainly worthy of academic attention. REFERENCES AMERICANPSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. (1987) Diagnos~icand statistical rnanzral of rnerltal disorders. (3rd ed., Rev.) Washington, DC: Author. GRIFFITHS, M. D. (1990) The ac uisition, development and maintenance of fruit machine gambling in adolescents. ]ourna?of Gambling Studies, 6, 193-204. GRIFFITHS, M. D. (1991) Amusemenr machine pla ing in childhood and adolescence: a comparative analysis of video games and Fruit maciines. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 53-73. GRIFFITHS, M. D. (1992) Pinball wizard: a case study of a pinball addicr. Psychological Reports, 71, 160-162. GRIFFITHS, M. D. (1993) Are computer games bad for children? The Psychologis!: The Btrlletirz of the British Psychological Society, 6, 401-406. GRIFFITHS, M. D., &HUNT. N. (1995) Computer game playing in adolescence: prevalence and demographic indicators. Journal of Commzrnity and Applied Social Psychology, 5 , 189-193. L o m s , G. A.. & Lomus. E. F. (1983) Mind at play: the psychology of video games. New York: Basic Books. MALONE,T. W. (1981) Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cogrzitive Science, 4, 333-369. MC~LWRAITH, R., JACOBVITZ, R. S., KUBEY, R., &ALEXANDER, A. (1991) Television addiction: theories and data behind the ubiquitous metaphor. American Behavioral Scientisl, 35, 104121. SHOTTON, M. (1989) Computer addiction?: a study of cornputer dependency. London: Taylor & Francis. SOPER.W. B., &MILLER, M. J . (1983) Junk time junkies: an emerging addtction among students. School Courrsellor, 31, 40-43.
Accepted January 29, 1998
