the social and psychological impact of online gaming
DESCRIPTION
The Social and Psychological Impact of Online Gaming. Agenda. 1:00-1:45 – Presentation 1:45-2:15 – Discussion 2:15 – Adjournment, Faculty remain in room. About Gaming. 430 million people worldwide play video games (~7%) 50% of Americans age six or older play video games - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Human Computer Interaction InstituteCarnegie Mellon University
A. Fleming Seay
The Social and Psychological Impact of Online Gaming
2 2
Agenda1:00-1:45 – Presentation
1:45-2:15 – Discussion
2:15 – Adjournment, Faculty remain in room
3 3
About Gaming430 million people worldwide play video games (~7%)
50% of Americans age six or older play video games
$31.37 billion industry in 2003
Average age of a player is 29
39% of gamers are female
(Zona,2004; Kagan,2004; ESA, 2004)
4 4
5 5
UsageWeekly average usage
~28 hours of television
~17 hours of Internet (other than email)
3-10 hours of video games
15 hours if Multiplayer Online Game30 hours not uncommon
(AC Nielsen 2001; Harris Interactive, 2003; Seay, 2004; Yee, 2004)
6 6
Why we should careGaming puts users in front of computers for long hours
Provides us opportunities for research and design inAttention Management Behavior ManagementExperience Enhancement
7 7
What is an MMOG? A robust example of online community
Thousands of players connecting to and living together in a persistent world
Governed by “real-world” theoretical precepts CSCW (Seay, 2004)Psychology (Yee, 2004)Sociology (Williams, 2004)Economics (Castranova, 2001)
8 8
World of WarCraft (WoW) Demo
9 9
How Do MMOGs Differ from Other Online Games?
Persistent World Game world is their whether or not the player is
More Players Servers support thousands of players at a time
Much Emphasis on Community and Coordinated ActionPeople must communicate and/or work together to be successful
10 10
The ProblemIt is claimed that MMOG play causes…
Social Withdrawal & DetachmentDepressionAddiction
At least 10% of all MMOG players are allegedly addicted40 million in China alone (Bao, 2004)
MMOG players don’t have normal real-life social relationships (Scheeres, 2001)
Players engage in activity to compensate for feelings of anger, depression, low self-esteem (French, 2002; O’Dwyer, 2002)
Online Games pose a threat to academic development at the college level, particularly in Computer Science (Messerly, 2004)
Play can lead to dry-eyes, carpal tunnel syndrome, and “problems with school or work” (French 2002; Orzack, 2002)
11 11
But seriously…Korean Government allocated 3 million dollars to project aimed at combating online gaming addiction
EverQuest Widows
Deaths associated with online gaming
12 12
Term Shift : “Addiction” vs. Problematic UseWe are NOT talking about chemical/physical dependence
Problematic Use:Use of an entertainment or communication medium in such a way that it causes identifiable difficulties in one’s life.
What kind of difficulties?Social and emotional conflictDisplacement of other activitiesDereliction of responsibilities
Timing as important as frequency/amount
13 13
What’s Happening
The Media Effects Model What effect a medium has on a homogeneous pop
You play – You get addicted – You get depressed
Simple substance abuse modelExposure -> Dependence -> Negative Outcomes
Negative Social &
Psychological Consequences
Problematic Use
Play
14 14
But…
Only happens to a small percentage of players (<4%)
Ignores effect of user’s ability to manage own behavior
Ignores environmental factors
We Need…a more sophisticated model to get at who & whyunpack social from psychological consequences
Negative Social &
Psychological Consequences
Problematic Use
Play
15 15
What Happens Considerably More Often…
Engaged Use
Play
Engaged Use – The adaptive and desirable state of interest in and enjoyment of an entertainment or communication medium.
Engaged Use of a social medium might logically have positive social consequences.
16 16
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
17 17
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Play Motivations
Depression
18 18
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Problematic Use Engaged Use
Self-Regulation
19 19
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
DisplacementAugmentation
Social IntegrationGuild Commitment
20 20
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Depression
21 21
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Some Context as We Proceed
1) What factors might predict Problematic Use vs. Engaged Use?2) How might online gaming reduce or even enhance social integration?
Play Motivations
Problematic Use Engaged Use
Self-Regulation
DisplacementAugmentation
Social IntegrationGuild Commitment
Depression
22 22
Phase One : Types of Play
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Play Motivations
Depression
23 23
Why do players play?For Fun?To Pass Time?
More specifically…Why?What aspect of the experience is rewarding to you?
24 24
The Adapted Player Motivation TypologyEscapismPlaying the game lets me forget some of the real-life problems I have.
AchievementI try to optimize my experience (XP) gain as much as possible.
ManipulationI like to annoy other characters/players.
RelationshipI talk to my friends in the game about personal issues.
Roleplaying I like to try out new roles and personalities with my characters.
25 25
Why we care about why we playWho you are and why you use something are important
determinants of the outcomes of use
Bessiere et al (in press) Different characteristics may moderate the influence of particular types of internet use on psychological well being.
Different player motivations may lead to different outcomes
Uses and Gratifications Tradition (Communications and Media Studies)Focus on why people use media – meeting needs
A richer and more robust alternative to the Media Effects model
Who Why WhatLow
social support
Meet new people &
Participate in online groups
Become less
depressed over time
26 26
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Problematic Use Engaged Use
Self-Regulation
27 27
Problematic Use & Engaged UseInternet Addiction (Young, Greenfield)
Adapted from Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) definitions of substance abuse
Dichotomous items & arbitrary cutpoints
Brown’s Diagnostic CriteriaToleranceEuphoriaCognitive SalienceBehavioral SalienceConflictWithdrawalRelapse
28 28
The Criteria in DetailTolerance – requiring more to get the desired effect
Euphoria – the feeling of enjoyment from use/performance
Cognitive Salience – thinking about something very often
Behavioral Salience – doing something very often
Conflict – arguments and tension with self or others
Withdrawal – anxiety and discomfort when removed
Relapse – inability to quit/reduce despite repeated attempts
29 29
EAS Item Examples by CriterionTolerance“I tend to want to spend increasing amounts of time playing Lineage II
Euphoria“I often experience a buzz of excitement while playing Asheron's Call”
Cognitive Salience “I rarely think about playing Battlefield2 when I am not using a computer”
Behavioral Salience“I sometimes neglect important things because of an interest in Savage”
Conflict“My social life has sometimes suffered because of me playing Unreal 2004”
Withdrawal“I would hate to go without playing Guild Wars for more than a few days”
Relapse“I have made unsuccessful attempts to reduce the time I spend playing Eve”
30 30
Problematic Use vs. Engaged UseThe Bifurcation of Brown’s Criteria
Behavioral SalienceConflictWithdrawal Relapse
ToleranceEuphoriaCognitive Salience
Vs.
Problematic Use is undesirable
Engaged Use is desirable
A conceptual distinctionNeed to assess discriminative validity.
31 31
Self-RegulationSupports our ability to observe, identify, and adjust behavioral deficits and
excesses
Three Classes of Self-regulatory behavior
1) Self MonitoringObserving and Keeping track of one’s own behavior
ex. “When I’m trying to change something, I pay a lot of attention to how I’m doing.”
2) Self EvaluationThe comparison of one’s behavior to internally or externally generated standardsex. “I have personal standards, and try to live up to them.”
3) Self ConsequationThe creation and enforcement of contingencies aimed at managing one’s behaviorex. “I get myself through hard things mostly by planning to enjoy myself afterwards.”
32 32
How is Self-regulation Relevant?
Self Regulation
Problematic UseInternet Use
_+
Problematic use as deficient self-regulation (LaRose, 2002)
Self Regulation
Problematic UseInternet Use
_+
Depression
Moderating effect of depression on self-regulation (Bandura)
33 33
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
DisplacementAugmentation
Social IntegrationGuild Commitment
34 34
Social Augmentation HypothesisSocial communication on the Internet augments people’s total social resources by providing an added avenue for everyday social interaction.
The literature indicates that users of the internet…
have more total contact with family members than non-users (Katz & Aspden, 1997)
made more new friends (Katz & Aspden, 1997)
are more involved in their community (Wellman, 2001)
have larger social networks (Robinson et al 2000)
35 35
Social Displacement HypothesisSocial communication on the Internet displaces valuable everyday social interaction with family and friends.
The literature indicates that users of the internet…spend less time and had lesser relationships with family and friends
(Gershuny, 2000; Kraut et al., 1998; Sanders et al., 2000)
have less real world social contact (Kraut et al., 1998)
felt increased loneliness and depressive affect (Kraut et al., 1998)
spent less time on social activities (Nie & Hillygus, 2001).
36 36
Social Integration
Perceived Social
Support
Social Network
SizeLoneliness
Social Integration
Formal Group
Activity
Informal Group
Activity
The fullness of one’s social life and the resources made available as a result of it Many possible metrics:
An augmentation paradigm would indicate that online gaming would increase social integrationA displacement paradigm would indicate that online gaming would decrease social integration
Implication : Reduced social integration could lead to psychological problems
37 37
Guild CommitmentAn individual’s dedication to and involvement in a group
Organizational Commitment QuestionnaireDeveloped by Mowaday to quantify“job involvement” in work groups (1979)
Adapted to fit online gaming
Respondent rates level of agreement with 15 statements
“I find that my values and this organization's values are very similar” or“It wouldn't take much to cause me to leave this organization.”
38 38
Why measure Guild Commitment?Involvement and dedication to online groups could interfere with or displace that for real-life social and professional groups
Simple participation may have a different impact than committed involvement
On the other hand, the impact of commitment to an online group could be positive
39 39
A Framework to Develop
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Depression
40 40
DepressionA mental state of depressed mood characterized by feelings of sadness, despair, and discouragement.
Social Integration Hypotheses
• Resources provided by the real or perceived presence and involvement of other people tend to buffer individuals from depression
• Important sense of well-being and “peace of mind” derived from the ability to get advice assistance and emotional support from one’s social network
41 41
What does the literature suggest?
Social Integration Hypotheses Social Resources buffer individuals from depression. Regardless of the causative stressor(s)Real and/or felt availability of support & advice
Depression
Perceived Social
Support
Social Network
SizeLoneliness
Social Integration
Emotional Stability
Self-RegulationExtraversion
Personal Traits
42 42
What does the literature suggest?
Personal Factors Dimensions of personality and behavior associated with depression
Depression
Perceived Social
Support
Social Network
SizeLoneliness
Social Integration
Emotional Stability
Self-RegulationExtraversion
Personal Traits
43 43
Psychological Consequences
Types of Use
Types of Play
Social Integration
Effects
Summary of Concepts
Play Motivations
Problematic Use Engaged Use
Self-Regulation
DisplacementAugmentation
Social IntegrationOrg. Commitment
Depression
44 44
Two Research Questions1) What factors might predict Problematic Use vs.
Engaged Use?
2) What is the social impact of online gaming?
45 45
What factors might predict Problematic Use?Time Spent Playing
Self-Regulatory Behavior – how active a user is in monitoring and managing their usage
Player Motivation - why does one play?
Depression - as predictor rather than result
46 46
Predicting Problematic UseHypothesis IProblematic use is predicted by not only by hours of play, but also by self-regulation, player motivation, and depression.
47 47
Some Testable Models
Moderation Model
Problematic Use
Play Hours +
+Self
Regulation
_
Depression
+
++_+
Play Hours
Self Regulation
Depression
Problematic Use
Main Effects Model
Play Motivation
Play Motivation
48 48
Predicting Engaged Use
++++
Play Hours
Game Affinity
Guild Commitment
Engaged Use
Play Motivation
Hypothesis IIWhile also associated with play hours, engaged use is predicted by game affinity, play motivation, and guild commitment.
49 49
What is the social impact of online gaming?Does use interfere with “real world” social activity?
Might it enhance feelings of social integration for some?
What about negative psychological outcomes?
50 50
Reminder – Social Integration & Depression
Depression
Perceived Social
Support
Social Network
SizeLoneliness
Social Integration
Emotional Stability
Self-RegulationExtraversion
Personal Traits
Where does problematic use fit in?
51 51
Problematic Use, Social Integration & Depression
Problematic use could lead to depression by displacing real-life social activityreducing / ablating social rolls and involvement
Depression
Perceived Social SupportProblematic
Use
Social Network Size
Loneliness+
_
_
Social Integration
+
_
_
52 52
Gaming’s effect on Social Integration – 2 models
Displacement Model
Social Integration
Play Hours _
Guild Commitment
Problematic Use
Augmentation Model
Play Motivation
Social Integration
Play w/ RL Friends
Online Friends Met
in RL
+
+
Guild Commitment
+
_
_
_
53 53
The Displacement ModelHypothesis III - Over time as play hours and guild commitment rise, social integration will decrease. Players with relationship play motivation may be particularly vulnerable to displacement of this type. Similarly, players with high levels of problematic use may encounter displacement of real world social involvement.
Social Integration
Play Hours _
Guild Commitment
Problematic Use
Play Motivation
_
_
_
54 54
The Augmentation ModelHypothesis IV – Play with real-life friends/relatives, conversion of friends from online to real-life, and commitment to online groups may lead to enhanced social integration.
Social Integration
Play w/ RL Friends
Online Friends Met
in RL
+
+
Guild Commitment
+
55 55
Method
56 56
Online Surveywww.projectmassive.com
95 Items
Out-of-game Recruitment • Posts to web forums (e.g. Vault Network & Slashdot)• Re-recruitment of past participants
In-game Recruitment • World of Warcraft• Guild Wars• Counter-Strike• Xbox Live
57 57
4 Waves of Project MassiveWave One (pilot) – Collected Spring and Summer 2002
Wave Two – Collected September – January 2004
Wave Three – Launched in April of 2004
Wave Four – Planned for September
58 58
What do we ask?Basic Demographics
Gameplay – Games, frequency / length of play
ScalesPlayer Motivation – Adapted Yee ScaleSelf Regulation – SSRQDepression - CES-DLoneliness - UCLA-LPerceived Social Support - ISEL-12 Social Network Index – SNIProblematic & Engaged Use - EAS-IIOrganizational (Guild) Commitment – OCQPersonality – Saucier 7 Factor InventorySocial Activity – Formal/Informal Group Activity
59 59
Results So Far
60 60
DemographicsWave 1 (pilot)
Wave 2 Wave 3(so far)
N 1836 1503 1089
Age 27 28 28
Gender 10% Female 11% Female 11% Female
Play Hours 21 hrs/week 22 hrs/week 21 hrs/week
Game Type Not Collected 85% MMO15% Other
80% MMO20% Other
61 61
Evidence of Discriminative Differences
N~1400Play
HoursDepression Loneliness Perceived
Social Support
Self-Regulation
Guild Commitment
Game Affinity
Problematic Use
.301 .387 .298 -.262 -.377 .067 .084
Engaged Use .229 .064 .021 .025 -.056 .213 .414
Behavioral SalienceConflictWithdrawal Relapse
ToleranceEuphoriaCognitive Salience
Vs.
62 62
Support for the Main Effects Model
Problematic Use
Play Hours+
Play Motivation +
Self Regulation_
Depression
+
63 63
Zero-Order Correlations
N~1400 Problematic Use
Play Hours
Escapism Achievement Manipulation Self-Regulation
Depression
Problematic Use
. .301 .373 .288 .198 -.377 .387
Play Hours . .120 .154 .047 -.071 .163Escapism . .224 .059 -.184 .298Achievement . .321 -.095 .119Manipulation . -.111 .106Self-Regulation
. -.559
Depression .
64 64
Regression Model for Problematic Use
Adj R2 = .331, N=1153Significant Interaction
Play Hours * Escapism
Model Attribute Beta Std. Error t p
Self-Regulation -.469 .055 -8.56 <.0001
Escapism .208 .025 8.34 <.0001
Depression .188 .055 3.41 .0007
Achievement .158 .028 5.62 <.0001
Manipulation .085 .030 2.79 <.0001
Relationship .044 .020 2.17 <.0001
Play Hours .010 .001 7.80 <.0001
Play Hours * Escapism .002 .001 2.25 .0247
65 65
Decomposing the Hours*Escapism Interaction
Interaction pPlay Hours * Escapism .021
Play Hours * Relationship .109
Play Hours * Manipulation .197
Play Hours * Immersion .678
Play Hours * Achievement .753
Players who are high on the Escapism motivation dimension and play a high number of hours report high levels of problematic use
1
7
Problematic Use
Play Hours
1560
7 Hi Escapism Lo Escapism
66 66
Reconsidering Engaged & Problematic UseSAT Verbal Analogies
What if
Engaged Use : Problematic UseAs
Deep Appreciation for Food : Over Eating
Then it would make sense to put Engaged Use into the model
67 67
Regression Model for Problematic Use
Adj R2 = .404, N=1121
Model Attribute Beta Std. Error t p
Engaged Play .518 .043 12.04 <.0001
Self-Regulation -.421 .052 -8.09 <.0001
Depression .270 .053 5.10 <.0001
Escapism .132 .025 5.38 <.0001
Manipulation .126 .029 4.32 <.0001
Achievement .082 .027 3.02 .0026
Roleplaying -.065 .023 -2.79 <.0001
Play Hours .008 .001 6.30 <.0001
68 68
A Main Effects Model for Engaged Use
Engaged Use
Play Hours+
Play Motivation +
Game Affinity+
Guild Commitment
+
69 69
Regression Model for Engaged Use
Adj R2 = .355, N=893
Model Attribute Beta Std. Error t p
Game Affinity .255 .019 13.60 <.0001
Escapism .115 .016 7.38 <.0001
Achievement .115 .018 6.27 <.0001
Manipulation -.072 .020 -3.50 .0005
Guild Commitment .066 .017 3.97 <.0001
Roleplaying .031 .015 2.06 .0396
Play Hours .007 .001 6.95 <.0001
70 70
Going Forward
71 71
Taking Advantage of Longitudinal DataExamining change over time with hierarchical linear modeling
Predicting change in:Problematic useSocial integration
HLM w/ longitudinal data - a license to make causal claims
Two Stages1. Identify the shape of change within the individual over time2. Look at interindividual differences in change
what factors predict these differences
72 72
Longitudinal Analysis using HLMBy measuring repeatedly causality can be addressed
T1 predictors Change in outcome b/w T1 and T2
Problematic Use
Play Hours+
Play Motivation +
Self Regulation_
Depression
+
Time One Time Two
73 73
Longitudinal Analysis using HLMBy measuring repeatedly causality can be addressed
T1 predictors Change in outcome b/w T1 and T2
Social Integration
Play Hours_
Play Motivation _
Guild Commitment
_
Problematic Use
_
Time One Time Two
74 74
Longitudinal Analysis using HLMBy measuring repeatedly causality can be addressed
T1 predictors Change in outcome b/w T1 and T2Time One Time Two
Play w/ RL Friends
Online Friends Met
in RL
+
+
Guild Commitment
+Social
Integration
75 75
Fitting the Omnibus Model
DepressionPerceived
Social Support
Social Network
Size
Loneliness+_
_
Social Integration
++_
+
Play Hours
Self Regulation
Depression
Problematic Use
Play Motivation
+_
_
76 76
Research Informing DesignUI Plug-in for World Of Warcraft allowing user to:
view personal usage statisticssee comparison to personal & community standardsshare usage data with friends to support coordination
Reflects the study’s findings by:Supporting self-regulatory activity to reduce likelihood of problematic use
Supporting collaboration and coordinated action to enhance online social experience
77 77
78 78
79 79
ContributionsEmpirical examination of the role of self-regulation, player motivation, and depression in the development of problematic use of interactive entertainment
Identification and examination of socio-environmental and motivational “risk factors” that could make an individual susceptible to problematic use
Empirical examination of the effect that participation in online communities has on the real-life activities of the individual
Application of longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling to the study of gaming communities
Testing and further development of a player motivation inventory for online gaming
Adaptation of Organizational Commitment Questionnaire to the study of online social groups
80 80
Time Frame
81 81
Thank [email protected]://www.cs.cmu.edu/~afseaywww.projectmassive.com
82 82
Two Frameworks to Develop
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
83 83
Two Frameworks to Develop
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Types of Play
84 84
Two Frameworks to Develop
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Types of Use
85 85
Two Frameworks to Develop
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Social Consequence
s
86 86
Two Frameworks to Develop
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Psychological Consequence
s
87 87
Some Context as We Proceed
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
1) What factors might predict Problematic Use vs. Engaged Use?2) How might online gaming reduce or even enhance social integration?
88 88
Phase One : Types of Play
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Types of Play
89 89
Phase Two : Types of Use
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Types of Use
Problematic UseEngaged UseSelf-Regulation
90 90
Phase Three : Social Consequences
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Social Consequence
s
DisplacementAugmentation Social IntegrationOrganizational Commitment
91 91
Phase Four : Psychological Consequences
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Psychological Consequence
s
92 92
Summary of Concepts
Negative Psychological Consequences
Problematic UsePlay
Engaged Use
Enhanced Social
Integration
Reduced Social
Integration
Play
Types of Play
Play Motivations
Types of Use
Problematic Use Engaged Use
Self-Regulation
DisplacementAugmentation
Social IntegrationOrg. Commitment
Psychological Consequence
s
Social Consequence
s
Depression
93 93
Modeling the Social Impact of Online Gaming
Displacement Model
Social Integration
Play Hours _
+Org.
Commitment
+Problemati
c Use
Augmentation Model
+Play
Motivation
Social Integration
Play w/ RL Friends
Online Friends Met
in RL
+
+
Org. Commitment
+
94 94
Player Motivation LiteratureBartle – Players Who Suit MUDs, 1996
AchieversSocializersExplorersKillers
Yee – Facets, 2002RelationshipImmersionGriefAchievementLeadership
95 95
Problematic Use vs. Engaged Use
N~1400Play
HoursDepression Loneliness Perceived
Social Support
Problematic Use
.301 .387 .298 -.262
Engaged Use .229 .064 .021 .025
Behavioral SalienceConflictWithdrawal Relapse
ToleranceEuphoriaCognitive Salience
Vs.
96 96
How Is Problematic Use Measured?EAS-II
Engagement Addiction Scale II29 Items – 14 “Addiction”, 15 EngagementDeveloped by Charlton & Danforth
97 97
How Is Self-Regulation Measured?SSRQ
Short Self Regulation Questionnaire31 items rating agreement with statements about
personal qualities and practicesDeveloped by Carey & Neal (2004)
ExamplesSelf Monitoring“When I’m trying to change something, I pay a lot of attention to how I’m doing.”
Self Evaluation“I have personal standards, and try to live up to them.”
Self Consequation“I get myself through hard things mostly by planning to enjoy myself afterwards.”
98 98
Decomposing the Hours*Escapism Interaction
Interaction pPlay Hours * Escapism .021
Play Hours * Relationship .109
Play Hours * Manipulation .197
Play Hours * Immersion .678
Play Hours * Achievement .753
Players who are high on the Escapism motivation dimension and play a high number of hours report high levels of problematic use
0
Hours per Week
PT_ESC
ADDSCORE
0
Hours per Week
PT_ESC
ADDSCORE
99 99
How Is Depression Measured?CES-D
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale11 Items rating frequency of certain feelings/states
Examples
“I could not get going.”
“I felt that everything I did was an effort.”
“I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.”
100 100
What does the literature suggest?
Self Regulation
Problematic UsePlay Hours
_+
Problematic use as deficient self-regulation (LaRose, 2002)
Self Regulation
Problematic UsePlay Hours
_+
Depression
Moderating effect of depression on self-regulation (Bandura)
101 101
Regression Model for Engaged Use
Adj R2 = .453, N=814
Model Attribute Beta Std. Error t p
Game Affinity .244 .018 13.39 <.0001
Problematic Use .209 .018 11.77 <.0001
Depression -.139 .032 -4.43 <.0001
Manipulation -.119 .022 -5.46 <.0001
Achievement .087 .018 4.94 <.0001
Escapism .077 .016 4.84 <.0001
Guild Commitment .051 .015 3.48 .0005
Roleplaying .041 .015 2.74 .006
Achieve. * Manip. .038 .017 2.14 <.0001
Play Hours .004 .001 5.03 .032