Iowa State University researcher and director of research for the National Institute of Media and Family (NIMF), Douglas Gentile, has concluded that 8.5% of Americans between the age of 8 and 18 are addicted to video games based on survey results of nearly 1200 children and teens. The NIMF, unsurprisingly, deemed the study "a wake-up call for families" while Entertainment Software Association (ESA) Senior Vice President of Communications, Rich Taylor, placed the onus on parents to "determine when and how often their children should play any game".
Source: ActionTrip [ more info ]

Now, I may be a staunch video game advocate and reading the original Washing Post article [more info] about the study made me wrinkle my nose in grumpy consternation, but I'm not about to say that a portion of America's youth are not addicted to video games. And, despite my consternation, the NIMF is making a valid point here. They're not using the study to say games are bad or that they are inherently addictive. They're saying that "some kids [are using] them in a way that is out of balance and harms various other areas of their lives".

The sticking point for me here is that studies like these should not shine such a fine spotlight on games/gaming specifically. Those same kids, if games were removed from the equation, would likely demonstrate an "addiction" to watching television or chatting online/on their cell phones, meeting the same stated criteria via a different distraction.

To address my consternation... I'm just over-protective of video games right now. We're the current scapegoat of choice. It will be nice when the usual contingent of politicians, zealots, and nutjobs turn their attention to the real threat:
iPhone Apps.

____________________
Today's Pimpage: The two gamers are wearing "Nature Troopers of the World" and "The Gaming Revolution" shirts from Threadless.Com.

You're not kidding about iPhone apps. They are addictive, and especially for the 99c ones, the impulse to say 'what the heck' is very, very strong!

I've personally always found it odd that researchers can make such sweeping statements like this. 8.5% of Americans are addicted..yet only a sample of under 1200 was taken (Out of how many millions?). The only wake up call is how inaccurate and skewed research is becoming.

Heh I think that maybe a bit inaccurate. Definition of addiction is some sort of dependency tagged in there. I've always been a person that spends way to much time on games, but in full honesty it's because I have nothing else more enjoyable to do... and no, work is not enjoyable for me. If there was a social gathering and I was invited; hell I would drop whatever game I'm on and go to it in a drop of a hat(unless it's WoW raiding party and I'm a support character and they need me; cause you can't forget that those are other people to).
However I can believe that the use of gaming products has increased; cause I think American culture has become more isolated. (sorry for poor grammar)

Well, at least that figure seems like an accurate number. I'd be more willing to bash it if they said something like 50% or some large number. It would show they didn't do the study properly or didn't read the results correctly.

There will always be people who will abuse something and I suppose parents of these kids should try to intervene if its truly a problem. Still, we should count our blessings. Better addicted to videogames than dangerous drugs.

I wanna see the number of people addicted to web comics.

*twitch*

Completely off topic here (and, hey, just signed into a forum I've not in months to say this), but you may want to take a look at the new Leisure Suit Larry, Woody. Not because it's a good game - no, it's horrible. They even took out boobs, so there's not even that going for it. No, you should take a look because I'm pretty sure the guy on the left (who I'm sure I've seen in the comic before at some point), is almost a dead ringer for Larry Loveage, the main pointless-waste-of-hard-to-control-pixels. Perhaps you can take them to task for copying your style and ensure they never make another game.

Also, good comic as always, going to melt down and inject Fallout 3 now.

Like you essentially said, Woody, with that small a percentage, if it weren't games, it'd be something else... something that actually changes the brain's chemical balance, and is therefore actually addictive. Like, you know, nicotine. Or sugar, to name the most benign possibilities.

I guess one could argue that an interest in video games that crowds out opportunities to take up smoking and over-eating is a lot healthier in the long run. (for the record, I don't think it's possible to become physically addicted to video games, in the medical sense. I'll grant that it's possible to play them enough that they are a detriment to one's emotional development and acquisition of social skills. I don't consider that an addiction, and neither would any good research scientist.)

I guess I'm saying I think the study is a worthless pile of bunk, and does nothing but seek to shift blame off the shoulders of parents, which is exactly where it belongs.

Doing a fair amount of research in college, and knowing the in's and out's of how you go about setting up research, I think this is just a load of crap. Often, you hear about how a study of violent criminals reveals that they watched violent TV and played violent video games and this is "proof" of their current violent tendancies. You don't often see a survey of normal, productive citizens that had the same influences and turned out just fine. Conversely, I'd say that poverty and family structure have a lot more influence than electronic entertainment in any form.

Personally, I think the research was probably taken out of context for a better news paper article. Like so many things that get chewed up in the media machine, everyone is looking for a place to point the finger that isn't themselves. No one wants to say "I'm a bad parent so I use video games instead" they'd rather say "the video game industry corrupted my child and made them addicted".

I read the report of the study the other day and expected to see it discussed here in fairly short order. I do agree with Dawn that using "addiction" in this fashion is a disservice and that "dependence" is far more appropriate. Granted, the author applies the qualifier "behavioral" before "addiction", but to me that's like saying "unintentional malice" - putting a qualifier before a word that attempts to change the meaning of the word is unfair and smacks of upselling.

I'm not sure that its impossible to become "addicted" (involving a physiological change in body or brain chemistry) given the potential link between frequent stimulation of pleasure centers and decreased response to endorphins, and the authors begin to address this issue as shown by the first diagnostic criteria, but in a very indirect fashion (though also the only fashion available to the study staff).

Originally Posted by Washington Post Article:

Symptoms included spending increasing amounts of time and money on video games to feel the same level of excitement; irritability or restlessness when play is scaled back; escaping problems through play; skipping chores or homework to spend more time at the controller; lying about the length of playing time; and stealing games or money to play more.

Here's what I wonder...if we were to substitute, say, "books" for "video games" and "reading" for "play" would we see similar responses? I suspect so...though perhaps not with the lying and stealing aspects. I can't yet find the source article and I'm curious to see if there is any differential weighting for the 11 categories/"symptoms".

Douglas Gentile, the lead author, has an impressive enough resume and a decent list of publications on the topic, with at least some showing positive correlation between participation in prosocial video games and positive prosocial behaviors (search PubMed for articles). I don't think that he's out to scapegoat games or absolve parents of responsibility. At first pass, I don't see any indication of shoddy science...just perhaps some upselling. There is value in what his team has written and though some may react with reflexive dismissal it should be read and reviewed critically and with as little bias as possible. That doesn't mean that his hypotheses aren't flawed - as has been pointed out, the gaming "addiction" might just as easily be replaced by the phone, the TV or ping pong in most, if not all, of these adolescents - but they should not be dismissed out of hand.

If the intent is to say "video game play can be included in the list of dependence-generating activities or substances" then this work seems to justify that conclusion. If, however, the intent is to somehow imply that "video games represent a unique source of dependence/addiction that would not have otherwise been seen in this population" then there is an issue. I don't see any indication, however, that the second option was a study intent.

In the end, I don't think this is bad "science" at all, and certainly not something to be dismissed out of hand. However, bad conclusions can be reached from even the best work, and mainstream media is the undisputed king of making bad conclusions to make good ratings.

- G