Table 1.
The issues | Is the addiction framework correct for GD? | |
---|---|---|
Concerns | Related references | |
Concerns regarding the addiction model | Is formalizing an addictive disorder based on the available information beneficial? | van Rooij et al. (2018) |
Addiction-based conceptualization of IGD is constraining because it
interferes with the development and testing of alternative conceptual
frameworks for problematic gaming. Criteria derived from substance use disorders or gambling disorder might neglect the potentially unique features of IGD. Gaming can be a maladaptive way of coping or manifestation of an underlying psychopathology. |
Kardefelt-Winther (2014), Krossbakken, Pallesen, Molde, Mentzoni, and Finseras (2017), Starcevic (2017), van Rooij et al. (2018) | |
Other alternative features underlining problematic gaming. | Alternative features highlighting problematic gaming may include the following: overvaluation of gaming rewards, activities, and identities; maladaptive and inflexible rules of gaming behavior; excessive reliance on gaming to meet self-esteem needs; gaming as a method of gaining social acceptance. | King and Delfabbro (2014a) |
Lack of a well-defined object of addiction. The causal relationships between gaming and life problems have not been confirmed. |
Quandt (2017) | |
Secondary disorder deriving from other psychopathologies. | The comorbidity: Problematic gaming has been frequently and consistently associated with various psychopathologies. | Kuss et al. (2017a), Starcevic (2017), van Rooij et al. (2018) |
The course of the disorder | Addictive disorders are generally chronic and progressive if not treated. Recent studies revealed that the natural course of excessive gaming is often transient or episodic, thus suggesting its low temporal stability. | Konkolÿ Thege et al. (2015), Starcevic (2017) |