Gaming Disorder: Is the Classification Necessary?

/

The World Health Organization will be including a new classification of "gaming disorder" into its global medical coding guidelines. No doubt a good portion of the gaming community let out a collective groan. Here we go again. First video games were for geeks, then they made children violent, and now they're addicting. The stigma won't die. There is some disagreement within the medical and psychological fields on the value of such a classification. So let's examine what the problems might be with classifying a gaming disorder and why the WHO might see it as worthwhile to include regardless. (The full classification from the WHO can be found here)

The Flaws

  1. Poor Research: When it comes to science that is medically relevant (and any science really) you need to be as specific with your terms as possible. It's important that everyone is measuring the same construct in their research because the results will impact the way patients are treated. Unfortunately there is little consensus understanding of pathological gaming in the scientific community. In addition, the number of real patients actually suffering from gaming addiction are low. This makes it difficult to conduct any conclusive clinical studies that are representative of the larger population. This means researchers must speculate and they are.

  2. Copy/Paste Framework: The operational definition of gaming addiction draws significantly from the criteria for substance and gambling addiction. This is problematic because it could make behaviors that may be signs of addiction when abusing drugs become signs of addition in gaming even when they don't actually impair functioning. For example, in substance abuse using a drug to feel good is extremely correlated to a detrimental addiction, but plenty of gamers play games to feel good and experience no problems functioning whatsoever. Yet this symptom is still being considered in the gaming context because the framework is based off of what we see in other addictions, not what we see with gaming addiction (because we barely see enough to know).

  3. Comorbity: If every schizophrenic that used cigarettes became addicted to them, but no one else did, we wouldn't run around claiming that cigarettes cause addiction. We'd only claim that cigarettes could be addicting to those with a preexisting mental illness. However, we can see that cigarettes can addict almost anyone who is exposed to them enough. We do not see this with gaming addiction. Many studies with actual patients find that the patients have other disorders. It's possible gaming may very well be a coping mechanism for a different medical condition.

  4. Public Panic: The media loves a juicy headline. History has shown that if there's anything that could scandalize something relevant to parents and their children's health the news will spit articles out about it like a sprinkler. If parents seek a clinical diagnosis of gaming addiction for their child before a thorough body of research is developed it could lead to a spike in false-positive diagnoses and the application of underdeveloped treatments that may even be harmful.

  5. Confirmation Bias: The question researchers have been asking up until now has been "is gaming addictive?" I think we've uncovered more than enough reasons to believe that the scientific community is not done answering this question. But, once the WHO classifies gaming addiction as its own disorder the question is going to become "what does gaming addiction look like?" The assumption that it is addictive is implied and will likely be considered less and less critically as researchers seek to confirm the formal classification.

  6. Stigma: This one is familiar to all gamers. All kids know someone who couldn't play games because it would "rot their brains out" or "make them violent." Once the WHO formalizes this classification demonizing video game usage is going to look tremendously enticing in the eyes of any politician, business, or school interested in appealing to parents. It's not unreasonable to think that there could be policy changes as a result of it that impact perfectly functional gamers.

In Favor

  1. Help Is On the Way: It's undeniable that there are some people out there whose lives are full of suffering because of their inability to control their gaming addiction. Whether it's only 15 people or whether they are all dealing with other mental illnesses, this classification is a huge step toward making it easier for those who are suffering to receive treatment and maybe get some relief. A diagnosis will be more readily available and a treatment in turn. Some may think that opportunity is worth jumping the gun on the research.

  2. Show Me the Money: This classification will also be a great way to justify additional spending on research and treatment. Being able to refer to the WHOs recognition of gaming addiction in a research grant or in an appeal to an insurance company could free up money that you wouldn't have gotten previously.

  3. People Will Talk: This decision will drive a dialogue about this issue that will hopefully drive society and the scientific community towards the truth about gaming addiction.

What do you see as more valuable? Let me know in the comments.