Addict Behav Rep. 2017 Jun; 5: 19–28.
Lomia i luga o le initaneti 2017 Feb 7. Tui: 10.1016 / j.abrep.2017.02.002
PMCID: PMC5800554
PMID: 29450224
Language: le gagana Peretania | Siamani | Siamani
Rayna Sariyska,a,⁎ Bernd Lachmann,a Sebastian Markett,b,c Matini Reuter,b,c ma Christian Montaga,d
1. Faatomuaga
Ua maua e le Initaneti lona ala i olaga i aso uma o le tele o tagata i le lalolagi atoa, e ofoina atu se auala faigofie e aoina ai faʻamatalaga ma faʻaaogaina faafiafiaga. Faatasi ai ma le faatupulaia o le numera o tagata faaaoga Initoneti, e tusa ma le 50% o le faitau aofaʻi o le lalolagi i le taimi nei (maua i le 07.09.16. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/), the number of reports on problematic Internet usage (PIU) is rising. In a representative study from Germany (N = 15,024 tagata auai) Rumpf, Meyer, Kreuzer, John, ma Merkeerk (2011) faʻaalia faʻasologa o le 1.5% i vaisu i luga ole Initaneti, faʻatasi ai ma tagata laiti e faʻaalia le maualuga maualuga (4% i le vaega o 14-16 tausaga). Muamua taumafaiga e faʻamalamalama ma faʻamaonia le PIU1 na faia e Kimberly Young i le tausaga 1998 (tagai foi i le lipoti muamua mai le Talavou, 1996). Talu mai lena taimi e tele suʻega ma mea faigaluega suʻesuʻe ua atiaʻe (faʻataʻitaʻiga Talavou, 1998b, Talavou, 1998a, Tao et al., 2010), ina ia mafai ona faʻatatauina faʻamaʻi i tagata eseese ma tuʻuina atu i tagata mamaʻi togafitiga lelei. Peita'i, e le'i iai lava se fa'avasegaga fa'ale-nu'u ole PIU. O suʻesuʻega i luga o vaisu taʻaloga i luga o le initaneti e foliga mai o se laasaga e tasi i luma, talu ai talu ai nei na aofia ai le Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) i le Vaega III o le DSM-5, o lona uiga o le faʻamalosia atili o suʻega aʻo leʻi iloiloina o se faʻafitauli masani (American Psychiatric Association). O le IGD o loʻo manatu o se ituaiga faʻapitoa o le PIU, lea e naʻo le faʻapipiʻiina i ni vaega laiti faʻatasi ai ma le tulaga lautele o le PIU o loʻo faʻamatalaina i luga (eg. Davis, 2001, Montag et al., 2015).
1.1. PIU ma a'oa'oga fa'apitoa/fa'ai'uga
O fa'aletonu i le faia o fa'ai'uga ua fa'aalia i le tele o su'esu'ega, su'esu'eina o tagata mama'i ma vaisu ma amioga (fa'ata'ita'iga. Bechara et al., 2001, Schoenbaum et al., 2006). Ona o mea tutusa i le manatu o le PIU ma amioga / mea ua fai ma vaisu (Talavou, 1998a), o le autu o le faia o faaiuga e maualuga foi le taua e malamalama atili ai i le natura o le tele o le faaaogaina o Initaneti. A'o iloiloina le faia o fa'ai'uga ua faia se 'ese'esega i le va o le faia o fa'ai'uga i lalo o le le manino ma le faia o fa'ai'uga i lalo o tulaga lamatia (Brand et al., 2006, Schiebener ma le Brand, 2015). A'o faia faaiuga i lalo o le le manino o tulafono mo tupe maua ma gau ma avanoa o taunuuga eseese e le o faʻamalamalamaina manino (fuaina faʻataʻitaʻiga ma le (faʻataʻitaʻiga muamua o le) IOWA Gambling Task poʻo le IGT), i le faia o faʻaiuga i lalo o faʻamatalaga manino faʻamatalaga e uiga i le mafai. taunuuga, ma avanoa mo tupe maua ma gau o loʻo avanoa pe mafai ona faʻatusatusa (fuaina faʻataʻitaʻiga i le Taaloga Taaloga Taaloga poʻo le GDT) (Brand et al., 2006, Schiebener ma le Brand, 2015). Faʻavae i luga o lenei eseesega ma luga o faʻataʻitaʻiga lua-faʻasologa o le faia o filifiliga (faʻataʻitaʻiga Epstein, 2003), Schiebener ma Brand (2015) tu'u mai se fa'ata'ita'iga fa'ata'ita'i e fa'amatala ai le faia o fa'ai'uga i lalo o tulaga lamatia. I lenei fa'ata'ita'iga, o lo'o fa'amamafaina le matafaioi o galuega fa'atino o se ki e talafeagai mo le faia o fa'ai'uga i lalo o tulaga lamatia, ae le o le faia o fa'ai'uga i lalo o le le manino. O taui fa'alagona ma fa'asalaga e tatau ona fa'atasi uma ituaiga uma o faiga filifiliga. O le mea lea, o faiga uma e mafaufau ai (pulea e le malamalama), faʻatasi ai ma faiga faʻalavelave (faʻaosoina e ala i le faʻamoemoe o le taui faʻalagona ma faʻasalaga) e mafai ona aʻafia i faiga faʻaiʻuga i lalo ole tulaga lamatia (Schiebener & Brand, 2015). E le gata i lea, o mea taua e pei o faʻamatalaga e uiga i le tulaga o faʻaiuga, uiga taʻitoʻatasi ma tulaga faʻaosoina tulaga ma aʻafiaga i fafo ua fautuaina e iai ni aʻafiaga faʻapitoa i le faia o filifiliga (Schiebener & Brand, 2015).
E tusa ai ma vaisu i luga o le Initaneti, na fa'atuina mai ai se fa'avae fa'ata'ita'iga fou e Brand, Young, Laier, Wölfling, ma Potenza (2016), ua taʻua o le Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE), lea na faʻaalia ai le faʻaleagaina o galuega faʻapitoa ma le faʻalavelave faʻalavelave e taua mo le atinaʻeina o le PIU. E tusa ai ma lenei faʻataʻitaʻiga, o le atinaʻeina ma le tausiga o faʻafitauli faʻapitoa i le faʻaogaina o le Initaneti e faʻavaeina fegalegaleaiga i le va o mea faʻapitoa (faʻataʻitaʻiga o le tagata ma le psychopathology), faʻataʻitaʻiga (faʻataʻitaʻiga le lelei o le faʻaogaina ma le faʻamoemoe i luga ole Initaneti), ma tagata faufautua (faʻataʻitaʻiga aʻafiaga ma le mafaufau tali i faʻamatalaga tulaga). O nei fesoʻotaʻiga lavelave, faʻatasi ma le mauaina o le faʻamalieina ma le faʻamalosia lelei, o se taunuuga o le faʻaogaina o se vaega patino o le Initaneti, ma faʻaitiitia ai galuega faʻapitoa ma le faʻalavelave faʻalavelave, e mafai ona iʻu ai i se faʻalavelave faʻaogaina o le Initaneti.
E oʻo mai i le taimi nei, o nai suʻesuʻega faʻapitoa na faia i le tulaga o le PIU, faʻalavelave faʻalavelave ma le faia o filifiliga. O le tele o i latou e tusa ai ma le ta'iala fa'ata'ita'i e Brand et al. (2016). Sun et al. (2009) mo se faʻataʻitaʻiga na lipotia mai le leaga o le faʻatinoga i se galuega faitupe i le tele o tagata faʻaoga Initaneti ma le faʻagesegese o le filifiliga o se fuafuaga manuia pe a faʻatusatusa i le pulea o tagata auai. I se suʻesuʻega talu ai nei, Pawlikowski ma Brand (2011) lipotia faʻaitiitia le mafai ona faia filifiliga i lalo o le lamatiaga i le GDT i se vaega o le tele o le World of Warcraft (WoW) taʻaalo faʻatusatusa i le puleaina o tagata auai. Yao et al. (2015) faʻaaogaina se suiga fou o le Go / NoGo galuega (lea na faʻaogaina ai faʻataʻitaʻiga e fesoʻotaʻi ma taʻaloga i tafatafa o faʻamaʻi le faʻaituau) ma lipotia faʻaititia o le faʻalavelave faʻalavelave i tagata auai ma le IGD, faʻatusatusa i le puleaina o tagata auai. Laier, Pawlikowski, ma Brand (2014) found similar results with a modified version of the IGT, when using pornographic and neutral pictures on the advantageous and/or disadvantageous card decks. Here, male participants showed deficient decision making in trials where the pornographic pictures were associated with disadvantageous card decks. However, also mixed results concerning decision making in the context of PIU or IGD were reported. In a study by Ko et al. (2010) mo se faʻataʻitaʻiga o tagata auai i luga ole Initaneti na faʻaalia lelei le faia o filifiliga, fuaina i le IGT, faʻatusatusa i le pulea o tagata auai. I le suesuega a Yao et al. (2015) ua uma ona taʻua i luga, e leai se eseesega i le faia o filifiliga e faʻaaoga ai le IGT e mafai ona maua i le va o tagata soifua maloloina ma i latou e iai le IGD. Ina ia fa'amavaeina nei fa'ai'uga fete'ena'i e mana'omia nisi su'esu'ega, su'esu'eina o suiga fa'alavelave fa'afuase'i. E tasi le fesuiaiga patino o loʻo faʻamatalaina mulimuli ane i le suʻesuʻega o loʻo iai nei.
1.2. PIU, faʻalavelave faʻalavelave ma le le mautonu
Due to the initial characterization of PIU as an impulse control disorder, a number of studies were conducted to explore PIU in the context of impulsivity and risk-taking. Cao, Su, Liu, ma Gao (2007) ma Lee et al. (2012) na faʻaalia ai o le PIU e fesoʻotaʻi lelei ma uiga le mautonu, fuaina i le Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). E tusa ai ma le auivi a'oa'oga e Brand et al. (2016), ua uma ona faʻafeiloaʻi i luga, o loʻo taʻua le impulsivity i totonu o uiga faʻapitoa, faʻaalia le tele o fesoʻotaʻiga mautu ma le PIU ma, o lea, ua fuafuaina e avea ma se tasi o mea taua, e aʻafia ai lona atinaʻe ma le tausiga. I le lautele, o le impulsivity o loʻo faʻamatalaina o se "faʻatonuga i le vave, le fuafuaina o tali i totonu poʻo fafo, e aunoa ma le manatu i taunuuga le lelei o nei tali i tagata faʻamalosi poʻo isi" (Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz, & Swann, 2001; i. 1784). O le fa'aupuga e feso'ota'i i le fa'alavelave e fa'amatalaina o "amio na faia i lalo o le le mautonu, fa'atasi ai ma le leai o ni fa'ai'uga leaga fa'aletagata, ma e aunoa ma ni fuafuaga fa'afuase'i malosi" (Kreek, Nielsen, Butelman, & LaForge, 2005; i. 1453). Ko et al. (2010) fa'aaoga le Balloon Analog Risk Task (Lejuez et al., 2002) e fua ai tulaga lamatia, ae leai se fesoʻotaʻiga taua ma le PIU. I le suʻesuʻega nei, o loʻo matou toe vaʻavaʻai atu i nei faʻalapotopotoga, e ala i le faʻaogaina o mea uma e lua, lipoti a le tagata lava ia faʻatasi ai ma fua faʻataʻitaʻiga o le impulsivity / lamatiaga.
1.3. Ole matafaioi ole itupa mo le PIU/IGD
O le isi mataupu taua i le tulaga o vaisu i luga o le Initaneti o le fiafia i vaega patino o le Initaneti (faʻataʻitaʻiga faʻatau i luga ole laiga, taʻaloga i luga ole laiga), faʻalagolago ile itupa. O se suʻesuʻega faʻapitoa mai Siamani na faʻaalia ai o le 77.1% o tamaʻitaʻi ua fai ma vaisu i luga o le Initaneti i le 14-24 tausaga o loʻo faʻaogaina upega tafaʻilagi faʻatusatusa i le 64,8% tane i le matua tutusa (Rumpf et al., 2011). I le suʻesuʻega lava e tasi 7.2% o tamaʻitaʻi ua fai ma vaisu i luga o le Initaneti i le va o le 14 ma le 24 tausaga na lipotia mai le faʻaaogaina o le Initaneti e taʻalo ai i luga o le initaneti, faʻatusatusa i le 33.6% o tane i le tausaga tutusa (Rumpf et al., 2011). O le mea lea, e foliga mai e faʻatatau i le IGD, o tamaʻitaʻi auai e faʻaalia le maualuga o le fiafia i luga o le initaneti-taaloga, faʻatusatusa i tamaitai auai ma na lipotia mai e sili atu ona lamatia le atinaʻeina o le IGD. E lē gata i lea, Ko, Yen, Chen, Chen, ma Yen (2005) matauina o le matua matua, maualalo le taua o le tagata lava ia ma le maualalo o le olaga i aso uma-faʻamalieina na fesoʻotaʻi ma le IGD sili atu ona ogaoga i alii, ae le o tamaitai. E ui lava i nei fa'ai'uga, o lo'o iai lava ni nai su'esu'ega, lea e fa'avasegaina ai le itupa o tagata auai e fai ma sui fa'afoe/mediator i le tulaga o le PIU. Ae ui i lea, atonu o nei eseesega e mafua ai nisi faʻafeagai iʻuga i le fanua ma, o lea, i suʻesuʻega o loʻo mulimuli mai o le a latou iloiloina.
The aim of our research project was to investigate the link between PIU, as well as IGD and implicit learning in a group of male participants with proneness to IGD (study 1). In study 2 we aimed at replicating these results, by comparing healthy participants and excessive WoW players under the consideration of gender. The purpose of study 3 was to explore the relationship between PIU, IGD and impulsivity/risk-taking (self-report and experimental data) in healthy participants.
E faavae i luga o tusitusiga ua taʻua i luga, na matou faia ai manatu nei:
We expect negative associations between PIU/IGD and implicit learning abilities (study 1).
We expect negative associations between PIU/IGD and implicit learning abilities (study 2). We expect this negative association to be strongest in the group of male WoW players.
We expect positive associations between PIU/IGD and the self-report and experimental measures of impulsivity/risk-taking in healthy participants (study 3).
2. Study 1
2.1. Metotia
2.1.1. Tagata auai
N = 107 tagata auai (99 tane, 8 fafine, tausaga M = 19.52, SD = 3.57) na faʻafaigaluegaina i le "Gamescom 2013" i Siamani, le taʻaloga tele i le lalolagi. Ae ui i lea, ona o le maualalo o le numera o tamaitai o loʻo auai i le faʻataʻitaʻiga nei (n = 8) ma le mea o loʻo i luga na lipotia mai le eseesega o itupa i le tulaga o le IGD (eg Rumpf et al., 2011), matou te le aofia ai tamaʻitaʻi na auai mai suʻesuʻega atili o le suʻesuʻega. Ina ua uma foi ona le aofia ai tagata auai ma faʻamatalaga misi, o le faʻataʻitaʻiga na iʻu i n = 79 alii auai (tausaga M = 19.81, SD = 3.62). E tusa ai ma a latou aʻoaʻoga, e 8.9% na lipotia mai o loʻo i ai faʻailoga iunivesete poʻo polytechnic, o le isi 40.5% na lipotia mai o loʻo i ai le A-level poʻo le matata o le baccalaureate tipiloma ma le 26.6% na lipotia mai o loʻo i ai tusi pasi faʻamaeʻaina aʻoga maualuga poʻo aʻoga maualuga faʻaonaponei, ae 24% na lipotia mai e leai ni tipiloma aoga.
2.1.2. Fua
Na tali e tagata auai fesili e uiga io latou tausaga, itupa ma aʻoaʻoga, faʻatumu i se faʻamatalaga puupuu o le suʻega o vaisu i luga ole Initaneti (s-IAT, Pawlikowski, Altstötter-Gleich, & Brand, 2013; O le Cronbach's Alpha i le faʻataʻitaʻiga o loʻo i ai nei o le 0.70), o loʻo i ai 12 Likert-scaled mea (1 = le 5 = masani lava) ma le Online Game Addiction Scale (OGAS, o se suiga fou o le Gaming Addiction Scale e. Lemmens, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2009, where the word “online” was added to every item; Cronbach’s Alpha in the present sample was 0.66), consisting of 7 items, ranging between 1 = never and 5 = very often. Additionally, participants rated their computer gaming experience (e.g. “For how many years have you been playing computer games?” or “How many hours on average per week do you play online computer games?”). A self-report measure of risk-taking was administered, including one item on overall risk-taking tendencies (“How would you describe yourself from 0 (not at all willing to take risks) to 10 (absolutely willing to take risks)?”); German Socio-Econimic Panel (SOEP; Siedler, Schupp, Spiess, & Wagner, 2008). Na matou fa'aogaina se galuega fa'ata'ita'i na fetu'una'i (“le fatafata o le Tiapolo”), na tu'ufa'atasia mai se su'esu'ega a Eisenegger et al. (2010), in order to measure implicit learning. On each of a total of 36 trials, we presented ten pictures of closed wooden boxes on the computer screen. The boxes were aligned in one row and participants had the opportunity to subsequently open a self-selected number of boxes, working from left to right. Participants were instructed that nine of the boxes contained a virtual monetary reward (5 cents) and one contained a “devil”. If participants opened only reward boxes on a given trial, they proceeded to the next trial by gaining the sum of the rewards. If they opened a box, containing the devil, among with the other boxes, they lost everything on the current trial. The upcoming position of the devil was randomized among the 36 trials, but appeared on each position from 2 to 102 fa'afa tonu. E ui lava e leʻi taʻua lenei mea i tagata auai, o tagata auai e maualuga atu tomai faʻapitoa atonu na latou maua se malamalamaga le atoatoa mo lenei tulafono ma atonu na latou aʻoaʻoina e faʻatino lelei i le faagasologa o le suʻega. Ole aofa'iga o taui tau tupe ile fa'ai'uga ole fa'ata'ita'iga o lo'o ta'ua atili o le "GAIN" ma o le a fa'aaogaina e fai ma fua ole a'oa'oga fa'apitoa. O le seti faʻataʻitaʻiga o loʻo faʻaalia i totonu Mati. 1.
Fa'ata'ita'iga fa'ata'ita'iga o le fatafata a le Tiapolo - tatala le pusa ma le tiapolo na mafua ai ona leiloa uma tupe na aoina o se fa'amasinoga.
2.1.3. Taualumaga
All questionnaires only available in English were translated into German by our own work group. The participants first filled in the questionnaires and then completed the Devil’s chest experiment. Please note, that participants in study 1 did not receive any monetary reward after completing the experiment and that they were informed about this fact prior to completing the experiment.
2.1.4. Suʻesuʻega faʻamaumauga
Mo su'esu'ega o lo'o mulimuli mai, sa su'esu'eina le tulaga masani o fa'amaumauga e ala i le fa'aogaina o le tulafono o le lima matua, fautuaina e Miles ma Shevlin (2001; itulau 74), considering the skewness of the investigated variables. Correlation analyses were computed with Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlations, depending on the distribution of the data, and bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa 95% confidence intervals) were computed for every correlation coefficient to further test their significance. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for implicit learning effects, when comparing the gain in the first 18 trials with the gain in the last 18 trials of the experiment.
2.1.5. Tulāfono
O le poloketi suʻesuʻe (suʻesuʻega 1, 2 ma le 3) na faʻamaonia e le Komiti Faʻalotoifale a le Iunivesite o Bonn, Bonn, Siamani. O mataupu uma na tu'uina atu le fa'atagaga fa'ailoa a'o le'i mae'a le su'esu'ega.
2.2. Iʻuga
O fa'auiga ma suiga masani o fesuiaiga o lo'o su'esu'eina o lo'o tu'uina atu i totonu Laulau 1.
Laulau 1
O lona uiga, va'aiga masani (SD) ma le avanoa/a'oa'oga mo le fesuisuia'i o mea tau taaloga (tausaga), itula ta'aloga i luga o le initaneti i vaiaso ta'itasi, s-IAT, OGAS, GAIN ma tulaga lamatia (lipoti a le tagata lava ia).
| Uiga | SD | Tulaga talafeagai | Va'aiga moni | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomai tau taaloga (tausaga) | 11.09 | 4.31 | - | 3-24 |
| Itula ta'aloga i luga ole laiga ile vaiaso | 22.24 | 16.00 | - | 0-70 |
| s-IAT | 23.86 | 5.38 | 12-60 | 12-43 |
| OGAS | 14.75 | 4.36 | 7-35 | 7-26 |
| GAIN | 413.61 | 71.97 | 0-900a | 160-520 |
| Tulaga lamatia (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | 6.77 | 1.89 | 0-10 | 3-10 |
N = 79, fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) n = 64.
2.2.1. Iloiloga fa'atasi
Na'o le fesuia'i GAIN e le'i masani ona tufatufaina. O tausaga o tagata na auai na faʻamaonia lelei ma GAIN (ρ = 0.27, p <0.05). E le gata i lea, na faʻaalia e le GAIN se faʻasalalauga le lelei ma le sikoa s-IAT (ρ = -0.26, p <0.05). E le gata i lea, sa matou fuafuaina vaega fa'amaopoopo mo le GAIN ma le sikoa s-IAT e fa'atonutonu mo tausaga. Na tumau pea le taua o le fa'amaopoopo (r = - 0.28, p <0.05). O le fesoʻotaʻiga le lelei i le va o le GAIN ma le OGAS score e leʻi oʻo i le taua (ρ = -0.20, p = 0.073) ma tumau pea le le taua pe a uma ona pulea mo le matua (r = - 0.12, p = 0.292). O feso'ota'iga taua uma na tumau pea le taua ina ua mae'a su'esu'ega ole 95% taimi fa'atuatuaina ole BCa. Faamolemole silasila Laulau 2 for an overview of the results.
Laulau 2
Feso'ota'iga i le va o le GAIN i le fa'ata'ita'iga a le "Devil's chest" ma le sikoa s-IAT, OGAS ma le fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia).
| GAIN | s-IAT | OGAS | fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAIN | 1 | |||
| s-IAT | - 0.264⁎ | 1 | ||
| OGAS | - 0.203 | 0.511⁎⁎ | 1 | |
| fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | 0.148 | 0.129 | 0.187 | 1 |
N = 79, fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) n = 64; Spearman correlations o loʻo faʻaalia i totonu Italia.
2.2.2. Su'esu'ega fa'ata'ita'iga o le fa'ata'ita'iga a le “Fatafata o le Tiapolo” e fai ma fua o a'oa'oga fa'apitoa
O faʻaiʻuga o faʻataʻitaʻiga faifaipea ANOVA na faʻaalia ai se eseesega tele i le va o le GAIN i faʻataʻitaʻiga muamua 18 o le faʻataʻitaʻiga, faʻatusatusa i faʻataʻitaʻiga 18 mulimuli (F(1,78) = 17.303, p <0.01), faʻaalia ai na manumalo tagata auai i le tele o tupe i le vaega lona lua o le suʻega (M1 = 192.34 ma M2 = 221.27 respectively) (see Mati. 2).
Means ma le masani sese mo le GAIN i le 18 tofotofoga muamua ma le GAIN i le 18 tofotofoga mulimuli o le "Fatafata o le Tiapolo" suesuega. MU = iunite tau tupe.
2.3. Talanoaga
I le aotelega, e pei ona tuʻuina mai ia tatou manatu, i suʻesuʻega 1 Initaneti o vaisu na fesoʻotaʻi ma le le lava o tomai faʻaaoaoga. O lenei fa'ai'uga o lo'o tu'uina atu ai nisi fa'amaoniga mo le matafaioi o le le lelei o le faia o fa'ai'uga i le tulaga o le PIU (fa'ata'ita'iga Brand et al., 2016). O le mafutaga ma le IGD sa i le itu lava e tasi, peitaʻi, e leʻi oʻo i le taua. E mafai ona fa'amatalaina e le la'ititi la'ititi o le fa'ata'ita'iga ma/po'o le fa'aletonu maualalo i totonu (0.66) ole fua ole OGAS i lenei su'esu'ega. Ina ia mafai ona suʻesuʻeina atili nei mafutaga ma faʻatusatusa iʻuga i le va o alii ma tamaitai o loʻo auai ma le va o tagata taʻaloga ma tagata e le o ni taʻaloga, suʻesuʻega 2 na faia.
3. Study 2
O le faʻamoemoe o le suʻesuʻega lona lua o le toe faia lea o taunuʻuga o suʻesuʻega 1, e ala i le faʻaaogaina o se faʻataʻitaʻiga o le World of Warcraft (WoW) taʻaalo ma le pulea o tagata auai, oe naiva i WoW. Talu ai ona o le fesoʻotaʻiga i le va o le s-IAT ma le GAIN o se fuataga o aʻoaʻoga faʻapitoa e mafai ona matauina i tamaʻitaʻi e auai i le IGD, matou te fiafia e vaʻai i le toe faia o suʻesuʻega 1 faʻapitoa aemaise lava i tama taʻaloga WoW.
3.1. Metotia
3.1.1. Tagata auai
WoW players and control participants, took part in the study. The WoW players were recruited, using following criteria: WoW gaming experience for a minimum of two years. An exclusion criteria was playing other games than WoW for > 7 h per week, however, participants with no experience in other games were preferably recruited. Control persons needed to be WoW naïve, hence had no experience of playing this game before. Exclusion criteria for both groups of participants were visual impairment, difficulties in reading and writing, dyschromatopsia, concussion, long-term medication, neurological and psychiatric diseases, hearing disability and high substance use. After a thorough inspection of the sample we excluded one participant due to an eating disorder and daily cannabis consumption, one participants due to neurological and psychiatric disorders and one participant from the control group due to extreme values in sIAT and OGAS, and participants with missing data, which resulted in n = 77 pule auai (39 alii) ma n = 44 WoW tagata taaalo (28 alii). 6.5% (n = 5) of control participants reported casual usage of online role-playing games (< 3 h gaming per week) and 23.4% (n = 18) lipotia le faʻaaogaina masani o taaloga Ego-shooter (<1 h taʻaloga i le vaiaso). Ole fua ole tausaga ole fa'ata'ita'iga atoa ole M = 23.70 (SD = 3.93). Regarding their education 10.7% reported having a university degree, another 85.9% reported having A-level or vocational baccalaureate diploma and 2.5% reported having secondary school leaving certificate or secondary modern school qualification. One person (0.9%) did not answer the items regarding education.
3.1.2. Fua
O iinei foi le s-IAT (Pawlikowski et al., 2013; Cronbach's Alpha i le faʻataʻitaʻiga o loʻo i ai nei o le 0.76), OGAS (se suiga o le GAS e Lemmens et al., 2009; Cronbach's Alpha i le faʻataʻitaʻiga o loʻo i ai nei o le 0.88) ma na iloiloina le poto masani i taaloga komepiuta. E le gata i lea, o le World of Warcraft Specific Problematic Usage-Engagement Questionnaire (WoW-SPUQ), e aofia ai mea e 27, faʻatatau i luga o le fua mai le 1 = "matua le ioe" i le 7 = "malie atoatoa" (Peters & Malesky, 2008; Cronbach's Alpha i le faʻataʻitaʻiga o loʻo i ai nei o le 0.89) na faʻatumu e le WoW vaega naʻo. E le gata i lea, o le Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11; Patton & Stanford, 1995; Cronbach’s Alpha in the present sample was 0.85) was administrated as a measure of impulsivity (30 items are scored on a scale, ranging from 1 = “rarely/never” to 4 = “almost always/always”). With this scale, three second order factors can be assessed: attentional impulsivity is defined as an inability to focus attention or concentrate; motor impulsiveness involves acting without thinking, while non-planning impulsiveness involves a lack of “futuring” or forethought (Stanford et al., 2009). O fa'atasiga fa'alotoifale mo fa'avae i le su'esu'ega nei e 0.73, 0.69 ma le 0.69.
3.1.3. Taualumaga
O tagata na auai na auai i se suʻesuʻega umi umi e suʻesuʻe ai mea faʻapitoa e sosoo ma suiga o le mafaufau ma a latou matafaioi mo le IGD. Mo le suʻesuʻega nei, naʻo faʻamaumauga mai le fua muamua na faʻaaogaina e faʻataʻitaʻi ai ma toe faʻataʻitaʻiina mea na maua mai le suʻesuʻega 1 (faʻamaeʻaina le faʻataʻitaʻiga o le fatafata a le Tiapolo mo le taimi lona lua (T2) e manino lava e le faʻatusalia i le faʻavalevalea e pei o le suʻesuʻega 1 ). O fesili ma le faʻataʻitaʻiga na maeʻa i le faasologa tutusa e pei o le suʻesuʻega 1. Faʻatusatusa i le suʻesuʻega 1, peitaʻi, i le suʻesuʻega 2 tagata auai na totogiina le aofaʻi o tupe na latou manumalo ai i le faʻataʻitaʻiga o le "Fatafata o le Tiapolo" ma na logoina i latou e uiga i lenei mea moni. a'o le'i mae'a le su'ega.
3.1.4. Suʻesuʻega faʻamaumauga
O su'esu'ega fa'amaumauga sa faia fa'atusa e su'esu'e 1.
3.2. Iʻuga
O le sikoa OGAS ma itula ta'aloga i luga o le initaneti i le vaiaso e le masani ona tufatufaina atu i vaega o alii ma tamaitai e pulea. E le gata i lea, o le sikoa s-IAT ma le matua e le masani ona tufatufaina i le vaega o tamaʻitaʻi o loʻo auai. O le fesoʻotaʻiga i le va o le GAIN ma le sikoa s-IAT i le vaega o tama taʻaloga WoW na faʻataʻitaʻiina i le tasi itu, faʻavae i luga o suʻesuʻega i suʻesuʻega 1.
Fa'amatalaga fa'amaumauga mo tagata ta'ita'i fa'atonu ma ta'aloga WoW o lo'o tu'uina atu i totonu Laulau 3. Here male and female control participants had significantly lower gaming experience, online gaming hours per week, and OGAS scores, compared to male and female WoW players (see Laulau 3). E le gata i lea, o tamaʻitaʻi taʻalo WoW na faʻaalia le maualuga maualuga o sikoa i luga o le s-IAT, faʻatusatusa i tamaʻitaʻi e pulea le auai. O isi fesuiaiga uma e leai se eseesega tele i le va o le au taʻavale ma le WoW taʻaloga.
Laulau 3
Means, va'aiga masani (SD), mafai/mo'i laina, t-/U value and significance (p) for differences in means between the control participants and WoW group for the variables gaming experience (years), online gaming hours per week, GAIN, s-IAT, OGAS, WoW-SPUQ and BIS-11.
| Vaega faʻafoe | Oka tagata taaalo | Tulaga talafeagai | Va'aiga moni | t-/U tāua | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uiga | SD | Uiga | SD | |||||
| Tagata auai | ||||||||
| Tomai tau taaloga (tausaga) | 9.49 | 6.81 | 14.29 | 4.85 | - | 0–22 / 6–25 | - 3.369 | 0.001 |
| Itula ta'aloga i luga ole laiga ile vaiaso | 1.18 | 2.11 | 19.71 | 11.44 | - | 0–9 / 0–50 | 30.0 | <0.001 |
| GAIN | 450.77 | 39.10 | 443.04 | 54.30 | 0-900 | 370–510 / 305–525 | 0.678 | 0.500 |
| s-IAT | 21.67 | 6.53 | 23.79 | 6.90 | 12-60 | 12–42 / 14–41 | - 1.280 | 0.205 |
| OGAS | 8.67 | 2.39 | 15.79 | 5.85 | 7-35 | 7–17 / 9–29 | 94.5 | <0.001 |
| Oka-SPUQ | - | - | 87.57 | 23.26 | 27-189 | –/53–134 | - | - |
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 65.00 | 13.39 | 64.63 | 8.94 | 30-120 | 40–99 / 53–90 | 0.125 | 0.901 |
| BIS-11 gauai | 17.13 | 4.95 | 16.57 | 2.85 | 8-32 | 8–30 / 12–21 | 0.579 | 0.565 |
| BIS-11 afi | 23.16 | 4.81 | 22.43 | 3.66 | 11-44 | 14–35 / 16–33 | 0.671 | 0.504 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 24.71 | 5.32 | 25.74 | 4.77 | 11-44 | 14–40 / 16–40 | - 0.803 | 0.425 |
| Tamaitai auai | ||||||||
| Tomai tau taaloga (tausaga) | 3.86 | 5.76 | 11.50 | 5.29 | - | 0–15 / 1–20 | - 4.557 | <0.001 |
| Itula ta'aloga i luga ole laiga ile vaiaso | 0.09 | 0.43 | 17.56 | 9.06 | - | 0–2.5 / 1–37.5 | 1.5 | <0.001 |
| GAIN | 429.74 | 39.98 | 439.06 | 58.72 | 0-900 | 330–510 / 295–510 | - 0.678 | 0.501 |
| s-IAT | 18.58 | 4.99 | 21.44 | 5.24 | 12-60 | 13–36 / 14–30 | 199.5 | 0.047 |
| OGAS | 7.11 | 0.51 | 13.50 | 3.69 | 7-35 | 7–10 / 9–21 | 4.0 | <0.001 |
| Oka-SPUQ | - | - | 81.63 | 22.42 | 27-189 | −/50–119 | - | - |
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 61.25 | 9.14 | 61.73 | 6.16 | 30-120 | 37–87 / 53–77 | - 0.187 | 0.852 |
| BIS-11 gauai | 16.61 | 3.55 | 17.06 | 3.38 | 8-32 | 10–25 / 10–22 | - 0.438 | 0.663 |
| BIS-11 afi | 21.08 | 3.93 | 21.80 | 3.97 | 11-44 | 12–31 / 17–29 | - 0.592 | 0.557 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 23.97 | 4.16 | 23.31 | 2.70 | 11-44 | 13–35 / 17–27 | 0.584 | 0.562 |
Note: Mann-Whitney-U-Test was conducted for comparing the means of non-normally distributed variables. Results are depicted in italics in the table.
3.2.1. Iloiloga fa'atasi
Mo vaega o alii poʻo tamaʻitaʻi e faʻatonuina tagata auai, o tausaga o tagata auai e leʻi faʻatusatusa tele i le GAIN, s-IAT poʻo le sikoa OGAS. O isi fa'atasiga uma o lo'o tu'uina atu i totonu Laulau 4. Here, GAIN was not significantly linked neither to the s-IAT nor to the OGAS score for male and female participants. Furthermore, the s-IAT score was positively linked to the BIS-11 subscale attentional impulsiveness in male control participants. All significant correlations in Laulau 4 remained significant after the inspection of the BCa 95% confidence intervals.
Laulau 4
Spearman and Pearson correlations for the variables GAIN, s-IAT, OGAS and BIS-11 for the group of control participants, splitted in males and females.
| GAIN | s-IAT | OGAS | BIS-11 aofa'i | BIS-11 gauai | BIS-11 afi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tagata auai | ||||||
| GAIN | 1 | |||||
| s-IAT | - 0.053 | 1 | ||||
| OGAS | 0.238 | 0.139 | 1 | |||
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 0.020 | 0.248 | 0.349⁎ | 1 | ||
| BIS-11 gauai | 0.109 | 0.426⁎⁎ | 0.301 | 0.866⁎⁎ | 1 | |
| BIS-11 afi | - 0.064 | 0.094 | 0.338⁎ | 0.843⁎⁎ | 0.612⁎⁎ | 1 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 0.095 | 0.143 | 0.198 | 0.906⁎⁎ | 0.707⁎⁎ | 0.660⁎⁎ |
| Tamaitai auai | ||||||
| GAIN | 1 | |||||
| s-IAT | 0.118 | 1 | ||||
| OGAS | - 0.088 | 0.257 | 1 | |||
| BIS-11 aofa'i | - 0.139 | 0.232 | 0.156 | 1 | ||
| BIS-11 gauai | 0.161 | 0.282 | - 0.022 | 0.749⁎⁎ | 1 | |
| BIS-11 afi | - 0.219 | 0.201 | 0.292 | 0.764⁎⁎ | 0.312 | 1 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | - 0.138 | 0.118 | - 0.119 | 0.868⁎⁎ | 0.531⁎⁎ | 0.478⁎⁎ |
Spearman correlations o loʻo faʻaalia i totonu Italia.
n(tane) = 39, n(tane, BIS-11) = 38, n(fafine) = 38, n(fafine, BIS-11) = 36.
Mo le vaega o tama ma tama'ita'i ta'aalo WoW, e le'i fa'amaopoopoina le matua ma le GAIN, s-IAT, OGAS po'o le sikoa WoW-SPUQ. O isi fa'atasiga uma o lo'o tu'uina atu i totonu Laulau 5. O iinei, o le GAIN e le lelei le fesoʻotaʻi ma le s-IAT, faʻapea foʻi ma le WoW-SPUQ sikoa naʻo le vaega o tama taʻaloga WoW. Ae ui i lea, o nei fesoʻotaʻiga na faʻaalia ai se aga i le taua (r = - 0.30, p = 0.063, su'ega tasi itu ma r = - 0.313, p = 0.104, su'ega lua-tail). O feso'ota'iga taua uma na tumau pea le taua ina ua mae'a su'esu'ega ole 95% taimi fa'atuatuaina ole BCa.
Laulau 5
Spearman and Pearson correlations for the variables GAIN, s-IAT, OGAS, the WoW-SPUQ score and BIS-11 for the group of WoW players, splitted in males and females.
| GAIN | s-IAT | OGAS | WoW- SPUQ | BIS-11 aofa'i | BIS-11 gauai | BIS-11 afi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tagata auai | |||||||
| GAIN | 1 | ||||||
| s-IAT | - 0.296 | 1 | |||||
| OGAS | - 0.105 | 0.776⁎⁎ | 1 | ||||
| Oka-SPUQ | - 0.313 | 0.688⁎⁎ | 0.742⁎⁎ | ||||
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 0.025 | 0.197 | 0.284 | 0.023 | 1 | ||
| BIS-11 gauai | 0.054 | - 0.011 | 0.019 | - 0.219 | 0.658⁎⁎ | 1 | |
| BIS-11 afi | - 0.038 | 0.170 | 0.231 | 0.187 | 0.761⁎⁎ | 0.218 | 1 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 0.033 | 0.220 | 0.312 | 0.027 | 0.892⁎⁎ | 0.451⁎ | 0.521⁎⁎ |
| Tamaitai auai | |||||||
| GAIN | 1 | ||||||
| s-IAT | 0.026 | 1 | |||||
| OGAS | - 0.024 | - 0.067 | 1 | ||||
| Oka-SPUQ | - 0.199 | 0.144 | 0.676⁎⁎ | ||||
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 0.048 | 0.080 | - 0.614⁎ | - 0.157 | 1 | ||
| BIS-11 gauai | - 0.139 | 0.194 | - 0.260 | 0.054 | 0.504 | 1 | |
| BIS-11 afi | 0.266 | - 0.013 | - 0.676⁎⁎ | - 0.305 | 0.845⁎⁎ | 0.170 | 1 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 0.012 | - 0.166 | 0.057 | 0.256 | 0.420 | - 0.222 | 0.250 |
For male participants, the correlation between the GAIN in the experiment and the s-IAT score was tested one-sided.
n(tane) = 28, n(tane, BIS-11) = 27, n(fafine) = 16, n(fafine, BIS-11) = 15.
3.2.2. Su'esu'ega fa'ata'ita'iga o le fa'ata'ita'iga a le “Fatafata o le Tiapolo” e fai ma fua o a'oa'oga fa'apitoa
O taunuʻuga o faʻataʻitaʻiga faifaipea ANOVA e leʻi faʻaalia ai se eseesega tele i le va o le GAIN i le taimi muamua 18 ma le 18 mulimuli faʻataʻitaʻiga o le faʻataʻitaʻiga "Fatafata o le Tiapolo" i le vaega o tane (F(1, 38) = 1.949, p = 0.171; M1 = 232.56 ma le M2 = 218.21) ma le fafine (F(1, 37) = 0.594, p = 0.446; M1 = 221.18 and M2 = 209.87) control participants. For the whole sample of control participants the results remained non-significant (F(1,76) = 2.102, p = 0.151), whereas in the whole sample of WoW players the results gained significance (F(1,43) = 4.298, p = 0.044) (see Mati. 3). For the group of male WoW players, the difference between trials 1–18 and 19–36 reached significance (F(1,27) = 5.377, p = 0.028, M1 = 235.54 and M2 = 205.54; hence with a lower outcome in M2 compared to M1), whereas for female WoW players it was non-significant (F(1,15) = 0.295, p = 0.595, M1 = 225.31 ma M2 = 213.75).
Means ma le masani sese mo le GAIN i le taimi muamua 18 vs. o le 18 tofotofoga mulimuli o le "Fatafata o le Tiapolo", mo le pulea o tagata auai (kalafi agavale) ma WoW-taaalo (kalafa taumatau). MU = iunite tau tupe.
3.3. Talanoaga
The aim of study 2 was to replicate the results of study one, by comparing WoW players and control participants. The negative correlations between GAIN and s-IAT and WoW-SPUQ scores showed a trend towards significance only in the group of male WoW players. However, the very small sample of male WoW players (n = 28) might deliver an explanation for the weaker effects. The manipulation check only showed a significant difference between the GAIN in the first and last 18 trials in the group of male WoW players, where participants showed lower gains in the second part of the experiment compared to the first part. We would like to remind the reader that participants in study 2 were paid the amount of money, which they won during the experiment and that they were aware of this fact before starting the experiment. Thus, in this case the extrinsic motivation of the participants might have been higher, compared to study 1. In fact, comparing the means of the GAIN between the Gamescom participants and the male WoW players, it is obvious that even though WoW-players did worse in the second part of the experiment, compared to the first part of the experiment, they still won more in total than male Gamescom participants (see Laulau 1, Laulau 3: M = 413.61 for Gamescom participants and M = 443.04 for male WoW players). Thus, in order to control for a potential interfering effect of motivation, we conducted an additional analysis, using the Unified-Motive-Scale-10 (UMS-10; Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012). The USM-10 data was available as a part of the bigger longitudinal study.
3.3.1. Additional analyses
In particular, we conducted a partial correlation with the variable achievement motivation (UMS-10; Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012, Cronbach’s Alpha in the present study was 0.89), the s-IAT, WoW-SPUQ scores and the GAIN in study 2. The association between s-IAT and GAIN increased from r = - 0.296, p = 0.063 (see Laulau 5; one-tailed test) to r = - 0.322, p = 0.054 (one-tailed test). The association between WoW-SPUQ and GAIN also increased from r = - 0.313, p = 0.104 (see Laulau 5; two-tailed test) to r = - 0.354, p = 0.082 (two-tailed test). With respect to female WoW players and control participants, the correlations between the s-IAT, WoW-SPUQ score and GAIN remained non-significant after controlling for motivation.
4. Study 3
The focus of study 3 was to test the association between PIU, IGD and impulsivity/risk-taking by using both experimental and self-report measures.
4.1. Metotia
4.1.1. Tagata auai
After the exclusion of five participants with missing data and one participant due to responses out of the range (e.g. 200 h of computer gaming per week) the sample for the current study resulted in N = 94 participants (33 males). Most of them were psychology students at Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. The mean age of the total sample was M = 23.48 (SD = 3.55). Regarding their education, 27% reported having university or polytechnic degree, another 67% reported having A-level or vocational baccalaureate diploma, 6% of participants (n = 6) did not answer questions on their education.
4.1.2. Fua
The s-IAT (Pawlikowski et al., 2013; Cronbach’s Alpha in the present sample was 0.81), the OGAS (modified version of the GAS by Lemmens et al., 2009; Cronbach’s Alpha in the present sample was 0.81), BIS-11 (Patton & Stanford, 1995; Cronbach’s Alpha in the present sample was 0.80) and the overall risk-taking (The German Socio-Economic Panel, SOEP; Siedler et al., 2008) were assessed. The internal consistencies for the BIS-11 subscales were as follows: attentional impulsiveness 0.70, motor impulsiveness 0.70 and non-planning impulsiveness 0.39. Furthermore, the “Devil’s chest” experiment was slightly adjusted to measure impulsivity/risk-taking (compared to studies 1 and 2, here, the position of the “devil” was completely randomized among all of the trials, thus, learning was not possible). Here, the mean number of voluntarily opened boxes per trial (MNOB) was used as a measure of impulsivity/risk-taking. This is in line with the study by Eisenegger et al. (2010).
4.1.3. Taualumaga
The questionnaires and the experiment were completed in the same order as in studies 1 and 2, however, here participants filled in the questionnaires on a computer screen. In this study participants received compensation (Amazon voucher or course credits) for their participation in the study, but they were not paid the particular amount of money, that they won in the computer experiment. Participants were informed about this procedure prior to completing the experiment.
4.1.4. Suʻesuʻega faʻamaumauga
The statistical analyses were conducted analogously to studies 1 and 2.
4.2. Iʻuga
Of note, the variables online gaming hours per week and the OGAS score were not normally distributed. Descriptive statistics are reported in Laulau 6. Participants had some expertise in gaming in terms of gaming expertise in years, but the actual time spent on online gaming is very low. Analog to study 2, here we compared, if male and female participants differed regarding the variables, depicted in Laulau 6. Significant differences were observed with the variables gaming expertise (years) (U(33,61) = 385.0, p < 0.001), online gaming hours per week (U(33,61) = 663.5, p < 0.001), risk-taking (self-report) (U(33,61) = 732.0, p < 0.05) and OGAS (U(33,61) = 562.5, p < 0.001), where male participants scored higher than female participants.
Laulau 6
Means, standard deviations (SD) and possible/actual range for the variables gaming experience (years), hours gaming per week, risk taking (self-report), s-IAT, OGAS, BIS-11 and MNOB.
| Uiga | SD | Tulaga talafeagai | Va'aiga moni | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomai tau taaloga (tausaga) | 6.31 | 6.51 | - | 0-21 |
| Itula ta'aloga i luga ole laiga ile vaiaso | 0.56 | 1.86 | - | 0-15 |
| Tulaga lamatia (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | 5.10 | 1.82 | 0-10 | 1-9 |
| s-IAT | 22.99 | 5.71 | 12-60 | 12-42 |
| OGAS | 8.00 | 2.05 | 7-35 | 7-18 |
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 61.37 | 9.17 | 30-120 | 44-84 |
| BIS-11 gauai | 16.54 | 3.47 | 8-32 | 10-28 |
| BIS-11 afi | 21.68 | 4.33 | 11-44 | 14-35 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 23.15 | 3.45 | 11-44 | 17-32 |
| MNOB | 4.90 | 0.79 | 0-10 | 3.22-7.5 |
4.2.1. Iloiloga fa'atasi
Age was correlated with the OGAS score (ρ = 0.24, p < 0.05). The correlation between MNOB with the OGAS score also reached significance (ρ = 0.21, p < 0.05). After controlling for age, the correlation between MNOB and the OGAS score increased to r = 0.37, p < 0.01 (r = 0.45, p < 0.05 in males and r = 0.28, p < 0.05 in females). All other correlations are presented in Laulau 7.
Laulau 7
Spearman and Pearson correlations for the variables MNOB, risk taking (self-report), s-IAT, OGAS and BIS-11.
| MNOB | Tulaga lamatia (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | s-IAT | OGAS | BIS-11 aofa'i | BIS-11 gauai | BIS-11 afi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNOB | 1 | ||||||
| fa'alavelave (lipoti a le tagata lava ia) | 0.086 | 1 | |||||
| s-IAT | 0.115 | - 0.124 | 1 | ||||
| OGAS | 0.209⁎ | 0.092 | 0.235⁎ | 1 | |||
| BIS-11 aofa'i | 0.316⁎⁎ | 0.458⁎⁎ | 0.150 | 0.283⁎⁎ | 1 | ||
| BIS-11 gauai | 0.284⁎⁎ | 0.196 | 0.345⁎⁎ | 0.296⁎⁎ | 0.770⁎⁎ | 1 | |
| BIS-11 afi | 0.236⁎ | 0.576⁎⁎ | - 0.018 | 0.261⁎ | 0.847⁎⁎ | 0.443⁎⁎ | 1 |
| BIS-11 le fuafuaina | 0.257⁎ | 0.299⁎⁎ | 0.075 | 0.148 | 0.821⁎⁎ | 0.487⁎⁎ | 0.551⁎⁎ |
Note: Spearman correlations are depicted in italics.
4.2.2. Manipulation check of the “Devil’s chest” experiment as a measure of impulsivity/risk-taking:
MNOB was positively correlated to the BIS-11 score of the participants (see Laulau 7), therefore the current measure is clearly associated with impulsive behavior. There was no significant correlation between MNOB and the self-report measure of overall risk-taking (see Laulau 7). Analogously to studies 1 and 2, we compared the GAIN in the first and last 18 trials to rule out the role of learning effects. No significant differences could be found for male (F(1,32) = 2.365, p = 0.134, M1 = 219.24 and M2 = 235.61) or female participants (F(1,60) = 0.155, p = 0.695, M1 = 224.02 and M2 = 220.57). The results for the whole sample also did not gain significance (F(1,93) = .265, p = 0.608) (see Mati. 4).
Means ma le masani sese mo le GAIN i le 18 tofotofoga muamua ma le GAIN i le 18 tofotofoga mulimuli o le "Fatafata o le Tiapolo" suesuega. MU = iunite tau tupe.
5. General discussion
In the following, a summary of the results of studies 1, 2 and 3 is provided along with a discussion on their contribution to the field.
In study 1, higher s-IAT scores were associated with worse performance on the implicit learning task among male participants, with a proneness to IGD. The OGAS score of the participants, however, was not significantly associated with the variable GAIN (although there was a trend towards significance). In study 2 we aimed at replication of results of study 1 in a group of WoW players and control participants. Here, the gender of the participants was also taken into consideration. High s-IAT scores, as well as high WoW-SPUQ scores showed a trend towards low GAIN in the experiment only in the group of male WoW gamers (r = - 0.322, p = 0.054, su'ega tasi itu ma r = - 0.354, p = 0.082, two-tailed test, respectively). The OGAS score was again not linked to GAIN in neither of the groups. In study 3, in a student sample, the experimental measure of risk taking, MNOB, was positively linked to the OGAS score, but not the s-IAT score, after controlling for age.
To sum up, it seems, that excessive use of the Internet is associated with deficiencies in implicit learning abilities. This association was observed with the s-IAT scores and the WoW-SPUQ score, but not OGAS scores in the current study. Existing literature delivers results supporting both: deficits in decision-making among problematic Internet users (e.g. Sun et al., 2009), as well as among excessive online gamers (e.g. Yao et al., 2014). Moreover, recently a new theoretical model I-PACE (Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution) was proposed by Brand et al. (2016), which highlights the role of reduced executive functioning and impaired decision making for the development of specific PIU. The stronger effect found for the WoW-SPUQ score, compared to the OGAS score might reflect the choice of a more specific measurement to assess WOW addiction. However, further investigations are needed.
The fact that the association between PIU and reduced implicit learning ability in the present study was found only in the group of male participants with (proneness to) IGD (study 1 and 2) might further help explain the in part conflicting results on the relation between decision making and PIU in the literature (e.g. Ko et al., 2010, Sun et al., 2009). This association, however, seems plausible as studies suggest that IGD is primarily a male kind of addiction (e.g. Rumpf et al., 2011).
Mafaufau Vaʻaiga 3, some significant associations could be found between impulsivity, measured with BIS-11, and PIU/IGD (studies 2 and 3), which is consistent with findings in the literature (e.g. Lee et al., 2012). Whereas the self-report measure of risk-taking (SOEP) was not linked to PIU/IGD in neither of the studies, the experimental measure of risk-taking/impulsivity was associated with the OGAS score (study 3), but not with the s-IAT score. This particular difference might be due to issues, concerning the reliability of the measures. While self-reported risk-taking was assessed with a single item, the experimental measure of risk-taking is expected to deliver objective and reliable data. With regard to the association between MNOB and the OGAS score, the Devil’s chest experiment (version 2, where the boxes were completely randomized over the 36 trials) might cover a more specific side of impulsivity (like risk-taking), which better characterizes IGD than generalized PIU. However, Ko et al. (2010) showed no difference in risk-taking (measured with the BART) between Internet addicted subjects with a tendency towards IGD and control participants. Thus, this association needs further investigation.
The manipulation check of the “Devil’s chest” experiment to measure implicit learning was successful in study 1, thus, we assume that participants could implicitly extract and learn strategies to gain more money throughout the experiment. However, in study 2 no significant difference could be observed between the gain in trials 1–18 and 19–36 with the exception of the group of male WoW players, where participants showed lower gains in the second part of the experiment. Here, we showed in additional analyses that after controlling for achievement motivation, the negative association between GAIN and the s-IAT/WOW-SPUQ score got stronger. Hence, we suggest that in study 2 the implicit learning effect was overshadowed by the effects of achievement motivation, since participants were payed the amount of money that they won in the experiment. At this point, it needs to be noted that UMS-10 measures trait achievement motivation, thus, the tendency to be motivated towards bigger achievements in general, and not a state, thus, the motivation to win more in this particular experiment. However, by controlling for UMS-10 achievement motivation, we considered the role of individual differences in trait motivation for the performance in the Devil’s chest task within the sample.
The validation of the second version of the “Devil’s chest” experiment to measure risk taking/impulsivity, showed that the mean number of voluntarily opened boxes (MNOB) was not significantly linked to the self-report measure of risk-taking. This might be due to the fact that the SOEP assesses general risk taking with only one item, which in turn might have a negative influence on its reliability. However, MNOB was associated with the total BIS-11 score, as well as the subscales attentional, motor and non-planning impulsivity. These results are consistent with validation studies on similar behavioral measures of risk-taking like the BART (Lejuez et al., 2002).
In the following, some of the strengths and limitation of the presented research will be discussed. One strength of the present investigation is that the role of gender was taken into consideration. Even though gender differences have been described in the context of IGD and PIU (Rumpf et al., 2011), not many investigations have particularly assessed the role of gender when examining the association between PIU/IGD and implicit learning/risk taking, as in the present study. Moreover, in study 2 the group of WoW players was recruited, using strict criteria, and not by simply applying a cut-off value in a self-report questionnaire such as the OGAS. The use of a cut-off value is problematic, since many of the cut-offs, used in studies, are sometimes arbitrarily chosen and have not been appropriately validated in a clinical setting. Last, in studies 1 to 3 we assessed both PIU and IGD, which allows to further examining the similarities and unique characteristics of both disorders.
Limitations include the low number of participants per group, especially in study 2, and participants’ low age. Thus, future studies should examine more representative samples. Second, a comparison group of excessive Internet users, who were non-WoW players, was not included. Furthermore, the results of the study are based on correlational analyses, thus, no interpretations about causality are possible.
6. Fa'ai'uga
In sum, we were able to show that PIU is robustly associated with poor implicit learning abilities in male (WoW) gamers. This finding could be observed in two independent samples in the present study. Furthermore, a little bit weaker association between WOW-SPUQ and deficient implicit learning could be observed in the group of male WoW players. Moreover, higher scores on the OGAS were associated with higher tendencies for risk-taking behavior in study 3. The gender specific effect in studies 1 and 2 were further discussed in the study.
Matafaioi o tupe maua
Christian Montag is awarded a Heisenberg-grant by the German Research Foundation (MO 2363/3-1). Furthermore, the present study is funded by a research grant on Internet and computer gaming addiction awarded to Christian Montag by the German Research Foundation (MO 2363/2-1). The German Research Foundation had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Fesoasoani
CM and RS designed the study. RS, BL and CM recruited and tested the participants. RS conducted the analyses and wrote the manuscript. BL double checked the statistical analyses and reviewed the manuscript. SM programmed the experimental tasks (versions 1 and 2) and gave a thorough feedback on the manuscript, after reviewing it. MR reviewed the manuscripts critically. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.
Faʻafetai
We thank Ralf Reichert from Turtle Entertainment for giving us the chance to conduct our experiment at the GamesCom 2013. However, Turtle Entertainment did not make any profit or have an influence on the execution of the study.
We also would like to thank Maximilian Sieber and Otilia Pasnicu, who recruited and tested the participants for study 3 as part of their Bachelor theses.
Faamatalaga Faʻamatalaga
1Throughout the present paper we will be using the term Problematic Internet Use (PIU) as a substitute for Internet addiction, as there is currently no existing official diagnosis in DSM-5 and ICD 10. As Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) was included in the Appendix of DSM-5, this term will be used as a synonym of Online Gaming addiction. Please note that not every study, that we cite in the present article, investigated IGD, using the criteria suggested in DSM-5.
2Of note, the “devil” box was not programmed to appear in position 1, because this would have terminated the current trial without giving participants the opportunity to choose if they wanted to proceed by opening another box.
mau faasino
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 5th ed., (text rev., retrieved September 7th, 2016). http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx
- Bechara A., Dolan S., Denburg N., Hindes A., Anderson S.W., Nathan P.E. Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(4):376–389. [PubMed]
- Brand M., Labudda K., Markowitsch H.J. Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Networks. 2006;19(8):1266–1276. [PubMed]
- Brand M., Young K.S., Laier C., Wölfling K., Potenza M.N. Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific internet-use disorders: An interaction of person-affect-cognition-execution (I-PACE) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2016;71:252–266. [PubMed]
- Cao F., Su L., Liu T., Gao X. The relationship between impulsivity and internet addiction in a sample of Chinese adolescents. European Psychiatry. 2007;22(7):466–471. [PubMed]
- Davis R.A. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological internet use. Computers in Human Behavior. 2001;17 (2): 187-195.
- Eisenegger C., Knoch D., Ebstein R.P., Gianotti L.R., Sándor P.S., Fehr E. Dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism predicts the effect of L-DOPA on gambling behavior. Biological Psychiatry. 2010;67(8):702–706. [PubMed]
- Epstein S. Cognitive experiential self-theory of personality. In: Millon T., Lerner M.J., editors. Handbook of psychology. 5th ed. Wiley; Hoboken: 2003. pp. 159–184.
- Internet live stats Internet Users in the World. 2016. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/ Retrieved September 7th from.
- Ko C.H., Yen J.Y., Chen C.C., Chen S.H., Yen C.F. Gender differences and related factors affecting online gaming addiction among taiwanese adolescents. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2005;193(4):273–277. (doi:00005053-200504000-00008 [pii]) [PubMed]
- Ko C.H., Hsiao S., Liu G., Yen J., Yang M., Yen C. The characteristics of decision making, potential to take risks, and personality of college students with internet addiction. Psychiatry Research. 2010;175(1):121–125. [PubMed]
- Kreek M.J., Nielsen D.A., Butelman E.R., LaForge K.S. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nature Neuroscience. 2005;8(11):1450–1457. [PubMed]
- Laier C., Pawlikowski M., Brand M. Sexual picture processing interferes with decision-making under ambiguity. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2014;43(3):473–482. [PubMed]
- Lee H.W., Choi J., Shin Y., Lee J., Jung H.Y., Kwon J.S. Impulsivity in internet addiction: A comparison with pathological gambling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 2012;15(7):373–377. [PubMed]
- Lejuez C.W., Read J.P., Kahler C.W., Richards J.B., Ramsey S.E., Stuart G.L., …Brown R.A. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The balloon analogue risk task (BART) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2002;8(2):75–84. [PubMed]
- Lemmens J.S., Valkenburg P.M., Peter J. Development and validation of a game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology. 2009;12(1):77–95.
- Miles J., Shevlin M. Sage; 2001. Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers.
- Moeller F.G., Barratt E.S., Dougherty D.M., Schmitz J.M., Swann A.C. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001;158(11):1783–1793. [PubMed]
- Montag C., Bey K., Sha P., Li M., Chen Y., Liu W., …Keiper J. Is it meaningful to distinguish between generalized and specific internet addiction? Evidence from a cross-cultural study from Germany, Sweden, Taiwan and China. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry. 2015;7(1):20–26. [PubMed]
- Patton J.H., Stanford M.S. Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1995;51(6):768–774. [PubMed]
- Pawlikowski M., Brand M. Excessive internet gaming and decision making: Do excessive world of warcraft players have problems in decision making under risky conditions? Psychiatry Research. 2011;188(3):428–433. [PubMed]
- Pawlikowski M., Altstötter-Gleich C., Brand M. Validation and psychometric properties of a short version of Young’s internet addiction test. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013;29(3):1212–1223.
- Peters C.S., Malesky L.A., Jr. Problematic usage among highly-engaged players of massively multiplayer online role playing games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 2008;11(4):481–484. [PubMed]
- Rumpf H., Meyer C., Kreuzer A., John U., Merkeerk G. Vol. 31. 2011. Prävalenz der internetabhängigkeit (PINTA). Bericht an Das Bundesministerium Für Gesundheit. Greifswald Und Lübeck. (12ff)
- Schiebener J., Brand M. Decision making under objective risk conditions–a review of cognitive and emotional correlates, strategies, feedback processing, and external influences. Neuropsychology Review. 2015;25(2):171–198. [PubMed]
- Schoenbaum G., Roesch M.R., Stalnaker T.A. Orbitofrontal cortex, decision-making and drug addiction. Trends in Neurosciences. 2006;29(2):116–124. [PubMed]
- Schönbrodt F.D., Gerstenberg F.X. An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The unified motive scales. Journal of Research in Personality. 2012;46(6):725–742.
- Siedler T., Schupp J., Spiess C.K., Wagner G.G. The german socio-economic panel as a reference data set. Schmollers Jahrbuch. 2008;129(2):367–374.
- Stanford M.S., Mathias C.W., Dougherty D.M., Lake S.L., Anderson N.E., Patton J.H. Fifty years of the Barratt impulsiveness scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009;47(5):385–395.
- Sun D., Chen Z., Ma N., Zhang X., Fu X., Zhang D. Decision-making and prepotent response inhibition functions in excessive internet users. CNS Spectrums. 2009;14(02):75–81. [PubMed]
- Tao R., Huang X., Wang J., Zhang H., Zhang Y., Li M. Proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction. Addiction. 2010;105(3):556–564. [PubMed]
- Yao Y., Chen P., Chen C., Wang L., Zhang J., Xue G., …Fang X. Failure to utilize feedback causes decision-making deficits among excessive internet gamers. Psychiatry Research. 2014;219(3):583–588. [PubMed]
- Yao Y.W., Wang L.J., Yip S.W., Chen P.R., Li S., Xu J., …Fang X.Y. Impaired decision-making under risk is associated with gaming-specific inhibition deficits among college students with Internet gaming disorder. Psychiatry Research. 2015;229(1):302–309. [PubMed]
- Young K.S. Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the internet: A case that breaks the stereotype. Psychological Reports. 1996;79(3):899–902. [PubMed]
- Young K.S. John Wiley & Sons; 1998. Caught in the net: How to recognize the signs of internet addiction—and a winning strategy for recovery.
- Young K.S. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 1998;1(3):237–244.
;