4.7 Article

Excessive Internet gaming and decision making: Do excessive World of Warcraft players have problems in decision making under risky conditions?

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 188, Issue 3, Pages 428-433

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.05.017

Keywords

Game of Dice Task; Gambling; World of Warcraft; Internet addiction; Psychological-psychiatric symptomatology

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The dysfunctional behavior of excessive Internet garners, such as preferring the immediate reward (to play World of Warcraft) despite the negative long-term consequences may be comparable with the dysfunctional behavior in substance abusers or individuals with behavioral addictions, e.g. pathological gambling. In these disorders, general decision-making deficits have been demonstrated. Hence, the aim of the present work was to examine decision-making competences of excessive World of Warcraft players. Nineteen excessive Internet gamers (EIG) and a control group (CG) consisting of 19 non-garners were compared with respect to decision-making abilities. The Game of Dice Task (GOT) was applied to measure decision-making under risky conditions. Furthermore psychological-psychiatric symptoms were assessed in both groups. The EIG showed a reduced decision-making ability in the GOT. Furthermore the EIG group showed a higher psychological-psychiatric symptomatology in contrast to the CG. The results indicate that the reduced decision-making ability of EIG is comparable with patients with other forms of behavioral addiction (e.g. pathological gambling), impulse control disorders or substance abusers. Thus, these results suggest that excessive Internet gaming may be based on a myopia for the future, meaning that EIG prefer to play World of Warcraft despite the negative long-term consequences in social or work domains of life. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available