Study Finds Similarities Between Videogame Addiction, Asperger's

[Eagle Est1986]

As an introvert, I wouldn't say that a lack of extroversion is a negative personality trait.

As for agreeableness, the majority of people suck, so who's really at fault there?

You're not addicted to games are you?

 

[Eagle Est1986]

As an introvert, I wouldn't say that a lack of extroversion is a negative personality trait.

As for agreeableness, the majority of people suck, so who's really at fault there?

You're not addicted to games are you?

 

[Aetmos]

I love the implication that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are somehow 'less normal', and closer to being autistic.

 

[brazenhead89]

This makes sense - my friend's father is beleived to have Aspergers, and if he isn't working or sleeping he's on a WoW Marathon session or any one of his many games consoles.
It's a worrying find. I too would consider myself an addict, and while I've never been diagnosed with aspergers, my social skills are somewhat questionable ( I have a LOT of friends, but they're all a bit peculiar ).
I beleive this study could do with further research, but I'm glad it doesn't outright claim that videogames leads to aspergers; just that they're linked. After the behaviour exhibited by myself and other game-loving friends of mine, it's difficult to disagree.

 

[xMacx]

Sample seems too small, classification of "addiction" is somewhat questionable, and the link to Asperger's is very tenuous. .. this is like saying that people with limited social skills are similar to people who have limited social skills as a result a neurological disorder... yes, people can voluntarily adopt the characteristics of illness. We could all be paranoid by choice, but a comparison to paranoid disorders that are not voluntary would not be very useful.

People (like me) are going to read this thing, though, because it's about games. Gets these two researchers a moment in the sun, about all it's good for.

I'm in agreement with you..but not the sample size issue. For most psychological assessment, 300 is a good min and just under 400 is fine.

But I feel you on the rest. See my earlier post about the research community's possible perception of this work - isn't much of a finding (Of course, that's why its in BPS and not APA/APS/etc.

 

[Nugoo]

As an introvert, I wouldn't say that a lack of extroversion is a negative personality trait.

As for agreeableness, the majority of people suck, so who's really at fault there?

You're not addicted to games are you?

I never said I was. That being said, I have accidentally spent ~12 consecutive hours playing games several times.

 

[boc407]

It seems to me that a lot of people are complaining that this study isnt giving them any info on how the study was conducted etc. But these complaints are being made after only reading the Escapist's article. Get the report and set of results before you start putting the study down for this reason. It seems to me that 391 participants is a relatively large sample study for this sort of study. And besides from just my own experience (as a Mathematician) Ive got to say I can see what the study is talking about

 

[xMacx]

391 is appropriate - see post #26.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

I love the implication that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are somehow 'less normal', and closer to being autistic.

It's actually true. Those who are much more technically minded are closer to Asperger's syndrome (whoever it was, don't take the piss by calling it ass-burgers. It's insulting.) Technically minded people, by being more focused upon numbers and logical problems can become more isolationist (I think that's a word) and find it harder to relate to people. Though not true in all cases, as a rule of thumb it can be applied generally. The more scientific and less people-orientated that you are, the closer you are on the 'scale' to Asperger's syndrome.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

But I also agree with Mshcherbatskaya. If you seriously want us to believe this then give us some more information. I'm sick and tired of psychology reports which claim to find negative effects of videogames and then fail to back up their claims with further information that validates their claims.

See post above. Where are all these video game studies that fail to back up their claims?

The problem is that many video games studies don't actually follow up with any other evidence. It's agreed, the study above does have evidence to back up their claim, but who funded their research? What did their research originally set out to find? The problem with many psychological studies is that they always try to find something that proves or disproves their theory and all other data is pushed into the sidelines so that their work doesn't look like a waste of time, especially when the press may become involved. There are many other variables for this study that we need to be made aware of, such as the ones I mentioned before. I'm always dubious when it comes to studies based on gaming but I do think that this one may have some relevance. But I still want to know more before I believe any of their claims.

 

[Saskwach]

I'm confused. This study seems to be saying "people who have a hobby that often limits human interaction might be less interested in or capable of human interaction. Also ASPERGER'S=VIDJAGAMEZ SCARE! Now I'm not trying to denounce the study or those who did it but the first conclusion seems pretty obvious if you accept that socialising is a skill, so it requires practice and doing less will reduce your skill level and interest in it.
I also think that the asperger's link is a bit loose and it's not just because I'm a videogamer whose brotehr has asperger's. Saying there are similarities between the effects of videogaming and asperger's is like saying there are similarities between fundamentalist christians and feminists because both dislike porn. Sure, but does it mean anything?

 

[xMacx]

The problem is that many video games studies don't actually follow up with any other evidence. It's agreed, the study above does have evidence to back up their claim, but who funded their research? What did their research originally set out to find?

I would challenge you to show me evidence of what you just stated as fact.

What studies have not followed up with evidence? Is it because of the researcher, or because you read it on a blog - and decided not to investigate further?

And if it's published and was funded, it's printed on the bottom of the publication - is it the researcher's fault that bloggers or newspapers decide not to include it? (For the record, if you see a study in a major newspaper, they usually state if its' a funded project. Not so much with the interwebs, apparently.) Odds are good that this wasn't funded by anyone - I think people outside the gaming research community (especially within psychology) vastly overestimate the amount of funded research going on.

The problem with many psychological studies is that they always try to find something that proves or disproves their theory and all other data is pushed into the sidelines so that their work doesn't look like a waste of time, especially when the press may become involved. There are many other variables for this study that we need to be made aware of, such as the ones I mentioned before. I'm always dubious when it comes to studies based on gaming but I do think that this one may have some relevance. But I still want to know more before I believe any of their claims.

Again, if you're sick and tired of it, maybe you can show me some examples? Provide a study where game researchers deliberately "pushed data to the sidelines" because it didn't fit with their theory.

And what makes you so sure that there are many other variables for this particular study? Have you read the study? How do you know the authors didn't give participants the NEO-AC and ask their video game usage? That's all the study reported.

Questions like "But who funded it?" smack of people whose understanding of how research funding works is limited to second hand stories of crooked researchers working for US tobacco companies. You get funded to investigate phenomena - there's no guarantee that you'll show anything of value, much less prove some grantor's pet theory (which is what the "who funded it" questions imply).




So there's my challenge - back up your words with fact - show me psych studies involving games that do any of the things you claimed.

 

[xMacx]

Saying there are similarities between the effects of videogaming and asperger's is like saying there are similarities between fundamentalist christians and feminists because both dislike porn. Sure, but does it mean anything?

always the issue - correlation doesn't equal causation. Sometimes correlations are meaningful, and sometimes its just a relationship that emerges.

You've got the right thought about it, though - does it help us understand anything about the developmentally challenged? Or about game players? And if not, then why is the correlation significant to anyone? Armchair study without any theory behind it - which is why I disagreed with Strafe's post above. Part of the issue is correlations with a lack of theory behind it - you find things and are forced to explain it rather than evaluating what the relationship actually means. Bad science.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I'd really love to have some info on their methodology for this, specifically their sample size, evaluation methods, and control groups, as well as the response from the researchers' scientific peers.

Sample size is in the original post and looks fine for what they're measuring.

Erf. I kin rede reel gud!

I can give you a likely response from some of their scientific peers - meh. It's a correlation between a self-selected behavior and several generalizable traits used to classify a spectrum disorder. More an interesting armchair finding than anything else.

A lot of news stories that begin with some variant of the words "new study" fail to follow up with additional reports after the studies are disputed or discredited. I get particularly suspicious when the research seems to echo popular bias. Will there be a follow-up discussing the similarity between sports fans and people with impulse-control disorders? Artists and schizophreniform disorders?

I'm not following your sports analogies, but the best approach would probably be to follow up on your own. A new finding is interesting (hence newsworthy); scientists bickering over the validity of those findings is probably only interesting to those who are in the field or personally vested (not newsworthy). Can't blame the media for that one, really; if you're interested, follow up.

Re: The sports thing, it's not an analogy, more a snotty comment on studies built to confirm popular prejudices than anything. I can blame the media though, on these grounds: when reported in the media, these studies are often positioned in an article as discoveries, not as interpretations of gathered data, and there is generally no information on whether the study is considered credible, so again, it gives the public the impression that these are facts being reported from an accepted and reliable study, which often they are not. So the media flips up a headline, "New Discovery!", throws out some questionable info, and then leaves it there without coming back to report, "Oh, you know that thing we were all worked up about last week? Turns out it's kind of a load of crap--go figure! Those wacky scientists, always changing their minds." If the media is giving people an incorrect impression of the whole picture of the study, then I think I can fault the media for that.

It's true, my background is not in science, but I have had various studies flung at me based on any number of elements of my personality, lifestyle, habits, chemical intake, gender, etc. that, when I looked into them, turned out to be flawed or discredited. This is what makes me suspicious.

 

[xMacx]

Re: The sports thing, it's not an analogy, more a snotty comment on studies built to confirm popular prejudices than anything.

I'd take umbrage with that too; though, honestly, I don't know many game researchers who say "hey, here's what the world appears to think; let's confirm it!" Consider it this way; when you're doing research, you want to know more than you do - the gold standard is to empirically discover something no one has observed before. Hence these researchers getting all excited over a correlation - I bet if you talked to them, they truly believe that they've discovered something new. No researcher I've met starts off attempting to just confirm common knowledge - there's no career benefit to it.

I can blame the media though, on these grounds: when reported in the media, these studies are often positioned in an article as discoveries, not as interpretations of gathered data,

I would agree. It seems like many news outlets have a poor understanding of the difference between empirical research and analysis of pre-existing datasets.

and there is generally no information on whether the study is considered credible, so again, it gives the public the impression that these are facts being reported from an accepted and reliable study, which often they are not.

I'd disagree with the last part of your statement.

I think the assumption is that if a study is published in a professional refereed conference or journal, then it has undergone some due diligence to be there in the first place.

I'd pose to you the same question I did Strafe; can you provide a good example of a games study that was published, but turned out not to be accurate? There's a lot of hoops you generally jump through to get a paper published, with a lot of the smart people looking it over. Can you provide an example of this ever happening? I have a sneaking suspicion that the accumulation of sparse online reporting of academic findings has led several people to develop their own assumptions on a studies validity.

You find the study(ies?) to support your statement.

So the media flips up a headline, "New Discovery!", throws out some questionable info, and then leaves it there without coming back to report, "Oh, you know that thing we were all worked up about last week? Turns out it's kind of a load of crap--go figure! Those wacky scientists, always changing their minds." If the media is giving people an incorrect impression of the whole picture of the study, then I think I can fault the media for that.

I wouldn't completely disagree, but that's an awfully black and white view. You figure there have only been a few huge recent research busts that follow that kind of pattern - cold fusion, the korean researcher who fabricated findings, etc. By the time a paper gets to press, it's been wrung through by those closest to the line of research and is old news to all those involved. This is especially true of psychology - as our understanding of the mind changes, theories are updated to reflect our new perspective.

So yeah, let's break out a gaming example - I'm thinking the issues discussed in this thread are wildly overstated, and am looking forward to someone bursting my bubble (so to speak).

So bring it ! Where are the invalid gaming articles?

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

So bring it ! Where are the invalid gaming articles?

Specifically gaming related? I'm afraid that isn't my area. I have spent more of my life defending myself against media flogging of studies focusing on gender, sexuality, and mental health. My most recent small-scale absurdity: I suffer from periodic insomnia. I also use the computer a lot and play video games. So my mom comes at me with this study she read about that said that computer use and video games contribute to insomnia, so you shouldn't use them or play them before bed. Even something as simple as checking your email could do it. I then started questioning her on the article - How did they determine this? Does the TV count or is it computer/VG specific? How many hours before bed do I have to quit using electronics to avoid this effect? Because I could go to bed at 1 a.m. and still be awake at 4:30, so that was a pretty extended effect timewise. And so on. She discontinued the discussion before it blossomed into a fight. It doesn't help that her mental image of me playing video games is me swearing up a storm in a vehicle section in HL2, when in fact, most of the most recent bout of insomnia was spent playing The Longest Journey, which while a great game, is not really the biggest adrenaline pumper.

The thing was, I've heard variations of this for years coming out of the alternative medicine community, but their condemnation went even farther, to electric lighting itself. And though I am a strong believer in alternative medicine, there is a lot of seriously crackpot "science" floating around there. And when it comes right down to it, my mom wanted to help, she wanted to apply this "discovery" but did not suggest that I start using candles instead of lightbulbs for the last two hours of every day, because this particular study suited her existing prejudices. Sorry Mom, but I was this fucked up before I ever started geeking on the computer or playing on the Xbox.

I do not believe that scientific studies are concocted to suit current media manias. Science goes on all the time, good science, crap science, weird study results, and genuine scientific breakthroughs. What I do believe happens, though, is that some things become media-fashionable in an alarmist manner, like autism (it's on the rise, you know! in unprecedented numbers!) and videogames (destroying our children!) and then a little blurb about some study or other floats through the newsroom and, Hey! This is exactly the sort of thing our readers are interested in! (because it reinforces their fears and prejudices) and some reporter writes it up as news without inquiring deeply enough, if at all, into the quality of the information.

Now, some things keep popping up onto the alarmist radar often enough that you begin to see how ridiculously contradictory these science news stories get. Like chocolate, or coffee, or red wine. They're good for you. They're bad for you. They help your heart. They cause heart disease. They release endorphins, yay! They're addictive, boo!

By the way, I really appreciate your insight and knowledge in this, so I was wondering what is your scientific background, and also, if I ever finish the damn thing, whether you would be willing to cast a critical eye over something I've been asked to write on ADHD? I would also hazard to say that one of the reasons people tend to get a little worked up about stories like this is that, like me, they are tired of people coming at them with "studies they read about" that become little more than crowbars to pry them away from their less socially acceptable passtimes.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So bring it ! Where are the invalid gaming articles?

Let's see. Daily Mail connecting Hungerford to Role Playing Games. The entire Manhunt piece.
(The VICTIM played Manhunt underage, the Killer never did.) 9/11 training on Microsoft Flight Sim?

I'd take umbrage with that too; though, honestly, I don't know many game researchers who say "hey, here's what the world appears to think; let's confirm it!"

Similar. "Hey, here's a subgroup that can't defend itself well. Let's sell papers by exaggerating the threats". See Mars Bar Poisoning, Bird Flu, BSE, AIDS, Salmonella and the latest report on Sausages.

I'd pose to you the same question I did Strafe; can you provide a good example of a games study that was published, but turned out not to be accurate?

See the first 3, I'm sure I can dig out more if you want.

The main problem with the research is that you can prove anything with statistics. A Recent study showed that 10% (I think) of the NHS has a criminal record.

DAMNING! SHOCKING!

Until you realise that over 15% of the population has a criminal record, so the NHS has less than average.

But the damage is still there, and can't be disproven. It's still false.

Now, if the latest research shows that 15% of Computer Gamers have a criminal record; is that good or bad? And how would you ever disprove it?

"Heineken : Probably the best lager in the world."

How would you ever prove/disprove that?

Now Panorama says that a WIFI spot produces more radiation than standing next to a shielded nuclear pile; are you gonna tell them they're wrong?

 

[xMacx]

Your examples aren't research studies.

Within the context of the earlier discussion, perhaps my earlier statement should read "Where's the gaming research articles?" We've been talking about the research that is reported, not tertiary news articles that attempt to provide a social links. Your comparisons are a different discussion - the media's role in responsibly reporting information.


Point is, we're talking about academic research being put out there in the press, and then turning out to either be wrong, or being recalled. Your first two examples are examples of reporters finding an unrelated fact and jumping to conclusions.

I appreciate the addition, but this isn't the right conversation for your points.

So one more time - bring on the articles that have shown some reviewed gaming research that turned out to be wrong.

Not a reporter jumping to conclusions and not some 20/20 60 minutes link-up meant to entertain as much as inform.

Similar. "Hey, here's a subgroup that can't defend itself well. Let's sell papers by exaggerating the threats". See Mars Bar Poisoning, Bird Flu, BSE, AIDS, Salmonella and the latest report on Sausages.

Similarly, this is responsibility of the media, not accuracy of research results. (On a side note: Exaggerating the effects of AIDs? WTF?) I'd be happy to debate this in a separate thread, but this doesn't fit with the topic we're discussing.

The rest are common issues of responsibly using statistics - not sure I see how that adds to the discussion unless you're tying it to an earlier point.



So definitely, try digging some more stories out, and let's link to some actual research. I'm interested to see what you pull out.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Your examples aren't research studies.

Ah, and therein lies the rub.

Very few 'serious' researchers want to do 'serious' research on games; because it's like researching the positive effects of Cannabis, Alcohol or Smoking. People don't want to hear it and won't pay for the research.

I think the Brontosaurus and the WIFI (and Piltdown man) are all examples of research that's heavily wrong.

(On a side note: Exaggerating the effects of AIDs? WTF?)
(On a side comeback: Well...we haven't had a global killer epidemic that we were supposed to have. Agreed millions have died, but we were lead to believe it would be billions. Checked : UK has around 15,000 deaths : Alcohol caused just under 9 thousand. 60 a day.)


Did you want positive gaming surveys or negative gaming surveys? I'll see what I can hunt down.