Authors:
Orsolya Király Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Orsolya Király in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Zsolt Demetrovics Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Zsolt Demetrovics in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

This paper is a response to a recent debate paper in which Aarseth et al. argue that the inclusion of a formal diagnosis and categories for problematic video gaming or Gaming Disorder (GD) in the World Health Organization’s 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is premature and therefore the proposal should be removed. The present authors systematically address all the six main arguments presented by Aarseth et al. and argue that, even though some of the concerns presented in the debate paper are legitimate, the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 has more advantages than disadvantages. Furthermore, the present authors also argue that the two GD subtypes (“GD, predominantly online” and “GD, predominantly offline”) are unnecessary and rather problematic; the main category for GD would be perfectly sufficient.

Abstract

This paper is a response to a recent debate paper in which Aarseth et al. argue that the inclusion of a formal diagnosis and categories for problematic video gaming or Gaming Disorder (GD) in the World Health Organization’s 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is premature and therefore the proposal should be removed. The present authors systematically address all the six main arguments presented by Aarseth et al. and argue that, even though some of the concerns presented in the debate paper are legitimate, the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 has more advantages than disadvantages. Furthermore, the present authors also argue that the two GD subtypes (“GD, predominantly online” and “GD, predominantly offline”) are unnecessary and rather problematic; the main category for GD would be perfectly sufficient.

Introduction

In a recent debate paper on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Gaming Disorder (GD) proposal, Aarseth et al. (2016) argue that the inclusion of a formal diagnosis and categories for problematic video gaming or GD is premature and therefore the proposal should be removed. Their argumentation comprises six main arguments. The first three refer to their concerns regarding the quality of the proposal, or more specifically, the quality of the research supporting the proposal, whereas the last three refer to the possible negative consequences of the inclusion. In short, the authors claim that (i) the quality of research supporting the proposal is low, (ii) the current operationalization of GD leans too heavily on the criteria of traditional addictive disorders, and (iii) there is no consensus among scholars regarding the symptomatology and assessment of the problem behavior. Furthermore, the authors worry that the formal diagnosis would bring about (iv) the stigmatization and (v) (possibly forced) treatment of engaged but healthy gamers (i.e., the false-positive cases), and (vi) would hinder exploratory research needed to truly understand the phenomenology of problematic gaming.

The present authors acknowledge that majority of these concerns are important and need to be addressed in the future. However, we argue that the inclusion of GD in the upcoming ICD still has more benefits than harm. In this paper, we comment on the main concerns raised in the debate paper and draw a conclusion summarizing our opinion in this question. Furthermore, we also seize the opportunity to raise one concern regarding the subtypes of GD in the proposal (i.e., predominantly online and predominantly offline).

Comments to the Debate Paper

The present authors agree that the overall quality of the research in the field of problematic gaming should be improved as, to date, survey studies are disproportionately overrepresented, while there is a general lack of clinical and longitudinal studies, as well as qualitative ones. Biomarkers (e.g., related to the highly debated withdrawal symptoms) should also be explored and cross-cultural comparisons have to be made. However, the few qualitative and clinical studies conducted to date clearly demonstrate that a minority of gamers experience significant functional and psychological impairment related to their excessive gaming (e.g., Chappell, Eatough, Davies, & Griffiths, 2006; Ko et al., 2014); therefore, it can be claimed with certainty that the problematic behavior exists. Moreover, despite the scholarly debate regarding the conceptualization, criteria, and assessment of problematic gaming, scholars tend to agree in this question (even the authors of the debate paper themselves) (Griffiths et al., 2016; Király, Griffiths, & Demetrovics, 2015).

The second issue raised in the debate paper is that the construct of GD leans too heavily on traditional addictive disorder criteria (Griffiths et al., 2016; Király, Griffiths, et al., 2015). The present authors fully agree that alternative theoretical models (other than the one of behavioral addictions) may also be useful to understand the phenomenon and therefore research in this direction is important. However, we argue that the behavioral addictions framework is useful and suitable enough to theorize problematic video gaming behavior at the moment. Problem behaviors, such as gambling or GD, hold great similarities in symptomology and neurobiology with traditional substance-related disorders even if important differences exist as well (Hellman, Schoenmakers, Nordstrom, & van Holst, 2013). Moreover, significant differences also exist between different substances, such as heroin (depressant), cocaine (stimulant), and LSD (hallucinogen) for instance, still all fit well with the theory of addiction. Similarly, despite the contextual differences, the addiction framework appears to work fairly well in the case of behaviors, such as gambling and video gaming.

The third concern of Aarseth et al. refers to the lack of consensus among scholars regarding the symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. Indeed, a recent study by Griffiths et al. (2016) (coauthored by the present authors as well as several authors of the debate paper) examined the nine IGD criteria from the DSM-5 and listed the main concerns of scholars regarding each of them. However, when taking a closer look to the GD proposal, it turns out that the most debated IGD criteria (i.e., preoccupation, withdrawal, tolerance, deception, and escape) were not included in the proposal. In fact, the GD proposal comprises only the less-debated criteria (i.e., behavioral salience, losing interest in and reducing other recreational activities) and those with a strong general support (i.e., loss of control, continuation of the playing behavior despite negative consequences, and risking/losing relationships and opportunities). The proposed definition claims:

Gaming disorder is manifested by a persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour (i.e., ‘digital gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’) characterised by an impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities and continuation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. The behaviour pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. These features and the underlying pattern of gaming are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe.” (WHO, 2017)

Consequently, the GD proposal appears as an attempt to unify distinct opinions in the field by the sole inclusion of the criteria with strong (or at least medium) support (see Griffiths et al., 2016). Therefore, the present authors hope that a formal diagnosis like this will contribute to the unification of the field by creating a common ground for assessment and clinical diagnosis. Furthermore, the present authors do not agree that the inclusion of GD in ICD would hinder researchers to further test the highly debated criteria, especially, because the next revision of the DSM encourages such studies.

On the other hand, a certain degree of controversy is allowable and most probably will always be there, as full consensus in such questions is rare. Other psychiatric disorders, such as depression or schizophrenia, are also debated (e.g., Cuesta, Basterra, Sanchez-Torres, & Peralta, 2009; DeLisi, 2003; Ebmeier, Donaghey, & Steele, 2006; Ruscio & Ruscio, 2000), even if they seem as consensual based on their presence in the diagnostic manuals.

The fourth and sixth concerns of Aarseth et al. are that the inclusion would stigmatize the millions of healthy gamers and would contribute to the (possibly forced) treatment of abundant false-positive cases or in other words, engaged but healthy gamers. The present authors argue that although legitimate concerns, they have little to do with the inclusion per se. Moral panics and stigmatization related to video games are mostly induced and maintained by media scaremongering (Ferguson, 2010) and the differences in mentality of the younger and older generations (i.e., generation gap) and not the existence of a formal diagnosis. The media inherently simplifies the stories with complex background and often presents them as “facts.” For instance, news reporting gaming-related tragedies often attribute (or directly relate) the death of the person to game addiction without examining the real and complex reasons (see, e.g., “Video game addict dies after 19-hr gaming session;” FoxNews.com, 2015). Furthermore, we argue that on the contrary, a formal diagnosis might even decrease stigmatization by viewing problematic gaming as a disorder and not a personal weakness, bad character, or a lack of interest in important life matters. This is similar to depression considered a mental disorder rather than laziness, or problem gambling viewed as a mental illness rather than a moral failure or character problem (Hing, Russell, & Gainsbury, 2016).

Consequently, the present authors doubt that a formal diagnosis would amplify the moral panic and stigmatization related to video games. On the contrary, it might help clarify and popularize the difference between high engagement or healthy enthusiasm and GD; namely, that functional and psychological impairment has to be present, gaming time alone is not suitable to decide whether the person has a disorder or not (Demetrovics & Király, 2016; Király, Tóth, Urbán, Demetrovics, & Maraz, 2017) as often suggested in news reports as the one mentioned before. We would hereby also seize the opportunity to point out that it is the researchers’ responsibility to emphasize and popularize the finding that intense video gaming is not essentially problematic, and we can only speak about GD when serious negative effects are present – otherwise we face high engagement, which has nothing to do with disorders but rather adds to life as Griffiths (2005) also suggests.

Finally, the last issue raised in the debate paper is that research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, considering the theories of substance use disorder as the valid basis for problematic gaming-related behavior. In our view, alternative exploratory models and theories can (and will) still be explored if the inclusion happens. Both diagnostic manuals (i.e., the DSM and the ICD) are regularly revised, thus characterized by permanent change. The case of problem gambling is one of the best examples. In the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994, 2000), this behavior was considered an impulse-control disorder; and accordingly, it appeared in the Impulse-Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified section as pathological gambling. However, in the most recent version, the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) was moved into the expanded Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders section as an addictive disorder; and accordingly, it was labeled as gambling disorder. The main aim of agreeing upon a formal diagnosis and criteria is to provide a common starting point for research, which will – most probably – evolve further in the future due to ongoing research and monitoring.

GD Predominantly Online/Offline

The ICD-11 proposal for GD has two subtypes (i.e., 7D61.1 GD, predominantly online and 7D61.2 GD, predominantly offline). The difference between them is that the first refers to gaming behavior that is primarily conducted over the Internet, whereas the second refers to a gaming behavior that is not primarily conducted over the Internet. The present authors argue that these subtypes are unnecessary and rather problematic; the main category for GD would be perfectly sufficient.

Empirical research suggests that online games (and specific types of these) have a “higher addictive potential” than offline games, mainly due to the social interaction, social comparison, and player versus player competition they provide (e.g., Lemmens & Hendriks, 2016). However, the fact that a game is played over the Internet does not necessarily mean that it provides social interaction. For instance, some flash games are completely single player, although they are played in an Internet browser. Or several online games have their campaign modes (i.e., a series of individual adventures resembling offline games), and some players only play those. Furthermore, players choose the games based on their content rather than how they are played (through the Internet or offline). Therefore, we argue that creating subtypes for the GD diagnosis along such a classification (i.e., predominantly online or offline) does not make much sense because it does not provide accurate information regarding the addictive potential of the games. Moreover, such a distinction is not related to the criteria in any way (i.e., the rest of the diagnosis is the same for both subtypes), and most probably, it gets even more outdated in a couple of years due to rapid technological change and constant innovation.

Nevertheless, exploring the structural characteristics of the games (e.g., the reinforcement mechanisms they use) may be helpful during the diagnostic and treatment process. Although it is impossible to include these in the GD definition itself, it is important to explore what basic needs and motivations specific games satisfy in the case of each patient (Ballabio et al., 2017; Király, Urbán, et al., 2015). However, the online or offline nature of games adds nothing useful to the diagnosis because it is too vague to provide information about personal needs and motives.

Conclusions

Video gaming is an integral part of our modern culture, one of the main leisure time activities for a continuously growing community and as such, it is a healthy hobby for the majority – hundreds of millions of gamers around the world. However, there is a small (but still considerable) group of gamers who play in such a manner that they experience significant functional and psychological impairment related to their gaming (Griffiths, Király, Pontes, & Demetrovics, 2015; Király, Nagygyörgy, Griffiths, & Demetrovics, 2014). It appears that no debate exists among scholars in any of these questions.

Nevertheless, the argumentation of Aarseth et al. presented in the debate paper makes the impression that the authors consider the entire DSM and ICD useless and possibly harmful because it does not reflect a perfect consensus among scholars. Furthermore, it also creates the impression that behaviors listed in the diagnostic manuals lack their non-problematic (healthy) versions – which is obviously not the case. The majority of the conditions included should be interpreted on a continuum and have their perfectly healthy state along with their disordered version at the other end of the continuum (e.g., Gunderson, Links, & Reich, 1991; Widiger & Coker, 1997). For instance, both alcohol use and gambling are included in the DSM and ICD, but this does not make them disorders per se, it only means that a disordered pattern of the behavior exists as well (i.e., alcohol use disorder and gambling disorder). The question is whether the behavior is adaptive or maladaptive. In the latter case, the behavior should be viewed as a disorder.

Consequently, the present authors argue that the inclusion of GD in ICD as a formal diagnosis at this point has more advantages than disadvantages. Hopefully, it would improve the quality of research by providing a common ground and thus help clarify the controversies in the long run. However, we fully agree with Aarseth et al. that there are numerous important tasks for the future: there is a great need for more clinical, longitudinal, cross-cultural, and qualitative research as well as studies that examine the biomarkers related to problematic gaming. As the definitions of mental disorders are the products of temporary consensuses among professionals and as such, they are dynamically changing entities, there will be possibility to smoothen or modify the criteria in the future based on new empirical results.

Authors’ contribution

Both OK and ZD were involved in the writing of the manuscript; OK wrote the initial draft.

Conflict of interest

ZD has participated in consultation meetings convened by the WHO from 2015 onward and received travel support from it. The authors declare they have not received any remuneration from commercial, educational, or other organizations in relation to this paper. The statements made and views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organization to which they are affiliated, nor do they necessarily represent policies or decisions of the WHO.

References

  • Aarseth, E. , Bean, A. M. , Boonen, H. , Colder Carras, M. , Coulson, M. , Das, D. , Deleuze, J. , Dunkels, E. , Edman, J. , Ferguson, C. J. , Haagsma, M. C. , Bergmark, K. H. , Hussain, Z. , Jansz, J. , Kardefelt-Winther, D. , Kutner, L. , Markey, P. , Lundedal Nielsen, R. K. , Prause, N. , Przybylski, A. , Quandt, T. , Schimmenti, A. , Starcevic, V. , Stutman, G. , Van Looy, J. , & Van Rooij, A. J. (2016). Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. Advance online publication. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.088

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ballabio, M. , Griffiths, M. D. , Urbán, R. , Quartiroli, A. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Király, O. (2017). Do gaming motives mediate between psychiatric symptoms and problematic gaming? An empirical survey study. Addiction Research & Theory. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1305360

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chappell, D. , Eatough, V. , Davies, M. , & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). EverQuest – It’s just a computer game right? An interpretative phenomenological analysis of online gaming addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(3), 205216. doi:10.1007/s11469-006-9028-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuesta, M. J. , Basterra, V. , Sanchez-Torres, A. , & Peralta, V. (2009). Controversies surrounding the diagnosis of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 9(10), 14751486. doi:10.1586/ern.09.102

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeLisi, L. E. (2003). Introduction to current controversies in schizophrenia research. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16(2), 121122. doi:10.1097/00001504-200303000-00001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demetrovics, Z. , & Király, O. (2016). Internet/gaming addiction is more than heavy use over time: Commentary on Baggio and colleagues (2015). Addiction, 111(3), 523524. doi:10.1111/add.13244

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ebmeier, K. P. , Donaghey, C. , & Steele, J. D. (2006). Recent developments and current controversies in depression. Lancet, 367(9505), 153167. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)67964-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 6881. doi:10.1037/a0018941

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FoxNews.com. (2015). Video game addict dies after 19-hour gaming session. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/03/03/video-game-addict-dies-after-1-hour-gaming-session.html (March 14, 2017).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191197. doi:10.1080/14659890500114359

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. , Király, O. , Pontes, H. M. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). An overview of problematic gaming. In V. Starcevic & E. Aboujaoude (Eds.), Mental health in the digital age: Grave dangers, great promise (pp. 2745). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. , van Rooij, A. J. , Kardefelt-Winther, D. , Starcevic, V. , Király, O. , Pallesen, S. , Müller, K. , Dreier, M. , Carras, M. , Prause, N. , King, D. L. , Aboujaoude, E. , Kuss, D. J. , Pontes, H. M. , Lopez Fernandez, O. , Nagygyorgy, K. , Achab, S. , Billieux, J. , Quandt, T. , Carbonell, X. , Ferguson, C. J. , Hoff, R. A. , Derevensky, J. , Haagsma, M. C. , Delfabbro, P. , Coulson, M. , Hussain, Z. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing Internet gaming disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014). Addiction, 111(1), 167175. doi:10.1111/add.13057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gunderson, J. G. , Links, P. S. , & Reich, J. H. (1991). Competing models of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5(1), 6068. doi:10.1521/pedi.1991.5.1.60

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hellman, M. , Schoenmakers, T. M. , Nordstrom, B. R. , & van Holst, R. J. (2013). Is there such a thing as online video game addiction? A cross-disciplinary review. Addiction Research & Theory, 21(2), 102112. doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.693222

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hing, N. , Russell, A. M. , & Gainsbury, S. M. (2016). Unpacking the public stigma of problem gambling: The process of stigma creation and predictors of social distancing. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(3), 448456. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Griffiths, M. D. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5: Conceptualization, debates, and controversies. Current Addiction Reports, 2(3), 254262. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0066-7

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Nagygyörgy, K. , Griffiths, M. D. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Problematic online gaming. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence and treatment (pp. 6195). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Tóth, D. , Urbán, R. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Maraz, A. (2017). Intense video gaming is not essentially problematic. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Urbán, R. , Griffiths, M. D. , Ágoston, C. , Nagygyörgy, K. , Kökönyei, G. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Psychiatric symptoms and problematic online gaming: The mediating effect of gaming motivation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(4), e88. doi:10.2196/jmir.3515

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ko, C. H. , Yen, J. Y. , Chen, S. H. , Wang, P. W. , Chen, C. C. , & Yen, C. F. (2014). Evaluation of the diagnostic criteria of Internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5 among young adults in Taiwan. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 53, 103110. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.02.008

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemmens, J. S. , & Hendriks, S. J. F. (2016). Addictive online games: Examining the relationship between game genres and Internet gaming disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 270276. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0415

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruscio, J. , & Ruscio, A. M. (2000). Informing the continuity controversy: A taxometric analysis of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 473487. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.473

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Widiger, T. A. , & Coker, L. A. (1997). Mental disorders as discrete clinical conditions: Dimensional versus categorical classification. In S. M. Turner & M. Hersen (Eds.), Adult psychopathology and diagnosis (pp. 323). New York, NY: Wiley.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Health Organization [WHO]. (2017). ICD-11 beta draft. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1448597234 (July 9, 2017).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aarseth, E. , Bean, A. M. , Boonen, H. , Colder Carras, M. , Coulson, M. , Das, D. , Deleuze, J. , Dunkels, E. , Edman, J. , Ferguson, C. J. , Haagsma, M. C. , Bergmark, K. H. , Hussain, Z. , Jansz, J. , Kardefelt-Winther, D. , Kutner, L. , Markey, P. , Lundedal Nielsen, R. K. , Prause, N. , Przybylski, A. , Quandt, T. , Schimmenti, A. , Starcevic, V. , Stutman, G. , Van Looy, J. , & Van Rooij, A. J. (2016). Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. Advance online publication. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.088

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ballabio, M. , Griffiths, M. D. , Urbán, R. , Quartiroli, A. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Király, O. (2017). Do gaming motives mediate between psychiatric symptoms and problematic gaming? An empirical survey study. Addiction Research & Theory. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1305360

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chappell, D. , Eatough, V. , Davies, M. , & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). EverQuest – It’s just a computer game right? An interpretative phenomenological analysis of online gaming addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(3), 205216. doi:10.1007/s11469-006-9028-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuesta, M. J. , Basterra, V. , Sanchez-Torres, A. , & Peralta, V. (2009). Controversies surrounding the diagnosis of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 9(10), 14751486. doi:10.1586/ern.09.102

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeLisi, L. E. (2003). Introduction to current controversies in schizophrenia research. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16(2), 121122. doi:10.1097/00001504-200303000-00001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demetrovics, Z. , & Király, O. (2016). Internet/gaming addiction is more than heavy use over time: Commentary on Baggio and colleagues (2015). Addiction, 111(3), 523524. doi:10.1111/add.13244

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ebmeier, K. P. , Donaghey, C. , & Steele, J. D. (2006). Recent developments and current controversies in depression. Lancet, 367(9505), 153167. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)67964-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 6881. doi:10.1037/a0018941

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FoxNews.com. (2015). Video game addict dies after 19-hour gaming session. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/03/03/video-game-addict-dies-after-1-hour-gaming-session.html (March 14, 2017).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191197. doi:10.1080/14659890500114359

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. , Király, O. , Pontes, H. M. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). An overview of problematic gaming. In V. Starcevic & E. Aboujaoude (Eds.), Mental health in the digital age: Grave dangers, great promise (pp. 2745). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. , van Rooij, A. J. , Kardefelt-Winther, D. , Starcevic, V. , Király, O. , Pallesen, S. , Müller, K. , Dreier, M. , Carras, M. , Prause, N. , King, D. L. , Aboujaoude, E. , Kuss, D. J. , Pontes, H. M. , Lopez Fernandez, O. , Nagygyorgy, K. , Achab, S. , Billieux, J. , Quandt, T. , Carbonell, X. , Ferguson, C. J. , Hoff, R. A. , Derevensky, J. , Haagsma, M. C. , Delfabbro, P. , Coulson, M. , Hussain, Z. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing Internet gaming disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014). Addiction, 111(1), 167175. doi:10.1111/add.13057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gunderson, J. G. , Links, P. S. , & Reich, J. H. (1991). Competing models of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5(1), 6068. doi:10.1521/pedi.1991.5.1.60

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hellman, M. , Schoenmakers, T. M. , Nordstrom, B. R. , & van Holst, R. J. (2013). Is there such a thing as online video game addiction? A cross-disciplinary review. Addiction Research & Theory, 21(2), 102112. doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.693222

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hing, N. , Russell, A. M. , & Gainsbury, S. M. (2016). Unpacking the public stigma of problem gambling: The process of stigma creation and predictors of social distancing. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(3), 448456. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Griffiths, M. D. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5: Conceptualization, debates, and controversies. Current Addiction Reports, 2(3), 254262. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0066-7

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Nagygyörgy, K. , Griffiths, M. D. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Problematic online gaming. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence and treatment (pp. 6195). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Tóth, D. , Urbán, R. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Maraz, A. (2017). Intense video gaming is not essentially problematic. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Király, O. , Urbán, R. , Griffiths, M. D. , Ágoston, C. , Nagygyörgy, K. , Kökönyei, G. , & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Psychiatric symptoms and problematic online gaming: The mediating effect of gaming motivation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(4), e88. doi:10.2196/jmir.3515

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ko, C. H. , Yen, J. Y. , Chen, S. H. , Wang, P. W. , Chen, C. C. , & Yen, C. F. (2014). Evaluation of the diagnostic criteria of Internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5 among young adults in Taiwan. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 53, 103110. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.02.008

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemmens, J. S. , & Hendriks, S. J. F. (2016). Addictive online games: Examining the relationship between game genres and Internet gaming disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 270276. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0415

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruscio, J. , & Ruscio, A. M. (2000). Informing the continuity controversy: A taxometric analysis of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 473487. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.473

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Widiger, T. A. , & Coker, L. A. (1997). Mental disorders as discrete clinical conditions: Dimensional versus categorical classification. In S. M. Turner & M. Hersen (Eds.), Adult psychopathology and diagnosis (pp. 323). New York, NY: Wiley.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Health Organization [WHO]. (2017). ICD-11 beta draft. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1448597234 (July 9, 2017).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Dr. Zsolt Demetrovics
Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
Address: Izabella u. 46. H-1064 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-461-2681
E-mail: jba@ppk.elte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®)
  • Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
  • Social Sciences Citation Index®
  • Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition
  • Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • EBSCO
  • GoogleScholar
  • PsycINFO
  • PubMed Central
  • SCOPUS
  • Medline
  • CABI

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
5223
Journal Impact Factor 7,772
Rank by Impact Factor Psychiatry SCIE 26/155
Psychiatry SSCI 19/142
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
7,130
5 Year
Impact Factor
9,026
Journal Citation Indicator 1,39
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Psychiatry 34/257

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
56
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,951
Scimago Quartile Score Clinical Psychology (Q1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health (Q1)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
11,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Clinical Psychology 5/292 (D1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 20/529 (D1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) 17/276 (D1)
Scopus
SNIP
2,184

2020  
Total Cites 4024
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
6,756
Rank by Psychiatry (SSCI) 12/143 (Q1)
Impact Factor Psychiatry 19/156 (Q1)
Impact Factor 6,052
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 8,735
Impact Factor
Journal  1,48
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Psychiatry 24/250 (Q1)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 86
Items
Total 74
Articles
Total 12
Reviews
Scimago 47
H-index
Scimago 2,265
Journal Rank
Scimago Clinical Psychology Q1
Quartile Score Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1
  Medicine (miscellaneous) Q1
Scopus 3593/367=9,8
Scite Score  
Scopus Clinical Psychology 7/283 (Q1)
Scite Score Rank Psychiatry and Mental Health 22/502 (Q1)
Scopus 2,026
SNIP  
Days from  38
submission  
to 1st decision  
Days from  37
acceptance  
to publication  
Acceptance 31%
Rate  

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
2 184
Impact Factor 5,143
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
4,346
5 Year
Impact Factor
5,758
Immediacy
Index
0,587
Citable
Items
75
Total
Articles
67
Total
Reviews
8
Cited
Half-Life
3,3
Citing
Half-Life
6,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00597
Article Influence
Score
1,447
% Articles
in
Citable Items
89,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,7294
Average
IF
Percentile
87,923
Scimago
H-index
37
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,767
Scopus
Scite Score
2540/376=6,8
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cllinical Psychology 16/275 (Q1)
Medicine (miscellenous) 31/219 (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 47/506 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1,441
Acceptance
Rate
32%

 

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 850 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-5871 (Print)
ISSN 2063-5303 (Online)

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Zsolt DEMETROVICS

Assistant Editor(s): Csilla ÁGOSTON

Associate Editors

  • Joel BILLIEUX (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • Beáta BŐTHE (University of Montreal, Canada)
  • Matthias BRAND (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Luke CLARK (University of British Columbia, Canada)
  • Daniel KING (Flinders University, Australia)
  • Ludwig KRAUS (IFT Institute for Therapy Research, Germany)
  • H. N. Alexander LOGEMANN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Astrid MÜLLER (Hannover Medical School, Germany)
  • Marc N. POTENZA (Yale University, USA)
  • Hans-Jurgen RUMPF (University of Lübeck, Germany)
  • Attila SZABÓ (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Róbert URBÁN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Aviv M. WEINSTEIN (Ariel University, Israel)

Editorial Board

  • Max W. ABBOTT (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
  • Elias N. ABOUJAOUDE (Stanford University School of Medicine, USA)
  • Hojjat ADELI (Ohio State University, USA)
  • Alex BALDACCHINO (University of Dundee, United Kingdom)
  • Alex BLASZCZYNSKI (University of Sidney, Australia)
  • Judit BALÁZS (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Kenneth BLUM (University of Florida, USA)
  • Henrietta BOWDEN-JONES (Imperial College, United Kingdom)
  • Wim VAN DEN BRINK (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Gerhard BÜHRINGER (Technische Universität Dresden, Germany)
  • Sam-Wook CHOI (Eulji University, Republic of Korea)
  • Damiaan DENYS (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Jeffrey L. DEREVENSKY (McGill University, Canada)
  • Naomi FINEBERG (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)
  • Marie GRALL-BRONNEC (University Hospital of Nantes, France)
  • Jon E. GRANT (University of Minnesota, USA)
  • Mark GRIFFITHS (Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom)
  • Anneke GOUDRIAAN (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Heather HAUSENBLAS (Jacksonville University, USA)
  • Tobias HAYER (University of Bremen, Germany)
  • Susumu HIGUCHI (National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Japan)
  • David HODGINS (University of Calgary, Canada)
  • Eric HOLLANDER (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA)
  • Jaeseung JEONG (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea)
  • Yasser KHAZAAL (Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland)
  • Orsolya KIRÁLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Emmanuel KUNTSCHE (La Trobe University, Australia)
  • Hae Kook LEE (The Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea)
  • Michel LEJOXEUX (Paris University, France)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany)
  • Giovanni MARTINOTTI (‘Gabriele d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)
  • Frederick GERARD MOELLER (University of Texas, USA)
  • Daniel Thor OLASON (University of Iceland, Iceland)
  • Nancy PETRY (University of Connecticut, USA)
  • Bettina PIKÓ (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Afarin RAHIMI-MOVAGHAR (Teheran University of Medical Sciences, Iran)
  • József RÁCZ (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
  • Rory C. REID (University of California Los Angeles, USA)
  • Marcantanio M. SPADA (London South Bank University, United Kingdom)
  • Daniel SPRITZER (Study Group on Technological Addictions, Brazil)
  • Dan J. STEIN (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
  • Sherry H. STEWART (Dalhousie University, Canada)
  • Attila SZABÓ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Ferenc TÚRY (Semmelweis University, Hungary)
  • Alfred UHL (Austrian Federal Health Institute, Austria)
  • Johan VANDERLINDEN (University Psychiatric Center K.U.Leuven, Belgium)
  • Alexander E. VOISKOUNSKY (Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Kimberly YOUNG (Center for Internet Addiction, USA)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2022 0 141 72
Jul 2022 0 79 62
Aug 2022 0 108 62
Sep 2022 0 116 81
Oct 2022 0 146 114
Nov 2022 0 153 104
Dec 2022 0 0 0