News

Matúš Adamkovič and Marcel Martončik from the Institute of Social Sciences CSPS SAS are co-authors of a meta-study analysing existing research on digital gaming. Previous studies have suggested that our understanding of “problematic gaming” may be distorted. The reason? Researchers and psychological assessment tools often fail to distinguish between digital gaming and gambling clearly.

Together with researchers from Finland and South Korea, they examined the 500 most-cited studies on problematic gaming that collected data via questionnaires. In this pre-registered study, the team conducted a detailed analysis of all available research materials – administered scales (including instructions), informed consent forms, and documentation submitted to ethics committees – within a subset of articles whose authors agreed to share these materials. They also analysed how the results were reported in the published articles. Their findings provide strong evidence that most published studies unintentionally include gambling-related behaviours under the category of “gaming.” In other words, much of the existing research appears to conflate two distinct activities: playing digital games and gambling.

In a follow-up phase of the study, more than 600 Slovak- and English-speaking participants were asked to what extent they considered various activities (e.g., football, crossword puzzles, poker, mobile games) to constitute gaming or gambling.

The results suggest that a substantial portion of questionnaire-based research on problematic gaming may be affected by systematic bias. This bias arises because digital gaming and gambling are frequently confused in people’s minds when no additional context is provided. To better understand the actual risks associated with digital gaming, it is therefore essential to distinguish more clearly between these two domains.

The complete study was published in Royal Society Open Science and is available HERE.

Prepared by: Patrícia Fogelová, Institute of Social Sciences, CSPS SAS