On The Costs and Benefits of Gaming: The Role of Passion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dualistic model of passion defines passion as a strong inclination toward a self-defining activity that a person likes and values and in which he or she invests time and energy. The model proposes two distinct types of passion: harmonious and obsessive passion that predict adaptive and less adaptive outcomes respectively. In the present research, we were interested in assessing both the negative and positive consequences that can result from gaming. Participants (n = 222) were all players involved in massively multiplayer online games. They completed an online survey. Results from a canonical correlation revealed that both harmonious and obsessive passion were positively associated with the experience of positive affect while playing. However, only obsessive passion was also positively related to the experience of negative affect while playing. In addition, only obsessive passion was positively related to problematic behaviors generally associated with excessive gaming, the amount of time spent playing, and negative physical symptoms. Moreover, obsessive passion was negatively related to self-realization and unrelated to life satisfaction. Conversely, harmonious passion was positively associated with both types of psychological well-being. This general pattern of results suggests that obsessive passion for gaming is an important predictor of the negative outcomes of gaming, while harmonious passion seems to account for positive consequences. Future research directions are discussed in light of the dualistic model of passion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it