Exploring the pull and push underlying problem video game use: A Self-Determination Theory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has revealed that the push to engage in video games is in part the perception that they satisfy three basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy, relatedness). However, the pull toward a problematic style of video game engagement based on Internet Gaming Disorder symptomatology has been found to be explained in part by the daily frustration of these same needs. Currently, these two areas of gaming research have been conducted within separate studies. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to bridge these two theoretically compatible areas of research in exploring the interaction between gaming need satisfaction and daily need frustration in explaining problem video game use and gaming frequency. An online sample of 922 adults (59.1% males; Mage = 23.53 years; SD = 6.84) were recruited. Results revealed both gaming need satisfaction and daily need frustration positively contributed to gaming frequency and problem video game use accounting for 19.7% and 23.5% of their respective variances. Furthermore, gaming frequency and problem video game use were highest when both gaming need satisfaction and daily need frustration were high. The implications of these results are discussed within the context of current research and strengths-based clinical approaches.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".