Exploring Differences Among Video Gamers With and Without Depression: Contrasting Emotion Regulation and Mindfulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video games are a leisure activity with mass appeal for individuals of all ages. However, for some individuals, playing video games may become problematic and addictive, resulting in negative consequences affecting their physical, social, and psychological well-being. Internet gaming disorder (IGD) has estimated prevalence rates of around 3 percent and has been strongly associated with several psychopathologies, including depression. Given that emotion regulation (ER) and mindfulness are fluid constructs that can be enhanced, the potential for intervention and prevention is considerable. Thus, this study sought to, as a first step in determining clinical relevance, explore the differences in ER, mindfulness, and impulsivity among emerging adult gamers who met criteria for IGD, depression, or both IGD and depression (Dep + IGD). A sample of 1,536 gamers (45 percent male, M age = 20.45 years old) completed an online survey, including an assessment for IGD, depression, difficulties with ER, impulsivity, and mindfulness. Relative to individuals below IGD and depression cutoffs (control), the clinical groups (IGD, depression, and Dep + IGD) reported greater ER difficulties, higher impulsivity, and lower mindfulness. Finally, relative to the IGD + depression group, the other two clinical groups had fewer difficulties with cognitive impulsivity, whereas the depression group reported more difficulties with strategy use. These results suggest that gamers should be considered a heterogeneous group and that comorbid disorders are important considerations when developing targeted treatments for individuals with IGD.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".