MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004972017 · doi:10.1111/bjso.12365

We are all in this together: The role of individuals’ social identities in problematic engagement with video games and the internet

2020· article· en· W3004972017 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni A. Travaglino, Zhuo Li, Xingruo Zhang, Xian Lu, Hoon‐Seok Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Social Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyThe InternetContext (archaeology)Identification (biology)Social psychologySocial engagementInternet usersSocial identity theoryDevelopmental psychologySocial groupWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals’ engagement with video games and the internet features both social and potentially pathological aspects. In this research, we draw on the social identity approach and present a novel framework to understand the linkage between these two aspects. In three samples ( N study1 = 304, N study2 = 160, and N study3 = 782) of young Chinese people from two age groups (approximately 20 and 16 years old), we test the associations between relevant social identities and problematic engagement with video games and the internet. Across studies, we demonstrate that individuals’ identification as ‘gamers’ or ‘frequent internet users’ predicts problematic engagement with video games and the internet through stronger perceived social support from such groups. Moreover, we demonstrate that individuals’ identification as ‘students’ (Studies 2–3) is negatively associated with problematic engagement via social support from other students. Finally, in Study 3, we examine the articulation between social support from these three groups and subjective sense of loneliness. Findings indicate that, whereas perceived support from students is negatively associated with loneliness, the association between perceived support from gamers and internet users and loneliness is weaker and positive. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed. Taken together, the studies highlight the importance of considering the social context of individuals’ problematic engagement with technologies, and the role of different group memberships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Social PsychologySame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207