Online Assessment of Social Cognition in a Population of Gamers and Gamblers: Results of the eSMILE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the eSMILE study was to explore social cognition (SC) in the two behavioural addictions (BAs) included in international classifications: gaming disorder and gambling disorder. In these disorders, cognitive functioning is involved in the development and maintenance of addiction. Nevertheless, SC have received less attention than other cognitive functions. The eSMILE study was conducted online and included 105 participants (gamers and gamblers). This study included: the Penn emotion recognition task, the Condensed and Revised Multifaced Empathy Test, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Chicken Game, social metacognition questions, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. We analysed the relationships among SC measures, addiction levels, and behaviour frequency. For gamers, we showed that the higher their level of addiction was, the lower their self-confidence following the identification of basic emotions, although the more frequently they played, the better their performance on this task. Additionally, we found lower performance on the identification of more complex emotions by gamblers, which seems to be the result of their levels of addiction rather than the frequency of their gambling behaviour. This study contributes to our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying BAs. Additionally, working on SC abilities may be an additional management mode for BAs that could be added to existing treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".