| Literature DB >> 22073023 |
Geoffrey L Ream1, Luther C Elliott, Eloise Dunlap.
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that playing video games while using or feeling the effects of a substance--referred to herein as "concurrent use"-is related to substance use problems after controlling for substance use frequency, video gaming as an enthusiastic hobby, and demographic factors. Data were drawn from a nationally representative online survey of adult video gamers conducted by Knowledge Networks, valid n = 2,885. Problem video game playing behavior was operationalized using Tejeiro Salguero and Bersabé Morán's 2002 problem video game play (PVP) measure, and measures for substance use problems were taken from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Separate structural equation modeling analyses were conducted for users of caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. In all four models, concurrent use was directly associated with substance use problems, but not with PVP. Video gaming as an enthusiastic hobby was associated with substance use problems via two indirect paths: through PVP for all substances, and through concurrent use for caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol only. Results illustrate the potential for "drug interaction" between self-reinforcing behaviors and addictive substances, with implications for the development of problem use.Entities:
Keywords: addiction; alcohol; caffeine; dependence; marijuana; tobacco; video games
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22073023 PMCID: PMC3210592 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8103979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Structural equations model for effect of concurrent use on PVP and caffeine use problems among caffeine users.
N = 1,961. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.035, Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.893. Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.850. Heavy lines indicate paths testing study hypotheses, light lines indicate control/measurement model paths. Solid lines indicate significant paths, and dashed lines indicate non-significant paths. Coefficients standardized after estimation; † indicates parameter constrained to be 1 for estimation. Model controls for age, educational level, gender, income, employment status, and race. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Structural equations model for effect of concurrent use on PVP and marijuana use problems among marijuana users.
N = 133. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.038, Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.891. Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.857. Heavy lines indicate paths testing study hypotheses, light lines indicate control/measurement model paths. Solid lines indicate significant paths, and dashed lines indicate non-significant paths. Coefficients standardized after estimation; † indicates parameter constrained to be 1 for estimation. Model controls for age, educational level, gender, income, employment status, and race. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Overall means/proportions for game playing and substance use variables, and differences by demographic factors.
| Overall mean | Gender | Race | Working | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | White | Black | Latino | Asian | Native | Other | Yes | No | |||
| Days played average game | 9.8( | 9.5 | 10.2 | 9.9 (ref) | 9.3 | 9.3 | 12.2 | 9.2 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 11.4 | |
| Enjoyment of average game | 5.2( | 5.19 | 5.30 | 5.21 (ref) | 5.44 | 5.24 | 5.14 | 5.30 | 5.12 | 5.22 | 5.26 | |
| Consumer involvement | 2.1( | 2.23 | 2.03 | 2.12 (ref) | 2.38 | 2.02 | 2.18 | 2.44 | 2.20 | 2.10 | 2.20 | |
| Problem video game play | 1.6( | 1.58 | 1.53 | 1.53 (ref) | 1.64 | 1.54 | 1.73 | 1.78 | 1.64 | 1.50 | 1.64 | |
| Any use of caffeine | 64% | 63% | 67% | 70% (ref) | 44% | 51% | 63% | 72% | 66% | 66% | 62% | |
| Days/past 30 used caffeine | 24.4( | 24.4 | 24.4 | 25.6 (ref) | 19.6 | 20.8 | 22.0 | 21.5 | 23.2 | 24.6 | 24.1 | |
| Caffeine use problems | 1.08( | 1.01 | 1.18 | 1.07 (ref) | 1.02 | 1.08 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.01 | 1.06 | 1.12 | |
| Concurrent use with caffeine | 41% | 45% | 35% | 44% (ref) | 34% | 27% | 19% | 35% | 47% | 39% | 43% | |
| Any use of tobacco | 26% | 27% | 25% | 27% (ref) | 26% | 19% | 19% | 44% | 27% | 23% | 30% | |
| Days/past 30 used tobacco | 24.0( | 22.0 | 27.2 | 24.4 (ref) | 24.6 | 22.6 | 26.4 | 19.8 | 19.0 | 22.4 | 25.8 | |
| Tobacco use problems | 2.55( | 2.37 | 2.83 | 2.58 (ref) | 2.51 | 2.32 | 3.19 | 2.44 | 2.08 | 2.36 | 2.76 | |
| Concurrent use with tobacco | 61% | 62% | 59% | 61% (ref) | 66% | 49% | 28% | 76% | 89% | 52% | 70% | |
| Any use of alcohol | 34% | 40% | 25% | 35% (ref) | 33% | 31% | 15% | 38% | 41% | 37% | 29% | |
| Days/past 30 used alcohol | 11.0( | 11.3 | 10.3 | 11.8 (ref) | 9.0 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 12.6 | 10.4 | 12.0 | |
| Alcohol use problems | 1.33( | 1.34 | 1.33 | 1.28 (ref) | 1.44 | 1.50 | 0.74 | 2.86 | 0.97 | 1.21 | 1.55 | |
| Concurrent use with alcohol | 38% | 42% | 28% | 40% (ref) | 42% | 21% | 14% | 46% | 38% | 34% | 44% | |
| Any use of marijuana | 5.6% | 6.4% | 4.7% | 5.7% (ref) | 7.4% | 5.5% | 0% | 3.5% | 7.5% | 5.0% | 6.6% | |
| Days/past 30 used marijuana | 19.1( | 19.7 | 18.1 | 19.1 (ref) | 17.3 | 21.1 | 16.9 | 19.5 | 18.8 | |||
| Marijuana use problems | 2.28( | 2.50 | 1.86 | 2.07 (ref) | 2.80 | 2.91 | 2.34 | 1.98 | 2.60 | |||
| Concurrent use with marijuana | 80% | 84% | 72% | 80% (ref) | 76% | 77% | 100% | 78% | 81% | |||
Only users of the substance in question included in these substance-specific analysis.
Figures based on <5 real cases omitted.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001,
p < 0.0001.
Correlations among game playing, substance use, and continuous demographic variables.
| Days played | Game enjoyment | Consumer involvement | Problem play (PVP) | Caffeine days | Caffeine problems | Tobacco days | Tobacco problems | Alcohol days | Alcohol problems | Marijuana days | Marijuana problems | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.14 | 1 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.08 | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.13 | |
| 0.21 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.57 | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.13 | −0.05 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.19 | |
| 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.57 | 1 | −0.08 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.33 | −0.03 | 0.22 | −0.06 | 0.27 | |
| 0.11 | 0.02 | −0.06 | −0.08 | 1 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.16 | −0.06 | 0.44 | −0.10 | |
| 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.33 | −0.12 | 0.37 | 0.16 | 0.51 | |
| 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 1 | 0.48 | 0.11 | −0.01 | 0.26 | −0.21 | |
| 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.08 | −0.11 | |
| 0.08 | −0.04 | −0.05 | −0.03 | 0.16 | −0.12 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.23 | 0.16 | −0.25 | |
| 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.22 | −0.06 | 0.37 | −0.01 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.31 | |
| 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.07 | −0.06 | 0.44 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.24 | |
| 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.27 | −0.10 | 0.51 | −0.21 | −0.11 | −0.25 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 1 | |
| 0.22 | −0.13 | −0.18 | −0.13 | 0.24 | −0.16 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.29 | −0.20 | 0.11 | −0.14 | |
| −0.13 | −0.05 | −0.07 | −0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.16 | −0.19 | 0.03 | −0.14 | −0.05 | −0.13 | |
| −0.11 | −0.05 | −0.11 | −0.12 | 0.06 | −0.04 | −0.13 | −0.16 | 0.00 | −0.13 | −0.18 | −0.01 | |
Only users of the substance in question included in substance-specific analyses.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001,
p < 0.0001.