Why We Can’t Stop: The Impact of Rewarding Elements in Videogames on Adolescents’ Problematic Gaming Behavior

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of Cohort₁ and Cohort_2.

	Boys		Girls
	M	SD	M	SD	t	95% CI
Cohort 1
Age	14.00	1.21	13.86	1.19	3.22**	[0.05; 0.24]
IGD	2.53	2.78	1.16	2.19	12.14***	[1.14; 1.58]
Gaming frequency	4.66	2.13	2.46	1.90	24.65***	[2.02; 2.37]
Gaming duration	3.64	2.34	2.17	2.11	14.88***	[1.27; 1.66]
Attentional disorder	2.38	.79	2.26	.73	3.92***	[0.05; 0.17]
Impulsivity	2.09	.75	1.84	.68	8.62***	[0.18; 0.29]
Hyperactivity	2.28	.91	2.14	.84	4.09***	[0.07; 0.20]
Low social competence	2.25	.69	2.17	.57	2.96**	[0.02; 0.12]
Cohort 2
Age	14.76	1.31	14.63	1.25	*1.900	[−0.01; 0.24]
IGD	2.72	2.77	1.38	2.42	8.975***	[1.04; 1.62]
Gaming frequency	4.78	2.14	2.50	2.07	19.178***	[2.03; 2.50]
Gaming duration	3.82	2.41	2.41	2.36	10.471***	[1.14; 1.66]
Attentional disorder	2.43	.81	2.36	.73	1.750*	[−0.01; 0.14]
Impulsivity	2.07	.73	1.90	.66	4.715***	[0.09; 0.23]
Hyperactivity	2.28	.89	2.20	.83	1.937*	[−0.01; 0.16]
Low social competence	2.25	.67	2.22	.59	.858	[−0.03; 0.09]

***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Table 2. Correlation between principal variables.

Cohort 1	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. IGD	–
2. Gaming frequency	.466*	–
3. Gaming duration	.562*	.507*	–
4. Random rewards	.308*	.294*	.350*	–
5. Contingencies rewards	.327*	.308*	.281*	.440*	–
6. Social rewards	.281*	.281*	.312*	.527*	.350*	–
7. Meta-achievements	.248*	.234*	.271*	.592*	.328*	.622*	–
Cohort 2
1. IGD	–
2. Gaming frequency	.470*	–
3. Gaming duration	.588*	.507*	–
4. Random rewards	.359*	.391*	.404*	–
5. Contingencies rewards	.372*	.400*	.360*	.594*	–
6. Social rewards	.340*	.377*	.377*	.648*	.556*	–
7. Meta-achievements	.304*	.342*	.318*	.620*	.612*	.627*	–

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3. Frequency of the five most reported games in the last 3 months (in percentages) and their reward types.

Cohort 1	Frequency of most played games (%)	Random rewards presence	Contingencies rewards presence	Social rewards presence	Meta-achievements presence
Most played games
FIFA	2.5	✓	✓	✓	✓
Grand Theft Auto	16.0	✓		✓	✓
Call of Duty	9.6	✓	✓	✓	✓
Overwatch	5.6	✓	✓	✓	✓
H1Z1	4.6	✓	✓	✓	✓
Cohort 2
Most played games
Fortnite	39.7	✓	✓	✓	✓
FIFA	8.4	✓	✓	✓	✓
Grand Theft Auto	5.1	✓		✓	✓
Call of Duty	4.7	✓	✓	✓	✓
Minecraft	4.7	✓		✓	✓

Table 4. Frequency of the rewards type of all the video games (n = 186) reported to be played in the last 3 months (in percentages).

Cohort 1	Frequency of reward in games (%)
Reward types
Random rewards	71.4
Contingencies rewards	40.5
Social rewards	75.1
Meta-achievements	64.9
Cohort 2
Reward types
Random rewards	74.4
Contingencies rewards	54.4
Social rewards	75.3
Meta-achievements	67.4

Table 5. Summary of regression analysis of video reward types and individual vulnerabilities on problematic gaming behavior.

	Cohort 1 (N = 2041)			Cohort 2 (N = 1256)
Control Variables	b	SE	p	b	SE	p
Gender	− 0.217	0.028	.000	− 0.230	0.039	.000
Age	− 0.124	0.020	.000	− 0.205	0.027	.000
Educational level	− 0.178	0.020	.000	− 0.031	0.029	.000
Independent Variables
Reward types
Random rewards	0.158	0.026	.000	0.221	0.033	.000
Contingencies rewards	0.219	0.023	.000	0.206	0.034	.000
Social rewards	0.107	0.026	.000	0.169	0.034	.000
Meta-achievements	− 0.023	0.029	.421	− 0.049	0.038	.193
Individual vulnerabilities
Attentional disorder	0.145	0.029	.000	0.130	0.038	.000
Impulsivity	0.186	0.032	.000	0.142	0.038	.000
Hyperactivity	0.062	0.029	.036	0.068	0.036	.058
Low social competence	0.058	0.022	.008	0.049	0.027	.066

Cohort1 R2 = 0.514 (p < .001); Cohort2 R2 = 0.535 (p < .001).

Table 6. Test of individual vulnerabilities as moderators between reward types and problematic gaming behavior.

	Cohort 1 (N = 2697)			Cohort 2 (N = 1608)
Attentional Disorder	b	SE	p	b	SE	p
RRew × Att	0.059	0.095	.536	− 0.149	0.132	.257
CRew × Att	0.558	0.085	.000	0.205	0.111	.000
SRew × Att	− 0.026	0.095	.786	− 0.128	0.146	.382
MRew × Att	0.224	0.102	.028	0.148	0.135	.275
Hyperactivity	Cohort 1 (N = 2689)			Cohort 2 (N = 1605)
RRew × Hyp	0.040	0.092	.661	− 0.101	0.129	.435
CRew × Hyp	0.391	0.077	.000	0.250	0.111	.000
SRew × Hyp	0.190	0.099	.055	0.067	0.139	.629
MRew × Hyp	0.066	0.100	.509	− 0.047	0.123	.702
Impulsivity	Cohort 1 (N = 2695)			Cohort 2 (N = 1606)
RRew × Imp	− 0.156	0.101	.121	− 0.141	0.145	.333
CRew × Imp	0.615	0.077	.000	0.396	0.111	.000
SRew × Imp	0.150	0.108	.162	0.085	0.161	.598
MRew × Imp	0.236	0.102	.021	− 0.024	0.141	.867
Low social competence	Cohort 1 (N = 2655)			Cohort 2 (N = 1597)
RRew × Soc	0.019	0.115	.867	− 0.147	0.149	.327
CRew × Soc	0.121	0.098	.217	0.159	0.132	.227
SRew × Soc	0.325	0.111	.003	0.118	0.157	.001
MRew × Soc	− 0.093	0.123	.448	0.007	0.159	.963

Cohort₁ R² = 0.471 (p < .001); Cohort₂ R² = 0.477 (p < .001).

Cohort₁ R² = 0.426 (p < .001); Cohort₂ R² = 0.453 (p < .001).

Cohort₁ R² = 0.475 (p < .001); Cohort₂ R² = 0.475 (p < .001).

Cohort₁ R² = 0.357 (p < .001); Cohort₂ R² = 0.405 (p < .001).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.