Gaming Disorder, Revisited

Source: Oleg Krugliak/Shutterstock

Last week, on May 25, the World Health Organisation announced that "Gaming Disorder" (GD) had been officially included in the latest (eleventh) revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Gaming Disorder's inclusion in the beta draft of the ICD-11 received worldwide media coverage alongside many debates as to whether its inclusion was justified based on the scientific evidence. The extensive media coverage raised many questions—but also appeared to give rise to a number of myths. In this article, I address these myths about gaming disorder (in the British context, though some of these myths also have resonance outside the UK).

Myth 1: Gaming Disorder equates to gaming addiction.

Almost all of the worldwide press coverage for gaming disorder (GD) was equated with gaming addiction. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for GD do not include criteria that I believe are core to being genuine addictions (such as tolerance and withdrawal symptoms). Confusingly, the criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in the latest (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) does include all my core criteria of addiction. However, to be diagnosed with IGD, an individual does not necessarily have to endorse all the core addiction criteria. In short, all genuine gaming addicts are likely to be diagnosed as having GD and/or IGD but not all those with GD and/or IGD are necessarily gaming addicts.

Myth 2: Gaming has many benefits so should not be classed as a disorder as it will create a "moral panic."

Predictably, the video game industry has not welcomed the WHO’s decision to include GD in the ICD-11 and issued a statement to say gaming has many personal benefits and that GD will create moral panic and "abuse of diagnosis." None of us in the field dispute the fact that gaming has many benefits, but many other activities (such as work, sex, and exercise) can be disordered and "addictive" for a small minority, and so this is not a good basis for denying the existence of GD. The video game industry also claims the empirical basis for GD is highly contested, but then ironically uses non-empirical claims (i.e., that the introduction of GD will cause a "moral panic" and lead to diagnostic abuse by practitioners) as a core argument for why GD should not exist.

Myth 3: Gaming Disorder is associated with other comorbidities, so is not a separate disorder.

In coverage concerning GD, those arguing against the existence of GD sometimes resort to the argument that problematic gaming is typically comorbid with other mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety disorders, etc.) and therefore should not be classed as a separate disorder. However, such an argument is not applied (for instance) to those with alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, which are known to be associated with other comorbidities. In fact, we recently published some case studies in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction highlighting that those attending treatment for GD included individuals both with and without underlying comorbidities. Consequently, diagnosis of disorders should be based on the external symptomatic behavior and consequences, not on the underlying causes and etiology.

Myth 4: Gaming Disorder can now be treated for free by the British National Health Service.

Unlike many other countries, the UK has a National Health Service (NHS) whose treatment services can be accessed free of charge. A number of British newspapers reported that inclusion of GD in the ICD-11 meant that those with GD can now get free treatment. However, this claim is untenable and is unlikely to happen. All health trusts in the UK have a finite budget and allocate resources to those conditions considered a priority. Treating individuals with GD will rarely (if ever) be given priority over treatment for cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, depression, etc. In countries where private health insurance is the norm, GD is likely to be a condition excluded for treatment on such policies even though it is now in the ICD-11.

Myth 5: The inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a mental disorder will lead to "millions’" of children being stigmatized for their video game playing.

This myth has been propagated by a group of scholars (mainly researchers working in the media studies field) but is completely unsubstantiated. The number of children who would ever be officially be diagnosed as having GD is extremely low and—as noted above—millions of children play video games for enjoyment without any problems or stigma.

(Please note: This article is based on an editorial that I first published at the end of 2018: Griffiths, M.D. (2018). Five myths about gaming disorder. Social Health and Behavior Journal, 1, 2-3)