2013
Addiction Research and Theory, October 2013; 21(5): 365–375
Copyright 2013 Informa UK Ltd.
ISSN: 1606-6359 print/1476-7392 online
DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2012.733466
A young people’s perspective on computer game addiction
Anne Brus
Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, 30 C.1-02, 4000
Roskilde, Denmark
(Received 26 June 2012; revised 19 September 2012; accepted 20 September 2012)
In this article, I examine computer game addiction
as a social phenomenon, analyzing the consequences
of using the term in order to express a concern about
high frequency consumption or even a problematic
usage of computer games. I argue that while it is
obviously very important to take seriously these
concerns about young people ‘‘at risk,’’ there is a
gap between the phenomenon as a suggested psychiatric
diagnosis and young people’s reflections on
the matter. Following the work of Goffman and
Becker, computer game addiction is not necessarily
something negative in the eyes of the player and
other young people. It is shown that the classification
can be a positive element in young people’s
identity work. On the other hand, a high consumption
of computer games is also considered as
‘‘culturally unacceptable.’’ From this perspective,
computer game addiction becomes a question of how
to construct the boundaries between normality and
deviance and how prejudices are governing and
controlling young people’s lives. All this suggests
more caution in classifying frequent and problematic
computer game play as a disorder in itself. We need
a more complex understanding of computer game
addiction than research so far has offered us.
Keywords: Computer game addiction, label, stigma, normality,
deviancy
INTRODUCTION
Recently, a number of Danish social organizations
have set warning bells ringing because they are
receiving an increasing number of calls from young
people, parents and other relatives who are deeply
worried about young people’s use of computer games.
In this article, I argue that while it is obviously very
important to take seriously these concerns about young
people ‘‘at risk,’’ there is a gap between the phenomenon
as a suggested psychiatric diagnosis and young
people’s reflections on the matter. In this article, I wish
to show that young people who are classified as
computer game addicts are more than ‘‘introvert,
neurotic and impulsive,’’ ‘‘a result of problematic
behavior’’ or ‘‘a biochemical aberration’’ (Kuss &
Griffiths, 2012). Computer game addicts are also a
result of ‘‘how we make up people’’ (Hacking, 2006).
This article is based on qualitative interviews with
three 14–15-year-old boys who would normally be
described as computer game addicts. The study does not
attempt to discuss whether or not computer game
addiction is a new disorder, neither do I take a stance
as to whether the informants can be diagnosed as
computer game addicts. I am using the classification as a
stepping stone to indicate the consequences of using
computer game addiction as a commonsense word,
analyzing how young people construct the meaning of
computer game addiction in relation to others.
I have found that young people have different kinds
of experiences with the classification ‘‘computer game
addiction,’’ and that it influences their everyday lives
in a variety of ways. As the Canadian philosopher Ian
Hacking (Hacking, 1995, 2004, 2006) has pointed out,
there is a ‘‘looping effect’’ in the social processes of
classifying people. When we put people into a classification
such as computer game addiction, they begin
to interact with the classification and the classification
interacts with people. With this perspective in mind I
would argue that the way we choose to classify the
phenomenon is essential, because of the significance
this entails for the way we treat the people classified as
computer game addicts. The important questions here
are how we prevent young people from becoming
stigmatized because of their computer gaming and how
Correspondence: Anne Brus, Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, 30 C.1-02,
4000 Roskilde, Denmark. Tel: +45 4674 3329. E-mail: abrus@ruc.dk
365
we organize health promotion relevant to those who are
suffering and having everyday problems, which in rare
cases leads to an excessive gaming usage.
This article is organized as follows. I begin with a
brief and critical introduction to the research on
computer game addiction so far. I move on to the
argument of the necessity of a young people’s
perspective on computer game addiction. Next, the
theoretical perspectives are presented, specifically
Goffman’s concepts of stigma, impression management
and self-presentation, as well as Becker’s concept
of deviance, highlighting the relevance of all these
concepts for this study. After this, I describe the
methodological design of my study. I then explain the
difference between the Danish word ‘‘afhængighed’’
and the English words ‘‘dependence’’ and ‘‘addiction.’’
Building on this, the following four sections
present the key findings, as these have been constructed
through the lens of the theoretical concepts.
A concluding section summarizes the findings of the
study and puts them into perspective.
COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION
With regard to the term computer game addiction, there
is a variety of different expressions to conceptualize the
classification such as ‘‘Internet gaming addiction,’’
‘‘video game addiction,’’ ‘‘online gaming addiction,’’
‘‘cyber game addiction,’’ ‘‘excessive computer game
play,’’ ‘‘problematic usage of computer games,’’
‘‘problematic internet use,’’ and ‘‘compulsive
Internet use’’ – just to mention a few. Computer
game addicts are the kinds of people that are a
‘‘moving target’’ (Hacking, 2006). In connection with
the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders V (DSM V), the American
Psychiatric Association (APA) has discussed whether
or not computer game addiction – as a variant of
‘‘internet use disorder’’ – is a potential addition to the
new DSM V category ‘‘addiction and related disorders.’’
The work group involved has not yet come to a
decision on the matter. Until the research has accumulated
enough data, I therefore find the addiction
concept most useful. It is used by ordinary people
when they talk about the phenomenon in their daily
lives and the concept also expresses the interaction
processes described by my informants.
According to Hacking (2006) knowledge about
computer game addiction plays an important role in
how the classification affects young people classified
as computer game addicts. With regard to scientific
knowledge, Kuss and Griffiths (2012) identify three
main categories of studies: The first category concerns
etiology/risk factors such as personality traits, motivations
for playing, structural characteristics of the game,
pathophysiology, and comorbidity. The second category
connects the phenomenon to the classification and
assessment of pathology and addiction or discusses the
classification from an epidemiological or a
phenomenological point of view. The third category
addresses the issue in terms of the ramifications of
computer game addiction such as negative consequences
and treatment.
However, some have criticized the findings of
researchers about computer game addiction (Kuss &
Griffiths, 2012). For example many researchers construct
their own measuring instruments instead of using
the official conceptualization from APA – ‘‘substance
dependence.’’ In this context I would argue that it is not
necessarily a problem to construct new instruments for
an investigation. It becomes problematic if the
researcher does not test the new instruments for validity
or reliability and for that reason fails to adequately
define the concept being tested. For instance, Gentile
et al. (2011) use an adult survey for gambling addiction
to produce results for child and adolescent game players
without assessing the survey’s validity for that age group
and purpose. As a consequence, the results pull in
opposite directions and challenge the validity and
reliability of the research on computer game addiction
itself (Kuss & Griffiths, 2012). According to Hussain,
Griffiths, and Baguley (2012) there are other limitations
such as focus on one type of MMORPG, the use of
gamers from only one country and overestimations of
addiction. For example, Griffiths and Hunt (1998) and
Charlton and Danforth (2007), respectively, classified
16% and 38% as addicted to computer games.
According to Hussain et al. (2012), the different criteria
for estimating the findings appear to lead to overestimations.
In their systematic review, Karlsen, Møller,
and Børsum (2010) compare the research from Western
and non-Western countries and raise another important
issue, namely that the South East Asian countries seem
to consider computer game addiction to be a greater
problem than the Western European countries. This
Norwegian research review thus indicates cultural and
social factors as a point of departure to understand the
phenomenon.
In an overall sense, we may detect some contradictory
constructions of the classification ‘‘computer
game addiction.’’ Our scientific classification systems
change over time, not only because of our improvements
in classifying people as computer game addicts,
but also because the effects on the people in turn
change the classification (Hacking, 2006).
On one level, it is tempting to conclude that the
pathological and behavioral view of young people’s
high consumption of computer games may serve other
interests. As Hacking (2006, p. 305) points out, the
scientific processes are ‘‘engines of discovery’’:
‘‘These [the scientific processes] are thought of as
finding out the facts, but are also engines of making up
people.’’ In order to make up computer game addicts
the engines of discovery have been counting, quantifying,
providing norms, correlating, suggesting medical
or therapeutic treatment and regarding the classification
as having a neurobiological basis. In that perspective,
it could be argued that scientists and professionals
366 A. BRUS
are trying to legitimate various forms of social,
educational or clinical interventions (Buckingham,
2008). But on another level, we cannot deny that
computer game addiction as a phenomenon exists in
people’s minds. Some young people state that their
gaming is escalating to a point where they find it hard
to control it. Several surveys have shown the existence
of a small subgroup of computer game addicts
(Frøyland, Hansen, Sletten, Torgensen, & von Soest,
2010; see also Hussain et al., 2012; Lemmens,
Valkenburg, & Peter, 2011; van Rooij, 2011; Yee,
2006). But, the findings differ and raise more questions
than answers. As such, computer game addiction is a
‘‘loaded’’ term (Johnson, 2009).
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE
With all the above factors in mind, I would argue that it
is necessary to adopt a young people’s perspective
towards computer game addiction. We need their voice
to understand what the classification means to them in
relation to others. By asking young people themselves
we may learn more about their actions and experiences
with regard to computer games, gaming and the
addiction term. Their point of view matters and may
contribute to an identification of what is going on
around the computer game addiction ‘‘diagnosis.’’ My
key concern is with the implications of how the
classification influences young people’s everyday
lives, their social relationships and use of computer
games.
A young people’s perspective indicates that I regard
my informants as social actors in a particular context,
competent, and able to interpret their own lives. Young
people are ‘‘beings’’ more than ‘‘becomings’’
(Buckingham, 2008). Perhaps most importantly,
giving young people a voice in the discussion of
computer game addiction enables us to address the
phenomenon with a broader discussion about modern
society and the growth of diagnoses.
The next section looks more specifically at the work
of Goffman and Becker, introducing some of their key
concepts and relating them to the phenomenon of
computer game addiction.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: GOFFMAN
AND BECKER
By using a Goffman (1990a) approach, I recognize
computer game addiction as closely connected to social
interaction through ‘‘face-work,’’ and to the many
ways in which people seek to create and maintain
themselves in response to others during ‘‘impression
management.’’ Goffman’s central thoughts contribute
to a sociological understanding of everyday life, and
thus to computer game behavior as an aspect of this.
Using the theatre as a metaphor, Goffman provided
an account of social life, pointing out how people as
actors plan and perform their acting in front of an
audience, and how these performances result in cooperation
between the participants involved, negotiating
and maintaining the social interaction order. The
identity work is a ‘‘game’’ of how to represent oneself
in order to acquire a positive identity in the eyes of
others and, maybe more importantly, in one’s own
eyes. Considering the social interaction order as the
outcome of the actor, the audience and society,
Goffman stressed that social interaction is a matter of
‘‘routines and rituals’’ (Goffman, 1990a). Adapted to
the issue of computer game addiction, the drama and
the game of everyday life also involve an analysis of
accepted scripts and rules with parents, siblings,
friends, teachers, etc., realized in practice through
negotiations, transactions and improvisations. The
‘‘social order’’ between people is thus in no way a
chance phenomenon.
Central to an understanding of the social interaction
of young people among themselves and in relation to
others is also how stigmatized persons manage and
control discrediting information about themselves in
social situations. Goffman distinguishes between three
types of stigma: The abominations of the body, the
blemishes of individual character and the tribal stigma
(Goffman, 1990b, p. 14) and defines stigma as ‘‘. . . a
special kind of relationship between attribute and
stereotype.’’ The concept of stigma also describes the
discrediting discrepancy between what Goffman calls
the ‘‘virtual social identity’’ and the ‘‘actual social
identity.’’ The virtual social identity is connected to the
impression and the normative expectations involved in
the first encounter – about how people ought to be. The
actual identity is attached to the characters and
attributes that people actually possess. In other words,
anyone is at risk of being stigmatized, for example as a
computer game addict. The point I wish to make is that
there may be a connection between young people’s
high consumption of computer games and the reactions
from their immediate environments. Through the
interaction processes, the culturally unacceptable
behavior of playing too many computer games puts
young people at risk of producing reactions from others
in the form of rejection and lack of recognition; they
may then become bearers of the stigma of being a
computer game addict. This perspective indicates that
the specific stigma has to be conceptualized at the
societal level. Computer game addiction is generated in
social situations but is also a societal reaction to
something considered as abnormal. Different types of
stigma are connected to a historical and cultural
variable and to all kinds of culturally unacceptable
norms (Williams, 2000).
Goffman’s insights on stigma lead us to consider
another important concept: Becker’s concept of deviance,
which is drawn from his labelling theory.
According to Becker (1991) deviance is created by
society and is a consequence of social interaction
processes, which produce rules and apply them to
particular people, labelling them as outsiders. For that
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION 367
reason, ‘‘deviance is not a quality of the act the person
commits, but rather . . . a consequence of the responses
of others to a person’s act . . . ’’ (Becker, 1991, p. 9).
Becker considers this rule breaking process to be the
first crucial step towards a deviant identity. Another
key issue in Becker’s labeling theory is the differentiation
between four different types of deviant behavior:
falsely accused, conforming, pure deviant and
secret deviant. It is possible to be a rule breaker without
being accused of doing something wrong. The person
can also end up in the ‘‘falsely accused’’ (Becker,
1991, p. 20) situation. The falsely accused situation
describes how the falsely accused actor is perceived as
a deviant, seen by others as having committed an
improper action although in fact this is not true. By
dividing deviance into four different types of deviant
behavior, Becker underlines the important point that
deviance is also connected to collective interactions. If
members of a group agree upon a rule about what is an
improper action, it is possible to maintain the rule by
means of sanctions. The four types of deviance suggest
that deviant behavior is connected to all kinds of
complicated social interactions, depending not only on
the rule breaker, his actions and attributes but more
importantly on the reactions of others, including how
the others control the deviant act.
Building on Becker’s insights, computer game
addiction is not simply about how an individual
manages his or her deviance, but also about how the
immediate environment reacts to this individual,
including the power of others to define the situations
in which the individual is engaged. Bearing in mind
these considerations, computer game addiction can be
viewed as a social norm that is created and maintained
through social interactions in people’s everyday lives.
To put these perspectives into a specific context, the
next section provides an insight into my qualitative
research.
METHODOLOGY
The main basis for this article is qualitative findings
collected during my two-year study (2009–2011) of
‘‘young people’s perspectives on computer game
addiction in an everyday life perspective.’’ The two
year study involved different kinds of research practices,
primarily qualitative interviews with nine teenage
boys. Five of the boys characterized themselves as
computer game addicts, while four were categorized as
addicted to games by their parents or teacher. My study
also involved a half year ethnographically inspired
fieldwork period in a youth centre focusing on young
people’s gaming. I also carried out a collection of pilot
data1 focusing on computer game habits and problematic
computer game habits.2 In considering computer
game addiction as a social construction, I found
reasons to examine more deeply how three young
computer game addicts interpret and unfold their
understandings of gaming and computer game addiction
in relation to their everyday lives.
The interviews were conducted during autumn and
winter 2010/2011. I made contact with the boys
through their parents and each boy was interviewed
three times in his home.3 The three boys – John (aged
14), Peter (14) and Simon (15) – live in or near the
Danish capital Copenhagen. They play different kinds
of online games. When they play they use the computer
for other purposes such as Facebook and Skype, where
they communicate with their real life friends and online
friends; however, gaming is their all-important
spare time interest. The boys are all ethnic Danes,
come from middleclass homes and are doing well in
school. The boys’ parents are worried about their sons’
gaming and take responsibility for counteracting their
sons’ high consumption of computer games in different
ways. They make rules to limit consumption; they
contact professionals, experts and different kinds of
institutions, search for information on the Internet and
participate in public debates. All parents have given
permission for the interviews. For ethical reasons and
to inspire confidence, I chose not to interview the
parents (Kampmann, 2003). The three interviews used
different methodological strategies:
The first interview was semi-structured (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2009). This kind of interview provides
knowledge about my informants’ lived experiences as
computer game addicts in preparation for an interpretation
of the meanings of an outlined phenomenon
(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). I followed an interview
guide in raising questions about the boys’ gaming,
family lives, friends, school and addiction.
The second partly unstructured interview (Gubrium
& Holstein, 2001) was conducted while the boys were
playing computer games. As Goffman has stated, the
presentation of the self is a performance which also
involves body language and ‘‘physical interactions’’
(Jenkins, 2010). By interviewing the boys while they
were playing, I gained knowledge of their expertise,
their online identities and how they used impression
management during their gaming. Some clear differences
emerged, e.g. John made great use of webcam,
whereas Simon never used it.
I then used photo elicitation interviews to evoke a
different kind of information than that produced by the
two other interviews. The photographs represent the
person embodied in framing and connect the person to
society (Becker, 2007; Harper, 2002; Prosser, 1998).
This approach also enables my informants to set
another agenda than mine. I was interested in their
reflections on computer game addiction and in them as
computer game addicts. Because I let the boys take
photos of important issues in their everyday lives, they
could document several levels of their social lives that I
was not able to acknowledge within the other interviews
(Harper, 2002). For example, Peter showed a
variety of interests apart from computer games, such as
his cats, his bass guitar, fast cars and pop-guns.
368 A. BRUS
Both the second and third interviews started with a
brief follow-up about the boys’ gaming and addiction.
As a whole, the interview strategy was chosen in
order to increase validity and to test my findings with
different perspectives and was also utilized to
strengthen the young people’s perspective on computer
game addiction, their everyday lives and gaming.
Before I move on to my research findings, the term
computer game addiction requires a commonsense
explanation.
ADDICTION, DEPENDENCY, AND
AFHÆNGIGHED
In Danish, it should be noted that there is only one term
(‘‘afhængighed’’) which can be used to describe a
relation of ‘‘dependency’’ such as can be said to exist
between the individual and the computer. The Danish
Dictionary4 distinguishes between two different meanings
of the word. One defines the word as ‘‘having a
strong need for or not being able to do without
something or someone,’’5 e.g. being dependent on
one’s family. In continuation of this, the dictionary
states that the needing may also mean ‘‘being physically
habituated to an addictive drug to the point where
you get withdrawal symptoms if you do not get the
drug.’’6
Unlike Danish, the English language differentiates
between ‘‘dependence’’ and ‘‘addiction.’’ According
to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary7 (COED),
dependence is the state of being dependent and
addiction is the condition of being addicted. In the
Collins Cobuild Dictionary of the English Language8
the concepts are clarified in this way: ‘‘Dependence is
a constant and regular need that someone has for
something in order to be able to survive or operate
properly.’’ By contrast, ‘‘addiction is the condition of
taking harmful drugs and being unable to stop taking
them or an addiction to something is a very strong
desire or need for it.’’ Significantly, both dependence
and addiction operate with a ‘‘need’’ term.
Both the Danish ‘‘afhængighed’’ and the English
‘‘addiction’’ are often associated with something one is
physically dependent on, such as drugs or alcohol.
However, the most striking difference between the two
languages is that ‘‘addiction’’ is almost always used in
this ‘‘stronger’’ sense, whereas ‘‘afhængighed’’ may
also be used in a ‘‘milder’’ sense of being dependent on
e.g. other people, which may not have negative
connotations (a baby is dependent on its mother).
Since the Danish term is broader, it enables my
informants to provide a more nuanced expression of
computer game ‘‘addiction,’’ but it may on the other
hand sometimes be misunderstood or misused.
Everyone may have some kind of ‘‘afhængighed’’ to
something. By contrast, the English term ‘‘computer
game addiction,’’ forms associations to the physical
dependence on the consumption of drugs.
GIVING WORDS TO THE PHENOMENON
As already stated, my informants shared an addiction to
computer games, giving words to the phenomenon by
themselves, just as it was articulated by their parents or
teachers. Let us take a look at how they actually
describe the situation:
John: ‘‘Well, that’s how I am, addicted. I can’t do without
gaming . . . When I’m in school, the only thing that matters is
to get it over with [the school]. I’ve been thinking about
taking my laptop with me, but on the other hand, it’s only in
the breaks it’s possible for me to play. And if I want to play, I
can go to the library. Actually, at the library I play with my
friends, Facebook games and things like that.’’
Simon: ‘‘I don’t think I’m addicted, but I have been addicted.
I kept thinking about computer games, night and day. For
instance when I was watching TV or washing the dishes; all
the time wanting to get back to the game, bored by everything
else.’’
Peter: ‘‘Playing computer games was a way of escaping from
reality. So yes, I was addicted because gaming was more than
just a habit, you couldn’t get unhooked from the game and
you couldn’t stop thinking about the game. In a way, it’s okay
to call it addiction. Because playing too much computer
games is as bad as drugs and alcohol. You can’t get through
your everyday life, dealing with other people; you’re playing
even more to try to forget your problems.’’
All in all, the boys associate computer gaming with
something they can’t live without, with something they
think about a great deal, with a need and a strong desire
to play, even comparing the phenomenon with drug
addiction. They also talk about how to manage being in
school, wanting to play but not being able to do so.
My informants are thus describing the phenomenon as
something situated in the individual.
From my perspective, the interesting point is not to
understand computer game addiction as rooted in an
individual subject. My informants confirm the suggestion
of the American Psychologist Nick Yee that
players use computer games as a form of escapism
(Yee, 2006, 2007). They also consider their gaming as
a behavioral and non-chemical condition (Griffiths &
Davies, 2005) and that a loss of control over gaming
leads to significant harm (van Rooij, 2011). But
computer game addiction also depends on cultural
conditions and the context in which we are situated.
For instance, it has been argued that the programmatic
system puts social pressure on the players. The players
must be present in the online community and be
responsible for the social challenges the game brings
into play (Taylor, 2006). It is also necessary to
understand computer game addiction as a process of
different patterns of practice (Johnson, 2009). Another
important issue to consider is the time factor. But the
time factor is not necessary problematic; this will
depend on the person’s life stage, whether the gaming
takes place in the person’s free time or otherwise,
whether its timing interferes with family life or other
social activities (Thorhauge & Brus, 2011). In addition,
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION 369
a great challenge is how to manage one’s everyday life
(Linderoth & Bennerstedt, 2007).
The next three sections introduce my interview
research findings which focus on John, Simon and
Peter, and their reflections on computer game addiction,
examining young people’s lives as a consequence
of the impression management of interactions between
an individual and others.
JOHN – THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A
POSITIVE IDENTITY
John is 14 years old. He has grown up as an only child.
His parents are divorced. John started to play computer
games when he was six years old. John’s favorite
games are First Person Shooter Games such as Counter
Strike, Call of Duty and Far Cry. For the last four
years, his favorite game has been Counter Strike.
According to John himself, he is a dedicated gamer
who spends almost all his spare time playing games.
John estimates his consumption at six to seven hours
per day, even more at weekends. ‘‘Computer games
ARE my everyday life. It is school, home, the computer,
sleeping.’’ John has friends in school but he does not
see them after school hours. He uses YouTube to
improve his gaming, where he observes how his
favorite gamers play.
In the interviews John proudly presents himself as
addicted to computer games: ‘‘Yes I am addicted
[answering the question without hesitating at all].
Well, it’s not because . . . of course I’m able to manage
without a computer for a week or so. But it depends on
having other nice things to do, then. But no, I don’t like
the feeling of missing my computer, so . . .’’ And also
recognizing his high frequency consumption of computer
gaming as something very important to him, as
something he cannot live without: ‘‘It’s the game,
playing matches [Counter Strike] and it’s just the
computer. It’s just crying out to me. I think it’s so much
fun [Sounding pleased].’’
John also describes his relationship with his parents.
He feels he can predict and have confidence in their
behavior, e.g. that they will not go to extremes in trying
to control his consumption of computer games. But he
also tells me about his mother’s constraints, putting his
gaming into a timetable. He comments: ‘‘I can’t abide
them’’ but without being asked he goes on to tell
me ‘‘ . . . but I’m doing my homework, as I’m supposed
to do.’’
John understands computer game addiction as
something positive. Apart from taking classes in the
local fitness centre three times a week (which according
to him is something his mother is forcing him to
do), he spends his entire spare time playing computer
games. John also plays with some other boys in a team,
every night at eight. He has the necessary equipment
for playing the games: a special mouse, a gigantic
mouse pad, a 23-inch screen and a keyboard designed
especially for games. His idol is a German Counter
Strike player called ‘‘Fatal 1 Ty’’:
The first time he [Fatal 1 Ty] played Counter Strike he got the
idea that Counter Strike was the game he would dedicate his
life to. And now, he’s actually earning a lot of money by
playing the game, and he’s the most famous player ever. And
it’s just like that, thinking about being like him . . . loving your
work, and sitting all day long having fun while the money is
rolling into your account. This is it. It’s a big
dream . . . Actually, I have found out some of his tricks, what
he’s doing, and why he’s doing it.
With reference to Goffman, the interpretation shows
how the term computer game addiction is being used
by John as a way of articulating the impression of
himself to others. Although his self-image is being
disturbed by his classmates making fun of him – calling
him a freak – and his parents’ attempts at controlling
his gaming, he has accepted their ways of looking at
him. Playing computer games is overall the most
important part of his identity. He does not like going to
school: ‘‘I just want to get it over and done with.’’ And
it has nothing to do with his teachers: ‘‘They are
okay.’’ According to him, he is doing all right in
school, although he does recognize some problems in
learning. Through impression management, he is
controlling his relationships with his parents, his
friends at school and his teachers. John wants them
to get the impression that he is a computer game nerd.
He uses the term computer game addiction in a positive
way. Apparently, everybody has accepted the way in
which he tries to affect others, wanting them to treat
him as a ‘‘computer game addict.’’ This can be seen in
his parents giving up control of his computer game use,
and in his classmates’ acceptance of his friendship as
something defined by his gaming or limited to the time
he is in school.
We see here how it is possible to use computer
addiction as a positive term, even when it expresses a
very high usage of computer games. In the next section
the analysis draws on Becker’s labeling theory and
Goffman’s impression management and stigma terms
in order to interpret the relations between a potential
outsider and his parents. From a methodological point
of view the interviews with Simon could be used as an
example of how social identity is being negotiated, not
only as a statement in the investigation but also during
the interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). The analysis
of the interviews also reveals computer gaming as
an example of a rule breaking activity.
SIMON – THE RISK OF PRODUCING
NORMATIVE STEREOTYPES
Like John, Simon is 14. Simon’s situation is as follows.
His parents have just been divorced. He has an older
sister. She still lives at home but most nights she sleeps
in her boyfriend’s flat. Simon, his sister and mother
have moved to the country together with their mother’s
370 A. BRUS
new female partner, about seven kilometers from his
school. Before the divorce Simon’s gaming was an
accepted part of Simon’s spare time. He played a lot
and without any interference from his parents. After the
divorce the situation has changed. According to Simon
he used to play three to four hours a day when he was
addicted to the games. After his mother and stepmother’s
rule setting he is allowed to play two hours a
day. However, gaming is still an important part of his
life and he considers his time in front of the screen as
his ‘‘refuge.’’ Simon started to play games in early
childhood and mentions Role Playing Games as well as
First Person Shooter Games as his favorites, e.g. Call of
Duty, Black Ops and League of Legends. He loves to
go to school and does well. Many of his online friends
are his friends in real life as well, for example
classmates and other friends from school.
In the first interview, when I ask Simon about
computer game addiction, he tells me that he has been
addicted but is not any more. He explains the process
from being addicted to not being addicted in this way:
‘‘Because of the rule [playing only two hours a day],
forcing me to do something else. Realizing that it is
greater doing other things . . . And opening my eyes that
computer games are not the greatest thing in the
world.’’ Simon states that it was his stepmother who
made him realize that his high consumption of
computer games was an addiction. She had been
worried about Simon’s frequent playing of computer
games, and had searched on the Internet for articles
about computer game addiction. According to Simon
the articles were about computer games and their
harmful effects on people. After reading the articles the
stepmother contacted the Danish Centre for Ludomania
(DCL) for help. The DCL advised the parents to draw
up a time schedule to control his gaming. This
sequence of events confirms that we can interpret
computer game addiction as a consequence of people’s
interactions. As the conversation continues Simon
clarifies this point of view as follows:
Interviewer: It’s not because they [his parents and stepmother]
told you?
Simon: ‘‘No, that’s just the way it is.’’
Interviewer: But did you actually consider your gaming as a
problem?
Simon: ‘‘Yes, because now I’ve been told, I understand it’s a
problem.’’
Interviewer: So you were addicted to computer games
without knowing you had a problem?
Simon: ‘‘Yes, I didn’t know it was an addiction. As far as that
goes, I thought addiction had something to do with drugs or
alcohol.’’
In the next interview I ask Simon to tell me why his
stepmother contacted the DCL and Simon answers: ‘‘I
don’t know exactly why . . . Maybe she thought I was
playing too much computer compared to other
children; she started reading about it and got in
contact with DCL . . . Giving me extracts from articles
about everything. Like ‘computer gamers are the
brightest people in the world but their talent is being
misused’. And ‘you are not socializing’ . . . I told her to
calm down. What the hell. Everyone plays. There is
nothing wrong with playing computer games.’’
Using these considerations as a point of departure it
is possible to interpret the situations and interactions
between Simon and his closest relatives. In the first
interview Simon presents himself as a pure deviant,
acknowledging his rule breaking behavior. In the
second interview he presents himself as ‘‘a falsely
accused computer game addict.’’ According to
Goffman (1990a) the performer [here Simon] uses
‘‘impression management’’ in order to control any kind
of social interaction, or to preserve the so-called social
interaction order. Usually, a tacit agreement between
the performer and his audience is stressed and opposition
is underplayed. In the interview the tacit
agreement is formulated by Simon: Yes, I was
addicted, and yes, I know better now. In this sense,
Simon confirms the agreements achieved with his
stepmother, leaving their potential conflicts unspoken.
As Becker’s perspective on deviance suggests, the
interview also gives us knowledge about how one
becomes a deviant and the process from being
perceived as deviant by others to identifying oneself
as a deviant. Presumably in response to the loyalty
Simon expresses towards his stepmother in the first
interview, he reacts to the deviance stereotype in the
second interview, asserting his ‘‘actual social identity’’
and questioning the nature of computer game addiction,
but also outlining the set of normative expectations
revealed by the stepmother and the articles she
refers to. On the one hand the stepmother quotes
something positive about computer game addiction,
while on the other she accuses Simon of misusing his
talent or being anti-social. As Becker points out,
‘‘Values provide the major premises from which
specific rules are deduced’’ (Becker, 1991, p. 131).
The example highlights the fact that the behavior
which conforms to that of a computer game addict is
not an intrinsic part of the personality, but has to be
viewed in relation to others. Another key element here
is the relationship between deviance and normality
hanging in the balance. As Simon remarks, everybody
plays computer games. Who is breaking the rule and
who is actually the deviant? The stepmother who
exposes her lack of knowledge about young people’s
lives in the technology age or Simon who plays
computer games with his friends every day after
school?
As this analysis implies, a behavioral approach risks
limiting the source of the classification by locating it
within the individual and ‘‘ . . . thus preventing us from
seeing the judgment itself as a crucial part of the
phenomenon.’’ (Becker, 1991, p. 6). In light of the
considerations mentioned above, there is a risk of
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION 371
creating an outsider because ‘‘. . . social groups create
deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes
deviance and by applying those rules to particular
people and labelling them as outsiders’’ (Becker, 1991,
p. 9). Bearing this in mind, computer game addiction is
also a question of how social norms are being created
and maintained through social interactions in the
everyday life of children and young people. And as
the analysis shows, if we consider computer game
addiction as a social construction it is also necessary to
recognize the risk of using the term as a normative
stereotype; there is a possibility of categorizing
the ‘‘addicted’’ performers as socially ‘‘abnormal,’’
which consequently represents a ‘‘falsely accused’’
deviance.
To describe another process of how the classification
of computer game addiction interacts with people
in their everyday life, the analysis in the next session
looks at the consequences of being stigmatized as a
computer game addict.
PETER – THE CONSEQUENCES OF
STIGMATIZATION
Peter is 15 years old, his parents are divorced, and he is
an only child. He started playing computer games in
early childhood and greatly enjoyed the games. Peter
was bullied in school from the age of seven to 14.
When he was 11 he was involved in a car accident, and
had to use a wheelchair for one year. He gained weight
during this period, and the bullying in school went
from bad to worse. The only place he felt comfortable
was at home. He had no ‘‘real life’’ friends, so he spent
his entire spare time playing games. In his own view,
the gaming and the addiction worsened his personal
problems. He was thinking of games all the time, in
school, day and night, unable to concentrate on
schoolwork or anything else than games even though
he often got bored with the games he was playing.
According to Peter the addiction lasted for three years,
from the age of 11–14. After his mother got a grip on
his situation, helped him to change school and lose
weight, Peter does not find his gaming problematic. He
plays a lot but now enjoys it more and has ‘‘a different
kind of relationship’’ to games. Among his favourite
games are Counter Strike, Source, Call of Duty,
Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, Battlefield,
Netstationen.dk and Habbo.dk. The last game he
describes as the one he was addicted to.
In the interviews Peter presents himself as a former
computer game addict; he is very ashamed of the
situation but on another level he insists on talking about
his addiction. Significantly, his previous identity as a
computer game addict is closely connected to his story
about being a bully victim and overweight. He
formulates his gaming and his addiction as a rule
breaking activity because: ‘‘I was shutting the door on
the real world . . .’’
By using Becker’s approach we are able to understand
the bullying as a consequence of breaking some
normative rules in the sense that some classmates have
shown Peter disrespect. We do not know exactly why
he was being bullied. Nevertheless, Peter is blaming
himself for being too reserved, saying that he is
without any social skills at all, not able to talk to other
people:
The only place I was able to be myself was at home, being
together with one of my parents. But I was getting more and
more strange, not being able to talk to other people. I had
difficulties in answering questions from others, and I could
not look them in the eyes. And the effect of playing computer
games actually led to more problems . . . The gaming was
getting out of control . . . .
In terms of Goffman’s stigma, Peter uses the term
computer game addiction to describe how he was
discredited as a member of a particular social category.
Mostly, according to Goffman, the stigma is not
articulated directly, but rather appears as a boundary
between the socially acceptable and unacceptable.
Peter’s classmates are not blaming him for being a
computer game addict. Rather, Peter is categorizing
himself as such. The distinction between primary
deviance and secondary deviance verifies this.
Primary deviance is the original infraction of the rule,
stemming from different kinds of physiological, psychological,
or social factors. Broadly speaking, Peter
identifies his lack of social skills as an infraction and
the obesity he mentions is also primary deviance. The
secondary deviance is how the person [Peter] reacts to
the interactions with his classmates. In particular, Peter
is identifying himself as socially abnormal (Williams,
2000). Generally the primary deviance is not articulated;
it is rather made to appear normal or justified.
One example is where Peter is talking about the
accident which put him in a wheelchair for a year,
unable to move his body, so he spent all his spare time
on computer games and blames his obesity on the
wheelchair period. He also tells me about a teacher
who is not taking his problems seriously and thus puts
some of the blame on the teacher who has let him down
by not taking responsibility.
All in all, Peter is using computer game addiction as
a term to describe a stigma produced over time. He also
points out the consequences of the others’ discrediting
reactions towards him, e.g. how he feels deeply hurt by
the damage done to his identity, how he is lacking in
self-confidence, etc. The point I wish to make is how
strongly this ‘‘secondary deviancy’’ (Williams, 2000,
p. 215) influences Peter’s social identity and being,
how the stigmatizing internalizes his feelings. He is
identifying himself as a computer game addict. He
describes how he is using the game to ‘‘shoot the
people who had something against me,’’ how the
online computer game was a possibility of escaping
from the real world, making it possible to forget his
problems and worries and using the metaphor
372 A. BRUS
‘‘a closed door’’ to describe his lack of socializing
with others than his online friends. The bullying
stopped when Peter changed school and lost weight.
Goffman describes several social interaction situations
in order to understand how the stigmatized person deals
with the lack of respect from other people. One way of
handling the situation is to try to direct the objective
cause of the stigmatization towards something else. For
example, Peter tells me that his bullying problem
stopped when he lost weight. The obesity is the
objective cause of his stigmatization. Another Goffman
inspired point is the fact that ‘‘shame’’ becomes a
central possibility and an important feature of the
stigmatized person’s way of understanding his life
situation. He feels shame and guilt at not being able to
live up to the normative expectations. He describes the
shame and guilt in many ways: ‘‘I had a lot of furniture
of great value [in the online game habbo.dk]. And in a
way this is something, something to brag about. The
thing is, at the very end I had only online friends. And I
couldn’t socialize with others, expect for socializing in
the virtual world. It was going from bad to worse,
being social. I couldn’t enjoy socializing at all, and I
had no self-confidence. I would do anything so that I
wouldn’t be noticed, especially by somebody I didn’t
know beforehand.’’ The stigmatized person may also
feel somewhat uncertain about how to approach others,
how to manage the impressions others have of him,
how to manage a spoiled identity. For Goffman, the
point is that these kinds of social interactions run the
risk of leading the stigmatized one to avoidance,
rejection or withdrawal from all participants. Thus
Peter is clearly using computer gaming in terms of a
rejection, a withdrawal from the stigmatization into a
cyber-world of respect. Yet this respect has no great
value attached to it, since he is not able to use the
respect for something positive in real life. In his own
words, the recognition he gets in cyberspace is
connected to his position as a player, not as a person.
Peter thus adheres to the normative expectations from
others. He is aware of what others expect him to be.
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
This article began with the observation that social
organizations and parents are becoming increasingly
worried about young people’s high consumption of
computer games and the potential addiction it produces.
After these introductory remarks, I reviewed
some contrasting results in the research on computer
game addiction. I indicated that it is also necessary to
give prominence to a young people’s perspective on
computer game addiction.
Specifically, my study has emphasized some of the
social uncertainties that young people face in their
everyday lives because of their identification with the
phenomenon. To understand these uncertainties,
I found inspiration in concepts from Goffman and
Becker, which allowed me to connect computer game
addiction to social interactions. From that perspective,
computer game addiction becomes closely related to
the activities and responses of social actors in the
everyday life of young people who spend considerable
time playing computer games. An investigation of
computer game addiction as a social construction
reveals that the phenomenon covers many more aspects
than considered by most research hitherto, just as the
complexity of the phenomenon, including the ‘‘looping
effects’’ of the category itself as Hacking would put it,
should remind any worried parent, social organization
or government about the need to act cautiously in
this area.
In particular, computer game addiction is not
necessarily something negative for young people
themselves but can in fact in some cases play a
positive role in their identity work, which relies on
acceptance from their environment. Importantly however,
computer game addiction is also a moral term that
refers to something considered as ‘‘culturally unacceptable.’’
As this implies, the culturally unacceptable
is a question of negotiation of moral boundaries
between an individual and others. In addition, there is
a risk of producing normative stereotypes categorizing
young people as deviants. Moreover, the risk of
stigmatization raises various questions about young
people’s social life, showing how painful it is to be
labeled as an ‘‘outsider.’’
In perspective, it is precisely this unconsidered and
uncritical use of the term ‘‘computer game addiction’’
in young people’s interactions with their immediate
environments that raises important questions not only
about computer gaming as a socially unacceptable
leisure activity, but also points towards a broader
discussion about computer game addiction and the risk
of marginalization in the social processes of everyday
life interactions. As Nikolas Rose has pointed out, the
diagnostic manuals no longer apply to a small pathological
minority; they actually seem to interact with
almost all of us (Rose, 2006). Computer game addiction
is an example of how ‘‘psy’’-expertise makes it
possible to govern young people in their everyday life
with computer games.
In the light of the current expanded role of
psychiatry there are obvious reasons to be concerned
about the increasing practice of diagnosis in recent
years. This increasing diagnostic practice implies that
ordinary everyday problems associated with work,
family, and education are now being described as
disorders requiring psychological, psychiatric, or medical
treatment. In the case of my analysis of computer
game addiction in an everyday life perspective, I would
argue that we need to be cautious about classifying a
high usage of computer games as a psychiatric disorder
or a negative behavior – even when this high usage
turns out negatively for young people.
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION 373
Declaration of interest: This work is financed by the
Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation –
The Gambling Program 2008.
The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author
alone is responsible for the content and writing of the
article.
NOTES
1. Carried out with Assistant Professor Anne Mette Thorhauge,
Department of Media, Cognition, and Communication, Faculty of
Humanities, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
2. This article is number two of four papers about computer game
addiction. The other articles are: Thorhauge and Brus (2011) and
Brus (in press a, in press b).
3. The interviews with Simon were carried out via Skype.
4. http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=afhængighed consulted 4.10.11
5. Translated from Danish to English by the author: ‘‘det at have
meget brug for eller ikke kunne undvære noget eller nogen.’’
6. Translated from Danish to English by the author: ‘‘det at være
fysisk tilvænnet et vanedannende stof sa° man fa°r abstinenser hvis
stoffet ikke indtages.’’
7. Eleventh Edition.
8. Sinclair (ed. in chief) 1992.
REFERENCES
Becker, H.S. (1991). Outsiders. The sociology of deviance. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Becker, H.S. (2007). Telling about society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Brus, A. (in press a). Computerspil og computerspilafhængighed
set som en selvregulerende praksis [Computer games, gaming
and computer game addiction as a self-regulating practice].
Dansk sociologforening [The Association of Danish
Sociologists].
Brus, A. (in press b). Computerspilafhængighed og
computerspilafhængige – et dansk perspektiv [Computer
game addiction and computer game addicts – a Danish
perspective]. Social kritik [Social Criticism]. København:
Selskabet til fremme af social debat.
Buckingham, D. (Ed.). (2008). Youth, identity, and digital
media. London: The MIT Press.
Charlton, J.P., & Danforth, I.D.W. (2007). Distinguishing
addiction and high engagement in the context of online
game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23,
1531–1548.
Frøyland, L.R., Hansen, M., Sletten, M.A., Torgensen, L., & von
Soest, T. (2010). Uskyldig Moro? Pengespill og Dataspill
Blant Norske Ungdommer [Innocent amusement? Gambling
and gaming among Norwegian adolescents], NOVA
Norwegian Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.nova.
no/asset/4263/1/4263_1.pdf
Gentile, D.A., Choo, H., Liau, A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Sim, T., &
Fung, D. (2011). Pathological video game use among youths:
A two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127, 319–329.
Goffman, E. (1990a). The presentation of self in everyday
life. London: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1990b). Stigma. Notes on the management of
spoiled identity. London: Penguin Books.
Griffiths, M.D., & Davies, M.N.O. (2005). Does video game
addiction exist? In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein
(Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 359–369).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffiths, M.D., & Hunt, N. (1998). Dependence on
computer games by adolescents. Psychological Reports,
82, 475–480.
Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (2001). Handbook of interview
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul. Multiple personality and
the sciences of memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Hacking, I. (2004). Between Michel Foucault and Erving
Goffman: Between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face
interaction. Economy and Society, 33, 277–302.
Hacking, I. (2006). Kinds of people: Moving targets. Retrieved
from http://www.proc.britac.ac.uk/tfiles/151p285.pdf
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo
elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13–26.
Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (1995). The active interview.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M.D., & Baguley, T. (2012). Online
gaming addiction: Classification, prediction and associated
risk factors. Addiction Research and Theory, 20, 359–371.
Jenkins, R. (2010). The 21st-century interaction order.
In M.H. Jacobsen (Ed.), The contemporary Goffman (pp.
257–274). New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, N.F. (2009). The multiplicities of internet addiction.
The misrecognition of leisure and learning. Surrey, UK:
Ashgate.
Kampmann, J. (2003). Etiske overvejelser i etnografisk
børneforskning [Ethical considerations in ethnographic
research on children]. In E. Gulløv & S. Højlund
(Eds.), Feltarbejde blandt børn [Fieldwork among children]
(pp. 167–183). Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Karlsen, F., Møller, P., & Børsum, T. (2010). Kartlegging av
problemskapende onlinespilling [Mapping of problematic
online gaming]. Handlingsplan mot spillproblemer [Plan of
action against problematic usage of games] (2009–2011),
Kultur-og Kirkedepartementet, Norway. Retrieved from
World Wide Web http://www.medietilsynet.no/Global/
Dataspill/120411_Rapport%20problemskapende%20bruk%
20onlinespill%20final.pdf
Kuss, D.J., & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet gaming addiction:
A systematic review of empirical research. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 278–296.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the
craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage.
Lemmens, J.S., Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. (2011).
Psychosocial causes and consequences of pathological
gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 144–152.
Linderoth, J., & Bennerstedt, U. (2007). Living in world of
warcraft. The thoughts and experiences of ten young people.
Statens Mediera°d. Retrieved from http://www.statensmedierad.
se/Publikationer/Produkter/Presentation-of-World-of-
Warcraft-Study/
Prosser, J. (Ed.). (1998). I`
mage-based research: A sourcebook
for qualitative researchers. London: Falmer Press.
Rose, N. (2006). Disorders without borders? The
expanding scope of psychiatric practice. Biosocieties, 1,
465–484.
Taylor, T.L. (2006). Play between worlds. Exploring online
game culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thorhauge, A.M., & Brus, A. (2011). Computerspil og
afhængighed [Computer games and addiction]. Paedagogisk
Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 44, 3–25.
374 A. BRUS
van Rooij, A.J. (2011). Online video game addiction. Exploring
a new phenomenon (Ph.D. thesis). Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Williams, S. (2000). Goffman, interactionism, and the management
of stigma in everyday life. In G. Fine, P. Manning, &
G. Smith (Eds.), Erving Goffman (Vol. 3, pp. 212–238).
London: Sage.
Yee, N. (2006). The psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional
investment, motivations, relationship formation, and problematic
usage. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at
work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual
environments (pp. 187–207). London: Springer-Verlag.
Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. Journal of
Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 9, 772–775.
A YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE ON COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION 375
Copyright of Addiction Research & Theory is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
No comments:
Post a Comment