Internet gaming disorder should qualify as a mental disorder

Daniel L. King; Paul H. Delfabbro; Marc N. Potenza; Zsolt Demetrovics; Joël Billieux; Matthias Brand

doi:10.1177/0004867418771189

Internet gaming disorder should qualify as a mental disorder

Daniel L. King, Paul H. Delfabbro, Marc N. Potenza, Zsolt Demetrovics, Joël Billieux, Matthias Brand

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In their recent ANZJP paper, Dullur and Starcevic (2018) argue that Internet gaming disorder (IGD) should not qualify as a mental disor-der. They base this view on several arguments, including the notion that IGD does not fit the concept of a mental disorder, that IGD would pathologise normal gaming, that the addiction model for gaming is mislead-ing and that a diagnosis is not neces-sary for treatment purposes. In this paper, we provide a critical appraisal of the authors’ points. While there are some aspects of their arguments which we support, there are many with which we disagree. We believe their views would be relevant to other behavioural addictions and would serve to undermine their valid-ity, including with respect to gambling disorder.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	615-617
Number of pages	3
Journal	Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Volume	52
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867418771189
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2018
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

mental disorder
internet gaming disorder
critical appraisal
behavioural addictions

Access to Document

10.1177/0004867418771189Licence: In Copyright

Cite this

@article{780f1eb2c8ba437fb32841d90abf00af,

title = "Internet gaming disorder should qualify as a mental disorder",

abstract = "In their recent ANZJP paper, Dullur and Starcevic (2018) argue that Internet gaming disorder (IGD) should not qualify as a mental disor-der. They base this view on several arguments, including the notion that IGD does not fit the concept of a mental disorder, that IGD would pathologise normal gaming, that the addiction model for gaming is mislead-ing and that a diagnosis is not neces-sary for treatment purposes. In this paper, we provide a critical appraisal of the authors{\textquoteright} points. While there are some aspects of their arguments which we support, there are many with which we disagree. We believe their views would be relevant to other behavioural addictions and would serve to undermine their valid-ity, including with respect to gambling disorder.",

keywords = "mental disorder, internet gaming disorder, critical appraisal, behavioural addictions",

author = "King, {Daniel L.} and Delfabbro, {Paul H.} and Potenza, {Marc N.} and Zsolt Demetrovics and Jo{\"e}l Billieux and Matthias Brand",

year = "2018",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1177/0004867418771189",

language = "English",

volume = "52",

pages = "615--617",

journal = "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry",

issn = "0004-8674",

publisher = "Blackwell Science Asia",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Internet gaming disorder should qualify as a mental disorder

AU - King, Daniel L.

AU - Delfabbro, Paul H.

AU - Potenza, Marc N.

AU - Demetrovics, Zsolt

AU - Billieux, Joël

AU - Brand, Matthias

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - In their recent ANZJP paper, Dullur and Starcevic (2018) argue that Internet gaming disorder (IGD) should not qualify as a mental disor-der. They base this view on several arguments, including the notion that IGD does not fit the concept of a mental disorder, that IGD would pathologise normal gaming, that the addiction model for gaming is mislead-ing and that a diagnosis is not neces-sary for treatment purposes. In this paper, we provide a critical appraisal of the authors’ points. While there are some aspects of their arguments which we support, there are many with which we disagree. We believe their views would be relevant to other behavioural addictions and would serve to undermine their valid-ity, including with respect to gambling disorder.

AB - In their recent ANZJP paper, Dullur and Starcevic (2018) argue that Internet gaming disorder (IGD) should not qualify as a mental disor-der. They base this view on several arguments, including the notion that IGD does not fit the concept of a mental disorder, that IGD would pathologise normal gaming, that the addiction model for gaming is mislead-ing and that a diagnosis is not neces-sary for treatment purposes. In this paper, we provide a critical appraisal of the authors’ points. While there are some aspects of their arguments which we support, there are many with which we disagree. We believe their views would be relevant to other behavioural addictions and would serve to undermine their valid-ity, including with respect to gambling disorder.

KW - mental disorder

KW - internet gaming disorder

KW - critical appraisal

KW - behavioural addictions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049332557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE170101198

U2 - 10.1177/0004867418771189

DO - 10.1177/0004867418771189

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 29701485

AN - SCOPUS:85049332557

VL - 52

SP - 615

EP - 617

JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

SN - 0004-8674

IS - 7

ER -

Internet gaming disorder should qualify as a mental disorder

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this