CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 18, Number 5, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0611
Parental Influences on Adolescent Video Game Play: A Study of Accessibility, Rules, Limit Setting, Monitoring, and Cybersafety Lisa J. Smith, MSc,1 Michael Gradisar, PhD,1 and Daniel L. King, PhD 2
Abstract
Adolescents’ video gaming is increasing at a rapid rate. Yet, little is known about what factors contribute toward more hours of gaming per week, as well as what factors may limit or protect adolescents from excessive gaming. The aim of the present study was to examine associations between adolescents’ accessibility to video gaming devices, the locations played (i.e., bedroom, shared rooms), parental regulation of technology use, and the amount of hours spent video gaming during the week (weekdays vs. weekends). Adolescents (N = 422; age 16.3 – 2.0 years, 41% male) completed an online questionnaire battery, including demographics, video gaming behaviors (e.g., hours played weekdays/weekends, time of day played, devices owned, locations played, etc.), and a questionnaire measuring aspects of parents’ regulation of game playing (e.g., rules, limit setting, co-gaming). Accessibility to the adolescents’ own devices, but not shared devices or device portability, was predictive of hours gaming on weekdays and weekends. Location (i.e., bedroom) was associated with increased gaming across the week. Parents discussing cybersafety was predictive of lower hours of gaming (weekdays and weekends). However, limit setting, monitoring, and co-gaming showed no significant effects. Adolescents’ access to their own gaming equipped devices, as well as gaming in their bedrooms, were linked to increased hours of gaming. The findings suggest that in order to curb the increase in hours gaming, parents are advised to delay the ownership of adolescents’ devices, encourage use in shared rooms, and discuss aspects of cybersafety with their teenage children. Introduction
Accessibility, portability, and location
A
Accessibility (i.e., access to devices equipped for gaming) may be one factor explaining adolescents’ gaming behavior. Recent reports claim 95% of Australian adolescents have access to at least one game equipped device in their home (e.g., tablet, smartphone, personal computer [PC], games console25), and one in four adolescents own a mobile phone.26 However, it is not known whether access to shared devices is limited by competing with others (parents, siblings), and furthermore, whether they use these devices for gaming. The context of gaming is another potential contributing factor. Up to 50% of adolescents have a console in their bedroom,27,28 and one in three possess a bedroom PC.27,28 However, limited research suggests that such access to a bedroom console or computer can distinguish pathological and nonpathological gamers,29 predicts overall computer use,30 and relates to increased time spent in the bedroom, which discourages family contact.31 This study therefore aims to describe the gaming behavior of adolescents (i.e., hours/week and time of day played, game
ustralian adolescents interact daily with digital media across multiple settings (e.g., school/home),1 people (e.g. peers/family), devices (e.g., smartphones/gaming consoles, etc.), and for various reasons (e.g., education/ socialization), earning them descriptions of ‘‘children of the digital revolution’’2 or ‘‘screenies.’’3 Computer gaming (standalone/online) is one social pastime for many Australian adolescents,4,5 who play anywhere between 2 and 18 hours per week3,5,6 (and often longer on weekends than weekdays).3,7 Although several benefits of gaming exist (e.g., foreign language acquisition,8 enhanced executive functioning, attention, visual-spatial abilities,9,10 lower risky sexual behavior,11 social relationships,12,13 fitness14), it is not without unwanted consequences (e.g., aggression,15,16 negative family/peer relationships,17 poor academic achievement,18–20 higher BMI,21,22 sleep disturbance23,24). This study aimed to identify contributing factors to the rapid growth of Internet gaming of Australian youth (e.g., 35% increase over 3 years1), as well as factors that may curb this growth. 1 2
School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
273
274
SMITH ET AL.
equipped devices owned, locations played), and investigate whether accessibility to and location of gaming equipped devices predicts adolescents’ gaming.
the Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee and the Department of Education and Child Development.
Parental regulation in adolescents’ gaming
Materials and procedure
One important factor that may limit adolescents’ gaming behavior is parental regulation. Regulation of adolescent’s media use can be defined by two distinct types: restrictive mediation (i.e., when an adolescent could or could not use a certain media) or conversational (‘‘positive’’) mediation (i.e., a parent talking to the adolescent about a specific media issue31). Both types of mediation are less common for the single-user devices (e.g., PC) than for shared-user devices (e.g., television), that is, when an adolescent has their own PC, parents are more likely to use restrictive mediation.31 When parents give their children directions and guidelines about how to engage with the Internet (e.g., authoritative parenting style), it has been shown that this predicts levels of children’s Internet use.32 Furthermore, parental rules about Internet use (e.g., not giving out personal information or talking to strangers in chatrooms) and good communication with parents (e.g., telling parents when receiving unsolicited and inappropriate junk mail) is related to decreased likelihood of risky Internet-related behavior.33 However, the aforementioned research does not take account the perspective of the adolescent (i.e., how the adolescent feels limits have been imposed upon their Internet and online activities). Qualitative research performed more than a decade ago found that 90% of Australian children were aware of family rules for computer use.34 Yet, despite updated government advice for parents on online safety (e.g., cyberbullying, social networking, sexting, mobile phone safety, offensive content, and duration of time spent online35), there is no current knowledge on the extent to which such mediation practices are being applied to Australian adolescents’ gaming behavior, and their impact on controlling actual gaming activity.
Demographic data (date of birth, sex, postcode [SES], living situation, ethnicity) were initially collected from adolescents. Gaming behavior comprised of several aspects, including time of day gaming usually occurred, and duration (hours played). Accessibility comprised how many devices adolescents’ owned, how many were accessed within their household, their portability (e.g., laptop/tablet/smartphone = portable), location where games played (e.g., bedroom), and the number of hours played without a break. Parental regulation of media usage was assessed via the 7-item questionnaire ‘‘What Parents Say and Do’’ (WPSAD).41 Adolescents were asked if their parents had talked to them about cybersafety (yes/no), as well as about parental rules and limit setting for (a) online content, (b) length of time spent online, and (c) presence of media devices in the bedroom and physical monitoring of media use by parents. Except for questions with binary responses (i.e., cybersafety), all other questions had responses ranging from 0 = ‘‘never’’ to 4 = ‘‘always.’’ Total scores ranged from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicative of more stringent parental regulation of media and Internet use. Internal consistency of the WPSAD was acceptable (a = 0.61). The response rate was 72%. Adolescents were reimbursed at the end of the survey by making a AUD$1 donation to a charity of their choice from a list of youth well-being charities. University students received course credit for their participation.
The present study
Despite widespread and growing video gaming in Australian adolescents,1 the literature is limited due to a restricted age range,3,36 focusing on adults25,37 and addiction,7 and is based on overseas data,38,39 requires updating,1,5,37 or focuses on ‘‘screen time’’ as a general concept to the exclusion of gaming.40 This study therefore aimed to present an updated picture of how Australian adolescents are engaging with computer games across adolescence (those aged 12–20 years), with a specific focus on factors increasing (i.e., accessibility, portability) or decreasing (parent regulation) its level of use. Materials and Methods Participants
Adolescents (N = 422; age 16.3 – 2.0 years, 41% male) were recruited from South Australian high schools and from Flinders University. Most adolescents (69%) lived with both parents, 76% were of Oceanian ethnicity (e.g. Australian, Australian Aboriginal, or other South Pacific Islander), and lived in higher socioeconomic status (SES) areas.a Adolescents provided informed consent through proceeding past the information page to the survey. The study was approved by
Statistical analysis
A series of correlational analyses were conducted to determine which aspects of accessibility were associated with gaming behavior. As the data violated assumptions for parametric tests of association (i.e., Pearson’s product– moment correlation), point biserial correlations were conducted for correlations containing a dichotomous variable. For all other correlations, Spearman’s rho was conducted. Multiple regressions were conducted to identify the strongest predictors of hours adolescents spent gaming during weekdays and weekends. Results Gaming behavior of Australian adolescents
During weekdays, most adolescents (56.6%) played computer games between 5:00pm and 8:00pm or 8:00pm and 11pm (40.8%; Fig. 1A). Weekend gaming time was more evenly distributed (Fig. 1B), with most adolescents playing in the evening (8:00–11:00pm; 47.4%). Daily time spent gaming during weekdays (2.85 – 2.5 hours) was significantly shorter than daily time spent gaming on a weekend day (3.49 – 2.7 hours), t(395) = 7.50, p < 0.001 (Fig. 2). The majority of adolescents (64.9%) played computer games for more than 1 hour (range p1–4 or more hours) without a break. Accessibility of gaming devices
On average, households contained six media devices; two of these belonging to adolescents (i.e., 33%; range 1–5
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
275
FIG. 3. Devices adolescents use to engage in gaming, independent of location. in every three) reported that parents allowed them to play computer games in their bedroom (Fig. 4C).
FIG. 1. Time of day adolescents play computer games during (A) weekdays and (B) weekends. devices). Adolescents use a variety of devices to play computer games (see Fig. 3). For most adolescents (84.8%), a media device is available to use in their bedroom. Bedroom computers are commonly used to play computer games, with 63.7% using the media device they have in their bedroom to play computer games. Parental regulation of access to gaming devices
Figure 4 presents adolescents’ responses to parental regulation of media use. Despite the majority of parents talking to their adolescents about cybersafety (Fig. 4A), the vast majority of adolescents reported their parents ‘‘rarely’’ or ‘‘never’’ limit their online content or time online (Fig. 4B and D, respectively). The majority of adolescents (about two
FIG. 2. Time spent playing computer games during weekdays (dark bars) and weekends (light bars).
Associations between accessibility, portability, and parental regulation with computer gaming
Table 1 presents bivariate correlations between accessibility (access to media devices), location (device in bedroom), and portability (type of device). Hours spent gaming across the week were correlated with adolescents’ access to their own devices. Simply possessing a computer in the bedroom (i.e., location) was not associated with hours spent gaming, whereas using the computer for gaming was associated with gaming time. Contrary to expectations, portable devices (phones, tablets) were not significantly correlated with hours spent gaming. Yet, PCs and consoles were both significantly correlated with gaming time. Significant correlations were found between all parental regulation variables and the number of hours spent gaming (weekdays and weekends), with the exception of parent limit-setting of time online, as well as limiting the use of media in the bedroom. Standard multiple regressions were used to explore which variables were uniquely and significantly associated with weekday and weekend hours spent gaming. The first model conducted for weekday computer gaming explained 19.5% of the variance in hours of computer gaming, F(14, 321) = 5.57, p < 0.001. The variable explaining the largest variance in gaming time was the number of media devices owned by the adolescent (b = 0.20, p = 0.002). Other significant predictors included using a computer in the bedroom to play games (b = - 0.15, p = 0.011), using a console device for gaming (b = - 0.11, p = 0.04), and having a parent who discussed cybersafety (b = - 0.11, p = 0.045). The second model conducted for weekend computer gaming explained 30% of the variance, F(14, 321) = 9.85, p < 0.001. As with the first model, the number of media devices owned by the adolescent was the strongest predictor (b = 0.23, p < 0.001). Other significant predictors differed from the first model, and included using a PC (b = - 0.19, p = 0.001), console device (b = - 0.16, p = 0.002), or a smartphone (b = 0.14, p = 0.004) for gaming, as well as having a parent who discussed cybersafety (b = - 0.10, p = 0.043).
276
SMITH ET AL.
FIG. 4. Parental regulation: (A) discussing cybersafety; (B) limit setting of online content; (C) playing computer games in the bedroom; and (D) monitoring online time.
Discussion
The current study examined a range of factors that may influence adolescents’ gaming behavior, including device accessibility and portability, as well as parental regulation of
Table 1. Correlations Between Portability, Parental Supervision, and Hours Gaming Hours spent gaming Weekdays
Weekend
Media devices household 0.73 0.145* Media devices own 0.258* 0.324* Computer in bedroom - 0.045 0.022 Computer in bedroom used to game - 0.342* - 0.358* PC - 0.242** - 0.350** Console - 0.238** - 0.316** Smartphone 0.077 0.119* Phone - 0.096 - 0.061 Tablet 0.010 0.016 Parent talk cyber - 0.172** - 0.183** Online limits what (content) - 0.156** - 0.132** Online limits long (time) - 0.068 - 0.14 Limits media bed 0.096 0.045* Online physical presence - 0.252** - 0.211** Online see what doing - 0.148** - 0.099* Note: Point-biserial correlations used against outcome variables (hours spent gaming), except for number of media devices in household and owned (Pearson correlations). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
gaming. The portability of devices has been suggested to contribute to increased levels of Internet use.1 However, it was unknown if this also applied to gaming behavior. The current study found that, overall, portability of devices (e.g., iPads, smartphones) was not a key factor determining gaming behavior of Australian adolescents. This was consistent with research demonstrating that gaming represents only 2% time spent on social networking sites, a dominant use of more portable devices,1,42 as compared with 78% time spent for social-based activities.43 Parental monitoring is often considered a useful strategy to control or limit adolescents’ gaming. However, it was found that parental discussion of cybersafety was the only significant predictor of the number of hours adolescents spent gaming on both weekdays and weekends. Although small significant correlations were found between hours spent gaming with parents being physically present while online, parents limiting online content, and parent seeing what adolescents were doing online, these strategies did not predict adolescents’ gaming in regression models. This finding could be argued to be due to shared variance between differing parental strategies. However, despite three quarters of adolescents stated their parents had spoken to them about cybersafety, it is concerning that 75% of adolescents also reported their parents rarely or never limited online content, and 74% rarely or never enforced limits on time online. ‘‘Mediation’’ parental regulation has been found to predict levels of Internet use,32,44,45 but this relationship did not apply to this sample of Australian adolescents, despite
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
Australian guidelines suggesting parents should ‘‘consider implementing family agreements about the amount of time your children can spend online.’’35 In contrast, 80–90% of parents in 2011 reported they supervised their child or adolescents use of the Internet.1 There appears to be a notable disconnect between what parents say and what parents do, or at least what adolescents say, when it comes to limit setting around their media use. The present study was unable to determine reasons behind this discrepancy. Thus, further investigations should identify crucial barriers to parental media limit setting (e.g., social support46). The key components of accessibility significantly influencing adolescent gaming behavior (weekdays and weekends) were the number of devices owned, and having access to a computer in the bedroom to play games. Consistent with previous research,27,28 it was found that a majority of adolescents (64%) had access to a gaming device in their bedroom. However, the present findings indicated that a larger number (64% vs. 33–50%27,28) of adolescents have gaming accessible devices in their bedrooms than in previous research, and more importantly are using them to play games. The current study has extended current knowledge of the influence of this gaming accessibility demonstrating this influences the gaming behavior of Australian adolescents. Unfortunately, it appears many parents are providing their adolescent children with accessibility to gaming capable devices to ensure parental privacy is maintained or to provide adolescents with escapism.47 Limitations and future directions
The present study had some limitations that warrant caution in interpreting results. First, the study employed a selfreport survey, which relied on adolescents’ perspectives. Including a parent report would help to validate adolescents’ reports. Another limitation was the sample was primarily comprised of students from high SES areas, which has been argued to be a key factor in the ‘‘digital divide’’ that drives access to media.48 As a counterpoint, the increasing affordability and high number of gaming devices available in secondary trading markets over the last several years may have reduced the digital divide across socioeconomic divisions. The current study aimed to assess the influence of contributing factors that increase gaming, as well as limiting factors. However, the study did not assess social motivations, which is an established contributing factor to gaming during adolescence.13,49–51 Parents may themselves form a social influence on adolescents (e.g., through ‘‘co-gaming’’ or ‘‘cousing’’12,52), or may apply both co-gaming and restrictive mediation depending on their expected behavioral outcome.53 The extent to which supervisory or limiting parental practices are more effective than co-gaming techniques as a way for parents to limit amount of time spent playing computer games during adolescence remains unclear and warrants further investigation. Conclusion
Video gaming is a common activity among adolescents, with the potential for negative consequences if uncontrolled.54 Although there is growing recognition of adolescent video gaming as a potential clinical problem,55 there have been few empirical studies that examine the influence
277
of protective parenting practices. The present study has identified several key contributing and limiting factors that influence the gaming behavior of adolescents, which deserve more attention in future research studies. The key findings were that playing on a console and gaming on a higher number of gaming equipped devices were associated with more hours of gaming, whereas parental discussion of cybersafety was associated with reduced hours of gaming. Further research should explore psychosocial barriers to limit setting (e.g., inconsistent parenting styles, conflictual parent–child relationships), so parents are ultimately better informed in ways to promote gaming in healthy moderation and reduce the potential risks for excessive gaming. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank students, teachers, and principals in the six Adelaide metropolitan schools and the Flinders University first year psychology students that participated in the research. We also wish to thank Ben Maddock for his technical support with survey administration. Funding for participant reimbursement was provided by the School of Psychology, Flinders University. Notes
a. SEIFA score = 7.13 (range 1–10; higher scores = higher SES). Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist. References
1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011) Australian social trends: Online @ home (Cat. no. 4102.0), Canberra, Australia. 2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011) Australian social trends: children of the digital revolution (Cat. no. 4102.0), Canberra, Australia. 3. Olds T, Ridley K, Dollman J. Screenieboppers and extreme screenies: the place of screen time in the time budgets of 10–13 year-old Australian children. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2006; 30:137–142. 4. Straker L, Smith A, Hands B, et al. Screen-based media use clusters are related to other activity behaviours and health indicators in adolescents. BMC Public Health 2013; 13:1174. 5. Thomas NJ, Martin FH. Video-arcade game, computer game and Internet activities of Australian students: participation habits and prevalence of addiction. Australian Journal of Psychology 2010; 62:59–66. 6. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Zwaans T, et al. Clinical features and axis I comorbidity of Australian adolescent pathological Internet and video-game users. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2013;47:1058–1067. 7. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Zwaans T, et al. Sleep interference effects of pathological electronic media use during adolescence. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction 2014; 12:21–35. 8. Garcı´a-Carbonell A, Rising B, Montero B, et al. Simulation/gaming and the acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation & Gaming 2001; 32:481–491. 9. Ku¨hn S, Lorenz R, Banaschewski T, et al. Positive association of video game playing with left frontal cortical thickness in adolescents. PloS One 2014; 9:e91506.
278
10. Dye MWG, Green CS, Bavelier D. The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia 2009; 47:1780–1789. 11. Casiano H, Kinley DJ, Katz LY, et al. Media use and health outcomes in adolescents: findings from a nationally representative survey. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2012; 21:296. 12. Coyne SM, Padilla-Walker LM, Stockdale L, et al. Game on.girls: associations between co-playing video games and adolescent behavioral and family outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health 2011; 49:160–165. 13. Cole H, Griffiths MD. Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:575–583. 14. Perron R, Graham C, Feldman J, et al. Do exergames allow children to achieve physical activity intensity commensurate with national guidelines? International Journal of Exercise Science 2011; 4:6. 15. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, et al. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics 2008; 122:e1067–e1072. 16. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 2010; 136:151. 17. Padilla-Walker LM, Nelson LJ, Carroll JS, et al. More than a just a game: video game and internet use during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 2010; 39:103–113. 18. Anand V. A study of time management: the correlation between video game usage and academic performance markers. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:552–559. 19. Dumais SA. Adolescents’ time use and academic achievement: a test of the reproduction and mobility models. Social Science Quarterly 2008; 89:867–886. 20. Hastings EC, Karas TL, Winsler A, et al. Young children’s video/computer game use: relations with school performance and behavior. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2009; 30:638–649. 21. Desai RA, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cavallo D, et al. Videogaming among high school students: health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming. Pediatrics 2010; 126:1414–1424. 22. Vandewater EA, Shim, M, Caplovitz AG. Linking obesity and activity level with children’s television and video game use. Journal of Adolescence 2004; 27:71–85. ˚ kerstedt T, et al. The effect of 23. Ivarsson M, Anderson M, A violent and nonviolent video games on heart rate variability, sleep, and emotions in adolescents with different violent gaming habits. Psychosomatic Medicine 2013; 75:390–396. 24. King DL, Gradisar M, Drummond A, et al. The impact of prolonged violent video-gaming on adolescent sleep: an experimental study. Journal of Sleep Research 2013; 22:137–143. 25. Brand J. (2011) Digital Australia 2012. Eveleigh, Australia: School of Communication and Media, Bond University. 26. Lenhart A. (2012) Teens, smartphones and texting. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/ 2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx (accessed Nov. 20, 2014). 27. National Sleep Foundation. (2006) Sleep in America Poll. Washington, DC: National Sleep Foundation. 28. Rideout VJ. (1999) Kids & media@ the new millennium: executive summary. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 29. Choo H, Gentile DA, Sim T, et al. Pathological videogaming among Singaporean youth. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 2010; 39: 822.
SMITH ET AL.
30. Patriarca A, Di Giuseppe G, Albano L, et al. Use of television, videogames, and computer among children and adolescents in Italy. BMC Public Health 2008; 9:139. 31. Bovill M, Livingstone SM. (2001) Bedroom culture and the privatization of media use. LSE Research Online. http:// eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000672 (accessed Nov. 20, 2014). 32. Ihmeideh FM, Shawareb AA. The association between Internet parenting styles and children’s use of the Internet at home. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 2014; 28:411–425. 33. Liau AK, Khoo A, Hwaang P. Factors influencing adolescents engagement in risky Internet behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2005; 8:513–520. 34. Downes T. Children’s and families’ use of computers in Australian homes. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2002; 3:182–196. 35. Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). cyber (smart:): a parents’ guide to online safety. http:// cybersmart.gov.au/report.aspx (accessed Nov. 5, 2014). 36. Wake M, Hesketh K, Waters E. Television, computer use and body mass index in Australian primary school children. Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health 2003; 39:130–134. 37. Wang W. Internet dependency and psychosocial maturity among college students. International Journal of Human– Computer Studies 2001; 55:919–938. 38. Johansson A, Go¨testam KG. Problems with computer games without monetary reward: similarity to pathological gambling. Psychological Reports 2004; 95:641–650. 39. Tejeiro Salguero RA, Moran RMB. Measuring problem video game playing in adolescents. Addiction 2002; 97:1601–1606. 40. Olds TS, Maher CA, Ridley K, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of screen and non-screen sedentary time in adolescents: a cross sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity 2010; 7:92. 41. King DL, Zwaans T, Delfabbro PH. The influence of parenting practices on adolescent media use: a survey of Australian students. Journal of Adolescence 2015; 9:22–39. 42. Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). (2013) Communications report 2011–12 series. Report 3— Smartphones and tablets Take-up and use in Australia. 43. Hughes J, Morrison L. Using Facebook to explore adolescent identities. International Journal of Social Media & Interactive Learning Environments 2013; 1:370–386. 44. Eastin MS, Greenberg BS, Hofschire L. Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication 2006; 56:486–504. 45. Valcke M, Bonte S, De Wever B, et al. Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education 2010; 55:454–464. 46. Lampard AM, Jurkowski JM, Davison KK. The family context of low-income parents who restrict child screen time. Childhood Obesity 2013; 9:386–392. 47. Livingstone S. Strategies of parental regulation in the mediarich home. Computers in human behavior 2007; 23:920–941. 48. Livingstone S, Helsper E. Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society 2007; 9:671–696. 49. Colwell J, Kato M. Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2003; 6:149–158. 50. Domahidi E, Festl R, Quandt T. To dwell among gamers: investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 35:107–115.
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
51. Trepte S, Reinecke L, Juechems K. The social side of gaming: how playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:832–839. 52. Sook-Jung L, Young-Gil C. Children’s Internet use in a family context: influence on family relationships and parental mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:640–644. 53. Nikken P, Jansz J. Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: a comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology 2006; 31:181–202. 54. Smyth JM. Beyond self-selection in video game play: an experimental examination of the consequences of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game play. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:717–721.
279
55. King DL, Delfabbro PH. Issues for DSM-5: video-gaming disorder? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2013; 47:20–22.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Michael Gradisar Flinders University School of Psychology GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, S.A., 5001 Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Parental Influences on Adolescent Video Game Play: A Study of Accessibility, Rules, Limit Setting, Monitoring, and Cybersafety Lisa J. Smith, MSc,1 Michael Gradisar, PhD,1 and Daniel L. King, PhD 2
Abstract
Adolescents’ video gaming is increasing at a rapid rate. Yet, little is known about what factors contribute toward more hours of gaming per week, as well as what factors may limit or protect adolescents from excessive gaming. The aim of the present study was to examine associations between adolescents’ accessibility to video gaming devices, the locations played (i.e., bedroom, shared rooms), parental regulation of technology use, and the amount of hours spent video gaming during the week (weekdays vs. weekends). Adolescents (N = 422; age 16.3 – 2.0 years, 41% male) completed an online questionnaire battery, including demographics, video gaming behaviors (e.g., hours played weekdays/weekends, time of day played, devices owned, locations played, etc.), and a questionnaire measuring aspects of parents’ regulation of game playing (e.g., rules, limit setting, co-gaming). Accessibility to the adolescents’ own devices, but not shared devices or device portability, was predictive of hours gaming on weekdays and weekends. Location (i.e., bedroom) was associated with increased gaming across the week. Parents discussing cybersafety was predictive of lower hours of gaming (weekdays and weekends). However, limit setting, monitoring, and co-gaming showed no significant effects. Adolescents’ access to their own gaming equipped devices, as well as gaming in their bedrooms, were linked to increased hours of gaming. The findings suggest that in order to curb the increase in hours gaming, parents are advised to delay the ownership of adolescents’ devices, encourage use in shared rooms, and discuss aspects of cybersafety with their teenage children. Introduction
Accessibility, portability, and location
A
Accessibility (i.e., access to devices equipped for gaming) may be one factor explaining adolescents’ gaming behavior. Recent reports claim 95% of Australian adolescents have access to at least one game equipped device in their home (e.g., tablet, smartphone, personal computer [PC], games console25), and one in four adolescents own a mobile phone.26 However, it is not known whether access to shared devices is limited by competing with others (parents, siblings), and furthermore, whether they use these devices for gaming. The context of gaming is another potential contributing factor. Up to 50% of adolescents have a console in their bedroom,27,28 and one in three possess a bedroom PC.27,28 However, limited research suggests that such access to a bedroom console or computer can distinguish pathological and nonpathological gamers,29 predicts overall computer use,30 and relates to increased time spent in the bedroom, which discourages family contact.31 This study therefore aims to describe the gaming behavior of adolescents (i.e., hours/week and time of day played, game
ustralian adolescents interact daily with digital media across multiple settings (e.g., school/home),1 people (e.g. peers/family), devices (e.g., smartphones/gaming consoles, etc.), and for various reasons (e.g., education/ socialization), earning them descriptions of ‘‘children of the digital revolution’’2 or ‘‘screenies.’’3 Computer gaming (standalone/online) is one social pastime for many Australian adolescents,4,5 who play anywhere between 2 and 18 hours per week3,5,6 (and often longer on weekends than weekdays).3,7 Although several benefits of gaming exist (e.g., foreign language acquisition,8 enhanced executive functioning, attention, visual-spatial abilities,9,10 lower risky sexual behavior,11 social relationships,12,13 fitness14), it is not without unwanted consequences (e.g., aggression,15,16 negative family/peer relationships,17 poor academic achievement,18–20 higher BMI,21,22 sleep disturbance23,24). This study aimed to identify contributing factors to the rapid growth of Internet gaming of Australian youth (e.g., 35% increase over 3 years1), as well as factors that may curb this growth. 1 2
School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
273
274
SMITH ET AL.
equipped devices owned, locations played), and investigate whether accessibility to and location of gaming equipped devices predicts adolescents’ gaming.
the Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee and the Department of Education and Child Development.
Parental regulation in adolescents’ gaming
Materials and procedure
One important factor that may limit adolescents’ gaming behavior is parental regulation. Regulation of adolescent’s media use can be defined by two distinct types: restrictive mediation (i.e., when an adolescent could or could not use a certain media) or conversational (‘‘positive’’) mediation (i.e., a parent talking to the adolescent about a specific media issue31). Both types of mediation are less common for the single-user devices (e.g., PC) than for shared-user devices (e.g., television), that is, when an adolescent has their own PC, parents are more likely to use restrictive mediation.31 When parents give their children directions and guidelines about how to engage with the Internet (e.g., authoritative parenting style), it has been shown that this predicts levels of children’s Internet use.32 Furthermore, parental rules about Internet use (e.g., not giving out personal information or talking to strangers in chatrooms) and good communication with parents (e.g., telling parents when receiving unsolicited and inappropriate junk mail) is related to decreased likelihood of risky Internet-related behavior.33 However, the aforementioned research does not take account the perspective of the adolescent (i.e., how the adolescent feels limits have been imposed upon their Internet and online activities). Qualitative research performed more than a decade ago found that 90% of Australian children were aware of family rules for computer use.34 Yet, despite updated government advice for parents on online safety (e.g., cyberbullying, social networking, sexting, mobile phone safety, offensive content, and duration of time spent online35), there is no current knowledge on the extent to which such mediation practices are being applied to Australian adolescents’ gaming behavior, and their impact on controlling actual gaming activity.
Demographic data (date of birth, sex, postcode [SES], living situation, ethnicity) were initially collected from adolescents. Gaming behavior comprised of several aspects, including time of day gaming usually occurred, and duration (hours played). Accessibility comprised how many devices adolescents’ owned, how many were accessed within their household, their portability (e.g., laptop/tablet/smartphone = portable), location where games played (e.g., bedroom), and the number of hours played without a break. Parental regulation of media usage was assessed via the 7-item questionnaire ‘‘What Parents Say and Do’’ (WPSAD).41 Adolescents were asked if their parents had talked to them about cybersafety (yes/no), as well as about parental rules and limit setting for (a) online content, (b) length of time spent online, and (c) presence of media devices in the bedroom and physical monitoring of media use by parents. Except for questions with binary responses (i.e., cybersafety), all other questions had responses ranging from 0 = ‘‘never’’ to 4 = ‘‘always.’’ Total scores ranged from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicative of more stringent parental regulation of media and Internet use. Internal consistency of the WPSAD was acceptable (a = 0.61). The response rate was 72%. Adolescents were reimbursed at the end of the survey by making a AUD$1 donation to a charity of their choice from a list of youth well-being charities. University students received course credit for their participation.
The present study
Despite widespread and growing video gaming in Australian adolescents,1 the literature is limited due to a restricted age range,3,36 focusing on adults25,37 and addiction,7 and is based on overseas data,38,39 requires updating,1,5,37 or focuses on ‘‘screen time’’ as a general concept to the exclusion of gaming.40 This study therefore aimed to present an updated picture of how Australian adolescents are engaging with computer games across adolescence (those aged 12–20 years), with a specific focus on factors increasing (i.e., accessibility, portability) or decreasing (parent regulation) its level of use. Materials and Methods Participants
Adolescents (N = 422; age 16.3 – 2.0 years, 41% male) were recruited from South Australian high schools and from Flinders University. Most adolescents (69%) lived with both parents, 76% were of Oceanian ethnicity (e.g. Australian, Australian Aboriginal, or other South Pacific Islander), and lived in higher socioeconomic status (SES) areas.a Adolescents provided informed consent through proceeding past the information page to the survey. The study was approved by
Statistical analysis
A series of correlational analyses were conducted to determine which aspects of accessibility were associated with gaming behavior. As the data violated assumptions for parametric tests of association (i.e., Pearson’s product– moment correlation), point biserial correlations were conducted for correlations containing a dichotomous variable. For all other correlations, Spearman’s rho was conducted. Multiple regressions were conducted to identify the strongest predictors of hours adolescents spent gaming during weekdays and weekends. Results Gaming behavior of Australian adolescents
During weekdays, most adolescents (56.6%) played computer games between 5:00pm and 8:00pm or 8:00pm and 11pm (40.8%; Fig. 1A). Weekend gaming time was more evenly distributed (Fig. 1B), with most adolescents playing in the evening (8:00–11:00pm; 47.4%). Daily time spent gaming during weekdays (2.85 – 2.5 hours) was significantly shorter than daily time spent gaming on a weekend day (3.49 – 2.7 hours), t(395) = 7.50, p < 0.001 (Fig. 2). The majority of adolescents (64.9%) played computer games for more than 1 hour (range p1–4 or more hours) without a break. Accessibility of gaming devices
On average, households contained six media devices; two of these belonging to adolescents (i.e., 33%; range 1–5
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
275
FIG. 3. Devices adolescents use to engage in gaming, independent of location. in every three) reported that parents allowed them to play computer games in their bedroom (Fig. 4C).
FIG. 1. Time of day adolescents play computer games during (A) weekdays and (B) weekends. devices). Adolescents use a variety of devices to play computer games (see Fig. 3). For most adolescents (84.8%), a media device is available to use in their bedroom. Bedroom computers are commonly used to play computer games, with 63.7% using the media device they have in their bedroom to play computer games. Parental regulation of access to gaming devices
Figure 4 presents adolescents’ responses to parental regulation of media use. Despite the majority of parents talking to their adolescents about cybersafety (Fig. 4A), the vast majority of adolescents reported their parents ‘‘rarely’’ or ‘‘never’’ limit their online content or time online (Fig. 4B and D, respectively). The majority of adolescents (about two
FIG. 2. Time spent playing computer games during weekdays (dark bars) and weekends (light bars).
Associations between accessibility, portability, and parental regulation with computer gaming
Table 1 presents bivariate correlations between accessibility (access to media devices), location (device in bedroom), and portability (type of device). Hours spent gaming across the week were correlated with adolescents’ access to their own devices. Simply possessing a computer in the bedroom (i.e., location) was not associated with hours spent gaming, whereas using the computer for gaming was associated with gaming time. Contrary to expectations, portable devices (phones, tablets) were not significantly correlated with hours spent gaming. Yet, PCs and consoles were both significantly correlated with gaming time. Significant correlations were found between all parental regulation variables and the number of hours spent gaming (weekdays and weekends), with the exception of parent limit-setting of time online, as well as limiting the use of media in the bedroom. Standard multiple regressions were used to explore which variables were uniquely and significantly associated with weekday and weekend hours spent gaming. The first model conducted for weekday computer gaming explained 19.5% of the variance in hours of computer gaming, F(14, 321) = 5.57, p < 0.001. The variable explaining the largest variance in gaming time was the number of media devices owned by the adolescent (b = 0.20, p = 0.002). Other significant predictors included using a computer in the bedroom to play games (b = - 0.15, p = 0.011), using a console device for gaming (b = - 0.11, p = 0.04), and having a parent who discussed cybersafety (b = - 0.11, p = 0.045). The second model conducted for weekend computer gaming explained 30% of the variance, F(14, 321) = 9.85, p < 0.001. As with the first model, the number of media devices owned by the adolescent was the strongest predictor (b = 0.23, p < 0.001). Other significant predictors differed from the first model, and included using a PC (b = - 0.19, p = 0.001), console device (b = - 0.16, p = 0.002), or a smartphone (b = 0.14, p = 0.004) for gaming, as well as having a parent who discussed cybersafety (b = - 0.10, p = 0.043).
276
SMITH ET AL.
FIG. 4. Parental regulation: (A) discussing cybersafety; (B) limit setting of online content; (C) playing computer games in the bedroom; and (D) monitoring online time.
Discussion
The current study examined a range of factors that may influence adolescents’ gaming behavior, including device accessibility and portability, as well as parental regulation of
Table 1. Correlations Between Portability, Parental Supervision, and Hours Gaming Hours spent gaming Weekdays
Weekend
Media devices household 0.73 0.145* Media devices own 0.258* 0.324* Computer in bedroom - 0.045 0.022 Computer in bedroom used to game - 0.342* - 0.358* PC - 0.242** - 0.350** Console - 0.238** - 0.316** Smartphone 0.077 0.119* Phone - 0.096 - 0.061 Tablet 0.010 0.016 Parent talk cyber - 0.172** - 0.183** Online limits what (content) - 0.156** - 0.132** Online limits long (time) - 0.068 - 0.14 Limits media bed 0.096 0.045* Online physical presence - 0.252** - 0.211** Online see what doing - 0.148** - 0.099* Note: Point-biserial correlations used against outcome variables (hours spent gaming), except for number of media devices in household and owned (Pearson correlations). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
gaming. The portability of devices has been suggested to contribute to increased levels of Internet use.1 However, it was unknown if this also applied to gaming behavior. The current study found that, overall, portability of devices (e.g., iPads, smartphones) was not a key factor determining gaming behavior of Australian adolescents. This was consistent with research demonstrating that gaming represents only 2% time spent on social networking sites, a dominant use of more portable devices,1,42 as compared with 78% time spent for social-based activities.43 Parental monitoring is often considered a useful strategy to control or limit adolescents’ gaming. However, it was found that parental discussion of cybersafety was the only significant predictor of the number of hours adolescents spent gaming on both weekdays and weekends. Although small significant correlations were found between hours spent gaming with parents being physically present while online, parents limiting online content, and parent seeing what adolescents were doing online, these strategies did not predict adolescents’ gaming in regression models. This finding could be argued to be due to shared variance between differing parental strategies. However, despite three quarters of adolescents stated their parents had spoken to them about cybersafety, it is concerning that 75% of adolescents also reported their parents rarely or never limited online content, and 74% rarely or never enforced limits on time online. ‘‘Mediation’’ parental regulation has been found to predict levels of Internet use,32,44,45 but this relationship did not apply to this sample of Australian adolescents, despite
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
Australian guidelines suggesting parents should ‘‘consider implementing family agreements about the amount of time your children can spend online.’’35 In contrast, 80–90% of parents in 2011 reported they supervised their child or adolescents use of the Internet.1 There appears to be a notable disconnect between what parents say and what parents do, or at least what adolescents say, when it comes to limit setting around their media use. The present study was unable to determine reasons behind this discrepancy. Thus, further investigations should identify crucial barriers to parental media limit setting (e.g., social support46). The key components of accessibility significantly influencing adolescent gaming behavior (weekdays and weekends) were the number of devices owned, and having access to a computer in the bedroom to play games. Consistent with previous research,27,28 it was found that a majority of adolescents (64%) had access to a gaming device in their bedroom. However, the present findings indicated that a larger number (64% vs. 33–50%27,28) of adolescents have gaming accessible devices in their bedrooms than in previous research, and more importantly are using them to play games. The current study has extended current knowledge of the influence of this gaming accessibility demonstrating this influences the gaming behavior of Australian adolescents. Unfortunately, it appears many parents are providing their adolescent children with accessibility to gaming capable devices to ensure parental privacy is maintained or to provide adolescents with escapism.47 Limitations and future directions
The present study had some limitations that warrant caution in interpreting results. First, the study employed a selfreport survey, which relied on adolescents’ perspectives. Including a parent report would help to validate adolescents’ reports. Another limitation was the sample was primarily comprised of students from high SES areas, which has been argued to be a key factor in the ‘‘digital divide’’ that drives access to media.48 As a counterpoint, the increasing affordability and high number of gaming devices available in secondary trading markets over the last several years may have reduced the digital divide across socioeconomic divisions. The current study aimed to assess the influence of contributing factors that increase gaming, as well as limiting factors. However, the study did not assess social motivations, which is an established contributing factor to gaming during adolescence.13,49–51 Parents may themselves form a social influence on adolescents (e.g., through ‘‘co-gaming’’ or ‘‘cousing’’12,52), or may apply both co-gaming and restrictive mediation depending on their expected behavioral outcome.53 The extent to which supervisory or limiting parental practices are more effective than co-gaming techniques as a way for parents to limit amount of time spent playing computer games during adolescence remains unclear and warrants further investigation. Conclusion
Video gaming is a common activity among adolescents, with the potential for negative consequences if uncontrolled.54 Although there is growing recognition of adolescent video gaming as a potential clinical problem,55 there have been few empirical studies that examine the influence
277
of protective parenting practices. The present study has identified several key contributing and limiting factors that influence the gaming behavior of adolescents, which deserve more attention in future research studies. The key findings were that playing on a console and gaming on a higher number of gaming equipped devices were associated with more hours of gaming, whereas parental discussion of cybersafety was associated with reduced hours of gaming. Further research should explore psychosocial barriers to limit setting (e.g., inconsistent parenting styles, conflictual parent–child relationships), so parents are ultimately better informed in ways to promote gaming in healthy moderation and reduce the potential risks for excessive gaming. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank students, teachers, and principals in the six Adelaide metropolitan schools and the Flinders University first year psychology students that participated in the research. We also wish to thank Ben Maddock for his technical support with survey administration. Funding for participant reimbursement was provided by the School of Psychology, Flinders University. Notes
a. SEIFA score = 7.13 (range 1–10; higher scores = higher SES). Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist. References
1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011) Australian social trends: Online @ home (Cat. no. 4102.0), Canberra, Australia. 2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011) Australian social trends: children of the digital revolution (Cat. no. 4102.0), Canberra, Australia. 3. Olds T, Ridley K, Dollman J. Screenieboppers and extreme screenies: the place of screen time in the time budgets of 10–13 year-old Australian children. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2006; 30:137–142. 4. Straker L, Smith A, Hands B, et al. Screen-based media use clusters are related to other activity behaviours and health indicators in adolescents. BMC Public Health 2013; 13:1174. 5. Thomas NJ, Martin FH. Video-arcade game, computer game and Internet activities of Australian students: participation habits and prevalence of addiction. Australian Journal of Psychology 2010; 62:59–66. 6. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Zwaans T, et al. Clinical features and axis I comorbidity of Australian adolescent pathological Internet and video-game users. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2013;47:1058–1067. 7. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Zwaans T, et al. Sleep interference effects of pathological electronic media use during adolescence. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction 2014; 12:21–35. 8. Garcı´a-Carbonell A, Rising B, Montero B, et al. Simulation/gaming and the acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation & Gaming 2001; 32:481–491. 9. Ku¨hn S, Lorenz R, Banaschewski T, et al. Positive association of video game playing with left frontal cortical thickness in adolescents. PloS One 2014; 9:e91506.
278
10. Dye MWG, Green CS, Bavelier D. The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia 2009; 47:1780–1789. 11. Casiano H, Kinley DJ, Katz LY, et al. Media use and health outcomes in adolescents: findings from a nationally representative survey. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2012; 21:296. 12. Coyne SM, Padilla-Walker LM, Stockdale L, et al. Game on.girls: associations between co-playing video games and adolescent behavioral and family outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health 2011; 49:160–165. 13. Cole H, Griffiths MD. Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:575–583. 14. Perron R, Graham C, Feldman J, et al. Do exergames allow children to achieve physical activity intensity commensurate with national guidelines? International Journal of Exercise Science 2011; 4:6. 15. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, et al. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics 2008; 122:e1067–e1072. 16. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 2010; 136:151. 17. Padilla-Walker LM, Nelson LJ, Carroll JS, et al. More than a just a game: video game and internet use during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 2010; 39:103–113. 18. Anand V. A study of time management: the correlation between video game usage and academic performance markers. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:552–559. 19. Dumais SA. Adolescents’ time use and academic achievement: a test of the reproduction and mobility models. Social Science Quarterly 2008; 89:867–886. 20. Hastings EC, Karas TL, Winsler A, et al. Young children’s video/computer game use: relations with school performance and behavior. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2009; 30:638–649. 21. Desai RA, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cavallo D, et al. Videogaming among high school students: health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming. Pediatrics 2010; 126:1414–1424. 22. Vandewater EA, Shim, M, Caplovitz AG. Linking obesity and activity level with children’s television and video game use. Journal of Adolescence 2004; 27:71–85. ˚ kerstedt T, et al. The effect of 23. Ivarsson M, Anderson M, A violent and nonviolent video games on heart rate variability, sleep, and emotions in adolescents with different violent gaming habits. Psychosomatic Medicine 2013; 75:390–396. 24. King DL, Gradisar M, Drummond A, et al. The impact of prolonged violent video-gaming on adolescent sleep: an experimental study. Journal of Sleep Research 2013; 22:137–143. 25. Brand J. (2011) Digital Australia 2012. Eveleigh, Australia: School of Communication and Media, Bond University. 26. Lenhart A. (2012) Teens, smartphones and texting. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/ 2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx (accessed Nov. 20, 2014). 27. National Sleep Foundation. (2006) Sleep in America Poll. Washington, DC: National Sleep Foundation. 28. Rideout VJ. (1999) Kids & media@ the new millennium: executive summary. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 29. Choo H, Gentile DA, Sim T, et al. Pathological videogaming among Singaporean youth. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 2010; 39: 822.
SMITH ET AL.
30. Patriarca A, Di Giuseppe G, Albano L, et al. Use of television, videogames, and computer among children and adolescents in Italy. BMC Public Health 2008; 9:139. 31. Bovill M, Livingstone SM. (2001) Bedroom culture and the privatization of media use. LSE Research Online. http:// eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000672 (accessed Nov. 20, 2014). 32. Ihmeideh FM, Shawareb AA. The association between Internet parenting styles and children’s use of the Internet at home. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 2014; 28:411–425. 33. Liau AK, Khoo A, Hwaang P. Factors influencing adolescents engagement in risky Internet behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2005; 8:513–520. 34. Downes T. Children’s and families’ use of computers in Australian homes. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2002; 3:182–196. 35. Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). cyber (smart:): a parents’ guide to online safety. http:// cybersmart.gov.au/report.aspx (accessed Nov. 5, 2014). 36. Wake M, Hesketh K, Waters E. Television, computer use and body mass index in Australian primary school children. Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health 2003; 39:130–134. 37. Wang W. Internet dependency and psychosocial maturity among college students. International Journal of Human– Computer Studies 2001; 55:919–938. 38. Johansson A, Go¨testam KG. Problems with computer games without monetary reward: similarity to pathological gambling. Psychological Reports 2004; 95:641–650. 39. Tejeiro Salguero RA, Moran RMB. Measuring problem video game playing in adolescents. Addiction 2002; 97:1601–1606. 40. Olds TS, Maher CA, Ridley K, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of screen and non-screen sedentary time in adolescents: a cross sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity 2010; 7:92. 41. King DL, Zwaans T, Delfabbro PH. The influence of parenting practices on adolescent media use: a survey of Australian students. Journal of Adolescence 2015; 9:22–39. 42. Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA). (2013) Communications report 2011–12 series. Report 3— Smartphones and tablets Take-up and use in Australia. 43. Hughes J, Morrison L. Using Facebook to explore adolescent identities. International Journal of Social Media & Interactive Learning Environments 2013; 1:370–386. 44. Eastin MS, Greenberg BS, Hofschire L. Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication 2006; 56:486–504. 45. Valcke M, Bonte S, De Wever B, et al. Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education 2010; 55:454–464. 46. Lampard AM, Jurkowski JM, Davison KK. The family context of low-income parents who restrict child screen time. Childhood Obesity 2013; 9:386–392. 47. Livingstone S. Strategies of parental regulation in the mediarich home. Computers in human behavior 2007; 23:920–941. 48. Livingstone S, Helsper E. Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society 2007; 9:671–696. 49. Colwell J, Kato M. Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2003; 6:149–158. 50. Domahidi E, Festl R, Quandt T. To dwell among gamers: investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 35:107–115.
FACTORS AFFECTING ADOLESCENT GAMING BEHAVIOR
51. Trepte S, Reinecke L, Juechems K. The social side of gaming: how playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:832–839. 52. Sook-Jung L, Young-Gil C. Children’s Internet use in a family context: influence on family relationships and parental mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:640–644. 53. Nikken P, Jansz J. Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: a comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology 2006; 31:181–202. 54. Smyth JM. Beyond self-selection in video game play: an experimental examination of the consequences of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game play. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:717–721.
279
55. King DL, Delfabbro PH. Issues for DSM-5: video-gaming disorder? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2013; 47:20–22.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Michael Gradisar Flinders University School of Psychology GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, S.A., 5001 Australia E-mail: [email protected]
