Am I missing something? Did I get off the train before the reality police came on board to check my ticket? Or am I simply deluded when I say that I don't think online games cause college students to drop out any more than, say, binge watching The Sopranos (or The Wire or M*A*S*H or Thirtysomething or Friends or whichever series traps students in front of the TV nowadays) or hanging out at the local caf making 'zines at four o'clock in the morning every night wired on bottomless cups of black coffee and spouting pretentious philosophical overtures (oh my misspent youth)? According to several people quoted in an article in The Guardian on Monday, including a representative of the US Federal Trade Commission and a student adviser at University of Minnesota Duluth, my attitude towards online gaming and academia would suggest that I am a few tools short of a box. Here's a choice quote:

[Student adviser Vince] Repesh says the game can be more pernicious than other addictions. "If somebody has a chemical problem, you usually see side-effects from it," he explains, "but you can't tell for a long time if someone is just sitting in front of a computer. I have seen straight-A students who go to Fs because they think World of Warcraft is more important."

At least five students have come to Repesh over the last academic year with serious addictions that were causing academic problems, he says. Three others admitted they were seeking professional help from a psychologist or counselor about their need to play.

Let's recap. First, there is no conclusive evidence based on an in-depth review of the literature that gaming can be qualified as 'addictive'. There is some research which says yes, and some which says no. The Byron Review (pdf) takes Prof. Mark Griffith's (2007) definition of addition to consider the effects of excessive use of videogames on kids:

In order for a true 'addiction' to exist the individual would need to show the
following:

* salience (how important it is to someone);
* mood modification (it is used as a way of consistently and reliably modifying their mood);
* tolerance (needing more and more of it to get the same mood modification);
* withdrawal symptoms (there is a set of consequences to its removal);
conflict (the activity produces a conflict such that it has a negative detrimental effect on relationships, work, academic studies, life); and
* relapse (if you have cut down or stopped there is always the tendency to relapse back to excessive levels).

Griffiths argues that fewer than 7% of people in the UK are 'addicted' to games based on these criteria. But Byron makes two very important points:

...[W]e need to consider whether excessive gaming by children is due to the addictive nature of video games for them or if it is more a matter of parents not feeling able to manage their children's behaviour effectively. Children can take many activities to excess if their behaviour isn't moderated and balanced, whether it's playing games, watching TV or eating. Research has yet to determine whether some types of game are more addictive than others or whether there are inherent features, either individual characteristics (e.g. children with obsessive compulsive tendencies) or circumstantial features (e.g. children in situations of boredom) that predict high usage. It is certainly conceivable that children with particular cognitive, behavioural or personality characteristics may be more vulnerable.

A further issue here is that there is a cultural judgement about excessive behaviour. In the context of video games, excess is looked upon as being a bad thing. In the context of, say reading, it is conceived of as much more positive – the term 'book-worm' might be muttered somewhat proudly.

While her points consider children, a similar argument could be made for college students and other non-child gamers.

(...)