# Overviewing Gaming Motivation and Its Associated Psychological and Sociodemographic Variables: A PRISMA Systematic Review

Authors: Alessia Martucci; Mustafa Can Gursesli; Mirko Duradoni; Andrea Guazzini
Journal: Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies
 (2023)

---

## Abstract

Nowadays, video games are part of our everyday life, and the number of players is increasing each day passing by. Thus, understanding what motivations drive people to play video games is becoming a very important topic for researchers. That is why this systematic review had the objective to summarize the existing literature about gaming motivation by including papers that used a validated tool to do so while excluding those that did address just the psychopathological aspect of gaming. The systematic review was carried out through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRSIMA). A total of 53 papers were included in this systematic review, and the findings revealed that nonaddicted players and addicted players seem both to play for social, achievement, and competition motivations. Male players appeared more oriented to play to compete with others, while female players seemed to use games for relationship and social reasons. Gaming motivation was stronger in younger people.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Despite common belief, video games did not enter our lives rapidly but have been in it for a very long time. A video game is defined as “a game which we play thanks to an audio-visual apparatus and which can be based on a story” [1]. The journey started in the early 1950s with simple games; in these days, it continues with more than a hundred game types on more than twenty platforms [2].On top of these technological developments, with the rapid increase in Internet usage during the 2000s, today, 4.9 billion people have access to the internet [3]. This situation enabled creators to sell games with ease while paving the way for gamers to access them. According to 2020 statistics, 2.69 billion people have played a video game at least once, and 91% of the revenue of the gaming industry, which is 158$ billion, is from digital game sales [4].Given the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, the scientific literature is abundant with research papers from different fields addressing the topic [5, 6]. The main core-researched areas in game studies right now are gaming addiction addressed both by the psychological and the medical field [7, 8], the use of serious games as efficient learning tools in educational fields or for training purposes [9, 10], games and gamification aspects related to work environments [11, 12], games and the consumer behaviour in terms of engagement and entertainment [13–15], money spent in games [16, 17], games used as simulations to refine or learn skills in certain work fields such as the air industry or in surgery [18, 19], games and aggressive behaviours [20, 21], and, lastly, the motivation behind the use and consumption of games [22, 23]. This latter aspect has received particular attention by researchers which determined an increasing number of published works about this topic in recent years (around 230 sources about this topic per year starting from 2018 up to today on Google Scholar). Nonetheless, there is a huge gap in literature regarding this theme in terms of findings; majority of the papers only address online games [14, 22, 24, 25]; the tools created to assess motivations are either based on only online games [22, 26, 27], thus excluding almost all of the players that do not play online that much, or were created ad hoc for the research. Moreover, there is a lack of shared consensus regarding the definition of each game motivation (e.g., coping and diversion) [22, 28, 29], or even which ones should be investigated and measured.For all these reasons, the current literature about game motivation appears to be extremely heterogeneous in its findings but also particularly interesting. For these reasons, this PRISMA is aimed at giving a detailed excursus on what the researchers have discovered up to this point about game motivation, without any specific focus as a game genre, sex, etc. As of now, this paper has a double objective: (1) to do a systematic review of all the motivations that could possibly be behind the action of playing games and the variables associated with them and (2) to list all of the existent and used tools to do so.


## 2. Methods and Procedure

### 2.1. Eligibility Criteria

This systematic review was carried out through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All the studies included have the following criteria: (i) being written in English, (ii) papers must address specifically motivation for gaming, (iii) being indexed by Google Scholar (unpublished thesis and dissertation studied are included), (iv) having a validated tool to measure motivations and needs for gaming (ad hoc instruments were included if they were validated through a factor analysis, and statistic data about it were reported in the paper), and (v) not having a clinical sample (studies with both clinical and nonclinical samples were deemed eligible, but only the results related to the nonclinical sample are reported).Studies were excluded if they were (i) addressing mainly psychological aspects of gaming addiction, (ii) not written in English, (iii) not using a validated survey to measure gaming motivation, and (iv) papers that apart from identifying gaming motivation, later did not investigate these ones with other external associated variables.


### 2.2. Information Sources

Research papers were all retrieved and collected from Google Scholar by using the aforementioned criteria.


### 2.3. Search

Search was conducted throughout all the months of December 2021 and January and February 2022 by using the following keywords: “game motivation” (2540 sources) and “gaming motivation” (1060 sources).


### 2.4. Study Collection

All papers were initially screened by reading the abstract of potential interesting research. Further examination was done by reading the full papers so as to remove those who did not fit the criteria.


#### 2.4.1. Study Selection

During the initial process of screening, 139 studies were accepted based on their title and abstract. Consequently, 18 of these studies were dropped due to not actually focusing on gaming motivations but instead psychopathological aspects of gaming addiction (n=7), being qualitative studies or surveys with descriptive statistics only (n=2), not focusing on motivations per se (n=3), and not using proper instruments (n=5). After reading the full papers, other 68 papers were dropped based on their content that did not fit the criteria to include them in the PRISMA or because, even though the abstract was in English, the full paper was not in such language. In the end, 53 papers were deemed eligible for this PRISMA (Figure 1).Figure 1
Diagram showing the number of papers identified, included, and excluded about gaming motivation papers according to the exclusion criteria.


## 2.1. Eligibility Criteria

This systematic review was carried out through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All the studies included have the following criteria: (i) being written in English, (ii) papers must address specifically motivation for gaming, (iii) being indexed by Google Scholar (unpublished thesis and dissertation studied are included), (iv) having a validated tool to measure motivations and needs for gaming (ad hoc instruments were included if they were validated through a factor analysis, and statistic data about it were reported in the paper), and (v) not having a clinical sample (studies with both clinical and nonclinical samples were deemed eligible, but only the results related to the nonclinical sample are reported).Studies were excluded if they were (i) addressing mainly psychological aspects of gaming addiction, (ii) not written in English, (iii) not using a validated survey to measure gaming motivation, and (iv) papers that apart from identifying gaming motivation, later did not investigate these ones with other external associated variables.


## 2.2. Information Sources

Research papers were all retrieved and collected from Google Scholar by using the aforementioned criteria.


## 2.3. Search

Search was conducted throughout all the months of December 2021 and January and February 2022 by using the following keywords: “game motivation” (2540 sources) and “gaming motivation” (1060 sources).


## 2.4. Study Collection

All papers were initially screened by reading the abstract of potential interesting research. Further examination was done by reading the full papers so as to remove those who did not fit the criteria.


### 2.4.1. Study Selection

During the initial process of screening, 139 studies were accepted based on their title and abstract. Consequently, 18 of these studies were dropped due to not actually focusing on gaming motivations but instead psychopathological aspects of gaming addiction (n=7), being qualitative studies or surveys with descriptive statistics only (n=2), not focusing on motivations per se (n=3), and not using proper instruments (n=5). After reading the full papers, other 68 papers were dropped based on their content that did not fit the criteria to include them in the PRISMA or because, even though the abstract was in English, the full paper was not in such language. In the end, 53 papers were deemed eligible for this PRISMA (Figure 1).Figure 1
Diagram showing the number of papers identified, included, and excluded about gaming motivation papers according to the exclusion criteria.


## 2.4.1. Study Selection

During the initial process of screening, 139 studies were accepted based on their title and abstract. Consequently, 18 of these studies were dropped due to not actually focusing on gaming motivations but instead psychopathological aspects of gaming addiction (n=7), being qualitative studies or surveys with descriptive statistics only (n=2), not focusing on motivations per se (n=3), and not using proper instruments (n=5). After reading the full papers, other 68 papers were dropped based on their content that did not fit the criteria to include them in the PRISMA or because, even though the abstract was in English, the full paper was not in such language. In the end, 53 papers were deemed eligible for this PRISMA (Figure 1).Figure 1
Diagram showing the number of papers identified, included, and excluded about gaming motivation papers according to the exclusion criteria.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

53 studies were deemed eligible for this PRISMA systematic review about gaming motivation. All the included studies were cross–sectional, and they were using a validated tool to measure the aforementioned motivations.The following side note is necessary to better understand the reading and eventually organize the information of the following paper;n refers to the number of studies, while k refers to the samples.


#### 3.1.1. Questionnaires Used and/or Developed by the Studies

The most used survey instrument of these studies was the Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26]) (n=9) which assesses three main dimensions, and each one composed of more subscales. The three dimensions are achievement1 (composed by the following subscales: advancement3, mechanics46, and competition13), social65 (composed by the following subscales: socializing65, teamwork72, and relationship59), and immersion35 (composed by the following subscales: discovery18, role-playing61, customization17, and escapism25).Other four questionnaires that were fairly used in the analyzed papers were as follows: (a) The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30]) (n=5), which based on the Self-Determination Theory [31], assesses five main dimensions: presence54, competence12, relatedness58, autonomy7, and intuitive controls41; (b) the Motive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22]) (n=5) which assesses seven main motivations: competition13, coping15, fantasy28, social65, skill development63, escape25, and recreation57; (c) the Gaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]) (n=5) which assesses five dimensions: intrinsic motivation38, integrated regulation36, identified regulation34, introjected regulation40, external regulation27, and amotivation5; (d) the Online Gaming Motivations Scale [27] (n=5) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65.One questionnaire was used a sufficient number of times: the Massively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33]) (n=3), only developed in spanish, assesses four main dimensions: exploration26, achievement1, socialization65, and dissociation20.Four questionnaires were used only a couple of times: (a) the gaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34]) (n=2) which assess nine main motivations: story70, violence catharsis73, loss-aversion43, violent reward74, social interaction65, grinding31/completion16, escapism25, autonomy7/exploration26, and customization17; (b) the Digital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35]) (n=2) which assesses Digital Games Motivation Scale eight main motivations: narrative49, social65, escapism25, moral self reaction47, agency4, pastime50, performance51, and habit32; (c) the Videogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ; [28]) (n=2) which assesses eight main gaming motivations: recreation57, social interaction65, coping15, violent reward74, fantasy28, ognitive development10, customization17, and competition13; (d) the Video Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29] (n=2) which assesses six dimensions: competition13, challenge9, fantasy28, arousal6, social interaction65, and diversion21.The following questionnaires (n=13) were created ad hoc for the research and/or need further validation; thus, they were used only one time: (a) the ad hoc questionnaire Motivations to Play [36] (n=1) which assesses five motivations: achievement1, socializing65, immersion35, relaxing60, and escaping25; (b) the Computer Gaming Motivation Scale [37] (n=1), only developed in Turkish, which assesses five dimensions: concentration14, entertainment24, learning42, escape25, and socialization65; (c) the Gaming Motive Scale [38] (n=1) which assesss three main motivations, each one composed of some subscales: ego-Centered Motives (fantasy28, competence12, exploration26, and challenge9), social motives (community11, social capital66, competition13, and team play71), and content-related motives (mechanics46 and narration48); (d) ad hoc Motivation Questionnaire created by the authors [39] (n=1) composed of four dimensions: socializing65, competition13, low cost44, and coping15; (e) the Smartphone Gaming Motivations [40] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: arousal6, challenge9, fantasy28, competition13, diversion21, and social interaction65; (f) the Electronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ; [41]) (n=1) which assesses four dimensions: coping15, self-gratification62, enhancement23, and social65; (g) the Massively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI; [42]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65; (h) the ad hoc Gaming Motivation Scale developed by the authors [43] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: social external regulation68, game external regulation27, identified regulation34, intrinsic accomplishment37, intrinsic hedonic39, and amotivation5; (i) the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale [44] (n =1) which measures six gaming motivations related to six gamer profiles: philanthropist51, socialiser67, free spirit29, achiever2, disruptor19, and player53; (j) the ad hoc scale VideoGame Play [45] (n=1) which measures different motivations through the engagement dimension; (k) the Ubisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ; [46]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: relatedness58, autonomy7, and competence12; (l) the ad hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47] which measures 9 different motivations: arousal6, diversion21, social interaction65, fantasy28, challenge9, hi-tech33, ego22, competition13, and realism56; (l) the ad hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPGs’ motivations [25] (n = 1) which assess achievement1, relationship59, immersion35, escapism25, and manipulation45.Table1 shows the motivational dimensions of each instrument with their respective Cronbach’s alpha. A glossary is also present in the appendix to give the definition of each measured motivation.Table 1
Instruments used by the papers in this PRISMA systematic review with all the dimensions and their Cronbrach’s alpha.
Motivation typeMeasure (references)Studies using itReliabilityEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94Escapism (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.65EscapismPokémon Go Motives scale [48]1.86EscapeReason for playing videogames (RPVG, [49])1.83EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.846EscapingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.881EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapismAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.62CompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.95Competition (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.75Competition (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.76CompetitionMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.74CompetitionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.76CompetitionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.86CompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.868CompetitionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.75CopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94CopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.794CopingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.64CopingVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.87FantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92Fantasy (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.66FantasyVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.82FantasyVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.88FantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.911FantasyAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.91SocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])5.76SocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.857SocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.699Socializing (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.80Teamwork (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.71Relationship (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74RelationshipAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.76Community (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Social capital (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.81Team play (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.87SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.77SocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.819SocializingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.891SocializingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.84SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.76Social interactionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.83Social interactionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.81Social interactionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.92Social external regulationsGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.93Social interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.849Social interactionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.79SocializersGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.838Skill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94RecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92RecreationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.84Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90Intrinsic hedonicGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Integrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Introject regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75External regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Game external regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.83Self-gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.842EnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.672StoryGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.92NarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2Not reportedViolence catharsisGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.91Loss-aversionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.81Grinding/completionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.79CustomizationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.88CustomizationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.88Customization (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74ChallengeVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.80Challenge (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.64ChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.811ChallengeAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.72ArousalVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.85ArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.896ArousalAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.83DiversionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.89DiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.889DiversionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81Discovery (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.73Role playing (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.87Advancement (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.79Mechanics (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.68Mechanics (content-related motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.64AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.74AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.816AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.66AchievementMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedAchievementAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.67AchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.759EngagementVideoGame play [45]1.96ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.75ImmersionMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.62ImmersionMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedImmersionAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.63Violent rewardVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.93Violent rewardGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.86Cognitive developmentVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.81ConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.744EntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.959LearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.922PresenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.84AutonomyThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.86Autonomy/explorationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.78Exploration (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]11ExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.750CompetenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.82Competence (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Intuitive controlsThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]1.60Low costMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.76DissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.833Moral self actionDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.793AgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.791PastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.886PerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.875HabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.930RelaxingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.893Free spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.723DisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.738PlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.698Hi-techAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81EgoAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.89RealismAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.84ManipulationAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.73


#### 3.1.2. Geographical Areas of the Investigated Sample

Given the fact that the majority of these studies wanted to analyze motivations in a gamer sample that could be as representative as possible of the existing online communities, and most of the included papers in this systematic review (n=21) recruited their sample online through the Internet or other sampling methods. Still, the other studies recruited them through schools or via other methods and, as such, obtained results that are highly specific for certain countries. While considering that two studies [27, 50] sought to compare gamers from different geographical areas, specifically Hong Kong and Taiwan [27] and Germany, Singapore, and the United States [50], the distribution of the used samples is as follows: United States (k=10), Spain (k=5), Malaysia (k=4), Germany (k=3), Turkey (k=3), China (k=2), Norway (k=1), Netherlands (k=1), Singapore (k=1), Hungary (k=1), Belgium (k=1), Australia (k=1), Hong Kong (k=1), Canada (k=1), and Perù (n=1).


#### 3.1.3. Age Clusters of the Samples

Gaming is generally considered as an activity majorly done by young people, even though this phenomena is largely changing thanks to smartphone games. Furthermore, it is worth taking into consideration the fact that almost all the samples were recruited either online or through college and schools; thus, there might be a bias in the sampling method. While keeping this in mind, 45 of the sample were put in the cluster called “young people,” which defines a sample with a distribution of the mean age that falls between 18 and 35 (k=45). The second cluster is composed of “underaged” samples; 5 were the samples whose mean of age was under 18 (k=5). In addition, it is necessary to clarify that 5 papers did not report any mean of age but just the age range [47, 51–54], and 3 did not specify the distribution of the age neither with the mean nor the range [26, 30, 55], even if, regarding the paper done by Ryan et al. [30], this can be applied only for the first study that they included in their research. The third cluster, the “adult sample” whose mean of age was above 35, is composed of only two samples (k=2).Eventually, there is a side note to better explain the higher number of samples if compared to the numbers of papers. Six papers used more than one sample and divided them based on defined variables (n=6). Wohn et al. [43] divided the two samples based on the game they played, thus writing more than one mean age, the MMO one belonging to the cluster of young age, while social network one belonging to the adult sample; Ratan et al. [50] also had three samples divided based on the country where they collected the data from (Germany, Singapore and the United States) with all of them belonging to the young sample; Sherry et al. [29] used five samples recruited from different school grades; the same goes for the study done by Greenberg et al. [47] which used also five samples coming from different school grades, but in the latter case, no means of age were given: finally, the study done by López-Fernández et al. [28] also used two sample of young players, one underage and one of young adults.


#### 3.1.4. Theoretical Metamodel to Interpret the Results in Literature

While keeping in mind the heterogeneity of the current literature and its few existing and important models about gaming motivation, we tried to clusterize all the evidence gathered by researchers by putting them inside a new metamodel, mostly data-driven (Figure2). This model could be considered inspired by Lewin’s field theory [56]. Behaviours are just a function of the interaction between people (and their psychological aspects) and the environment they are put in. Moreover, Maslow’s theory [57] showed that all human beings act to satisfy not only their physiological needs but also their psychological ones (e.g., relatedness, competence, and self-realization). People are motivated to do something because they have a psychological drive (or need) that pushes them towards that direction. These needs can be considered primordial in terms of human nature, but some of them are the creation of being born and belonging to a certain cultural context and a certain society. Basically, our metamodel can be divided in more layers, and it suggests that motivation can be put on a psychological level together with other theoretical (e.g., online self-worth; [58]) and empirical factors. The “psychological layer,” specifically motivation, can have an influence on the behaviours present in the “behavioral layer.” This direct relationship is moderated by the elements of the “socio-demographic layer,” which can also have a direct effect on the other two single-layers. As an example, younger people, especially students, have more free time compared to adults, and consequently, this means that this time could be spent in playing video games (i.e., behaviour) making their gaming motivation higher and specific (i.e., psychological). Another example, being a male player in a certain culture can determine different needs and motivations for playing as also different behaviours in the context they are in. According to data gathered by ESA [59], boys in the U.S prefer to play with other people, to have fun with a preference for sports and shooter and RPG games; girls prefer to play to relax and unwind on their own with a preference for puzzle games. Statistics showed that different countries tend to like different types of games, and this implies that different cultures may have an influence on gender and age preferences in terms of games and motivation. As an example, Japanese people seem to prefer life simulators or RPG [60], Italian people prefer sport and competitive games such as FIFA [61, 62], while Americans prefer shooter games [59, 63]. Even the places where games gather to play might be different depending on culture and context. For instance, Internet cafès (places where gamers can play online games through a rented pc) are extremely popular in medio-oriental and oriental countries (e.g., China and Turkey; [64–66]) but less popular in European countries, and they are mainly frequented by students. Therefore, the place where people can gather to share a common interest can have an impact on which type of game is the most popular and played in a country.Figure 2
Theoretical metamodel suggested to understand how each cluster is connected to each other.


#### 3.1.5. Investigated Variables

Gaming motivation is a multidisciplinary topic that can be covered by a wide variety of academic fields (e.g., marketing, business, cyber environments, psychology, and medicine), and, as such, there is a great variety of variables investigated.The first group is labeled as “sociodemographic variables,” and the two main investigated ones are gender (n=22) and age (n=15), directly followed by status/occupation (e.g., being a worker, a student, and being married) (n=4) and self description as a gamer or not (n=3). Fewer studies also investigated the relation to spoken language [67], ethnicity [68], and the type of household [36].The second group can be called “behavioral variables” since it focuses on specific behaviours associated with gaming motivations. Of this entire group, only one variable was investigated frequently, and it was gaming frequency (n=22), also called weekly gaming in some papers. Other analyzed behaviours were as follows: “years of playing” (n=5), sometimes also called “gaming experience”, which defines the years that participants spent playing a specific game or gaming; “daily play time” (n=6), which are the hours spent playing per day or the average longest game session in hours in a day, and “playing or talking with other people” (n=5); four variables were investigated just a couple of times: “future play” (n=2) defines as how much the participants were willing to keep playing the game; “time spent playing in the weekend” (n=2); “players behavior in World of Warcraft” (n=2), where the studies assessed an ensemble of specific actions done in World of Warcraft. Lastly, the following variables were assessed just one time: “Gaming duration” [69], intended as the longest gaming session the player ever had; “Pay to play” [70], which defines the money spent to play the game; “Daily usage of Information and Communication Technologies” [54]; “Continued play” [30], intended as the intentional behaviour of keep playing the same game”; “gaming during spare time” [34]; progression game, intended as a specific index calculated by the game [71]; “days played” [46].The third group gathers all the variables associated with psychological aspects, and, as such, it is named “psychological variables.” Gaming addiction (n=17) was the main investigated association in many papers. The second most assessed one was personality traits (n=6). All the others were assessed either a couple of times or just one single time, meaning that they might need more research. Specifically, the five variables investigated only two times are as follows: need for cognition (n=2), the three psychological needs of the Self-Determination Theory [31, 72] (n=2), loneliness (n=2), values [38, 55], and enjoyment (n=2). As already stated before, all the left variables in this group were investigated each one only by one paper, and it includes a great variety of psychological aspects. Regarding the topic of self–esteem, one paper in particular [58] investigated gaming motivations to assess the construct of “Online Self Worth” by creating a specific scale, while the other paper [30] simply assessed self-esteem with an already existent tool. The remaining studies of this group focused on the association between gaming motivations and avatar identification [73], loss of control [41], boredom [41], success for gaming intended as ego or task-oriented scores in games [45], willingness to change gaming habits [70], passion [74], the flow state while playing the game [75], status seeking in games [75], attitude towards online games [55], emotional intelligence [53], personal gender variables attributes such as having negative masculine attributes or positive femenine attributes [76], social capital [48], life satisfaction [48], physical presence [46], self expansion [51], self-described attitude [34], mood [30], and self engulfment [51].The fourth, and last, group is composed of “variables associated to the Gaming environment” that do not fit any group mentioned above since they relate to game aspects or particular settings where the gamers play their games. The genre of game played (e.g., MMORPG, action, FPS, and MMO) was taken into consideration the most times with 7 studies, while style of play (e.g., playing PvP or playing solo) was assessed in two papers. The following ones were instead analyzed each one only by one paper: place where the game is played (Internet cafè or home) [71], type of server used [105], gaming platform used [137], physical health related to Pokémon Go [48], and the number of avatars possessed [33]. All statistical results are reported in Table 2.Table 2
Main characteristics of the studies included reference, sample size, gender distribution, age mean/age distribution, country where the data were collected, motivation dimensions and motivation measures used, gaming dimensions/variable and gaming description/instrument used, and main results.
ReferencesSample sizeGender distributionAge mean/ age distributionCountryMotivation dimensionMotivation measureGaming related dimension/variableGaming-related measure/variable descriptionResultsBeard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .39,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.05, (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .35,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.04 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .36,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =.27,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =-.08,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .46,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.13,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .45,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .55,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.08 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .56,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .72,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .31,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.15,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .40,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .41,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.11,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .22,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .38,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .01,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .03 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .31,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .28,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .12 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .56,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = 32,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .05 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = -.16,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r = .47,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.24,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.00 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =-.13,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.18,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.04 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.28,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =-.449,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.069,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr = .393,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.325,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365,p<.001β=.43, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.592,p<.01β=.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.434,p<.05β=.03 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365 (p<.01) β=0.04 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Loss of controlAuthors asked three self - reported item about losing control while gamingr =-.281,p<.01β=-.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .062 (n.s)β=0.30 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .035 (n.s)β=0.20 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .248,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayGratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .180,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale - Short Form (BPS - SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .093,p<.01β = .079, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .130,p<.01β = .113, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.092,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .188,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.017 (n.s)β = .080, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.103,p<.01β = .168, p<.001Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = -.40, p<.05, t = -6.90, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.79, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.70, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .27, p<.05, t =4.50, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .65, p<.05, t =11.20, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineGrinding/ CompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .40, p<.05, t =6.76, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .39, p<.05, t =6.57, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .23, p<.05, t =5.48, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .24, p<.05, t =5.65, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -9.09, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -5.87, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineArousalMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.15, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.12, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -3.51, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.06, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipsMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.21, p<.05Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =6.746,p<.001, mean (m =1.86, sd =0.97, f =2.29 sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =10.900,p<.001, mean (m =2.47, sd =1.19, f =1.87, sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =2.124,p<.05, mean (m =2.48, sd =1.08, f =2.61, sd =1.01)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =5.357,p<.001, mean (m =3.00, sd =1.21, f =3.35, sd =1.18)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =7.244,p<.001, mean (m =2.28, sd =1.11, f =2.78, sd =1.24)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =4.400,p<.001, mean (m =4.10, sd =0.93, f =4.30 sd =0.82Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =9.719,p<.001; mean (a =1.99, sd =1.07; b =1.91, sd = .98; c =1.82, sd = .93)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =31.527,p<.001; mean (a =2.60, sd =1.24; b =2.43, sd =1.19; c =2.23, sd =1.09)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =19.595,p<.001; mean (a =2.62, sd =1.16; b =2.52, sd =1.07; c =2.36, sd = .98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.327,p<.001; mean (a =3.18, sd =1.23; b =3.02, sd =1.19; c =2.89, sd =1.20)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.788,p<.001; mean (a =2.47, sd =1.16; b =2.32, sd =1.14, (c) =2.20, sd =1.08Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =11.386,p<.001; mean (a =4.03, sd =1.00; b =4.12, sd =0.91; c =4.21, sd =0.86)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSkill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =13.867,p<.001; mean (a =2.34, sd =1.17; b =2.29, sd =1.14; c = 2.12, sd =1.11)Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsRelationshipMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .459,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsAdvancementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 230,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .437,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .417,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsCompetitionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 340,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .35, p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .21, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]GenderFemale or maler = -.335,p<.01, β = - 16.594; F = 7.291, p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Need for cognitionNeed for cognition (NFC, [81])r = .168,p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Ego Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .264,p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Task Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .266,p<.01, β = 1.044; F = 4.355, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Play with othersAd hoc item created by the authorsr = .345,p<.01, β = 5.256; F = 5.613, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Hours of playHours played weeklyr = .198,p<.01, β = 3.213; F = 61.375, p<.001Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.63, sd = 1.84; M =4.30, sd = 1.73), F = 9.545,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.54, sd =1.86; M = 3.51, sd = 1.89), F = 17.641, p < .05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.71, sd = 1.74; M = 3.42, sd = 1.81), F = 10.387,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.95, sd = 1.74; M = 3.76, sd = 1.81), F = 13.275,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.49, sd = 1.68; M = 3.65, sd = 1.85), F = 26.429,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.53, sd = 1.60; >4 = 4.54, sd = 1.79), F = 27.734,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.67, sd = 1.60; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.03), F = 22.253,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.76, sd = 1.53; >4 = 3.56, sd = 1.93), F = 16.093,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.08, sd = 1.56; >4 = 3.86, sd = 1.93), F = 15.554,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4y; less than 3y)Mean (<3 =2.89, sd = 1.59; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.02), F = 13.727,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.60, sd = 1.66;N=3.48, sd = 1.75), F = 35.375, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y =3.79, sd = 1.89;N=2.53, sd = 1.75), F = 37.860, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.72, sd = 1.76;N=2.57, sd = 1.67), F = 36.382, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.11, sd = 1.75;N=2.77, sd = 1.63), F = 50.131, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.83;N=2.67, sd = 1.77), F = 34.020, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.65, sd = 1.75;N=3.11, sd = 1.65), F = 8.241, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.84, sd = 1.70;N=3.77, sd = 1.72), F = 28.404, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.99, sd = 1.96;N=2.88, sd = 1.80), F = 26.489, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.90;N=2.93, sd = 1.69), F = 19.638, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.47, sd = 1.94;N=3.08, sd = 1.58), F = 48.704, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.09, sd = 1.95;N=2.97, sd = 1.75), F = 28.194, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.46, sd = 1.81;N=3.54, sd = 1.60), F = 21.729, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.56, sd = 2.02;N=2.72, sd = 1.63), F = 15.411, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.47, sd = 1.89;N=2.83, sd = 1.60), F = 9.635, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.96, sd =1.91;N=2.82, sd = 1.42), F = 33.260, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal RegulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.60, sd =1.99;N=2.90, sd = 1.62), F = 10.947, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.78, sd =1.86;N=3.61, sd = 1.55), F = 38.470, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.98, sd = 2.11;N=2.68, sd = 1.55), F = 41.607, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.75, sd = 1.98;N=2.83, sd = 1.56), F = 22.336, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.22, sd =1.91;N=3.01, sd = 1.57), F = 39.867, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y =4.03, sd = 1.93;N=2.80, sd = 1.68), F = 38.091, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 3.47, sd = 1.65; B = 4.28, sd = 1.61; C = 5.02, sd = 1.94), F = 19.059,p<.01; post hoc: C > B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.69; B = 3.23, sd = 1.76; C = 4.28, sd =2.29), F = 14.802p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > A)Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.94, sd = 1.73; B = 3.19, sd = 1.59; C = 3.87, sd = 2.25), F = 5.890p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A =2.89, sd = 1.73; B = 3.78, sd = 1.61; C = 4.23, sd = 2.07), F = 14.818p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.78; B = 3.67, sd = 1.79; C = 3.77, sd = 2.04), F = 10.885p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 3.46, sd = 1.75; B = 3.68, sd = 1.64; C =2.78, sd = 1.72), F = 6.313p<.01; post hoc: A > C, B > COsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 3.17, sd = 1.59; M = 3.95, sd = 1.80; N = 4.56, sd = 1.70), F = 16.327,p<.01; post hoc: N > M > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.38, sd = 1.51; M =2.89, sd = 1.85;N=3.75, sd = 1.95), F = 15.308, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.46, sd = 1.41; M = 2.85, sd = 1.59;N=3.70, sd = 1.70), F = 14.834, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.83, sd = 1.69; M = 3.23, sd = 1.71;N=3.95, sd = 1.83), F = 11.357, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.79, sd = 1.72; M = 2.88, sd = 1.80;N=3.77, sd = 1.90), F = 10.323, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 4.15, sd = 1.80; M = 3.17, sd = 1.52;N=3.27, sd = 1.73), F = 7.681, p < .01; post hoc: Y > M, Y > NFam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaSocialOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .098, p<.05Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .129, p<.01Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .166 < p<.01Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .38,p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .65,p<.001, β = .36, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .36 <p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .48,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .35,p<.001, β = 28, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .33,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .28,p<.001, β = .19, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .29,p<.001, β = .16, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .31,p<.001, β = .20, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .27,p<.001, β = .18, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .36,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .24,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .19,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .12,p<.001T’ng & Pau [73].1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .173, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .085, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .460, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .107, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = - .273, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .366, p<.05Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .21, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .07, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = - .16, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .24, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Ethnicitye.g., if White/Caucasianβ = .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etc.β = - .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were of asked their ageβ = - .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .19, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etcβ = - .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])ExtraversionBFI-10 [91]β = .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeFemale or maleβ = - .14, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ExtraversionJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .12,p<.05, β = - .16, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .38,p<.01, β = - .30, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .11,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.18,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .32,p<.01, β = .32, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.26,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.16,p<.01, β = -.04, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.24,p<.01, β = -.14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .12,p<.05, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.41,p<.01, β = -.33, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.14,p<.01, β = -.03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .38,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .39,p<.01; β = .17, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .33,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .18,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .39,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .37,p<.01, β = .08, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .48,p<.01, β = .20, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .51,p<.01, β = .28, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .36,p<.01, β = .06, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .17,p<.01, β = .03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .30,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 4.321,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.350,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 6.619,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.291,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 11.906,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 14.569,p<.05,Mean (concentration per age) = (18-25: 2.803; 26-35: 2.616; 36-45: 2.348; 46-55: 1.815, 56+: 2.031); Fage (4-1672) = 16.851, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -12.299,p<.05Mean (entertainment per age) = (18 - 25: 3.586; 26-35: 3.025; 36 - 45: 2.693; 46-55: 1.857, 56+: 3.719); Fage (4-1672) = 60.914, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -8.646, p < .05,Mean (escape per age) = (18 - 25: 2.789; 26-35: 2.562; 36-45: 2.427; 46-55: 1.921, 56+: 2.896); Fage (4-1672) = 12.795, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -13.278, p < .05,Mean (learning per age) = (18-25: 3.063; 26-35: 2.696; 36-45: 2.535; 46-55: 1.994, 56+: 2.141); Fage (4-1672) = 23.433, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 15.226,p<.05,Mean (socialization per age) = (18 - 25: 3.337; 26 - 35: 2.784; 36 - 45: 2.552; 46 - 55: 1.905, 56+: 3.031); Fage (4-1672) = 43.230, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = - .127,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .105,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT UsageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .083,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.190,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.305,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.143,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .196,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .276,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesCompetence(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .15,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .23,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .39,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .35,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesPsychological detachmentRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = 20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .25,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .14,p<.05, β = -.19, p=.032Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelatedness(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .16,p<.05, β = .20, p=.002Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .25,p<.01, β = .19, p=.029Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .21,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic hedonic motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 5.88, sd = 1.06; MMO = 6.17, sd = .94); t(1016) = - 4.48,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 4.52, sd = 1.51; MMO = 5.00, sd = 1.28); t(1016) = - 5.38,p<.001. F(1, 1014) = 28.81, p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.21, sd = 1.67; MMO = 3.83, sd = .1.70); t(1016) = - 5.91,p<.001;Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 2.57, sd = 1.54; MMO = 2.27, sd = 1.43); t(1016) = 3.07,p<.01Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal gameAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.63, sd =1.86; MMO = 5.03, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = - 13.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesAmotivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.23, sd = 1.55; MMO = 2.72, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = 5.35,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified social regulationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 3.41, sd = 1.65; F = 3.01, sd = 1.66) (F(1, 1014) = 4.4,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal social motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 2.65, sd = 1.53; F =2.48, sd = 155) (F(1, 1014) = 9.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or malemean (SNG) (M = 3.46, sd = 1.77, F = 3.81, sd = 1.94); mean MMO (M = 4.94, sd = 1.51; F = 5.12, sd = 1.36); F(1, 1014) =6.57,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 179.14,p<.001)Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 28.81Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.20, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.14, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanismGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.46, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.37, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .44, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .26, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .29, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experiencegamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .05, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102])β = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = - .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.15, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .21, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]Role PlayingGenre of gameβ = .40, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = .35, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])GenderFemale or maleF (1, 87) = 5.60,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 6.42,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn-game Autonomy(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 4.77,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 10.58,p<.001Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Preference for continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .39, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Free choice continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .41, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Self-esteemMultidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI; [103])β = .52, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Modd/affectMood Rating Scale ([104])β = .25, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .14, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .15, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .09, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .18, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .19, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .24, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .49, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .36, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .21, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineImmersionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .08, p<.01Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanySocializingAd hoc instrument [39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 381,p<.001, n^2 = .04Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 256,p<.001, n^2 = .03Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCopingAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 150,p<.001, n^2 = .02Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 2.59, sd = .81, F = 3.04, sd = .83), F(1, 8201) = 437,p<.01, n^2 = .05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainSocializationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.100,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.115,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = -.119,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = .316,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainAchievementMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student workingMean (S = 19.53, sd = 7.52; W = 17.08, sd = 7.26); F(3, 426) = 3.6,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student working (WS)Mean (S = 22.84, sd = 8.52; W = 20.07, sd = 8.52; WS = 18.94, sd = 9.68); F(3, 426) = 4.41,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]MMORPG typeIf they played World of Warcraft, Aion, and EVE onlineMean (WoW = 23.48, sd = 9.01; Aion = 17.96, sd = 7.57; EVE = 18.06, sd = 8.05); F(6, 423) = 3.54,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 27.24, sd = 4.64; PvP = 25.08, sd = 6.31); F(2, 427) = 4.05,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 18.54, sd = 8.05; PvP = 21.76, sd = 8.05); F(2, 427) = 3.74,p<.05Graham & Gosling [106].14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .20, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .23, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .17, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .14, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .10, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.05Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .19, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .21, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .45, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsTwo Items added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .13, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineIndependence motivationsOne item added by authors (i.e I value independence in my character)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .28, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours of playHours played per weekr=.24, p=0.000Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineCompetence/Control(PENS; [30])AgreeablenessTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Emotional stabilityTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=−.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Openness to experienceTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.19, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.26,p<.01Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.72,p<.01Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.438, p<.001; β = .381, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.305, p<.001; β = .190, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.259, p<.001; β = .235, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainDissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.689, p<.001; β = .785, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.342, p<.001; β = .322, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r = .184, p < .001; β = .084, p<.001Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Distortion of timeFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.237, p < .001; β = .70, t = 7.81, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.187, p<.05; β = .50, t = 5.47, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Loss of self-consciousnessFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]β = .28, t = 3.48, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Merge of actions and cognitionFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.262, p<.001; β = .59, t = 4.78, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Autotelic experienceFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.444, p<.001; β = .93, t = 7.74, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeySocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Daily playtimeDaily hours spent on MMORPGsr=.181, p<.05, β =1.00, t = 3.26, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Status seeking in MMORPGsStatus seeking scale [111, 112]r=.672, p<.001, β = .89, t = 8.55, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2-questionnaire [110]r=.318, p<.001, β = .28, t = 3.42, p<.05Chang & Zhang [55].347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .55, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEscape and virtual identificationsScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .34, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaRewardScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .27, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .29, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .38, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSociabilityScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .15, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .11, p<.01Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.88, sd = 1.42; M = 4.39, sd =1.20), t-test = 5.38,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.42, sd = 1.50; M =3.00, sd = 1.57), t-test = 5.29,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.76, sd = 1.49; M = 3.27, sd = 1.46), t-test = 4.97,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.03, sd = 1.55; M = 3.47, sd = 1.48), t-test = 4.28,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 4.67, sd = 1.04; NG = 3.25, sd = 1.26), F(1, 971) = 220.67,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.43, sd = 1.49; NG = 1.49, sd = 0.64), F(1, 972) = 347.56,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.67, sd = 1.37; NG = 1.90, sd = 0.90), F(1, 971) = 312.60,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 2.00, sd =1.07; NG = 1.26, sd = 0.46), F(1, 971) = 92.69,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.73, sd = 1.45; NG =2.48, sd = 1.28), F(1, 971) = 96.81,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NG)Mean (G = 4.39, sd =1.20; NG = 3.20, sd = 1.39), F(1, 972) = 17.82,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NGMean (G = 3.51, sd = 1.48; NG = 2.26, sd = 1.29), F(1, 972) = 21.47,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 21.02,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 25.63,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 11.22,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 20.21,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) =32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 50.71,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.37,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 6.65,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .07; SG = 3.54, sd = .11), US = 3.46, sd = .06); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .06; SG = 2.68, sd = .10), US = 2.71, sd = .05); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.11,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyReactivityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 2.42,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.89,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.92,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.55,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceSport gamesβ = -.15, F(13, 607) = 3.77, p=.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceCasual gamesβ = .20, F(13, 607) = 8.23, p<.01Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = - .16, F(13, 607) = 8.58, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = .15, F(13, 607) = 4.42, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = .23, F(1, 631) = 28.89, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = - .10, F(1, 631) = 4.38, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .176,p<.05, β = .205, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .180,p<.05, β = .209, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .297,p<.01, β = .318, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .224,p<.01, β = .224, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .157,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.238,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ConscientiousnessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.301,p<.01, β = - .253, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.185,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .272,p<.01, β = .210, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .309,p<.01, β = .201, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .306,p<.01, β = - .193, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .212,p<.01, β = .212, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.168,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]β = - .160, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Openness to experienceFive-Factor Model [117]β = .163, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the week daysr = .171,p<.05, β = .171, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .271,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .182,p<.05,p<.05β = .182,Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .256,p<.01, β = .202, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .228,p<.01, β = .160, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .161,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .232,p<.01, β = .232, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .249,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .242,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .160,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .204,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .190,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .298,p<.01; β = .298, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .287,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = 23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .34,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .37,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .48,p<.01, β = .30, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .51,p<.01, β = .29, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .36,p<.01, β = .12, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .47,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28]);MMORPGGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.11,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .36,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .16,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01, β = .21, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .41,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .43,p<.01, β = .18, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .34,p<.01, β = .17, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])β = -.15, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .43,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = - .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .35,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];FightingGame genrer = .13,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .27,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Years playingParticipants were asked how long they have been playing WoWr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .47,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .48,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Affiliated with a guildPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])QuestsPlayer’s behaviourr = .28,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])ExplorationsPlayer’s behaviourr = .34,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Players vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .21,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .39,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player’s behaviourPlayer’s behaviourr = .33,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .31,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvPType of serverr = .23,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvEType of serverr = - .22,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server RPType of serverr = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .11, t = 2.31, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .17, t = 3.37, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvP indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t =3.02, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .13, t = 2.53, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.31, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = - .12, t = - 2.32, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.06, p<.01Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 9.08, sd = 2.15; F = 10.00, sd = 2.21); t = - 11.05,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 5.18, sd =1.86; F = 4.39, sd = 1.48); t = 11.16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.87, sd = 1.49; F = 7.09, sd = 1.49); t = - 3.85,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.81, sd = 1.25; F = 7.00, sd = 1.22); t = - 3.48,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 8.06, sd = 1.48; F = 7.22, sd = 1.49); t = 14.70,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = -.33,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = 22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -.35,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.26,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -30,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.24,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .20,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .10,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .17,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .34,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .06,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .07,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .09,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.31, p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.17, p<.01Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .10, sd = .99; F = -.66, sd = .82); t = 15.18,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .07, sd =1.00; F = -.48, sd = .86); t = 10.90,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .09, sd = .98; F = -.61, sd = .89); t = 13.93,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean(M = .06, sd =1.01; F = -.43, sd = .76); t = - 10.47,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.05, sd = .98; F = .30, sd =1.07); t = - 6.83,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .03, sd =1.00; F = .18, sd =1.01); t = -4.03,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.10, sd = .98; F = .62, sd = .98); t = -14.29,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .06, sd =1.00; F = .38, sd = .93);t = - 8.45,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .02, sd = .99; F = .16, sd = 1.06); t = - 3.57,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.07, sd =1.00; F = .46, sd = .088); t = - 10.47,p<.001Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationsMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming Disorder SymptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .45, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .30, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM - 5 [121]β = - .26, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .95,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .62,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.25,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])StudentOccupationd = .42,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .53,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .57,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = 1.28,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd =1.00,p<.01Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.26, sd = .97; E = 2.80, sd = 1.03), t = 7.74,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.63, sd = 1.10; E = 2.59, sd = 1.10), t = 10.44,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.98, sd =1.18; E = 2.95, sd =1.18), t = 8.01,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryEscapismMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .49, p<.001; β (recreational) = .49, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .08, p<.01;Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .05, p<.05Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryRecreationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = .08, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .14, p<.05; β (recreational) = .12, p<.001Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .58,p,.05, β = .381, p<.01Frederik, & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .45,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .41,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = -28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .31,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .25,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .36,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .37,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .41, p<.01Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineImmersionGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = - .11, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineSociabilityGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .10, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineAchievementGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .12, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineExplorationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = - .01,p=.44Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineRole PlayGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.07,p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineCustomizationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.02,p=.10Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineEscapismGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = .02,p=.20Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .228,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .443,p<.001, β = .133, p=.030Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .293,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .570,p<.001, β = .331, p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .296,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .392,p<.001, β = .112, p=.020Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaEngagementGaming Experience Questionnaire [126]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .289, p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSocialMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.373,p=0.543Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.388,p=.537Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.179,p=.674Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.411,p=.525Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.891,p=.348Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 5.15,p=0.026Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 3.85,p=.053Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]EmotionalityTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 18.62,p<.0001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCopingMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 4.2,p=.046Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineRecreationMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 13.64,p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineEscapeMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 1.83,p=.183Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineFantasyMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = .388,p=.537Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative masculine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .38, p<.001; β (model 3) = .38, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Positive feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .27, p<.001; β (model 3) = .24, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .23, p<.001; β (model 3) = .23, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineEscapism (immersion)Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Game play addictionIGD-20 Test [89]β (model 2) = .19, p<.001; β (model 3) = .19, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gender affiliationGender affiliation [76]β (model 3) = .22, p<.001Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.17,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .19,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvPPlay against other playersr = .33,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .35,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = -.18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = .28,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .37,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Role playingRole playing inside the gamer = .14,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .13,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]GenderFemale or maleβ = 0.08, t(694) =3.00, p=0.003Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Marital StatusBeing single or nott(694) = 3.17,p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Professional statusProfessional, student or without any activitiest(694) = 2.68,p=0.007Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Type of householdHaving children or nott(694) = 4.16,p=0.000Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Marital statusBeing alone or nott(694) = – 3.12;p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .35,p<.00; β = .36, t = 10.32, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .23,p<.00; β = .25, t = 7.11, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])β = .10, t = 2.98, p=.00Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]GenderFemale or maled > 1.0Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); Eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .29, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .11, p<.05Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo Game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .16, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .21, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), Eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .47, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), ighschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesStrongVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesCompetitionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .29, p<.01Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaCompetencePENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .10, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaAutonomyPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .11, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaRelatednessPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .16, p<.05Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = .14, sd = .83; F = .27, sd = .91), t = 10.08,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -05, sd = .88; F = .09, sd = .90), t = - 3.43,p<.005Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -.07, sd = .89; F = .13, sd = .87), t = - 4.70,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = .27,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.13,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.01,p=.64Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.16, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.07, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .28, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .18, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.19, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]World eventBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.11, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineAutonomyPENS [30]EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .244, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineEntertainmentAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .493, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineFlowAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .231, p<.001Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .182,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .132,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .153,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .160,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .179,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainSocializationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .176,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .230,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .166,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .308,p<.01Fuster et al. [33].253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Number of avatarsNumber of avatars possessedr = .189,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .23,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .24,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesAchievementPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .18,p<.01, β = .28, p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = - .16,p<.01, β = - .20, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .20,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .24,p<.001, β = .24, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .16,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .14,p<.05, β = .15, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesNostalgiaPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .15,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .18,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]β = - .21, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .15,p<.05, β = .12, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship MaintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .18, p < .01,β = .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)β = - .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship InitiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .13,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .15,p<.05, β = .19, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .17,p<.05, β = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCatharsisGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked their ager = - .08,p=.004Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLoss AversionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.10,p=.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocial InteractionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .17,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomizationGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .06,p=.02Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineGrindingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.12,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .10,p=.002Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.14Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolent RewardGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.15Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.17Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .23, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .18, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .12, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .24, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .08, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .25, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .13, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .13, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .27, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .17, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .148, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .191, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .159, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .145, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .290, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .272, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .152, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = -.204, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .215, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaAchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .255, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaDisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = - .170, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .144, p<.05Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .373, p<.01, β = .236, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .324, p<.01, β = .226, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .409, p<.01, β = .519, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .028, p<.01, β = .119, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .093, p<.01, β = .127, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .101, p<.01, β = .163, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .03, p<.01, β = .224, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .038, p<.01Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .07, p<.01, β = .249, p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.72, F = 4.15), t = 7.59,p<.001Greenberg et158 al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.52, F = 3.92), t = 6.74,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.46, F = 3.37), t = 11.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.36, F = 3.53), t = 8.59,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M =4.30, F = 2.55), t = 17.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); Eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.15, F = 3.14), t = 9.45,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesHi-techAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.82, F = 3.17), t = 8.58,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.13, F = 2.63), t = 6.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 2.81, F = 2.33), t = 6.29,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.66, 8th grade = 3.71; 11th = 3.72, college = 4.76), F = 48.00,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.64, 8th grade = 3.43; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.73), F = 22.66,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial interactionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.50, 8th grade = 3.21; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.66), F = 4.33,p<.005Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.41, 8th grade = 4.68; 11th = 4.81, college = 4.36), F = 50.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.39, 8th grade = 3.85; 11th = 4.17, college = 4.00), F = 8.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade =3.35, 8th grade =2.89; 11th = 2.70, college = 2.87), F = 9.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.22, 8th grade = 2.44; 11th = 2.39, college = 2.54), F = 15.94,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = - .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .69, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .36, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .24, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .23, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .21, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .31, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .16, p<.05Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale-short form (IGDS9-SF; [89])β = .049, p<.295Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaSocialMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = - .143, p<.001Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaImmersionMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = .303, p<.000Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Self ExpansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .27,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .38,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .47,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .28,p<.01Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .34,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .42,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .28,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Social Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Spatial Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .38,p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùSocialOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = -.127, p<.05Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùEscapeOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .966, p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùFantasyOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22)Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .934, p<.01


#### 3.1.6. Game Assessed in the Papers

Among the 53 studies, 18 did not specify what type of genre or games they were doing their research on, and 6 stated that they investigated players that play more than one genre. 14 of the papers specifically addressed gaming motivations associated with the MMORPG genre, while the MOBA genre was considered by 4 papers. MMO was the main topic of only 4 papers. Games are also getting extremely popular on smartphones, as such 3 papers assessed motivation for playing smartphone games specifically. The following genres or games were very specific or niche, and, as such, each one was addressed by just one paper: Pokèmon Go [48], social network games [43], Esport games [122], Ubisoft games [46], Travian [39], and Super Mario 64 [30]. To be more precise, the study done by Ryan et al. [30] was composed of more studies, and each one focused on a different game. This PRISMA review included the first one, which used Super Mario 64, and the fourth one, which used MMO players. Wohn et al. [43] also compared two different samples of gamers: social network and MMO players.


### 3.2. Study Results

The following sections will present the results of each group of identified variables: “sociodemographic variables,” “behavioural variables,” “psychological variables,” and “other variables”. Each variable was analyzed through different statistical methods, and the results will be reported according to what was obtained through them. Only robust results (i.e., observed in more than one study) will be reported in this section; therefore, those results obtained just one time will be reported only in Tables2 and 3, while the main findings are reported in the 3 in the appendix.Table 3
Main findings of each paper included with references, study limitations, and risk of biases.
Ref.Main findingsStudy limitationsRisk of biasesBeard & Wickham [58]The three factors from the OGMS (achievement, immersion, and socialization) all showed positive correlations with the three dimensions of the GCWS (competition focus, validation seeking, and reward orientation), except the detached one.Validation seeking, reward orientation, and competition of GCWS had significant correlations with all the dimensions in the GAMS (integrated regulation, external regulation, amotivation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation).GCSW proved to have good reliability and validity.Only extrinsic components of the GAMS were measured; several responses were excluded based on incomplete survey completion; demographic information was collected for only a sample of the participants; however, this was validated using demographic information on the population of AMT users. The study is specifically focused on MMORPG players.Sampling bias due to higher number of males than females, recruitment sample was done online, so responses could not be representative of the actual gaming population; furthermore, only MMORPG players were analyzed, making generalization of the data more difficult. Some correlations, even though significant, are not particularly high. Reporting bias since some questionnaires were not included.Lafrenière et al. [32].GAMS has good reliability and validity, and the six-factor structure was supported.All GAMS motivations positively correlate with game frequency, except amotivation.Perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness dimensions of PENS positively correlated with identified regulation, external regulation, and intrinsic motivation GAMS dimensions.Introjected regulation did not correlate to any of PENS’ dimensions.Amotivation negatively correlated to autonomy and competence, and it did not correlated to relatedness.The sample contained a larger proportion of men (N=193) than women (N=83), so it did not permit them to investigate the issue of gender differences; the results cannot be unequivocally applied to all populations; GAMS assesses exclusively the underlying motivations of gaming and not goal contents. All data were collected using self-reports, which could lead to common method variance issues.All data were collected using self-reports, which could lead to common method variance issues; sample bias due to inequality of gender, sample may not be representative since it was recruited online; measurement bias due to the fact that authors did not report the specific Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions.Myrseth et al. [41].The confirmatory factor analyses showed that the proposed EGMQ (measuring enhancement, coping, social, and self-gratification motives) displayed satisfactory fit and internal consistency.All dimensions of EGMQ positively correlated to gaming hours, specifically enhancement correlated negatively, while the social, coping, and self-gratification correlated positively.Coping, social, self–gratification, and enhancement had strong positive correlations with gaming addiction. Coping and self-gratification positively predicted gaming problems but not enhancement and social motivation, and coping alone negatively predicted loss of control. Coping and loss of control also correlated negatively.Enhancement and social did not correlate with loneliness. Loneliness is not a predictor of enhancement and social motives. Loneliness is positively correlated with coping and social motivation.Boredom (lack of external stimulation) positively correlated with social, enhancement, and coping motivations. It was also a positive predictor of these three. Boredom (lack of internal stimulation) positively correlated with self-gratification and enhancement. It was a positive predictor of these two.Authors did not include all possible motives, but motives related to addiction were added; the conscript sample was predominated by male gender and young age, both of which are identified as risk factors for gaming addiction; the sample only comes from Norway and includes only people that served in the military service between 2013 and 2015.Sampling bias: use of a nonrepresentative sample; self-report measure was used, sample has gender inequality, and sample might not be representative since it represents only one country; EGMQ has a statistical bias since it was based on another instrument built that measures gambling (GMQ-R), but they used the Bonferroni rule; the sample was recruited half through email and the other half from a military base.Tekofsky et al. [67].The gender coefficients reveal that women show a mild preference for MMORPG and MOBA games, while male prefers FPS games.Men prefer competition, while women prefer fantasy, story, escapism, customization, grinding/competition, and relationship.Native English speakers show a preference for fantasy and escapism.Age is negatively related to half of the gaming motivations (competition, fantasy, arousal, story, escapism, customization, and relationships).The large sample is mainly composed of male players, and effects of gender in the realm of gaming might be more pronounced than found in this study; interaction effects were not explored. Due to the recruitment method of using anonymous online volunteers, the sample became biased towards male gamers, with a male-female ratio of around 5 : 1, and alphas for the scale utilized are not present; some answers were removed either to replying other to the questions regarding gender or because they showed no univariate variance in their responses.Sampling bias: used self-report measurements, reporting bias because some answers were deemed not eligible, measurements bias due to ad hoc instrument used, and Cronbach’s alphas not being reported.Demetrovics et al. [22].MOGQ was confirmed through the exploratory and confirmatory analyses. The lowest correlation was between the factors escape and recreation, while the strongest correlations were found between escape and coping and fantasy.Recreation had the highest mean, followed by the social dimensions and then by coping, fantasy, skill development, and escape.Men scored higher on the competition factor than women, while women scored higher on the remaining five factors.Younger persons had higher means scored than did older persons on all dimensions except for recreations, on which older persons scored higher.Limited to the examination of online games; lack of female participants and lack of generability and representativity; self-reported measures, only Hungarian sites were used to gather data, and many did not completely fill in the survey.Sampling bias: snowball sampling which leads to some bias in the recruitment aspect, sampling bias related to gender inequality in terms of number, and sample was recruited only through Hungarian sites, reporting bias.Kuss et al. [79]Weekly gaming hours significantly correlated with relationship, advancement, escapism, mechanism, and competition.Escapism and mechanism are positive predictors of excessive gaming.MMORPG players are significantly more likely to experience gaming-related problems relative to nonplayers.110 questionnaires had to be discarded due to missing data, and a convenience sample was used which limits overall generalizability; the sample was mainly composed by men.Sampling bias: sample was of convenience and composed of mainly male players; response bias due to self-report measures and reporting bias due to many of them were discarded.Hoffman & Nadelson [45].Engagement is positively correlated to need for cognition, ego scores, task scores, play with others, and hours of play and negatively correlated to gender.The most accurate predictor of video game engagement was the number of hours played per week, followed by playing with others, with gender, and ego scores contributing the least.Males were almost twice as likely to be engaged in gaming as females, making gender a significant indicator of video gaming engagement.Participants wants to play for the socializing factors: (1) some to have fun with other; (2) some to compete; (3) some said that gaming is an opportunity to be isolated but still would organize social activities around gaming (scheduling gaming nights).The research took a general view on video gaming; therefore, individuals that engage themselves in any type of video game were included; the variable nature of gender and other exogenous variables was researched in a limited perspective; the sample was self-selected with student volunteering themselves; only college education majors were included.Sampling bias due to students being from one country, just college students, and there is a lacking of male players, which leads to low representativity; response bias due to self-report measures and desirability.Osman & Çirak [70]Pillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of gender on game motivation. The post hoc tests showed that male players had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than female playersPillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of gender on game motivation. The post hoc test showed that players who played games for four years or more had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than the players who played three years or less.The results showed that gaming platforms had a significant effect on gaming motivation. The Pillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of playing Internet games on gaming motivation. Players who played games on the Internet had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation than players who did not play games on the Internet.MANOVA test showed a significant difference on gaming motivation among players who played console games. Console game players significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation over players of other platforms.Players who played mobile games significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than players who did not play mobile games.Players who spent money for games or to buy an item in the game environment significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than players who did not spend money.Post hoc tests revealed significant differences between players who played for more than seven hours in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. On the contrary, it was seen that players who spent at least seven hours in a gaming environment were significantly less amotivated to games compared to othersA one-way between-group MANOVA was conducted in order to examine whether or not the willingness to change gaming habits affected gaming motivation. Post hoc tests revealed significant differences between players who did not want to give up their playing habits and the others in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. In contrast, players who wanted to give up their playing habits were significantly more amotivated towards the game compared to other players.The study was conducted with a small sample (330), and majority of them were male, and self-report measures were used; the study was done with only Turkish people.Sampling bias due to only one nationality, mainly male subjects, small sample, and recruited through online turkish sites/forums; response bias due to self-reported measures.Fam et al. [83].Hierarchical multiple regression revealed gaming motives (achievement, immersion, and social) as significant and positive predictors of internet gaming disorderThis study is cross-sectional, so interpretation of the direction of prediction is largely based on theoretical reasoning and past findings; the majority of the participants played both online and offline games (70.8%); e RMSEA value for the three-factor structure of the Online Gaming Motivation Scale is slightly higher than the threshold proposed by El-Den et al. [160]; sample only comes from Malaysia, and all of them were students.Sampling bias due to them being students; study was done only in one country, response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability.Mills et al. [85].Gaming motivations (integrated-identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation) are positively correlated with Problematic Videogaming.Introjected regulation is associated with uncontrollable internal pressure.Introjected regulation and amotivation predicted increased frustration of all three basic needs.Integrated regulation, identified regulation, amotivation, and external regulation positively predicted Problematic Videogaming.All dimensions of GAMS are positively correlated to gaming hours.59 answers were deleted because some subjects did the survey twice; others were excluded because they were younger than 18y/o (43) or over 35 y/o (61); 251 did not complete the survey; 359 participants were excluded because they were not frequent video gamers; sample may not be representative because it was gathered online; data did not confirm the original six-factor structure of the GAMS; study with a crossectional design.Sampling bias due to scarce representativity; response bias due subjects doing the test twice, and some of them did not finish it; self-report data.T’ng & Pau [73]Immersion and achievement motivations positively predict Internet Gaming Disorder in MOBA games, while social motivation is a negative predictor.Immersion, social, and achievement motivations were predicted by avatar identification in MOBA games.110 sets of answers were removed due to disqualified age; sample is mainly composed of males; study is done in just one country; study was done only with MOBA players, so it cannot be generalized; social desirability bias due to the online survey<Reporting bias due to answers removed, sampling bias due to having administered the survey online, and it was self-report.Carlisle et al. [68].Achievement, social motivation, and immersion motivation were significant and positive predictors of Internet Gaming Disorder.Age and student status were significant predictors of achievement motivation and had a small negative relationship with it. Gender had a moderate and negative relationship with achievement. Ethnicity was the only one to have a small positive relationship. Extraversion and neuroticism were not significant predictors of achievement motivation.Age, gender, student status, and extraversion are significant predictors of social motivation. Ethnicity and neuroticism were not significant predictors of social motivation. Specifically, age, gender, and student status all had small negative relationships with social motivation; instead, extraversion had a small positive relationship.Age is the only predictor of immersion motivation. It has a small negative relationship with it. Gender, ethnicity, student status, extraversion, and neuroticism were not significant predictors.Participants must have played an MMO game within the past 12 months, so the sample is only composed of MMO players; more males than females were present; self-report measures were used; path analysis method could mitigate internal validity; some groups were not equivalent in terms of age and ethnicity; only two constructs of the BFI-10 demonstrated adequate reliability; lack of randomization, manipulation, control factors in the correlational design make it difficult to establish cause-effect relationship; therefore, these results lack generalizability.Sampling bias due to only addressing some specific players. There were more males and females. Response bias due social desirability and self-report measurements. Selection bias due to participants not being representative of the gaming population.López-Fernández et al. [92].Weekly gaming was positively correlated to customization, fantasy, recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward. The strongest relation in the path analysis was with social interaction.Disordered gaming was positively correlated to competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, fantasy recreation, and competition. In path analysis, the strongest relations were social interaction and coping, low positive relations with violent reward, and cognitive development and competition, while small and negative were with fantasy, competition, and recreation.When all motives were taken into account simultaneously, only social interaction became the main motivation for weekly gaming.Social interaction and coping were the most important motives for disordered gaming.Competition motivation has a positive correlation with extraversion and negative correlations with openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are negative predictors of competition.Cognitive challenge has a positive correlation with openness and neuroticism and a negative correlation with agreeableness. Openness and neuroticism are positive predictors of cognitive challenge, while agreeableness is a negative predictor.Coping motivation has negative correlations with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness but a positive correlation with neuroticism. Neuroticism is a positive predictor of coping, while agreeableness and conscientiousness are negative.Social interaction has negative correlations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are both negative predictors of social interaction.Violent reward has negative correlations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are both negative predictors of violent reward.Customization has a positive correlation with conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is a positive predictor of customization.Fantasy is negatively correlated with agreeableness. Agreeableness is a negative predictor of fantasyOf 1106 students that were invited to participate, only 364 were deemed eligible. Convenient sample of teenagers; data were all self-reported measures. The study is cross sectional as such causal inferences are not possible.Sampling bias: sample was of convenience, made of only spanish students and focused on adolescents only. Desirability bias and recall bias due to self-report measures. Reporting bias because some of the participants were not eligible.Yıldız et al. [54].Male participants’ computer gaming motivation levels in concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization are higher than those of the female participants.Significant differences were found in favor of the groups playing games in Internet cafes in the concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization. ANOVA showed differences according to the sample’s age.There is a negative low correlation between daily usage of ICT and concentration; but there are also positive correlations between entertainment and escape. If more time is spent with ICT, then, there is a decrease in concentration and an increase in entertainment and escape.Age is negatively correlated to concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization.The research only investigates Turkish gamers, and measures were self-reported, cross-sectional study.Sampling bias: convenient sample of turkish gamers; response bias. Desirability due to self-report measures;Goldblum [69].Age positively correlated with autonomy motivation.Gaming frequency was positively correlated with autonomy, relatedness, enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and psychological detachment.Gaming duration was positively correlated with autonomy, relatedness, enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and relaxation.Relatedness and enjoyment were significantly positively related to gaming durationAutonomy was significantly negatively related to gaming durationThe study is limited to female mobile gamers, leaving out male gamers; cross-sectional nature of the study which leaves out possible causal inferences, this study wanted to capture typical mobile gaming, but due to the pandemic, this data could have been altered; the study was conducted only in the United States; self-report measures could lead to some biases; some questionnaires were discarded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.Sampling bias due to participants that were recruited online and only in the United States, and sample is composed only of female gamers. Desirability bias and response bias due to self-report measures; reporting bias due to the fact that some studies were removed;Wohn et al. [43].MMO players had higher intrinsic hedonic motivations, higher intrinsic accomplishment, higher social identified, and higher external game than casual SNG players. However, SNG players had higher external social and higher amotivation than MMO players.SNG players had higher external social and higher amotivation than MMO players.For identified regulation, there was a significant genre effect: MMO players had higher identified motivation than SNG players. There was no main gender effect, but there was an interaction with casual SNG players where males had higher identified motivation than females.For external social motivation (motivated because others require you to play), there was a main effect of genre but no main gender effect. SNG players had higher external social motivation than malesFor intrinsic accomplishment, there was only a main effect of genre and no main effect of gender.For external regulation related to game mechanics, there was a significant main effect of the genre.This indicates that MMO players were far more driven by game mechanics than casual SNG players. There was also a significant main effect of gender. Female players for both SNGs and MMOs reported higher levels of external game regulation than males.Data were gathered by administering the measures on Mturk; lack of consistency between the conceptualization and measures of motivation used in this study; this study divided social and achievement motivation in two dimensions; there might be a generalizing effect of gender; self-report measures were used; the study only used participants from one country, the United States.Sampling bias due to being recruited online and mainly from the United States; response bias due to using Mturk and self-reported measures;Scharkow et al. [38].Gender (being female) has negative relations with role playing, competence, exploration, social capital, team play, competition, and mechanics.Age has negative relations with role playing, exploration, social capital, team play, competition, mechanics, and narration.Compared to beginners, experienced players are more interested in the game itself, especially in exploring the game world, its mechanics, and narration, to play another role or be part of a team.Achievement seeking is a positive predictor of competence, exploration, mechanics, and narration.Collective orientation is positively related to social capital, team play, and competition.Fantasy motivation has positive relations with preference for RPG, simulation, adventure, and action. It has negative relations with strategy, puzzle, sport, platform, and music.Competence has positive relations with puzzle and sport, but it has negative relations with role playing and action genre.Exploration has positive relations with strategy, adventure, role playing, and platform, but it has a negative relations with sport genre.Social capital has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, and role playing. It has negative relations with sport and music genre.Team play has positive relations with sport, platform, and action genre.Competition has a negative relationship with role playing, simulation, but it has positive relationship with sport and action.Mechanics has positive relations with sport, adventure, platform, simulation, and action genre.Narration has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, adventure, and role playing genre, but it has a negative relationship with sport and action.The first limitation is about the preference element per se given that preferences do not necessarily correspond to actual behaviour; some genres (like action and role playing games) could be explained very well by the constructs outlined by the authors, whereas other types (like strategy games) were more weakly affected by the respective factors; the gaming field is changing rapidly; therefore, the results might not be representative anymore in the future; study included all kinds of users—also the growing group of casual gamers; self reported measures were used; the sample only came from Germany;Sampling bias due to sample being all from Germany; response bias due to self-report measure; the recruitment of the sample was done through the phone, so some desirability bias might have affected the answers; measurement bias due to the questionnaire being created ad hoc, plus one dimension exploration (Ego Centered Motives) had only item, thus resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of one.Ryan et al. [30].Study 1: results revealed a significant difference only for intuitive controls with women scoring lower than men.Those who chose to continue the target game were contrasted with those who chose the alternative. The overall MANOVA was significant. Follow-up univariate results revealed that persons who continued playing had higher scores on IC, in-game autonomy, and in-game competence.Competence is positively related to self-esteem, free choice continued play, and preference for continued play.Mood/affect is positively related to autonomy and competence.Study 4: autonomy, competence, and relatedness were all related to game enjoyment.Post-play mood was positively associated with autonomy and competence, negatively associated with Yee’s achievement and immersionFuture play was positively related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness.Hours per week was positively related to competence, relatedness, and achievement.Study 1 used a relatively small sample and majority were females; study 1 only focused on a certain game (Nintendo Super Mario), and study 4 had only MMO players as a sample, furthermore, the majority was male, and they were selected online. In both, the sample was paid to participate in the study; self-reported measures could be an issue due to desirability, and sample was assigned to the game, and they could not choose the game they wanted like in real life; PENS was still a new instrument which needed more validation; even though the model was general, different game genres might have different effects on people.Sampling bias due to: sample was paid, recruited online, might not be representative of the the real population; response bias due to self-report measures, and the fact the sample was paid; measurement bias because PENS was still in its first stages;Klimmt et al. [39].MANOVA results indicate that heaviest players assign more importance both to the socializing and the competition dimensions than do moderate players; the difference in the coping dimension was less pronounced; no relevant difference occurred with the cost/flexibility dimension.Socializing (meeting and playing with others) was found to be the most important dimension.A gender difference emerged only in the competition dimension, with males finding competition more important than female players.Sample was mainly composed of male players and focused on only one type of game, Travian, a browser game. Furthermore, the participants were all from Germany, and self-report measures were used leading to some desirability bias.Sampling bias due to: participants all came from Germany, and majority of them were male, and the survey was done. Response bias due to self-report bias and because it was administered online leading to some desirability effect in the answers.Fuster et al. [105].Significant negative correlations between age and socialization and dissociation; negative correlations between age and achievement; age and dissociation; hours spent playing per week are negatively correlated to exploration and positively correlated to dissociation.Significant differences between type of occupation (student and worker) and achievement (where students scored higher than those who worked) and dissociation (where students scored higher than those who worked and those who work and study).ANOVA analysis found significant differences between MMORPG types and dissociation; post hoc showed that World of Warcraft players scored higher on Dissociations than participants who played Aion and EVE online.Significant differences between the different type of server used and the variables Exploration and Dissociation, Post hoc showed that RP servers scored higher on Exploration than those who played in PvP servers; however, those who played PvP serves scored higher on Dissociation than those playing on RP servers.25 subjects were rejected due to having replied with nonproper answers; majority of the sample was male and just from one country; cross cultural study that cannot infer causality between the variables; self-report measures were used.Sampling bias due to sample being from one country (Spain) and recruited online; sample was mainly composed of male players; response bias due to random answers and self report measures that might have been affected by social desirability;Graham & Gosling [106].Individuals motivated to play WoW for the purpose of socialization tended to be high on extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness but low in conscientiousness; socialization was predicted positively by extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness.Achievement motivation was negatively related to conscientiousness, to agreeableness, and openness but positively to extraversion, neuroticism, and hours of play. Achievement motivation is positively predicted by neuroticism and extraversion; while negative predictors were agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openess.Individuals playing WoW for immersive motives were relatively high in openness, neuroticism, and agreeableness but lower on extraversion and conscientiousness. Openness was the only positive prediction for immersion, while neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion.WoW gamers motivated to play for leadership purposes tended to be extraverted, conscientious, and open and lower in agreeableness and neuroticism. Extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness were positive predictors, while agreeableness is a negative one.Individuals with motives of independence tended to be low in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism but high in openness. Openness was the only positive predictor.Sample was recruited online, and it included exclusively World of Warcraft players; majority of the sample was male, and they were administered self-reported measures;Sampling bias due to all participants were recruited online, and they were majorly male; they were mainly WoW players; Response bias due to self-report measures.Johnson & Gardner [23].Agreeableness was positively correlated with competence/control, and people with high levels of agreeableness were more likely to report higher levels of competence and control when recalling their experience with their current favorite game.Emotional stability was negatively correlated with presence; people with higher levels of emotional stability were less likely to report higher levels of presence.Openness to experience was positively correlated with autonomy respondents with higher levels of openness to experience that were more likely to report higher levels of autonomy.There is a significant relationship between game genre and reported levels of presence. The experience of presence was lowest for sport/simulation and shooting games, moderate for action adventure games, and highest for strategy/role playing games.There is a significant relationship between game genre and autonomy. The experience of autonomy was lowest for action adventure and shooting games, moderate for sport/simulation games, and highest for strategy/role playing gamesSample was recruited online, and it was majorly composed of males; two cases were removed because their surveys were incomplete.Sampling bias due to the sample being recruited online, and majority of it was composed by males; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaire being removed;Fuster et al. [74].Harmonious passion is positively correlated with exploration, socialization, and achievement. Harmonious passion is a positive predictor of exploration, socialization, and achievement.Obsessive passion is positively correlated with dissociation, achievement and socialization. Obsessive passion is a positive predictor of dissociation, achievement, and socialization.Sample was only composed of Spanish people, and the female numbers were all removed due to low representation in the sample. Participants were only MMORPG players; self report measures were used; data were cross-sectional; it is unknown if players with high score for Obsessive Passion were really addicted to the game;Sampling bias due to being recruited online, only male spanish MMORPG players were included; reporting bias because all the female participants were removed; response bias due to self reported measures.Dindar [75].Immersion motivation is correlated and predicts all facets of flow (merge of actions and thoughts, control on task, loss of self-consciousness, distortion of time, and autotelic experience);Social motivations predict daily play time.Achievement motivation is correlated and predicts status seeking in MMORPGs and control on task.Sample only comes from Turkey, and it is composed majorly by male and only of MMORPG players; self-reported measures were used. A bigger sample is needed; all participants were recruited online, so it is possible that they might not be representative of their population; gamer loyalty was measured as an attitudinal, rather than behavioural, construct.Sampling bias due to mainly male participants; all of them were Rurkish, recruited online and MMORPG players; Response bias due to self report measures that could be affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to the attitudinal nature of gamer loyalty construct.Chang & Zhang [55].Materialism significantly and positively predicted the pursuit of self-confidence and achievement, escape and virtual identification, and entertainment and reward through online gaming.Entertainment, sociability, and self confidence and achievement were positive predictors of attitude towards online gaming.Cross-sectional study; sample was composed only of chinese players, and mean of age was not reported; self-reported measures were used; some questionnaires were deemed not valid.Sampling bias due to sample being composed only of Chinese players; response bias due to using self reported measures; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed.Argento et al. [116].MANCOVA analysis suggested that male players were higher in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, and extrinsic motivation than female players.MANCOVA analysis suggested that gamers were higher in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and extrinsic motivation than nongamers.MANCOVA analysis suggested that there is a difference of frequency of use between gamers in intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation than nongamers.Data were collected through a convenient sample and online, so it may no be representative; use of self-reported measures; many questionnaires were removed from the initial numbers of submitted ones; the number of female participants is low; violations of equal variances limit the interpretation of the corresponding effect sizes.Sampling bias due to being recruited online, mainly composed of male players; response bias due to: self-reported measures; reporting bias due to half of the original sample was cut out;Ratan et al. [50].Game motivations altogether differed significantly by participant gender and country. Nearly all game motivations differed significantly by gender, with the exception of agency and pastime. For all significant differences, all motivations were higher for men than women.As for country, MANCOVA showed significant differences in habit, recreativity, escapism, pastime, and social motivations; according to a post hoc comparison by country, for the pastime motivation, Germany was significantly lower than Singapore and the US. For the social motivation, Germany was significantly lower than Singapore and the US.According to the multivariate tests, genre choices altogether differed significantly by the motivations of habit, reactivity, narrative, pastime, and social. Agency was positively and significantly associated with sports games, and pastime was positively and significantly associated with casual games and action games, while performance motivation was positively associated with action games.Results suggest that future play intention was positively associated with habit motivations and negatively associated with social motivations.Participants sample may not be representative of their broader populations, and only three countries participated in this research; the Singaporean sample had a very small sample of women, and gender was considered a dichotomous characteristic but, nowadays, is seen as a multicategorical variable; genre choice and future play intention were measures only through one item; self-reported measures were used; generalizability might be taken into questions due to small sample.Sampling bias due to sample only came from three countries, so it might not be representative of the real gaming population; response bias due to self report measure that could affect social desirability; measurement bias: two construct were measured only through one item, so validity could be taken into question; statistical bias: type 1 error due to ANOVA methods;Kim [40].Competition motivation was positively correlated with openness and instability. Challenge and openness were positively correlated. Social interaction was positively correlated with instability and negatively correlated with agreeableness. Diversion was negatively correlated with extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness and positively correlated with instability. Fantasy positively correlated with instability but negatively with agreeableness. Also, arousal positively correlated with instability but negatively with agreeableness.Competition motivation had two positive predictors: openness and instability. Challenge motivation had two positive predictors: openness and extroversion. For the social interaction motivation, only one positive predictor: instability; diversion motivation had three positive predictors: conscientiousness, instability, and openness to experience. For the fantasy motivation, instability was a positive predictor, while agreeableness was a negative one. For the arousal motivation, only one positive predictor instability.The amount of time spent playing smartphone games on a weekday was positively correlated with challenge. Additionally, the amount of time spent playing smartphone games in a weekend was positively correlated with challenge and diversion. Also, traditional game-genre preference was positively correlated with challenge and arousal. Physical game-genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, fantasy, and arousal. Imagination game genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, social interaction, fantasy, and arousal.Challenge significantly predicted the amount of smartphone gaming in a typical weekday. For the amount of time spent in gaming in a typical weekend, one motivation explained the variance, making diversion a significant predictor of weekend gaming activity.For the traditional game-genre preference, two positive predictors explained the variance. Challenge and arousal significantly positively predicted the preference for traditional games. For the physical games-genre preference, there was only one positive predictor: challenge; For the imagination game-genre preference, only one positive predictor explained the variance: fantasy.The sample of the study was convenient and only made of American college students. The five factor model might not fully reflect every aspect of gamers’ personalities; the impact of situational context of gamers may have been excluded; the game preference reliabilities were low; self-reported measures were used; some questionnaires were removed due to not meeting eligibility criteria, and generalizability might not be applicable to other groups.Sampling bias due to mainly American college students and mainly composed of females; response bias due to self-reported measures; reporting bias due to some answers being removed; measurement bias due to game preference scale having a low alphas.López-Fernández et al. [28].In the adolescent sample, the following results were found: gender negatively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy;Gaming hours positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Furthermore, coping and social interaction are predictors of gaming hours.Disorder gaming positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Furthermore, coping, social interaction, and violent reward are positive predictors of disordered gaming.Shooter games positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy.MOBA games positively correlated with competition, cognitive development, and social interaction.MMORPG positively correlated only with fantasy;Role playing positively correlated with recreation and fantasy;Action adventure genre positively correlated with cognitive development, coping, customization, and fantasy.Sport genre positively correlated with violent reward and competition but negatively to customization.Casual genre negatively correlated with competition and violent reward.Social simulation genre negatively correlated with competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward but positively with customization.Construction positively correlated with customization and fantasy;Platform negatively correlated with competition, coping, social interaction, and violent reward.In the young adult sample, age was positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, and coping.Gender was negatively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Regarding gender, adolescent and young adult males presented higher scores than females in nearly all scales apart from customization, especially in competitive, violent reward, and social interaction motives.Gaming hours are positively correlated with all motivations.Disordered gaming is positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, fantasy, and coping. Also, coping, social interaction, fantasy, and violent reward are positive predictors of disordered gaming, while customizing was a negative predictor.Shooter genre is positively correlated with all motivations, except competition.MOBA is positively correlated with recreation, competition, and social interaction.Strategy is negatively correlated with violent reward.MMORPG is positively correlated with recreation, competition, coping, social interaction, and fantasy.Role playing genre is positively correlated with recreation, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy.Action-adventure genre is positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, violent reward, and fantasy.Sport genre is positively correlated with competition and violent reward.Casual genre is negatively correlated with recreation, competition, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy.Social simulation is positively correlated with customization and fantasy but negatively correlated with social interaction.Fighting genre is positively correlated with violent reward.The study only used a Spanish sample of adolescents and young adults; validation of VMQ is necessary in other cultures too; cross sectional study and self-reported measures were used; the adolescent sample was lacking female participants; some questionnaires were not counted for not meeting eligibility criteria.Sampling bias due to having used mainly Spanish students or young adults; the adolescent sample was lacking female participants; response bias due to self reported measures; reporting bias because some questionnaires were removed;Billieux et al. [71].Age was negatively correlated with advancement and competition but positively correlated with discovery. Younger players are more motivated by advancementBoth male gender and young age were related to a greater proneness to look for competition in the game, whereas both female and older players showed a greater interest in discovery and exploration of WoW.The number of hours devoted to WoW daily/weekly appeared to be strongly correlated to an advancement motive but also to mechanics, competition, relationship, customisation, and escapism.The number of years since the participants played was related only to the mechanics’ motive.Participants playing in cybercafés were more interested in both competition and advancement,whereas no motives were related to the tendency to play at work.An addictive usage pattern (measured by the IAT) was primarily related to the advancement and the escapism motives, although significant relationships of smaller amplitude were found with other motivations, namely, mechanics, competition, role play, and customisation.Participants who were highly motivated by socialising and team work, and seeking relationships with other people were more often affiliated with a guild.The total progression score (which accumulates the various types of achievements) was primarily and positively associated with advancement and mechanics motives but also related to the relationship and discovery motives. Quests and exploration achievements were specifically and positively related to the discovery motive. PvP achievements were primarily and positively related to the competition motive, although significant associations also took place with both advancement and mechanics motives. Dungeon and raid achievements were positively associated with a variety of motives, including advancement, mechanics, relationship, and teamwork. The miscellaneous achievement score was positively related to the advancement, mechanics, and discovery motives. Finally, role play, customisation, and escapism motives were unrelated to specific ingame achievements.Participants playing in PvP servers were motivated by competition, whereas the opposite relation was found for people playing in PvE servers. Participants who subscribed to the RP servers were indeed primarily driven by role playing-related motivesProgression in the game, at a global level, was predicted by the discovery and teamwork motivationsProgression regarding the competitive aspects of the game (PvP index) was positively predicted only by the motivation to compete and fight other players and by a younger age. Finally, progression related to cooperative achievements (PvE index) was positively predicted by the motivation of teamwork and the motivation of discovery, and it was negatively predicted by the customisation motive.Researchers considered players to have a unique main avatar, even though it might be possible, they had multiple accounts; this study only focuses on WoW; self-reported measures were used as such generalizability that might not be applicable to other studies; the number of female participants was low; sample was recruited online; many questionnaires were removed for not meeting eligibility criteria or for not having been completed.Sampling bias due to it was recruited online; majority of them were males, and all participants were WoW gamers; response bias due to self-reported measures that can affect social desirability and generalizability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed.Yee [25]Male players scored significantly higher than female players on the achievement and manipulation factors, while female players scored significantly higher on the relationship, immersion, and escapism factors.Age was negatively correlated with manipulation for both genders. Age of male players was negatively correlated with achievement. Age of female players was negatively correlated with immersion.Hours of usage per week positively correlated with escapism and relationship for both male and female players.The group of respondents is self-selected, and they are MMORPG players only, the majority of them were males; self-reported measured were used; data were cross sectional; female participants were lackingSampling bias due to sample recruited online, mainly composed of male players and composed of MMORPG players, self-selected; measurement bias due to low alphas regarding three scales: immersion, escapism, and achievement; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability;Yee [26]Male players scored significantly higher on all the achievements components than female players, while female players scored significantly higher than male players on the relationship subcomponent. There is no gender difference in the socializing subcomponent: male players socialize just as much as female players.Negative correlations were found between the age of male players and achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, social, socializing, relationship, teamwork, and customization; regarding hours spent playing by males, positive correlations were found with achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, relationship, immersion, and escapism.Negative correlations were found between age of female players and achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, immersion, discovery, customization, and escapism; regarding hours spent playing by females, positive correlations were found with achievement, advancement, mechanics, social, relationship, and escapism.Multiple regression with the problematic usage score showed that the escapism compone was the best and positive predictor, followed by the advancement component.It is a cross sectional study; sample was recruited online, and it was majorly composed of male MMORPG players; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to being recruited online, composed of male players and only MMORPG players. Response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability;Wu et al. [121].General motivation was the largest predictor of IGD symptoms, followed by escape and a negative coefficient on skill development.Males scored significantly higher on general motivation but lower on escape.Age was positively related to escape, fantasy, and skill development but negatively related to general motivation. Students were found to have higher general motivation than employed participants.Those who primarily played single-player games had a higher score on coping but a lower score on competition, social, and general motivation than those who primarily played MMO games.Cross sectional study; the research was focused only on a chinese sample; sample of convenience thus limiting generalizability and replication; the MOGQ was adapted into a Chinese version, but further studies are needed; some questionnaires were not counted because they were not completed.Sampling bias due to sample recruited only Chinese gamers, and it was of convenience; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due: some questionnaires were removed.Bányai et al. [122].The results of the present study suggest that Esport and recreational gamers play video games in a different way in terms of gaming motivations (i.e., esport gamers scored significantly and considerably higher on certain motives such as competition, social, and skill-development).Escapism and competition were predictors of gaming disorder for both esports gamers and recreational gamers.For recreational gamers, coping and fantasy were negative predictors, while recreation and competition were positive predictors of gaming disorder.Cross sectional study so it does not take into consideration causal explanation; sample was recruited online, with participants coming from Hungarian speaking regions (i.e., Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia); thus, this can affect generalizability and representativeness. Furthermore, it was mainly composed of male gamers. Self-reported measures were used thus leading to some desirability bias; the division between Esport gamers and recreational gamers was based solely on number of gaming competition engaged;Sampling bias due to recruited online only from Hungarian speaking country and mainly composed of male gamers; response bias due to self reported measure that could have been affected by social desirability;Frederik & Jan [123].Moral outcomes were negatively associated with gender.Frequency of playing was correlated with habit, social, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motivations. Also, frequency of play was positively associated only with habit in the model proposed.Duration of a session was correlated with habit, social, narrative, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motivations. .Play was positively correlated with all motivations, except pastime and narrative motivations.Coplay was positively correlated with habit and social.Talk was positively correlated with habit and social motivations.The target population was limited to high school students from Belgium, and this implies that it cannot be generalized to other populations; the sample was too small, and there were more males than girls; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to sample that was composed only of high school students from Belgium, and majority of it was composed of male; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability; statistical bias due to sample being really small, and specifically, we are talking about a type II error.Williams et al. [124].Immersion was negatively related, while sociability and achievement were both positively related to playing time.The correlation coefficients between each of the immersion factors and time played were all negative: exploration, role-play, customization, and escapism. With role playing being the only significant one.Sample was recruited online, and only players of EverQuest 2 were included; the sample was majorly composed of male players; self-reported measures were used; the data set obtained in this studio might not be suitable since the future is changing rapidly;Sampling bias due to sample recruited online playing only one specific MMO game and majorly composed of male gamers; response bias: self-reported measures were used which could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias: the validity of the scale created is quite low for the immersion factor.Chua et al. [125].There was a significant correlation between intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and game addiction.It was found that game engagement, integrated regulation, introjected regulation, and amotivation significantly positively predicted game addiction.Some questionnaire were removed for not meeting eligibility criteria; self report measures were used; in cross sectional study, furthermore, the sample was composed of malaysian MOBA players, so it cannot be generalized to other countries, and the sample was majorly composed of males;Sampling bias due to being composed of MOBA Malaysian gamers where majority of them were male; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability and recall bias; reporting bias due to some questionnaire not being included.Viswanathan [53].Results of linear regression were not statistically significant regarding social motivations and emotional intelligence.Regarding only ranking players in LoL, the results of linear regression were not statistically significant for emotional intelligence and achievement. Also, skill development and competition were also not significant.Regarding all the participants players of the study, the results of the linear regression were significant for achievement and skill development but not for competition.There was a statistically significant relationship between achievement and emotionality.There was a statistically and positive significant relationship between trait EI and coping motivation. The model indicates that ranked players with lower trait EI scores may play LoL to relieve stress.A significant positive correlation between trait emotional intelligence and recreation motivation was found, while escape and fantasy were found not significant in association with trait emotional intelligenceThe sample is relatively small, composed only of LoL players, and the majority of them were males; three questionnaires were removed due to incomplete responses; the online and small sample could limit representativity and generalizability; self-report measures were used as wellSampling bias due to sample being recruited online, and it is small, composed only by LoL players, and majority of it is male; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being excluded;Kneer et al. [76].Negative masculine attributes were positive predictors for achievement; positive feminine traits predicted social interaction; negative feminine traits predicted immersion; gender affiliation only predicted social interaction.Escapism positively predicted gaming addiction.The term gender attributes can be misleading, especially regarding digital game-related studies since attributions rely on socially constructed sex-role and gender-role assumptions; the study did not include any real addicts; thus, the predictors found and cannot be seen as the real cause for developing gaming addiction; self-reported measures were used; sample was recruited online; some questionnaires were not included, and two people did not report their gender but were still included in the study.Sampling bias due to being recruited online and being only related to MMORPG games which could reduce representativity; response bias: self-reported measures were used which could have been affected by social desirability; Reporting bias due to some questionnaires being left out.Dauriat et al. [36]Achievement factor positively correlated with hours per week, playing in a group and playing PvP, and negatively correlated with age.The socializing factor negatively correlated with age and playing solo, but it is positively correlated with hours per week and playing in a group.The immersion factor positively correlated with playing in a group, playing solo, playing PvE, and role playing.The relaxing factor is positively correlated with playing PvE;The escaping factor is positively correlated with hours per week.Men have a greater score for escaping than women do.Singles have a greater score on the escaping factor than persons do in a relationship.Participants who have children have a lower score on the social factor than those who do not have children.People with professional or student activities have a greater score on the relaxing factor than do those without activities.Those who live alone have a lower score on the achievement factor.Positive correlations were found between gaming addiction and achivement, escaping, and socializing. The achievement factor was the best and positive predictor, followed by escaping, socializing, and gender of gaming addiction. Immersion, relaxing and age were not significant predictors.Sample was recruited online and is based on MMORPG players, and majority of it was composed of male participants; self-reported measures were used; furthermore, authors did not put the Cronbach’s alpha for the motivation scale; questionnaires were excluded: 20 excluded because of unclear answers, and 54 were excluded because participants did not play MMORPG.Sampling bias: sample was recruited online so it might not have good representativity of the MMORPG population; it was majorly composed of males, and only players that played MMORPG were included; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being excluded; measurement bias due to items that were written, but alpha’s level for each scale was not reported.Sherry et al. [29].Males consistently ranked all gratifications higher than females did, and the rank order of gratifications between males and females was fairly consistent. Among all grade samples, the rank order was consistent except that males rated social interaction much higher on their rank order than females did. Social interaction had the largest difference between males and females as expressed as Cohen’s in all samples except eighth graders.In the college, eleventh-grade, and fifth-grade samples, challenge was the top reason for playing video games. Least popular among all the gratifications in the eleventh-, eighth-, and fifth-grade samples was playing for the fantasy of being strongThe relationship between the use categories and amount of play showed that in each sample, the uses and gratifications variables were strong predictors of time spent playing video games. Among college students, 28% of the variance in game play was accounted for by uses and gratifications, with diversion, social interaction, and arousal as the most important predictors of time spent playing video games per hour. The pattern was the same among 11th graders, with more variance explained using the same variables diversion, social interaction, and arousal. A similar amount of variance was explained in the eighth-grade sample using only two of the other motivations (i.e., diversion and social interaction). Uses and gratifications accounted for 28% of the variance in amount of weekly game play in the fifth grade sample, with a different set of significant predictors, playing to be strong and for competition.Sample only came from one nation, the United States; self-reported measures were used, and some surveys were not included because they were not completed; personality was not taken into consideration;Sampling bias due to being composed only of people coming from the United states; response bias: due to self-reported measures being used and that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires were excludedJohnson et al. [129].With respect to the experience of play, competence, autonomy, and relatedness were associated with more play.A sample of convenience was used; the number of females was really low; only survey measures were used, so it is not possible to infer causation for any of the associations identified; self-reported measures were used; the total variance in hours of play accounted for in the current study was relatively small.Sampling bias: sample was mainly composed of males, and it was a sample of convenience; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability;Yee et al. [27]In the first study, there is a significant difference in gender in the achievement motivations: males score higher than females. Achievement is also positively correlated to age. Significant gender differences were also found for social and immersion motivations where females tend to score higher than males, but age only correlated negatively with the social motivation. Age was not correlated to immersion motivation.Motivations were also associated with specific WoW behaviours such as completing quests, exploring the map, being competitive in PvP, doing raids or dungeons, having noncombat crafting skills (professions), and participating in world events. Achievement motivation was a negative predictor of quests, exploration, professions, and world events; it was a positive predictor of PvP and dungeons. Social motivation was a negative predictors of quests, exploration, and professions but a positive predictor for doing dungeons; finally, immersion motivation was a positive predictor of doing quests and exploring the map, but it was a negative predictor of doing PvP and dungeons.Only data for World Of Warcraft players were collected, so only for an online game, the sample was mainly composed of males; self reported measures were used; the correlations between the WoW behaviours and the immersion factor were not that strong; the scale used must be validated in some other studies too; the sample for the second study only came from two regions: Hong Kong and Taiwan.Sampling bias due to all the participants that were WoW players, and both samples were majorly composed of male, and the second one only comes from Taiwan and Hong Kong; response bias due to self-reported measures being used and that could have been affected by social desirability:McCauley et al. [52].Enjoyment is a positive predictor of autonomy, entertainment, and flow motivations.Sample was recruited online, and it is not big enough to fully represent the whole population of mobiles gamers; sample was composed mainly of people under the age of 35; self-reported measures were used; the instrument was created starting from other already existent instruments and needs further validation.Sample bias due to sample being recruited online and composed majorly by young people: response bias due to selfreported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to instrument needing further validation.Fuster et al., [33].In relation to motivations, significant correlations were found for (i) years playing WoW and exploration and achievement, (ii) for hours playing WoW per week (i.e., during the working week) and exploration, (iii) for hours playing WoW per week and achievement, and (iv) for hours playing WoW per week and dissociation. Furthermore, hours spent playing at weekends produced highly significant but low correlations with all motivations: (socialisation, exploration, achievement, and dissociation). The correlation between exploration and number of avatars was also significant.Sample was only composed of spanish male players of WoW; self-reported measures were used; questionnaire completed by females were discarded due to the low number of participants (10), and others were discarded because the participants were too young; the questionnaire was created ad hoc for this study, as such it needs further validation;Sampling bias due to only coming from Spain and only composed of young male WoW players; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to instrument being created ad hoc and further validation is therefore necessary: reporting bias due to all questionnaires completed by female or participants under the age of 16 being discarded,Yang & Liu [48].The amount of hours played per day is positively correlated to fun, friendship maintenance, the relationship initiation, and achievement motivations.Fun motivation is positively correlated to bonding and bridging capital, life satisfaction, and physical health.Escapism is negatively correlated with bonding capital but positively associated with loneliness.Nostalgia is positively correlated with loneliness.Friendship maintenance is positively correlated with bridging capital, life satisfaction, and physical health.Relationship initiation is positively correlated with bridging capital, loneliness, and life satisfaction.As for multiple regression analysis, playing the game for fun was positively related to better well-being, such as higher bonding and bridging social capitals, negatively related to loneliness, and better physical health. Playing the game to maintain friendships was positively related to higher life satisfaction. Playing the game to initiate new relationships was positively related to bridging social capital and loneliness. Both using the game to escape from reality and playing with nostalgia were positively related to higher loneliness, and escapism was also negatively related to bonding social capital and life satisfaction.Sample consisted only of Pokémon Go players coming from the United States; the correlational data cannot infer causality between gaming and well-being; self reported measures were used.Sampling bias due to being recruited only in the United States and composed of only Pokémon Go Players; thus, the results can not be generalized to other type of games; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability,Hilgard et al. [34].Age was significantly and negatively correlated with catharsis, loss-aversion, social interaction, customization, and grinding, but it was positively correlated with autonomy. Age was not significantly correlated with story, violent reward, or escapism.Higher story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy scores were associated with playing more frequently, spending a greater proportion of spare time on videogames and self-description as a “hardcore” player.Higher scores on loss-aversion and customization were associated with reduced frequency of play, a smaller proportion of spare time spent on games, and self-description as a “casual” player.A cross-sectional design was used, as such it is not possible to determine the direction of causality in any of the relationships; the survey was particularly long, and many of the questionnaires were discarded because they were not completed or did not meet the eligible criteria; the sample was recruited half from online and half from an American university, and the number of girls was low; self-reported measures were used.Sampling bias due to it being recruited online and majorly composed of males; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability, and also, some random answers were given; reporting bias because some questionnaires were discarded.Tondello et al. [44].The philanthropist type is positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness; The socialiser type is positively correlated with extraversion and with agreeableness. The free spirit type is positively correlated with openness and also positively correlated with extraversion and negatively with neuroticism; the achiever type is positively correlated with conscientiousness; however, it was not found to be correlated with agreeableness; The disruptor type is negatively correlated with neuroticism. The player type is only positively correlated with conscientiousness.A limited sample was used, and it was limited only to students coming from one university, which limits generalization to a general population; self-reported measures were used; the reliability of the scale needs to be improved; personality was assessed with the short 10 item version;Sampling bias due to coming from one nation and being quite small; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to scale needing more studies to be validated and the fact that a short version of a scale was used, so it could have problems with acquiescence, and the player dimension’s alpha was quite low.Azadvar & Canossa [46]Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are positive significant correlates of physical presence, in-game measures such as number of days that the player has played the game and group playtime percent.Regression analysis showed positive significant betas between day played and autonomy, competence, and relatedness; group playtime and autonomy and relatedness; physical presence and autonomy, competence, and relatedness.Sample is composed of volunteer online respondents that only plays Ubisoft Games and majorly composed of males; the study was measured in game behaviour which has the risk of showing a shared platform among multiple players who may be different from the survey respondent; self-reported measures were usedSampling bias due to sample being recruited online, majorly composed of males and Ubisoft game players; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to in game behaviour measures that could have been affected by external variables such as shared accounts.Greenberg et al. [47].On all nine gratifications, the average score for males exceeds that of the females. First, the two primary gratifications for both sexes are competition and challenge. Second, the largest sex differences are playing video games for arousal and for social interaction.Challenge is a stronger motivation for the 5th graders and college students than for the other age groups. In its place, competition is key for 8th and 11th graders, in contrast with the others, although competition remains a strong motivator for the college students.Fantasy is a key motivation only for the 5th graders, whereas diversion is found least in that youngest group. Although they are weaker gratifications on an absolute basis, the youngest respondents also profess stronger realism and ego gratification motives than the older participants. The need for social interaction is strongest among the college students.Diversion is the most common motivator contributing to playing time, identified among 8th- and 11th-grade boys and girls and college males. Social interaction also is important among 8th, 11th, and college females. Noteworthy is the absence of any significant motives for 5th grade boys, while females disliked the challenge but liked competition.The research is time bound to the period where the data were collected; sample only comes from one area: United States of America; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to being recruited only from one area, response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirabilityBong et al. [133].Multiple linear regression analysis found that socialization motivation is a negative predictor, and immersion motivation is a positive predictor of IGD’s symptoms but not achievement motivation.Sampling is majorly composed of male participants coming only from Malaysia; disproportionate races ratio due to Malaysia being composed by many ethnic groups; self report questionnaires were used; the number of predictors in the study for IGD was only four (immersion, achievement, socialization, and identification with avatar); therefore, the number is quite low; this study is a cross-sectional study, so data are connected to a certain time frame; adolescents were not included in the sample even though it is known that adolescents are those more exposed to develop IGD symptoms.Sampling bias due to sample coming from just one country (Malaysia), being majorly composed of male and lacking adolescents; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability;Lowe [51].Self expansion is strongly positively correlated to immersion and achievement motivations. It also has moderate positive correlations with social.Need for cognition is positively correlated with immersion, social, and achievement.Immersion motivation is positively correlated with bodily engulfment.Achievement motivation is positively correlated with bodily engulfment and spatial engulfment, and it is strongly positively correlated with social engulfment.Sample is small and majorly composed of males; furthermore, only FPS and MMORPG players were taken into consideration; many questionnaires were discarded due dropping out; the online nature of the sample may not be representative of the general population, and some ethnicities were missing from the sample; self-reported measures were used; the survey data cannot be used to infer causality between the variables;Sampling bias: sample is small and composed of MMORPG players and mainly by male players, recruited online; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed for being incomplete.Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]Social motivation has a small negative effect on Internet gaming disorder symptoms. Instead, escapism and fantasy have a strong positive effect on internet gaming disorder.The sample is mainly composed of male players, and it only comes from one area (Perù); self-reported measures were used; cross sectional study.Sampling bias due to sample being mainly composed of Peruvian males; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability.


#### 3.2.1. Results Related to the Sociodemographic Variables

Gender was the most investigated variable of the sociodemographic group of variables (n=22). Six studies (n=6) used the F of Fisher to compare the gender groups, while 6 studies (n=6) used t-test. Three studies (n=3) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between gender and gaming motivations. Three studies used multiple linear regression (n=3), 2 reported the results by using the d of Cohen (n=2), and the last 3 used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=3).Two studies confirmed that male players show higher results on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, and external regulation [70, 116], with one study also affirming that males score higher on introjected regulation as well [70]. One study [43] found a significant gender effect only for external regulation motivation where female players of both social network gamers and MMO players reported higher levels if compared to males.As for the other studies assessing gender related to motivations not related to the external and internal motivation framework of interpretation (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social), 6 studies found that, in general, males score higher than females in all or almost all game motivations [28, 29, 38, 47, 50, 54], even though Demetrovics et al. [22] found contradicting results showing that women tend to score higher on recreation, social, coping, fantasy, skill development, and escape except competition. In fact, 5 studies confirmed that female players tend to score higher than males on the relationship motivation [22, 25–27, 67], 3 studies found that females score higher on social motivation [22, 29, 47], 3 studies found that females score higher on escapism [22, 25, 67], and 2 on fantasy [22, 67]. The study made by Yee [26] found no gender differences regarding the social component, implying that male players socialize just as much as female players. Only 2 studies found that males score higher than females on escapism [36, 54]. Billieux et al. [71] found that women showed greater interest in discovery and exploration, at least in WoW. Yee [25] also observed that females had higher scores on immersion motivation.Greenberg et al. [47] found that both sexes tend to play for competition and challenge purposes. 9 studies confirmed that male tend to score higher on the competition motivation [22, 26–28, 38, 39, 47, 67, 71], with the exception of Greenberg et al. [44] who found a peculiarity with 5th grade girls liking competition more than boys. To be more specific, 5th grader boys did not have any significant motives to play, while diversion was the strongest motivation for 8th, 11th grader boys, and male college students, and social interaction was the strongest motivation for 8th and 11th grader girls and female college students. Yee [25] observed that males score higher than females in manipulation and achievement motivation.Moreover, Wu et al. [121] found that males scored higher on General Motivation but lower on Escape.Ryan et al. [30] found the only significant difference in gender in intuitive controls where women scored lower than men.Carlisle et al. [68] did not find gender as a significant predictor for immersion, but achievement and social motivation had a small negative relationship with gender.The most important results regarding gender are summed up in Table4.Table 4
Most agreed motivation for gender and number of papers that support these findings.
MalesFemalesCompetition13 (n=9)Relationship motivation59 (n=5)Escape25 (n=2)Social motivation65 (n=3)Intrinsic motivation38 (n=2)Escape25 (n=3)Integrated regulation36 (n=2)Fantasy28 (n=2)Identified regulation34 (n=2)External regulation27 (n=2)The second most investigated sociodemographic variable was age (n=15). 10 studies (n=10) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between age and gaming motivations. Two used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2). Two studies used ANOVA (n=2), and only one study used multiple linear regression (n=1) to assess the relations between age and gaming motivations.Four studies found that gaming motivation tends to be stronger in younger samples [22, 28, 38, 47]. Two studies study found that age is positively associated with achievement [27, 68], while 3 studies found a negative correlation between age and achievement [25, 36, 105], even though for Yee, [25] only the age of male players was negatively correlated with achievement. Grinding [34] and advancement [71] were negatively correlated to age. Eight papers reported that age is negatively associated with social motivation or dimensions related to social aspects, such as social capital, team play, relationships, and social interaction [27, 34, 36, 38, 54, 67, 68, 105]. Regarding the immersion motivation, 2 studies found that they are not related to each other [27, 36], and only 2 study found a small negative relationship [25, 68]. As for escapism, 2 studies found negative correlations [54, 67], 1 that they were not correlated [34], and Wu et al. [121] were the only ones to find positive correlations.Two studies found a positive correlation with autonomy [34, 69]. Yee [25] found that manipulation negatively correlated with the age of both female and male players.The rest of the results are quite ambiguous, and this could be due to the motivations assessed, the game used as reference or the samples’ characteristics. Three studies found that age tends to have negative associations with all or almost all gaming motivations [34, 38, 67]; specifically, 4 studies found negative associations between age and competition [38, 47, 67, 71]. Age is negatively associated with fantasy [67], customization [34, 67], and role playing [38]. Only Wu et al. [121] found age to be positively correlated with fantasy. All the results are summarized in Table 5.Table 5
The table reports the correlations observed between each gaming motivation and the variable “Age.”.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationNo correlationNotesAchievement1(n=1)(n=3)—[63]: age is a predictor of achievement; Yee [25]: achievement is negatively correlated with age only for male playersGrinding31—(n=1)——Advancement3—(n=1)——Social and social aspects65 (social capital66, team play71, relationships59, and social interaction65)(n=1)(n=6)—[44]: college students play for social motivesImmersion35—(n=2)(n=2)Yee [25] found a negative correlation only with the age of female playersEscapism25(n=1)(n=2)(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)———Competition13—(n=2)—[44]: strong motivation for 8th, 11th, and college studentsFantasy28(n=1)(n=1)—[44]: strongest motivation for 5th gradersCustomization17—(n=2)——Role playing61—(n=1)——Narration48—(n= 1)——Story70—(n=1)(n=1)—Violent reward74——(n=1)—Mechanics44—(n=1)——Exploration26—(n=1)——Catharsis73—(n=1)——Loss-aversion43—(n=1)——General motivation30—n=1——Entertainment24—(n=1)——Manipulation45—(n=1)——Skill development63(n=1)———Cognitive development10(n=1)———Recreation56(n=1)———Coping15(n=1)———Discovery18(n=1)———The third variable of this group is “Status/Occupation” as being a worker, a student, or being married or not, and it was analyzed by 4 papers. One used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling [68], one used t-test to compare the different types of status [36], one used d of Cohen [121], and the last one used ANOVA to compare groups [105]. The results are as follows: students tend to have higher scores in achievement motivations [68, 105]. Social motivation has a small negative relationship with the status student, while immersion motivation is not a significant predictor [68]. Students also have higher general motivation for playing if compared to employed people [121] and tend to have higher scores for the dissociation motivation [105]. Dauriat et al. [36] reported that people who work or study had greater scores on the relaxing motivation than those who do nothing.The fourth element of this category was taken into consideration by only 3 studies (n=3), and it is “type of gamer or self attitude towards being a gamer or not.” One study studied this relationship through t-test [80], one used multiple linear regression [34], and one used MANCOVA [78]. Esport gamers have higher scores than recreational gamers in competition, social, and skill development motivations [122]. Hardcore players have higher scores in story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy scores while casual players only have higher score on loss-aversion and customization [34]. Argento et al. [116] also found that heavy gamers have higher scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and extrinsic motivation.


#### 3.2.2. Results Related to the Behavioural Variables

The most investigated variable of this group was “hours played per week” (n=22), also called weekly gaming or gaming frequency. 18 studies (n=18) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the hours played and gaming motivations, 8 (n=8) used linear regression to either study the correlations further or to see if gaming hours could be a predictor for certain gaming motivations, and finally, 2 (n=2) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Generally, 2 studies, which used the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72], confirmed positive correlations between introjected regulation, identified regulation, external regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation with hours spent gaming [32, 85], except amotivation for Lafrenière et al. [32].All the other studies assessed weekly gaming hours related to motivations by using a different framework (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social).Three studies confirmed that weekly gaming hours have positive associations with competence, autonomy, and relatedness motivations [30, 69, 129].Weekly gaming hours had positive associations with: social motivation (n=6) [26, 28, 36, 41, 92, 123], even though for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only in the female sample; competition (n=5) [26, 28, 71, 79, 92], to be noted that for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only for the male sample; escapism (n=6) [25, 26, 36, 71, 79, 123]; achievement (n=4) [26, 33, 36, 106]; relationship (n=4) [25, 26, 71, 79]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92]; advancement (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; mechanism (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; coping (n=3) [28, 41, 92]; dissociation (n=2) [33, 105]; fantasy (n=2) ([28]: [92]); cognitive development (n =2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; habit (n=2) [36, 123]; moral motivations [123]; self-gratification [41]; engagement [45]; alleviation of boredom [69]; psychology detachment [69]; challenge [40]; immersion but only for males [26]; agency [123]; performance [123].Weekly gaming hours had negative correlations with enhancement [41] and role playing [124]; regarding exploration, Fuster et al. [33] obtained a positive correlation with hours played per week, but in another study, they obtained a negative one [105].Furthermore, Sherry et al. [29] used a stepwise linear regression to find which motivation was the best predictor for each sample they had. They found that the best predictors for college students and 11th graders were diversion, social interaction, and arousal; as for 8th graders, they were diversion and social interaction, while for 5th graders, it was the need to be strong and competition. López-Fernández et al. [28] did a similar procedure for their sample and found that the best predictors for their adolescent sample were coping and social interaction. The fact that there is a strong relation between social interaction and weekly gaming was also confirmed by other 3 studies [34, 92, 124]. Williams et al. [124] found that immersion, achievement, and sociability were significant positive predictors of weekly gaming. Furthermore, challenge [40] and habit [123] are positive predictors of weekly hours spent on playing. Hilgard et al. [34] found that the scores of players who spent more time playing were best predicted by story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy motivation, while the scores of people who play less were predicted by loss-aversion and customization motivations.All the results regarding hours played weekly are summarized in Table6.Table 6
The table reports how many studies found positive and negative correlations for each motivation and also how many found that motivation to be a positive predictor of hours played per week.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationPositive predictorsNotesSocial motivation65n=6—(n=5)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the female sampleCompetition13(n=5)——Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleEscapism25(n=6)—(n=1)—Achievement1(n=4)—(n=1)—Relationship59(n=4)———Customization17(n=3)—(n=1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessAdvancement3(n=3)———Mechanics46(n=3)———Coping15(n=3)—(n=1)—Dissociation20(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)———Cognitive development10(n=2)———Violent reward74(n=2)—(n=1)—Recreation57(n=2)———Habit32(n=2)—(n=1)—Competence12(n=2)—(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)—(n=2)—Relatedness58n=2—(n=1)—Introjected regulation40(n=2)———Identified regulation34(n=2)———External regulation27(n=2)———Integrated regulation36(n=2)———Intrinsic motivation38(n=2)———Amotivation5(n=1)(n=1)——Exploration26(n=1)(n=1)——Challenge9(n=1)—(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleMoral motivations47(n=1)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Alleviation of boredom8(n=1)———Psychological detachment55(n=1)———Agency4(n=1)———Performance51(n=1)———Engagement(n=1)—(n=1)—Enhancement23—(n=1)——Role playing61—(n =1)——Story70——(n =1)—Loss-aversion43——(n =1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessThe second most investigated variable was “daily playtime” (n=6), meaning the average hours spent daily on a certain game or the average longest daily gaming session they had. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the daily hours and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1) used MANOVA to compare players who spent different amounts of hours per day on the gaming activity and (n=2) also used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables, and 1 explored these relation through a Structural Equation Modeling.Three studies found that “daily playtime” had positive associations with social and relationship motivation [48, 75, 123], and 2 studies confirmed positive associations with autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives [46, 69]. Daily playtime is also positively correlated to enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and psychological detachment [69]; habit, narrative, performance, agency, escapism, and moral [123]; fun and achievement [48].Additionally, Osman & Çirak [70] compared people who played for less than two hours, people who played between 3 hours and 6 hours and people who played for more than 7 hours, and found that the groups that played for more than 7 hours had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation, and they were also significantly less amotivated compared to other gamers.The third most investigated variable was “years of playing” (n=5). Two studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the years spent playing games and gaming motivations (n=2), 2 (n=2) used MANOVA to compare experienced players with less experienced players, and (n=1) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Positive associations between years of playing and mechanics motivation [71], exploration [33, 38], achievement [33], role playing [38], team play [38], mechanics [38], and narration motivations [38] were found. Klimmt et al. [39] compared hardcore playes of Travian with more moderated ones and found that hardcore players gave more importance to socializing and competition motives, while the difference for coping was less pronounced. Osman & Çirak [70] found, through a MANOVA, that players with more than four years of experience had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than those who played for just three years or even less.The fourth most investigated variable was “playing or talking with other people” (n=5), assessing all the actions of doing actions with other people or talking with them. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the actions of playing or talking with other people and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1, and one of these used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables.Azadvar & Canossa [46] found positive correlations between the time spent playing with a group of people and autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives. Frederik & Jan [123] found that playing with their partner, co-play, and talking with others positively correlated with habit and social motivation; the action of playing with people positively correlated with habit, social, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motives, except pastime and narrative. Hoffman & Nadelson [45] found that engagement positively correlated with playing with other people. Billieux et al. [71] correlated some specific behaviours of playing with others with gaming motivations, and they found that being affiliated with a guild correlated with higher scores on socializing, teamwork, and relationship motivations; Dauriat et al. [36] found positive correlation between playing with a group of people and achievement, socializing, and immersion motivation. In fact, people playing solo negatively correlated with the social motivation but positively with the immersion motivation.The following three variables were analyzed each one by only two papers (n=2). The first one is “time spent playing on weekends,” and it was assessed through Pearson’s r (n=2). One study of the two (n=1) also used linear regression. Time spent playing on weekends positively correlated with diversion and challenge [40], socialization, exploration, achievement, and dissociation [33].The second variable is “Future intention of keep playing,” and it was assessed through an ANCOVA (n=1) and a multiple regression (n=1). It was positively related to autonomy, competence, relatedness [30] and habit but negatively associated with social motivation [50].The third variable is specific to a certain game, World of Warcraft, and is “behaviours shown by players inWoW”, and it was assessed through a linear regression (n=2). Billieux et al. [71] found that the progression score shown in the game and related to various achievements is positively related to advancement, mechanics, relationship, and discovery motivations; quest and exploration achievements were positively related to discovery motivation; PvP achievements were positively related to competition, advancement, and mechanics motivations; dungeon and raid achievements were related to advancement, mechanics, relationships, and teamworks; miscellaneous achievement scores were positively related to advancement, mechanics, and discovery motivations, and lastly, some specific in game achievements was unrelated to role play, customization, and escapism. Yee et al. [27] found some contrasting results; achievement and social motivations were negative predictors of quests, exploration, and professions, with achievement being the only negative predictor for world events; both achievement and social motivation were positive predictors of dungeons; immersion was a positive predictors of doing quests and exploration, but it was a negative predictor of PvP and dungeons.


#### 3.2.3. Results Related to the Psychological Variables

The most investigated variable of this cluster was “gaming addiction” (n=17), often called with different names such as gaming problems, excessive gaming, gaming disorder, problematic video gaming, internet gaming disorder, disordered gaming, and excessive use. Eight studies (n=8) used linear regression to study which motivations can be considered predictors of gaming addiction, 7 (n=7) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations, 6 studies used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=6) to fit the relations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations inside a model, and, finally, 1 (n=1) used d of Cohen.Gaming addiction found positive associations between intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and gaming addiction (n=2) [85, 125].Results regarding other motivations not pertaining to the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72] were as follows. Gaming addiction had positive associations with as follows: escapism (n=9) ([36, 71, 76, 79, 92, 122, 136], [26, 121]); social motivation (n=6) [28, 36, 41, 68, 83, 92]; achievement (n=4) [36, 68, 83, 122], with Bányai et al. [122], finding it to be a positive predictor for both recreational and esport gamers; competition (n=4) [28, 71, 92, 122]; coping n=3 [28, 41, 92]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92], even though López-Fernández et al. [28] found this result only in their adolescent sample; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; fantasy (n=2) [28, 92]; cognitive development (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; enhancement (n=1) [41]; mechanics (n=1) [71]; role play (n=1) [71]; achievement (n=1) [36]; immersion (n=1) [133]; advancement (n=1) [26]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; cognitive development (n=1) [92], mechanics (n=1) [79], and general motivation [121].Negative associations of gaming addiction were as follows: social (n=3) [73, 133, 136]; fantasy (n=2) [92, 122], but this result was found only for recreational players as well in the study done by Bányai et al. [122]; coping (n=1) [122], but only for recreational players; competition (n=1) [92]; recreation (n=1) [92]; customizing (n=1) [28], but this result was found by López-Fernández et al. [28] only in the young adult sample and skill development [121]. All the results regarding gaming addiction are summarized in Table 7.Table 7
The table summarizes the results found in literature between gaming motivations and gaming addiction.
MotivationPositive associationsNegative associationsNo associationsNotesSocial motivation65(n=6)—(n=1)Coping15(n=3)——Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Escapism25(n=9)———Customization17(n=3)(n=1)—López-Fernández et al. [28] found customization to be a negative predictor only in the young adult sample.Competition13(n=4)(n=1)——Recreation57(n=2)(n=1)——Violent Reward74(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)(n=2)—Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Cognitive development10(n=2)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Enhancement23(n=1)(n=1)(n=1)—Mechanics46(n=1)———Role play61(n=1)———Achievement1(n=4)(n=1)(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)—Advancement3(n=1)———Relaxing60——(n=1)—The second most investigated variable of this group is “personality.” Four studies (n=4) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality, 3 (n=3) used linear regression to assess which personality trait can be considered a predictor of certain gaming motivations, and lastly, 2 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2).All the studies used the big five theory to assess personality traits which measure personality based on agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness.Agreeableness associated positively with as follows: social interaction (n=3) [40, 92, 106]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; competence/control [23]; the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player [44]; it associated negatively with as follows: competition [92]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; arousal [40]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; social interaction [92]; achievement motivation [106]; leadership motivation [106].Neuroticism, also called emotional stability or instability, positively associated with as follows:. the achiever type of player [44]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; competition (n=2) (Graham & Gosling; [40]); social interaction [40]; diversion [40]; fantasy [40], arousal [40]; achievement [106]. It is negatively associated with presence [23], the free spirit type of player [44], and the disruptor type [44], and the immersion [106].Openness to experience is positively associated with as follows: autonomy [23]; the philanthropist player type [44]; the free spirit type of player [44]; cognitive development [92] and competition [40]; challenge [40]; diversion [40]; socialization [106]; immersion [106]; leadership motivation [106]; independence motives [106]. It has negative associations with competition [92] and achievement [106].Extraversion was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player and thus social motivation (n=3) [44, 68, 106]; the free spirit type of player [44]; competition [75]; leadership motivation [106]. It was negatively correlated with: coping [92] and diversion [40].Finally, conscientiousness was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the achiever type of player [44]; the player type of player [44]; customization [92] diversion [40]; leadership motives [106]. It has negative associations with as follows: competition [92]; coping [92]; social interaction [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; achievement [106]; immersion [106].Scharkow et al. [38] was the only study to use a different instrument to assess personality, and they found that achievement seeking is positively predicted by competence, exploration, mechanics, and narration.The variables that follow were assessed each one by just two papers. The first one is “loneliness” (n=2). The 2 studies used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality and linear regression to assess the relations. Loneliness is positively associated with coping (Myrseth et al. [41], social and relationship motivation [41, 48], escapism [48], and nostalgia [48].The second variable is “values” (n=2). Scharkow et al. [38] found through a Structural Equation Model that the value of “collective orientation” is positively related to social capital, team play, and competition. Chang & Zang [55] found that the materialism value was a positive predictor of achievement, escape and virtual identification, entertainment, and reward through online gaming.The third variable is “Need for cognition” (n=2) which is positively related to engagement [45], immersion, social, and achievement [51].The fourth variable is “enjoyment”(n=2) which is positively related to autonomy ([52]; Ryan et al. [30], entertainment and flow motivations [52], competence, and relatedness [30].


#### 3.2.4. Results Related to the Gaming Environment

This cluster of variables is a peculiar one that gathers all the variables that could not fit inside all the other clusters outlined before such as sociodemographic, behavioural, and psychological ones. This group contains the genre of the games assessed by the papers, the style of play chosen by the participants, the number of avatars that a player has, the gaming place where the activity is mainly done, the type of server used to play, and the physical health of the player playing the game.The most investigated variable of this group was “Genre of game played” (n=7). Four papers analyzed it by doing an ANOVA (n=4), 2 papers used Pearson’s r to study the correlations, 1 study did a linear regression, and 1 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Wohn et al. [43] found that people who play MMO games have higher intrinsic hedonic motivations, higher intrinsic accomplishment, higher social identified, and higher external game than players who played social network games. People who played social network games had higher external social and higher amotivation than people who played MMOs.Fuster et al. [105] found that WoW players had higher scores on dissociations than those who played Aion and EVE online.Scharkow et al., [38] found that playing for fantasy motivation had positive relationships with RPG, simulation games, adventure, and action but negative relationships with strategy, puzzle, sport games, platforms, and music games; competence had positive relationships with puzzle games and sport but negative ones with role playing and action; exploration had positive relationship with strategy, adventures, role playing, and platform games but negative ones with sport genre; social capital had positive relationship with strategy, puzzle, and role playing but negative ones with sport and music; team play had positive relationship with sport, platform, and action genre; competition had negative relationship with role playing and simulation but positive ones with sport and action; mechanics had positive relationship with sport, adventure, platform, simulation, and action genre, and lastly, narration has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, adventure, and role playing but negative ones with sport and action.Johnson & Gardner [23] found that the experience of presence in games was the lowest for sport, simulation, and shooting games; moderate for action-adventure games; highest for strategy and role playing games. The experience of autonomy was lowest in action adventure games and shooting games, moderate for sport and simulation games, and highest for strategy and role playing games.Ratan et al. [50] found that agency was positively associated with sport games, and pastime was positively associated with casual games and action games, while performance was associated with action games.Kim [40] found positive correlations between traditional type of game and challenge and arousal; physical game-genre was positively correlated with competition, fantasy, and arousal; imagination game genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, social interaction, fantasy, and arousal.Lastly, López-Fernández et al. [28] studied game genres related to two specific samples: young adults and adolescence. They found that in the adolescent sample, shooter games positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy; MOBA games positively correlated with competition, cognitive development, and social interaction; MMORPG positively correlated with fantasy; role playing positively correlated with recreation and fantasy; action adventure positively correlated with cognitive development, coping, customization, and fantasy; sport games positively correlated with violent reward and competition but negatively with customization; social simulation negatively correlated with competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward but positive with customization; construction positively correlated with customization and fantasy; platform games negatively correlated with competition, coping, social interaction, and violent reward. While, they found the following correlations in the young adult sample, the shooter genre positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy but not competition; MOBA positively correlated with recreation, competition, and social interaction; strategy is negatively correlated with violent reward; MMORPG is positively correlated with recreation, competition, coping, social , and fantasy; action-adventure game is positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, violent reward, and fantasy; sport genre is positively correlated with competition and violent reward; casual genre is negatively correlated with recreation, competition, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy; social simulation positively correlated with customization and fantasy but negatively with social interaction; fighting genre positively correlated with violent reward.The second most investigated variable was investigated by only 2 papers, and it was “style of play” (n=2). Wu et al. [121] found that those who primarily played single-player games had a higher score on coping but a lower score on competition, social, and general motivation than those who primarily played MMO games. Dauriat et al. [36] correlated style of play (playing PvP, playing solo, playing PvE, role playing, or playing in groups) and found that achievement positively correlated with playing PvP, socializing negatively correlated with playing solo but positively correlated with playing in a group, and immersion positively correlated with playing in a group, playing solo, playing PvE, and role playing.


#### 3.2.5. Risk of Biases

All the risk of biases detected are reported in Table3. All the 53 studies included presented a sampling bias due to various reasons: 21 studies recruited their samples online through forums or other platforms, while 32 were highly specific and focused their investigation on a targeted nation, even though one study compared three nations [50]; 28 studies had more male participants than females; 1 study only had only female participants [138]; 3 were lacking male players; 8 focused their results only on MMORPG players; 4 specifically targeted World of Warcraft players, 5 papers focused on MMO players, with one specifically comparing MMO players with social network gamers [43]; the study done by Carlisle et al. [68] also lacked of randomization factors. The fact that some papers were specifically targeting some games or countries can lead to a lack of generalizability of the obtained results. Considering that all 53 studies used self-reported questionnaires, all of them might have been affected by a response bias due to the nature of the instruments per se. Furthermore, 2 studies [33, 34] received random response to their questionnaires. 23 papers had a reporting bias since they had to discard some of them, and not all the cases were reported. 13 papers presented a measurement bias: (1) Lafrenière et al. [32] did not report the specific value of each dimensions’ Cronbach’s alpha; (2) Tekofsky et al. [67] created an ad hoc scale by compiling items from already assessed instrument, but they did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions; (3) Scharkow et al. [38] created an ad hoc questionnaire, but one of the dimensions (exploration-ego centered motives) had only one item, thus resulting in Cronbach’s alpha of one; (4) Dindar [75] proposed the construct of “gamer loyalty” as an attitude variable and not as behavioural one; (5) Ratan et al. [50] measured two constructs only through one item; (6) Kim [40] created a scale to measure preference of games, and this scale had low alphas; (7) the questionnaire used by Willians et al. [124] had an alpha of .62 for the immersion factor which would be considered insufficient if we would interpret this with the European Federation of Psychologists’ Association’s [27] criteria, which says that a Cronbanch’s alpha is acceptable only if above .70; (8) Dauriat et al. [36] did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions of their scale; (9) McCauley et al. [52] created an ad hoc questionnaire that needs further validation; (10) Fuster et al. [33] used an ad hoc instrument that needs further validation; (11) Tondello et al. [44] used a short version of their scale, and it could have problems with acquiescence, also the scale needs further validation, and the player dimension had a Cronbanch’s alpha of .698, which is insufficient according to EFPA [139]; (12) Azadvar & Canossa [46] measured some behavioural variables through a recording system, so the obtained data could have been affected by external factors; (13) the ad hoc questionnaire created by Yee [25] to measure MMORPG motivations had three dimensions with insufficient alphas [139]: .63 for immersion, .62 for escapism, and.67 for achievement. Lastly, 3 papers also had a statistical bias due to the fact that one questionnaire was based on an already existent one [41]; Frederik & Jan had a really small sample which could lead to a type II error; Ratan et al. [50] underlines that there might have been a type I of error due to the unequal sample size in doing the ANOVA calculations.


## 3.1. Characteristics of the Studies

53 studies were deemed eligible for this PRISMA systematic review about gaming motivation. All the included studies were cross–sectional, and they were using a validated tool to measure the aforementioned motivations.The following side note is necessary to better understand the reading and eventually organize the information of the following paper;n refers to the number of studies, while k refers to the samples.


### 3.1.1. Questionnaires Used and/or Developed by the Studies

The most used survey instrument of these studies was the Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26]) (n=9) which assesses three main dimensions, and each one composed of more subscales. The three dimensions are achievement1 (composed by the following subscales: advancement3, mechanics46, and competition13), social65 (composed by the following subscales: socializing65, teamwork72, and relationship59), and immersion35 (composed by the following subscales: discovery18, role-playing61, customization17, and escapism25).Other four questionnaires that were fairly used in the analyzed papers were as follows: (a) The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30]) (n=5), which based on the Self-Determination Theory [31], assesses five main dimensions: presence54, competence12, relatedness58, autonomy7, and intuitive controls41; (b) the Motive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22]) (n=5) which assesses seven main motivations: competition13, coping15, fantasy28, social65, skill development63, escape25, and recreation57; (c) the Gaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]) (n=5) which assesses five dimensions: intrinsic motivation38, integrated regulation36, identified regulation34, introjected regulation40, external regulation27, and amotivation5; (d) the Online Gaming Motivations Scale [27] (n=5) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65.One questionnaire was used a sufficient number of times: the Massively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33]) (n=3), only developed in spanish, assesses four main dimensions: exploration26, achievement1, socialization65, and dissociation20.Four questionnaires were used only a couple of times: (a) the gaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34]) (n=2) which assess nine main motivations: story70, violence catharsis73, loss-aversion43, violent reward74, social interaction65, grinding31/completion16, escapism25, autonomy7/exploration26, and customization17; (b) the Digital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35]) (n=2) which assesses Digital Games Motivation Scale eight main motivations: narrative49, social65, escapism25, moral self reaction47, agency4, pastime50, performance51, and habit32; (c) the Videogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ; [28]) (n=2) which assesses eight main gaming motivations: recreation57, social interaction65, coping15, violent reward74, fantasy28, ognitive development10, customization17, and competition13; (d) the Video Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29] (n=2) which assesses six dimensions: competition13, challenge9, fantasy28, arousal6, social interaction65, and diversion21.The following questionnaires (n=13) were created ad hoc for the research and/or need further validation; thus, they were used only one time: (a) the ad hoc questionnaire Motivations to Play [36] (n=1) which assesses five motivations: achievement1, socializing65, immersion35, relaxing60, and escaping25; (b) the Computer Gaming Motivation Scale [37] (n=1), only developed in Turkish, which assesses five dimensions: concentration14, entertainment24, learning42, escape25, and socialization65; (c) the Gaming Motive Scale [38] (n=1) which assesss three main motivations, each one composed of some subscales: ego-Centered Motives (fantasy28, competence12, exploration26, and challenge9), social motives (community11, social capital66, competition13, and team play71), and content-related motives (mechanics46 and narration48); (d) ad hoc Motivation Questionnaire created by the authors [39] (n=1) composed of four dimensions: socializing65, competition13, low cost44, and coping15; (e) the Smartphone Gaming Motivations [40] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: arousal6, challenge9, fantasy28, competition13, diversion21, and social interaction65; (f) the Electronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ; [41]) (n=1) which assesses four dimensions: coping15, self-gratification62, enhancement23, and social65; (g) the Massively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI; [42]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65; (h) the ad hoc Gaming Motivation Scale developed by the authors [43] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: social external regulation68, game external regulation27, identified regulation34, intrinsic accomplishment37, intrinsic hedonic39, and amotivation5; (i) the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale [44] (n =1) which measures six gaming motivations related to six gamer profiles: philanthropist51, socialiser67, free spirit29, achiever2, disruptor19, and player53; (j) the ad hoc scale VideoGame Play [45] (n=1) which measures different motivations through the engagement dimension; (k) the Ubisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ; [46]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: relatedness58, autonomy7, and competence12; (l) the ad hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47] which measures 9 different motivations: arousal6, diversion21, social interaction65, fantasy28, challenge9, hi-tech33, ego22, competition13, and realism56; (l) the ad hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPGs’ motivations [25] (n = 1) which assess achievement1, relationship59, immersion35, escapism25, and manipulation45.Table1 shows the motivational dimensions of each instrument with their respective Cronbach’s alpha. A glossary is also present in the appendix to give the definition of each measured motivation.Table 1
Instruments used by the papers in this PRISMA systematic review with all the dimensions and their Cronbrach’s alpha.
Motivation typeMeasure (references)Studies using itReliabilityEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94Escapism (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.65EscapismPokémon Go Motives scale [48]1.86EscapeReason for playing videogames (RPVG, [49])1.83EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.846EscapingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.881EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapismAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.62CompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.95Competition (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.75Competition (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.76CompetitionMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.74CompetitionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.76CompetitionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.86CompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.868CompetitionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.75CopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94CopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.794CopingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.64CopingVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.87FantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92Fantasy (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.66FantasyVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.82FantasyVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.88FantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.911FantasyAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.91SocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])5.76SocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.857SocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.699Socializing (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.80Teamwork (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.71Relationship (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74RelationshipAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.76Community (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Social capital (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.81Team play (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.87SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.77SocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.819SocializingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.891SocializingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.84SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.76Social interactionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.83Social interactionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.81Social interactionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.92Social external regulationsGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.93Social interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.849Social interactionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.79SocializersGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.838Skill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94RecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92RecreationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.84Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90Intrinsic hedonicGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Integrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Introject regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75External regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Game external regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.83Self-gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.842EnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.672StoryGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.92NarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2Not reportedViolence catharsisGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.91Loss-aversionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.81Grinding/completionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.79CustomizationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.88CustomizationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.88Customization (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74ChallengeVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.80Challenge (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.64ChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.811ChallengeAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.72ArousalVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.85ArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.896ArousalAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.83DiversionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.89DiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.889DiversionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81Discovery (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.73Role playing (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.87Advancement (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.79Mechanics (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.68Mechanics (content-related motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.64AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.74AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.816AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.66AchievementMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedAchievementAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.67AchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.759EngagementVideoGame play [45]1.96ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.75ImmersionMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.62ImmersionMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedImmersionAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.63Violent rewardVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.93Violent rewardGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.86Cognitive developmentVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.81ConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.744EntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.959LearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.922PresenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.84AutonomyThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.86Autonomy/explorationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.78Exploration (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]11ExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.750CompetenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.82Competence (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Intuitive controlsThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]1.60Low costMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.76DissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.833Moral self actionDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.793AgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.791PastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.886PerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.875HabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.930RelaxingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.893Free spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.723DisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.738PlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.698Hi-techAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81EgoAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.89RealismAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.84ManipulationAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.73


### 3.1.2. Geographical Areas of the Investigated Sample

Given the fact that the majority of these studies wanted to analyze motivations in a gamer sample that could be as representative as possible of the existing online communities, and most of the included papers in this systematic review (n=21) recruited their sample online through the Internet or other sampling methods. Still, the other studies recruited them through schools or via other methods and, as such, obtained results that are highly specific for certain countries. While considering that two studies [27, 50] sought to compare gamers from different geographical areas, specifically Hong Kong and Taiwan [27] and Germany, Singapore, and the United States [50], the distribution of the used samples is as follows: United States (k=10), Spain (k=5), Malaysia (k=4), Germany (k=3), Turkey (k=3), China (k=2), Norway (k=1), Netherlands (k=1), Singapore (k=1), Hungary (k=1), Belgium (k=1), Australia (k=1), Hong Kong (k=1), Canada (k=1), and Perù (n=1).


### 3.1.3. Age Clusters of the Samples

Gaming is generally considered as an activity majorly done by young people, even though this phenomena is largely changing thanks to smartphone games. Furthermore, it is worth taking into consideration the fact that almost all the samples were recruited either online or through college and schools; thus, there might be a bias in the sampling method. While keeping this in mind, 45 of the sample were put in the cluster called “young people,” which defines a sample with a distribution of the mean age that falls between 18 and 35 (k=45). The second cluster is composed of “underaged” samples; 5 were the samples whose mean of age was under 18 (k=5). In addition, it is necessary to clarify that 5 papers did not report any mean of age but just the age range [47, 51–54], and 3 did not specify the distribution of the age neither with the mean nor the range [26, 30, 55], even if, regarding the paper done by Ryan et al. [30], this can be applied only for the first study that they included in their research. The third cluster, the “adult sample” whose mean of age was above 35, is composed of only two samples (k=2).Eventually, there is a side note to better explain the higher number of samples if compared to the numbers of papers. Six papers used more than one sample and divided them based on defined variables (n=6). Wohn et al. [43] divided the two samples based on the game they played, thus writing more than one mean age, the MMO one belonging to the cluster of young age, while social network one belonging to the adult sample; Ratan et al. [50] also had three samples divided based on the country where they collected the data from (Germany, Singapore and the United States) with all of them belonging to the young sample; Sherry et al. [29] used five samples recruited from different school grades; the same goes for the study done by Greenberg et al. [47] which used also five samples coming from different school grades, but in the latter case, no means of age were given: finally, the study done by López-Fernández et al. [28] also used two sample of young players, one underage and one of young adults.


### 3.1.4. Theoretical Metamodel to Interpret the Results in Literature

While keeping in mind the heterogeneity of the current literature and its few existing and important models about gaming motivation, we tried to clusterize all the evidence gathered by researchers by putting them inside a new metamodel, mostly data-driven (Figure2). This model could be considered inspired by Lewin’s field theory [56]. Behaviours are just a function of the interaction between people (and their psychological aspects) and the environment they are put in. Moreover, Maslow’s theory [57] showed that all human beings act to satisfy not only their physiological needs but also their psychological ones (e.g., relatedness, competence, and self-realization). People are motivated to do something because they have a psychological drive (or need) that pushes them towards that direction. These needs can be considered primordial in terms of human nature, but some of them are the creation of being born and belonging to a certain cultural context and a certain society. Basically, our metamodel can be divided in more layers, and it suggests that motivation can be put on a psychological level together with other theoretical (e.g., online self-worth; [58]) and empirical factors. The “psychological layer,” specifically motivation, can have an influence on the behaviours present in the “behavioral layer.” This direct relationship is moderated by the elements of the “socio-demographic layer,” which can also have a direct effect on the other two single-layers. As an example, younger people, especially students, have more free time compared to adults, and consequently, this means that this time could be spent in playing video games (i.e., behaviour) making their gaming motivation higher and specific (i.e., psychological). Another example, being a male player in a certain culture can determine different needs and motivations for playing as also different behaviours in the context they are in. According to data gathered by ESA [59], boys in the U.S prefer to play with other people, to have fun with a preference for sports and shooter and RPG games; girls prefer to play to relax and unwind on their own with a preference for puzzle games. Statistics showed that different countries tend to like different types of games, and this implies that different cultures may have an influence on gender and age preferences in terms of games and motivation. As an example, Japanese people seem to prefer life simulators or RPG [60], Italian people prefer sport and competitive games such as FIFA [61, 62], while Americans prefer shooter games [59, 63]. Even the places where games gather to play might be different depending on culture and context. For instance, Internet cafès (places where gamers can play online games through a rented pc) are extremely popular in medio-oriental and oriental countries (e.g., China and Turkey; [64–66]) but less popular in European countries, and they are mainly frequented by students. Therefore, the place where people can gather to share a common interest can have an impact on which type of game is the most popular and played in a country.Figure 2
Theoretical metamodel suggested to understand how each cluster is connected to each other.


### 3.1.5. Investigated Variables

Gaming motivation is a multidisciplinary topic that can be covered by a wide variety of academic fields (e.g., marketing, business, cyber environments, psychology, and medicine), and, as such, there is a great variety of variables investigated.The first group is labeled as “sociodemographic variables,” and the two main investigated ones are gender (n=22) and age (n=15), directly followed by status/occupation (e.g., being a worker, a student, and being married) (n=4) and self description as a gamer or not (n=3). Fewer studies also investigated the relation to spoken language [67], ethnicity [68], and the type of household [36].The second group can be called “behavioral variables” since it focuses on specific behaviours associated with gaming motivations. Of this entire group, only one variable was investigated frequently, and it was gaming frequency (n=22), also called weekly gaming in some papers. Other analyzed behaviours were as follows: “years of playing” (n=5), sometimes also called “gaming experience”, which defines the years that participants spent playing a specific game or gaming; “daily play time” (n=6), which are the hours spent playing per day or the average longest game session in hours in a day, and “playing or talking with other people” (n=5); four variables were investigated just a couple of times: “future play” (n=2) defines as how much the participants were willing to keep playing the game; “time spent playing in the weekend” (n=2); “players behavior in World of Warcraft” (n=2), where the studies assessed an ensemble of specific actions done in World of Warcraft. Lastly, the following variables were assessed just one time: “Gaming duration” [69], intended as the longest gaming session the player ever had; “Pay to play” [70], which defines the money spent to play the game; “Daily usage of Information and Communication Technologies” [54]; “Continued play” [30], intended as the intentional behaviour of keep playing the same game”; “gaming during spare time” [34]; progression game, intended as a specific index calculated by the game [71]; “days played” [46].The third group gathers all the variables associated with psychological aspects, and, as such, it is named “psychological variables.” Gaming addiction (n=17) was the main investigated association in many papers. The second most assessed one was personality traits (n=6). All the others were assessed either a couple of times or just one single time, meaning that they might need more research. Specifically, the five variables investigated only two times are as follows: need for cognition (n=2), the three psychological needs of the Self-Determination Theory [31, 72] (n=2), loneliness (n=2), values [38, 55], and enjoyment (n=2). As already stated before, all the left variables in this group were investigated each one only by one paper, and it includes a great variety of psychological aspects. Regarding the topic of self–esteem, one paper in particular [58] investigated gaming motivations to assess the construct of “Online Self Worth” by creating a specific scale, while the other paper [30] simply assessed self-esteem with an already existent tool. The remaining studies of this group focused on the association between gaming motivations and avatar identification [73], loss of control [41], boredom [41], success for gaming intended as ego or task-oriented scores in games [45], willingness to change gaming habits [70], passion [74], the flow state while playing the game [75], status seeking in games [75], attitude towards online games [55], emotional intelligence [53], personal gender variables attributes such as having negative masculine attributes or positive femenine attributes [76], social capital [48], life satisfaction [48], physical presence [46], self expansion [51], self-described attitude [34], mood [30], and self engulfment [51].The fourth, and last, group is composed of “variables associated to the Gaming environment” that do not fit any group mentioned above since they relate to game aspects or particular settings where the gamers play their games. The genre of game played (e.g., MMORPG, action, FPS, and MMO) was taken into consideration the most times with 7 studies, while style of play (e.g., playing PvP or playing solo) was assessed in two papers. The following ones were instead analyzed each one only by one paper: place where the game is played (Internet cafè or home) [71], type of server used [105], gaming platform used [137], physical health related to Pokémon Go [48], and the number of avatars possessed [33]. All statistical results are reported in Table 2.Table 2
Main characteristics of the studies included reference, sample size, gender distribution, age mean/age distribution, country where the data were collected, motivation dimensions and motivation measures used, gaming dimensions/variable and gaming description/instrument used, and main results.
ReferencesSample sizeGender distributionAge mean/ age distributionCountryMotivation dimensionMotivation measureGaming related dimension/variableGaming-related measure/variable descriptionResultsBeard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .39,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.05, (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .35,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.04 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .36,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =.27,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =-.08,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .46,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.13,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .45,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .55,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.08 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .56,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .72,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .31,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.15,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .40,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .41,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.11,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .22,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .38,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .01,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .03 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .31,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .28,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .12 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .56,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = 32,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .05 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = -.16,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r = .47,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.24,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.00 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =-.13,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.18,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.04 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.28,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =-.449,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.069,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr = .393,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.325,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365,p<.001β=.43, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.592,p<.01β=.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.434,p<.05β=.03 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365 (p<.01) β=0.04 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Loss of controlAuthors asked three self - reported item about losing control while gamingr =-.281,p<.01β=-.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .062 (n.s)β=0.30 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .035 (n.s)β=0.20 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .248,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayGratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .180,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale - Short Form (BPS - SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .093,p<.01β = .079, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .130,p<.01β = .113, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.092,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .188,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.017 (n.s)β = .080, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.103,p<.01β = .168, p<.001Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = -.40, p<.05, t = -6.90, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.79, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.70, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .27, p<.05, t =4.50, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .65, p<.05, t =11.20, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineGrinding/ CompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .40, p<.05, t =6.76, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .39, p<.05, t =6.57, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .23, p<.05, t =5.48, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .24, p<.05, t =5.65, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -9.09, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -5.87, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineArousalMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.15, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.12, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -3.51, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.06, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipsMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.21, p<.05Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =6.746,p<.001, mean (m =1.86, sd =0.97, f =2.29 sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =10.900,p<.001, mean (m =2.47, sd =1.19, f =1.87, sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =2.124,p<.05, mean (m =2.48, sd =1.08, f =2.61, sd =1.01)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =5.357,p<.001, mean (m =3.00, sd =1.21, f =3.35, sd =1.18)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =7.244,p<.001, mean (m =2.28, sd =1.11, f =2.78, sd =1.24)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =4.400,p<.001, mean (m =4.10, sd =0.93, f =4.30 sd =0.82Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =9.719,p<.001; mean (a =1.99, sd =1.07; b =1.91, sd = .98; c =1.82, sd = .93)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =31.527,p<.001; mean (a =2.60, sd =1.24; b =2.43, sd =1.19; c =2.23, sd =1.09)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =19.595,p<.001; mean (a =2.62, sd =1.16; b =2.52, sd =1.07; c =2.36, sd = .98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.327,p<.001; mean (a =3.18, sd =1.23; b =3.02, sd =1.19; c =2.89, sd =1.20)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.788,p<.001; mean (a =2.47, sd =1.16; b =2.32, sd =1.14, (c) =2.20, sd =1.08Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =11.386,p<.001; mean (a =4.03, sd =1.00; b =4.12, sd =0.91; c =4.21, sd =0.86)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSkill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =13.867,p<.001; mean (a =2.34, sd =1.17; b =2.29, sd =1.14; c = 2.12, sd =1.11)Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsRelationshipMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .459,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsAdvancementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 230,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .437,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .417,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsCompetitionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 340,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .35, p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .21, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]GenderFemale or maler = -.335,p<.01, β = - 16.594; F = 7.291, p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Need for cognitionNeed for cognition (NFC, [81])r = .168,p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Ego Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .264,p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Task Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .266,p<.01, β = 1.044; F = 4.355, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Play with othersAd hoc item created by the authorsr = .345,p<.01, β = 5.256; F = 5.613, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Hours of playHours played weeklyr = .198,p<.01, β = 3.213; F = 61.375, p<.001Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.63, sd = 1.84; M =4.30, sd = 1.73), F = 9.545,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.54, sd =1.86; M = 3.51, sd = 1.89), F = 17.641, p < .05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.71, sd = 1.74; M = 3.42, sd = 1.81), F = 10.387,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.95, sd = 1.74; M = 3.76, sd = 1.81), F = 13.275,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.49, sd = 1.68; M = 3.65, sd = 1.85), F = 26.429,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.53, sd = 1.60; >4 = 4.54, sd = 1.79), F = 27.734,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.67, sd = 1.60; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.03), F = 22.253,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.76, sd = 1.53; >4 = 3.56, sd = 1.93), F = 16.093,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.08, sd = 1.56; >4 = 3.86, sd = 1.93), F = 15.554,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4y; less than 3y)Mean (<3 =2.89, sd = 1.59; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.02), F = 13.727,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.60, sd = 1.66;N=3.48, sd = 1.75), F = 35.375, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y =3.79, sd = 1.89;N=2.53, sd = 1.75), F = 37.860, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.72, sd = 1.76;N=2.57, sd = 1.67), F = 36.382, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.11, sd = 1.75;N=2.77, sd = 1.63), F = 50.131, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.83;N=2.67, sd = 1.77), F = 34.020, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.65, sd = 1.75;N=3.11, sd = 1.65), F = 8.241, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.84, sd = 1.70;N=3.77, sd = 1.72), F = 28.404, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.99, sd = 1.96;N=2.88, sd = 1.80), F = 26.489, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.90;N=2.93, sd = 1.69), F = 19.638, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.47, sd = 1.94;N=3.08, sd = 1.58), F = 48.704, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.09, sd = 1.95;N=2.97, sd = 1.75), F = 28.194, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.46, sd = 1.81;N=3.54, sd = 1.60), F = 21.729, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.56, sd = 2.02;N=2.72, sd = 1.63), F = 15.411, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.47, sd = 1.89;N=2.83, sd = 1.60), F = 9.635, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.96, sd =1.91;N=2.82, sd = 1.42), F = 33.260, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal RegulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.60, sd =1.99;N=2.90, sd = 1.62), F = 10.947, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.78, sd =1.86;N=3.61, sd = 1.55), F = 38.470, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.98, sd = 2.11;N=2.68, sd = 1.55), F = 41.607, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.75, sd = 1.98;N=2.83, sd = 1.56), F = 22.336, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.22, sd =1.91;N=3.01, sd = 1.57), F = 39.867, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y =4.03, sd = 1.93;N=2.80, sd = 1.68), F = 38.091, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 3.47, sd = 1.65; B = 4.28, sd = 1.61; C = 5.02, sd = 1.94), F = 19.059,p<.01; post hoc: C > B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.69; B = 3.23, sd = 1.76; C = 4.28, sd =2.29), F = 14.802p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > A)Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.94, sd = 1.73; B = 3.19, sd = 1.59; C = 3.87, sd = 2.25), F = 5.890p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A =2.89, sd = 1.73; B = 3.78, sd = 1.61; C = 4.23, sd = 2.07), F = 14.818p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.78; B = 3.67, sd = 1.79; C = 3.77, sd = 2.04), F = 10.885p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 3.46, sd = 1.75; B = 3.68, sd = 1.64; C =2.78, sd = 1.72), F = 6.313p<.01; post hoc: A > C, B > COsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 3.17, sd = 1.59; M = 3.95, sd = 1.80; N = 4.56, sd = 1.70), F = 16.327,p<.01; post hoc: N > M > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.38, sd = 1.51; M =2.89, sd = 1.85;N=3.75, sd = 1.95), F = 15.308, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.46, sd = 1.41; M = 2.85, sd = 1.59;N=3.70, sd = 1.70), F = 14.834, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.83, sd = 1.69; M = 3.23, sd = 1.71;N=3.95, sd = 1.83), F = 11.357, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.79, sd = 1.72; M = 2.88, sd = 1.80;N=3.77, sd = 1.90), F = 10.323, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 4.15, sd = 1.80; M = 3.17, sd = 1.52;N=3.27, sd = 1.73), F = 7.681, p < .01; post hoc: Y > M, Y > NFam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaSocialOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .098, p<.05Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .129, p<.01Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .166 < p<.01Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .38,p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .65,p<.001, β = .36, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .36 <p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .48,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .35,p<.001, β = 28, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .33,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .28,p<.001, β = .19, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .29,p<.001, β = .16, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .31,p<.001, β = .20, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .27,p<.001, β = .18, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .36,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .24,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .19,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .12,p<.001T’ng & Pau [73].1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .173, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .085, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .460, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .107, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = - .273, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .366, p<.05Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .21, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .07, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = - .16, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .24, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Ethnicitye.g., if White/Caucasianβ = .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etc.β = - .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were of asked their ageβ = - .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .19, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etcβ = - .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])ExtraversionBFI-10 [91]β = .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeFemale or maleβ = - .14, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ExtraversionJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .12,p<.05, β = - .16, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .38,p<.01, β = - .30, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .11,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.18,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .32,p<.01, β = .32, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.26,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.16,p<.01, β = -.04, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.24,p<.01, β = -.14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .12,p<.05, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.41,p<.01, β = -.33, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.14,p<.01, β = -.03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .38,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .39,p<.01; β = .17, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .33,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .18,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .39,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .37,p<.01, β = .08, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .48,p<.01, β = .20, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .51,p<.01, β = .28, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .36,p<.01, β = .06, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .17,p<.01, β = .03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .30,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 4.321,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.350,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 6.619,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.291,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 11.906,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 14.569,p<.05,Mean (concentration per age) = (18-25: 2.803; 26-35: 2.616; 36-45: 2.348; 46-55: 1.815, 56+: 2.031); Fage (4-1672) = 16.851, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -12.299,p<.05Mean (entertainment per age) = (18 - 25: 3.586; 26-35: 3.025; 36 - 45: 2.693; 46-55: 1.857, 56+: 3.719); Fage (4-1672) = 60.914, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -8.646, p < .05,Mean (escape per age) = (18 - 25: 2.789; 26-35: 2.562; 36-45: 2.427; 46-55: 1.921, 56+: 2.896); Fage (4-1672) = 12.795, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -13.278, p < .05,Mean (learning per age) = (18-25: 3.063; 26-35: 2.696; 36-45: 2.535; 46-55: 1.994, 56+: 2.141); Fage (4-1672) = 23.433, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 15.226,p<.05,Mean (socialization per age) = (18 - 25: 3.337; 26 - 35: 2.784; 36 - 45: 2.552; 46 - 55: 1.905, 56+: 3.031); Fage (4-1672) = 43.230, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = - .127,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .105,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT UsageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .083,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.190,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.305,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.143,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .196,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .276,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesCompetence(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .15,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .23,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .39,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .35,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesPsychological detachmentRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = 20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .25,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .14,p<.05, β = -.19, p=.032Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelatedness(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .16,p<.05, β = .20, p=.002Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .25,p<.01, β = .19, p=.029Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .21,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic hedonic motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 5.88, sd = 1.06; MMO = 6.17, sd = .94); t(1016) = - 4.48,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 4.52, sd = 1.51; MMO = 5.00, sd = 1.28); t(1016) = - 5.38,p<.001. F(1, 1014) = 28.81, p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.21, sd = 1.67; MMO = 3.83, sd = .1.70); t(1016) = - 5.91,p<.001;Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 2.57, sd = 1.54; MMO = 2.27, sd = 1.43); t(1016) = 3.07,p<.01Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal gameAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.63, sd =1.86; MMO = 5.03, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = - 13.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesAmotivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.23, sd = 1.55; MMO = 2.72, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = 5.35,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified social regulationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 3.41, sd = 1.65; F = 3.01, sd = 1.66) (F(1, 1014) = 4.4,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal social motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 2.65, sd = 1.53; F =2.48, sd = 155) (F(1, 1014) = 9.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or malemean (SNG) (M = 3.46, sd = 1.77, F = 3.81, sd = 1.94); mean MMO (M = 4.94, sd = 1.51; F = 5.12, sd = 1.36); F(1, 1014) =6.57,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 179.14,p<.001)Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 28.81Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.20, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.14, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanismGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.46, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.37, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .44, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .26, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .29, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experiencegamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .05, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102])β = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = - .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.15, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .21, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]Role PlayingGenre of gameβ = .40, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = .35, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])GenderFemale or maleF (1, 87) = 5.60,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 6.42,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn-game Autonomy(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 4.77,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 10.58,p<.001Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Preference for continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .39, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Free choice continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .41, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Self-esteemMultidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI; [103])β = .52, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Modd/affectMood Rating Scale ([104])β = .25, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .14, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .15, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .09, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .18, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .19, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .24, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .49, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .36, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .21, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineImmersionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .08, p<.01Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanySocializingAd hoc instrument [39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 381,p<.001, n^2 = .04Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 256,p<.001, n^2 = .03Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCopingAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 150,p<.001, n^2 = .02Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 2.59, sd = .81, F = 3.04, sd = .83), F(1, 8201) = 437,p<.01, n^2 = .05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainSocializationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.100,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.115,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = -.119,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = .316,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainAchievementMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student workingMean (S = 19.53, sd = 7.52; W = 17.08, sd = 7.26); F(3, 426) = 3.6,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student working (WS)Mean (S = 22.84, sd = 8.52; W = 20.07, sd = 8.52; WS = 18.94, sd = 9.68); F(3, 426) = 4.41,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]MMORPG typeIf they played World of Warcraft, Aion, and EVE onlineMean (WoW = 23.48, sd = 9.01; Aion = 17.96, sd = 7.57; EVE = 18.06, sd = 8.05); F(6, 423) = 3.54,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 27.24, sd = 4.64; PvP = 25.08, sd = 6.31); F(2, 427) = 4.05,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 18.54, sd = 8.05; PvP = 21.76, sd = 8.05); F(2, 427) = 3.74,p<.05Graham & Gosling [106].14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .20, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .23, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .17, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .14, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .10, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.05Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .19, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .21, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .45, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsTwo Items added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .13, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineIndependence motivationsOne item added by authors (i.e I value independence in my character)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .28, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours of playHours played per weekr=.24, p=0.000Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineCompetence/Control(PENS; [30])AgreeablenessTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Emotional stabilityTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=−.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Openness to experienceTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.19, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.26,p<.01Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.72,p<.01Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.438, p<.001; β = .381, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.305, p<.001; β = .190, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.259, p<.001; β = .235, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainDissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.689, p<.001; β = .785, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.342, p<.001; β = .322, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r = .184, p < .001; β = .084, p<.001Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Distortion of timeFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.237, p < .001; β = .70, t = 7.81, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.187, p<.05; β = .50, t = 5.47, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Loss of self-consciousnessFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]β = .28, t = 3.48, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Merge of actions and cognitionFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.262, p<.001; β = .59, t = 4.78, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Autotelic experienceFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.444, p<.001; β = .93, t = 7.74, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeySocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Daily playtimeDaily hours spent on MMORPGsr=.181, p<.05, β =1.00, t = 3.26, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Status seeking in MMORPGsStatus seeking scale [111, 112]r=.672, p<.001, β = .89, t = 8.55, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2-questionnaire [110]r=.318, p<.001, β = .28, t = 3.42, p<.05Chang & Zhang [55].347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .55, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEscape and virtual identificationsScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .34, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaRewardScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .27, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .29, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .38, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSociabilityScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .15, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .11, p<.01Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.88, sd = 1.42; M = 4.39, sd =1.20), t-test = 5.38,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.42, sd = 1.50; M =3.00, sd = 1.57), t-test = 5.29,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.76, sd = 1.49; M = 3.27, sd = 1.46), t-test = 4.97,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.03, sd = 1.55; M = 3.47, sd = 1.48), t-test = 4.28,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 4.67, sd = 1.04; NG = 3.25, sd = 1.26), F(1, 971) = 220.67,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.43, sd = 1.49; NG = 1.49, sd = 0.64), F(1, 972) = 347.56,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.67, sd = 1.37; NG = 1.90, sd = 0.90), F(1, 971) = 312.60,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 2.00, sd =1.07; NG = 1.26, sd = 0.46), F(1, 971) = 92.69,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.73, sd = 1.45; NG =2.48, sd = 1.28), F(1, 971) = 96.81,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NG)Mean (G = 4.39, sd =1.20; NG = 3.20, sd = 1.39), F(1, 972) = 17.82,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NGMean (G = 3.51, sd = 1.48; NG = 2.26, sd = 1.29), F(1, 972) = 21.47,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 21.02,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 25.63,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 11.22,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 20.21,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) =32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 50.71,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.37,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 6.65,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .07; SG = 3.54, sd = .11), US = 3.46, sd = .06); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .06; SG = 2.68, sd = .10), US = 2.71, sd = .05); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.11,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyReactivityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 2.42,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.89,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.92,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.55,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceSport gamesβ = -.15, F(13, 607) = 3.77, p=.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceCasual gamesβ = .20, F(13, 607) = 8.23, p<.01Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = - .16, F(13, 607) = 8.58, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = .15, F(13, 607) = 4.42, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = .23, F(1, 631) = 28.89, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = - .10, F(1, 631) = 4.38, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .176,p<.05, β = .205, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .180,p<.05, β = .209, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .297,p<.01, β = .318, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .224,p<.01, β = .224, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .157,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.238,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ConscientiousnessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.301,p<.01, β = - .253, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.185,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .272,p<.01, β = .210, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .309,p<.01, β = .201, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .306,p<.01, β = - .193, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .212,p<.01, β = .212, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.168,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]β = - .160, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Openness to experienceFive-Factor Model [117]β = .163, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the week daysr = .171,p<.05, β = .171, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .271,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .182,p<.05,p<.05β = .182,Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .256,p<.01, β = .202, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .228,p<.01, β = .160, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .161,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .232,p<.01, β = .232, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .249,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .242,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .160,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .204,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .190,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .298,p<.01; β = .298, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .287,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = 23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .34,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .37,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .48,p<.01, β = .30, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .51,p<.01, β = .29, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .36,p<.01, β = .12, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .47,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28]);MMORPGGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.11,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .36,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .16,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01, β = .21, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .41,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .43,p<.01, β = .18, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .34,p<.01, β = .17, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])β = -.15, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .43,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = - .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .35,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];FightingGame genrer = .13,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .27,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Years playingParticipants were asked how long they have been playing WoWr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .47,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .48,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Affiliated with a guildPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])QuestsPlayer’s behaviourr = .28,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])ExplorationsPlayer’s behaviourr = .34,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Players vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .21,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .39,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player’s behaviourPlayer’s behaviourr = .33,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .31,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvPType of serverr = .23,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvEType of serverr = - .22,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server RPType of serverr = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .11, t = 2.31, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .17, t = 3.37, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvP indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t =3.02, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .13, t = 2.53, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.31, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = - .12, t = - 2.32, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.06, p<.01Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 9.08, sd = 2.15; F = 10.00, sd = 2.21); t = - 11.05,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 5.18, sd =1.86; F = 4.39, sd = 1.48); t = 11.16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.87, sd = 1.49; F = 7.09, sd = 1.49); t = - 3.85,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.81, sd = 1.25; F = 7.00, sd = 1.22); t = - 3.48,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 8.06, sd = 1.48; F = 7.22, sd = 1.49); t = 14.70,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = -.33,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = 22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -.35,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.26,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -30,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.24,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .20,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .10,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .17,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .34,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .06,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .07,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .09,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.31, p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.17, p<.01Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .10, sd = .99; F = -.66, sd = .82); t = 15.18,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .07, sd =1.00; F = -.48, sd = .86); t = 10.90,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .09, sd = .98; F = -.61, sd = .89); t = 13.93,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean(M = .06, sd =1.01; F = -.43, sd = .76); t = - 10.47,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.05, sd = .98; F = .30, sd =1.07); t = - 6.83,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .03, sd =1.00; F = .18, sd =1.01); t = -4.03,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.10, sd = .98; F = .62, sd = .98); t = -14.29,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .06, sd =1.00; F = .38, sd = .93);t = - 8.45,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .02, sd = .99; F = .16, sd = 1.06); t = - 3.57,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.07, sd =1.00; F = .46, sd = .088); t = - 10.47,p<.001Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationsMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming Disorder SymptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .45, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .30, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM - 5 [121]β = - .26, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .95,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .62,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.25,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])StudentOccupationd = .42,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .53,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .57,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = 1.28,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd =1.00,p<.01Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.26, sd = .97; E = 2.80, sd = 1.03), t = 7.74,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.63, sd = 1.10; E = 2.59, sd = 1.10), t = 10.44,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.98, sd =1.18; E = 2.95, sd =1.18), t = 8.01,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryEscapismMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .49, p<.001; β (recreational) = .49, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .08, p<.01;Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .05, p<.05Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryRecreationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = .08, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .14, p<.05; β (recreational) = .12, p<.001Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .58,p,.05, β = .381, p<.01Frederik, & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .45,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .41,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = -28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .31,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .25,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .36,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .37,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .41, p<.01Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineImmersionGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = - .11, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineSociabilityGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .10, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineAchievementGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .12, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineExplorationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = - .01,p=.44Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineRole PlayGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.07,p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineCustomizationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.02,p=.10Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineEscapismGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = .02,p=.20Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .228,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .443,p<.001, β = .133, p=.030Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .293,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .570,p<.001, β = .331, p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .296,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .392,p<.001, β = .112, p=.020Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaEngagementGaming Experience Questionnaire [126]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .289, p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSocialMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.373,p=0.543Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.388,p=.537Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.179,p=.674Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.411,p=.525Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.891,p=.348Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 5.15,p=0.026Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 3.85,p=.053Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]EmotionalityTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 18.62,p<.0001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCopingMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 4.2,p=.046Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineRecreationMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 13.64,p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineEscapeMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 1.83,p=.183Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineFantasyMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = .388,p=.537Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative masculine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .38, p<.001; β (model 3) = .38, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Positive feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .27, p<.001; β (model 3) = .24, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .23, p<.001; β (model 3) = .23, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineEscapism (immersion)Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Game play addictionIGD-20 Test [89]β (model 2) = .19, p<.001; β (model 3) = .19, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gender affiliationGender affiliation [76]β (model 3) = .22, p<.001Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.17,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .19,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvPPlay against other playersr = .33,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .35,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = -.18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = .28,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .37,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Role playingRole playing inside the gamer = .14,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .13,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]GenderFemale or maleβ = 0.08, t(694) =3.00, p=0.003Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Marital StatusBeing single or nott(694) = 3.17,p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Professional statusProfessional, student or without any activitiest(694) = 2.68,p=0.007Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Type of householdHaving children or nott(694) = 4.16,p=0.000Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Marital statusBeing alone or nott(694) = – 3.12;p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .35,p<.00; β = .36, t = 10.32, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .23,p<.00; β = .25, t = 7.11, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])β = .10, t = 2.98, p=.00Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]GenderFemale or maled > 1.0Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); Eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .29, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .11, p<.05Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo Game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .16, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .21, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), Eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .47, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), ighschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesStrongVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesCompetitionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .29, p<.01Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaCompetencePENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .10, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaAutonomyPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .11, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaRelatednessPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .16, p<.05Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = .14, sd = .83; F = .27, sd = .91), t = 10.08,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -05, sd = .88; F = .09, sd = .90), t = - 3.43,p<.005Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -.07, sd = .89; F = .13, sd = .87), t = - 4.70,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = .27,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.13,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.01,p=.64Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.16, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.07, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .28, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .18, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.19, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]World eventBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.11, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineAutonomyPENS [30]EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .244, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineEntertainmentAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .493, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineFlowAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .231, p<.001Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .182,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .132,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .153,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .160,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .179,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainSocializationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .176,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .230,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .166,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .308,p<.01Fuster et al. [33].253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Number of avatarsNumber of avatars possessedr = .189,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .23,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .24,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesAchievementPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .18,p<.01, β = .28, p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = - .16,p<.01, β = - .20, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .20,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .24,p<.001, β = .24, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .16,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .14,p<.05, β = .15, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesNostalgiaPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .15,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .18,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]β = - .21, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .15,p<.05, β = .12, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship MaintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .18, p < .01,β = .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)β = - .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship InitiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .13,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .15,p<.05, β = .19, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .17,p<.05, β = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCatharsisGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked their ager = - .08,p=.004Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLoss AversionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.10,p=.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocial InteractionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .17,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomizationGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .06,p=.02Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineGrindingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.12,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .10,p=.002Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.14Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolent RewardGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.15Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.17Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .23, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .18, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .12, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .24, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .08, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .25, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .13, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .13, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .27, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .17, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .148, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .191, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .159, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .145, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .290, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .272, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .152, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = -.204, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .215, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaAchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .255, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaDisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = - .170, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .144, p<.05Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .373, p<.01, β = .236, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .324, p<.01, β = .226, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .409, p<.01, β = .519, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .028, p<.01, β = .119, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .093, p<.01, β = .127, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .101, p<.01, β = .163, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .03, p<.01, β = .224, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .038, p<.01Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .07, p<.01, β = .249, p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.72, F = 4.15), t = 7.59,p<.001Greenberg et158 al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.52, F = 3.92), t = 6.74,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.46, F = 3.37), t = 11.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.36, F = 3.53), t = 8.59,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M =4.30, F = 2.55), t = 17.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); Eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.15, F = 3.14), t = 9.45,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesHi-techAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.82, F = 3.17), t = 8.58,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.13, F = 2.63), t = 6.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 2.81, F = 2.33), t = 6.29,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.66, 8th grade = 3.71; 11th = 3.72, college = 4.76), F = 48.00,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.64, 8th grade = 3.43; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.73), F = 22.66,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial interactionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.50, 8th grade = 3.21; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.66), F = 4.33,p<.005Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.41, 8th grade = 4.68; 11th = 4.81, college = 4.36), F = 50.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.39, 8th grade = 3.85; 11th = 4.17, college = 4.00), F = 8.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade =3.35, 8th grade =2.89; 11th = 2.70, college = 2.87), F = 9.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.22, 8th grade = 2.44; 11th = 2.39, college = 2.54), F = 15.94,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = - .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .69, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .36, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .24, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .23, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .21, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .31, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .16, p<.05Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale-short form (IGDS9-SF; [89])β = .049, p<.295Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaSocialMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = - .143, p<.001Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaImmersionMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = .303, p<.000Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Self ExpansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .27,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .38,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .47,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .28,p<.01Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .34,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .42,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .28,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Social Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Spatial Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .38,p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùSocialOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = -.127, p<.05Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùEscapeOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .966, p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùFantasyOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22)Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .934, p<.01


### 3.1.6. Game Assessed in the Papers

Among the 53 studies, 18 did not specify what type of genre or games they were doing their research on, and 6 stated that they investigated players that play more than one genre. 14 of the papers specifically addressed gaming motivations associated with the MMORPG genre, while the MOBA genre was considered by 4 papers. MMO was the main topic of only 4 papers. Games are also getting extremely popular on smartphones, as such 3 papers assessed motivation for playing smartphone games specifically. The following genres or games were very specific or niche, and, as such, each one was addressed by just one paper: Pokèmon Go [48], social network games [43], Esport games [122], Ubisoft games [46], Travian [39], and Super Mario 64 [30]. To be more precise, the study done by Ryan et al. [30] was composed of more studies, and each one focused on a different game. This PRISMA review included the first one, which used Super Mario 64, and the fourth one, which used MMO players. Wohn et al. [43] also compared two different samples of gamers: social network and MMO players.


## 3.1.1. Questionnaires Used and/or Developed by the Studies

The most used survey instrument of these studies was the Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26]) (n=9) which assesses three main dimensions, and each one composed of more subscales. The three dimensions are achievement1 (composed by the following subscales: advancement3, mechanics46, and competition13), social65 (composed by the following subscales: socializing65, teamwork72, and relationship59), and immersion35 (composed by the following subscales: discovery18, role-playing61, customization17, and escapism25).Other four questionnaires that were fairly used in the analyzed papers were as follows: (a) The Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30]) (n=5), which based on the Self-Determination Theory [31], assesses five main dimensions: presence54, competence12, relatedness58, autonomy7, and intuitive controls41; (b) the Motive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22]) (n=5) which assesses seven main motivations: competition13, coping15, fantasy28, social65, skill development63, escape25, and recreation57; (c) the Gaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]) (n=5) which assesses five dimensions: intrinsic motivation38, integrated regulation36, identified regulation34, introjected regulation40, external regulation27, and amotivation5; (d) the Online Gaming Motivations Scale [27] (n=5) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65.One questionnaire was used a sufficient number of times: the Massively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33]) (n=3), only developed in spanish, assesses four main dimensions: exploration26, achievement1, socialization65, and dissociation20.Four questionnaires were used only a couple of times: (a) the gaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34]) (n=2) which assess nine main motivations: story70, violence catharsis73, loss-aversion43, violent reward74, social interaction65, grinding31/completion16, escapism25, autonomy7/exploration26, and customization17; (b) the Digital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35]) (n=2) which assesses Digital Games Motivation Scale eight main motivations: narrative49, social65, escapism25, moral self reaction47, agency4, pastime50, performance51, and habit32; (c) the Videogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ; [28]) (n=2) which assesses eight main gaming motivations: recreation57, social interaction65, coping15, violent reward74, fantasy28, ognitive development10, customization17, and competition13; (d) the Video Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29] (n=2) which assesses six dimensions: competition13, challenge9, fantasy28, arousal6, social interaction65, and diversion21.The following questionnaires (n=13) were created ad hoc for the research and/or need further validation; thus, they were used only one time: (a) the ad hoc questionnaire Motivations to Play [36] (n=1) which assesses five motivations: achievement1, socializing65, immersion35, relaxing60, and escaping25; (b) the Computer Gaming Motivation Scale [37] (n=1), only developed in Turkish, which assesses five dimensions: concentration14, entertainment24, learning42, escape25, and socialization65; (c) the Gaming Motive Scale [38] (n=1) which assesss three main motivations, each one composed of some subscales: ego-Centered Motives (fantasy28, competence12, exploration26, and challenge9), social motives (community11, social capital66, competition13, and team play71), and content-related motives (mechanics46 and narration48); (d) ad hoc Motivation Questionnaire created by the authors [39] (n=1) composed of four dimensions: socializing65, competition13, low cost44, and coping15; (e) the Smartphone Gaming Motivations [40] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: arousal6, challenge9, fantasy28, competition13, diversion21, and social interaction65; (f) the Electronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ; [41]) (n=1) which assesses four dimensions: coping15, self-gratification62, enhancement23, and social65; (g) the Massively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI; [42]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: immersion35, achievement1, and social65; (h) the ad hoc Gaming Motivation Scale developed by the authors [43] (n=1) which assesses six main motivations: social external regulation68, game external regulation27, identified regulation34, intrinsic accomplishment37, intrinsic hedonic39, and amotivation5; (i) the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale [44] (n =1) which measures six gaming motivations related to six gamer profiles: philanthropist51, socialiser67, free spirit29, achiever2, disruptor19, and player53; (j) the ad hoc scale VideoGame Play [45] (n=1) which measures different motivations through the engagement dimension; (k) the Ubisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ; [46]) (n=1) which assesses three main motivations: relatedness58, autonomy7, and competence12; (l) the ad hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47] which measures 9 different motivations: arousal6, diversion21, social interaction65, fantasy28, challenge9, hi-tech33, ego22, competition13, and realism56; (l) the ad hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPGs’ motivations [25] (n = 1) which assess achievement1, relationship59, immersion35, escapism25, and manipulation45.Table1 shows the motivational dimensions of each instrument with their respective Cronbach’s alpha. A glossary is also present in the appendix to give the definition of each measured motivation.Table 1
Instruments used by the papers in this PRISMA systematic review with all the dimensions and their Cronbrach’s alpha.
Motivation typeMeasure (references)Studies using itReliabilityEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94Escapism (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.65EscapismPokémon Go Motives scale [48]1.86EscapeReason for playing videogames (RPVG, [49])1.83EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.846EscapingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.881EscapismGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.82EscapismAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.62CompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.95Competition (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.75Competition (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.76CompetitionMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.74CompetitionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.76CompetitionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.86CompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.868CompetitionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.75CopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94CopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.794CopingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.64CopingVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.87FantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92Fantasy (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.66FantasyVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.82FantasyVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.88FantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.911FantasyAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.91SocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])5.76SocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.857SocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.699Socializing (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.80Teamwork (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.71Relationship (social)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74RelationshipAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.76Community (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Social capital (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.81Team play (social motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.87SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.77SocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.819SocializingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.891SocializingMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.84SocialMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.76Social interactionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.83Social interactionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29]2.81Social interactionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.92Social external regulationsGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.93Social interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.849Social interactionVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.79SocializersGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.838Skill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.94RecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])5.92RecreationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.84Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Intrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90Intrinsic hedonicGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Integrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.94Introject regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75External regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75Game external regulationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.90AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])5Above .75AmotivationGaming Motivation Scale developed by authors [43]1.83Self-gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.842EnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])1.672StoryGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.92NarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2Not reportedViolence catharsisGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.91Loss-aversionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.81Grinding/completionGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.79CustomizationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.88CustomizationVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28]);2.88Customization (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.74ChallengeVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.80Challenge (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38].1.64ChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.811ChallengeAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.72ArousalVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.85ArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.896ArousalAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.83DiversionVideo Game Uses and Gratifications Scale [29].2.89DiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]1.889DiversionAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81Discovery (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.73Role playing (immersion)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.87Advancement (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.79Mechanics (achievement)Motivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])9.68Mechanics (content-related motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.64AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.74AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.816AchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.66AchievementMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedAchievementAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.67AchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.759EngagementVideoGame play [45]1.96ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]5.75ImmersionMassively Multiplayer Online Motivations Inventory (MMI, [42])1.62ImmersionMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedImmersionAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.63Violent rewardVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.93Violent rewardGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.86Cognitive developmentVideogaming Motives Questionnaire (VMQ, [28])2.81ConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.744EntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.959LearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]1.922PresenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.84AutonomyThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.86Autonomy/explorationGaming attitudes, motivations, and experiences scales (GAMES; [34])2.78Exploration (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]11ExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.750CompetenceThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])1.82Competence (ego-centered motives)Gaming Motive Scale [38]1.71Intuitive controlsThe Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS, [30])5Not reportedNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]1.60Low costMotivation questionnaire created by authors [39]1.76DissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivation Scale (MMO-MS, [33])3.833Moral self actionDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.793AgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.791PastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.886PerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.875HabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])2.930RelaxingMotivation to play [36]1Not reportedPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.893Free spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.723DisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.738PlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]1.698Hi-techAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.81EgoAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.89RealismAd Hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]1.84ManipulationAd Hoc questionnaire about MMORPGs’ motivations [25]1.73


## 3.1.2. Geographical Areas of the Investigated Sample

Given the fact that the majority of these studies wanted to analyze motivations in a gamer sample that could be as representative as possible of the existing online communities, and most of the included papers in this systematic review (n=21) recruited their sample online through the Internet or other sampling methods. Still, the other studies recruited them through schools or via other methods and, as such, obtained results that are highly specific for certain countries. While considering that two studies [27, 50] sought to compare gamers from different geographical areas, specifically Hong Kong and Taiwan [27] and Germany, Singapore, and the United States [50], the distribution of the used samples is as follows: United States (k=10), Spain (k=5), Malaysia (k=4), Germany (k=3), Turkey (k=3), China (k=2), Norway (k=1), Netherlands (k=1), Singapore (k=1), Hungary (k=1), Belgium (k=1), Australia (k=1), Hong Kong (k=1), Canada (k=1), and Perù (n=1).


## 3.1.3. Age Clusters of the Samples

Gaming is generally considered as an activity majorly done by young people, even though this phenomena is largely changing thanks to smartphone games. Furthermore, it is worth taking into consideration the fact that almost all the samples were recruited either online or through college and schools; thus, there might be a bias in the sampling method. While keeping this in mind, 45 of the sample were put in the cluster called “young people,” which defines a sample with a distribution of the mean age that falls between 18 and 35 (k=45). The second cluster is composed of “underaged” samples; 5 were the samples whose mean of age was under 18 (k=5). In addition, it is necessary to clarify that 5 papers did not report any mean of age but just the age range [47, 51–54], and 3 did not specify the distribution of the age neither with the mean nor the range [26, 30, 55], even if, regarding the paper done by Ryan et al. [30], this can be applied only for the first study that they included in their research. The third cluster, the “adult sample” whose mean of age was above 35, is composed of only two samples (k=2).Eventually, there is a side note to better explain the higher number of samples if compared to the numbers of papers. Six papers used more than one sample and divided them based on defined variables (n=6). Wohn et al. [43] divided the two samples based on the game they played, thus writing more than one mean age, the MMO one belonging to the cluster of young age, while social network one belonging to the adult sample; Ratan et al. [50] also had three samples divided based on the country where they collected the data from (Germany, Singapore and the United States) with all of them belonging to the young sample; Sherry et al. [29] used five samples recruited from different school grades; the same goes for the study done by Greenberg et al. [47] which used also five samples coming from different school grades, but in the latter case, no means of age were given: finally, the study done by López-Fernández et al. [28] also used two sample of young players, one underage and one of young adults.


## 3.1.4. Theoretical Metamodel to Interpret the Results in Literature

While keeping in mind the heterogeneity of the current literature and its few existing and important models about gaming motivation, we tried to clusterize all the evidence gathered by researchers by putting them inside a new metamodel, mostly data-driven (Figure2). This model could be considered inspired by Lewin’s field theory [56]. Behaviours are just a function of the interaction between people (and their psychological aspects) and the environment they are put in. Moreover, Maslow’s theory [57] showed that all human beings act to satisfy not only their physiological needs but also their psychological ones (e.g., relatedness, competence, and self-realization). People are motivated to do something because they have a psychological drive (or need) that pushes them towards that direction. These needs can be considered primordial in terms of human nature, but some of them are the creation of being born and belonging to a certain cultural context and a certain society. Basically, our metamodel can be divided in more layers, and it suggests that motivation can be put on a psychological level together with other theoretical (e.g., online self-worth; [58]) and empirical factors. The “psychological layer,” specifically motivation, can have an influence on the behaviours present in the “behavioral layer.” This direct relationship is moderated by the elements of the “socio-demographic layer,” which can also have a direct effect on the other two single-layers. As an example, younger people, especially students, have more free time compared to adults, and consequently, this means that this time could be spent in playing video games (i.e., behaviour) making their gaming motivation higher and specific (i.e., psychological). Another example, being a male player in a certain culture can determine different needs and motivations for playing as also different behaviours in the context they are in. According to data gathered by ESA [59], boys in the U.S prefer to play with other people, to have fun with a preference for sports and shooter and RPG games; girls prefer to play to relax and unwind on their own with a preference for puzzle games. Statistics showed that different countries tend to like different types of games, and this implies that different cultures may have an influence on gender and age preferences in terms of games and motivation. As an example, Japanese people seem to prefer life simulators or RPG [60], Italian people prefer sport and competitive games such as FIFA [61, 62], while Americans prefer shooter games [59, 63]. Even the places where games gather to play might be different depending on culture and context. For instance, Internet cafès (places where gamers can play online games through a rented pc) are extremely popular in medio-oriental and oriental countries (e.g., China and Turkey; [64–66]) but less popular in European countries, and they are mainly frequented by students. Therefore, the place where people can gather to share a common interest can have an impact on which type of game is the most popular and played in a country.Figure 2
Theoretical metamodel suggested to understand how each cluster is connected to each other.


## 3.1.5. Investigated Variables

Gaming motivation is a multidisciplinary topic that can be covered by a wide variety of academic fields (e.g., marketing, business, cyber environments, psychology, and medicine), and, as such, there is a great variety of variables investigated.The first group is labeled as “sociodemographic variables,” and the two main investigated ones are gender (n=22) and age (n=15), directly followed by status/occupation (e.g., being a worker, a student, and being married) (n=4) and self description as a gamer or not (n=3). Fewer studies also investigated the relation to spoken language [67], ethnicity [68], and the type of household [36].The second group can be called “behavioral variables” since it focuses on specific behaviours associated with gaming motivations. Of this entire group, only one variable was investigated frequently, and it was gaming frequency (n=22), also called weekly gaming in some papers. Other analyzed behaviours were as follows: “years of playing” (n=5), sometimes also called “gaming experience”, which defines the years that participants spent playing a specific game or gaming; “daily play time” (n=6), which are the hours spent playing per day or the average longest game session in hours in a day, and “playing or talking with other people” (n=5); four variables were investigated just a couple of times: “future play” (n=2) defines as how much the participants were willing to keep playing the game; “time spent playing in the weekend” (n=2); “players behavior in World of Warcraft” (n=2), where the studies assessed an ensemble of specific actions done in World of Warcraft. Lastly, the following variables were assessed just one time: “Gaming duration” [69], intended as the longest gaming session the player ever had; “Pay to play” [70], which defines the money spent to play the game; “Daily usage of Information and Communication Technologies” [54]; “Continued play” [30], intended as the intentional behaviour of keep playing the same game”; “gaming during spare time” [34]; progression game, intended as a specific index calculated by the game [71]; “days played” [46].The third group gathers all the variables associated with psychological aspects, and, as such, it is named “psychological variables.” Gaming addiction (n=17) was the main investigated association in many papers. The second most assessed one was personality traits (n=6). All the others were assessed either a couple of times or just one single time, meaning that they might need more research. Specifically, the five variables investigated only two times are as follows: need for cognition (n=2), the three psychological needs of the Self-Determination Theory [31, 72] (n=2), loneliness (n=2), values [38, 55], and enjoyment (n=2). As already stated before, all the left variables in this group were investigated each one only by one paper, and it includes a great variety of psychological aspects. Regarding the topic of self–esteem, one paper in particular [58] investigated gaming motivations to assess the construct of “Online Self Worth” by creating a specific scale, while the other paper [30] simply assessed self-esteem with an already existent tool. The remaining studies of this group focused on the association between gaming motivations and avatar identification [73], loss of control [41], boredom [41], success for gaming intended as ego or task-oriented scores in games [45], willingness to change gaming habits [70], passion [74], the flow state while playing the game [75], status seeking in games [75], attitude towards online games [55], emotional intelligence [53], personal gender variables attributes such as having negative masculine attributes or positive femenine attributes [76], social capital [48], life satisfaction [48], physical presence [46], self expansion [51], self-described attitude [34], mood [30], and self engulfment [51].The fourth, and last, group is composed of “variables associated to the Gaming environment” that do not fit any group mentioned above since they relate to game aspects or particular settings where the gamers play their games. The genre of game played (e.g., MMORPG, action, FPS, and MMO) was taken into consideration the most times with 7 studies, while style of play (e.g., playing PvP or playing solo) was assessed in two papers. The following ones were instead analyzed each one only by one paper: place where the game is played (Internet cafè or home) [71], type of server used [105], gaming platform used [137], physical health related to Pokémon Go [48], and the number of avatars possessed [33]. All statistical results are reported in Table 2.Table 2
Main characteristics of the studies included reference, sample size, gender distribution, age mean/age distribution, country where the data were collected, motivation dimensions and motivation measures used, gaming dimensions/variable and gaming description/instrument used, and main results.
ReferencesSample sizeGender distributionAge mean/ age distributionCountryMotivation dimensionMotivation measureGaming related dimension/variableGaming-related measure/variable descriptionResultsBeard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .39,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineSocializationOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.05, (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .30,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .35,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.04 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .36,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =.27,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .29,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale (MPOGQ; [26])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r =-.08,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .46,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.13,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .21,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .45,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .55,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.08 (n.s)Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .56,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32]))Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .72,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward OrientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .31,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.15,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .52,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .40,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .41,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = -.11,p<.05Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Competition focusedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .22,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Validation seekingGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .38,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Reward orientationGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .01,p<.01Beard & Wickham [58].600401 (65.0%) M199 (32.7%) F30.16, SD =9.15OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])DetachedGaming Online Self Worth [58].r = .03 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .31,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .28,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])Gaming frequencyHours played per weekr = .12 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .56,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .25,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = 32,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .05 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = .29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])AutonomyPENS [30]r = -.16,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r = .47,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.24,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.00 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])CompetencePENS [30]r =-.13,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.18,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.19,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.21,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.04 (n.s)Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.29,p<.05Lafrenière et al. [32].276193 M83 F26.15, SD =8.26OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS; [32])RelatednessPENS [30]r =.28,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =-.449,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.069,p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr = .393,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Hours gamingAverage number of hours gaming during a typical weekr =.325,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365,p<.001β=.43, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.592,p<.01β=.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.434,p<.05β=.03 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Gaming problemsGaming Addiction Scale (GAS, [77])r =.365 (p<.01) β=0.04 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Loss of controlAuthors asked three self - reported item about losing control while gamingr =-.281,p<.01β=-.25, p<.001Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .062 (n.s)β=0.30 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .035 (n.s)β=0.20 (n.s)Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .248,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayGratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness scale [78]r = .180,p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySocialElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale - Short Form (BPS - SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .093,p<.01β = .079, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .130,p<.01β = .113, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayEnhancementElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.092,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of external stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = .188,p<.01β = .110, p<.01Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwayCopingElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.017 (n.s)β = .080, p<.05Myrseth et al. [41].853740 (86.8%) M113 (19.7%) F19.4, SD = .09NorwaySelf gratificationElectronic Gaming Motive Questionnaire (EGMQ, [41])Boredom (lack of internal stimulation)Boredom Proneness Scale-Short Form (BPS-SF, Vodanovich, Wallace, Kass)r = -.103,p<.01β = .168, p<.001Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = -.40, p<.05, t = -6.90, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.79, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .22, p<.05, t =3.70, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .27, p<.05, t =4.50, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .65, p<.05, t =11.20, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineGrinding/ CompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .40, p<.05, t =6.76, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]GenderFemale or maleβ = .39, p<.05, t =6.57, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .23, p<.05, t =5.48, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]Language spokenNative English or notβ = .24, p<.05, t =5.65, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCompetitionMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -9.09, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineFantasyMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -5.87, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineArousalMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.15, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineStoryMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.12, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineEscapismMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -3.51, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineCustomizationMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.02, p<.05, t = -8.06, p<.05Tekofsky et al. [67]24002073 M327 F26.17, SD =7.72, 18-65OnlineRelationshipsMOPG [26], GAMES [34], Video Game Uses, and Gratifications Instrument [29]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = -.01, p<.05, t = -5.21, p<.05Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =6.746,p<.001, mean (m =1.86, sd =0.97, f =2.29 sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =10.900,p<.001, mean (m =2.47, sd =1.19, f =1.87, sd =0.98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =2.124,p<.05, mean (m =2.48, sd =1.08, f =2.61, sd =1.01)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =5.357,p<.001, mean (m =3.00, sd =1.21, f =3.35, sd =1.18)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =7.244,p<.001, mean (m =2.28, sd =1.11, f =2.78, sd =1.24)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])GenderFemale or malet =4.400,p<.001, mean (m =4.10, sd =0.93, f =4.30 sd =0.82Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineEscapeMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =9.719,p<.001; mean (a =1.99, sd =1.07; b =1.91, sd = .98; c =1.82, sd = .93)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCompetitionMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =31.527,p<.001; mean (a =2.60, sd =1.24; b =2.43, sd =1.19; c =2.23, sd =1.09)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineCopingMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =19.595,p<.001; mean (a =2.62, sd =1.16; b =2.52, sd =1.07; c =2.36, sd = .98)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSocialMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.327,p<.001; mean (a =3.18, sd =1.23; b =3.02, sd =1.19; c =2.89, sd =1.20)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineFantasyMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =17.788,p<.001; mean (a =2.47, sd =1.16; b =2.32, sd =1.14, (c) =2.20, sd =1.08Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineRecreationMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =11.386,p<.001; mean (a =4.03, sd =1.00; b =4.12, sd =0.91; c =4.21, sd =0.86)Demetrovics et al. [22].38183459 (90.6%) M359 (9.4%) F20.9, SD =5.81, 19-24OnlineSkill developmentMotive for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ; [22])Agethree groups: (a) 14-17, (b) 18-21, and (c) 22-54F =13.867,p<.001; mean (a =2.34, sd =1.17; b =2.29, sd =1.14; c = 2.12, sd =1.11)Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsRelationshipMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .459,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsAdvancementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 230,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .437,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .417,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsCompetitionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = 340,p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsEscapismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .35, p<.05Kuss et al. [79].265189 M76 F21, SD = 6.5NetherlandsMechanismMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Excessive GamingProblem Video Game Playing Questionnaire (PVP, [80])β = .21, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]GenderFemale or maler = -.335,p<.01, β = - 16.594; F = 7.291, p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Need for cognitionNeed for cognition (NFC, [81])r = .168,p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Ego Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .264,p<.01Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Task Orientation ScoresSuccess for Gaming Scale (TEOSQ modified, [82])r = .266,p<.01, β = 1.044; F = 4.355, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Play with othersAd hoc item created by the authorsr = .345,p<.01, β = 5.256; F = 5.613, p<.05Hoffman & Nadelson [45].18947 (24.7%) M142 (75.3%) F24.4, SD = 6.19United StatesEngagementVideo Game Play [45]Hours of playHours played weeklyr = .198,p<.01, β = 3.213; F = 61.375, p<.001Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.63, sd = 1.84; M =4.30, sd = 1.73), F = 9.545,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.54, sd =1.86; M = 3.51, sd = 1.89), F = 17.641, p < .05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.71, sd = 1.74; M = 3.42, sd = 1.81), F = 10.387,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.95, sd = 1.74; M = 3.76, sd = 1.81), F = 13.275,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.49, sd = 1.68; M = 3.65, sd = 1.85), F = 26.429,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.53, sd = 1.60; >4 = 4.54, sd = 1.79), F = 27.734,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.67, sd = 1.60; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.03), F = 22.253,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 2.76, sd = 1.53; >4 = 3.56, sd = 1.93), F = 16.093,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4 y; less than 3 y)Mean (<3 = 3.08, sd = 1.56; >4 = 3.86, sd = 1.93), F = 15.554,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gameplay timeDuration of gameplay in years (more than 4y; less than 3y)Mean (<3 =2.89, sd = 1.59; >4 = 3.66, sd = 2.02), F = 13.727,p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.60, sd = 1.66;N=3.48, sd = 1.75), F = 35.375, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y =3.79, sd = 1.89;N=2.53, sd = 1.75), F = 37.860, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.72, sd = 1.76;N=2.57, sd = 1.67), F = 36.382, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.11, sd = 1.75;N=2.77, sd = 1.63), F = 50.131, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.83;N=2.67, sd = 1.77), F = 34.020, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformInternet game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.65, sd = 1.75;N=3.11, sd = 1.65), F = 8.241, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.84, sd = 1.70;N=3.77, sd = 1.72), F = 28.404, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.99, sd = 1.96;N=2.88, sd = 1.80), F = 26.489, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.84, sd = 1.90;N=2.93, sd = 1.69), F = 19.638, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.47, sd = 1.94;N=3.08, sd = 1.58), F = 48.704, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformConsole gameplay (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.09, sd = 1.95;N=2.97, sd = 1.75), F = 28.194, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.46, sd = 1.81;N=3.54, sd = 1.60), F = 21.729, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.56, sd = 2.02;N=2.72, sd = 1.63), F = 15.411, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.47, sd = 1.89;N=2.83, sd = 1.60), F = 9.635, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.96, sd =1.91;N=2.82, sd = 1.42), F = 33.260, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal RegulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gaming platformMobile game play (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.60, sd =1.99;N=2.90, sd = 1.62), F = 10.947, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.78, sd =1.86;N=3.61, sd = 1.55), F = 38.470, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.98, sd = 2.11;N=2.68, sd = 1.55), F = 41.607, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 3.75, sd = 1.98;N=2.83, sd = 1.56), F = 22.336, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y = 4.22, sd =1.91;N=3.01, sd = 1.57), F = 39.867, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Pay to playMoney spent or buy an item (yes or no)Mean (Y =4.03, sd = 1.93;N=2.80, sd = 1.68), F = 38.091, p<.05Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 3.47, sd = 1.65; B = 4.28, sd = 1.61; C = 5.02, sd = 1.94), F = 19.059,p<.01; post hoc: C > B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.69; B = 3.23, sd = 1.76; C = 4.28, sd =2.29), F = 14.802p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > A)Osman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 2.94, sd = 1.73; B = 3.19, sd = 1.59; C = 3.87, sd = 2.25), F = 5.890p<.01; post hoc: C > B, C > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A =2.89, sd = 1.73; B = 3.78, sd = 1.61; C = 4.23, sd = 2.07), F = 14.818p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) =>7 hMean (A = 2.73, sd = 1.78; B = 3.67, sd = 1.79; C = 3.77, sd = 2.04), F = 10.885p<.01; post hoc: C > A, B > AOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Duration of longest playing timeIn hours: (a) < 2 h, (b) 3-6 h, (c) = >7 hMean (A = 3.46, sd = 1.75; B = 3.68, sd = 1.64; C =2.78, sd = 1.72), F = 6.313p<.01; post hoc: A > C, B > COsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 3.17, sd = 1.59; M = 3.95, sd = 1.80; N = 4.56, sd = 1.70), F = 16.327,p<.01; post hoc: N > M > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.38, sd = 1.51; M =2.89, sd = 1.85;N=3.75, sd = 1.95), F = 15.308, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.46, sd = 1.41; M = 2.85, sd = 1.59;N=3.70, sd = 1.70), F = 14.834, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.83, sd = 1.69; M = 3.23, sd = 1.71;N=3.95, sd = 1.83), F = 11.357, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 2.79, sd = 1.72; M = 2.88, sd = 1.80;N=3.77, sd = 1.90), F = 10.323, p<.01; post hoc: N > M, N > YOsman & Çirak [70].330257 (73.2%) M94 (26.8%) F22.42, SD = 11.92, 18-34TurkeyAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Willingness to change gaming habitsWilling to change (yes, maybe, no)Mean (Y = 4.15, sd = 1.80; M = 3.17, sd = 1.52;N=3.27, sd = 1.73), F = 7.681, p < .01; post hoc: Y > M, Y > NFam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaSocialOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .098, p<.05Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaImmersionOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .129, p<.01Fam et al. [83].614285 (46.4%) M329 (53.6%) F15.36, SD = 1.275, 12-18MalaysiaAchievementOnline Gaming Motivation Scale [27]Gaming disorderProblem Videogame Playing (PVP) Scale [84]β = .166 < p<.01Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .38,p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .65,p<.001, β = .36, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .36 <p<.001, β = .11, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Problematic video gamingGaming Disorder Scale (IDGS; [86])r = .48,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .35,p<.001, β = 28, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .33,p<.001, β = .23, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .28,p<.001, β = .19, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Competence frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .29,p<.001, β = .16, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Autonomy frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .31,p<.001, β = .20, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Relatedness frustrationPsychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS, [87])r = .27,p<.001, β = .18, p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntegrated - Identified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .36,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .24,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .19,p<.001Mills et al. [85].1029749 (72.8%) M280 (27.2%) F22.96, SD = 4.13, 18-35OnlineAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Hours gamingHours played per weekr = .12,p<.001T’ng & Pau [73].1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .173, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .085, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Avatar identificationThe Player-Avatar Identification Scale [88]β = .460, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaAchievementOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .107, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaSocialOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = - .273, p<.05T’ng & Pau [73]1075808 (75.20%) M267 (24.80%) F22.19, SD = 3.30, 18-29MalaysiaImmersionOnline Motivation Gaming Scale [26]Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .366, p<.05Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .21, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .07, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder Test–10 (IGDT-10; [90])β = .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were asked of their ageβ = - .16, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .24, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Ethnicitye.g., if White/Caucasianβ = .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etc.β = - .08, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeParticipants were of asked their ageβ = - .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .19, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Student statuse.g high schooler, college student, etcβ = - .06, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])ExtraversionBFI-10 [91]β = .14, p<.001Carlisle et al. [68].18811118 (59.4%) M732 (38.9%) F28.27, SD = 8.84, 18-95OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])AgeFemale or maleβ = - .14, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ExtraversionJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .12,p<.05, β = - .16, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .38,p<.01, β = - .30, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .11,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];OpennessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .14,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.18,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];NeuroticismJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .32,p<.01, β = .32, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.26,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.16,p<.01, β = -.04, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.24,p<.01, β = -.14, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = - .12,p<.05, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.41,p<.01, β = -.33, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = -.14,p<.01, β = -.03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConscientiousnessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];AgreeablenessJS NEO-A60 [93]r = .16,p<.01, β = -.12, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .38,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .39,p<.01; β = .17, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .33,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Weekly gamingHours played per weekr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .18,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .39,p<.01, β = - .02, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .37,p<.01, β = .08, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .48,p<.01, β = .20, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .51,p<.01, β = .28, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .36,p<.01, β = .06, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .17,p<.01, β = .03, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [92]364252 (69%) M112 (31%) F14.97, SD =1.11, 13-17SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingPathological gaming scale for adolescents [94]r = .30,p<.01, β = - .05, p<.01Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 4.321,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.350,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 6.619,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 10.291,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]GenderFemale or malet(1677) = - 11.906,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 14.569,p<.05,Mean (concentration per age) = (18-25: 2.803; 26-35: 2.616; 36-45: 2.348; 46-55: 1.815, 56+: 2.031); Fage (4-1672) = 16.851, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -12.299,p<.05Mean (entertainment per age) = (18 - 25: 3.586; 26-35: 3.025; 36 - 45: 2.693; 46-55: 1.857, 56+: 3.719); Fage (4-1672) = 60.914, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -8.646, p < .05,Mean (escape per age) = (18 - 25: 2.789; 26-35: 2.562; 36-45: 2.427; 46-55: 1.921, 56+: 2.896); Fage (4-1672) = 12.795, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = -13.278, p < .05,Mean (learning per age) = (18-25: 3.063; 26-35: 2.696; 36-45: 2.535; 46-55: 1.994, 56+: 2.141); Fage (4-1672) = 23.433, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Game placeHome or Internet cafèt(1677) = - 15.226,p<.05,Mean (socialization per age) = (18 - 25: 3.337; 26 - 35: 2.784; 36 - 45: 2.552; 46 - 55: 1.905, 56+: 3.031); Fage (4-1672) = 43.230, p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = - .127,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT usageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .105,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]Daily ICT UsageParticipants were given 5 options: no, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h, and morer = .083,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyConcentrationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.190,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEntertainmentComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.305,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyEscapeComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.143,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeyLearningComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .196,p<.05Yıldız et al. [54].1677867 (51.7%) M810 (48.3%) F18-56+TurkeySocializationComputer Gaming Motivation Scale [37]AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .276,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesCompetence(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .15,p<.05Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .23,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .39,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .35,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesPsychological detachmentRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = 20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming frequencyAmount of time spent on mobile games in a day and in a weekr = .25,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .14,p<.05, β = -.19, p=.032Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelatedness(PENS; [30])Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .16,p<.05, β = .20, p=.002Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesEnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; [52, 95]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .25,p<.01, β = .19, p=.029Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAlleviation of boredomAlleviation of boredom [96]Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .20,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesRelaxationRecovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ; [97–99].Gaming durationLength of an average gaming sessionr = .21,p<.01Goldblum [69]3540 (0%) M354 (100%) F36.79, SD = 12.38, 18-77United StatesAutonomy(PENS; [30])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic hedonic motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 5.88, sd = 1.06; MMO = 6.17, sd = .94); t(1016) = - 4.48,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 4.52, sd = 1.51; MMO = 5.00, sd = 1.28); t(1016) = - 5.38,p<.001. F(1, 1014) = 28.81, p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.21, sd = 1.67; MMO = 3.83, sd = .1.70); t(1016) = - 5.91,p<.001;Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal socialAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 2.57, sd = 1.54; MMO = 2.27, sd = 1.43); t(1016) = 3.07,p<.01Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal gameAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.63, sd =1.86; MMO = 5.03, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = - 13.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesAmotivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesMean (SNG = 3.23, sd = 1.55; MMO = 2.72, sd = 1.44); t(1016) = 5.35,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIdentified social regulationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 3.41, sd = 1.65; F = 3.01, sd = 1.66) (F(1, 1014) = 4.4,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal social motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or maleMean (SNG) (M = 2.65, sd = 1.53; F =2.48, sd = 155) (F(1, 1014) = 9.36,p<.001Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]GenderFemale or malemean (SNG) (M = 3.46, sd = 1.77, F = 3.81, sd = 1.94); mean MMO (M = 4.94, sd = 1.51; F = 5.12, sd = 1.36); F(1, 1014) =6.57,p<.05Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesExternal game motivationAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 179.14,p<.001)Wohn et al. [43]1018515 M503 F39, SD = 9.31 (SNG)28, SD = 7.92 (MMO)United StatesIntrinsic accomplishmentAd hoc instrument Gaming Motivation Scale [43]Genre playedif MMO or social network gamesF between male vs. female (1, 1014) = 28.81Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.20, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.14, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanismGaming Motive Scale [38]GenderBeing femaleβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyRole playingGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.46, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.37, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = -.19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .44, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .26, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AgeAge of the playersβ = - .29, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experiencegamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Gaming experienceGamers were asked to indicate the number of years they had been playing computer gamesβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .05, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Achievement seekingNEO Personal Inventory (NEO-PI-R, [100])β = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102]β = .19, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Collective orientationVIA (values in action) Scales [101, 102])β = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = - .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]StrategyGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.15, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]PuzzleGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial CapitalGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam PlayGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = .21, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]SportGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .16, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]AdventureGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]Role PlayingGenre of gameβ = .40, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]Role playingGenre of gameβ = .22, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyExplorationGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .09, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .13, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]PlatformGenre of gameβ = .12, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .17, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]SimulationGenre of gameβ = .11, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanySocial capitalGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyTeam playGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = .35, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]MusicGenre of gameβ = -.08, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyFantasyGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .25, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetenceGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.07, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyCompetitionGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .10, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyMechanicsGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = .18, p<.01Scharkow et al. [38].45002547 M (56.6%)1953 F (43.4%)38.8, 14-90GermanyNarrationGaming Motive Scale [38]ActionGenre of gameβ = -.06, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])GenderFemale or maleF (1, 87) = 5.60,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIntuitive controls(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 6.42,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn-game Autonomy(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 4.77,p<.05Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Continued playDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneF (1, 83) = 10.58,p<.001Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Preference for continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .39, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Free choice continued gameplayDichotomous behavioural choice; participants were given free choice to continue with the game or change to another oneβ = .41, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Self-esteemMultidimensional Self-Esteem Inventory (MSEI; [103])β = .52, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].8923 M66 F—United StatesIn game competence(PENS; [30])Modd/affectMood Rating Scale ([104])β = .25, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .14, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .15, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Future PlayHow many months they plan on playing the game in the futureβ = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .09, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .18, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours per weekHours played each week in averageβ = .19, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .24, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .49, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineRelatedness(PENS; [30])EnjoymentIntrinsic Motivation Inventory [95]β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineCompetence(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .12, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = .36, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .21, p<.01Ryan et al. [30].730679 M51 F22.1, 16-44OnlineImmersionMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])MoodMood Rating Scale ([104]).β = - .08, p<.01Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanySocializingAd hoc instrument [39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 381,p<.001, n^2 = .04Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 256,p<.001, n^2 = .03Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCopingAd hoc instrument ([39]Experience while playing TravianFor how long the gamers had played the game (for 4 months vs. more than 1 y)F = 150,p<.001, n^2 = .02Klimmt et al. [39].82036292 (76.7%) M1911 (23.3%) F24.2, SD = 9.4GermanyCompetitionAd hoc instrument ([39]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 2.59, sd = .81, F = 3.04, sd = .83), F(1, 8201) = 437,p<.01, n^2 = .05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainSocializationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.100,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]AgeAge of the playersr = -.115,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = -.119,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Hours spent playing per weekHours spent between Monday and Friday and weekendr = .316,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainAchievementMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student workingMean (S = 19.53, sd = 7.52; W = 17.08, sd = 7.26); F(3, 426) = 3.6,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of occupationWorker (W) or student (S) or student working (WS)Mean (S = 22.84, sd = 8.52; W = 20.07, sd = 8.52; WS = 18.94, sd = 9.68); F(3, 426) = 4.41,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]MMORPG typeIf they played World of Warcraft, Aion, and EVE onlineMean (WoW = 23.48, sd = 9.01; Aion = 17.96, sd = 7.57; EVE = 18.06, sd = 8.05); F(6, 423) = 3.54,p<.01Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainExplorationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 27.24, sd = 4.64; PvP = 25.08, sd = 6.31); F(2, 427) = 4.05,p<.05Fuster et al. [105].430410 M20 F26.58, SD = 6.79SpainDissociationMMO-MS [33]Type of server usedRP or Pvp serversMean (RP = 18.54, sd = 8.05; PvP = 21.76, sd = 8.05); F(2, 427) = 3.74,p<.05Graham & Gosling [106].14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .20, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .23, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineSocial motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .17, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .14, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .10, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievement motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .12, p<.05Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .07, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])NeuroticismBig Five Inventory [107]β = .19, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineImmersive motivationsMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .21, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ExtraversionBig Five Inventory [107]β = .45, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory [107]β = - .15, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsItems added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .11, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineLeadership motivationsTwo Items added by authors (i.e I enjoy leading groups)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .13, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineIndependence motivationsOne item added by authors (i.e I value independence in my character)OpennessBig Five Inventory [107]β = .28, p<.01Graham & Gosling [106]14131247 M166 F23.69, SD = 14.37OnlineAchievementMotivation to play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ; [26])Hours of playHours played per weekr=.24, p=0.000Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineCompetence/Control(PENS; [30])AgreeablenessTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Emotional stabilityTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=−.14, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Openness to experienceTen-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, [108])r=.19, p<.05Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlinePresence(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.26,p<.01Johnson & Gardner [23].235193 (82%)42 (18%)22, 17-44OnlineAutonomy(PENS; [30])Game genreShooting, sport/simulation, action-adventure, strategy, & role playingF(3, 195) = 4.72,p<.01Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainExplorationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.438, p<.001; β = .381, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.305, p<.001; β = .190, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Harmonious passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.259, p<.001; β = .235, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainDissociationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.689, p<.001; β = .785, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainAchievementMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r=.342, p<.001; β = .322, p<.001Fuster et al. [74].410410 (100%) M0 (0%) F26.49, SD = 6.78, 16-45SpainSocializationMassively Multiplayer Online Games Motivations Scale (MMO-MS, [33])Obsessive passionThe Passion Scale [109]r = .184, p < .001; β = .084, p<.001Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27]).Distortion of timeFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.237, p < .001; β = .70, t = 7.81, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10–47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.187, p<.05; β = .50, t = 5.47, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Loss of self-consciousnessFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]β = .28, t = 3.48, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Merge of actions and cognitionFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.262, p<.001; β = .59, t = 4.78, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Autotelic experienceFlow State Scale 2 questionnaire [110]r=.444, p<.001; β = .93, t = 7.74, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeySocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Daily playtimeDaily hours spent on MMORPGsr=.181, p<.05, β =1.00, t = 3.26, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Status seeking in MMORPGsStatus seeking scale [111, 112]r=.672, p<.001, β = .89, t = 8.55, p<.05Dindar [75]256247 (97%) M9 (3%) F18.6, SD = 4, 10-47TurkeyAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [27])Control of taskFlow State Scale 2-questionnaire [110]r=.318, p<.001, β = .28, t = 3.42, p<.05Chang & Zhang [55].347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .55, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEscape and virtual identificationsScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .34, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaRewardScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .27, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]MaterialismMaterial values scale [114]β = .29, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaEntertainmentScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .38, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSociabilityScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .15, p<.01Chang & Zhang [55]347201 (58%) M146 (42%) FJunior high-university and moreChinaSelf-confidence and achievementScale measuring motivation [113]Attitude towards online gamesAttitude test [115]β = .11, p<.01Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.88, sd = 1.42; M = 4.39, sd =1.20), t-test = 5.38,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.42, sd = 1.50; M =3.00, sd = 1.57), t-test = 5.29,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 2.76, sd = 1.49; M = 3.27, sd = 1.46), t-test = 4.97,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])GenderFemale or maleMean (F = 3.03, sd = 1.55; M = 3.47, sd = 1.48), t-test = 4.28,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 4.67, sd = 1.04; NG = 3.25, sd = 1.26), F(1, 971) = 220.67,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.43, sd = 1.49; NG = 1.49, sd = 0.64), F(1, 972) = 347.56,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.67, sd = 1.37; NG = 1.90, sd = 0.90), F(1, 971) = 312.60,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 2.00, sd =1.07; NG = 1.26, sd = 0.46), F(1, 971) = 92.69,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Gamer classificationBeing a gamer (G) or not (NG)Mean (G = 3.73, sd = 1.45; NG =2.48, sd = 1.28), F(1, 971) = 96.81,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NG)Mean (G = 4.39, sd =1.20; NG = 3.20, sd = 1.39), F(1, 972) = 17.82,p<.001Argento et al. [116].973680 (69.90%) M303 (30.10%) F23.32, SD = 4.70OnlineExtrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32])Frequency of useFrequency of use of games between gamers (G) and nongamers (NGMean (G = 3.51, sd = 1.48; NG = 2.26, sd = 1.29), F(1, 972) = 21.47,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 21.02,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 25.63,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 11.22,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 20.21,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) =32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 633) = 50.71,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.32,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyRecreativityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 5.37,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleF (16, 1266) = 6.65,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .07; SG = 3.54, sd = .11), US = 3.46, sd = .06); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001;Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or malemean (GE =2.34, sd = .06; SG = 2.68, sd = .10), US = 2.71, sd = .05); F (16, 1266) = 15.9,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.11,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyReactivityDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 2.42,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.89,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 1.92,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAll genres included (casual, racing, strategy, sport, platform, action, shooter, RPG, Music, Fighting, MMORPG, building, and simulation)F (13, 607) = 5.55,p<.001Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceSport gamesβ = -.15, F(13, 607) = 3.77, p=.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceCasual gamesβ = .20, F(13, 607) = 8.23, p<.01Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPastimeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = - .16, F(13, 607) = 8.58, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Genre choiceAction gamesβ = .15, F(13, 607) = 4.42, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanyHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = .23, F(1, 631) = 28.89, p<.05Ratan et al. [50].647292 M355 FSG = 20.73, SD = 20.73US = 20.69, SD = 1.68GE = 23.24, SD = 6.13Singapore, United States, GermanySocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Future intention to playParticipants were asked how much they expect to play digital games during the coming six months.β = - .10, F(1, 631) = 4.38, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .176,p<.05, β = .205, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .180,p<.05, β = .209, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]OpennessFive-Factor Model [117]r = .297,p<.01, β = .318, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .224,p<.01, β = .224, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial InteractionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .157,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.238,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ConscientiousnessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.301,p<.01, β = - .253, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.185,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .272,p<.01, β = .210, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .309,p<.01, β = .201, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = - .306,p<.01, β = - .193, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]InstabilityFive-Factor Model [117]r = .212,p<.01, β = .212, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]AgreeablenessFive-Factor Model [117]r = -.168,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]ExtroversionFive-Factor Model [117]β = - .160, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Openness to experienceFive-Factor Model [117]β = .163, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the week daysr = .171,p<.05, β = .171, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .271,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesDiversionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Time spent playingTime spent playing during the weekendr = .182,p<.05,p<.05β = .182,Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .256,p<.01, β = .202, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreTraditional game genrer = .228,p<.01, β = .160, p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .161,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .232,p<.01, β = .232, p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .249,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenrePhysical genre gamer = .242,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesCompetitionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .160,p<.05Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesChallengeSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .204,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesSocial interactionSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .190,p<.01Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesFantasySmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .298,p<.01; β = .298, p<.001Kim [40].18358 (31.7%) M125 (68.3%) F20.39, SD = 3.04, 18-36United statesArousalSmartphone Gaming Motivations [40]Game GenreImagination game genrer = .287,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = 23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .34,p<.01, β = .18, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .37,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .48,p<.01, β = .30, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .51,p<.01, β = .29, p<.001López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .36,p<.01, β = .12, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .47,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28]);MMORPGGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action-adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = -.19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.15,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .27,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ConstructionGame genrer = .12,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainCopingVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.11,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]407278 (68.2%) M129 (31.8%) F14.99, SD = 1.13SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];PlatformGame genrer = -.22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .36,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .16,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.40,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = -.46,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];GenderFemale or maler = - .17,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .12,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .42,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Gaming hoursNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .28,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .21,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .39,p<.01, β = .21, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial interactionVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .41,p<.01, β = .19, p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .43,p<.01, β = .18, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])r = .34,p<.01, β = .17, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Disordered gamingInternet Gaming Disorder Test (IGD-20 Test, [118])β = -.15, p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .37,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];ShooterGame genrer = .25,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MOBAGame genrer = .43,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];StrategyGame genrer = - .14,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .15,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];MMORPGGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .23,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .14,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Role playingGame genrer = .30,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .20,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCognitive developmentVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .17,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCopingVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .22,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .24,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Action adventureGame genrer = .32,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .19,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent RewardVMQ [28];SportGame genrer = .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainRecreationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .18,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCompetitionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .26,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .31,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .34,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];CasualGame genrer = - .29,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainSocial InteractionVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = -.16,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainCustomizationVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .35,p<.01López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainFantasyVMQ [28];Social simulationGame genrer = .13,p<.05López-Fernández et al. [28]260109 (41.9%) M151 (58.1%) F20.54, SD = 3.63SpainViolent rewardVMQ [28];FightingGame genrer = .13,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .27,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = -.20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maler = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .25,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .37,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Hours playedHours played per weekr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Years playingParticipants were asked how long they have been playing WoWr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Place of playingPlaying in cybercafér = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .47,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .20,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Excessive useInternet Addiction Test (IAT, [119])r = .48,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Affiliated with a guildPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .17,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .26,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .15,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Total progressionPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .16,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])MiscellaneousPlayer’s behaviourr = .24,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])QuestsPlayer’s behaviourr = .28,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])ExplorationsPlayer’s behaviourr = .34,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Players vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .30,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .21,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player vs. playerPlayer’s behaviourr = .39,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Player’s behaviourPlayer’s behaviourr = .33,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .31,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .18,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Dungeons and raidsPlayer’s behaviourr = .19,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvPType of serverr = .23,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server PvEType of serverr = - .22,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Server RPType of serverr = .14,p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .11, t = 2.31, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Global indexProgression in gameβ = .17, t = 3.37, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvP indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t =3.02, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .13, t = 2.53, p<.01Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.31, p<.001Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = - .12, t = - 2.32, p<.05Billieux et al. [71].690601 (87.10%) M89 (12.90%) F26.22, SD = 8.14, 18-66OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])PvE indexProgression in gameβ = .16, t = 3.06, p<.01Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 9.08, sd = 2.15; F = 10.00, sd = 2.21); t = - 11.05,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 5.18, sd =1.86; F = 4.39, sd = 1.48); t = 11.16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.87, sd = 1.49; F = 7.09, sd = 1.49); t = - 3.85,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 6.81, sd = 1.25; F = 7.00, sd = 1.22); t = - 3.48,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]GenderFemale or malemean (M = 8.06, sd = 1.48; F = 7.22, sd = 1.49); t = 14.70,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = -.33,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineAchievementAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of male playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineManipulationAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineImmersionAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineRelationshipAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by malesr = 22,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .16,p<.001Yee [25]66755939 M736 F26.70, SD = 8.84, 11-68OnlineEscapismAd hoc questionnaire to measure MMORPG motivations [25]Hours of usage per weekHours played by femalesr = .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -.35,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.26,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .22,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = -30,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = -.24,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .20,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .10,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .17,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .34,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .27,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .06,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .07,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .08,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .15,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineTeamworkMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .14,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .09,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineDiscoveryMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .16,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of male playersr = - .13,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])AgeAge of female playersr = - .12,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by malesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gaming hoursGaming hours played weekly by femalesr = .11,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineEscapismMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.31, p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Problematic gamingInternet addiction [120]β = 0.17, p<.01Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .10, sd = .99; F = -.66, sd = .82); t = 15.18,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineAdvancementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .07, sd =1.00; F = -.48, sd = .86); t = 10.90,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineMechanicsMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = .09, sd = .98; F = -.61, sd = .89); t = 13.93,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCompetitionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean(M = .06, sd =1.01; F = -.43, sd = .76); t = - 10.47,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocialMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.05, sd = .98; F = .30, sd =1.07); t = - 6.83,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineSocializingMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .03, sd =1.00; F = .18, sd =1.01); t = -4.03,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRelationshipMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.10, sd = .98; F = .62, sd = .98); t = -14.29,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .06, sd =1.00; F = .38, sd = .93);t = - 8.45,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineRole playMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = - .02, sd = .99; F = .16, sd = 1.06); t = - 3.57,p<.001Yee [26]32002769 M431 F—OnlineCustomizationMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])GenderFemale or maleMean (M = -.07, sd =1.00; F = .46, sd = .088); t = - 10.47,p<.001Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationsMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming Disorder SymptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .45, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM-5 [121]β = .30, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet gaming disorder symptomsQuestionnaire based on DSM - 5 [121]β = - .26, p<.05Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .95,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])GenderFemale or maled = .62,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaEscapeMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .14,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .19,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.25,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])StudentOccupationd = .42,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .53,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = .57,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaSocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd = 1.28,p<.01Wu et al. [121].383209 (54.6%) M174 (45.4%) F23.7, SD = 6.7, 18-82ChinaGeneral motivationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Single playerStyle of playingd =1.00,p<.01Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySocialMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.26, sd = .97; E = 2.80, sd = 1.03), t = 7.74,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.63, sd = 1.10; E = 2.59, sd = 1.10), t = 10.44,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungarySkill developmentMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Type of gamerRecreational (R) or Esport gamers (E)Mean (R = 2.98, sd =1.18; E = 2.95, sd =1.18), t = 8.01,p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryEscapismMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .49, p<.001; β (recreational) = .49, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCopingMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .08, p<.01;Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryFantasyMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = - .05, p<.05Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryRecreationMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (recreational) = .08, p<.001Bányai et al. [122].42843851 (89.89%) M433 (10,11%) F23.08, SD =6.57, 14-58HungaryCompetitionMotives for Online Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Gaming disorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β (Esport) = .14, p<.05; β (recreational) = .12, p<.001Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .58,p,.05, β = .381, p<.01Frederik, & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Frequency of playPlayers were asked if how much they expected to play in the course of the following weekr = .45,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .41,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumNarrativeDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .23,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .27,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumEscapismDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = -28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])Duration of an average sessionAverage session in hours played per dayr = .31,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .43,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .34,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumPerformanceDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .25,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumAgencyDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])PlayHow frequently the participants played with some friendsr = .21,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .29,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])CoplayHow frequently each pair played togetherr = .36,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumHabitDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .37,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumSocialDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])TalkHow frequently they talked with their friends about gamesr = .28,p<.05Frederik & Jan [123].10067 M33 F16.39, SD = 1.81; 12-20BelgiumMoralDigital Games Motivation Scale (DGMS; [35])GenderFemale or maleβ = - .41, p<.01Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineImmersionGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = - .11, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineSociabilityGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .10, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineAchievementGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekβ = .12, p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineExplorationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = - .01,p=.44Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineRole PlayGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.07,p<.001Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineCustomizationGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = -.02,p=.10Williams et al. [124].70005656 (80.80%) M1344 (19.20%) F31.16, SD = 9.65, 12-65OnlineEscapismGaming motivations [124]Playing timeHours played per weekr = .02,p=.20Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrinsic motivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .228,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntegrated regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .443,p<.001, β = .133, p=.030Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIdentified regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .293,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaIntrojected regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .570,p<.001, β = .331, p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaExternal regulationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .296,p<.001Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaAmotivationGaming Motivation Scale (GAMS, [32]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])r = .392,p<.001, β = .112, p=.020Chua et al. [125]319232 (72.7%) M87 (27.3%) F22.09, SD = 22.1, 18-35MalaysiaEngagementGaming Experience Questionnaire [126]Gaming addictionInternet Gaming Disorder Scale–Short-Form (IGDS9-SF, [89])β = .289, p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSocialMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.373,p=0.543Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.388,p=.537Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.179,p=.674Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 0.411,p=.525Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCompetitionMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 0.891,p=.348Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineSkill developmentMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 5.15,p=0.026Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 90) = 3.85,p=.053Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineAchievementMOGQ [22]EmotionalityTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 18.62,p<.0001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineCopingMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 4.2,p=.046Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineRecreationMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 13.64,p<.001Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineEscapeMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = 1.83,p=.183Viswanathan [53]9276 M16 F18-30OnlineFantasyMOGQ [22]Emotional intelligenceTEIQue (TEIQue–SF; [127, 128]).F (1, 45) = .388,p=.537Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative masculine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .38, p<.001; β (model 3) = .38, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Positive feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .27, p<.001; β (model 3) = .24, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Negative feminine attributesGender variables [76].β (model 2) = .23, p<.001; β (model 3) = .23, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineEscapism (immersion)Motivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Game play addictionIGD-20 Test [89]β (model 2) = .19, p<.001; β (model 3) = .19, p<.001Kneer et al. [76]375(54.9%) M(44.3%) F31.71, SD = 11.06OnlineSocial interactionMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Gender affiliationGender affiliation [76]β (model 3) = .22, p<.001Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.17,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .19,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvPPlay against other playersr = .33,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .15,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .35,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = -.18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing in a groupPlay with a group of peopler = .18,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing soloPlaying without other peopler = .28,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .37,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineImmersionMotivations for gaming [36]Role playingRole playing inside the gamer = .14,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Playing PvEPlaying against the environmentr = .16,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Hours per weekNumbers of hours played weeklyr = .13,p<.0008Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]GenderFemale or maleβ = 0.08, t(694) =3.00, p=0.003Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Marital StatusBeing single or nott(694) = 3.17,p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineRelaxingMotivations for gaming [36]Professional statusProfessional, student or without any activitiest(694) = 2.68,p=0.007Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Type of householdHaving children or nott(694) = 4.16,p=0.000Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Marital statusBeing alone or nott(694) = – 3.12;p=0.002Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineAchievementMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .35,p<.00; β = .36, t = 10.32, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineEscapingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])r = .23,p<.00; β = .25, t = 7.11, p=.00Dauriat et al. [36].696648 M48 F25.38, SD = 7.36, 13-54OnlineSocializingMotivations for gaming [36]Gaming addictionInternet Addiction ([36]; adapted from [120])β = .10, t = 2.98, p=.00Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]GenderFemale or maled > 1.0Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); Eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .29, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (college) = .11, p<.05Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .24, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo Game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesArousalVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (11th grader) = .16, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesDiversionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .21, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), Eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesSocial interactionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (8th grader) = .47, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), ighschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesStrongVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .31, p<.01Sherry et al. [29].1265University (321-58% F, 229-42% M), highschool (168-53% F, 150-47% M); eighth graders (125-55% F, 102-45% M); fourth and fifth grade elementary (70-50% F, 71-50% M)University (19.68, 18-23); highschool (16.56, 16-18), eighth graders (13.84, 13-16); fourth and fifth grade elementary (10.15, 9-11)United StatesCompetitionVideo game uses and gratifications [29]Amount of playHours played weeklyβ (5th grader) = .29, p<.01Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaCompetencePENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .10, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaAutonomyPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .11, p<.05Johnson et al. [129].573470 (82%) M103 (18%) F20.73, SD = 5.71, 13-54AustraliaRelatednessPENS [30]Hours playedAverage length of time they play each weekβ = .16, p<.05Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = .14, sd = .83; F = .27, sd = .91), t = 10.08,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -05, sd = .88; F = .09, sd = .90), t = - 3.43,p<.005Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]GenderMale (M) or female (F)mean (M = -.07, sd = .89; F = .13, sd = .87), t = - 4.70,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesAchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = .27,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesSocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.13,p<.001Yee et al. [27]20711358 M709 F29.95, SD = 9.20United StatesImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]AgeAge of the participantsr = -.01,p=.64Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.16, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]QuestsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.21, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ExplorationBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .09, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]PvPBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.07, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .28, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = .18, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)ImmersionOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]DungeonsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.10, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.19, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)SocialOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]ProfessionsBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.14, p<.001Yee et al. [27]645514 M128 F23.59, SD = 5.16Taiwan (406), Hong Kong (239)AchievementOnline Gaming Motivations Scale [27]World eventBehavioural metrics in WoWβ = -.11, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineAutonomyPENS [30]EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .244, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineEntertainmentAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .493, p<.001McCauley et al. [52].293137 M157 F18-36+OnlineFlowAd hoc instrument (McCauley et al., based on [130])EnjoymentAd hoc instrument (McCauley, Merola & Gumbley, based on [30, 95])β = .231, p<.001Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .182,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Years playingParticipants were asked for how long they have been playingr = .132,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .153,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .160,p<.05Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours during the weekHours played weeklyr = .179,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainSocializationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .176,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .230,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainAchievementAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .166,p<.01Fuster et al. [33]253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainDissociationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Hours weekendHours played during the weekendr = .308,p<.01Fuster et al. [33].253253 M0 F22.2, SD = 4.4, 16-35SpainExplorationAd hoc instrument to measure motivations [33]Number of avatarsNumber of avatars possessedr = .189,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .23,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .24,p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesAchievementPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Play amountHours played per dayr = .14,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .18,p<.01, β = .28, p<.001Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bonding capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = - .16,p<.01, β = - .20, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .20,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .24,p<.001, β = .24, p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Bridging capitalSocial Capital Scale (Williams, 2006)r = .16,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .14,p<.05, β = .15, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesNostalgiaPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .15,p<.05, β = .18, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship initiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]r = .18,p<.01Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]LonelinessUCLA Loneliness Scale [131]β = - .21, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .15,p<.05, β = .12, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship MaintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .18, p < .01,β = .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesEscapismPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)β = - .17, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesRelationship InitiationPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Life satisfactionSatisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985)r = .13,p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFunPokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .15,p<.05, β = .19, p<.05Yang & Liu [48].262144 (55%) M118 (45%) F30.71, SD = 7.77, 18-58United StatesFriendship maintenancePokémon Go motivation scale [48]Physical healthPhysical And Environmental Health Subscale (Holistic Health Score sheet; [132])r = .17,p<.05, β = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCatharsisGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked their ager = - .08,p=.004Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLoss AversionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.10,p=.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocial InteractionGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .17,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomizationGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = - .06,p=.02Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineGrindingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = -.12,p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .10,p=.002Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.14Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolent RewardGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.15Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])AgeParticipants were asked of their ager = .02,p=.17Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .23, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .18, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .12, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = .24, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Spare timeTime spent gaming during spare timeβ = - .08, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .25, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .16, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .17, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Frequency of useParticipants were asked how frequently they played the video gamesβ = - .13, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineStoryGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .13, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineViolenceGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .27, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineSocialGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .09, p<.05Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineEscapismGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.01Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineLosingGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .29, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineCustomGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = .17, p<.001Hilgard et al. [34].672531 (79%) M141 (21%) F22.6, SD = 5.51, 17-34OnlineAutonomyGaming Attitudes, Motives, and Experiences Scale (GAMES; [34])Self-described attitudeParticipants were asked how much of a casual or hardcore gamers they wereβ = - .16, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .148, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .191, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .159, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPhilanthropistGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .145, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .290, p<.001Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaSocialiserGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]AgreeablenessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .272, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ExtraversionBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .152, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = -.204, p<.05Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaFree spiritGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]OpennessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .215, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaAchieverGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .255, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaDisruptorGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]NeuroticismBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = - .170, p<.01Tondello et al. [44].13359 M64 F23.5, SD = 3.3, 18-36CanadaPlayerGamification User Types Hexad Scale [44]ConscientiousnessBig Five Inventory 10 item short version [91]τ = .144, p<.05Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .373, p<.01, β = .236, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .324, p<.01, β = .226, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Physical PresenceParticipants were asked through three itemsτ = .409, p<.01, β = .519, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .028, p<.01, β = .119, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .093, p<.01, β = .127, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Days playedRecorded by the gameτ = .101, p<.01, β = .163, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineAutonomyUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .03, p<.01, β = .224, p<.001Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineCompetenceUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [46])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .038, p<.01Azadvar & Canossa [46]563509 M59 F26.87, SD = 7.94, 16-55OnlineRelatednessUbisoft Perceived Experience Questionnaire (UPEQ, [])Group play timeRecorded by the gameτ = .07, p<.01, β = .249, p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.72, F = 4.15), t = 7.59,p<.001Greenberg et158 al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.52, F = 3.92), t = 6.74,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.46, F = 3.37), t = 11.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.36, F = 3.53), t = 8.59,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M =4.30, F = 2.55), t = 17.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); Eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 4.15, F = 3.14), t = 9.45,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesHi-techAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.82, F = 3.17), t = 8.58,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 3.13, F = 2.63), t = 6.90,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]GenderFemale or maleMean gender (M = 2.81, F = 2.33), t = 6.29,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.66, 8th grade = 3.71; 11th = 3.72, college = 4.76), F = 48.00,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesFantasyAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 4.64, 8th grade = 3.43; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.73), F = 22.66,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial interactionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.50, 8th grade = 3.21; 11th = 3.24, college = 3.66), F = 4.33,p<.005Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.41, 8th grade = 4.68; 11th = 4.81, college = 4.36), F = 50.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.39, 8th grade = 3.85; 11th = 4.17, college = 4.00), F = 8.91,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesRealismAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade =3.35, 8th grade =2.89; 11th = 2.70, college = 2.87), F = 9.86,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]AgeParticipants were asked of their ageMean age (5th grade = 3.22, 8th grade = 2.44; 11th = 2.39, college = 2.54), F = 15.94,p<.001Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesCompetitionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = - .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesEgoAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]5th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .69, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesChallengeAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .36, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .41, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]8th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .33, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesArousalAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .24, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .28, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .23, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]11th graders’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .21, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), Eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesDiversionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(male) = .31, p<.05Greenberg et al. [47].1242University (170 F, 202 M), 11th graders (167 F, 150 M); eighth graders (125 F, 102 M); fifth grade elementary (69 F, 70 M)University (-) 11th graders (15-17), eighth graders (12-14); fifth grade elementary (9-11)United StatesSocial InteractionAd hoc Uses and Gratification Questionnaire [47]College students’ genderFemale or maleβ(female) = .16, p<.05Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaAchievementMotivation to Play in Online Games Questionnaire (MPOGQ, [26])Internet gaming disorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale-short form (IGDS9-SF; [89])β = .049, p<.295Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaSocialMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = - .143, p<.001Bong et al. [133].706506 (71.7%) M200 (28.3%) F21.94, SD = 2.33MalaysiaImmersionMotivations of Play in Online Games (MPOGQ, [26])Internet Gaming DisorderInternet Gaming Disorder scale - short form (IGDS9 - SF; [89])β = .303, p<.000Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Self ExpansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .27,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .38,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Self expansionAd hoc measures ([51]; based on [134])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .47,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineSocialMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .28,p<.01Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Need for CognitionNeed for Cognition [81]r = .34,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineImmersionMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .42,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Bodily Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .28,p<.05Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Social Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .61,p<.001Lowe [51]8768 M19 F18-23+OnlineAchievementMotivation to Play [27]Spatial Engulfment ESSEngulfing Self Scale (ESS, [135])r = .38,p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùSocialOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = -.127, p<.05Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùEscapeOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22])Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .966, p<.01Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]821811 (98.9%) M10 (1.2%) F19.9, SD = 3.69PerùFantasyOnline Gaming Questionnaire (MOGQ, [22)Internet Gaming DisorderTen-Item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10, [90])β = .934, p<.01


## 3.1.6. Game Assessed in the Papers

Among the 53 studies, 18 did not specify what type of genre or games they were doing their research on, and 6 stated that they investigated players that play more than one genre. 14 of the papers specifically addressed gaming motivations associated with the MMORPG genre, while the MOBA genre was considered by 4 papers. MMO was the main topic of only 4 papers. Games are also getting extremely popular on smartphones, as such 3 papers assessed motivation for playing smartphone games specifically. The following genres or games were very specific or niche, and, as such, each one was addressed by just one paper: Pokèmon Go [48], social network games [43], Esport games [122], Ubisoft games [46], Travian [39], and Super Mario 64 [30]. To be more precise, the study done by Ryan et al. [30] was composed of more studies, and each one focused on a different game. This PRISMA review included the first one, which used Super Mario 64, and the fourth one, which used MMO players. Wohn et al. [43] also compared two different samples of gamers: social network and MMO players.


## 3.2. Study Results

The following sections will present the results of each group of identified variables: “sociodemographic variables,” “behavioural variables,” “psychological variables,” and “other variables”. Each variable was analyzed through different statistical methods, and the results will be reported according to what was obtained through them. Only robust results (i.e., observed in more than one study) will be reported in this section; therefore, those results obtained just one time will be reported only in Tables2 and 3, while the main findings are reported in the 3 in the appendix.Table 3
Main findings of each paper included with references, study limitations, and risk of biases.
Ref.Main findingsStudy limitationsRisk of biasesBeard & Wickham [58]The three factors from the OGMS (achievement, immersion, and socialization) all showed positive correlations with the three dimensions of the GCWS (competition focus, validation seeking, and reward orientation), except the detached one.Validation seeking, reward orientation, and competition of GCWS had significant correlations with all the dimensions in the GAMS (integrated regulation, external regulation, amotivation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation).GCSW proved to have good reliability and validity.Only extrinsic components of the GAMS were measured; several responses were excluded based on incomplete survey completion; demographic information was collected for only a sample of the participants; however, this was validated using demographic information on the population of AMT users. The study is specifically focused on MMORPG players.Sampling bias due to higher number of males than females, recruitment sample was done online, so responses could not be representative of the actual gaming population; furthermore, only MMORPG players were analyzed, making generalization of the data more difficult. Some correlations, even though significant, are not particularly high. Reporting bias since some questionnaires were not included.Lafrenière et al. [32].GAMS has good reliability and validity, and the six-factor structure was supported.All GAMS motivations positively correlate with game frequency, except amotivation.Perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness dimensions of PENS positively correlated with identified regulation, external regulation, and intrinsic motivation GAMS dimensions.Introjected regulation did not correlate to any of PENS’ dimensions.Amotivation negatively correlated to autonomy and competence, and it did not correlated to relatedness.The sample contained a larger proportion of men (N=193) than women (N=83), so it did not permit them to investigate the issue of gender differences; the results cannot be unequivocally applied to all populations; GAMS assesses exclusively the underlying motivations of gaming and not goal contents. All data were collected using self-reports, which could lead to common method variance issues.All data were collected using self-reports, which could lead to common method variance issues; sample bias due to inequality of gender, sample may not be representative since it was recruited online; measurement bias due to the fact that authors did not report the specific Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions.Myrseth et al. [41].The confirmatory factor analyses showed that the proposed EGMQ (measuring enhancement, coping, social, and self-gratification motives) displayed satisfactory fit and internal consistency.All dimensions of EGMQ positively correlated to gaming hours, specifically enhancement correlated negatively, while the social, coping, and self-gratification correlated positively.Coping, social, self–gratification, and enhancement had strong positive correlations with gaming addiction. Coping and self-gratification positively predicted gaming problems but not enhancement and social motivation, and coping alone negatively predicted loss of control. Coping and loss of control also correlated negatively.Enhancement and social did not correlate with loneliness. Loneliness is not a predictor of enhancement and social motives. Loneliness is positively correlated with coping and social motivation.Boredom (lack of external stimulation) positively correlated with social, enhancement, and coping motivations. It was also a positive predictor of these three. Boredom (lack of internal stimulation) positively correlated with self-gratification and enhancement. It was a positive predictor of these two.Authors did not include all possible motives, but motives related to addiction were added; the conscript sample was predominated by male gender and young age, both of which are identified as risk factors for gaming addiction; the sample only comes from Norway and includes only people that served in the military service between 2013 and 2015.Sampling bias: use of a nonrepresentative sample; self-report measure was used, sample has gender inequality, and sample might not be representative since it represents only one country; EGMQ has a statistical bias since it was based on another instrument built that measures gambling (GMQ-R), but they used the Bonferroni rule; the sample was recruited half through email and the other half from a military base.Tekofsky et al. [67].The gender coefficients reveal that women show a mild preference for MMORPG and MOBA games, while male prefers FPS games.Men prefer competition, while women prefer fantasy, story, escapism, customization, grinding/competition, and relationship.Native English speakers show a preference for fantasy and escapism.Age is negatively related to half of the gaming motivations (competition, fantasy, arousal, story, escapism, customization, and relationships).The large sample is mainly composed of male players, and effects of gender in the realm of gaming might be more pronounced than found in this study; interaction effects were not explored. Due to the recruitment method of using anonymous online volunteers, the sample became biased towards male gamers, with a male-female ratio of around 5 : 1, and alphas for the scale utilized are not present; some answers were removed either to replying other to the questions regarding gender or because they showed no univariate variance in their responses.Sampling bias: used self-report measurements, reporting bias because some answers were deemed not eligible, measurements bias due to ad hoc instrument used, and Cronbach’s alphas not being reported.Demetrovics et al. [22].MOGQ was confirmed through the exploratory and confirmatory analyses. The lowest correlation was between the factors escape and recreation, while the strongest correlations were found between escape and coping and fantasy.Recreation had the highest mean, followed by the social dimensions and then by coping, fantasy, skill development, and escape.Men scored higher on the competition factor than women, while women scored higher on the remaining five factors.Younger persons had higher means scored than did older persons on all dimensions except for recreations, on which older persons scored higher.Limited to the examination of online games; lack of female participants and lack of generability and representativity; self-reported measures, only Hungarian sites were used to gather data, and many did not completely fill in the survey.Sampling bias: snowball sampling which leads to some bias in the recruitment aspect, sampling bias related to gender inequality in terms of number, and sample was recruited only through Hungarian sites, reporting bias.Kuss et al. [79]Weekly gaming hours significantly correlated with relationship, advancement, escapism, mechanism, and competition.Escapism and mechanism are positive predictors of excessive gaming.MMORPG players are significantly more likely to experience gaming-related problems relative to nonplayers.110 questionnaires had to be discarded due to missing data, and a convenience sample was used which limits overall generalizability; the sample was mainly composed by men.Sampling bias: sample was of convenience and composed of mainly male players; response bias due to self-report measures and reporting bias due to many of them were discarded.Hoffman & Nadelson [45].Engagement is positively correlated to need for cognition, ego scores, task scores, play with others, and hours of play and negatively correlated to gender.The most accurate predictor of video game engagement was the number of hours played per week, followed by playing with others, with gender, and ego scores contributing the least.Males were almost twice as likely to be engaged in gaming as females, making gender a significant indicator of video gaming engagement.Participants wants to play for the socializing factors: (1) some to have fun with other; (2) some to compete; (3) some said that gaming is an opportunity to be isolated but still would organize social activities around gaming (scheduling gaming nights).The research took a general view on video gaming; therefore, individuals that engage themselves in any type of video game were included; the variable nature of gender and other exogenous variables was researched in a limited perspective; the sample was self-selected with student volunteering themselves; only college education majors were included.Sampling bias due to students being from one country, just college students, and there is a lacking of male players, which leads to low representativity; response bias due to self-report measures and desirability.Osman & Çirak [70]Pillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of gender on game motivation. The post hoc tests showed that male players had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than female playersPillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of gender on game motivation. The post hoc test showed that players who played games for four years or more had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than the players who played three years or less.The results showed that gaming platforms had a significant effect on gaming motivation. The Pillai’s trace result showed a significant effect of playing Internet games on gaming motivation. Players who played games on the Internet had significantly higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation than players who did not play games on the Internet.MANOVA test showed a significant difference on gaming motivation among players who played console games. Console game players significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation over players of other platforms.Players who played mobile games significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than players who did not play mobile games.Players who spent money for games or to buy an item in the game environment significantly had higher mean scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than players who did not spend money.Post hoc tests revealed significant differences between players who played for more than seven hours in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. On the contrary, it was seen that players who spent at least seven hours in a gaming environment were significantly less amotivated to games compared to othersA one-way between-group MANOVA was conducted in order to examine whether or not the willingness to change gaming habits affected gaming motivation. Post hoc tests revealed significant differences between players who did not want to give up their playing habits and the others in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. In contrast, players who wanted to give up their playing habits were significantly more amotivated towards the game compared to other players.The study was conducted with a small sample (330), and majority of them were male, and self-report measures were used; the study was done with only Turkish people.Sampling bias due to only one nationality, mainly male subjects, small sample, and recruited through online turkish sites/forums; response bias due to self-reported measures.Fam et al. [83].Hierarchical multiple regression revealed gaming motives (achievement, immersion, and social) as significant and positive predictors of internet gaming disorderThis study is cross-sectional, so interpretation of the direction of prediction is largely based on theoretical reasoning and past findings; the majority of the participants played both online and offline games (70.8%); e RMSEA value for the three-factor structure of the Online Gaming Motivation Scale is slightly higher than the threshold proposed by El-Den et al. [160]; sample only comes from Malaysia, and all of them were students.Sampling bias due to them being students; study was done only in one country, response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability.Mills et al. [85].Gaming motivations (integrated-identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation) are positively correlated with Problematic Videogaming.Introjected regulation is associated with uncontrollable internal pressure.Introjected regulation and amotivation predicted increased frustration of all three basic needs.Integrated regulation, identified regulation, amotivation, and external regulation positively predicted Problematic Videogaming.All dimensions of GAMS are positively correlated to gaming hours.59 answers were deleted because some subjects did the survey twice; others were excluded because they were younger than 18y/o (43) or over 35 y/o (61); 251 did not complete the survey; 359 participants were excluded because they were not frequent video gamers; sample may not be representative because it was gathered online; data did not confirm the original six-factor structure of the GAMS; study with a crossectional design.Sampling bias due to scarce representativity; response bias due subjects doing the test twice, and some of them did not finish it; self-report data.T’ng & Pau [73]Immersion and achievement motivations positively predict Internet Gaming Disorder in MOBA games, while social motivation is a negative predictor.Immersion, social, and achievement motivations were predicted by avatar identification in MOBA games.110 sets of answers were removed due to disqualified age; sample is mainly composed of males; study is done in just one country; study was done only with MOBA players, so it cannot be generalized; social desirability bias due to the online survey<Reporting bias due to answers removed, sampling bias due to having administered the survey online, and it was self-report.Carlisle et al. [68].Achievement, social motivation, and immersion motivation were significant and positive predictors of Internet Gaming Disorder.Age and student status were significant predictors of achievement motivation and had a small negative relationship with it. Gender had a moderate and negative relationship with achievement. Ethnicity was the only one to have a small positive relationship. Extraversion and neuroticism were not significant predictors of achievement motivation.Age, gender, student status, and extraversion are significant predictors of social motivation. Ethnicity and neuroticism were not significant predictors of social motivation. Specifically, age, gender, and student status all had small negative relationships with social motivation; instead, extraversion had a small positive relationship.Age is the only predictor of immersion motivation. It has a small negative relationship with it. Gender, ethnicity, student status, extraversion, and neuroticism were not significant predictors.Participants must have played an MMO game within the past 12 months, so the sample is only composed of MMO players; more males than females were present; self-report measures were used; path analysis method could mitigate internal validity; some groups were not equivalent in terms of age and ethnicity; only two constructs of the BFI-10 demonstrated adequate reliability; lack of randomization, manipulation, control factors in the correlational design make it difficult to establish cause-effect relationship; therefore, these results lack generalizability.Sampling bias due to only addressing some specific players. There were more males and females. Response bias due social desirability and self-report measurements. Selection bias due to participants not being representative of the gaming population.López-Fernández et al. [92].Weekly gaming was positively correlated to customization, fantasy, recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward. The strongest relation in the path analysis was with social interaction.Disordered gaming was positively correlated to competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, fantasy recreation, and competition. In path analysis, the strongest relations were social interaction and coping, low positive relations with violent reward, and cognitive development and competition, while small and negative were with fantasy, competition, and recreation.When all motives were taken into account simultaneously, only social interaction became the main motivation for weekly gaming.Social interaction and coping were the most important motives for disordered gaming.Competition motivation has a positive correlation with extraversion and negative correlations with openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are negative predictors of competition.Cognitive challenge has a positive correlation with openness and neuroticism and a negative correlation with agreeableness. Openness and neuroticism are positive predictors of cognitive challenge, while agreeableness is a negative predictor.Coping motivation has negative correlations with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness but a positive correlation with neuroticism. Neuroticism is a positive predictor of coping, while agreeableness and conscientiousness are negative.Social interaction has negative correlations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are both negative predictors of social interaction.Violent reward has negative correlations with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are both negative predictors of violent reward.Customization has a positive correlation with conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is a positive predictor of customization.Fantasy is negatively correlated with agreeableness. Agreeableness is a negative predictor of fantasyOf 1106 students that were invited to participate, only 364 were deemed eligible. Convenient sample of teenagers; data were all self-reported measures. The study is cross sectional as such causal inferences are not possible.Sampling bias: sample was of convenience, made of only spanish students and focused on adolescents only. Desirability bias and recall bias due to self-report measures. Reporting bias because some of the participants were not eligible.Yıldız et al. [54].Male participants’ computer gaming motivation levels in concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization are higher than those of the female participants.Significant differences were found in favor of the groups playing games in Internet cafes in the concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization. ANOVA showed differences according to the sample’s age.There is a negative low correlation between daily usage of ICT and concentration; but there are also positive correlations between entertainment and escape. If more time is spent with ICT, then, there is a decrease in concentration and an increase in entertainment and escape.Age is negatively correlated to concentration, entertainment, escape, learning, and socialization.The research only investigates Turkish gamers, and measures were self-reported, cross-sectional study.Sampling bias: convenient sample of turkish gamers; response bias. Desirability due to self-report measures;Goldblum [69].Age positively correlated with autonomy motivation.Gaming frequency was positively correlated with autonomy, relatedness, enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and psychological detachment.Gaming duration was positively correlated with autonomy, relatedness, enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and relaxation.Relatedness and enjoyment were significantly positively related to gaming durationAutonomy was significantly negatively related to gaming durationThe study is limited to female mobile gamers, leaving out male gamers; cross-sectional nature of the study which leaves out possible causal inferences, this study wanted to capture typical mobile gaming, but due to the pandemic, this data could have been altered; the study was conducted only in the United States; self-report measures could lead to some biases; some questionnaires were discarded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.Sampling bias due to participants that were recruited online and only in the United States, and sample is composed only of female gamers. Desirability bias and response bias due to self-report measures; reporting bias due to the fact that some studies were removed;Wohn et al. [43].MMO players had higher intrinsic hedonic motivations, higher intrinsic accomplishment, higher social identified, and higher external game than casual SNG players. However, SNG players had higher external social and higher amotivation than MMO players.SNG players had higher external social and higher amotivation than MMO players.For identified regulation, there was a significant genre effect: MMO players had higher identified motivation than SNG players. There was no main gender effect, but there was an interaction with casual SNG players where males had higher identified motivation than females.For external social motivation (motivated because others require you to play), there was a main effect of genre but no main gender effect. SNG players had higher external social motivation than malesFor intrinsic accomplishment, there was only a main effect of genre and no main effect of gender.For external regulation related to game mechanics, there was a significant main effect of the genre.This indicates that MMO players were far more driven by game mechanics than casual SNG players. There was also a significant main effect of gender. Female players for both SNGs and MMOs reported higher levels of external game regulation than males.Data were gathered by administering the measures on Mturk; lack of consistency between the conceptualization and measures of motivation used in this study; this study divided social and achievement motivation in two dimensions; there might be a generalizing effect of gender; self-report measures were used; the study only used participants from one country, the United States.Sampling bias due to being recruited online and mainly from the United States; response bias due to using Mturk and self-reported measures;Scharkow et al. [38].Gender (being female) has negative relations with role playing, competence, exploration, social capital, team play, competition, and mechanics.Age has negative relations with role playing, exploration, social capital, team play, competition, mechanics, and narration.Compared to beginners, experienced players are more interested in the game itself, especially in exploring the game world, its mechanics, and narration, to play another role or be part of a team.Achievement seeking is a positive predictor of competence, exploration, mechanics, and narration.Collective orientation is positively related to social capital, team play, and competition.Fantasy motivation has positive relations with preference for RPG, simulation, adventure, and action. It has negative relations with strategy, puzzle, sport, platform, and music.Competence has positive relations with puzzle and sport, but it has negative relations with role playing and action genre.Exploration has positive relations with strategy, adventure, role playing, and platform, but it has a negative relations with sport genre.Social capital has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, and role playing. It has negative relations with sport and music genre.Team play has positive relations with sport, platform, and action genre.Competition has a negative relationship with role playing, simulation, but it has positive relationship with sport and action.Mechanics has positive relations with sport, adventure, platform, simulation, and action genre.Narration has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, adventure, and role playing genre, but it has a negative relationship with sport and action.The first limitation is about the preference element per se given that preferences do not necessarily correspond to actual behaviour; some genres (like action and role playing games) could be explained very well by the constructs outlined by the authors, whereas other types (like strategy games) were more weakly affected by the respective factors; the gaming field is changing rapidly; therefore, the results might not be representative anymore in the future; study included all kinds of users—also the growing group of casual gamers; self reported measures were used; the sample only came from Germany;Sampling bias due to sample being all from Germany; response bias due to self-report measure; the recruitment of the sample was done through the phone, so some desirability bias might have affected the answers; measurement bias due to the questionnaire being created ad hoc, plus one dimension exploration (Ego Centered Motives) had only item, thus resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of one.Ryan et al. [30].Study 1: results revealed a significant difference only for intuitive controls with women scoring lower than men.Those who chose to continue the target game were contrasted with those who chose the alternative. The overall MANOVA was significant. Follow-up univariate results revealed that persons who continued playing had higher scores on IC, in-game autonomy, and in-game competence.Competence is positively related to self-esteem, free choice continued play, and preference for continued play.Mood/affect is positively related to autonomy and competence.Study 4: autonomy, competence, and relatedness were all related to game enjoyment.Post-play mood was positively associated with autonomy and competence, negatively associated with Yee’s achievement and immersionFuture play was positively related to autonomy, competence, and relatedness.Hours per week was positively related to competence, relatedness, and achievement.Study 1 used a relatively small sample and majority were females; study 1 only focused on a certain game (Nintendo Super Mario), and study 4 had only MMO players as a sample, furthermore, the majority was male, and they were selected online. In both, the sample was paid to participate in the study; self-reported measures could be an issue due to desirability, and sample was assigned to the game, and they could not choose the game they wanted like in real life; PENS was still a new instrument which needed more validation; even though the model was general, different game genres might have different effects on people.Sampling bias due to: sample was paid, recruited online, might not be representative of the the real population; response bias due to self-report measures, and the fact the sample was paid; measurement bias because PENS was still in its first stages;Klimmt et al. [39].MANOVA results indicate that heaviest players assign more importance both to the socializing and the competition dimensions than do moderate players; the difference in the coping dimension was less pronounced; no relevant difference occurred with the cost/flexibility dimension.Socializing (meeting and playing with others) was found to be the most important dimension.A gender difference emerged only in the competition dimension, with males finding competition more important than female players.Sample was mainly composed of male players and focused on only one type of game, Travian, a browser game. Furthermore, the participants were all from Germany, and self-report measures were used leading to some desirability bias.Sampling bias due to: participants all came from Germany, and majority of them were male, and the survey was done. Response bias due to self-report bias and because it was administered online leading to some desirability effect in the answers.Fuster et al. [105].Significant negative correlations between age and socialization and dissociation; negative correlations between age and achievement; age and dissociation; hours spent playing per week are negatively correlated to exploration and positively correlated to dissociation.Significant differences between type of occupation (student and worker) and achievement (where students scored higher than those who worked) and dissociation (where students scored higher than those who worked and those who work and study).ANOVA analysis found significant differences between MMORPG types and dissociation; post hoc showed that World of Warcraft players scored higher on Dissociations than participants who played Aion and EVE online.Significant differences between the different type of server used and the variables Exploration and Dissociation, Post hoc showed that RP servers scored higher on Exploration than those who played in PvP servers; however, those who played PvP serves scored higher on Dissociation than those playing on RP servers.25 subjects were rejected due to having replied with nonproper answers; majority of the sample was male and just from one country; cross cultural study that cannot infer causality between the variables; self-report measures were used.Sampling bias due to sample being from one country (Spain) and recruited online; sample was mainly composed of male players; response bias due to random answers and self report measures that might have been affected by social desirability;Graham & Gosling [106].Individuals motivated to play WoW for the purpose of socialization tended to be high on extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness but low in conscientiousness; socialization was predicted positively by extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness.Achievement motivation was negatively related to conscientiousness, to agreeableness, and openness but positively to extraversion, neuroticism, and hours of play. Achievement motivation is positively predicted by neuroticism and extraversion; while negative predictors were agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openess.Individuals playing WoW for immersive motives were relatively high in openness, neuroticism, and agreeableness but lower on extraversion and conscientiousness. Openness was the only positive prediction for immersion, while neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion.WoW gamers motivated to play for leadership purposes tended to be extraverted, conscientious, and open and lower in agreeableness and neuroticism. Extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness were positive predictors, while agreeableness is a negative one.Individuals with motives of independence tended to be low in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism but high in openness. Openness was the only positive predictor.Sample was recruited online, and it included exclusively World of Warcraft players; majority of the sample was male, and they were administered self-reported measures;Sampling bias due to all participants were recruited online, and they were majorly male; they were mainly WoW players; Response bias due to self-report measures.Johnson & Gardner [23].Agreeableness was positively correlated with competence/control, and people with high levels of agreeableness were more likely to report higher levels of competence and control when recalling their experience with their current favorite game.Emotional stability was negatively correlated with presence; people with higher levels of emotional stability were less likely to report higher levels of presence.Openness to experience was positively correlated with autonomy respondents with higher levels of openness to experience that were more likely to report higher levels of autonomy.There is a significant relationship between game genre and reported levels of presence. The experience of presence was lowest for sport/simulation and shooting games, moderate for action adventure games, and highest for strategy/role playing games.There is a significant relationship between game genre and autonomy. The experience of autonomy was lowest for action adventure and shooting games, moderate for sport/simulation games, and highest for strategy/role playing gamesSample was recruited online, and it was majorly composed of males; two cases were removed because their surveys were incomplete.Sampling bias due to the sample being recruited online, and majority of it was composed by males; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaire being removed;Fuster et al. [74].Harmonious passion is positively correlated with exploration, socialization, and achievement. Harmonious passion is a positive predictor of exploration, socialization, and achievement.Obsessive passion is positively correlated with dissociation, achievement and socialization. Obsessive passion is a positive predictor of dissociation, achievement, and socialization.Sample was only composed of Spanish people, and the female numbers were all removed due to low representation in the sample. Participants were only MMORPG players; self report measures were used; data were cross-sectional; it is unknown if players with high score for Obsessive Passion were really addicted to the game;Sampling bias due to being recruited online, only male spanish MMORPG players were included; reporting bias because all the female participants were removed; response bias due to self reported measures.Dindar [75].Immersion motivation is correlated and predicts all facets of flow (merge of actions and thoughts, control on task, loss of self-consciousness, distortion of time, and autotelic experience);Social motivations predict daily play time.Achievement motivation is correlated and predicts status seeking in MMORPGs and control on task.Sample only comes from Turkey, and it is composed majorly by male and only of MMORPG players; self-reported measures were used. A bigger sample is needed; all participants were recruited online, so it is possible that they might not be representative of their population; gamer loyalty was measured as an attitudinal, rather than behavioural, construct.Sampling bias due to mainly male participants; all of them were Rurkish, recruited online and MMORPG players; Response bias due to self report measures that could be affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to the attitudinal nature of gamer loyalty construct.Chang & Zhang [55].Materialism significantly and positively predicted the pursuit of self-confidence and achievement, escape and virtual identification, and entertainment and reward through online gaming.Entertainment, sociability, and self confidence and achievement were positive predictors of attitude towards online gaming.Cross-sectional study; sample was composed only of chinese players, and mean of age was not reported; self-reported measures were used; some questionnaires were deemed not valid.Sampling bias due to sample being composed only of Chinese players; response bias due to using self reported measures; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed.Argento et al. [116].MANCOVA analysis suggested that male players were higher in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, and extrinsic motivation than female players.MANCOVA analysis suggested that gamers were higher in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and extrinsic motivation than nongamers.MANCOVA analysis suggested that there is a difference of frequency of use between gamers in intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation than nongamers.Data were collected through a convenient sample and online, so it may no be representative; use of self-reported measures; many questionnaires were removed from the initial numbers of submitted ones; the number of female participants is low; violations of equal variances limit the interpretation of the corresponding effect sizes.Sampling bias due to being recruited online, mainly composed of male players; response bias due to: self-reported measures; reporting bias due to half of the original sample was cut out;Ratan et al. [50].Game motivations altogether differed significantly by participant gender and country. Nearly all game motivations differed significantly by gender, with the exception of agency and pastime. For all significant differences, all motivations were higher for men than women.As for country, MANCOVA showed significant differences in habit, recreativity, escapism, pastime, and social motivations; according to a post hoc comparison by country, for the pastime motivation, Germany was significantly lower than Singapore and the US. For the social motivation, Germany was significantly lower than Singapore and the US.According to the multivariate tests, genre choices altogether differed significantly by the motivations of habit, reactivity, narrative, pastime, and social. Agency was positively and significantly associated with sports games, and pastime was positively and significantly associated with casual games and action games, while performance motivation was positively associated with action games.Results suggest that future play intention was positively associated with habit motivations and negatively associated with social motivations.Participants sample may not be representative of their broader populations, and only three countries participated in this research; the Singaporean sample had a very small sample of women, and gender was considered a dichotomous characteristic but, nowadays, is seen as a multicategorical variable; genre choice and future play intention were measures only through one item; self-reported measures were used; generalizability might be taken into questions due to small sample.Sampling bias due to sample only came from three countries, so it might not be representative of the real gaming population; response bias due to self report measure that could affect social desirability; measurement bias: two construct were measured only through one item, so validity could be taken into question; statistical bias: type 1 error due to ANOVA methods;Kim [40].Competition motivation was positively correlated with openness and instability. Challenge and openness were positively correlated. Social interaction was positively correlated with instability and negatively correlated with agreeableness. Diversion was negatively correlated with extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness and positively correlated with instability. Fantasy positively correlated with instability but negatively with agreeableness. Also, arousal positively correlated with instability but negatively with agreeableness.Competition motivation had two positive predictors: openness and instability. Challenge motivation had two positive predictors: openness and extroversion. For the social interaction motivation, only one positive predictor: instability; diversion motivation had three positive predictors: conscientiousness, instability, and openness to experience. For the fantasy motivation, instability was a positive predictor, while agreeableness was a negative one. For the arousal motivation, only one positive predictor instability.The amount of time spent playing smartphone games on a weekday was positively correlated with challenge. Additionally, the amount of time spent playing smartphone games in a weekend was positively correlated with challenge and diversion. Also, traditional game-genre preference was positively correlated with challenge and arousal. Physical game-genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, fantasy, and arousal. Imagination game genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, social interaction, fantasy, and arousal.Challenge significantly predicted the amount of smartphone gaming in a typical weekday. For the amount of time spent in gaming in a typical weekend, one motivation explained the variance, making diversion a significant predictor of weekend gaming activity.For the traditional game-genre preference, two positive predictors explained the variance. Challenge and arousal significantly positively predicted the preference for traditional games. For the physical games-genre preference, there was only one positive predictor: challenge; For the imagination game-genre preference, only one positive predictor explained the variance: fantasy.The sample of the study was convenient and only made of American college students. The five factor model might not fully reflect every aspect of gamers’ personalities; the impact of situational context of gamers may have been excluded; the game preference reliabilities were low; self-reported measures were used; some questionnaires were removed due to not meeting eligibility criteria, and generalizability might not be applicable to other groups.Sampling bias due to mainly American college students and mainly composed of females; response bias due to self-reported measures; reporting bias due to some answers being removed; measurement bias due to game preference scale having a low alphas.López-Fernández et al. [28].In the adolescent sample, the following results were found: gender negatively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy;Gaming hours positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Furthermore, coping and social interaction are predictors of gaming hours.Disorder gaming positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Furthermore, coping, social interaction, and violent reward are positive predictors of disordered gaming.Shooter games positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy.MOBA games positively correlated with competition, cognitive development, and social interaction.MMORPG positively correlated only with fantasy;Role playing positively correlated with recreation and fantasy;Action adventure genre positively correlated with cognitive development, coping, customization, and fantasy.Sport genre positively correlated with violent reward and competition but negatively to customization.Casual genre negatively correlated with competition and violent reward.Social simulation genre negatively correlated with competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward but positively with customization.Construction positively correlated with customization and fantasy;Platform negatively correlated with competition, coping, social interaction, and violent reward.In the young adult sample, age was positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, and coping.Gender was negatively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy. Regarding gender, adolescent and young adult males presented higher scores than females in nearly all scales apart from customization, especially in competitive, violent reward, and social interaction motives.Gaming hours are positively correlated with all motivations.Disordered gaming is positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, fantasy, and coping. Also, coping, social interaction, fantasy, and violent reward are positive predictors of disordered gaming, while customizing was a negative predictor.Shooter genre is positively correlated with all motivations, except competition.MOBA is positively correlated with recreation, competition, and social interaction.Strategy is negatively correlated with violent reward.MMORPG is positively correlated with recreation, competition, coping, social interaction, and fantasy.Role playing genre is positively correlated with recreation, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy.Action-adventure genre is positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, violent reward, and fantasy.Sport genre is positively correlated with competition and violent reward.Casual genre is negatively correlated with recreation, competition, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy.Social simulation is positively correlated with customization and fantasy but negatively correlated with social interaction.Fighting genre is positively correlated with violent reward.The study only used a Spanish sample of adolescents and young adults; validation of VMQ is necessary in other cultures too; cross sectional study and self-reported measures were used; the adolescent sample was lacking female participants; some questionnaires were not counted for not meeting eligibility criteria.Sampling bias due to having used mainly Spanish students or young adults; the adolescent sample was lacking female participants; response bias due to self reported measures; reporting bias because some questionnaires were removed;Billieux et al. [71].Age was negatively correlated with advancement and competition but positively correlated with discovery. Younger players are more motivated by advancementBoth male gender and young age were related to a greater proneness to look for competition in the game, whereas both female and older players showed a greater interest in discovery and exploration of WoW.The number of hours devoted to WoW daily/weekly appeared to be strongly correlated to an advancement motive but also to mechanics, competition, relationship, customisation, and escapism.The number of years since the participants played was related only to the mechanics’ motive.Participants playing in cybercafés were more interested in both competition and advancement,whereas no motives were related to the tendency to play at work.An addictive usage pattern (measured by the IAT) was primarily related to the advancement and the escapism motives, although significant relationships of smaller amplitude were found with other motivations, namely, mechanics, competition, role play, and customisation.Participants who were highly motivated by socialising and team work, and seeking relationships with other people were more often affiliated with a guild.The total progression score (which accumulates the various types of achievements) was primarily and positively associated with advancement and mechanics motives but also related to the relationship and discovery motives. Quests and exploration achievements were specifically and positively related to the discovery motive. PvP achievements were primarily and positively related to the competition motive, although significant associations also took place with both advancement and mechanics motives. Dungeon and raid achievements were positively associated with a variety of motives, including advancement, mechanics, relationship, and teamwork. The miscellaneous achievement score was positively related to the advancement, mechanics, and discovery motives. Finally, role play, customisation, and escapism motives were unrelated to specific ingame achievements.Participants playing in PvP servers were motivated by competition, whereas the opposite relation was found for people playing in PvE servers. Participants who subscribed to the RP servers were indeed primarily driven by role playing-related motivesProgression in the game, at a global level, was predicted by the discovery and teamwork motivationsProgression regarding the competitive aspects of the game (PvP index) was positively predicted only by the motivation to compete and fight other players and by a younger age. Finally, progression related to cooperative achievements (PvE index) was positively predicted by the motivation of teamwork and the motivation of discovery, and it was negatively predicted by the customisation motive.Researchers considered players to have a unique main avatar, even though it might be possible, they had multiple accounts; this study only focuses on WoW; self-reported measures were used as such generalizability that might not be applicable to other studies; the number of female participants was low; sample was recruited online; many questionnaires were removed for not meeting eligibility criteria or for not having been completed.Sampling bias due to it was recruited online; majority of them were males, and all participants were WoW gamers; response bias due to self-reported measures that can affect social desirability and generalizability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed.Yee [25]Male players scored significantly higher than female players on the achievement and manipulation factors, while female players scored significantly higher on the relationship, immersion, and escapism factors.Age was negatively correlated with manipulation for both genders. Age of male players was negatively correlated with achievement. Age of female players was negatively correlated with immersion.Hours of usage per week positively correlated with escapism and relationship for both male and female players.The group of respondents is self-selected, and they are MMORPG players only, the majority of them were males; self-reported measured were used; data were cross sectional; female participants were lackingSampling bias due to sample recruited online, mainly composed of male players and composed of MMORPG players, self-selected; measurement bias due to low alphas regarding three scales: immersion, escapism, and achievement; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability;Yee [26]Male players scored significantly higher on all the achievements components than female players, while female players scored significantly higher than male players on the relationship subcomponent. There is no gender difference in the socializing subcomponent: male players socialize just as much as female players.Negative correlations were found between the age of male players and achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, social, socializing, relationship, teamwork, and customization; regarding hours spent playing by males, positive correlations were found with achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, relationship, immersion, and escapism.Negative correlations were found between age of female players and achievement, advancement, mechanics, competition, immersion, discovery, customization, and escapism; regarding hours spent playing by females, positive correlations were found with achievement, advancement, mechanics, social, relationship, and escapism.Multiple regression with the problematic usage score showed that the escapism compone was the best and positive predictor, followed by the advancement component.It is a cross sectional study; sample was recruited online, and it was majorly composed of male MMORPG players; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to being recruited online, composed of male players and only MMORPG players. Response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability;Wu et al. [121].General motivation was the largest predictor of IGD symptoms, followed by escape and a negative coefficient on skill development.Males scored significantly higher on general motivation but lower on escape.Age was positively related to escape, fantasy, and skill development but negatively related to general motivation. Students were found to have higher general motivation than employed participants.Those who primarily played single-player games had a higher score on coping but a lower score on competition, social, and general motivation than those who primarily played MMO games.Cross sectional study; the research was focused only on a chinese sample; sample of convenience thus limiting generalizability and replication; the MOGQ was adapted into a Chinese version, but further studies are needed; some questionnaires were not counted because they were not completed.Sampling bias due to sample recruited only Chinese gamers, and it was of convenience; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due: some questionnaires were removed.Bányai et al. [122].The results of the present study suggest that Esport and recreational gamers play video games in a different way in terms of gaming motivations (i.e., esport gamers scored significantly and considerably higher on certain motives such as competition, social, and skill-development).Escapism and competition were predictors of gaming disorder for both esports gamers and recreational gamers.For recreational gamers, coping and fantasy were negative predictors, while recreation and competition were positive predictors of gaming disorder.Cross sectional study so it does not take into consideration causal explanation; sample was recruited online, with participants coming from Hungarian speaking regions (i.e., Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia); thus, this can affect generalizability and representativeness. Furthermore, it was mainly composed of male gamers. Self-reported measures were used thus leading to some desirability bias; the division between Esport gamers and recreational gamers was based solely on number of gaming competition engaged;Sampling bias due to recruited online only from Hungarian speaking country and mainly composed of male gamers; response bias due to self reported measure that could have been affected by social desirability;Frederik & Jan [123].Moral outcomes were negatively associated with gender.Frequency of playing was correlated with habit, social, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motivations. Also, frequency of play was positively associated only with habit in the model proposed.Duration of a session was correlated with habit, social, narrative, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motivations. .Play was positively correlated with all motivations, except pastime and narrative motivations.Coplay was positively correlated with habit and social.Talk was positively correlated with habit and social motivations.The target population was limited to high school students from Belgium, and this implies that it cannot be generalized to other populations; the sample was too small, and there were more males than girls; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to sample that was composed only of high school students from Belgium, and majority of it was composed of male; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability; statistical bias due to sample being really small, and specifically, we are talking about a type II error.Williams et al. [124].Immersion was negatively related, while sociability and achievement were both positively related to playing time.The correlation coefficients between each of the immersion factors and time played were all negative: exploration, role-play, customization, and escapism. With role playing being the only significant one.Sample was recruited online, and only players of EverQuest 2 were included; the sample was majorly composed of male players; self-reported measures were used; the data set obtained in this studio might not be suitable since the future is changing rapidly;Sampling bias due to sample recruited online playing only one specific MMO game and majorly composed of male gamers; response bias: self-reported measures were used which could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias: the validity of the scale created is quite low for the immersion factor.Chua et al. [125].There was a significant correlation between intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and game addiction.It was found that game engagement, integrated regulation, introjected regulation, and amotivation significantly positively predicted game addiction.Some questionnaire were removed for not meeting eligibility criteria; self report measures were used; in cross sectional study, furthermore, the sample was composed of malaysian MOBA players, so it cannot be generalized to other countries, and the sample was majorly composed of males;Sampling bias due to being composed of MOBA Malaysian gamers where majority of them were male; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability and recall bias; reporting bias due to some questionnaire not being included.Viswanathan [53].Results of linear regression were not statistically significant regarding social motivations and emotional intelligence.Regarding only ranking players in LoL, the results of linear regression were not statistically significant for emotional intelligence and achievement. Also, skill development and competition were also not significant.Regarding all the participants players of the study, the results of the linear regression were significant for achievement and skill development but not for competition.There was a statistically significant relationship between achievement and emotionality.There was a statistically and positive significant relationship between trait EI and coping motivation. The model indicates that ranked players with lower trait EI scores may play LoL to relieve stress.A significant positive correlation between trait emotional intelligence and recreation motivation was found, while escape and fantasy were found not significant in association with trait emotional intelligenceThe sample is relatively small, composed only of LoL players, and the majority of them were males; three questionnaires were removed due to incomplete responses; the online and small sample could limit representativity and generalizability; self-report measures were used as wellSampling bias due to sample being recruited online, and it is small, composed only by LoL players, and majority of it is male; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being excluded;Kneer et al. [76].Negative masculine attributes were positive predictors for achievement; positive feminine traits predicted social interaction; negative feminine traits predicted immersion; gender affiliation only predicted social interaction.Escapism positively predicted gaming addiction.The term gender attributes can be misleading, especially regarding digital game-related studies since attributions rely on socially constructed sex-role and gender-role assumptions; the study did not include any real addicts; thus, the predictors found and cannot be seen as the real cause for developing gaming addiction; self-reported measures were used; sample was recruited online; some questionnaires were not included, and two people did not report their gender but were still included in the study.Sampling bias due to being recruited online and being only related to MMORPG games which could reduce representativity; response bias: self-reported measures were used which could have been affected by social desirability; Reporting bias due to some questionnaires being left out.Dauriat et al. [36]Achievement factor positively correlated with hours per week, playing in a group and playing PvP, and negatively correlated with age.The socializing factor negatively correlated with age and playing solo, but it is positively correlated with hours per week and playing in a group.The immersion factor positively correlated with playing in a group, playing solo, playing PvE, and role playing.The relaxing factor is positively correlated with playing PvE;The escaping factor is positively correlated with hours per week.Men have a greater score for escaping than women do.Singles have a greater score on the escaping factor than persons do in a relationship.Participants who have children have a lower score on the social factor than those who do not have children.People with professional or student activities have a greater score on the relaxing factor than do those without activities.Those who live alone have a lower score on the achievement factor.Positive correlations were found between gaming addiction and achivement, escaping, and socializing. The achievement factor was the best and positive predictor, followed by escaping, socializing, and gender of gaming addiction. Immersion, relaxing and age were not significant predictors.Sample was recruited online and is based on MMORPG players, and majority of it was composed of male participants; self-reported measures were used; furthermore, authors did not put the Cronbach’s alpha for the motivation scale; questionnaires were excluded: 20 excluded because of unclear answers, and 54 were excluded because participants did not play MMORPG.Sampling bias: sample was recruited online so it might not have good representativity of the MMORPG population; it was majorly composed of males, and only players that played MMORPG were included; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being excluded; measurement bias due to items that were written, but alpha’s level for each scale was not reported.Sherry et al. [29].Males consistently ranked all gratifications higher than females did, and the rank order of gratifications between males and females was fairly consistent. Among all grade samples, the rank order was consistent except that males rated social interaction much higher on their rank order than females did. Social interaction had the largest difference between males and females as expressed as Cohen’s in all samples except eighth graders.In the college, eleventh-grade, and fifth-grade samples, challenge was the top reason for playing video games. Least popular among all the gratifications in the eleventh-, eighth-, and fifth-grade samples was playing for the fantasy of being strongThe relationship between the use categories and amount of play showed that in each sample, the uses and gratifications variables were strong predictors of time spent playing video games. Among college students, 28% of the variance in game play was accounted for by uses and gratifications, with diversion, social interaction, and arousal as the most important predictors of time spent playing video games per hour. The pattern was the same among 11th graders, with more variance explained using the same variables diversion, social interaction, and arousal. A similar amount of variance was explained in the eighth-grade sample using only two of the other motivations (i.e., diversion and social interaction). Uses and gratifications accounted for 28% of the variance in amount of weekly game play in the fifth grade sample, with a different set of significant predictors, playing to be strong and for competition.Sample only came from one nation, the United States; self-reported measures were used, and some surveys were not included because they were not completed; personality was not taken into consideration;Sampling bias due to being composed only of people coming from the United states; response bias: due to self-reported measures being used and that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires were excludedJohnson et al. [129].With respect to the experience of play, competence, autonomy, and relatedness were associated with more play.A sample of convenience was used; the number of females was really low; only survey measures were used, so it is not possible to infer causation for any of the associations identified; self-reported measures were used; the total variance in hours of play accounted for in the current study was relatively small.Sampling bias: sample was mainly composed of males, and it was a sample of convenience; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability;Yee et al. [27]In the first study, there is a significant difference in gender in the achievement motivations: males score higher than females. Achievement is also positively correlated to age. Significant gender differences were also found for social and immersion motivations where females tend to score higher than males, but age only correlated negatively with the social motivation. Age was not correlated to immersion motivation.Motivations were also associated with specific WoW behaviours such as completing quests, exploring the map, being competitive in PvP, doing raids or dungeons, having noncombat crafting skills (professions), and participating in world events. Achievement motivation was a negative predictor of quests, exploration, professions, and world events; it was a positive predictor of PvP and dungeons. Social motivation was a negative predictors of quests, exploration, and professions but a positive predictor for doing dungeons; finally, immersion motivation was a positive predictor of doing quests and exploring the map, but it was a negative predictor of doing PvP and dungeons.Only data for World Of Warcraft players were collected, so only for an online game, the sample was mainly composed of males; self reported measures were used; the correlations between the WoW behaviours and the immersion factor were not that strong; the scale used must be validated in some other studies too; the sample for the second study only came from two regions: Hong Kong and Taiwan.Sampling bias due to all the participants that were WoW players, and both samples were majorly composed of male, and the second one only comes from Taiwan and Hong Kong; response bias due to self-reported measures being used and that could have been affected by social desirability:McCauley et al. [52].Enjoyment is a positive predictor of autonomy, entertainment, and flow motivations.Sample was recruited online, and it is not big enough to fully represent the whole population of mobiles gamers; sample was composed mainly of people under the age of 35; self-reported measures were used; the instrument was created starting from other already existent instruments and needs further validation.Sample bias due to sample being recruited online and composed majorly by young people: response bias due to selfreported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to instrument needing further validation.Fuster et al., [33].In relation to motivations, significant correlations were found for (i) years playing WoW and exploration and achievement, (ii) for hours playing WoW per week (i.e., during the working week) and exploration, (iii) for hours playing WoW per week and achievement, and (iv) for hours playing WoW per week and dissociation. Furthermore, hours spent playing at weekends produced highly significant but low correlations with all motivations: (socialisation, exploration, achievement, and dissociation). The correlation between exploration and number of avatars was also significant.Sample was only composed of spanish male players of WoW; self-reported measures were used; questionnaire completed by females were discarded due to the low number of participants (10), and others were discarded because the participants were too young; the questionnaire was created ad hoc for this study, as such it needs further validation;Sampling bias due to only coming from Spain and only composed of young male WoW players; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to instrument being created ad hoc and further validation is therefore necessary: reporting bias due to all questionnaires completed by female or participants under the age of 16 being discarded,Yang & Liu [48].The amount of hours played per day is positively correlated to fun, friendship maintenance, the relationship initiation, and achievement motivations.Fun motivation is positively correlated to bonding and bridging capital, life satisfaction, and physical health.Escapism is negatively correlated with bonding capital but positively associated with loneliness.Nostalgia is positively correlated with loneliness.Friendship maintenance is positively correlated with bridging capital, life satisfaction, and physical health.Relationship initiation is positively correlated with bridging capital, loneliness, and life satisfaction.As for multiple regression analysis, playing the game for fun was positively related to better well-being, such as higher bonding and bridging social capitals, negatively related to loneliness, and better physical health. Playing the game to maintain friendships was positively related to higher life satisfaction. Playing the game to initiate new relationships was positively related to bridging social capital and loneliness. Both using the game to escape from reality and playing with nostalgia were positively related to higher loneliness, and escapism was also negatively related to bonding social capital and life satisfaction.Sample consisted only of Pokémon Go players coming from the United States; the correlational data cannot infer causality between gaming and well-being; self reported measures were used.Sampling bias due to being recruited only in the United States and composed of only Pokémon Go Players; thus, the results can not be generalized to other type of games; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability,Hilgard et al. [34].Age was significantly and negatively correlated with catharsis, loss-aversion, social interaction, customization, and grinding, but it was positively correlated with autonomy. Age was not significantly correlated with story, violent reward, or escapism.Higher story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy scores were associated with playing more frequently, spending a greater proportion of spare time on videogames and self-description as a “hardcore” player.Higher scores on loss-aversion and customization were associated with reduced frequency of play, a smaller proportion of spare time spent on games, and self-description as a “casual” player.A cross-sectional design was used, as such it is not possible to determine the direction of causality in any of the relationships; the survey was particularly long, and many of the questionnaires were discarded because they were not completed or did not meet the eligible criteria; the sample was recruited half from online and half from an American university, and the number of girls was low; self-reported measures were used.Sampling bias due to it being recruited online and majorly composed of males; response bias due to self-reported measures that could have been affected by social desirability, and also, some random answers were given; reporting bias because some questionnaires were discarded.Tondello et al. [44].The philanthropist type is positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness; The socialiser type is positively correlated with extraversion and with agreeableness. The free spirit type is positively correlated with openness and also positively correlated with extraversion and negatively with neuroticism; the achiever type is positively correlated with conscientiousness; however, it was not found to be correlated with agreeableness; The disruptor type is negatively correlated with neuroticism. The player type is only positively correlated with conscientiousness.A limited sample was used, and it was limited only to students coming from one university, which limits generalization to a general population; self-reported measures were used; the reliability of the scale needs to be improved; personality was assessed with the short 10 item version;Sampling bias due to coming from one nation and being quite small; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to scale needing more studies to be validated and the fact that a short version of a scale was used, so it could have problems with acquiescence, and the player dimension’s alpha was quite low.Azadvar & Canossa [46]Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are positive significant correlates of physical presence, in-game measures such as number of days that the player has played the game and group playtime percent.Regression analysis showed positive significant betas between day played and autonomy, competence, and relatedness; group playtime and autonomy and relatedness; physical presence and autonomy, competence, and relatedness.Sample is composed of volunteer online respondents that only plays Ubisoft Games and majorly composed of males; the study was measured in game behaviour which has the risk of showing a shared platform among multiple players who may be different from the survey respondent; self-reported measures were usedSampling bias due to sample being recruited online, majorly composed of males and Ubisoft game players; response bias: self-reported measures were used that could have been affected by social desirability; measurement bias due to in game behaviour measures that could have been affected by external variables such as shared accounts.Greenberg et al. [47].On all nine gratifications, the average score for males exceeds that of the females. First, the two primary gratifications for both sexes are competition and challenge. Second, the largest sex differences are playing video games for arousal and for social interaction.Challenge is a stronger motivation for the 5th graders and college students than for the other age groups. In its place, competition is key for 8th and 11th graders, in contrast with the others, although competition remains a strong motivator for the college students.Fantasy is a key motivation only for the 5th graders, whereas diversion is found least in that youngest group. Although they are weaker gratifications on an absolute basis, the youngest respondents also profess stronger realism and ego gratification motives than the older participants. The need for social interaction is strongest among the college students.Diversion is the most common motivator contributing to playing time, identified among 8th- and 11th-grade boys and girls and college males. Social interaction also is important among 8th, 11th, and college females. Noteworthy is the absence of any significant motives for 5th grade boys, while females disliked the challenge but liked competition.The research is time bound to the period where the data were collected; sample only comes from one area: United States of America; self-reported measures were used;Sampling bias due to being recruited only from one area, response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirabilityBong et al. [133].Multiple linear regression analysis found that socialization motivation is a negative predictor, and immersion motivation is a positive predictor of IGD’s symptoms but not achievement motivation.Sampling is majorly composed of male participants coming only from Malaysia; disproportionate races ratio due to Malaysia being composed by many ethnic groups; self report questionnaires were used; the number of predictors in the study for IGD was only four (immersion, achievement, socialization, and identification with avatar); therefore, the number is quite low; this study is a cross-sectional study, so data are connected to a certain time frame; adolescents were not included in the sample even though it is known that adolescents are those more exposed to develop IGD symptoms.Sampling bias due to sample coming from just one country (Malaysia), being majorly composed of male and lacking adolescents; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability;Lowe [51].Self expansion is strongly positively correlated to immersion and achievement motivations. It also has moderate positive correlations with social.Need for cognition is positively correlated with immersion, social, and achievement.Immersion motivation is positively correlated with bodily engulfment.Achievement motivation is positively correlated with bodily engulfment and spatial engulfment, and it is strongly positively correlated with social engulfment.Sample is small and majorly composed of males; furthermore, only FPS and MMORPG players were taken into consideration; many questionnaires were discarded due dropping out; the online nature of the sample may not be representative of the general population, and some ethnicities were missing from the sample; self-reported measures were used; the survey data cannot be used to infer causality between the variables;Sampling bias: sample is small and composed of MMORPG players and mainly by male players, recruited online; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability; reporting bias due to some questionnaires being removed for being incomplete.Ramos-Diaz et al. [136]Social motivation has a small negative effect on Internet gaming disorder symptoms. Instead, escapism and fantasy have a strong positive effect on internet gaming disorder.The sample is mainly composed of male players, and it only comes from one area (Perù); self-reported measures were used; cross sectional study.Sampling bias due to sample being mainly composed of Peruvian males; response bias due to self-reported measures being used that could have been affected by social desirability.


### 3.2.1. Results Related to the Sociodemographic Variables

Gender was the most investigated variable of the sociodemographic group of variables (n=22). Six studies (n=6) used the F of Fisher to compare the gender groups, while 6 studies (n=6) used t-test. Three studies (n=3) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between gender and gaming motivations. Three studies used multiple linear regression (n=3), 2 reported the results by using the d of Cohen (n=2), and the last 3 used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=3).Two studies confirmed that male players show higher results on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, and external regulation [70, 116], with one study also affirming that males score higher on introjected regulation as well [70]. One study [43] found a significant gender effect only for external regulation motivation where female players of both social network gamers and MMO players reported higher levels if compared to males.As for the other studies assessing gender related to motivations not related to the external and internal motivation framework of interpretation (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social), 6 studies found that, in general, males score higher than females in all or almost all game motivations [28, 29, 38, 47, 50, 54], even though Demetrovics et al. [22] found contradicting results showing that women tend to score higher on recreation, social, coping, fantasy, skill development, and escape except competition. In fact, 5 studies confirmed that female players tend to score higher than males on the relationship motivation [22, 25–27, 67], 3 studies found that females score higher on social motivation [22, 29, 47], 3 studies found that females score higher on escapism [22, 25, 67], and 2 on fantasy [22, 67]. The study made by Yee [26] found no gender differences regarding the social component, implying that male players socialize just as much as female players. Only 2 studies found that males score higher than females on escapism [36, 54]. Billieux et al. [71] found that women showed greater interest in discovery and exploration, at least in WoW. Yee [25] also observed that females had higher scores on immersion motivation.Greenberg et al. [47] found that both sexes tend to play for competition and challenge purposes. 9 studies confirmed that male tend to score higher on the competition motivation [22, 26–28, 38, 39, 47, 67, 71], with the exception of Greenberg et al. [44] who found a peculiarity with 5th grade girls liking competition more than boys. To be more specific, 5th grader boys did not have any significant motives to play, while diversion was the strongest motivation for 8th, 11th grader boys, and male college students, and social interaction was the strongest motivation for 8th and 11th grader girls and female college students. Yee [25] observed that males score higher than females in manipulation and achievement motivation.Moreover, Wu et al. [121] found that males scored higher on General Motivation but lower on Escape.Ryan et al. [30] found the only significant difference in gender in intuitive controls where women scored lower than men.Carlisle et al. [68] did not find gender as a significant predictor for immersion, but achievement and social motivation had a small negative relationship with gender.The most important results regarding gender are summed up in Table4.Table 4
Most agreed motivation for gender and number of papers that support these findings.
MalesFemalesCompetition13 (n=9)Relationship motivation59 (n=5)Escape25 (n=2)Social motivation65 (n=3)Intrinsic motivation38 (n=2)Escape25 (n=3)Integrated regulation36 (n=2)Fantasy28 (n=2)Identified regulation34 (n=2)External regulation27 (n=2)The second most investigated sociodemographic variable was age (n=15). 10 studies (n=10) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between age and gaming motivations. Two used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2). Two studies used ANOVA (n=2), and only one study used multiple linear regression (n=1) to assess the relations between age and gaming motivations.Four studies found that gaming motivation tends to be stronger in younger samples [22, 28, 38, 47]. Two studies study found that age is positively associated with achievement [27, 68], while 3 studies found a negative correlation between age and achievement [25, 36, 105], even though for Yee, [25] only the age of male players was negatively correlated with achievement. Grinding [34] and advancement [71] were negatively correlated to age. Eight papers reported that age is negatively associated with social motivation or dimensions related to social aspects, such as social capital, team play, relationships, and social interaction [27, 34, 36, 38, 54, 67, 68, 105]. Regarding the immersion motivation, 2 studies found that they are not related to each other [27, 36], and only 2 study found a small negative relationship [25, 68]. As for escapism, 2 studies found negative correlations [54, 67], 1 that they were not correlated [34], and Wu et al. [121] were the only ones to find positive correlations.Two studies found a positive correlation with autonomy [34, 69]. Yee [25] found that manipulation negatively correlated with the age of both female and male players.The rest of the results are quite ambiguous, and this could be due to the motivations assessed, the game used as reference or the samples’ characteristics. Three studies found that age tends to have negative associations with all or almost all gaming motivations [34, 38, 67]; specifically, 4 studies found negative associations between age and competition [38, 47, 67, 71]. Age is negatively associated with fantasy [67], customization [34, 67], and role playing [38]. Only Wu et al. [121] found age to be positively correlated with fantasy. All the results are summarized in Table 5.Table 5
The table reports the correlations observed between each gaming motivation and the variable “Age.”.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationNo correlationNotesAchievement1(n=1)(n=3)—[63]: age is a predictor of achievement; Yee [25]: achievement is negatively correlated with age only for male playersGrinding31—(n=1)——Advancement3—(n=1)——Social and social aspects65 (social capital66, team play71, relationships59, and social interaction65)(n=1)(n=6)—[44]: college students play for social motivesImmersion35—(n=2)(n=2)Yee [25] found a negative correlation only with the age of female playersEscapism25(n=1)(n=2)(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)———Competition13—(n=2)—[44]: strong motivation for 8th, 11th, and college studentsFantasy28(n=1)(n=1)—[44]: strongest motivation for 5th gradersCustomization17—(n=2)——Role playing61—(n=1)——Narration48—(n= 1)——Story70—(n=1)(n=1)—Violent reward74——(n=1)—Mechanics44—(n=1)——Exploration26—(n=1)——Catharsis73—(n=1)——Loss-aversion43—(n=1)——General motivation30—n=1——Entertainment24—(n=1)——Manipulation45—(n=1)——Skill development63(n=1)———Cognitive development10(n=1)———Recreation56(n=1)———Coping15(n=1)———Discovery18(n=1)———The third variable of this group is “Status/Occupation” as being a worker, a student, or being married or not, and it was analyzed by 4 papers. One used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling [68], one used t-test to compare the different types of status [36], one used d of Cohen [121], and the last one used ANOVA to compare groups [105]. The results are as follows: students tend to have higher scores in achievement motivations [68, 105]. Social motivation has a small negative relationship with the status student, while immersion motivation is not a significant predictor [68]. Students also have higher general motivation for playing if compared to employed people [121] and tend to have higher scores for the dissociation motivation [105]. Dauriat et al. [36] reported that people who work or study had greater scores on the relaxing motivation than those who do nothing.The fourth element of this category was taken into consideration by only 3 studies (n=3), and it is “type of gamer or self attitude towards being a gamer or not.” One study studied this relationship through t-test [80], one used multiple linear regression [34], and one used MANCOVA [78]. Esport gamers have higher scores than recreational gamers in competition, social, and skill development motivations [122]. Hardcore players have higher scores in story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy scores while casual players only have higher score on loss-aversion and customization [34]. Argento et al. [116] also found that heavy gamers have higher scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and extrinsic motivation.


### 3.2.2. Results Related to the Behavioural Variables

The most investigated variable of this group was “hours played per week” (n=22), also called weekly gaming or gaming frequency. 18 studies (n=18) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the hours played and gaming motivations, 8 (n=8) used linear regression to either study the correlations further or to see if gaming hours could be a predictor for certain gaming motivations, and finally, 2 (n=2) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Generally, 2 studies, which used the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72], confirmed positive correlations between introjected regulation, identified regulation, external regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation with hours spent gaming [32, 85], except amotivation for Lafrenière et al. [32].All the other studies assessed weekly gaming hours related to motivations by using a different framework (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social).Three studies confirmed that weekly gaming hours have positive associations with competence, autonomy, and relatedness motivations [30, 69, 129].Weekly gaming hours had positive associations with: social motivation (n=6) [26, 28, 36, 41, 92, 123], even though for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only in the female sample; competition (n=5) [26, 28, 71, 79, 92], to be noted that for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only for the male sample; escapism (n=6) [25, 26, 36, 71, 79, 123]; achievement (n=4) [26, 33, 36, 106]; relationship (n=4) [25, 26, 71, 79]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92]; advancement (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; mechanism (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; coping (n=3) [28, 41, 92]; dissociation (n=2) [33, 105]; fantasy (n=2) ([28]: [92]); cognitive development (n =2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; habit (n=2) [36, 123]; moral motivations [123]; self-gratification [41]; engagement [45]; alleviation of boredom [69]; psychology detachment [69]; challenge [40]; immersion but only for males [26]; agency [123]; performance [123].Weekly gaming hours had negative correlations with enhancement [41] and role playing [124]; regarding exploration, Fuster et al. [33] obtained a positive correlation with hours played per week, but in another study, they obtained a negative one [105].Furthermore, Sherry et al. [29] used a stepwise linear regression to find which motivation was the best predictor for each sample they had. They found that the best predictors for college students and 11th graders were diversion, social interaction, and arousal; as for 8th graders, they were diversion and social interaction, while for 5th graders, it was the need to be strong and competition. López-Fernández et al. [28] did a similar procedure for their sample and found that the best predictors for their adolescent sample were coping and social interaction. The fact that there is a strong relation between social interaction and weekly gaming was also confirmed by other 3 studies [34, 92, 124]. Williams et al. [124] found that immersion, achievement, and sociability were significant positive predictors of weekly gaming. Furthermore, challenge [40] and habit [123] are positive predictors of weekly hours spent on playing. Hilgard et al. [34] found that the scores of players who spent more time playing were best predicted by story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy motivation, while the scores of people who play less were predicted by loss-aversion and customization motivations.All the results regarding hours played weekly are summarized in Table6.Table 6
The table reports how many studies found positive and negative correlations for each motivation and also how many found that motivation to be a positive predictor of hours played per week.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationPositive predictorsNotesSocial motivation65n=6—(n=5)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the female sampleCompetition13(n=5)——Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleEscapism25(n=6)—(n=1)—Achievement1(n=4)—(n=1)—Relationship59(n=4)———Customization17(n=3)—(n=1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessAdvancement3(n=3)———Mechanics46(n=3)———Coping15(n=3)—(n=1)—Dissociation20(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)———Cognitive development10(n=2)———Violent reward74(n=2)—(n=1)—Recreation57(n=2)———Habit32(n=2)—(n=1)—Competence12(n=2)—(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)—(n=2)—Relatedness58n=2—(n=1)—Introjected regulation40(n=2)———Identified regulation34(n=2)———External regulation27(n=2)———Integrated regulation36(n=2)———Intrinsic motivation38(n=2)———Amotivation5(n=1)(n=1)——Exploration26(n=1)(n=1)——Challenge9(n=1)—(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleMoral motivations47(n=1)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Alleviation of boredom8(n=1)———Psychological detachment55(n=1)———Agency4(n=1)———Performance51(n=1)———Engagement(n=1)—(n=1)—Enhancement23—(n=1)——Role playing61—(n =1)——Story70——(n =1)—Loss-aversion43——(n =1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessThe second most investigated variable was “daily playtime” (n=6), meaning the average hours spent daily on a certain game or the average longest daily gaming session they had. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the daily hours and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1) used MANOVA to compare players who spent different amounts of hours per day on the gaming activity and (n=2) also used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables, and 1 explored these relation through a Structural Equation Modeling.Three studies found that “daily playtime” had positive associations with social and relationship motivation [48, 75, 123], and 2 studies confirmed positive associations with autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives [46, 69]. Daily playtime is also positively correlated to enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and psychological detachment [69]; habit, narrative, performance, agency, escapism, and moral [123]; fun and achievement [48].Additionally, Osman & Çirak [70] compared people who played for less than two hours, people who played between 3 hours and 6 hours and people who played for more than 7 hours, and found that the groups that played for more than 7 hours had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation, and they were also significantly less amotivated compared to other gamers.The third most investigated variable was “years of playing” (n=5). Two studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the years spent playing games and gaming motivations (n=2), 2 (n=2) used MANOVA to compare experienced players with less experienced players, and (n=1) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Positive associations between years of playing and mechanics motivation [71], exploration [33, 38], achievement [33], role playing [38], team play [38], mechanics [38], and narration motivations [38] were found. Klimmt et al. [39] compared hardcore playes of Travian with more moderated ones and found that hardcore players gave more importance to socializing and competition motives, while the difference for coping was less pronounced. Osman & Çirak [70] found, through a MANOVA, that players with more than four years of experience had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than those who played for just three years or even less.The fourth most investigated variable was “playing or talking with other people” (n=5), assessing all the actions of doing actions with other people or talking with them. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the actions of playing or talking with other people and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1, and one of these used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables.Azadvar & Canossa [46] found positive correlations between the time spent playing with a group of people and autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives. Frederik & Jan [123] found that playing with their partner, co-play, and talking with others positively correlated with habit and social motivation; the action of playing with people positively correlated with habit, social, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motives, except pastime and narrative. Hoffman & Nadelson [45] found that engagement positively correlated with playing with other people. Billieux et al. [71] correlated some specific behaviours of playing with others with gaming motivations, and they found that being affiliated with a guild correlated with higher scores on socializing, teamwork, and relationship motivations; Dauriat et al. [36] found positive correlation between playing with a group of people and achievement, socializing, and immersion motivation. In fact, people playing solo negatively correlated with the social motivation but positively with the immersion motivation.The following three variables were analyzed each one by only two papers (n=2). The first one is “time spent playing on weekends,” and it was assessed through Pearson’s r (n=2). One study of the two (n=1) also used linear regression. Time spent playing on weekends positively correlated with diversion and challenge [40], socialization, exploration, achievement, and dissociation [33].The second variable is “Future intention of keep playing,” and it was assessed through an ANCOVA (n=1) and a multiple regression (n=1). It was positively related to autonomy, competence, relatedness [30] and habit but negatively associated with social motivation [50].The third variable is specific to a certain game, World of Warcraft, and is “behaviours shown by players inWoW”, and it was assessed through a linear regression (n=2). Billieux et al. [71] found that the progression score shown in the game and related to various achievements is positively related to advancement, mechanics, relationship, and discovery motivations; quest and exploration achievements were positively related to discovery motivation; PvP achievements were positively related to competition, advancement, and mechanics motivations; dungeon and raid achievements were related to advancement, mechanics, relationships, and teamworks; miscellaneous achievement scores were positively related to advancement, mechanics, and discovery motivations, and lastly, some specific in game achievements was unrelated to role play, customization, and escapism. Yee et al. [27] found some contrasting results; achievement and social motivations were negative predictors of quests, exploration, and professions, with achievement being the only negative predictor for world events; both achievement and social motivation were positive predictors of dungeons; immersion was a positive predictors of doing quests and exploration, but it was a negative predictor of PvP and dungeons.


### 3.2.3. Results Related to the Psychological Variables

The most investigated variable of this cluster was “gaming addiction” (n=17), often called with different names such as gaming problems, excessive gaming, gaming disorder, problematic video gaming, internet gaming disorder, disordered gaming, and excessive use. Eight studies (n=8) used linear regression to study which motivations can be considered predictors of gaming addiction, 7 (n=7) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations, 6 studies used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=6) to fit the relations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations inside a model, and, finally, 1 (n=1) used d of Cohen.Gaming addiction found positive associations between intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and gaming addiction (n=2) [85, 125].Results regarding other motivations not pertaining to the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72] were as follows. Gaming addiction had positive associations with as follows: escapism (n=9) ([36, 71, 76, 79, 92, 122, 136], [26, 121]); social motivation (n=6) [28, 36, 41, 68, 83, 92]; achievement (n=4) [36, 68, 83, 122], with Bányai et al. [122], finding it to be a positive predictor for both recreational and esport gamers; competition (n=4) [28, 71, 92, 122]; coping n=3 [28, 41, 92]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92], even though López-Fernández et al. [28] found this result only in their adolescent sample; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; fantasy (n=2) [28, 92]; cognitive development (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; enhancement (n=1) [41]; mechanics (n=1) [71]; role play (n=1) [71]; achievement (n=1) [36]; immersion (n=1) [133]; advancement (n=1) [26]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; cognitive development (n=1) [92], mechanics (n=1) [79], and general motivation [121].Negative associations of gaming addiction were as follows: social (n=3) [73, 133, 136]; fantasy (n=2) [92, 122], but this result was found only for recreational players as well in the study done by Bányai et al. [122]; coping (n=1) [122], but only for recreational players; competition (n=1) [92]; recreation (n=1) [92]; customizing (n=1) [28], but this result was found by López-Fernández et al. [28] only in the young adult sample and skill development [121]. All the results regarding gaming addiction are summarized in Table 7.Table 7
The table summarizes the results found in literature between gaming motivations and gaming addiction.
MotivationPositive associationsNegative associationsNo associationsNotesSocial motivation65(n=6)—(n=1)Coping15(n=3)——Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Escapism25(n=9)———Customization17(n=3)(n=1)—López-Fernández et al. [28] found customization to be a negative predictor only in the young adult sample.Competition13(n=4)(n=1)——Recreation57(n=2)(n=1)——Violent Reward74(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)(n=2)—Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Cognitive development10(n=2)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Enhancement23(n=1)(n=1)(n=1)—Mechanics46(n=1)———Role play61(n=1)———Achievement1(n=4)(n=1)(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)—Advancement3(n=1)———Relaxing60——(n=1)—The second most investigated variable of this group is “personality.” Four studies (n=4) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality, 3 (n=3) used linear regression to assess which personality trait can be considered a predictor of certain gaming motivations, and lastly, 2 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2).All the studies used the big five theory to assess personality traits which measure personality based on agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness.Agreeableness associated positively with as follows: social interaction (n=3) [40, 92, 106]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; competence/control [23]; the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player [44]; it associated negatively with as follows: competition [92]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; arousal [40]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; social interaction [92]; achievement motivation [106]; leadership motivation [106].Neuroticism, also called emotional stability or instability, positively associated with as follows:. the achiever type of player [44]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; competition (n=2) (Graham & Gosling; [40]); social interaction [40]; diversion [40]; fantasy [40], arousal [40]; achievement [106]. It is negatively associated with presence [23], the free spirit type of player [44], and the disruptor type [44], and the immersion [106].Openness to experience is positively associated with as follows: autonomy [23]; the philanthropist player type [44]; the free spirit type of player [44]; cognitive development [92] and competition [40]; challenge [40]; diversion [40]; socialization [106]; immersion [106]; leadership motivation [106]; independence motives [106]. It has negative associations with competition [92] and achievement [106].Extraversion was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player and thus social motivation (n=3) [44, 68, 106]; the free spirit type of player [44]; competition [75]; leadership motivation [106]. It was negatively correlated with: coping [92] and diversion [40].Finally, conscientiousness was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the achiever type of player [44]; the player type of player [44]; customization [92] diversion [40]; leadership motives [106]. It has negative associations with as follows: competition [92]; coping [92]; social interaction [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; achievement [106]; immersion [106].Scharkow et al. [38] was the only study to use a different instrument to assess personality, and they found that achievement seeking is positively predicted by competence, exploration, mechanics, and narration.The variables that follow were assessed each one by just two papers. The first one is “loneliness” (n=2). The 2 studies used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality and linear regression to assess the relations. Loneliness is positively associated with coping (Myrseth et al. [41], social and relationship motivation [41, 48], escapism [48], and nostalgia [48].The second variable is “values” (n=2). Scharkow et al. [38] found through a Structural Equation Model that the value of “collective orientation” is positively related to social capital, team play, and competition. Chang & Zang [55] found that the materialism value was a positive predictor of achievement, escape and virtual identification, entertainment, and reward through online gaming.The third variable is “Need for cognition” (n=2) which is positively related to engagement [45], immersion, social, and achievement [51].The fourth variable is “enjoyment”(n=2) which is positively related to autonomy ([52]; Ryan et al. [30], entertainment and flow motivations [52], competence, and relatedness [30].


### 3.2.4. Results Related to the Gaming Environment

This cluster of variables is a peculiar one that gathers all the variables that could not fit inside all the other clusters outlined before such as sociodemographic, behavioural, and psychological ones. This group contains the genre of the games assessed by the papers, the style of play chosen by the participants, the number of avatars that a player has, the gaming place where the activity is mainly done, the type of server used to play, and the physical health of the player playing the game.The most investigated variable of this group was “Genre of game played” (n=7). Four papers analyzed it by doing an ANOVA (n=4), 2 papers used Pearson’s r to study the correlations, 1 study did a linear regression, and 1 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Wohn et al. [43] found that people who play MMO games have higher intrinsic hedonic motivations, higher intrinsic accomplishment, higher social identified, and higher external game than players who played social network games. People who played social network games had higher external social and higher amotivation than people who played MMOs.Fuster et al. [105] found that WoW players had higher scores on dissociations than those who played Aion and EVE online.Scharkow et al., [38] found that playing for fantasy motivation had positive relationships with RPG, simulation games, adventure, and action but negative relationships with strategy, puzzle, sport games, platforms, and music games; competence had positive relationships with puzzle games and sport but negative ones with role playing and action; exploration had positive relationship with strategy, adventures, role playing, and platform games but negative ones with sport genre; social capital had positive relationship with strategy, puzzle, and role playing but negative ones with sport and music; team play had positive relationship with sport, platform, and action genre; competition had negative relationship with role playing and simulation but positive ones with sport and action; mechanics had positive relationship with sport, adventure, platform, simulation, and action genre, and lastly, narration has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, adventure, and role playing but negative ones with sport and action.Johnson & Gardner [23] found that the experience of presence in games was the lowest for sport, simulation, and shooting games; moderate for action-adventure games; highest for strategy and role playing games. The experience of autonomy was lowest in action adventure games and shooting games, moderate for sport and simulation games, and highest for strategy and role playing games.Ratan et al. [50] found that agency was positively associated with sport games, and pastime was positively associated with casual games and action games, while performance was associated with action games.Kim [40] found positive correlations between traditional type of game and challenge and arousal; physical game-genre was positively correlated with competition, fantasy, and arousal; imagination game genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, social interaction, fantasy, and arousal.Lastly, López-Fernández et al. [28] studied game genres related to two specific samples: young adults and adolescence. They found that in the adolescent sample, shooter games positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy; MOBA games positively correlated with competition, cognitive development, and social interaction; MMORPG positively correlated with fantasy; role playing positively correlated with recreation and fantasy; action adventure positively correlated with cognitive development, coping, customization, and fantasy; sport games positively correlated with violent reward and competition but negatively with customization; social simulation negatively correlated with competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward but positive with customization; construction positively correlated with customization and fantasy; platform games negatively correlated with competition, coping, social interaction, and violent reward. While, they found the following correlations in the young adult sample, the shooter genre positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy but not competition; MOBA positively correlated with recreation, competition, and social interaction; strategy is negatively correlated with violent reward; MMORPG is positively correlated with recreation, competition, coping, social , and fantasy; action-adventure game is positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, violent reward, and fantasy; sport genre is positively correlated with competition and violent reward; casual genre is negatively correlated with recreation, competition, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy; social simulation positively correlated with customization and fantasy but negatively with social interaction; fighting genre positively correlated with violent reward.The second most investigated variable was investigated by only 2 papers, and it was “style of play” (n=2). Wu et al. [121] found that those who primarily played single-player games had a higher score on coping but a lower score on competition, social, and general motivation than those who primarily played MMO games. Dauriat et al. [36] correlated style of play (playing PvP, playing solo, playing PvE, role playing, or playing in groups) and found that achievement positively correlated with playing PvP, socializing negatively correlated with playing solo but positively correlated with playing in a group, and immersion positively correlated with playing in a group, playing solo, playing PvE, and role playing.


### 3.2.5. Risk of Biases

All the risk of biases detected are reported in Table3. All the 53 studies included presented a sampling bias due to various reasons: 21 studies recruited their samples online through forums or other platforms, while 32 were highly specific and focused their investigation on a targeted nation, even though one study compared three nations [50]; 28 studies had more male participants than females; 1 study only had only female participants [138]; 3 were lacking male players; 8 focused their results only on MMORPG players; 4 specifically targeted World of Warcraft players, 5 papers focused on MMO players, with one specifically comparing MMO players with social network gamers [43]; the study done by Carlisle et al. [68] also lacked of randomization factors. The fact that some papers were specifically targeting some games or countries can lead to a lack of generalizability of the obtained results. Considering that all 53 studies used self-reported questionnaires, all of them might have been affected by a response bias due to the nature of the instruments per se. Furthermore, 2 studies [33, 34] received random response to their questionnaires. 23 papers had a reporting bias since they had to discard some of them, and not all the cases were reported. 13 papers presented a measurement bias: (1) Lafrenière et al. [32] did not report the specific value of each dimensions’ Cronbach’s alpha; (2) Tekofsky et al. [67] created an ad hoc scale by compiling items from already assessed instrument, but they did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions; (3) Scharkow et al. [38] created an ad hoc questionnaire, but one of the dimensions (exploration-ego centered motives) had only one item, thus resulting in Cronbach’s alpha of one; (4) Dindar [75] proposed the construct of “gamer loyalty” as an attitude variable and not as behavioural one; (5) Ratan et al. [50] measured two constructs only through one item; (6) Kim [40] created a scale to measure preference of games, and this scale had low alphas; (7) the questionnaire used by Willians et al. [124] had an alpha of .62 for the immersion factor which would be considered insufficient if we would interpret this with the European Federation of Psychologists’ Association’s [27] criteria, which says that a Cronbanch’s alpha is acceptable only if above .70; (8) Dauriat et al. [36] did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions of their scale; (9) McCauley et al. [52] created an ad hoc questionnaire that needs further validation; (10) Fuster et al. [33] used an ad hoc instrument that needs further validation; (11) Tondello et al. [44] used a short version of their scale, and it could have problems with acquiescence, also the scale needs further validation, and the player dimension had a Cronbanch’s alpha of .698, which is insufficient according to EFPA [139]; (12) Azadvar & Canossa [46] measured some behavioural variables through a recording system, so the obtained data could have been affected by external factors; (13) the ad hoc questionnaire created by Yee [25] to measure MMORPG motivations had three dimensions with insufficient alphas [139]: .63 for immersion, .62 for escapism, and.67 for achievement. Lastly, 3 papers also had a statistical bias due to the fact that one questionnaire was based on an already existent one [41]; Frederik & Jan had a really small sample which could lead to a type II error; Ratan et al. [50] underlines that there might have been a type I of error due to the unequal sample size in doing the ANOVA calculations.


## 3.2.1. Results Related to the Sociodemographic Variables

Gender was the most investigated variable of the sociodemographic group of variables (n=22). Six studies (n=6) used the F of Fisher to compare the gender groups, while 6 studies (n=6) used t-test. Three studies (n=3) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between gender and gaming motivations. Three studies used multiple linear regression (n=3), 2 reported the results by using the d of Cohen (n=2), and the last 3 used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=3).Two studies confirmed that male players show higher results on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, and external regulation [70, 116], with one study also affirming that males score higher on introjected regulation as well [70]. One study [43] found a significant gender effect only for external regulation motivation where female players of both social network gamers and MMO players reported higher levels if compared to males.As for the other studies assessing gender related to motivations not related to the external and internal motivation framework of interpretation (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social), 6 studies found that, in general, males score higher than females in all or almost all game motivations [28, 29, 38, 47, 50, 54], even though Demetrovics et al. [22] found contradicting results showing that women tend to score higher on recreation, social, coping, fantasy, skill development, and escape except competition. In fact, 5 studies confirmed that female players tend to score higher than males on the relationship motivation [22, 25–27, 67], 3 studies found that females score higher on social motivation [22, 29, 47], 3 studies found that females score higher on escapism [22, 25, 67], and 2 on fantasy [22, 67]. The study made by Yee [26] found no gender differences regarding the social component, implying that male players socialize just as much as female players. Only 2 studies found that males score higher than females on escapism [36, 54]. Billieux et al. [71] found that women showed greater interest in discovery and exploration, at least in WoW. Yee [25] also observed that females had higher scores on immersion motivation.Greenberg et al. [47] found that both sexes tend to play for competition and challenge purposes. 9 studies confirmed that male tend to score higher on the competition motivation [22, 26–28, 38, 39, 47, 67, 71], with the exception of Greenberg et al. [44] who found a peculiarity with 5th grade girls liking competition more than boys. To be more specific, 5th grader boys did not have any significant motives to play, while diversion was the strongest motivation for 8th, 11th grader boys, and male college students, and social interaction was the strongest motivation for 8th and 11th grader girls and female college students. Yee [25] observed that males score higher than females in manipulation and achievement motivation.Moreover, Wu et al. [121] found that males scored higher on General Motivation but lower on Escape.Ryan et al. [30] found the only significant difference in gender in intuitive controls where women scored lower than men.Carlisle et al. [68] did not find gender as a significant predictor for immersion, but achievement and social motivation had a small negative relationship with gender.The most important results regarding gender are summed up in Table4.Table 4
Most agreed motivation for gender and number of papers that support these findings.
MalesFemalesCompetition13 (n=9)Relationship motivation59 (n=5)Escape25 (n=2)Social motivation65 (n=3)Intrinsic motivation38 (n=2)Escape25 (n=3)Integrated regulation36 (n=2)Fantasy28 (n=2)Identified regulation34 (n=2)External regulation27 (n=2)The second most investigated sociodemographic variable was age (n=15). 10 studies (n=10) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between age and gaming motivations. Two used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2). Two studies used ANOVA (n=2), and only one study used multiple linear regression (n=1) to assess the relations between age and gaming motivations.Four studies found that gaming motivation tends to be stronger in younger samples [22, 28, 38, 47]. Two studies study found that age is positively associated with achievement [27, 68], while 3 studies found a negative correlation between age and achievement [25, 36, 105], even though for Yee, [25] only the age of male players was negatively correlated with achievement. Grinding [34] and advancement [71] were negatively correlated to age. Eight papers reported that age is negatively associated with social motivation or dimensions related to social aspects, such as social capital, team play, relationships, and social interaction [27, 34, 36, 38, 54, 67, 68, 105]. Regarding the immersion motivation, 2 studies found that they are not related to each other [27, 36], and only 2 study found a small negative relationship [25, 68]. As for escapism, 2 studies found negative correlations [54, 67], 1 that they were not correlated [34], and Wu et al. [121] were the only ones to find positive correlations.Two studies found a positive correlation with autonomy [34, 69]. Yee [25] found that manipulation negatively correlated with the age of both female and male players.The rest of the results are quite ambiguous, and this could be due to the motivations assessed, the game used as reference or the samples’ characteristics. Three studies found that age tends to have negative associations with all or almost all gaming motivations [34, 38, 67]; specifically, 4 studies found negative associations between age and competition [38, 47, 67, 71]. Age is negatively associated with fantasy [67], customization [34, 67], and role playing [38]. Only Wu et al. [121] found age to be positively correlated with fantasy. All the results are summarized in Table 5.Table 5
The table reports the correlations observed between each gaming motivation and the variable “Age.”.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationNo correlationNotesAchievement1(n=1)(n=3)—[63]: age is a predictor of achievement; Yee [25]: achievement is negatively correlated with age only for male playersGrinding31—(n=1)——Advancement3—(n=1)——Social and social aspects65 (social capital66, team play71, relationships59, and social interaction65)(n=1)(n=6)—[44]: college students play for social motivesImmersion35—(n=2)(n=2)Yee [25] found a negative correlation only with the age of female playersEscapism25(n=1)(n=2)(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)———Competition13—(n=2)—[44]: strong motivation for 8th, 11th, and college studentsFantasy28(n=1)(n=1)—[44]: strongest motivation for 5th gradersCustomization17—(n=2)——Role playing61—(n=1)——Narration48—(n= 1)——Story70—(n=1)(n=1)—Violent reward74——(n=1)—Mechanics44—(n=1)——Exploration26—(n=1)——Catharsis73—(n=1)——Loss-aversion43—(n=1)——General motivation30—n=1——Entertainment24—(n=1)——Manipulation45—(n=1)——Skill development63(n=1)———Cognitive development10(n=1)———Recreation56(n=1)———Coping15(n=1)———Discovery18(n=1)———The third variable of this group is “Status/Occupation” as being a worker, a student, or being married or not, and it was analyzed by 4 papers. One used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling [68], one used t-test to compare the different types of status [36], one used d of Cohen [121], and the last one used ANOVA to compare groups [105]. The results are as follows: students tend to have higher scores in achievement motivations [68, 105]. Social motivation has a small negative relationship with the status student, while immersion motivation is not a significant predictor [68]. Students also have higher general motivation for playing if compared to employed people [121] and tend to have higher scores for the dissociation motivation [105]. Dauriat et al. [36] reported that people who work or study had greater scores on the relaxing motivation than those who do nothing.The fourth element of this category was taken into consideration by only 3 studies (n=3), and it is “type of gamer or self attitude towards being a gamer or not.” One study studied this relationship through t-test [80], one used multiple linear regression [34], and one used MANCOVA [78]. Esport gamers have higher scores than recreational gamers in competition, social, and skill development motivations [122]. Hardcore players have higher scores in story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy scores while casual players only have higher score on loss-aversion and customization [34]. Argento et al. [116] also found that heavy gamers have higher scores in intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and extrinsic motivation.


## 3.2.2. Results Related to the Behavioural Variables

The most investigated variable of this group was “hours played per week” (n=22), also called weekly gaming or gaming frequency. 18 studies (n=18) used Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the hours played and gaming motivations, 8 (n=8) used linear regression to either study the correlations further or to see if gaming hours could be a predictor for certain gaming motivations, and finally, 2 (n=2) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Generally, 2 studies, which used the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72], confirmed positive correlations between introjected regulation, identified regulation, external regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation with hours spent gaming [32, 85], except amotivation for Lafrenière et al. [32].All the other studies assessed weekly gaming hours related to motivations by using a different framework (other researchers used dimensions such as as competition and social).Three studies confirmed that weekly gaming hours have positive associations with competence, autonomy, and relatedness motivations [30, 69, 129].Weekly gaming hours had positive associations with: social motivation (n=6) [26, 28, 36, 41, 92, 123], even though for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only in the female sample; competition (n=5) [26, 28, 71, 79, 92], to be noted that for Yee [26], this correlation was positive only for the male sample; escapism (n=6) [25, 26, 36, 71, 79, 123]; achievement (n=4) [26, 33, 36, 106]; relationship (n=4) [25, 26, 71, 79]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92]; advancement (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; mechanism (n=3) [26, 71, 79]; coping (n=3) [28, 41, 92]; dissociation (n=2) [33, 105]; fantasy (n=2) ([28]: [92]); cognitive development (n =2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; habit (n=2) [36, 123]; moral motivations [123]; self-gratification [41]; engagement [45]; alleviation of boredom [69]; psychology detachment [69]; challenge [40]; immersion but only for males [26]; agency [123]; performance [123].Weekly gaming hours had negative correlations with enhancement [41] and role playing [124]; regarding exploration, Fuster et al. [33] obtained a positive correlation with hours played per week, but in another study, they obtained a negative one [105].Furthermore, Sherry et al. [29] used a stepwise linear regression to find which motivation was the best predictor for each sample they had. They found that the best predictors for college students and 11th graders were diversion, social interaction, and arousal; as for 8th graders, they were diversion and social interaction, while for 5th graders, it was the need to be strong and competition. López-Fernández et al. [28] did a similar procedure for their sample and found that the best predictors for their adolescent sample were coping and social interaction. The fact that there is a strong relation between social interaction and weekly gaming was also confirmed by other 3 studies [34, 92, 124]. Williams et al. [124] found that immersion, achievement, and sociability were significant positive predictors of weekly gaming. Furthermore, challenge [40] and habit [123] are positive predictors of weekly hours spent on playing. Hilgard et al. [34] found that the scores of players who spent more time playing were best predicted by story, violent reward, escapism, social interaction, and autonomy motivation, while the scores of people who play less were predicted by loss-aversion and customization motivations.All the results regarding hours played weekly are summarized in Table6.Table 6
The table reports how many studies found positive and negative correlations for each motivation and also how many found that motivation to be a positive predictor of hours played per week.
MotivationPositive correlationNegative correlationPositive predictorsNotesSocial motivation65n=6—(n=5)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the female sampleCompetition13(n=5)——Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleEscapism25(n=6)—(n=1)—Achievement1(n=4)—(n=1)—Relationship59(n=4)———Customization17(n=3)—(n=1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessAdvancement3(n=3)———Mechanics46(n=3)———Coping15(n=3)—(n=1)—Dissociation20(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)———Cognitive development10(n=2)———Violent reward74(n=2)—(n=1)—Recreation57(n=2)———Habit32(n=2)—(n=1)—Competence12(n=2)—(n=1)—Autonomy7(n=2)—(n=2)—Relatedness58n=2—(n=1)—Introjected regulation40(n=2)———Identified regulation34(n=2)———External regulation27(n=2)———Integrated regulation36(n=2)———Intrinsic motivation38(n=2)———Amotivation5(n=1)(n=1)——Exploration26(n=1)(n=1)——Challenge9(n=1)—(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)Yee [26] obtained a positive correlation only in the male sampleMoral motivations47(n=1)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Alleviation of boredom8(n=1)———Psychological detachment55(n=1)———Agency4(n=1)———Performance51(n=1)———Engagement(n=1)—(n=1)—Enhancement23—(n=1)——Role playing61—(n =1)——Story70——(n =1)—Loss-aversion43——(n =1)Hilgard et al. [34] found it to be the best predictor for people who played lessThe second most investigated variable was “daily playtime” (n=6), meaning the average hours spent daily on a certain game or the average longest daily gaming session they had. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the daily hours and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1) used MANOVA to compare players who spent different amounts of hours per day on the gaming activity and (n=2) also used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables, and 1 explored these relation through a Structural Equation Modeling.Three studies found that “daily playtime” had positive associations with social and relationship motivation [48, 75, 123], and 2 studies confirmed positive associations with autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives [46, 69]. Daily playtime is also positively correlated to enjoyment, alleviation of boredom, and psychological detachment [69]; habit, narrative, performance, agency, escapism, and moral [123]; fun and achievement [48].Additionally, Osman & Çirak [70] compared people who played for less than two hours, people who played between 3 hours and 6 hours and people who played for more than 7 hours, and found that the groups that played for more than 7 hours had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation, and they were also significantly less amotivated compared to other gamers.The third most investigated variable was “years of playing” (n=5). Two studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the years spent playing games and gaming motivations (n=2), 2 (n=2) used MANOVA to compare experienced players with less experienced players, and (n=1) used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Positive associations between years of playing and mechanics motivation [71], exploration [33, 38], achievement [33], role playing [38], team play [38], mechanics [38], and narration motivations [38] were found. Klimmt et al. [39] compared hardcore playes of Travian with more moderated ones and found that hardcore players gave more importance to socializing and competition motives, while the difference for coping was less pronounced. Osman & Çirak [70] found, through a MANOVA, that players with more than four years of experience had significantly higher scores on intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation than those who played for just three years or even less.The fourth most investigated variable was “playing or talking with other people” (n=5), assessing all the actions of doing actions with other people or talking with them. Four studies Pearson’s r to study the correlation between the actions of playing or talking with other people and gaming motivations (n=4), and 1 used Kendall’s tau, 1 (n=1, and one of these used linear regression to further study the correlations between the variables.Azadvar & Canossa [46] found positive correlations between the time spent playing with a group of people and autonomy, competence, and relatedness motives. Frederik & Jan [123] found that playing with their partner, co-play, and talking with others positively correlated with habit and social motivation; the action of playing with people positively correlated with habit, social, performance, agency, escapism, and moral motives, except pastime and narrative. Hoffman & Nadelson [45] found that engagement positively correlated with playing with other people. Billieux et al. [71] correlated some specific behaviours of playing with others with gaming motivations, and they found that being affiliated with a guild correlated with higher scores on socializing, teamwork, and relationship motivations; Dauriat et al. [36] found positive correlation between playing with a group of people and achievement, socializing, and immersion motivation. In fact, people playing solo negatively correlated with the social motivation but positively with the immersion motivation.The following three variables were analyzed each one by only two papers (n=2). The first one is “time spent playing on weekends,” and it was assessed through Pearson’s r (n=2). One study of the two (n=1) also used linear regression. Time spent playing on weekends positively correlated with diversion and challenge [40], socialization, exploration, achievement, and dissociation [33].The second variable is “Future intention of keep playing,” and it was assessed through an ANCOVA (n=1) and a multiple regression (n=1). It was positively related to autonomy, competence, relatedness [30] and habit but negatively associated with social motivation [50].The third variable is specific to a certain game, World of Warcraft, and is “behaviours shown by players inWoW”, and it was assessed through a linear regression (n=2). Billieux et al. [71] found that the progression score shown in the game and related to various achievements is positively related to advancement, mechanics, relationship, and discovery motivations; quest and exploration achievements were positively related to discovery motivation; PvP achievements were positively related to competition, advancement, and mechanics motivations; dungeon and raid achievements were related to advancement, mechanics, relationships, and teamworks; miscellaneous achievement scores were positively related to advancement, mechanics, and discovery motivations, and lastly, some specific in game achievements was unrelated to role play, customization, and escapism. Yee et al. [27] found some contrasting results; achievement and social motivations were negative predictors of quests, exploration, and professions, with achievement being the only negative predictor for world events; both achievement and social motivation were positive predictors of dungeons; immersion was a positive predictors of doing quests and exploration, but it was a negative predictor of PvP and dungeons.


## 3.2.3. Results Related to the Psychological Variables

The most investigated variable of this cluster was “gaming addiction” (n=17), often called with different names such as gaming problems, excessive gaming, gaming disorder, problematic video gaming, internet gaming disorder, disordered gaming, and excessive use. Eight studies (n=8) used linear regression to study which motivations can be considered predictors of gaming addiction, 7 (n=7) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations, 6 studies used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=6) to fit the relations between gaming addiction and gaming motivations inside a model, and, finally, 1 (n=1) used d of Cohen.Gaming addiction found positive associations between intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and gaming addiction (n=2) [85, 125].Results regarding other motivations not pertaining to the Self-Determination Theory as a framework [31, 72] were as follows. Gaming addiction had positive associations with as follows: escapism (n=9) ([36, 71, 76, 79, 92, 122, 136], [26, 121]); social motivation (n=6) [28, 36, 41, 68, 83, 92]; achievement (n=4) [36, 68, 83, 122], with Bányai et al. [122], finding it to be a positive predictor for both recreational and esport gamers; competition (n=4) [28, 71, 92, 122]; coping n=3 [28, 41, 92]; customization (n=3) [28, 71, 92], even though López-Fernández et al. [28] found this result only in their adolescent sample; recreation (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; fantasy (n=2) [28, 92]; cognitive development (n=2) [28, 92]; violent reward (n=2) [28, 92]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; enhancement (n=1) [41]; mechanics (n=1) [71]; role play (n=1) [71]; achievement (n=1) [36]; immersion (n=1) [133]; advancement (n=1) [26]; self-gratification (n=1) [41]; cognitive development (n=1) [92], mechanics (n=1) [79], and general motivation [121].Negative associations of gaming addiction were as follows: social (n=3) [73, 133, 136]; fantasy (n=2) [92, 122], but this result was found only for recreational players as well in the study done by Bányai et al. [122]; coping (n=1) [122], but only for recreational players; competition (n=1) [92]; recreation (n=1) [92]; customizing (n=1) [28], but this result was found by López-Fernández et al. [28] only in the young adult sample and skill development [121]. All the results regarding gaming addiction are summarized in Table 7.Table 7
The table summarizes the results found in literature between gaming motivations and gaming addiction.
MotivationPositive associationsNegative associationsNo associationsNotesSocial motivation65(n=6)—(n=1)Coping15(n=3)——Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Escapism25(n=9)———Customization17(n=3)(n=1)—López-Fernández et al. [28] found customization to be a negative predictor only in the young adult sample.Competition13(n=4)(n=1)——Recreation57(n=2)(n=1)——Violent Reward74(n=2)———Fantasy28(n=2)(n=2)—Bányai et al. [122] found it to be a negative predictor only for recreational gamers.Cognitive development10(n=2)———Self-gratification62(n=1)———Enhancement23(n=1)(n=1)(n=1)—Mechanics46(n=1)———Role play61(n=1)———Achievement1(n=4)(n=1)(n=1)—Immersion35(n=1)—(n=1)—Advancement3(n=1)———Relaxing60——(n=1)—The second most investigated variable of this group is “personality.” Four studies (n=4) used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality, 3 (n=3) used linear regression to assess which personality trait can be considered a predictor of certain gaming motivations, and lastly, 2 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling (n=2).All the studies used the big five theory to assess personality traits which measure personality based on agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness.Agreeableness associated positively with as follows: social interaction (n=3) [40, 92, 106]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; competence/control [23]; the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player [44]; it associated negatively with as follows: competition [92]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; arousal [40]; fantasy (n=2) [40, 92]; social interaction [92]; achievement motivation [106]; leadership motivation [106].Neuroticism, also called emotional stability or instability, positively associated with as follows:. the achiever type of player [44]; cognitive development [92]; coping [92]; competition (n=2) (Graham & Gosling; [40]); social interaction [40]; diversion [40]; fantasy [40], arousal [40]; achievement [106]. It is negatively associated with presence [23], the free spirit type of player [44], and the disruptor type [44], and the immersion [106].Openness to experience is positively associated with as follows: autonomy [23]; the philanthropist player type [44]; the free spirit type of player [44]; cognitive development [92] and competition [40]; challenge [40]; diversion [40]; socialization [106]; immersion [106]; leadership motivation [106]; independence motives [106]. It has negative associations with competition [92] and achievement [106].Extraversion was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the socialiser type of player and thus social motivation (n=3) [44, 68, 106]; the free spirit type of player [44]; competition [75]; leadership motivation [106]. It was negatively correlated with: coping [92] and diversion [40].Finally, conscientiousness was positively associated with as follows: the philanthropist type of player [44]; the achiever type of player [44]; the player type of player [44]; customization [92] diversion [40]; leadership motives [106]. It has negative associations with as follows: competition [92]; coping [92]; social interaction [92]; violent reward [92]; diversion [40]; achievement [106]; immersion [106].Scharkow et al. [38] was the only study to use a different instrument to assess personality, and they found that achievement seeking is positively predicted by competence, exploration, mechanics, and narration.The variables that follow were assessed each one by just two papers. The first one is “loneliness” (n=2). The 2 studies used Pearson’s r to study the correlations between gaming motivations and personality and linear regression to assess the relations. Loneliness is positively associated with coping (Myrseth et al. [41], social and relationship motivation [41, 48], escapism [48], and nostalgia [48].The second variable is “values” (n=2). Scharkow et al. [38] found through a Structural Equation Model that the value of “collective orientation” is positively related to social capital, team play, and competition. Chang & Zang [55] found that the materialism value was a positive predictor of achievement, escape and virtual identification, entertainment, and reward through online gaming.The third variable is “Need for cognition” (n=2) which is positively related to engagement [45], immersion, social, and achievement [51].The fourth variable is “enjoyment”(n=2) which is positively related to autonomy ([52]; Ryan et al. [30], entertainment and flow motivations [52], competence, and relatedness [30].


## 3.2.4. Results Related to the Gaming Environment

This cluster of variables is a peculiar one that gathers all the variables that could not fit inside all the other clusters outlined before such as sociodemographic, behavioural, and psychological ones. This group contains the genre of the games assessed by the papers, the style of play chosen by the participants, the number of avatars that a player has, the gaming place where the activity is mainly done, the type of server used to play, and the physical health of the player playing the game.The most investigated variable of this group was “Genre of game played” (n=7). Four papers analyzed it by doing an ANOVA (n=4), 2 papers used Pearson’s r to study the correlations, 1 study did a linear regression, and 1 study used Path Analysis/Structural Equation Modeling.Wohn et al. [43] found that people who play MMO games have higher intrinsic hedonic motivations, higher intrinsic accomplishment, higher social identified, and higher external game than players who played social network games. People who played social network games had higher external social and higher amotivation than people who played MMOs.Fuster et al. [105] found that WoW players had higher scores on dissociations than those who played Aion and EVE online.Scharkow et al., [38] found that playing for fantasy motivation had positive relationships with RPG, simulation games, adventure, and action but negative relationships with strategy, puzzle, sport games, platforms, and music games; competence had positive relationships with puzzle games and sport but negative ones with role playing and action; exploration had positive relationship with strategy, adventures, role playing, and platform games but negative ones with sport genre; social capital had positive relationship with strategy, puzzle, and role playing but negative ones with sport and music; team play had positive relationship with sport, platform, and action genre; competition had negative relationship with role playing and simulation but positive ones with sport and action; mechanics had positive relationship with sport, adventure, platform, simulation, and action genre, and lastly, narration has positive relations with strategy, puzzle, adventure, and role playing but negative ones with sport and action.Johnson & Gardner [23] found that the experience of presence in games was the lowest for sport, simulation, and shooting games; moderate for action-adventure games; highest for strategy and role playing games. The experience of autonomy was lowest in action adventure games and shooting games, moderate for sport and simulation games, and highest for strategy and role playing games.Ratan et al. [50] found that agency was positively associated with sport games, and pastime was positively associated with casual games and action games, while performance was associated with action games.Kim [40] found positive correlations between traditional type of game and challenge and arousal; physical game-genre was positively correlated with competition, fantasy, and arousal; imagination game genre preference was positively correlated with competition, challenge, social interaction, fantasy, and arousal.Lastly, López-Fernández et al. [28] studied game genres related to two specific samples: young adults and adolescence. They found that in the adolescent sample, shooter games positively correlated with recreation, competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, and fantasy; MOBA games positively correlated with competition, cognitive development, and social interaction; MMORPG positively correlated with fantasy; role playing positively correlated with recreation and fantasy; action adventure positively correlated with cognitive development, coping, customization, and fantasy; sport games positively correlated with violent reward and competition but negatively with customization; social simulation negatively correlated with competition, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, and violent reward but positive with customization; construction positively correlated with customization and fantasy; platform games negatively correlated with competition, coping, social interaction, and violent reward. While, they found the following correlations in the young adult sample, the shooter genre positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy but not competition; MOBA positively correlated with recreation, competition, and social interaction; strategy is negatively correlated with violent reward; MMORPG is positively correlated with recreation, competition, coping, social , and fantasy; action-adventure game is positively correlated with recreation, cognitive development, coping, violent reward, and fantasy; sport genre is positively correlated with competition and violent reward; casual genre is negatively correlated with recreation, competition, social interaction, violent reward, customization, and fantasy; social simulation positively correlated with customization and fantasy but negatively with social interaction; fighting genre positively correlated with violent reward.The second most investigated variable was investigated by only 2 papers, and it was “style of play” (n=2). Wu et al. [121] found that those who primarily played single-player games had a higher score on coping but a lower score on competition, social, and general motivation than those who primarily played MMO games. Dauriat et al. [36] correlated style of play (playing PvP, playing solo, playing PvE, role playing, or playing in groups) and found that achievement positively correlated with playing PvP, socializing negatively correlated with playing solo but positively correlated with playing in a group, and immersion positively correlated with playing in a group, playing solo, playing PvE, and role playing.


## 3.2.5. Risk of Biases

All the risk of biases detected are reported in Table3. All the 53 studies included presented a sampling bias due to various reasons: 21 studies recruited their samples online through forums or other platforms, while 32 were highly specific and focused their investigation on a targeted nation, even though one study compared three nations [50]; 28 studies had more male participants than females; 1 study only had only female participants [138]; 3 were lacking male players; 8 focused their results only on MMORPG players; 4 specifically targeted World of Warcraft players, 5 papers focused on MMO players, with one specifically comparing MMO players with social network gamers [43]; the study done by Carlisle et al. [68] also lacked of randomization factors. The fact that some papers were specifically targeting some games or countries can lead to a lack of generalizability of the obtained results. Considering that all 53 studies used self-reported questionnaires, all of them might have been affected by a response bias due to the nature of the instruments per se. Furthermore, 2 studies [33, 34] received random response to their questionnaires. 23 papers had a reporting bias since they had to discard some of them, and not all the cases were reported. 13 papers presented a measurement bias: (1) Lafrenière et al. [32] did not report the specific value of each dimensions’ Cronbach’s alpha; (2) Tekofsky et al. [67] created an ad hoc scale by compiling items from already assessed instrument, but they did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions; (3) Scharkow et al. [38] created an ad hoc questionnaire, but one of the dimensions (exploration-ego centered motives) had only one item, thus resulting in Cronbach’s alpha of one; (4) Dindar [75] proposed the construct of “gamer loyalty” as an attitude variable and not as behavioural one; (5) Ratan et al. [50] measured two constructs only through one item; (6) Kim [40] created a scale to measure preference of games, and this scale had low alphas; (7) the questionnaire used by Willians et al. [124] had an alpha of .62 for the immersion factor which would be considered insufficient if we would interpret this with the European Federation of Psychologists’ Association’s [27] criteria, which says that a Cronbanch’s alpha is acceptable only if above .70; (8) Dauriat et al. [36] did not report the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimensions of their scale; (9) McCauley et al. [52] created an ad hoc questionnaire that needs further validation; (10) Fuster et al. [33] used an ad hoc instrument that needs further validation; (11) Tondello et al. [44] used a short version of their scale, and it could have problems with acquiescence, also the scale needs further validation, and the player dimension had a Cronbanch’s alpha of .698, which is insufficient according to EFPA [139]; (12) Azadvar & Canossa [46] measured some behavioural variables through a recording system, so the obtained data could have been affected by external factors; (13) the ad hoc questionnaire created by Yee [25] to measure MMORPG motivations had three dimensions with insufficient alphas [139]: .63 for immersion, .62 for escapism, and.67 for achievement. Lastly, 3 papers also had a statistical bias due to the fact that one questionnaire was based on an already existent one [41]; Frederik & Jan had a really small sample which could lead to a type II error; Ratan et al. [50] underlines that there might have been a type I of error due to the unequal sample size in doing the ANOVA calculations.


## 4. Discussion

The primary objective of this PRISMA systematic review was to present the main results obtained in literature pertaining to gaming motivation not related to psychopathology symptoms specifically. Aside from some main topics that are often analyzed or discussed, the literature exhibits either contradictory results or results that should be investigated more. To summarize, the most investigated variables are gender, age, gaming frequency, gaming addiction, and personality.The current literature has mainly observed that males have higher gaming motivation than females [28, 29, 39, 47, 50, 54], and they seemed to play principally to compete [22, 26–28, 38, 39, 47, 67, 71], while females seemed to play for social reasons [22, 29, 47] or relationship purposes [22, 25–27, 67]. This is in line with Bales’ Theory [140] that females are more relationship-oriented while males are more task-oriented. Gaming motivation appears to be stronger in younger people [22, 28, 34, 36, 38, 67, 68, 105, 121], and they mainly play for social reasons [34, 36, 38, 54, 67, 68]. There is to note two things: (1) studies addressing more adult players, with a mean of age of more than 35 years, are still lacking [38, 43, 69]; (2) positive correlations between some gaming motivation and age were observed just in a few of these studies [28, 67, 71, 121] and thus may need further research and exploration.In general, it appears that video gamers tend to spend more hours on video games to satisfy their needs of social interaction ([25, 28, 29, 34, 36, 41, 48, 92, 123, 124, 26]), competition13 ([28, 71, 92, 26, 79]), escapism25 ([25, 36, 71, 79, 123, 26]), achievement1 [26, 33, 36, 106], autonomy7 [46, 69], competence12 [46, 69], and relatedness58 [46, 69].Notably, non-addicted players and problematic ones appeared to play for almost the same gaming motivations, meaning escapism ([36, 71, 76, 79, 92, 122, 136, 26]), social [28, 36, 41, 68, 83, 92], and achievement reasons [36, 68, 83, 122] are the only difference being coping as a motivation for addicted players [28, 41, 92]. These results seem coherent with the idea that people tend to obsessively play video games to not think about their daily problems (i.e., escapism25), to not miss some social aspect or to interact with some other people (i.e., social motivation65), to cope with their feelings or mood states (i.e., coping15), and lastly, simply because they want to achieve something that probably require lots of time to be spent in that game (i.e., achievement1). This means that the relationship between gaming motivation and gaming addiction could be null in the end. Therefore, future research should directly compare problematic and nonproblematic gamers more in depth to identify possible differences in terms of motivations [141]. Lastly, papers addressing the relation between personality and gaming motivation were only 6, and the only results supported by more than one paper were that agreeableness positively correlated with fantasy28 [40, 92] and social interaction65 [40, 92], even though 2 papers [40, 92] also concluded that agreeableness is a negative predictor of fantasy28. All the other results were discovered just by one paper, hence implicating that this particular topic needs more research.This systematic review provides support to different theories already present in literature, the first one being the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; [72]) and the second one the Use and Gratification Theory applied to media (UGT; [29, 142]). According to the SDT, people play video games because of intrinsic or extrinsic motivations to satisfy some basic psychological needs that all people have, namely, the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy [30]. It appears that video games are now able to satisfy those needs thanks to their improvements not only in terms of potential gameplay but also in terms of real time connections with people. As seen in this systematic review, the most common reasons to play appear to be competition for males and social for females. Both of these reasons support the theory that gamers, but also casual people, tend to play to satisfy their need of feeling competent (e.g., through competition with other players) and to feel connected to other people (e.g., by developing social relationship through a common interest), which are also both fundamental basic human needs according to Maslow’s theory [57]. Moreover, apparently, there is a common ground in what pushes people to play that is independent from psychopathological aspects. In fact, addicted and nonaddicted gamers play for almost the exact same reasons as shown by this systematic review. It is probably that there are some moderators that determine whether a person is prone to develop pathological behaviours or not. Notably, with our findings, we also support the UGT, which states that people can use technology to keep satisfying their needs within a society that keeps changing rapidly and developing not only in the real context but also in parallel in a virtual world. In fact, as shown by Sherry et al. [29], which were the first to apply UGT to video games, all respondents report to play for mainly two reasons: (a) competition and (b) social reasons. These results were largely confirmed throughout literature (e.g., [26, 28, 92]). It is also not surprising that these motivations are the most supported ones given the fact that human beings have always compared themselves to others [143], and this appears to be true in virtual settings as well.


### 4.1. Potential Impact and Future Perspectives

This PRISMA systematic review has the merit to put together a lot of heterogeneous literature regarding gaming motivation by outlining some connections that might have been missed given the fact that same constructs may have different names in literature. This overview could be helpful for different purposes: (a) it is found that there is no difference between addicted and nonaddicted players in terms of gaming motivation. It is known that motivation is the most important key in treatment, and clinical researcher could use these information to use videogames as a way to promote a healthy lifestyles, to reduce stress [144], to increase physical activity in sedentary people [145, 146], for educational purposes by learning useful information [147, 148], or for therapy with children with special educational needs, ADHD, or neurodevelopmental disorder [149, 150]. As stated, motivation is strictly related to age and gender; thus, this systematic review could help in identifying which games with which characteristics could be helpful for the target population. This implies that some games can be considered more engaging and thus can have a stronger impact; (b) game companies are always interested in knowing which reasons lead people to play video games. Gamers spend lots of hours in playing certain video games because through this activity, they can satisfy some of their basic psychological needs [30]. This activity can easily become pathological, and companies can use gaming motivation knowledge to create dedicated checking systems to avoid detrimental effects due to excessive screen time, such as lacking of attention [151] or sleep deprivation [152]. Furthermore, gaming motivation can be the needed bases to develop video games and gamification aspects that can be used for training purposes [12] or for HR processes [153, 154]; (c) it is the first systematic review to focus on nonpathological reasons and thus giving an overview of why gamers (addicted or not) play video games. These could be helpful to compare both groups of these groups and understand their differences on common gaming motivation [141]. Clinicians could use the knowledge of the current literature to develop better treatments based on gender, age, and culture. Female and male gamers play in fact for entirely different reasons, and a generalized treatment can not possibly work well on whatever patient. Also, future research should strive to investigate and include female players more since the majority of the studies consisted of mainly male players; (d) gaming motivation can be studied related to some relatively new possible work careers that are taking over the entertainment sector such as Esport. Esports are a really competitive sector, and it requires hours and hours of training to achieve great performances in tournaments. This implies that there might the need to further investigate how constructs such as self-esteem [155], work-related stress [156], burnout [156], or general mattering [157] might be related to gaming motivation in pursuing this type of work; (e) can be useful to build a possible future questionnaire that tries to integrate most of the gaming motivation found. It reported most of the existent instruments (ad hoc instruments included) in literature right now to measure gaming motivation and thus giving an overview of all the gaming motivation thought and investigated as a whole. The fact that the literature is so heterogeneous makes it hard to have results that can be compared or connected to the same theoretical point of view. Many researchers decided to create an ad hoc instrument instead of using the most adopted standards (e.g., GAMS, PENS, MPOGQ, and MOGQ), implying that the already created scales were not suitable for measuring what they wanted. Thus, the conclusion of some studies can be considered as stand alone but still informative. It also shows that researchers are having hard time in having a point of reference; thus, the need to put them all together shows that there is a sort of common thread on which we can work on and further develop so that we can actually compare those results. Some researchers are giving different names to basically the same constructs (e.g., skill development and cognitive development). This means that, while searching in literature, some papers will be missed and not included in other researches, and comparisons will be hard to do if searched by keywords. There is not a paper that tried to put together all the results about gaming motivation but also paid attention to this note. This PRISMA would allow other researchers to see if there are strong associations between game-related variables and other dimensions (e.g., gender and coping, whereas coping was called differently in some papers). Furthermore, it is interesting to put together all the gaming motivation papers since many focused on specific genres, but nowadays, games are also becoming more mixed, and thus, through this PRISMA systematic review, researchers could find a common pattern that could be interesting to investigate on games in general, without relying too much on a specific pattern.Considering what has been said up to now, it is safe to say that there is a lot to discover and deepen about this topic, albeit what has been found is, without doubt, vital to keep the research going.


## 4.1. Potential Impact and Future Perspectives

This PRISMA systematic review has the merit to put together a lot of heterogeneous literature regarding gaming motivation by outlining some connections that might have been missed given the fact that same constructs may have different names in literature. This overview could be helpful for different purposes: (a) it is found that there is no difference between addicted and nonaddicted players in terms of gaming motivation. It is known that motivation is the most important key in treatment, and clinical researcher could use these information to use videogames as a way to promote a healthy lifestyles, to reduce stress [144], to increase physical activity in sedentary people [145, 146], for educational purposes by learning useful information [147, 148], or for therapy with children with special educational needs, ADHD, or neurodevelopmental disorder [149, 150]. As stated, motivation is strictly related to age and gender; thus, this systematic review could help in identifying which games with which characteristics could be helpful for the target population. This implies that some games can be considered more engaging and thus can have a stronger impact; (b) game companies are always interested in knowing which reasons lead people to play video games. Gamers spend lots of hours in playing certain video games because through this activity, they can satisfy some of their basic psychological needs [30]. This activity can easily become pathological, and companies can use gaming motivation knowledge to create dedicated checking systems to avoid detrimental effects due to excessive screen time, such as lacking of attention [151] or sleep deprivation [152]. Furthermore, gaming motivation can be the needed bases to develop video games and gamification aspects that can be used for training purposes [12] or for HR processes [153, 154]; (c) it is the first systematic review to focus on nonpathological reasons and thus giving an overview of why gamers (addicted or not) play video games. These could be helpful to compare both groups of these groups and understand their differences on common gaming motivation [141]. Clinicians could use the knowledge of the current literature to develop better treatments based on gender, age, and culture. Female and male gamers play in fact for entirely different reasons, and a generalized treatment can not possibly work well on whatever patient. Also, future research should strive to investigate and include female players more since the majority of the studies consisted of mainly male players; (d) gaming motivation can be studied related to some relatively new possible work careers that are taking over the entertainment sector such as Esport. Esports are a really competitive sector, and it requires hours and hours of training to achieve great performances in tournaments. This implies that there might the need to further investigate how constructs such as self-esteem [155], work-related stress [156], burnout [156], or general mattering [157] might be related to gaming motivation in pursuing this type of work; (e) can be useful to build a possible future questionnaire that tries to integrate most of the gaming motivation found. It reported most of the existent instruments (ad hoc instruments included) in literature right now to measure gaming motivation and thus giving an overview of all the gaming motivation thought and investigated as a whole. The fact that the literature is so heterogeneous makes it hard to have results that can be compared or connected to the same theoretical point of view. Many researchers decided to create an ad hoc instrument instead of using the most adopted standards (e.g., GAMS, PENS, MPOGQ, and MOGQ), implying that the already created scales were not suitable for measuring what they wanted. Thus, the conclusion of some studies can be considered as stand alone but still informative. It also shows that researchers are having hard time in having a point of reference; thus, the need to put them all together shows that there is a sort of common thread on which we can work on and further develop so that we can actually compare those results. Some researchers are giving different names to basically the same constructs (e.g., skill development and cognitive development). This means that, while searching in literature, some papers will be missed and not included in other researches, and comparisons will be hard to do if searched by keywords. There is not a paper that tried to put together all the results about gaming motivation but also paid attention to this note. This PRISMA would allow other researchers to see if there are strong associations between game-related variables and other dimensions (e.g., gender and coping, whereas coping was called differently in some papers). Furthermore, it is interesting to put together all the gaming motivation papers since many focused on specific genres, but nowadays, games are also becoming more mixed, and thus, through this PRISMA systematic review, researchers could find a common pattern that could be interesting to investigate on games in general, without relying too much on a specific pattern.Considering what has been said up to now, it is safe to say that there is a lot to discover and deepen about this topic, albeit what has been found is, without doubt, vital to keep the research going.



---

*Source: 5640258-2023-03-14.xml*