Video Game Play and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analysis of Global Findings (preprint)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, video gaming was often suggested as a way to help maintain physical distancing by encouraging people to stay indoors and play games instead of seeking social activities. However, there was concern about whether the increased time spent on video gaming could negatively affect players' mental health. In our meta-analysis, we synthesized studies to quantify changes in gaming time during the pandemic and examine its association with positive and negative mental health metrics. We searched databases for studies published from March 2020 to December 2021 reporting gaming time and mental health positive (e.g., happiness, positive affect, relaxation) or negative (e.g., depression, anxiety, stress, loneliness, anger) indicators during the pandemic. We employed random effects meta-analyses with robust variance estimates. We accounted for potential moderators (e.g., world region). In 17 studies (26 effects, n = 18026), we found a small increase in time spent gaming during the pandemic versus pre-pandemic, d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.14, 0.37], p = .0004). In 22 studies (100 effects, n = 19752), gaming time was not associated with mental health (r = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.02], p = .22), regardless of whether it was for well-being or ill-being measures. Moderator analyses indicated negligible differences across study characteristics (d< 0.20). These findings challenge the simplistic view that more gaming time automatically leads to worse (or better) mental health during pandemics. They provide important insights for researchers, policymakers, educators, and caregivers about the role of digital technologies in easing the impact of pandemics and lockdowns. This research is vital for developing evidence-based public health policies and recommendations regarding video gaming in the event of future pandemics and lockdowns.

Self-Persuasion Increases Motivation for Social Isolation During the COVID-19 Pandemic Through Moral Obligation (preprint)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments use direct persuasion to encourage social isolation. Since self-persuasion is a more effective method of encouraging behavioural changes, using an experimental approach, we compared direct persuasion to self-persuasion on underlying motivations for voluntary social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked the participants (N = 375) to write three arguments in support of social isolation (self-persuasion condition) or to evaluate three government graphics containing arguments for social isolation (direct persuasion condition). Then we asked the participants to evaluate perceived own vulnerability to COVID-19, the perceived severity of COVID-19, moral obligation to socially isolate and the attitude toward social isolation. Self-persuasion had a significant impact on the moral obligation to socially isolate, and through it on self-isolation intention. We also found evidence that individuals who perceived greater benefits from social isolation and who perceived higher severity of COVID-19 have a higher intention to socially isolate. Significant sex and age differences also emerged. Our findings provide new insights into mechanisms of self-persuasion and underlying motivations that influence social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.