Time spent playing video games (playtime) is not strongly correlated with wellbeing. However, quantitative studies often overlook ‘third variables’ that confound this relationship—risking masked true effects or spurious associations. In this mixed-methods study, we first conducted a qualitative template analysis of 987 responses from 393 adult players, then quantitatively assessed whether the identified candidates covary with changes in playtime and wellbeing. Study 1 results show that players interpret 17 factors—spanning physical health, grief and domestic disruptions, work/school pressures, social relationships, and other leisure—as influencing their gaming and wellbeing. In Study 2, within-person models of logged Xbox playtime and wellbeing scores provided initial evidence that at least three factors—social strain, work-related stress, and lethargic illnesses—systematically relate to both gaming and wellbeing. Together, these studies demonstrate a method for mapping confounders, provide preliminary support for several potential confounds, and illustrate how directly addressing confounds can move the field beyond surface correlations, providing a stronger basis for uncovering the true causal pathways linking gaming and wellbeing.

Abstract Existing theories of how game use relates to mental health have important limitations: few account for both quantity and quality of use, differentiate components of mental health (hedonic wellbeing, eudaimonic wellbeing and illbeing), provide an explanation for both positive and negative outcomes or readily explain the well-evidenced absence of playtime effects on mental health. Many also lack the specificity to be readily falsifiable. In response, we present the Basic Needs in Games (BANG) model. Grounded in self-determination theory, BANG proposes that mental health outcomes of game use are in large part mediated by the motivational quality of play and the extent to which play quantity and quality lead to need satisfaction or frustration. We show how BANG addresses the limitations of current theories and aligns with emerging evidence on the etiologies of disordered play. Thus, BANG advances HCI theory on the impact of games and other interactive technologies on mental health.

Abstract Self-determination theory (SDT) has been widely successful in human–computer interaction (HCI). It offers ready concepts, measures, and theoretical propositions for third wave HCI topics such as user experience, fun, wellbeing, motivation, or user autonomy. Still, HCI applications of SDT have been partial, at times superficial, and disconnecting—leaving great unfulfilled potential which motivated the present special issue. In this introduction, we present SDT to interested scholars, chart its use across HCI to date, and outline six advances to move HCI toward more intentional applications of SDT. As the articles from this issue illustrate, future growth areas of SDT in HCI are in extending domain-specific models and applications, harnessing underused parts of theory, computational formalization, extending levels of analysis, facilitating design translation, and engaging in a cross-disciplinary dialogue on autonomy.

‘Juicy’ or immediate abundant action feedback is widely held to make video games enjoyable and intrinsically motivating. Yet we do not know why it works: Which motives are mediating it? Which features afford it? In a pre-registered (n=1,699) online experiment, we tested three motives mapping prior practitioner discourse—effectance, competence, and curiosity—and connected design features. Using a dedicated action RPG and a 2x2+control design, we varied feedback amplification, success-dependence, and variability and recorded self-reported effectance, competence, curiosity, and enjoyment as well as free-choice playtime. Structural equation models show curiosity as the strongest enjoyment and only playtime predictor and support theorised competence pathways. Success dependence enhanced all motives, while amplification unexpectedly reduced them, possibly because the tested condition unintentionally impeded players’ sense of agency. Our study evidences uncertain success affording curiosity as an underappreciated moment-to-moment engagement driver, directly supports competence-related theory, and suggests that prior juicy game feel guidance ties to legible action-outcome bindings and graded success as preconditions of positive ‘low-level’ user experience.

Players’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are among the most commonly used constructs used in research on what makes video games so engaging, and how they might support or undermine user wellbeing. However, existing measures of basic psychological needs in games have important limitations—they either do not measure need frustration, or measure it in a way that may not be appropriate for the video games domain, they struggle to capture feelings of relatedness in both single- and multiplayer contexts, and they often lack validity evidence for certain contexts (e.g., playtesting vs experience with games as a whole). In this paper, we report on the design and validation of a new measure, the Basic Needs in Games Scale (BANGS), whose 6 subscales cover satisfaction and frustration of each basic psychological need in gaming contexts. The scale was validated and evaluated over five studies with a total of 1246 unique participants. Results supported the theorized structure of the scale and provided evidence for discriminant, convergent and criterion validity. Results also show that the scale performs well over different contexts (including evaluating experiences in a single game session or across various sessions) and over time, supporting measurement invariance. Further improvements to the scale are warranted, as results indicated lower reliability in the autonomy frustration subscale, and a surprising non-significant correlation between relatedness satisfaction and frustration. Despite these minor limitations, BANGS is a reliable and theoretically sound tool for researchers to measure basic needs satisfaction and frustration with a degree of domain validity not previously available.

Psychological need frustration—experiences like failure, loneliness, or coercion—is emerging as a promising explanation for why people disengage with games and other entertainment media, and how media may induce dysregulated use and ill-being. However, existing research on game-related need frustration relies on general instruments with unclear content validity for games. We also do not know how need frustration arises in video games, nor how it leads to disengagement. We therefore conducted a semi-structured interview study with 12 video game players, following grounded theory methods to develop a model of need-frustrating play. We find that need frustration is a common and impactful experience in games, with distinct antecedents not fully captured in existing measures. Felt need frustration arises when observed need-frustrating events negatively violate expected need frustration or satisfaction; repeated violations update players’ expectations, which lead them to modulate or quit play to reduce expected frustration exposure.

Do people use games to cope with adverse life events and crises? Research informed by self-determination theory proposes that people might compensate for thwarted basic psychological needs in daily life by seeking out games that satisfy those lacking needs. To test this, we conducted a preregistered mixed-method survey study (n = 285) on people’s gaming behaviours and need states during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2020). We found qualitative evidence that gaming was an often actively sought out and successful means of replenishing particular needs, but one that could ‘backfire’ for some through an appraisal process discounting gaming as ‘unreal’. Meanwhile, contrary to our predictions, the quantitative data showed a “rich get richer, poor get poorer” pattern: need satisfaction in daily life positively correlated with need satisfaction in games. We derive methodological considerations and propose three potential explanations for this contradictory data pattern to pursue in future research.

Within the wider open science reform movement, HCI researchers are actively debating how to foster transparency in their own field. Publication venues play a crucial role in instituting open science practices, especially journals, whose procedures arguably lend themselves better to them than conferences. Yet we know little about how much HCI journals presently support open science practices. We identified the 51 most frequently published-in journals by recent CHI first authors and coded them according to the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines, a high-profile standard of evaluating editorial practices. Results indicate that journals in our sample currently do not set or specify clear openness and transparency standards. Out of a maximum of 29, the modal score was 0 (mean = 2.5, SD = 3.6, max = 15). We discuss potential reasons, the aptness of natural science-based guidelines for HCI, and next steps for the HCI community in furthering openness and transparency.

Modern immersive virtual reality (IVR) often uses embodied controllers for interacting with virtual objects. However, it is not clear how we should conceptualise these interactions. They could be considered either gestures, as there is no interaction with a physical object; or as actions, given that there is object manipulation, even if it is virtual. This distinction is important, as literature has shown that in the physical world, action-enabled and gesture-enabled learning produce distinct cognitive outcomes. This study attempts to understand whether sensorimotor-embodied interactions with objects in IVR can cognitively be considered as actions or gestures. It does this by comparing verb-learning outcomes between two conditions: (1) where participants move the controllers without touching virtual objects (gesture condition); and (2) where participants move the controllers and manipulate virtual objects (action condition). We found that (1) users can have cognitively distinct outcomes in IVR based on whether the interactions are actions or gestures, with actions providing stronger memorisation outcomes; and (2) embodied controller actions in IVR behave more similarly to physical world actions in terms of verb memorization benefits.