Addictive games affect the brain like drugs
Constant distraction and division by algorithm has disturbing consequences that must be addressed
Fortnite and other addictive video games can have a similar effect on children’s brains as drug abuse or alcoholism, MRI scans reveal. They show the “reward” system in the brains of young heavy users of social media and video games display the same changes in function and structure as those of drug addicts. One nine-year-old was reportedly so addicted to Fortnite she was admitted to rehab after she wet herself rather than leave the screen.
Fortnite and other addictive video games can have a similar effect on children’s brains as drug abuse or alcoholism, MRI scans reveal.
They show the “reward” system in the brains of young, heavy users of social media and video games display the same changes in function and structure as those of alcoholics or drug addicts.
A series of studies by California State University found the impulsive part of the brain, known as the amygdala-striatal system, was not only more sensitive but also smaller in excessive users so that it processed the stimuli of social media or games faster.
The findings come as Britain’s children are gripped by the Fortnite video game, with one nine-year-old reportedly admitted to rehab after becoming so addicted, she wet herself rather than leave the screen, and primary schools urging parents to ban their children from playing them.
On Monday, The Daily Telegraph launched the Duty of Care campaign calling on ministers to make social media and online gaming companies subject to a statutory duty to protect children from harms such as addiction, bullying and grooming when using their services. Ministers are considering new measures to rein in the worst excesses of online tech companies amid fears a generation of young people is being harmed by unregulated use of social media and online gaming platforms
One leading internet addiction expert, who has treated children playing the game, said Fortnite’s addictive quality was such that it made Beatlemania look like a passing whim and had captivated the young in the same way as the nation was swept up by the “Princess Diana effect”.
According to the studies led by Professor Ofir Turel, of California State University, the impact on children’s brains is marked: “Say someone sees a video game or cell phone, this reward system in the brain lights up. It’s a very strong activation compared to other people.
“It is associated with structural change, in that this brain area is smaller in people who are excessive users. The smaller system can process associations much faster. But like a car, you need to put more gas into it to generate more power.”
There was, however, an upside as the studies showed the part of brain responsible for “self-control” over their impulses was not affected in the same way for excessive social media users as other addictions such as drink or drugs.
“It means most people can control their social media behaviour but they just don’t have the motivation to do so,” said Prof Turel. This was less evident for heavy users of video games, where self-control appeared to be impeded.
More worrying, however, was the risk that excessive usage could be changing children’s brain reward systems in the long term, making them more susceptible to other addictions later in life.
“The question is: if you sensitise their reward system at a young age with video games and social media, does it increase their risk to become addicted to drugs or drink later in life?” said Prof Turel.
His initial research suggests there is an association between those who use video games “heavily”, aged 13 to 15, and an increased likelihood of misusing at least one of 15 substances, from cocaine to amphetamines.
“There’s a much bigger risk factor for [addicted] children because their brains are flexible. Some parts of the brain develop until they are 17, others are not fully developed until they are 25. The development of the reward or impulse system is much faster compared to the development of the self-control system.”
Dr Richard Graham, who set up the UK’S first internet addiction clinic at the Nightingale Hospital in London, said many of the young people he treats were players of the video game Fortnite: Battle Royale, alongside other internet activities.
The game, which pitches 100 players against each other, has been downloaded 40million times since last July, and made an estimated
£220 million for its developer Epic Games in April alone.
Its high degree of random chance and its “near-miss” style of play encourage defeated players to feel that they “almost won” and that one more round might bring them victory. Dr Graham said: “In six months, it has made Beatlemania look like a passing whim. You are dealing with something akin to the massive Diana effect that swept up everyone.”
Concerned parents have taken to forums such as Mumsnet to voice their fears. One mother wrote of her primary school age son: “Yesterday he saw a poster with a man and child in a swimming pool … and commented that it would be a perfect shot to blow their heads off.”
The nine-year-old girl now in rehab would secretly play the survival shooter game during the night and didn’t even get up to use the lavatory because she couldn’t prise herself away from the screen. The girl would play for up to 10 hours a day.
The World Health Organisation said in January that it classifies internet gaming addiction as a mental disorder.
Although they present themselves as cool techies and antiestablishment hackers, most big internet companies are better described as advertising firms. They are the latest example of a decades-long effort by ad men to work out your hopes and fears, with the purpose of persuading you to buy something. The business model is that we give up our data in exchange for free services. Knowingly or unwittingly, we’ve all signed up. But that Faustian pact is slowly killing democracy.
First, it means social media firms are incentivised to keep you online for as long as possible, since that means they can collect more data and serve more ads. That’s why there is a constant battle for your attention. In the bowels of every inspirationally-branded tech firm, some of the world’s smartest minds are paid small fortunes to work out why you click on things, and to get you to click on more things. It’s all designed – the little beeps, the red notifications, the slot-machine-style refresh – to keep you absorbed. The result is to destroy our collective attention span. We are all being driven to check, refresh, click and recheck, and it’s far harder to engage in complex political debate when you’re distracted, impatient and glued to a tiny screen.
It gets worse. Advertising is all about emotions – and we tend to respond better to outrageous, shocking, emotional content. Social media algorithms are designed to serve you content that you’re likely to click on, which means more emotional and shocking content swarming the net.
Under this model, even mild confirmation bias can set off a wild cycle of self-perpetuation. Let’s say you’ve clicked on a link about Leftwing politics. An algorithm interprets this as you expressing an interest in Left-wing politics, and therefore shows you more of it. You’re more likely to click again, since that’s the choice in front of you – which is interpreted as another signal. No one is intentionally programming for sensationalism – it’s just a mathematical response to our general preference for edgy and outrageous videos or headlines. It’s both a mirror and a multiplier.
Newspapers have always traded on outrage and sensationalism, but the difference is that newspapers are legally responsible for what they print, and citizens generally understand the editorial positions of various outlets. Algorithms, however, give the impression of being neutral and can’t be held to account – even though the Youtube algorithm alone shapes what hundreds of millions of people will see. They’ve turned our own psychological weaknesses into a structural feature of information consumption, and exploited it for money. Seen that way, fake news is probably best viewed as a sugar rush – bad for us, but we can’t help it. And the algorithms know it.
The strength of a democracy, it is often said, is its citizens. But we are currently being driven to distraction and division. Take Brexit. We’re all either furious that it’s happening, or isn’t happening, or isn’t happening fast enough, or is the wrong type. And those with whom we disagree are not just political opponents – they are members of a different tribe with whom discussion is impossible. This is not all the fault of technology, since we managed to be angry and divided long before Mr Zuckerberg arrived. But it’s now being accidentally exacerbated by a business model that trades on our attention and emotion.
Therefore, we need to regain control. That’s easier said than done, given the benefits the net brings. But think of it as a diet. Learn to switch off, to work on regaining your powers of concentration and attention. Perhaps download ad-blockers, even delete your accounts if you have to. At some point the state may also need to step in to regulate addictive tech, and (sorry to suggest yet another quango) create some form of Ofsted for algorithms to keep tabs on how these technologies are being used.
In the end, though, the only longterm solution might be for the tech firms to change their business model. As long as it’s data-for-services, some form of addiction-forming is bound to be central to its design and purpose. So maybe the best way to save democracy is – hold your breath – to demand Facebook and Google charge us for their offerings. It turns out not all the best things in life are free, after all.
Jamie Bartlett is the author of ‘The People Vs Tech: How the Internet is Killing Democracy (and How to Save it)’