Introduction

Playing video games is a common recreational activity and a source of passion and enjoyment for many individuals. However, some video game players experience health-related issues due to dysfunctional gaming behavior (Männikkö et al., 2017). Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) have included Gaming Disorder (GD) as an official mental health disorder in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019). Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2013) included Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) as a condition needing further study in the fifth revised version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5). Problematic gaming (GD and IGD) is primarily characterized by a consistent engagement in gaming, either online or offline, that becomes a dominant activity over other life interests and daily activities. This condition is often accompanied by increased priority given to gaming, difficulty managing or decreasing gaming time, and persistence or escalation of gaming despite negative consequences (APA, 2013; World Health Organization, 2019). A recent meta-analysis highlighted the public health relevance of GD by showing that the worldwide prevalence rate is 1.96% (Stevens et al., 2020). Since playing video games may lead to significant impairments, identifying psychological factors associated with gaming disorder symptoms is particularly interesting (Bäcklund et al., 2024).

It is important to note that the conceptualization, measurement, and definition of gaming-related diagnosis have been widely debated among academics (Castro-Calvo et al., 2021; Griffiths et al., 2015; Van Rooij et al., 2016). Despite some difference regarding content, most characterizations of problematic gaming include a maladaptive gaming pattern leading to negative consequences in specific or multiple life areas (e.g., health issues or other functional impairments). Furthermore, there are seven critical components with a continuous presence in most gaming disorder models (Griffiths, 2005; Lemmens et al., 2009), that also overlap with the DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria (King et al., 2020): Salience (total preoccupation with games), Tolerance (gradual growing amount of time spent gaming), Mood modification (tranquilizing or elevated emotional state due to gaming), Withdrawal (occurrence of negative emotions due to discontinued gameplay), Relapse (reverting to earlier excessive gaming behavior), Conflict (interpersonal quarrels due to excessive gaming, including lies and deception), and Problem (e.g., school, work, and socializing or psychological difficulties caused by extreme gaming). Previous researchers have differentiated between monothetic (endorsement of all criteria) and polythetic scoring (endorse half or more criteria; Lemmens et al., 2009). This differentiation has demonstrated that gaming disorder symptoms may be better understood by acquiring a nuanced perspective (Brunborg et al., 2013; Charlton & Danforth, 2007). Following problematic gaming classifications from previous studies (Brunborg et al., 2013; Lemmens et al., 2009), the current study categorizes gaming disorder symptoms as high-risk gamers (i.e., monothetic scoring), moderate-risk gamers (i.e., polythetic scoring) and normal gamers (i.e., the remaining participants).

Earlier studies have found various factors associated with gaming disorder symptoms, including gaming time (Pontes et al., 2022), gaming motivations (Bäcklund et al., 2022), and personality traits (Bäcklund et al., 2024; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019). The influence of personality traits may be of particular interest since most video games have their own characteristics, making some individuals more prone to play specific video games (Braun et al., 2016). Various models of personality are used in the literature. However, the most widely recognized is the five-factor model (BIG-5), proposing that personality consists of five different dimensions: (1) Openness to experience (e.g., being intellectual and imaginative), (2) Conscientiousness (e.g., being persistent, diligent, and achievement-oriented), (3) Extraversion (e.g., being outgoing, energetic, and sociable), (4) Agreeableness (e.g., being cooperative, altruistic and empathic) and (5) Neuroticism (e.g., being sensitive to experience negative emotions; Wiggins, 1996). Previous research suggests that certain personality traits (e.g., neuroticism) are essential to the development of both chemical and behavioral addictions (e.g., Dash et al., 2019; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019). The significance of personality traits has also been shown concerning gaming disorder symptoms. For instance, reviews and meta-analyses synthesizing the relationship between gaming disorder symptoms and the five factors of BIG-5 (Chew, 2022; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019) show that gaming disorder symptoms are positively associated with neuroticism, negatively associated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion and minimal negative to non-significant association with openness. Moreover, similar to substance use disorders, high levels of neuroticism have been consistently associated with more gaming disorder symptoms (Chew, 2022; Zilberman et al., 2018). Considering prior research highlighting the importance of personality traits in gaming disorders (Bäcklund et al., 2024), the present study significantly contributes to understanding problematic gaming by investigating personality traits across different levels of problematic gameplay within a specific game. The present study may provide essential knowledge concerning gaming disorder, considering that each game has unique characteristics, which may influence the relationship between personality and gaming behavior differently compared to broader measures of video gaming, such as video game genres.

Additional risk factors have been identified concerning gaming disorder symptoms in recent years. Researchers have observed that specific gaming types, including Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs), First Person Shooter (FPS), and Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA), are associated with higher endorsement of gaming disorder symptoms compared to other video game genres (Na et al., 2017; Rehbein et al., 2021). Consequently, some academics have recently emphasized the need for research to focus on various gaming types and populations when investigating problematic gaming (Wischert-Zielke & Barke, 2023). Furthermore, other researchers have stated that future studies should consider specific video games when investigating gaming disorders because various video games have different characteristics that may influence the individual (e.g., King et al., 2019; Stevens et al., 2020). In the context of non-problematic gaming, it has also been stressed that research should move away from general and/or genre-based investigations of problematic gaming and instead focus on specific video game types because each game has its unique characteristics (Dale & Green, 2017).

Earlier findings have also shown that some personality tendencies are related to aspects of the game concerning the relation to other players within the game. For example, a previous study investigating personality within World of Warcraft (I.e., an MMORPG) found that individuals who preferred players vs. players modes within World of Warcraft had low levels of Honesty-Humility and more psychopathic traits and that players who preferred social player vs. environment activities had higher levels of extraversion (Worth & Book, 2014). Previous studies have demonstrated that participants exhibit distinct personality traits across various game genres (Kim et al., 2022; Liao et al., 2023), highlighting the importance of considering personality across different video games when studying gaming disorder. To the current author’s knowledge, no previous study has investigated the relationship between personality traits and gaming disorder symptoms within a specific MOBA game. This research gap is significant considering the inherent heterogeneity within the same video game genre (Clarke et al., 2017; Sevin & DeCamp, 2020), as each MOBA game may offer unique gameplay mechanics and dynamics that can influence player behavior and experiences differently. DOTA 2 is a MOBA game developed and published by Valve Corporation. DOTA 2 is a team-based game that requires strategic decision-making. Two teams of five players on each side must cooperate by strategically pooling and distributing resources and competing to destroy a large structure defended by the opposing team, known as the “Ancient,” while defending their own (Berner et al., 2019; Röhlcke et al., 2018; Sörman et al., 2022). DOTA 2 is a popular MOBA game suitable for investigating associations with psychological factors due to its immersive narrative, diverse gameplay mechanics, and visually captivating elements. The game’s mechanics include managing resources, controlling objectives, and decision-making (Rezapour et al., 2024). Previous research on Dota 2 players has shown that increased gameplay was associated with poorer psychological well-being, specifically in cases with more motivation for escape and lower self-esteem (Goh et al., 2019). This may indicate that the immersive and competitive nature of Dota 2 could have significant psychological impacts on its players, warranting further investigation.

Rationale for the current study

Earlier findings have demonstrated the importance of structural game characteristics (Rehbein et al., 2021) and personality traits (Bäcklund et al., 2024) concerning gaming disorder symptoms. However, considering the importance of personality and variations of specific video games within a gaming genre, the present study provides a nuanced perspective on gaming disorder by investigating personality traits across different severity levels of problematic gaming (i.e., moderate-risk and high-risk gamers) within a particular game, Dota 2. The present study provides knowledge on whether relationships between personality traits and gaming disorder symptoms differ from previous research when considering a specific game instead of an overall genre-based classification. Furthermore, the findings from the present study may have significant implications from a clinical perspective on gaming disorder concerning the importance of personality in psychological treatment. Based on the need to consider personality traits and specific games concerning gaming disorder symptoms, the present study addresses this research gap by investigating the relationship between personality factors (Big-5) and gaming disorder symptoms within a population of Dota 2 players.

Methods

Participants

In February 2019, 325 Dota 2 players (aged ≥ 15 years) from different countries worldwide were recruited via online gaming forums and agreed to respond to the questionnaires used in this study. Among these, 4 participants were excluded from the analyses after being identified as statistical outliers according to the three-interquartile-range rule. Outlier responses were also proved to be unreasonable (e.g., 650 gaming hours per week). Thus, the final sample contained responses from 321 participants (M = 23.25 years, SD = 4.51) and consisted of 94.4% males, 5.0% females, and 0.6% who preferred not to say. The highest level of education completed at present was distributed between primary school (5.0%), high school (22.7%), some college/university credits (19.9%), trade/technical/vocational training (3.4%), associate degree (2.8%), bachelor’s degree (36.1%), master´s degree (7.8%), professional degree (1.2%), and PhD degree (0.9%). The Institutional Ethical Committee of Umeå university, Sweden, approved the present study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for inclusion in the study, and all study procedures were performed following the Declaration of Helsinki. The present study did not include any personal data that could link to an identified individual. Following the Ethical Review Act of Sweden, no participants were under 15 years old, and no personal data was collected.

Measures

Game addiction scale (GAS-7)

In the current study, GAS-7 was used to measure gaming disorder symptoms (Lemmens et al., 2009). GAS-7 consists of the following seven items; Salience, Conflict, Mood modification, Tolerance, Withdrawals, Relapse, and Problems, to measure gaming behavior. The answers were graded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = very often). An item criterion was considered to be fulfilled if a participant scored 3 (i.e., sometimes) or higher. Following a similar procedure as Lemmens et al. (2009) suggested, participants were categorized into three different gaming behavior groups based on the number of criteria they fulfilled. Those who fulfilled four criteria (or more) were assigned to a ‘moderate-risk gamers’ group (i.e., polythetic group). Participants who fulfilled all seven criteria were assigned to the ‘high-risk gamers’ group (i.e., monothetic group). Participants who were not categorized as risk gamers were assigned to a “normal gamer” group. In addition, a continuous variable was created by summing the responses to form a composite score (ranging from 7 to 35), with higher scores indicating a higher degree of gaming disorder symptoms. The GAS-7 has, in previous studies, shown good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Brunborg et el., 2013). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha for GAS-7 was .74.

International personality item pool (IPIP)

This study measured personality using the 20-item Mini-IPIP Five-Factor personality test developed by Donnellan et al. (2006). The questionnaire comprises 20 questions on which participants rate themselves on statements (e.g., “I am the life of the party” or “I feel others’ emotions”) reflecting different personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). This five-factor model has emerged across cultures, and it has demonstrated reasonable validity and reliability. Participants rate their responses on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (agreeing completely). In this study, with four items measuring each factor, Cronbach’s alpha reliability for openness was 0.64, for conscientiousness 0.59, for extraversion 0.80, for agreeableness 0.71, and for neuroticism 0.51.

Covariates

Additional factors included in the analyses were age and average gaming hours per week in consideration to previous findings (Pontes et al., 2022; Rehbein et al., 2021).

Statistical analyses

First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) were calculated for all variables in the study. Values of skewness and kurtosis were used to test for normality. Next, zero-order correlations were executed between all variables. Factors significantly associated with GAS-7 outcomes were used in forthcoming multiple linear regression analysis and multinominal logistic regressions to further investigate which independent variables were significantly related to GAS-7 outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis was used for analysis with the GAS-7 composite score as the dependent variable. Differences between normal gamers, moderate-risk gamers, and high-risk gamers were first investigated by conducting a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Due to different sample sizes within each group, Games-Howell post hoc tests were conducted for multiple comparisons. All data publicly available (osf.io/s5be7) were analyzed with SPSS version 28 (IBM Corp, 2021).

Results

Participant characteristics and results from correlational analyses are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the means and 95% confidence interval regarding the three gaming groups’ personality traits and average play hours per week.

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants and correlations analyses
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Means and 95% confidence interval of the three groups of participants

Full size image

For all data, both skewness (range − 0.71 to 1.80) and kurtosis (range-0.80 to 4.19) revealed normally distributed data according to thresholds, which has been suggested to be 2 for skewness, and 7 for kurtosis (Finney & DiStefano, 2006). As shown in Table 1, GAS-7 composite score was significantly positively correlated with average play hours per week and neuroticism and negatively correlated to extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Next, multiple linear regression analysis was executed with the GAS-7 composite score as a dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, average gaming hours per week and personality factors agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significantly predictive of the composite score, with neuroticism being the factor most strongly associated with the outcome.

Table 2 Results from the linear regression analyses with average game hours per week and personality variables as predictors of video game addiction according to the composite score of GAS-7
Full size table

The one-way ANOVA, executed to compare the three different gamers groups (i.e., normal gamers, moderate-risk gamers, and high-risk gamers) on all independent variables, revealed a statistically significant difference in mean gaming time, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (see Table 3). However, the Games-Howell test for multiple comparisons indicated that neuroticism was the only variable that significantly varied between all three gamer groups, showing that moderate-risk gamers had higher levels of neuroticism than normal gamers (mean difference = 1.10, 95% CI [0.29, 1.19], p = .004) and that high-risk gamers, in turn, had higher levels of neuroticism compared to both moderate-risk gamers (mean difference = 1.65, 95% CI [0.22, 3.07], p = .021) and normal gamers (mean difference = 2.75, 95% CI [1.32, 4.17], p = < 0.001). For average game hours per week, there was a significant difference showing that moderate-risk gamers, on average, played more than normal gamers (Mean difference = 4.86, 95% CI [1.89, 7.83], p = < 0.001), but no significant differences were found between high-risk gamers and moderate-risk gamers (Mean difference = 1.72, 95% CI [-4.77, 8.23], p = .792) or between high-risk players and normal gamers (Mean difference = 3.13, 95% CI [-3.16, 9.43] p = .445). Regarding agreeableness and conscientiousness, the Games-Howell test did not reveal significant differences between the gaming groups.

Table 3 Analysis of variance between the three gamers groups concerning age, average game hours per week and personality variables
Full size table

Discussion

The present study explored the relationship between the big-five personality traits and gaming disorder symptoms (Lemmens et al., 2009) in a population of Dota 2 players. The analyses showed that gaming disorder symptoms were positively associated with neuroticism and negatively associated with conscientiousness and agreeableness when a composite score was used as an indicator of gaming disorder symptoms. Results also showed that gaming time, an important covariate in the analyses was positively associated with gaming disorder symptoms. When participants were categorized into three different groups based on gaming behavior, results showed that the moderate-risk gamer group (i.e., polythetic scoring) showed a more substantial relationship with neuroticism and gaming time than normal gamers. The high-risk gamers (i.e., monothetic scoring) showed an even more robust association with neuroticism compared to normal gamers and moderate-risk gamers. However, the high-risk gamers did not differ significantly from the other groups regarding gaming time, and conscientiousness and agreeableness did not significantly differ between the gaming groups.

Consistent with most previous findings, results from the analyses showed that the personality trait neuroticism is significantly associated with gaming disorder symptoms (Chew, 2022; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019), showing that moderate and high-risk gamers are more likely to be susceptible to experiencing negative emotions (i.e., neuroticism) compared to normal players. High-risk gamers are also differentiated from moderate-risk gamers by higher levels of neuroticism. Researchers have considered neuroticism a vulnerability factor for developing internet-use-related problems (Kuss & Lopez-Fernandez, 2016), and previous observations have shown that higher levels of neuroticism are often present in both substance-related and behavioral addictions (Zilberman et al., 2018). Moreover, previous research has suggested that individuals obtaining high scores on neuroticism may consider the real world intimidating and uses the digital world as an instrument to alleviate undesirable or negative emotional states (Müller et al., 2014), often described as “self-medication” (Khantzian, 1987). Previous research has also highlighted the need for more research directed toward specific games (Dale & Green, 2017), and the results from the current study show that neuroticism may play a vital role in the etiology of gaming disorder in a sample of Dota 2 players, aligned with earlier findings (Chew, 2022; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019).

The results showed a significant relationship between average gaming time per week and the number of gaming disorder symptoms fulfilled (composite score) and moderate-risk gamers (polythetic) compared to normal gamers. However, the relationship was non-significant, considering high-risk gamers (monothetic) compared to normal gamers. Findings suggest that gaming time is essential for individuals endorsing few to moderate gaming disorder symptoms. However, the analysis indicates that gaming time appears less relevant once individuals display all investigated gaming disorder symptoms. Moreover, the current findings suggest a large dispersion concerning gaming time mean in a population of high-risk gaming gamers (as indicated by the CI), indicating that gaming time may have a complex association with gaming disorder symptoms in a population of Dota 2 players. Previous studies have found that gaming time is significantly related to a composite score of gaming disorder symptoms (Pontes et al., 2022) and is often used as a convergent validity variable in psychometric studies (Yoon et al., 2021). However, a previous study has observed that individuals who endorse core addiction criteria did not spend more time gaming than highly engaged gamers (Brunborg et al., 2013). Another study found that the relationship between psychiatric symptoms and gaming time was close to zero and moderate to strong with gaming disorder symptoms, indicating that gaming time alone is not essentially problematic (Király et al., 2017). Moreover, previous observations from case studies have suggested that gaming time is not necessarily an indicator of gaming disorder symptoms, and that the context is crucial to consider when using gaming time as a criterion for gaming disorder (Griffiths, 2010). The current findings indicate that weekly gaming time may not always be a critical aspect concerning the etiology of gaming disorder in a population of Dota 2 players.

The current study found a significant negative relationship between agreeableness and gaming disorder symptoms when treated as a composite score, which is in line with several previous studies (Müller et al., 2014). Interpersonal conflict is one of the criteria concerning disordered gaming behavior in the current measurement of gaming disorder symptoms (Lemmens et al., 2009), and social impairment or distress is present in both the DSM-5 and ICD-11 frameworks regarding Internet Gaming Disorder and Gaming disorder (APA, 2013; World Health Organization, 2019). As Chew (2022) has previously suggested, these criteria may directly oppose the essential characteristic of agreeableness since individuals scoring highly on agreeableness tend to indicate a tolerant and forgiving personality with a desire to be likable and present (Graziano & Tobin, 2009). Thus, the desire to avoid interpersonal conflicts could be why agreeableness may be considered a protective factor against gaming disorder. However, the previous results concerning the relationship between agreeableness and gaming disorder symptoms have also been mixed (Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019). Researchers have suggested that the relationship may differ depending on the gaming type or genre (Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019; Wittek et al., 2016). Since Dota 2 is a team game where collaboration is essential, the presence of agreeableness traits may be more rewarding within the current game. Although, agreeableness was not related to gaming disorder symptoms when participants were classified into risk behavior groups following a procedure similar to Lemmens et al. (2009), indicating that agreeableness still plays a minor role regarding the risk of developing the most problematic forms of gaming behavior.

The findings of this study revealed a negative relationship between conscientiousness and gaming disorder symptoms, consistent with most previous studies (Chew, 2022; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019). However, this relationship was also only present in analyses using gaming disorder symptoms as a composite score. Previously observed findings showed that high scores on the conscientiousness factors are often positively associated with good job performance (Dudley et al., 2006), and academic success (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). Considering that gaming disorder is often characterized by educational or occupational difficulties (APA, 2013; Lemmens et al., 2009; World Health Organization, 2019), conscientious individuals may be less likely to risk important life aspects due to video games. However, this interpretation should be considered with caution since conscientiousness was only associated with the composite score and not when comparing gamer groups. The current findings may indicate that individuals with high self-reported scores on the conscientiousness trait may maintain functional video gameplay and stops themselves before their gaming behavior causes any impairments. Thus, considering gaming disorder symptoms on a continuum (as in the composite score), conscientiousness might be most crucial at the lowest end when individuals only endorse one or a few gaming disorder symptoms.

Practical implications

The current findings indicate that screening for personality traits (neuroticism in particular) might be a more informative indicator than gaming time for the most severe form of gaming disorder (monothetic), at least among Dota 2 players. The robust relationship between neuroticism and gaming disorder symptoms observed in the current study may warrant future clinical considerations. A review on neuroticism in psychological treatment observed high comorbidity rates and suggested that shifting the focus of the intervention to core temperamental vulnerabilities could lead to simultaneous improvement across symptoms of all co-occurring disorders (Sauer-Zavala et al., 2017). Individuals who score highly on neuroticism and gaming disorder symptoms may also experience comorbidity, and clinicians may consider transdiagnostic treatment as the intervention of gaming disorder.

Strengths and limitations

The current study provides empirical evidence regarding relationships between personality traits and gaming disorder symptoms amongst Dota 2 players and provides transparency through publicly available data (osf.io/s5be7). In addition, the current findings offer a nuanced perspective of gaming disorder by differentiating between different degrees of severity (i.e., composite score, monothetic, or polythetic). Nevertheless, the current findings and conclusions should be considered with regard to the study’s limitations. First, the present study utilized a cross-sectional research design; thus, no causal inferences can be made from the findings. Future studies should employ longitudinal research designs to investigate the relationship between gaming disorder symptoms and personality traits. Second, the sample size concerning high-risk gamers is small and warrants careful interpretations of the findings. Third, the results rely only on self-reported data, making it susceptible to social desirability or memory recall bias. Fourth, although the GAS-7 displays excellent psychometric properties, the measurement does not cover all of the DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria (King et al., 2020), making it difficult to draw any clinically relevant conclusions. Future studies should aim to reach a consensus regarding how to measure gaming disorder (King et al., 2020) and/or investigate which gaming disorder criteria show diagnostic and clinic validity in treatment-seeking gamers (Castro-Calvo et al., 2021), considering the different methods used in the literature to capture gaming disorder symptoms. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha for neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness is below most recommended values, warranting cautious interpretation of the results.

Directions for future research

As shown by this study and to avoid pathologizing a recreational activity, future studies should, when possible, consider distinguishing between different levels of severity of gaming disorder, not only focusing on symptoms of gaming disorder as a composite score. Future research should focus on the investigation into the role of gaming time and its relationship to gaming disorder to avoid over-pathologizing normal behaviors. Seeing the robust relationship between gaming disorder symptoms and neuroticism, in line with previous findings (Chew, 2022; Şalvarlı & Griffiths, 2019), future studies should consider investigating the association between personality traits and gaming disorder symptoms concerning other specific video games. Moreover, the personality trait agreeableness and conscientiousness may be used to identify individuals who are less likely to experience gaming disorder symptoms. Future research should investigate possible behavioral interventions focusing on helping individuals with severe gaming disorder symptoms increase conscientiousness (Javaras et al., 2019).

Conclusions

The current study shows that neuroticism was the only personality trait significantly associated with gaming disorder symptoms across all the analyses, highlighting the relevance of this personality trait. Conscientiousness and agreeableness were only significantly associated with gaming disorder symptoms in the analysis with a composite score. Overall, the analyses indicate that agreeableness and conscientiousness may be considered protective factors, and neuroticism and gaming time risk factors. The result showed gaming time as a non-significant predictor of the high-risk gamer group compared to the normal gamer and moderate-risk group, indicating that gaming time may be a less influential risk factor when the most severe form of gaming and specific games is investigated. These findings warrant further examination.