![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/gamer-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in Psychological Reports suggests that individuals who engage regularly in video gaming do not differ significantly from non-gamers in fundamental psychological functions such as emotional regulation, interpersonal relatedness, and defense mechanisms. The findings challenge the assumption that gaming is inherently linked to maladaptive personality traits or dysfunction, and instead indicate that gamers may actually show strengths in some psychological areas.
Public discourse around gaming often swings between viewing it as harmful and seeing it as a beneficial hobby. Concerns about video game use have largely focused on risks such as addiction, social isolation, and poor emotional control. At the same time, researchers have also noted cognitive and social benefits among some gamers. Yet few studies have examined whether regular gaming influences deeper aspects of psychological functioning, including personality organization, defense strategies, and how individuals form and sustain emotional bonds.
The authors were motivated by a gap in the literature. While many studies focus on the positive or negative impacts of games themselves, relatively few examine whether people who invest heavily in gaming differ from non-gamers in the structure and quality of their personality functioning. The researchers aimed to assess this question using a more psychoanalytic and clinical psychology framework. Their goal was not to assess whether gaming causes mental health issues, but to explore whether frequent gaming is associated with differences in psychological functioning at a structural level.
“I have long been engaged in clinical psychology and psychoanalytic theory, while also being surrounded by many friends and students who are deeply involved in gaming,” said study author Ekin Emiral, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the University of Health Sciences in İstanbul.
“Although I have never been a gamer myself (I left gaming with Solitaire), this ‘in-between’ position gave me a unique perspective: I could see both the clinical bias toward pathologizing gaming and the everyday reality that gamers are not fundamentally different from other social groups. As a psychoanalytically oriented clinical psychologist, I was particularly curious whether investing large amounts of time in gaming—especially in MMORPGs—might be resulted from not serious pathology but some disruptions in early ego functions such as object relations.”
The study involved 762 participants aged 18 to 44. Among them, 345 were categorized as gamers, and 407 as non-gamers. Gamers were defined as individuals who spent at least eight hours per week gaming and described it as a meaningful activity. Non-gamers either did not play games or played fewer than eight hours per week without assigning it much importance in their lives.
To assess participants’ psychological characteristics, the researchers used several well-established self-report measures. These included scales to assess personality disorders (based on the categories from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), emotion regulation difficulties, defense mechanisms (ways of unconsciously managing stress or internal conflict), and object relations (how people perceive and interact with others at an emotional level).
Initial analyses found some differences between gamers and non-gamers in specific personality disorder traits. Non-gamers scored slightly higher on traits associated with paranoid, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, and dependent personality disorders. Gamers scored slightly higher on traits related to antisocial and schizotypal personality disorders.
However, when the researchers adjusted for age—since gamers were, on average, about two years older than non-gamers—only three of these differences remained statistically significant. Gamers still showed slightly higher scores on antisocial and schizotypal traits, while non-gamers continued to score higher on avoidant and dependent traits.
These group differences were modest in size, suggesting that they should not be overinterpreted. The researchers noted that age may account for many of the apparent differences, as some traits, such as impulsivity or interpersonal sensitivity, tend to decrease with age.
When it came to object relations, which includes concepts like alienation, insecure attachment, egocentricity, and social incompetence, the researchers found no meaningful differences between the two groups. This finding is particularly important because object relations are considered foundational to healthy psychological development and interpersonal functioning. The similarity between gamers and non-gamers in this domain suggests that gaming is not associated with disruptions in how people relate to others on a fundamental level.
“I initially expected to see at least some differences in object relations (developmentally first ego function related to object investments), given the substantial time investment that gaming requires,” Emiral told PsyPost. “However, we found no such deficits. On the contrary, some aspects of ego functioning even appeared stronger in the gamer group. This was surprising not only to me but also to some psychoanalysts I discussed the results with. Interestingly, my students felt reassured to see that their gaming habits were not automatically pathologized.”
The researchers also examined defense mechanisms, which refer to the unconscious strategies people use to manage internal conflict and distress. These were categorized into three types: immature, neurotic, and mature. Immature defenses include mechanisms like denial or projection, neurotic defenses include suppression and reaction formation, while mature defenses involve humor, sublimation, and anticipation.
Gamers reported using mature defenses more frequently than non-gamers. At the same time, non-gamers reported greater use of neurotic defenses. There was no difference between the groups in the use of immature defenses. The authors suggest that the cognitive and social demands of gaming may support the use of more adaptive coping strategies, especially in complex team-based or goal-oriented game environments.
With respect to emotion regulation, the initial results showed that gamers had fewer difficulties than non-gamers. However, this difference disappeared after controlling for age. This pattern aligns with research indicating that emotion regulation improves in young adulthood, and the slightly older average age of the gamer group may explain the apparent advantage.
“The central takeaway is that gamers are not inherently more pathological than non-gamers,” Emiral explained. “In fact, in some domains they even demonstrate stronger capacities. Of course, there are problematic gamers—as earlier research has documented—but this should not be generalized, since in any group of people we will find individuals struggling with a variety of difficulties. Our results challenge the traditional psychiatric tendency to pathologize behaviors that deviate from established norms. Instead, gaming may be better understood as a cultural and developmental activity—much like literature or cinema—rather than as a marker of dysfunction.”
The study does have some limitations. The most notable is the gender imbalance between the groups. The gamer group was predominantly male, which may have influenced the findings, particularly those related to personality traits and defense styles. Future research should aim for a more balanced sample across gender identities to ensure broader generalizability.
The classification of participants into gamer and non-gamer groups was based on self-reported gaming time and subjective importance, which could introduce variability. People who game fewer hours but place high emotional value on gaming may be more similar to heavy gamers than the classification suggests. Future studies might benefit from including more nuanced distinctions based on game genre, playing style, or gaming motivations.
“Our study focused on individuals who dedicate significant time to long-term gaming formats like MMORPGs and FPS titles,” Emiral noted. “Hyper casual gamers or those in different genres might present different psychological profiles. I strongly think that they might be different from our findings because the game mechanics are quite different.”
The cross-sectional design of the study also limits the ability to draw conclusions about causality. It remains unclear whether gaming supports the development of certain psychological traits or whether individuals with particular traits are more drawn to gaming. Longitudinal studies would be needed to assess how gaming may influence psychological functioning over time.
Despite these limitations, the study provides one of the more comprehensive assessments of ego functioning and personality features in gamers compared to non-gamers. The findings suggest that gaming does not inherently impair psychological development and may even be associated with adaptive features in some contexts.
“Currently, my colleagues and I are turning to a related but broader frontier: the role of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy,” Emiral said. “We are exploring how potential users perceive AI as a potential therapeutic tool and what implications this might have for the future of clinical psychology. Just as gaming reshaped cultural practices, I believe AI will pose both challenges and opportunities for psychotherapy—potentially even becoming a new object of psychological investment.”
“I think it is time we begin to see gaming not just through the lens of risk but also as a new domain of development and expression. Much like literature, cinema, or sports, gaming has become a cultural space where individuals test skills, form relationships, and explore aspects of identity. Recognizing this may help us move away from a simplistic “good vs. bad” framing and toward a more nuanced understanding of gamers’ psychology.”
The study, “Challenging Stereotypes: Ego Functioning and Personality Pathology in Gamers versus Non-Gamers,” was authored by Ekin Emiral and Yıldız Bilge.
