Amendola and colleagues (2024) plan to examine the usefulness of Harmful Dysfunction Analysis (HDA) in identifying individuals with pathological social media disorder. Harmful Dysfunction Analysis, proposed by Wakefield et al (1992), is a framework for constructing diagnostic criteria, and suggests a disorder is a harmful dysfunction, and defines a dysfunction as a failure of an internal mechanism to perform its naturally designed function. One important distinction of HDA is that harmful consequences of behaviour in the absence of dysfunction does not mean a disorder is present. Both dysfunction and harm are required for diagnosis of a disorder

 

This analysis may provide a useful perspective on how to separate pathological social media use from high involvement. To examine their aims, the authors will conduct secondary analysis on data from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (specifically the Swiss sample, N = 7,510), which is a world health organisation collaborative cross-sectional study of adolescent well-being from 2018 (https://www.who.int/europe/initiatives/health-behaviour-in-school-aged-children-(hbsc)-study). They will examine the 9-item Social Media Disorder Scale under DSM-5 and HDA categories (dysfunction and harm), and examine convergence between the scoring methods. Subsequent analyses will focus on groups defined by each scoring method (DSM vs HDA, with no overlapping cases) will be compared on measures of physical and mental health. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted in an independent sample from Hungary in 2023 (N = 3,789).

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by three expert reviewers across two rounds of review. Following in-depth review and responses from the authors, the recommender judged that the Stage 1 criteria were met and awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y3ub8
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 3. At least some data/evidence that will be used to the answer the research question has been previously accessed by the authors (e.g. downloaded or otherwise received), but the authors certify that they have not yet observed ANY part of the data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

References
 
1. Amendola, S., Hengartner, M. P., & Wakefield, J. C. (2024). The Harmful Dysfunction Analysis applied to the concept of behavioural addiction: A secondary analysis of data from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children 2018. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/y3ub8
 
2. Wakefield, J. C. (1992). Disorder as Harmful Dysfunction: A Conceptual Critique of DSM-III-R’s Definition of Mental Disorder. Psychological Review, 99, 232–247. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.232

How can qualitative research and case studies inform theoretical models of gaming disorder? Gaming Disorder has generated a large amount of research, with up to 95% of it focusing on quantitative studies. As a result, most of the meta-analyses and review studies focus on quantitative research and disregard qualitative approaches. However, studying the direct experiences of gamers can provide more detailed and direct evidence that can feed into theoretical models. 

 

In this Stage 1 manuscript, Auranen et al. (2024) will perform a qualitative meta-analysis of gaming disorder case studies, case reports, and case series of treatment-seekers using a 3-phase approach. First, they will focus on examining the reported problems of participants, the reported reasons for seeking help to reduce their gaming, and the causal link between gaming and reported problems, including the context of these problematic behaviors. Second, thematic synthesis will generate construct themes regarding the contexts of the individuals and the reported problems. Lastly, the authors will examine the relevance of findings in regards to the coping model, value fulfillment theory and the theory of cultural dissonance.

 

The Stage 1 submission was evaluated by the recommender and three expert reviewers, one of which was recused due to conflicts of interest that emerged after the first round of revisions. The recommender and co-recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

• Collabra: Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 
References

Auranen, T., Adamkovič, M., Martončik, M., Park, S., Kauraoja, V., Siutila, M., Jin, Y., & Karhulahti, V.-M. (2024). Gaming Disorder: A qualitative meta-synthesis of related case studies. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/hzc5a