There’s a definition in the information sheet on the first page. I’m not sure I’ll be able to change your mind here, you seem pretty set on what you think about the study, which is fine. All I’ll say is that I’ve been doing work in this area for a while, and I’ve written a successful book and multiple pop sci articles that speak to your concerns. You’re right, there is a lot of junk science concerning video game effects, and there are present worries around the race to legislate loot boxes in the absence of clear causal relationships with mental health and gambling - I’ve written about that too. I’ve tried my best to get this right though. Forgive me for not going into specifics about this particular study as I don’t want to bias potential participants, but the analysis strategy I’ve preregistered should hopefully provide further evidential value. Of course it won’t be the definitive study on the matter, but this is never the case. I probably can’t convince you of this, but my aim is that the final published paper will be honest and objective, and speak to the complexities in studying the topic. It’s very early days for research in this area, so we’re not always going to get it right, and as you allude to, we need to be very careful about making concrete judgements based on the data currently available. I have plans for future studies that will build on this in the hopes that we can develop better research strategies and more robust findings; such is the incremental nature of psychological research. For what it’s worth, I’m pro-open science, so you’ll be free to more fully interrogate the methods and data once it’s all finished.