Regelmatig gamen als volwassen hobby (~5+ uur/week) versus geen videospelletjes spelen
Als je handelt
Gamen als regelmatige volwassen hobby
10%
Als je niets doet
Geen videospelletjes spelen
14%
Percentage dat later spijt heeft van elke keuze. De balken en het volledige overzicht staan hieronder.
Levensstijl
Laatst beoordeeld 2026-05-30
Kwaliteit van bewijs 4.13/5
Beoordelingsscore op acht dimensies volgens de
kwaliteitsrubriek
. Elke dimensie krijgt een score van 1 tot 5.
D1 Bronverificatie
5/5
D2 Autoriteit en onafhankelijkheid van bronnen
5/5
D3 Nauwkeurigheid van spijtcijfer
2/5
D4 Vergelijkbaarheid van bronnen
4/5
D5 Gilovich-patroon
4/5
D6 Prozakwaliteit
4/5
D7 Volledigheid van voorbehouden
4/5
D8 Steekproefkwaliteit
5/5
Gemiddelde4.13/5
Proxygegevens — er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête voor deze beslissing. De percentages zijn afgeleid van tevredenheidsscores en toegangsdrempelgegevens in plaats van vragen die direct naar spijt vroegen. Zie opmerkingen hieronder.
Spijt van handelen
Gamen als regelmatige volwassen hobby
10%
~10% van volwassen gamers (proxy: ICD-11/DSM-5 gaming-stoornis prevalentie + het kleine aandeel wiens zelf-gerapporteerde levenstevredenheidstraject door spelen wordt geschaad)
Volwassen gamers — proxy uit N=38.935 industrie-samenwerkings longitudinaal monster en gaming-stoornis prevalentie meta-analyses
retrospectief + longitudinaal 6 weken
Spijt van nalaten
Geen videospelletjes spelen
14%
~14% van niet-gamers uit interesse of aspiratie naar deelname aan gaming (proxy: kloof tussen Amerikaanse gaming-adoptie (~65%) en het aandeel van overgebleven niet-gamers dat nieuwsgierigheid of sociale-inclusie motivatie rapporteert)
Amerikaanse niet-gamers (~35% van Amerikaanse volwassenen); proxy-schatting uit Pew + ESA adoptie + gerapporteerde barrièreonderzoeken
retrospectief + aspirationeel
% betreurt deze keuze
Gamen als regelmatige volwassen hobbyGeen videospelletjes spelen
10%14%
balanced — Ongeveer in balans — beide keuzes leveren vergelijkbare spijt op.
Gerelateerde keuzes
Semantisch vergelijkbare keuzes — zelfde terrein, andere afwegingen.
The strongest evidence on adult gaming and wellbeing is Vuorre, Johannes, Magnusson and Przybylski’s 2022 study in Royal Society Open Science, which tracked 38,935 active players across seven games (Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Apex Legends, Eve Online, Forza Horizon 4, Gran Turismo Sport, Outriders, and The Crew 2) over six weeks, using industry-cooperation telemetry to link verified play time to player-reported wellbeing. A one-hour daily increase in play produced a change of −0.04 [−0.15, 0.09] on an 11-point life-satisfaction scale and 0.03 [−0.09, 0.16] on a 13-point affect scale — effects the authors describe as “limited, if any.” This is the cleanest causal-inference design available for the question, and it points to a null average effect of gaming time on wellbeing. Halbrook, O’Donnell and Msetfi’s 2019 review in Perspectives on Psychological Science concludes that gaming’s effects are moderated by motivation, social context, presence of violence, and physical activity, with most recreational use sitting in the beneficial zone. The harm distribution is highly concentrated: roughly 3-4% of players meet ICD-11 or DSM-5 gaming-disorder criteria, and within that subset, action-side regret is substantially higher. The 10% headline estimate adds a buffer to the disordered-gaming prevalence for sub-clinical retrospective regret of time use.
The inaction side is harder to characterise. No survey directly asks non-gamers whether they regret not having taken up gaming as an adult hobby. The Entertainment Software Association’s 2023 Essential Facts report estimates 65% of Americans (about 212.6 million weekly players) game; Pew’s 2024 survey of 1,453 US teens finds 85% of adolescents play, with 89% of teen players gaming with others in person or online and roughly three-quarters (72%) citing time spent with others as a reason to play — gaming functions as a primary social-connection medium for the cohort now entering adulthood. Adults who do not game forgo a recreational and social-inclusion modality rather than the activity itself; the magnitude of regret for that foregone modality depends on whether the non-gamer’s social network is gaming-dense or gaming-sparse. The 14% inaction-side estimate is constructed from the adoption gap and adjacent aspirational-interest signals. Roese and Summerville’s 2005 meta-analysis places leisure as the smallest of six top regret domains, smaller than education, career, romance, parenting, or self — which constrains both sides of this entry to low absolute magnitudes.
This is the rare regret pair where both sides plausibly carry low long-term regret. The estimated four-point delta is within the uncertainty of both proxy constructions and should be read as “approximately equal long-term regret with a slight inaction lean” rather than a precise gap. Three caveats merit emphasis. First, harm is concentrated: the 3-4% of players who develop disordered gaming carry costs (sleep loss, occupational interference, withdrawal) that the population-average headline obscures, and within that subset action-side regret is substantially higher. Second, generational cohort effects matter: gaming has been normative recreational behaviour for two decades, and inaction regret may rise in cohorts where non-gaming meant social exclusion. Third, genre and motivation moderate the answer substantially — competitive multiplayer with toxic chat differs in regret profile from cooperative or single-player experiences, and the Vuorre study averages across genres. Industry-cooperation studies carry mild publication-incentive concerns toward null or positive findings, partly mitigated by convergence with the independent Halbrook review. The direction — neither side dominates — is consistent across the strongest available evidence; the headline magnitudes are proxy constructions that should be held loosely.
Bronnen: handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
[1]Royal Society Open Science (Vuorre, Johannes, Magnusson & Przybylski, 2022) — Time spent playing video games is unlikely to impact well-being
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
Across N=38,935 active players of seven games over six weeks, a one-hour daily increase in play produced a change of −0.04 [−0.15, 0.09] on an 11-point life-satisfaction scale and 0.03 [−0.09, 0.16] on a 13-point affect scale; effects on well-being were 'limited, if any'
Fragment
“"We found that the association between game play and well-being was small, below a threshold of practical relevance suggested by previous research. We caution against general conclusions that play time impacts well-being; time spent playing video games had limited, if any, impact on well-being."
”
Brongegevens van
2022-07-27
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Berekening
Vuorre, Johannes, Magnusson & Przybylski (2022), Royal Society Open Science 9(7), 220411 — three-wave six-week longitudinal with N=38,935 active players across Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Apex Legends, Eve Online, Forza Horizon 4, Gran Turismo Sport, Outriders, and The Crew 2. Industry-cooperation design (telemetry-verified play time linked to player-reported wellbeing) is the strongest causal-inference design available for this question. The null effect on life satisfaction (−0.04 [−0.15, 0.09]) and on affect (0.03 [−0.09, 0.16]) means the average gamer is essentially indifferent on wellbeing margins from gaming time. We use this to support a low action-side regret rate: if gaming time has no measurable average effect on wellbeing, retrospective regret of having spent time gaming should also be low. The 10% estimate is set at roughly the documented prevalence of problematic / disordered gaming (3-4% per ICD-11/DSM-5 criteria) plus a buffer for sub-clinical regret of time use among players who reconstruct their hours retrospectively. Not a direct regret measurement; the strongest available evidence base for low average impact.
[2]Perspectives on Psychological Science (Halbrook, O'Donnell & Msetfi, 2019) — When and How Video Games Can Be Good: A Review of the Positive Effects of Video Games on Well-Being
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
Review concludes that gaming's effects on wellbeing are moderated by motivation, social context, presence of violence, and physical activity; under common conditions, gaming supports rather than harms wellbeing
Fragment
“"The effects of gaming on well-being are moderated by and depend on the motivation for gaming, outside variables, the presence of violence, social interaction, and physical activity. Under conditions of healthy motivation, social engagement, and moderate use, video games can support well-being."
”
Brongegevens van
2019-11-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Berekening
Halbrook, O'Donnell & Msetfi (2019), Perspectives on Psychological Science 14(6), 1096-1104. Narrative review identifying conditions under which gaming supports wellbeing (social engagement, intrinsic motivation, physical activity in active games) and conditions under which harm appears (compulsive use, violent content combined with individual susceptibility, escape motivation). Used as the peer-reviewed scaffolding for the headline finding that adult gaming at ~5+ hours/week — the modal recreational dose — produces low action-side regret because most adult gamers play under the beneficial conditions (social, motivated, non-compulsive) and the harm-conditions concentrate in a small subset.
[3]Entertainment Software Association (ESA) — 2023 Essential Facts — Video Games Remain America's Favorite Pastime With More Than 212 Million Americans Playing Regularly
Gerenommeerde referentie
65% of Americans (212.6 million weekly players) play video games; gaming is the modal recreational activity for US adults across age bands
Fragment
“"The Entertainment Software Association's 2023 Essential Facts report finds that 65% of Americans play video games — about 212.6 million weekly players."
”
Brongegevens van
2023-07-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Berekening
ESA 2023 Essential Facts (industry trade association). Used only as the population-prevalence anchor: gaming is the modal recreational activity for US adults, so the action-side decision under study is the default behaviour for ~65% of US adults. Not used as a regret measurement; industry-funded reporting is corroborated by independent Pew gaming surveys finding similar adoption rates. The high prevalence is relevant because it implies that any large action-side regret rate would have produced visible cultural backlash, which empirically has not happened — gaming participation has continued to rise.
Bronnen: niet handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
1/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]Pew Research Center (May 2024) — Teens and Video Games Today
Geverifieerd
Gerenommeerde referentie
85% of US teens play video games; about nine-in-ten teen players (89%) play with other people in person or online, and roughly three-quarters (72%) cite spending time with others as a reason for playing — providing baseline data on the social-inclusion and recreation functions that non-gamers forgo
Fragment
“"85% of U.S. teens report playing video games, and 41% say they play them at least once a day. About nine-in-ten teen video game players (89%) say they play them with other people, in person or online. Roughly three-quarters say spending time with others is a reason, and two-thirds say this of competing with others."
”
Brongegevens van
2024-05-09
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
Pew Research Center survey of 1,453 US teens (ages 13-17), fielded September 26 to October 23, 2023. The 85% teen-gaming adoption rate is used as the upper-bound generational anchor: the cohort entering adulthood treats gaming as the modal recreational activity, social connection medium, and stress outlet. Adults who do not game forgo not the activity itself but the social-inclusion and stress-relief functions that gaming serves for the majority of their cohort. The 14% inaction-side regret estimate is constructed from the gap between general adult gaming adoption (~65% via ESA) and the share of non-gamers who report aspirational interest or social-exclusion regret in adjacent surveys. Not a direct regret measurement; used as the demographic frame.
[2]Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Roese & Summerville) — What We Regret Most ... and Why↗ 13 other entries
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
Leisure ranks as the sixth of six top regret domains in long-term retrospection (smaller share of biggest regrets than education, career, romance, parenting, or self)
Fragment
“"Leisure activities are among the domains where regret is felt, but they generate smaller and less durable regret than education, career, romance, parenting, or the self."
”
Brongegevens van
2005-09-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Berekening
Roese & Summerville (2005), PSPB 31(9), 1273-1285. Meta-analysis finding that leisure ranks as the smallest of six top regret domains. Used as the theoretical anchor for the low magnitude of inaction-side regret in the gaming decision: even though the action-versus-inaction asymmetry favours inaction regret in general, the absolute magnitude is small in the leisure domain because alternative leisure activities are abundant and substitutable. Non-gamers who forgo video games are unlikely to reconstruct that as a major life regret in the way they might reconstruct foregone education or career decisions.
Kanttekeningen
PROXY-METINGEN AAN BEIDE KANTEN. Geen onderzoek vraagt volwassenen direct of zij spijt hebben dat zij videospelletjes hebben gespeeld of dat zij niet hebben gespeeld. De 10% actiekant-schatting is verankerd in de Vuorre et al. (2022) Royal Society Open Science N=38.935 longitudinale bevinding dat speeltijd verwaarloosbaar gemiddeld effect heeft op welzijn, gecombineerd met de gedocumenteerde 3–4% prevalentie van ICD-11/DSM-5 gaming-stoornis plus een buffer voor sub-klinische retrospectieve spijt van tijdsgebruik. De schade-verdeling is sterk geconcentreerd: het grootste deel van de spijt in dit domein behoort tot een kleine subset van probleemgebruikers, niet tot de modale recreatieve gamer. Király en collega's' werk over het ICD-11 gaming-stoornis kader biedt de diagnostische basis. De 14% inactiekant-schatting is gebouwd op de populatie-adoptiekloof (~65% van Amerikaanse volwassenen spelen volgens ESA, ~85% van Amerikaanse tieners volgens Pew) en aangrenzende enquêtesignalen over sociale-uitsluitingsmotivatie; het is de zwakste poot van dit item. Roese-Summerville plaatst vrije tijd onderaan de spijthiërarchie, wat suggereert dat zowel actie- als inactiespijt klein moeten zijn in absolute grootte in dit domein — het evenwichtige gilovich-patroon weerspiegelt dit. De 4-punts delta valt binnen de onzekerheid van beide proxy-constructies en moet worden gelezen als "ongeveer gelijke langetermijnspijt met een lichte inactieneiging" in plaats van een precieze kloof. Drie belangrijke kwalificaties: (1) aan het schade-uiteinde concentreert problematisch gamen kosten (slaapverlies, ontwenningsverschijnselen, beroepsinterferentie) bij ongeveer 3–4% van de spelers en kan substantieel hogere actie-spijt dragen in die subset; het hoofdtarief is een populatiegemiddelde, geen gestratificeerde schatting. (2) Generationele cohort doet ertoe: bij volwassenen die in 2026 de middelbare leeftijd bereiken, is gamen al twee decennia een normatieve recreatieve activiteit, en de inactiekant-spijt kan stijgen in cohorten waar niet-gamen sociale uitsluiting betekende. (3) Genre en motivatie doen er aanzienlijk toe: competitieve multiplayer-games met woede en toxiciteit kunnen hogere actie-spijt produceren dan coöperatieve of single-player-ervaringen; de Vuorre-studie middelt over genres. Industrie-samenwerkingsstudies (Vuorre, ESA) kunnen publicatie/rapportage-incentives hebben naar nul of positieve bevindingen; de convergentie met de onafhankelijke Halbrook 2019 review in *Perspectives on Psychological Science* mitigeert maar elimineert deze zorg niet.
