This commentary builds on Giardina et al.'s (2021, 2024) conceptualization of escapism and escape in the C-DOG model, highlighting unresolved definitional ambiguities. We argue that the distinction between these constructs cannot rely solely on pre-game intentions (expectation to return vs. remain) due to potential cognitive biases and self-deception, particularly among players with Gaming Disorder (GD). Drawing on goal systems theory and research on maladaptive gaming-related beliefs, we propose that the post-game outcome, successful return vs. persistent difficulty disengaging, offers a more reliable criterion. This perspective reframes escapism and escape as goal-driven processes shaped by experiential avoidance and motivational rigidity.
Strojny et al. (Mon,) studied this question.