Furthermore, differences other than the severity levels exist between the two constructs. However, it is noteworthy that a significant increase in the severity of this process would also, at a certain level, determine its qualitative change (escapism ⇒ escape). From a dimensional perspective, escape could be viewed as a more severe form of escapism. The constructs of escapism and escape are not mutually exclusive. Our view is that terminological rigor is necessary to prevent perpetuation of past inconsistencies. In accordance with Demetrovics et al.’s ( 2011) distinction between escape and coping, we contend that escape rather than escapism may be more appropriately considered an avoidant strategy (Table 1 Hayes et al., 1996). ( 2020) recognized that the interchangeable use of the terms “escapism” and “avoidant coping” had complicated the interpretation of the findings of several past studies, the authors provided a general definition of coping to address avoidant coping and used the terms “escapism” and “escape” interchangeably as if they effectively referred to the same phenomenon. ( 2020) proposed that “ clarifying the nature of escapism as an avoidant coping strategy should be seen as the basis for further research on this topic” (p.

( 2020) defined escapism as the process of leaving reality and avoidant coping as the game’s capability to help the person deal with “real” problems by favoring management of unpleasant emotional states. ( 2011), which distinguishes the motivations of “escape” (defined as gaming to avoid life difficulties) and “coping” (defined as gaming for mood boosting or channeling of emotions).

To this aim, the authors presented the framework of gaming motives proposed by Demetrovics et al.

Melodia et al.’s ( 2020) systematic review aimed to examine the relationship between “escapism” and “avoidant coping,” which are often referred to interchangeably in the literature.

Download the escapist video game