Why there is no such thing as internet addiction

'Internet addiction' doesn't exist. It can't, because it's
a logical impossibility, a category error, and there's no good evidence that
heavy internet use, in itself, is a risk to mental health.
A paper of
mine, just published in the Journal of Mental Health [pdf],
describes why, but I'm going to summarise the arguments here because of an
infuriating and self-contradictory press
release about "Internet addiction disorder" that seems to be all over the
internet.
Perhaps the most important point is the concept of 'internet addiction'
relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the internet is.
'Internet addiction' researchers conceive of the internet as if it were a set
of activities when, in fact, it's a medium for communication.
People become addicted to substances or activities, but it's impossible to
become addicted to a medium. You can be no more addicted to the internet than
you can to language or radio waves.
This is important because the proposed
criteria
for internet addiction or pathological
internet use (there is no accepted classification, contrary to what the
press release says) typically make reference to 'using the internet' or
'spending time online' without reference to any specific activity.
It's important to specify specific activities, because, as noted above, the
concept of a behavioural addiction logically requires one.
It's also important to make the distinction between something being
compulsive, something that you want to do again (commonly, but confusingly,
called 'addictive' in everyday language), and a fully-fledged behavioural
addiction - a mental disorder where you keep doing the activity even when it has
serious damaging effects.
The cinema, reading books, going for walks, chatting to friends and any other
enjoyable activity can be compulsive, but it doesn't make it an addiction, even
if it's a daily time consuming activity and you get pissed off if you can't do
it.
Some online activities are almost universally accepted as being genuinely
addictive (e.g. gambling) whereas others are subject to significant debate (e.g.
gaming, chat).
This is not to say that some of the people who have been described as having
'internet addiction' don't have any problems or aren't suffering.
There are definitely people who are dysfunctional in day-to-day life, have
significant problems with mood and motivation, and who spend a huge amount of
time online.
However, there's little evidence that heavy internet use actually causes
these problems:
<blockquote>
Although initial work suggested that time spent online was correlated with a
small but significant increase in loneliness and depression (Kraut et al.,
1998), subsequent replications and extensions found the reverse (Howard et al.,
2001; Moody, 2001; Wastlund et al., 2001) and a follow-up to the original Kraut
et al. study found the negative effects were no longer present and that, in
contrast, internet use was generally associated with positive effects on
communication, social involvement, and well-being (Kraut et al., 2002). A key
finding from this latter study was that extroverts generally showed a positive
relationship between internet use and social well-being measures, whereas
introverts showed the reverse – reporting an increase in isolation and
loneliness. It is still not clear why this might be the case, although it has
been suggested that the internet might provide tools to ‘amplify’
predispositions (Joinson, 2003), so that extraverts can meet more people and
socialise, while introverts can keep them at a distance.
</blockquote>

Furthermore, it's difficult to see why addiction is the best way of
understanding these problems.
Addiction researcher Prof Mark
Griffiths has outlined
some elements that an activity needs to have to be considered addictive, notably
salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict and relapse.
He also notes
that the proposed description of 'internet addiction' does not fulfil these
criteria.
The core problem is not using repetitive, extended internet use, or even
intrusive thoughts about keeping track of online events (otherwise 90% of the
office workforce would be diagnosed), but low mood and social withdrawal.
In Japan, almost exactly the same problems have been named 'hikkikomori'. One of the key
characteristics of hikkikomori individuals is that they isolate themselves and
occupy their time with the internet and video games.
But the Japanese, rather sensibly, identify the core problem as social
withdrawal, and the excessive solitary activities as symptoms - just ways in
which isolated people try to fill the void.
In fact, this is exactly what a recent
study
of internet game users found: the driving force behind internet games was less
the 'fun', the kick of the game if you will, but instead a sense of achievement,
freedom and social connectedness.
There's always a temptation to try and fit fuzzy human problems into
comfortable pre-existing categories because it makes us feel useful and
qualified to use our existing tools.
Psychiatrists and psychologists have clear and defined treatments for
addiction but very little for social withdrawal, because social withdrawal isn't
a diagnosis in itself.
The press release is apparently based on a published paper in the Journal
of Clinical Psychopharmacology, although it has yet to appear.
It may contain a revolutionary new argument, but I doubt it, as there is not
a single study showing that heavy internet use causes the features of an
addiction.
And certainly not the supposedly "extreme and menacing" condition that is
described as affecting 10% of all internet users.

Link to
press-release on Science Daily.
pdf of
paper 'Online Information, Extreme Communities and Internet Therapy: Is the
Internet Good for Our Mental Health?'.

Mark(p.s.) says:


I would disagree with your statement "Internet addiction' doesn't exist"
We all have to eat to live, if you eat too much it was called gluttony. Today
it's an eating disorder or some fancy name.
Some people have an alcoholic drink after work to relax, if you drink too
much you can be considered alcoholic.
Some people occasionally play the lottery for fun, if you play too much and
spend all your money you can be considered addictied.
Addiction is the unhealthy amount of time/effort a person uses "substances or
activities". You wrote "impossible to become addicted to a medium" sorry but I
think the "medium" is an activity.


Comment posted at August 20, 2007 05:05 PM

Vaughan says:


A behavioural addiction is more than just doing something 'too much'. People
who argue with their family too much are not 'argument addicts'.
And it is essential to specify the activity and not the medium. Cash machines
use the internet to communicate. Would an 'internet addict' fuel their addiction
every time they use an ATM?

Comment posted at August 20, 2007 05:54 PM

Mark(p.s.) says:


re:"People who argue too much"
Sure they are argument addicts, ever heard
of rageaholic?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rageaholic
re"specify the activity and not the medium" Obviously.Using a cash machine is
not realy using the internet, though you could define it as such in
technicality.



Comment posted at August 20, 2007 06:18 PM

Rich says:


Cool write-up, I really like the bit on Hikkomori, which I feel is a much
better analysis of the problem than the descriptions of 'internet addiction'
which appear in the American media. I'd like to see 'internet addiction' be
looked at more as 'information obsession', which seems to be more fitting. It
can be an obsession with info on social networking sites or through IM/email,
with news on sites like Digg, or with statistics about an online game. Computers
let us take in far more information than ever before, and I don't think we
really know what impact that's having on us. Perhaps we will learn more about
the processes of learning if this type of research continues.

Comment posted at August 20, 2007 06:31 PM

Michel Ferreira says:


Very Good.
Michel Ferreira

Comment posted at August 20, 2007 06:58 PM

mishigas says:


What are your thoughts about information being addictive much like drugs or
alcohol? One can argue that it is the basis for any number of activities which
could be viewed as compulsive or addictive. I'm thinking of people that must
keep up with their myspace or email with the same need/desire/drive as an
alcoholic has for getting their booze or a gambler placing a bet on the big
game.
As an aside, I'll assume that Robert Palmer, indeed, could not have been
addicted to love as stated in his hit song. Love making, on the otherhand, would
presumably be a different story.


Comment posted at August 20, 2007 10:23 PM

graatch says:


Just because the internet is a "medium" doesn't preclude it from being an
"activity".
Click click click click click.
Click (instant reward), click (instant reward, click (instant reward), click
(instant reward).

Comment posted at August 21, 2007 08:13 AM

graatch says:


Rich wrote: Computers let us take in far more information than ever before,
and I don't think we really know what impact that's having on us
Ever read Jorge Luis Borges? ;-)

Comment posted at August 21, 2007 08:15 AM

Anibal says:


Interesting dilecticals bits!
But i'm with Vaughan, though i think Mark (p.s.) has an special moral
authority due to his personal trajectorie, but as i said, here, i'm with the
professional.
If we draw the line for addiction in what we are doing copiusly and not what
we are doing copiusly and has detrimental effects too in our physical
functioning affecting and modifying us, the conceptual boundary for addiction is
excesively flawed and wider.
In so, perhaps, using an argument ad absurdum we are addicted to walk, to
read the newspaper, to breath... these things are things we do too much and some
change us in very radical ways; am i addct to walk?, i don't think so!
If we are addict to internet because using the keyboard, there is an open
gate to reinforcing learning or reward processing satisfied or unsatisfed,
because of the action of click; we are addict whenever we do something that are
prefered for us, such us our hobbies.
Is it charity volunteerism, playing weekend football, or going to the cinema
an addiction (i do not accept as a counterevidence any endogenous realese of
endorphins just in time when we do these activities, they are healthy and
profitable actvities) and most of the time when we use internet as a medium, is
a profitable activity.

Comment posted at August 21, 2007 11:24 AM

Vika Zafrin says:


I've often wondered about this:
-The internet has, first and foremost, increased communication among
people;
-Increased communication brings with it an increased range of
emotions;
-So, the more you use the internet [to communicate in some form
with people, which may or may not involve playing "computer games"], the more
apt you are likely to feel extremes of emotion. Including, but not limited to,
depression.
Having no training in relevant psych-/physiological fields, I've no idea
whether this is a fallacious progression.

Comment posted at August 21, 2007 03:00 PM

Mark(p.s.) says:


Anibal said "If we draw the line for addiction in what we are doing copiusly
and not what we are doing copiusly and has detrimental effects too in our
physical functioning affecting and modifying us, the conceptual boundary for
addiction is excesively flawed and wider"
Right, its the amount(of time/effort) in relation to the detrimental effects
that defines addiction.
Detrimental being no longer a properly functioning
human.
Going to the cinema could be considered an addiction if thats all you do, and
think about.
In the psych ward my friend was obsessed with public buses, was this hurting
anyone? Is liking buses too much an obsession, addiction or mental
illness?
What is the necessity for defining addiction vs obsession vs mental
illness?

Comment posted at August 21, 2007 08:20 PM

Anibal says:


I believe, there is a clear-cut definitional distinction among addiction,
obsession and mental illness.
Neverthless, in the case of addiction this can cause a mental illness by
exarcebation dminishig neural circuits and neurotrasmitters outcomes radically
changing brain´s structure and then one´s own psychology.
Obssession according to recent models involve a anomalus functioning within
the striatum-thalomocortical pathways causing a uselles urge to do things. And
ussulaly obsessions are monothematic (revolves around doing one thing at time,
as for example washing hands or counting steps)and are circunscribe (relating
spcifically to that)
These two dimensions are lacking in addiction where the
individual typically behaves uncircunsribe and is probable to consumate
different behaviours to satisfied his craving, a well defined pshysiological
concept for addiction only.
And mental ilness has not clear definiton because is a polysemantic term with
many criteria in use to include many patent symptoms, but all manuals agreed
(DSM, ICD...)that is a condition or disorder that reduces what is culturally
normal development and functioning, producing a disablity in people.
As Steven Hyman, Provost of Harvard University and Porfessor of neurobiology
claims, maybe the advances in neuroscience help the practicess and users of the
health mental system, and society ultimately, with the clinical threatment and
undertanding of what is a mental disorder.
And of course, neuroscience will
help defining well what distinghises obsession, addiction and mental
disorder.
Working can cause or producces, without being a workaholic, in ordinary jobs
and in common people a porcentage of wasted ammount of time and effort, just to
do the job well.
More than 4 million people in this planet are
addicted?


Comment posted at August 22, 2007 11:09 AM


Mark(p.s.) says:


re:Anibal
my thoughts
mental illness to my knowledge, is diagnosed
through a psychiatrist observing a patient.
There is no "neural circuits and
neurotrasmitters" tests done/sent to a lab.
Somehow food,work,anger and sex were allowed to be called addictions."but it
is sometimes applied to other compulsions" Wiki
LOL just found
this...
"Computer addiction is an obsessive addiction to computer
use"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_addiction



Comment posted at August 23, 2007 04:14 PM


Daniel says:


I think it's plain false that internet addiction doesn't fulfill the standard
criteria for addictions. But maybe we're talking about something different here.
I have known MANY people who are internet addicted and some of them formed a
group to discuss their problems. These are few examples of how internet
addiction affected their life:
1) Household chores fall behind and the living place become cluttered, dirty,
messy. They just can't find 30 minutes to clean their house or themselves. They
don't invite friends over because the house is too dirty, stinky and just plain
unhabitable.
2) They don't sleep at night but spend up to 6 hours on the net. Sometimes
shutting down the computer make them anxious so they sleep with the computer on.
They develop insomnia even if they didn't have it before.
3) When they wake up in the morning they run to the pc and connect to the
net. Often they're late for schools or work and don't have time to wash their
teeth or have breakfast, there's just the internet.
4) School and work are missed. Familiar problems are invented to spend
uninterrupted 24 hours on the internet without bothering eating, washing,
studying or working.
5) They stop going outside because they panick when going to place without a
pc. Some of them bought portable pc and wherever they went they would just
connect to the internet and ignore everything or everyone else
6) When the computer breaks they get real panick attacks with tachicardia,
convulsions and sweating. They start crying after few hours without an internet
connection and only desire to die. As soon as the connection is fixed all the
pain and desire to diet is gone and they feel better again.
7) Many just start losing weight because they can't bother eating. It's
easier if they live in a family where people prepare food or might notice their
strange behavior but when they live alone can go even 3 days straight without
eating following by piggy gorging in front of the pc.
A person was hospitalized and after few days in the hospital without
internet started to walk again in the hospital park. This person claimed to have
realized for the first time in 6 years how much he missed real life, real
people, real places and how he felt like someone waking up from a coma
9) Many internet addicted even stopped paying bills because it took too much
time away from their addiction.
10) If there's nothing new on the chat rooms, blogs, forums, mail box they
just wait for hours, staring at nothing, zapping through your bookmarks waiting
for any update or change. Soon they're past their bad time and a whole day is
passed in a second, just doing nothing.
11) Social friendly people became isolated, anxious and borderline psychotic.
Their friends or relatives are worried as they see a person mutating into
someone else. Once completely balanced people become aggressive, emotionally
overwhelmed, crying over internet debates, insanely preoccupied about what
virtual people think of them. Friends and girl/boyfriends start to leave them
alone hopelessly and they become lonely and lose contact with the real
world.
12) Even when they can still do other things like working, studying, eating
outside ... they find themselves totally distracted by the thought of internet,
internet debates and internet people to the point of stopping whatever thing
they're doing to find a connection and spend easily 5-6 hours straight on the
net. Often they lose their jobs and scholarships and just shut themselves in the
house.
13) Holidays became the best moment to spend 2 weeks on the internet without
interruption. They pass on whatever vacation offer with family or friends even
if they used to love the sea, the mountain, travelling or whatever. Even
Christmas Eve or New Year Eve is spent online and they forget about their family
or friends.
14) They get opinionated, judgemental, fanatical and plain psychotic in a way
few would ever think possible. They become a physical and emotional threat for
the people around them. They start reasoning and talking as if they were living
in the net, looking for debates, categorizing and psychanalizing everything and
everyone. They company of people become irrelevant or painful to them and they
start hating everyone. They become vetriolic like the worst trolls and become
unable to express emotions and feel sick at the thought of touching someone's
else hand or kissing someone on the cheeck.
I'm talking about normal people.
People who before their internet
addiction never showed any of these behaviors, never had problems being social,
having friends, taking care of their house and body, eating regularly, working
or studying with care. People who had never been in need of psychological
counseling and that everyone recognized as balanced and friendly
individuals.


Comment posted at July 7, 2008 03:07 PM


Vaughan says:


Daniel,
It's not about whether people have problems with what they do online, it's
whether it makes sense to call it an addiction.
If all the people you mention were doing the same thing online then they
would have the same problem. If they are not doing the same thing, then they
don't have the same problem and you need to describe what they're doing to say
what the problem is.
'Using the internet' does not describe a single activity so it makes no sense
to talk about 'internet addiction'.


Comment posted at July 7, 2008 10:00 PM


Daniel says:


Basically they were doing the same things: reading blogs, debating on forums,
chatting on messengers and keeping every one of these activity under strict
control waiting for updates.
When internet was just few pages here and there, almost a small encyclopedia
were you could read how to take care of your flowers or about your favorite
actors or about a geographical place and so on, these problems didn't exist. It
was just a library in your pc.
It's the blogs, newsgroups, forums, messengers, chats that created a definite
parallel reality where one could easily isolate in. I have seen people, who
never cared about what others think of them, getting frustrated to the point of
crying for the comments made by some online entity.
As long as internet was a library of informative websites it couldn't take
the place of a real life, now it can. You can simply live online. You can
consider your online alter-ego the real you and just demolish the person you
used to be and its existence in the real world. But it seems that the choice to
live a virtual life and ignore the real one has bad consequences as one can't
really take the place of another. The virtual life many of these "addicted" have
lived, they claim, felt like an illusion, like time not passing, like things not
really happening; then you wake and find out your small cousins have grown up,
your parents have aged, your city has transformed and time has passed and you
missed it all as in a chronic trance.
So I can say with certainty that all these "addicted" did the same identical
activities online. Those activities that allowed them to create a virtual
alter-ego and to let it take over subtly and slowly.
I see your point. We should be talking about "chat addiction" "blog
addiction" "forum addiction" but they all occur together and they're all
activities mediated by the internet.
But the fact that all these people, when without a connection, had huge
psychological and physical withdrawal symptoms, kinds of back up an addiction
not to specific activities but to that artificial world they have created. What
they feel when they don't have a connection is what we would feel when locked
inside totally unable to get out where the real world we know and interact with
is.
Maybe we should call it "virtual life addiction" or "weblife addiction" to
separate the concept of using the net (mostly websites) from the concept of
building a parallel and more important life on the net, at the expense of the
other pre-existing life.


Comment posted at July 7, 2008 10:56 PM


Chloris says:


Daniel: "Online entity", "virtual people". So you are saying that these are
not real people, real humans, connected through a computer, who are using it to
communicate and exchange information, ideas, which is the very basis on which we
have established the very definition of civilization?
I imagine a person would have the same reactions if they were suddenly and
irrevocably removed from the very center of a society that they had become
extremely attached to and dumped on an empty, alien planet. Humans are social
creatures. This is not an addiction. This is just an extreme of human
nature.