Internet Addiction:
Status of Definition
Laura Ann Collins
Northcentral
University
Abstract
From 2000 to 2015, global internet
usage has increased from 400 million users to an estimated 3.2 billion users (ICT Data and
Statistics Division, 2015) . By the end of 2015, the ICT estimates that
there will be over 7 billion cellular phone subscriptions (ICT Data and Statistics Division, 2015) . As the trend of internet connectivity is
unlikely to reverse, understanding how internet usage fits into peoples’ lives
has become of increasing interest. Specifically, since 1995, when psychiatrist
Ivan Goldberg suggested that internet addiction (IA) might be clinically
relevant (Hsu, Lin, Chang, Tseng, &
Chiu, 2015) ,
questions have arisen about what is adaptive use versus maladaptive use of
internet. While Cheng and Li (2014)
found “considerable” national variance in prevalence of IA, the results of
their research yielded a global prevalence estimate of 6.0% of IA among
internet users. As IA is still an
emerging disorder, controversy about what exactly IA is and is not continues to
impede progress toward detecting and treating IA. With such a significant possible impact, it
is essential that researchers solidify the conceptualization of IA. In order to demonstrate how definition varies
across research, the author will analyze 3 articles highlighting similarities
and differences. Common themes will then
be linked with possible implications for future research.
Keywords: Internet, pathological internet use, internet
addiction, definition of internet addiction, IA
Note: For the purpose of simplicity, the author
will refer to problematic/pathological internet use as “internet addiction”
(IA), which is most common descriptor found in the analyzed articles.
Internet
Addiction: Status of Definition
Laconi, Rodgers, and Chabrol (2014) stated that while internet
addiction appeared to be the most common term used in the literature, a
“standard and consensual definition of Internet addiction is still lacking” (p.
191). This is a theme which is repeated
across multiple research studies. The
lack of standard definition creates difficulties in comparing studies, as the
following comparison of several articles illustrates.
In 1995, Ivan
Goldberg (psychiatrist) suggested that Internet Addiction (IA) might be a
disorder of clinical relevance (Hsu et
al., 2015). Kimberly Young, who established the Center
for Online Addiction in 1995 to treat what she recognized as a growing problem (Young K. , 2013) . Young (In Press), traces the evolution of IA
as indicated on Figure 1 (additional pertinent information from Laconi,
Tricard, and Chabrol (2015) is included in Figure 1) showing how IA started as
a “pet project” and evolved into a consensus of problematic internet use
without consensus for definition, model, or theory of etiology.
Since 1995, there has been a growing consensus that some
individuals do experience distress
and negative impact from internet use. Terms
to describe problematic internet use and negative consequence include, but are
not limited to, pathological internet use, internet addiction disorder, compulsive
internet use, problematic internet use, internet dependency, internet abuse,
specific problematic internet use (SPIU), generalized problematic internet use
(GPIU), and IA (Laconi et al., 2015). It
has been considered an addiction, an impulse control disorder, a symptom of
stress or socioeconomic environment, or a medicalization or pathologizing of
normal life activity (Hsu et al., 2015). Within
the last several years, some researchers have subdivided problematic internet
use into types of use (Laconi et al., 2015).
Brief Description of Each Article
Article 1
Douglas et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of
qualitative research from 1996-2006 in an attempt to identify common themes and
factors in order to develop a theoretical model of IA. Criteria for inclusion of research included
that each study was exploratory and based on primary data collection
techniques. Out of 140 articles
identified through various searches, 10 articles[LC1]
met all requirements and were considered appropriate. Douglas et al. provided thorough explanation
how qualitative meta-analysis differs from quantitative meta-analysis and how a
small sample size is acceptable. Douglas
et al. identified both factors according to those who experience IA (14 themes)
and factors according to those who
treat individuals with IA (16 themes).
The themes were grouped into 5 and 6 constructs, respectively. Douglas et al. suggested a model of IA which
incorporated antecedents, push and pull factors, control strategies, deviant behaviors,
and negative effects. Their primary
conclusion is that there is a dearth of qualitative research using theory
driven constructs which does not
support development of either theory or model.
Article 2
Kardefelt-Winther (2014) considered the body of literature
regarding internet addiction and arrived at the conclusion that “in terms of
theory building, the psychological approach has not contributed much to a
better understanding of why some people keep using the internet despite
experiencing problematic outcomes” (p. 352).
Kardefelt-Winther suggested that a more fruitful avenue might be to
consider why individuals turn to
internet use, that motivation may be the missing piece in understanding
IA. Further, Kardefelt-Winther suggested
that instead of pathological disorder, the increased internet use noted in the
adolescents and youths might be a paradigm switch in lifestyle; an adaptation
to life integrated with pervasive media.
Therefore, Kardefelt-Winther suggested several examples of how
integrating motivation with internet usage might look and demonstrated how context
may change pathology into adaptation.
Article 3
Laconi et al. (2015) expanded the consideration of IA into
SPIU and GPIU with a quantitative study.
SPIU was subdivided into subtypes: sexual, video/music, workaholism,
communication, information, gaming, shopping, and gambling. Laconi et al. stated their purpose was to
compare multiple types of SPIU (as well as GPIU), time spent online, and
psychopathological variables among multiple age groups (including adults to age
65) and both genders. The study involved 378 participants who were recruited
through various online platforms including Facebook. Further, Laconi et al. set the research in
France to address a lack of IA research involving French populations. Multiple assessment tools were utilized. When no assessment was extant, Laconi et al.
customized existing assessments to fit their needs.
Laconi et al. conceptualized GPIU as addiction to the
internet, while SPIUs were addictions which occurred over the medium of the
internet. They found that research needs
to distinguish between the different forms of SPIU as not all forms are equally
prevalent in all age groups/genders.
Further, they concluded that GPIU and SPIU are distinct and so should be
researched separately.
Similarities and Differences
The most obvious similarity between the three articles is
the lack of consensus regarding IA. That
a plethora of information has been generated in the two decades that IA has
been studied is taken by all three groups of authors as fact. The quality, breadth, and comprehensiveness
of that research is debated. Douglas et
al. (2008) called for more qualitative research and context. Laconi et al. (2015) suggested separation of
types of internet use in order to understand if the problem is use of the
internet or if the problem is behavior occurring while using the internet. Douglas et al. (2008) stated “the conducted
meta-synthesis clearly indicated an urgent need for the development if IAD
[Internet Addiction Disorder] theory” (p. 3042). Likewise, Kardefelt-Winther (2014) stated
that “considering the amounts of data that have been collected and the efforts
made, the lack of progress indicates that there are issues somewhere along the
way that makes theoretical development difficult” (p. 352).
That there are individuals who utilize the internet to the
point of incurring negative consequences is also agreed upon. However, while
Kardefelt-Winther (2014) stated that maladaptive use is not necessarily
pathological, but may be either a response to deficits in “real-life” or a
paradigm shift in adapting to pervasive internet requirements in life, Laconi
et al. (2015) considered GPIU and SPIU as addictions. Douglas et al. (2008) framed their research
in terms of addiction and completed their qualitative analysis in order to
attempt to bring a more “holistic” conceptualization to the field of IA
research. Douglas et al. found that
isolation, loneliness, and low self-confidence/esteem are primary antecedents
of IA. They suggested that attending to
these in real-life might reduce IA. Douglas
et al.’s antecedents, and suggested remedy thereof, have an interesting
parallel to Kardefelt-Winther’s assertion that IA is in actuality a coping
mechanism to reduce real-life stress and discomfort.
All three articles discuss the work by Young. Given her prominence in the field, it is not
surprising that her work is included in the three articles. Douglas et al. (2008) used Young’s frame of
addiction to formulate their study.
Laconi et al. (2015) did likewise.
However, Kardefelt-Winther (2015) suggested that Young’s work clearly
illuminates the lack of theoretical development by providing multiple possible
explanations, without a consensus or cohesion.
Another similarity between the articles by Douglas et al.
(2008) and Laconi et al. (2015) is the number of different strands of
psychological literature which are woven together. Douglas et al. consider genetics,
environment, social factors, neurology, addiction theory, communication needs,
social psychology, psychopathology, etc.
Laconi et al. incorporated multiple types of
addiction assessments, quality of life assessments, psychopathology
assessments, and compulsion assessments.
They considered age and gender as well, which they stated differs from
many research studies which have samples composed primarily of adolescents and
young adults. Kardefelt-Winther (2015)
did not incorporate multiple strands of psychological theory. Instead, he focused on the part of addiction
theory which posits addiction is less about action/substance use and more about
the reasons behind the action/substance use.
The most obvious difference between the three articles involves
type of article and purpose of the authors.
Laconi et al. (2015) presented a research report detailing their
quantitative research to add data to the body of literature. Kardefelt-Winther (2015) wrote a problem
statement illuminating what he saw as a deficit in the body of literature. Douglas et al. (2008) created a meta-analysis
which blended statistical analysis with qualitative data in order to expand the
current research and attempted to create a workable model. From each of these disparate perspectives,
the authors developed a similar call for future research; essentially that “these”
items should be considered in future studies so that a predictive theory may be
developed.
Conclusion
Excessive use of internet has been considered pathological,
perhaps most similar to addiction (Douglas, et
al., 2008; Laconi et al., 2015). This is the dominant conceptualization (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014) . However, it is also possible that excessive
internet use is a coping skill (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014) , a response to
environmental or life stress (Cheng & Li, 2014) , or a natural pattern
of adapting to a new aspect of pervasive internet connectivity in modern life (Suissa, 2014) .
Assessment tools are based on definition of what the tool is
supposed to assess. When the shape of
what is being assessed changes, then the tool may no longer be precise. For example, if a researcher is trying to
assess addiction to the internet and is utilizing an assessment tool which
measures craving, withdrawal, and seeking to access the internet, then the fact
that the internet is almost ubiquitous in modern life may render the third
option obsolete. Or, if the tool
measures time spent online, does cell phone use to access the internet
count? What about time spent at work in
required activities which may be online?
Research that separates types of SPIU may find differences
based on gender and age. However, those
results will be difficult to compare to research results which analyze GPIU or
IA as a singular construct. In the
research conducted by Laconi et al. (2015), assessment tools needed to be
customized to fit the project. This
could affect the validity of the tools.
Other than agreement that the study of internet use has
blossomed into a complex field which has rapidly grown over the last twenty
years, there is not much consensus on what does exist. Because there is a lack of agreement about
the structure of IA, the defining characteristics of IA, and even if IA is a
pathology or if it is a coping tool, results of research yield data points, but
have not yet produced a predictive model or even a cohesive theory. This could be an indicator that the field is
still very young and is in need of more data in order to grow. Or, it could mean that in the pursuit of
correlation, causation has been moved to a place of lesser importance. Regardless, the field of IA research has many
data points answering questions of “what”.
Now, the task is to answer questions of “why” in order to answer the question
of “how”.
References
Cheng, C., & Li, A. Y.-I. (2014). Internet
addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: A meta-analysis of 31
nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 17(12), 755-760. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0317.
Douglas, A. C., Milles, J. E., Niang, M., Stepchenkova,
S., Byun, S., Ruffini, C., . . . Blanton, M. (2008). Internet addiction:
Meta-synthesis of qualitative research for the decade 1996-2006. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24, 3027-3044, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.009.
Hsu, W.-Y., Lin, S. S., Chang, S.-M., Tseng, Y.-H.,
& Chiu, N.-Y. (2015). Examining the diagnostic criteria for internet
addiction: Expert validation. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association,
114, 504-508. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2014.03.010.
ICT Data and Statistics Division. (2015, May). ICT
facts & figures. Retrieved from International Telecommunication
Union: Retrieved from the International Telecommunication Union:
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf
Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and
methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of
compensatory internt use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351-354.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059.
Laconi, S., Rodgers, R., & Chabrol, H. (2014).
The measurement of internet addiction: A critical review of existing scales
and their psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior, 41,
190-202. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.056.
Laconi, S., Tricard, N., & Chabrol, H. (2015).
Differences between specific and generalized problematic internet uses
according to gender, age, time spent online and psychopathological symptoms. Computers
in Human Behavior, 48, 236-244. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.006.
Suissa, A. J. (2014). Cyberaddictions: Toward a
psychosocial perspective. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 1914-1918. doi:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.07.027.
Young, K. (2013). Retrieved from Center for Internet
Addiction: http://netaddiction.com/
Young, K. S. (In Press). The evolution of internet
addiction. Addictive Behaviors, doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.05.016.
Appendix A:
FIGURE
1: Evolution of Internet Addiction
-
1995
– IA is a Pet Project of Kimberly Young[1]
-
1998
-1st study of IA by Kimberly Young is published1
-
1999
– Research and Publications by “early pioneers” David Greenfield and Marissa
Hecht Orzack1
-
Early
2000s – China, Korea, and Taiwan –
publication of studies on IA1
-
2000
– IA is subdivided into types: Cybersexual,
Cyber-relationship, Compulsive (gambling, shopping, trading), Information,
Gaming[2]
-
2001
– Two categories of problematic internet use:
Specific Problematic Internet Use (SPIU) and Generalized Problematic
Internet Use (GPIU). SPIU is subdivided
into types and “could be considered addictions on the internet” while GPIU is “addiction to the internet”[3]
[italics added].
-
2006
– 1st inpatient IA treatment center – Beijing China1
-
Late
2000s – Several Asian Cultures developed comprehensive prevention programs1
-
Late
2000s – New statistical models emerged which identified factors/components1
-
2103
– Development of Internet Addiction Gaming Disorder1
-
2013
– IA Inpatient Treatment Center in Pennsylvania1
-
2014
– American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no media access for children under
21
-
2015
– IA continues to be a disputed term.
Problematic Internet Use is gaining popularity in literature as a
descriptive term.2
-
2015
– Laconi, Ticard & Chabrol suggested that each type of SPIU should be
researched individually as well as part of overarching problematic internet
use.2
[1]
Young, In Press
[2]
Laconi, Tricard, & Chabrol, 2015
[3]
Laconi, Tricard, & Chabrol, 2015, p 237
No comments:
Post a Comment