Doctors have no problem treating disorders that don’t officially exist, including Internet addiction, one of those non-existent disorders that nonetheless actually has clinics devoted to its “treatment.”
“But Dr. Grohol,” you might protest, “How can you say that? There’s been years worth of research showing Internet disorder does exist!”
And usually, I’d be on-board with you if that research actually was good research — well-designed, without circular-logic reasoning and sampling issues. But Internet addiction is a perfect example of a fad disorder brought about by its connection to the world’s most popular communications and social network, the Internet. And by an inherent misunderstanding of its use by adults (but not by the generations of children, teens, and young adults now growing up with it as a standard part of their communications repertoire).
But as I’ve been pointing out since its inception in 1996, “Internet addiction” has poor evidence because most of the research done into it has been equally as poor. And now Byun and his colleagues (2008) have shown that to be true in a meta-analysis of research done on “Internet addiction” since 1996:
The analysis showed that previous studies have utilized inconsistent criteria to define Internet addicts, applied recruiting methods that may cause serious sampling bias, and examined data using primarily exploratory rather than confirmatory data analysis techniques to investigate the degree of association rather than causal relationships among variables.
Sound familiar? Indeed, the lack of agreement of a definition of the disorder (or a single, reliable test to measure it, as the researchers point out) combined with serious sampling issues in virtually every study conducted means we have little consensus about whether such a thing even exists.
But fear not, we wouldn’t want those Internet addiction clinics to go under or researchers who’ve staked a significant part of their careers on this “disorder” to suddenly find their pat university job at risk…
The new study offers suggestions for future research:
We found that previous studies on Internet addiction were primarily concerned with the antecedents of Internet addiction and with identifying features in participants that made an individual more susceptible to becoming an Internet addict.
However, the development of the concept, due to its complex nature, requires more systematic empirical and theory-based academic research to arrive at a more standardized approach to measurement. The use of representative samples and data collection methods that minimize sampling bias is highly recommended. Further, implementation of analyses methods that can test causal relationships, rather than merely examining the degree of associations, are recommended so that antecedents and consequences of Internet addiction can be clearly differentiated.
What’s happening today and some people’s reaction to the Internet is neither new nor unique — it’s as old as technology itself (starting with the printing press). It’s an overreaction to suggest that the Internet is somehow different than what’s come before, as history tells us otherwise. Every new technology unleashed on society from the 1800s on was thought to be the end of civilized society — the paperback book, the telephone, the automobile, the motion picture, television, and finally video games. And now, the Internet is the latest in a long line of demons society would like to blame for some of its problems.
I don’t deny that some small subset of people have behavioral problems with learning how to integrate using parts of the Internet into their everyday lives. But people have similar problems with work, the television, and many other things in life, and we can still treat them without demonizing (and labeling) the conduit that brings a person new entertainment, information, or enjoyment.
Reference:
Byun, S., et al. (2008). Internet Addiction: Metasynthesis of 1996 — 2006 Quantitative Research. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 1-5.
8 comments
Same with Text SMS messaging on the cellphone. It is just one of the new ways to communicate…
An article like this one refuting the existence of internet addiction is just a spin on earlier articles that state the same null findings…
So, what should I expect next: go to an AA meeting and listen to speakers tell the group that alcoholism is overreported.
Sham on this site to claim the above. Another example of why blogs are overrated until proven otherwise. This is an underregulated and minimally monitored medium.
And, while not this site in particular, it is a travesty what this medium as a whole is doing to mental health because of these lack of boundaries. I think responsible people know better though. It is just a shame there are not enough of such persons to make a significant difference these days.
Sorry. but after that headline, this rebuttal needed said. Happy Holidays to all.
Sorry, no one’s saying that alcoholism doesn’t exist or is over-reported. What the new research does say is simple — “Internet addiction” is a shaky concept with little scientific backing despite a decade’s worth of research.
Not sure what your comments about blogs have to do with this topic, but okay….
My apologies if the blog comments seem unrelated. I have perused sites like yours and find some, not yours in particular, use mental health issues as an opening to diminish the value of treatment, especially through the commentary sections. I read the posting and felt it was just minimizing an issue, this one for me I feel applies as I was getting obsessed with battling others at a blog that seemed like an addictive quality for me as it progressed, so I weighed in here to say otherwise.
If there are sites or groups you feel are legitimate in examining internet use as an addiction, could you provide some direction?
Thanks for considering.
therapyfirst, BC psychiatrist, staunch advocate for mental health issues of legitimacy
Ha– trying living with a mother whis is an “internet addict,” with a non-existant addiction.
When the internet takes precendence over family, food, cleaning, finances, social relationships, etc… then there really needs to be a subgroup of people who actually be deemed as having “internet addiction”– an addiction that exists.
I AM an internet addict. I don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. I AM all the evidence I need.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here and it seems that as per its usual behavior the comment section merely skimmed the article. While some people will have issues integrating the internet into their lives many of us use the internet in the same way that one would use a library. As a whole the internet is a very pro-social experience and the majority of us who use the internet regularly use it for social efforts and collaboration. Many peer-reviewed papers I have found either for bias or for lack of understanding lump all internet use into one activity. Neglecting the fact that the internet is not merely a depository of porn and cat videos. Half of what I know came from spending time surfing Wikipedia (always check the edit history kids and revisit articles between at least two days!) and not from traditional schools. Some people will spend and inappropriate amount of time on Facebook mindlessly clicking the like button under glorified advertizements in the same way that some people will unironically spend an inappropriate amount of time watching the shopping channel or infomercials. Merely because the internet is not a strictly regulated and purely academic medium does not diminish it’s validity and when people who do not wish to understand it or the nuances and openness it provides attempt to compare it to use of serious drugs I can’t help but feel like something has gone wrong in the peer reviewing process to make many of these papers read like glorified rants.