Could You Be Addicted to the Internet?

Billosaur writes "Over at The Register, Dr Stephen Juan has this interesting article on Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). Apparently this has been around since at least 1995 and there are those lobbying for it to be included in the DSM-IV. While some people use the Internet a lot for work or to keep in touch with family & friends as well as banking and bill-paying, it's interesting to thing that some people actually become addicted. There's still a lot of controversy over the diagnosis, whether this is true addiction or not. There is more detailed information available in this paper from Viriginia Tech."

Comments

Internet?

[InterBigs]

What is this Internet you speak of?

Re:Internet?

[Slashdot is dead]

I think it has something to do with tubes.

Re:Internet?

[anagama]

Tubes? What about the boob-tube? I spend a lot of time on the internet. By the same token, I spend almost no time watching television -- I see DVDs from time to time -- no cable, no antenna, just a DVD player connected to the TV, and yeah, call me an elitist I don't care. Anyway, why does the internet get bashed for being addicting, but television doesn't? Some people watch 5 or 6 hours of TV each day and yet I rarely see articles about how addictive TV is. "Internet Addiction" is just another way to bash the net as an evil place by those who either don't understand its utility, or don't want people to understand its utility.

Re:Internet?

[geekoid]

television does get bashed for being addictive, but this report is about the internet, not TV.

""Internet Addiction" is just another way to bash the net as an evil place by those who either don't understand its utility, or don't want people to understand its utility"

no, internet addiction is when people turn to the internet even to the point where it is harmfull to them financially or socially.

Why would you think the internet would be an exception to everything else when it comes to addictions?

Re:Internet?

[QRDeNameland]

Some people watch 5 or 6 hours of TV each day...

It may be worse than you think. According to this article I just read today, the average person watches 4 hours and 35 minutes of TV a day. If watching that much TV qualifies as addictive, then TV would have to qualify as most prevalent addiction out there.

Re:Internet?

[crash3]

Televisions the drug of choice?! Guess it's about time I stopped taking crack.

Re:Internet?

[drsquare]

Time spent doing something doesn't equal addictiveness. How many people neglect their family and their jobs staying up all night every night watching TV, compared to how many people do the same playing Everquest.

is the title a rhetorical question?

[ChristTrekker]

The answer is so obviously "yes" in this audience. Was there any doubt? Why even ask?

Winstons taste good

[allelopath]

I can quit anytime I want.

Re:Winstons taste good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sure you can. Next time you get that patch for your HTTP client, put it on your arm instead of the computer. I hear it cuts the cravings down.

I love it...

[crazyjeremy]

Apparently it's been around since at least 1995... It's like saying Car Wrecks have been happening since the early 20th century. Duh! That's about when it started!

Re:I love it...

[Jack Pallance]

Yeah, I remember it well. The porn really sucked back then.

I know I am

[Terminal Saint]

I'm also addicted to my car. Darned if a day goes by that I don't use it to get somewhere too far to walk.

Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.

Re:I know I am

[TubeSteak]

I'm also addicted to my car. Darned if a day goes by that I don't use it to get somewhere too far to walk.

Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.

If not driving causes you anxiety, then you're addicted.

Ditto for e-mail, browsing fark, /. or whatever other 'thing' on the internet that you just can't live without.

And you actually can get addicted to something like walking, running, biking or driving. Just because you aren't does not mean that others haven't been addicted.

Re:I know I am

[kfg]

Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.

Just because you use/do something often doesn't imply that there aren't people who become obssesed with that something. Ever talk to a hard core auto racer? Better be conversant about tires and spring rates, because that's likely the only thing in her head.

On the other hand, you ever start to get the impression that there are people obessesed with labeling every obsession as a clinical addiction? Well, that is to say every obsession they don't approve of. One man's clinically addicted obsessive is another man's Isaac Stern.

KFG

Re:I know I am

[Mark Gordon]

Consider the more detailed paper, with s/Internet/foo/ applied:

To be diagnosed as having foo Addiction Disorder, a person must meet certain
criteria as prescribed by the American Psychiatric Association. Three or more of these
criteria must be present at any time during a twelve month period:

2. Two or more withdrawal symptoms developing within days to one month after
reduction of foo or cessation of foo (i.e., quitting cold turkey) , and these
must cause distress or impair social, personal or occupational functioning. These include:
psychomotor agitation, i.e. trembling, tremors; anxiety; obsessive thinking about what is
happening with respect to foo; fantasies or dreams about foo; voluntary or involuntary
imitation of the movements characteristic of foo.

(the mere act of thinking about foo while not engaged in foo presumably qualifies as "fantasies")

3. Use of the Internet is engaged in to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

(if thinking about foo qualifies as withdrawal, then engaging in foo qualifies as relief of withdrawal)

5. A significant amount of time is spent in activities related to foo.

By this standard of addiction, any activity which one both considers ("fantasies") and practices, and which occupies a significant amount of time (even if it's simply liesure time), qualifies as an addiction.

Seems like a pretty broken definition to me.

Re:I know I am

[eln]

Your post has made me realize that I am addicted to foo. Where can I find information about Fooaholics Anonymous groups in my area?

Symptoms list is s/alcohol/internet

[RobertB-DC]

Really, it's pretty pitiful. It looks like all the "research" entailed was to substitute the word "internet" for "alcohol". Here are just a few of their "symptoms":

* Internet engagement used as a way of escaping problems or relieving feelings of guilt, helplessness, anxiety, or depression.
* Concealing from or lying to family members about the extent of internet use.
* Internet user driven to financial difficulty due to incurring unaffordable internet fees.

Isn't that last one just teh stupid? It's cribbed word-for-word from a typical symptom of alcholism, as are the rest.

Even if there are still ISPs in the world that charge by the MB, it just doesn't fly. Now, if they were talking about "unexpected" credit card charges, maybe... but pr0n addiction .NE. internet "addiction".

Re:Symptoms list is s/alcohol/internet

[cowscows]

I couldn't stand the thought of being without internet in any part of my house, so I had a seperate DSL line hooked up to every room in the place. A short time later, a friend tried to explain to me the concept of hubs and switches, but I was too drunk on the internet to understand.

The $400 per month fees are terrible, but at least I have plenty of bandwidth.

Re:Symptoms list is s/alcohol/internet

[Xtravar]

I have three possible counter arguments.

1. Let's say you're addicted to a certain facet of the internet, such as porn, MMORPG, ebay, whatever. If you're an alcohol addict but you primarily spend all of your money on Bacardi Rum, does that make you a Bacardi addict?

2. I think the root of the issue is that people are addicted to the interconnectedness, the constant flow of information, the need to be 'in' on something because you feel like you'd be missing out, whether it's a WoW raid or usenet discussion, it's all a symptom of the 'inter'-net.

3. Also, internet addiction can be measured in time better than money... and time equals money. If you're addicted to the internet, and you're constantly using it at work, you are essentially jeopardizing your source of income... which may as well equal careless purchasing without thought of reprecussion.

Maybe yes, maybe no...

[kclittle]

Maybe I'm addicted to the Internet, maybe not. But it sure has eliminated my TV and newspaper habit...

"Fetal Internet Syndrome"

[tlambert]

I think there's also an as yet undiscussed "Fetal Internet Syndrome"...

My friends new Windows box is addicted, and it was never exposed, new from the store... computers with this syndrome have serious mental lapses if they can't get on the Internet to chat with Microsoft in the first thiry days after being turned on, and on a regular basis after that.

-- Terry

One sign of addiction

[Eightyford]

If you refresh your Slashdot user page every 30 seconds to see if you have received any replies, you might be addicted to the internet.

Re:One sign of addiction

[ndansmith]

If your DHCP lease is older than your first-born child, you might be addicted to the internet.

Re:One sign of addiction

[WilliamSChips]

Don't worry, I'm just waiting for Stargate to come on!

Can't ANYTHING be addictive?

[starseeker]

I'm not a medical person so perhaps there is some criteria I'm not familiar with, but isn't addictive behavior pretty much the same regardless of what someone is addicted to? Is the question whether the "addiction" is chemically based vs. simply being socially based? (For example, if a nerd likes playing Quake for 16 hours a day instead of interacting normally with the human race, does that constitute addiction or just different mental software?)

I mean really, if addiction is defined as depending on the chemicals that are generated when we feel "good" wouldn't an excess of ANYTHING that makes us feel "good" be a candidate for a cause? And wouldn't it be expected that potential causes of addiction depend on the individual? Some are obvious and would impact virtually anyone (chemical manipulation) but other behaviors which don't directly alter mood via chemical means I would intuitively expect to be more subtle.

Heh, maybe anti-social people (not the angry, dangerous wackos but those who are just indifferent to and/or dislike social situations) would argue that the rest of us are addicted to social interaction. ;-) The rest of us would probably take issue with that, but really what objective criteria would be used to have the argument?

Anybody with a medical degree around here that can point to some definitive definition of the word "addiction" and what it means, medically?

Re:Can't ANYTHING be addictive?

[nizo]

I can think of a few things that can't possibly be very addictive:

- Jumping off of very tall cliffs
- Swimming with hungry sharks
- Watching "Dancing with the Stars"

Especially the last one; eventually I would have no choice but to poke out my eyeballs or go swim with some hungry sharks or something.

Re:Can't ANYTHING be addictive?

[RsG]

The general terms you are looking for are physiological and psychological addiction - the former meaning there is some physical componant (like alcohol or nicotine), and the later meaning there is only a mental componant. It's generally assumed that all physical addiction entails some degree of psychological dependancy as well, whereas not all psychological addictions require an external chemical componant.

Yes it is completely possible to become addicted to damn near anything even remotely enjoyable. You name it, and if someone can get off on it, then there is somebody hooked on it. You can find many examples of TV addicts, sex addicts, or people hooked by religion in the world at large.

Often people trade one addiction for another when trying to quit - there are plenty of former drug users who "found god", it's quite common for alcoholics to switch to coffee or cigarettes, and I suspect a great many people formerly hooked on the boob tube got sucked into the internet while trying to watch less TV.

Thing is, we generally don't like to acknowledge addiction. There is a reason why you have organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous - there is a deep and inherent stigma attached to dependancy. So by and large, we don't admit to there being TV addicts in the world - for one thing, they're largely invisible since they do not harm other people, and for another we'd have to face up to the fact that one of the many activities that the majority of us engage in (watching TV) has a dark side to it.

Not so with the 'net. There's a Douglas Adams quote to the effect that "Anything that existed when you were born is a natural part of the world. Anything that comes into existance when you're growing up is an exicting new career path. Anything that comes into existance after you're 35 is unnatural, and probably bad for you." (Paraphrased). Hence the glut of fear mongering about internet addiction, game addiction, and the evils of the modern age.

It's not that the internet is any more, or any less, addictive than the millions of other potential things people can get hooked on; it's that the 'net makes a tempting boogeyman for people peddling snake oil, and politicians and lawyers trying to make a career.

Less of a "disorder" than 75% of americans

[iamacat]

How many people spend all their spare time glued to TV? Internet and even MMORG addicts lead comparatively more productive lives by staying in touch with friends, creating new content and reading/watching stuff way more meaningful than TV programming. Unless one actually gets out of all manmade stuff and takes a walk in the woods, is living in virtual reality really any worse than how most people spend time?

Like my friends who take drugs say.

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I can stop if I want to.

I just dont want to, and you arent going to convince me to stop. :-)

Re:Not possible

[alamandrax]

of course not. the nerve to actually suggest that i'm addicted!

I can stop any time that I want to. In fact, after I finish submitting this post, linking to it from my del.icio.us account, blogging about it, making a video mash up of some select sounds from the blog post and uploading it to youtube and google video and visiting Zefrank's page for the 20th time today, i'll work on my network programming thing that's been pending for the last 2 months.

I'm TOTALLY in control of my life. thankyouverymuch./p?

Let's look at behaviour.

[khasim]

Drugs - addictive. People will rob other people for money to buy drugs. People will prostitute themselves for money to buy drugs. People will even kill at times for money to buy drugs.

The Internet - Guys (since most of you are), how long would you have to go without email before you'd have sex with another guy for $5 so you could use an Internet Cafe? (That's if you wouldn't do it for free, anyway.)

Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way as drugs are.

Cigarettes. Those are addictive. Now, apply the same behavioural process. What would you do for money to buy cigarettes that you would not do for money to buy a CD?

Would you do the same thing(s) for 30 minutes of Internet access?

Okay, so the Internet is NOT addictive the same way cigarettes are.

And so on and so forth. Until you get to the point where the Internet is no more "addictive" than telephones or television or radio.

Help! I've got Addiction Addiction

[spun]

Dear Slashdot,

I'm addicted to calling everything and anything that people enjoy doing an addiction. I get wads of cash for treating these so-called addictions, and I have a powerful co-enabler called the pharmaceutical industry telling me it's all okay and I should keep doing it. What should I do?

Signed,
I'll take 'The Rapists' for $500, Alex.

(Please, if there are any psychologists or psychiatrists who read Slashdot, don't have me committed. It's a joke, m'kay?)

Re:There must be a new patented drug for it

[rblum]

Depressed? Get over it. Stop sitting around inside in a dark room all day. Go hiking! Skiing! Swimming! Skydiving! Work out!

That might work for a lot of people who just think they're depressed because it's the new thing on TV. If somebody truly is clinically depressed, they *can't* leave that dark room. It's not for lack of wanting - but the depression just prevents them from doing anything.

No.

[ph0rk]

IAD is a sham. The original test instruments 'developed' by young inclided items lifted right from similar instruments for gambling and substance abuse, with such gems as (paraphrase, I don't have the original measure handy) 'do you often use the internet by yourself?' and more than 10 hours a week as unhealthy. The criteria listed here http://www.psycom.net/iadcriteria.html are similarly laughable: "(e) voluntary or involuntary typing movements of the fingers".

And, perhaps the crux: "(VII) Internet use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical, family, social, occupational, or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by Internet use (e.g., sleep deprivation, marital difficulties, lateness for early morning appointments, neglect of occupational duties, or feelings of abandonment in significant others)"

I'm not saying there aren't people out there with problems, but you don't create a new disorder for every new communication/information tool. Do we have telephone addiction disorder? fax machine addiction disorder? television addiction disorder? Hey, I know, lets make a myspace addiction disorder and a friendster addiction disorder and a slash-- er wait.

sleep dep, maritial difficulties and the like are signs of other disorders, like depression. (or just a general state of distress).

The 'article' linked by the submitter is fluff, there is nothing empirical in it. It is also missing nearly 9 years of critiques of IAD. Why did this submission happen?

Borderline

[Webomatica]

A lot of people are addicted to television.

I think we all have addictions, but some are dangerous. That line is crossed when it starts affecting other areas of your life in negative ways, like your work suffers, you ignore other pressing needs to feed the addiction, such as socializing, or paying rent.

That said I think I'm mildly addicted to the web, however, I have gone cold turkey from even email during vacations and didn't get the shakes. The big problem however is that I rely on the net for my job, so giving up the web completely would be a problem.

The material is not addictive.

[khasim]

and you think there not addictive why?

Because normal, adjusted people do not prostitute themselves so they can watch TV.

People watch TV even when it's determental to them, people call peolpe even when it's harmfull to them, and people listen to the radio even when it becomes harmfull to them.

Yes, they do.

But you're confusing the material being addictive with a person having an obsessive disorder.

And obsessive person will become "addicted" to anything.

The question is whether a non-obsessive person can become "addicted" to that material.

And the answer is "No".

I learned it from watching you, Dad!

[1310nm]

I learned it from watching you! :(

Corrections

[LunaticTippy]

- Jumping off of very tall cliffs

Bungee jumpers. Hang gliders. Base jumpers.

- Swimming with hungry sharks

Jacques Cousteau, Steve Irwin (RIP), etc.

- Watching "Dancing with the Stars"

Somebody's watching it. Otherwise, they're wasting the cable!!!

Re:No - and shut up

[crash3]

It's actually just a placebo but it reduces the ability to sit on chairs for long periods of time... or at all.

What other addictions...

[the_raptor]

What other addictions should be in the DSM-IV, if the requirement for inclusion is "financial or social harm"? Book reading addiction (I would be reading books if the Internet didnt exist)? Bad joke addiction? Bad hygiene addiction? Extreme sport addiction? Marriage addiction (which harms you financially AND socially)? Public service addiction? Scientific research addiction? Religious teaching addiction (though some financial profit)? Geek hobbies addiction? Military enlistment addiction? The standard for something being called an addiction should not be "causes financial or social harm". It should be "causes physical withdrawal symptoms because the addicts body adapts to requiring the activity to function at a normal level". I have taken (legal) drugs that cause withdrawal symptoms, yet aren't medically classed as addictive because your body doesn't adapt to needing them.