Are we all “addicted” to our screens? Behind this line of questioning in the media is a deep social concern, a new form of moral panic in the history of communication technologies. Our ability to manage our use of digital technology is coming under increasing scrutiny in social discourse.Orange is committing to raising awareness and controlling screen time with the “For good connections” initiative. This article has drawn on documentary research (specialised literature and public reports) to provide socio-past insight into Internet addiction.
Even though digital technologies can be used therapeutically in the field of addiction medicine, they can also be pathologised through the prism of addiction. The concept of Internet addiction was introduced by those affected, but it became a topic of clinical interest in the mid-1990s. It remains a controversial psychiatric entity and in France it is the subject of a government initiative aimed at supporting digital parenting.
definition of Internet Addiction
Table of Contents
Internet addiction refers to a pathological loss of control, which is medically diagnosed and can be treated. The notion of problematic use, then, is chiefly used to refer to the difficulties encountered in managing one’s use of digital tools more broadly.
Different characterisations of this public problem identify, with varying degrees of specificity, the technology (digital technology, screens, smartphones, Internet etc.), types of activities (social networks, cybersex, online games etc.) and degree of pathologisation (ranging from problematic uses to addiction) involved. Having not yet been properly examined, the advancement of generative AI could also change the game and exacerbate the problem.
Most people consider their use of digital technology to be problematic.
The literature highlights the lack of reliable epidemiological data on Internet addiction. A recent meta-analysis estimates a prevalence rate of 7.02% in the general population (Pan et al., 2020). While this figure challenges the notion that we could all be addicted, the fact remains that the majority of people consider their use of digital technology to be problematic (Boudard et al., 2022). Considering the current WHO paradigm that understands mental health not only as the absence of psychiatric illness, but more broadly as a state of mental well-being, this makes it a public health issue.
Problematic uses are characterised in terms of time spent, difficulty in disconnecting and a thwarted intentionality. The repercussions of this can be seen in the areas of development (especially in terms of language), attention (cognitive overload, agitation, memory problems), mental health (anxiety, depression, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts) and physical health (diet, sedentary lifestyle, sleep, posture, eyesight). Warning signs of high-risk behavior are linked to social, behavioural or emotional breakdown (dropping out of school, loss of interest in an activity normally enjoyed, a withdrawal from friends etc.).
Share your thoughts in the comments!
Persuasive design
The difficulty in managing our use of digital technology could be considered a matter of individual duty, but it’s also possible to blame the designers. Big Tech companies are now understood to be positioning themselves in an “attention economy”: They strengthen their market power by increasing their ability to make users spend time on their products.
It is customary for Big Tech designers to draw on the work of the Behaviour Design Lab (Stanford University) to design “persuasive” technologies. The director of this laboratory, BJ. Fogg, is the man behind a field of research dedicated to this issue, “captology”, the study of computers and digital technologies as tools of influence.
Persuasive design can be defined as a digital design method that draws on elements of behavioural social psychology to influence users’ opinions and behaviours.
With this in mind, several features have been designed to attract and retain users’ attention: infinite scrolling (so users lose the notion of time), autoplay of videos, random rewards (such as comments) and social validation (the “like”).
This method has come under criticism in the context of the movement led by the “Silicon Valley repenters”. These criticisms have been shared with the general public in the media.
read related articles
From a Prosperous Popular Concept…
Several socio-historical works have studied various corpora (general press, specialised literature, online discussion forums etc.) to chart the construction of Internet addiction as a public problem (Juneau & Martel, 2014; Bueno, 2014). They highlight that lay discourse (i.e. people, especially journalists, claiming for themselves that their use of digital tools was pathological) predated expert discourse (in terms of scientific research).
Internet addiction therefore established itself as a popular classification before it became a scientific one. This is evidenced by the very birth of the concept in 1994. American psychiatrist Ivan K. Goldberg’s satirical proposal to diagnose “Internet addiction disorder” in a peer-to-peer discussion forum provoked so many reactions of self-diagnosis and requests for help that he followed up by creating an online support group, the “Internet Addiction Support Group”.
To a Clinical Research Issue
Clinical interest in Internet addiction dates back to the mid-1990s. Research first centred around the pathologisation of new leisure, social interaction and sexual practices brought about by computers, with other concepts such as “infoholism” (obsessive searching for data online) and “compulsive buying” later appearing in psychology textbooks (Hautefeuille & Véléa, 2010). Research on excessive consumption of pornography marked the beginning of the submission of clinical medicine to online practices (Vörös, 2009).
Scientific Debate
The research into Internet addiction that then emerged varied widely in theme and approach. First, studies focused either on the Internet or on the use of offline digital tools (Vaugeois, 2006).
Among the research into forms of online addiction, a first branch focused on addictions (gambling, sex etc.) that played out on the Internet, with this tool ultimately being nothing more than a new location for such practices (Billieux, 2012).
A second branch was more directly interested in Internet addiction (Griffiths et al., 2014), involving the characteristics of the “product” (for example, in the form of the 3 A’s model: accessible, anonymous, affordable).
A third branch, in line with the work of John Grohol (1999), one of the pioneers of “cyberpsychology”, focused on the “compensatory use” of the Internet (kardefelt-Winther, 2014). Digital technology is understood as a means for individuals to overcome their problems in “real life”. Cyberdependence is therefore a symptom rather than a disorder in its own right.
Internet addiction remains a controversial psychiatric entity. The inclusion of Internet addiction in the 5th version of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) was discussed on the suggestion made by Jerald J. Block in an editorial for The American Journal of Psychiatry in 2008. This recommendation was based on the identification of four symptoms: excessive use of the Internet, withdrawal, tolerance and negative repercussions on social life.
FAQ Section
-
What is Internet Addiction?
Internet addiction is a pathological loss of control over Internet use, diagnosed medically and treatable.
-
What are the signs of problematic Internet use?
Signs include spending excessive time online,difficulty disconnecting,and negative impacts on development,attention,mental and physical health.
-
Is Internet addiction a recognized mental disorder?
it remains a controversial psychiatric entity, with only Internet gaming addiction being included in the DSM-V.
Pros and Cons of Digital Technology Use
| pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Access to information and education | Potential for addiction and overuse |
| Enhanced communication and social connection | Negative impacts on mental and physical health |
| Opportunities for creativity and innovation | Exposure to misinformation and harmful content |
Are We truly addicted too Our Screens? An Expert Weighs In on Internet Addiction
Time.news Editor: Welcome, everyone. Today,we’re diving into a topic that touches all of our lives: our relationship with screens and teh internet. Many sources state that individuals can become ‘addicted’ to the internet [[2]], [[3]]. Is it a real issue, or just moral panic? To help us unpack this, we have Dr. Evelyn Reed, a leading researcher in cyberpsychology. Dr.Reed, thanks for joining us.
Dr. Evelyn Reed: It’s a pleasure to be here.
Time.news Editor: Dr. Reed, a lot of media coverage uses the term “Internet addiction” freely. Is this a clinically recognized condition?
Dr. Evelyn Reed: That’s the million-dollar question. “Internet addiction” as a blanket term is controversial. The clinical definition of Internet addiction refers to a pathological loss of control over internet use that can be medically diagnosed and perhaps treated. It’s not officially recognized as a distinct disorder in the DSM-5, though Internet gaming Disorder is. The term “problematic internet use” is often more accurate for describing the difficulties people face in managing their digital tool use more broadly.
Time.news editor: so, what is problematic internet use? What are the signs of internet addiction or problematic screen time?
Dr. Evelyn Reed: Problematic use often involves an excessive amount of time spent online, difficulty disconnecting, and a sense that you should be doing something else. The repercussions can be notable. We see impacts on people’s advancement, especially language skills in the young, attention spans resulting in cognitive overload, mental health issues like anxiety and depression, and even physical health problems related to sedentary behavior, poor diet, and disrupted sleep. High-risk behaviors can also manifest as social, behavioral, or emotional breakdowns – things like dropping out of school or withdrawing from friends. warning signs include declining interest in previously enjoyed activities.
Time.news Editor: The article mentions a recent meta-analysis estimating a 7.02% prevalence rate of Internet addiction. Is that a cause for alarm?
Dr. Evelyn Reed: While 7.02% isn’t “everyone,” it’s still a significant number. More importantly, the article accurately states that the majority of people consider their use of digital technology to be problematic, even if it doesn’t meet the strict criteria for full-blown addiction. From a public health outlook, this is crucial. The WHO defines mental health as not merely the absence of illness, but as a state of well-being [(https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response)]. if a large portion of the population feels their digital habits are negatively impacting their well-being, that’s a problem worth addressing.
time.news Editor: The piece also points a finger at “persuasive design.” Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Evelyn Reed: Absolutely. It’s not just about personal obligation; the tech itself plays a role. Big Tech companies operate within an “attention economy,” prioritizing the amount of time users spend on their platforms. They employ persuasive design techniques, drawing from behavioral psychology, to make their products as engaging and attention-grabbing as possible. Think about features like infinite scrolling,autoplay videos,random rewards like comments,and social validation through likes. These elements keep us hooked and make it harder to disconnect.
Time.news Editor: So, are tech companies deliberately creating addictive products? Should they be held responsible?
Dr. evelyn Reed: That’s a complex ethical question.”Silicon Valley repenters” have voiced concerns about the techniques used, and there’s growing debate about the responsibility of platforms in shaping user behavior. Features such as “infinite scrolling” were designed to keep users engaged with new content available all the time. While companies may argue they’re simply providing engaging experiences,the potential for these features to contribute to problematic use can’t be ignored. To that end, some sources claim that more stringent regulations may be needed [(https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/opinion/Could-regulatory-action-against-social-media-improve-mental-health)]
Time.news Editor: What practical advice can you offer to our readers who might be concerned about their own screen time or potential internet addiction?
Dr. Evelyn Reed: Awareness is the first step. Track your screen time to understand your usage patterns. Most devices and apps now offer these tools. Set time limits for specific apps – social media is often a major culprit. Designate tech-free zones and times, like during meals or before bed. Engage in offline activities. reconnect with hobbies or interests you may have neglected. If you’re struggling significantly,consider seeking help from a therapist specializing in cyberpsychology or addiction.
Time.news Editor: Dr. Reed, this has been incredibly insightful. Thank you for shedding light on this significant issue.
Dr. Evelyn Reed: My pleasure. It’s a conversation we all need to be having.
