How is digital addiction useful in today's life as compared to past generations?

How is digital addiction useful in today's life as compared to past generations? 

A major challenge to our understanding of these prevalence rates is that there are many different instruments used to assess addictive behavior 5. Most researchers began approaching Internet addiction using clinical screening techniques that rely on self-report questionnaires designed to distinguish pathological subjects from normal people. Early assessments drew on the diagnostic criteria for substance abuse, for instance, which include criteria such as tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, use of the substance in larger amounts over a longer period than intended, persistent desire for the substance, and negative outcomes. Translating these into criteria that could distinguish Internet addicts by substituting ‘Internet’ for ‘substance’ led to somewhat awkward characterizations. For example, one early attempt defined tolerance as a “need for markedly increased amounts of time on Internet to achieve satisfaction

Other surveys draw on the characteristics of pathological gambling, now called ‘gambling disorder’ in DSM-V, which also bears a resemblance to the kind of behavior we see in students who show problematic Internet use. Again, the surveys often simply swap the words ‘Internet use’ for ‘gambling’. Young's Diagnostic Questionnaire, for example, contains eight yes-or-no items drawn directly from the criteria used to identify pathological gamblers. One question asks: “Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop Internet use?” Another asks, “Have you lied to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with the Internet?” This survey was later expanded to a 20-item questionnaire, called the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) with a five-point scale so that subjects could indicate the extent to which they engage in behaviors that suggest addiction. For most of the surveys, researchers have established cutoff scores to categorize respondents as either normal Internet users, or as addicted to at least some degree.

With so many different measures in place—not just to identify different characteristics, but also to adapt the surveys to different cultures—it is hardly surprising that prevalence rates vary so much. A single individual might be classified as addicted in one study and normal in another, depending on the survey used.

Another problem is that many of the questions are becoming obsolete and somewhat misleading because of the increasing trend for 24/7 connectedness. For instance, a question on the IAT asks: “How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?” One might argue that answering ‘often’ could indicate a healthy ‘hybrid’ social life in which the student is expanding his or her network of friends and acquaintances through social media. Many universities actually encourage this kind of networking to build relationships among incoming students and help them to avoid loneliness. A ‘diagnosis’ of Internet addiction could therefore be mistakenly conflated with socially or professionally beneficial use of the time spent online.

“The Internet is no longer something that we ‘log into’ for particular durations of time, sitting in front of a desktop computer”

Several surveys also try to assess addiction simply by using the amount of time spent online, but students are connected to the Internet virtually all the time now, either through Wi-Fi or their mobile phone contracts. Students also rely heavily on the Internet to study, read news, communicate and entertain themselves. They multitask as they watch a football game or (sadly) attend class. Watching TV, they ‘multiscreen’ and tweet to their friends about the show they may all be watching from their dorm rooms or apartments. And with Netflix, Hulu, and other Internet-based on-demand entertainment, they may be online in many different ways. The Internet is no longer something that we ‘log into’ for particular durations of time, sitting in front of a desktop computer.

“There is no question that 21st century youth have become far more dependent upon connectivity for studying, playing, communicating, and socializing”

A bright spot for the growing body of research that relies on these different measuring instruments is that the underlying dimensions they emphasize appear to be converging. A study of fourteen such instruments found that most of them heavily weigh negative outcomes and compulsive use as key features for identifying Internet addiction 6. This emphasis is less likely to award high scores to today's students who are online most of the day and who rely on social media to maintain and expand their network of friendships. Instead, the improved surveys will identify people who are experiencing negative effects, or who want to get ‘off the grid’ but are unable to control themselves. The convergence in the dimensions also indicates that there is growing agreement about the definition of Internet addiction disorder and a clearer understanding of its most important symptoms. There is no question that 21st century youth have become far more dependent upon connectivity for studying, playing, communicating, and socializing. We all have. But it is a mistake to mislabel this as addiction, and the emphasis on negative outcomes and compulsive use is therefore a helpful distinction.​

(Table1(Table1