DOI: 10.1007/s10648-005-8138-1
A Review of the Research on Internet Addiction
Chien Chou,1,4Linda Condron,2and John C. Belland3Research indicates that maladaptive patterns of Internet use constitute be-havioral addiction. This article explores the research on the social effects of Internet addiction. There are four major sections. The Introduction section overviews the field and introduces definitions, terminology, and assessments. The second section reviews research findings and focuses on several key fac-tors related to Internet addiction, including Internet use and time, identifiable problems, gender differences, psychosocial variables, and computer attitudes. The third section considers the addictive potential of the Internet in terms of the Internet, its users, and the interaction of the two. The fourth section ad-dresses current and projected treatments of Internet addiction, suggests future research agendas, and provides implications for educational psychologists.
KEY WORDS: Internet addiction; Internet dependence; Internet abuse; pathological Internet use.
INTRODUCTION
The use of the Internet on school campuses and in society has increased dramatically in recent years. Whereas the academic use of the Internet is primarily intended for learning and research, the Internet has also become an important part of student life. However, from time to time, cases of over-involvement with the Internet have been observed on different campuses. For example, Chou et al. (1999) observed that in one residence hall at their
1Institute of Education/Center for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan.
2College of Education, Social and Cultural Foundations of Education, Technologies of
Instruction and Media, The Ohio State University.
3Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University.
4Correspondence should be addressed to Chien Chou, Institute of Education/Center for
Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta-Hsueh Road, Hsinchu, Taiwan 30010; e-mail: cchou@cc.nctu.edu.tw.
363
university, four roommates were busy, quietly working on their computers. They logged onto the Internet to chat with other people, whom were no other than their roommates! Some college students remain connected to the Internet as long as they are awake. Teachers may notice that fewer and fewer students are willing to take early morning classes, and some of those who do register for morning classes regularly come in late. It has also come to the attention of some school administrators that some students get poor grades or are placed on academic probation because they spend too much time on the Internet rather than on their studies. In view of these obser-vations, we examine why the Internet hooks students so tenaciously, leads them to new behavioral patterns, and even results in Internet addiction.
Indeed, academic attention has been given in recent years to what some researchers term “Internet addiction.” Although the concept is still evolv-ing and debated, some empirical studies have been done in recent years. The purpose of this article is to review the up-to-date academic investi-gations on Internet addiction. It is divided into four major sections. The Introduction section gives an overview of the definitions, key terms, and as-sessments of Internet addiction. The second section reviews research find-ings and focuses on several key factors related to Internet addiction. The third section considers the addictive potential of the Internet in terms of the nature of the Internet, its users, and the interaction of the two. The fourth addresses current and projected treatments of Internet addiction, suggests future research agendas, and provides implications for educational psychologists.
Definition and Terminology
Although some argue that the term “addiction” should be applied only to cases involving chemical substances (e.g., Bratter and Forrest, 1985), similar diagnostic criteria have been applied to a number of problematic behaviors such as pathological gambling (Young, 1996a). Popular use of the term may associate “addiction” with almost any substance or activity (Hatterer, 1994). People are said to be “addicted” to food, smoking, gam-bling, shopping, work, play, and sex (Truan, 1993). Early research, such as that conducted by Shotten (1991), studied the “computer addiction” of some computer scientists and technicians. The typical research participant was a young “solitary male loner” with a long-standing interest in technol-ogy and science. The explosive growth of the Internet over the past decade has almost certainly changed the profile of the “computer addict” (Brenner, 1997; Young, 1996b). With its convenient communication options and the World Wide Web, the Internet provides remote access to other people and abundant information in all areas of interest. It is an environment that could
be abused by virtually anyone, regardless of their interest in technology and science (Griffiths, 1998).
Although there is no standardized definition of Internet addiction, there is acknowledgement among researchers that this phenomenon does exist. As Griffiths (1998) notes, “excessive use of the Internet may not be problematic in most cases but the limited case study evidence suggests that for some individuals, excessive Internet use is a real addiction and of gen-uine concern” (p. 73). Griffiths (1998) further considers Internet addiction to be a kind of technological addiction (such as computer addiction), and one in a subset of behavioral addictions (such as compulsive gambling). Kandell (1998) defined Internet addiction as “a psychological dependence on the Internet, regardless of the type of activity once logged on” (p. 12). Maladaptive patterns of Internet use do indeed constitute behavioral addic-tion when considered in terms of these definiaddic-tions (Chou et al., 1999).
Terminology remains a problem, however. Some refer to particular Internet-related behaviors as Internet addiction (e.g., Chou and Hsiao, 2000; Young, 1996a), whereas others prefer Internet Addiction Disorder (Goldberg, 1996), Internet pathological use (e.g., Davis, 2001; Morahan-Martin and Schumacker, 2000), or Internet dependency (e.g., Scherer, 1997). In this article, the term Internet addiction is used to cover the collective phenomenon. However, the terminology preferred by the respective re-searchers is used in the discussion of their work.
Assessment
How can Internet addiction be assessed? Early research into the phe-nomenon of Internet addiction focused on articulating criteria by which Internet addiction could be described and diagnosed, such as the well-described set of diagnostic criteria provided by Goldberg (1996) and six criteria developed by Griffiths (1996, 1998). As research into Internet addic-tion continued, checklists were developed whereby data could be collected from willing, self-reporting respondents about their patterns of Internet use. For example, Young (1996a) developed an eight-item Internet Addiction
Diagnostic Questionnaire (DQ) used both in online surveys as well as in
telephone interviews. DQ is simply a set of eight yes/no questions about such things as the user’s preoccupation with the Internet, amount of time spent on the Internet, and effects of the Internet in the user’s life. Young asserted that five or more yes responses to the eight questions indicate a dependent user. Another example includes the checklist of 10 clinical symptoms developed by Scherer (1997).
The work to develop instruments with which computer users could be surveyed for information about their habits of Internet use continued
and became more sophisticated. The number of questions on the surveys increased and statistical analyses were applied to identify Internet addic-tion. For example, in Morahan-Martin and Schumacker’s studies (1997, 2000), a 13-question “Pathological use scale” was developed to assess whether heavy Internet use negatively affects academic and other work, in-terpersonal relations, individual stress levels, social withdrawal, and mood-alteration. Brenner (1997) also developed an Internet-Related Addictive
Behavior Inventory (IRABI). The IRABI has 32 true–false questions that
assess users’ Internet experiences. Further development and refinement of self-reported instruments for the identification of Internet addiction took place largely in Taiwan. Researchers there created surveys on which par-ticipants could report their Internet behaviors by degree using 4-point Lik-ert scales rather than giving absolute yes or no responses. Taiwanese re-searchers there also increased the numbers of Internet users they surveyed in their respective studies. Examples included Chinese Internet Addiction
Scale (CIAS) by Chen and Chou (1999), revised-IRABI (in Chinese) by
Chou and Hsiao (2000), and Internet Addiction Scale for Taiwan High
School Students (IAST) by Lin and Tsai (1999).
In summary, assessment instrument for Internet addiction was pre-sented in various formats (criteria, checklists, or scales), with different item numbers (ranging from 6 to 40), using a variety of methods (paper-and-pencil survey, online survey, telephone interviews, case studies, etc.) and aimed at different types of research participants (college students, high school students, general populations). Table I provides a summary of as-sessment instruments detailing their item number, scale, reported reliabil-ity, and number of respondents/methods.
RESEARCH ISSUES AND FINDINGS
Since 1996, many studies have examined Internet addiction, explor-ing the relationships among heavy Internet use, social-psychological factors, and computer-related factors. The following discussion focuses on the main issues and findings of the Internet addiction studies regarding: (1) Internet use and time, (2) related problems of Internet addiction, (3) gender differ-ences in Internet addiction, (4) Internet addiction and social-psychological factors, and (5) Internet addiction and attitudes toward computers.
Internet Use and Time
The terms “overuse” and “excessive use,” which appear in many In-ternet addiction studies, usually indicate that time online is an important
Table I. Internet Addiction A ssessment Instruments (using Criteria, Checklists, o r S cales) with Information A bout Items, Scale, Reported Reliability, Number of Respondents, and M ethods Reported Researchers Instrument Items Scale reliability (α ) R espondents (method) Criteria Goldberg (1996) Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) Diagnostic criteria 7— — — Griffiths (1996, 1998, 2000) Criteria (core components) for addiction 6 — — 7 case studies (in 2000 study) Checklists Young (1996a, 1998) Diagnostic Questionnaire (DQ) 8 Y es/no — 396 dependents, 100 non-dependents (in 1998 study) Scherer (1997) Clinical symptoms o f Internet dependency 10 Yes/no — 531 college students (online survey and telephone interview) Scales Morahan-Martin and Schumacker (1997, 2000) Pathological u se scale 1 3 Y es/no .88 277 college students (paper-and-pencil survey) Brenner (1997) Internet-Related Addictive B ehavior Inventory (IRABI) 32 Yes/no .87 563 online survey respondents Chen a nd Chou (1999) Chinese Internet Addiction S cale (CIAS) 28 4-point Likert .93 1336 students from N ational Taiwan University (paper-and-pencil survey) Chou and H siao (2000) Chinese IRABI version II (C-IRABI-II) 40 4-point Likert .93 910 Taiwan college students (paper-and-pencil survey) Lin a nd Tsai (1999) Internet Addiction Scale for Taiwan High Schoolers (IAST) 20 4-point Likert .85 615 Taiwan high school students (paper-and-pencil survey)
factor or index for determining Internet addiction. For example, in Young’s study (1998), Internet dependents reported a striking average of 39 hr per week spent online, compared to the 5 hr of non-dependents. In other words, dependents spent the equivalent of a “full-time job” on the Internet and spent nearly 8 times the number of hours per week online than did non-dependents.
Similarly, Chen and Chou (1999) reported that the Internet addic-tion “high-risk” group (n= 69) spent significantly more time online than the non–high-risk group (n= 1232). Whereas the high-risk group spent an average of 20 hr per week online, the non–high-risk group spent about 9 hr online. The results also indicated that students’ scores on their Chinese
Internet Addiction Scale were significantly correlated with their weekly
Internet-use hours. Similar results were found in Chou and Hsiao’s study (2000): about 54 (6%) Internet addicts spent 20–25 hr per week online, al-most triple the number of hours that 856 non-addicts spent online.
Online activities or applications (such as chat rooms or online games) are also an important factor used in determining Internet addiction, in Young’s study (1998), dependents used predominately two-way communi-cation functions such as chat rooms, role-playing games (e.g., Multi-User Dungeons or Multi-User Dimensions, also known as MUDs), newsgroups, or email, whereas non-dependents most likely used information-gathering functions available on the Internet such as Information Protocols and the World Wide Web (WWW). Young concludes that although the Internet itself is not addictive, specific applications appear to play a role in the de-velopment of pathological Internet use. Young’s conclusion is consistent with Kandell’s observation that MUD games, Internet relay chat (IRC), and chat rooms are the primary Internet activities that lead to addictive behavior. Extended Web surfing and compulsively checking email can also create overuse problems.
In an Asian culture context, Chou et al. (1999) reported that some Taiwan college students who were considered “addicts” most frequently used the chat and talk functions of electronic Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs), followed by use of the WWW, File Transfer Protocol, Newsgroups, email, and games. In a later study (Chou and Hsiao, 2000), researchers found that members of an addicted group spent more time on BBSs and email than did members of a non-addicted group. Furthermore, the ad-dicted group also spent more time on the WWW than did the non-adad-dicted group. This study reported that the number of hours spent using BBSs and email are predictors for determining Internet addiction. The work of Young (1998), Chou et al. (1999), and Chou and Hsiao (2000) empirically confirms that Internet addicts use two-way communication functions more than non-addicts do.
Based on the aforementioned studies, we can draw a tentative con-clusion that the Internet itself is not addictive, but that some specific In-ternet applications, especially those with interactive functions, appear to contribute to the development of pathological Internet use.
Identifiable Problems Related to Internet Addiction
An important research focus of Internet addiction is the problems caused by the Internet. In Brenner’s study (1997), 80% of nearly 600 re-spondents indicated at least five use-related problems such as failure to manage time, missed sleep, missed meals, etc., suggesting that such patterns are the norm. Some respondents reported more serious problems because of Internet use: trouble with employers or social isolation except for Inter-net friends—troubles similar to those found with other addictions.
What kinds of problems can Internet addiction inflict on students? In Scherer’s study (1997), 13% of respondents reported that Internet use had interfered with either their academic work, professional performance, or social lives. Among them, about 2% perceived the Internet as having an overall negative effect on their daily lives. Similarly, in Young’s study (1998), dependents reported that excessive use of the Internet resulted in personal, family, and occupational problems similar to those experienced in other addictions. Chief among these problems was time distortion, which even resulted in some physical complaints such as disrupted sleep patterns and fatigue. Students may also experience profound academic problems, eventually resulting in poor grades, academic probation, and even expul-sion from universities. Other problems created by excessive Internet use include disrupted marriages, financial problems, and relationship problems (sexual/romantic, parent–child, and friendship problems).
Using Taiwan college student samples, Chou and Hsiao (2000) inves-tigated students’ self-assessment of their Internet use and its impact on their lives. They found that those deemed Internet addicts reported more negative consequences on their studies and daily routines than did those deemed non-addicts. However, there was no difference between how the addicted groups and non-addicted groups viewed the Internet’s impact on relationships with friends/schoolmates, parents, and teachers. Interestingly, both the addicted group and the non-addicted group indicated that In-ternet use had highly positive influences on these three kinds of relation-ships. Lin and Tsai (1999) reported similar findings. In their study, Taiwan high school students revealed that the Internet had slightly negative influ-ences on their school learning and daily routines, but strong positive in-fluences on their peer relations. Therefore, heavy Internet use may result
in time-management problems but provide users with the opportunity to meet new people, provide additional, if not primary, tools for communi-cating with friends, and create more topics to share with them (Chou and Hsiao, 2000).
Based on the aforementioned studies, it is difficult to draw the con-clusion that heavy use of the Internet results in an overall negative impact on addicts’ lives; only one negative impact can be conclusively identified: time-disruption, leading to interference with academic work, professional performance, daily routines, and so on. However, findings on the impacts of heavy Internet use on addicts’ social relationships are inconclusive to positive.
Gender Differences in Internet Addiction
Are male users more subject to Internet addiction than female users? A few empirical studies have examined the stereotype of the excessive Internet user—males in their late teens, as discussed in Griffiths (1998). Although not included in Chou and Hsiao’s article (2000), only three re-spondents were female students out of a total of 54 Internet addiction cases gleaned from more than 900 Taiwan college student respondents. Regression analysis indicates that gender is one of the predicting factors in Internet addiction, that is, males are more likely than females to become Internet addicts.
Scherer (1997) reported that dependent Internet users included a sig-nificantly larger proportion of men to women (71% men and 29% women, respectively) than the non-dependent users (50% are men and women). Morahan-Martin and Schumacker (2000) reported that males were more likely than females to be pathological users (12% vs. 3%), whereas females were more likely than males to have no symptoms (28% vs. 26%) or have limited symptoms (69% vs. 61%) of behavioral pathology. The notion that males, or at least male college students, are more subject to Internet addic-tion has empirical support.
However, other research findings show inconsistent results. In Brenner’s study (1997), men and women did not differ in either time on-line or number of related problems experienced. Young (1998) used her eight-item DQ to assess self-selected samples and reported that her sample of Internet Dependents included 157 males and 239 females.
The difference between these two groups of studies seems to lie in the methodology used and the respondents recruited for each group. The studies showing that males are more likely addicted distributed paper-and-pencil questionnaires on college campuses. Although these studies did not
include random sampling, the sampling plans did not exhibit systematic bias. On the other hand, the studies showing no male–female differences in addiction employed self-selected samples from online solicitation, and thus the sampling bias may have been stronger. Griffiths (1998) commented that because females are generally more willing than males to discuss emotional issues and problems, or perhaps because Young is a female researcher, fe-male respondents were more willing to take part in the study than would otherwise have been the case.
The issue of gender in regard to the question of Internet use and its effects is an important one. Do men and women use the Internet differ-ently and engage different Internet applications? Young (1998) observed that men tend to seek out dominant activities or content online. Those in-teractive online games that rely particularly on power, dominance, control, and/or violence attract more men than women. Women, on the other hand, seek out close friendships and prefer anonymous communication in which they can hide their appearance(s). Virtual communities give women a sense of belonging and the ability to share their feelings and emotions in private and convenient ways. Whereas men tend to explore sexual fantasies online, women tend to look for romance in cyberspace. Young states that although it is not unusual for women to engage in random cybersex or cyber sex chat, they often prefer to form some type of relationship prior to the sex-ual chat. In Chen’s study (2000), hierarchical regression analysis indicated that time-management problems and compulsion symptoms are common predictors for both genders’ weekly time spent on the Internet. Shyness and withdrawal symptoms are predictive only for female college students, whereas experiences and tolerance symptoms are predictive only for males. Based on the aforementioned studies, tentative conclusions can be drawn that men use the Internet differently from women, and that men are more likely subject to Internet addiction.
Internet Addiction and Other Psychosocial Variables
Do people have special personality or social-psychological characteris-tics that lead them to become Internet addicts? A few studies have explored the relationship between Internet addiction and users’ social-psychological or personality variables, such as sensation seeking, pleasure experience, use-and-gratification, loneliness, and depression.
Do people with high sensation-seeking tendencies tend to be more dependent on the Internet? Lavin et al. (1999) conducted a study in which more than 300 college students were assessed regarding their sensation-seeking tendencies on Zucherman’s Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) (Zuckerman, 1979) as well as their attitudes and behaviors toward the
Internet. Contrary to expectations, this study found that dependent Inter-net users scored lower on the sensation-seeking scale, as well as on the thrill-and adventure-seeking, thrill-and the excitement-seeking subscales. Researchers explained that dependent Internet users tend to be quite sociable in their Internet use, but not to the point of sensation seeking. Other possible expla-nations were that those students’ sensation-seeking traits may differ from the traditional sense of the concept, or that the SSS is more appropriate for assessing sensation seeking through various physical activities than for sim-ilar assessment through non-physical activities. However, it is worth noting that the term “dependent Internet user” in this study was used somewhat differently than in most studies in this field. The instrument termed “at-titudes and behaviors toward the Internet,” used to differentiate Internet dependence in this study, did not contain some of the major Internet ad-diction/dependency components such as tolerance, withdrawal, and related problems. Therefore, the differentiation of dependent Internet users and
non-dependent Internet users in this study should be carefully re-examined.
Also focusing on Internet dependence and sensation seeking, Lin and Tsai (2002) assessed about 750 Taiwan high school students, and catego-rized 17% among them as dependent Internet users. These results show that dependent Internet users scored higher on a scale of overall sensation seeking and on the disinhibition subscale than did non-dependent Internet users, but there was no difference in the groups’ subscale scores regarding life-experience seeking, and thrill- and adventure seeking. Researchers ex-plained that adolescents’ strong developmental needs, such as striving for personal identity, may be carried out through breaking social inhibitions, which may in turn lead to Internet dependence.
The inconsistent results from Lavin et al. (1999), and Lin and Tsai (2002) may be due to students’ ages (college students vs. high school stu-dents, respectively) and cultural contexts (USA vs. Taiwan, respectively). The present authors also agree with the suggestion from Lavin et al. (1999) that a modified sensation-seeking scale is needed. Such a scale might ad-dress a greater number of non-physical activities, such as daydreaming, as well as Internet-related activities like meeting new people anonymously online and participating in character construction in chat room scenarios. These additions and more are needed to construct a more sophisticated scale that would help researchers better explore sensation seeking on the Internet.
Do people use the Internet mainly for fun, or for the gratification of needs? Chou et al. (1999) investigated Internet addiction on the basis of Stephenson’s (1988) Play Theory of Mass Communication. This theory as-sumes that using the Internet generates some kind of pleasurable com-munication experience that draws users to the Internet again and again,
and that overuse of the Internet finally leads them to addiction-like be-haviors. In their study, 104 valid, self-selected samples were collected online. Among them, 67% were male and 80% were students. Respon-dents’ Chinese Internet-Related Addictive Behavior Inventory scores corre-lated positively with their escape pleasure scores, interpersonal relationship pleasure scores, and total communication pleasure scores. The Internet ad-diction scores also correlated positively with both BBSs use hours and to-tal Internet use hours. Close review of this study suggests, however, that the demarcation between addicts and non-addicts should be carefully re-examined. In this study, the dichotomy was based on the mean of respon-dents’ Internet addiction scores, in addition, the samples were self-selected but not drawn randomly from among Taiwan’s Internet users. This limits the external validity of the study.
In a later study, Chou and Hsiao (2000) conducted a larger-scale in-vestigation focused not only on pleasure experience but also on the use-gratification aspect of Internet use. This study collected 910 valid survey responses from 12 universities and colleges around Taiwan and identified about 6% of respondents as Internet addicts. The results indicated that the addict group found the Internet entertaining, interesting, interactive, and enjoyable. The study also found that the most powerful predictor of Inter-net addiction was the communication pleasure score, followed by BBSs use hours, gender, satisfaction (gratification) score, and email-use hours.
It seems that some people seek pleasure on the Internet; therefore, it is possible that those who are depressed may be using the Internet to treat their depression with pleasure-seeking activities. Young and Rogers (1998) used the Zung Depression Inventory (Zung, 1965) and Young’s DQ to as-sess 259 valid respondents out of a total of 312 survey responses on this topic. Their results indicated that increased levels of depression are asso-ciated with those who become addicted to the Internet. In particular, low self-esteem, poor motivation, fear of rejection, and the need for approval— all commonly associated with depression—contributed to increased Inter-net use. Although their findings did not indicate a clear cause-and-effect relationship, Young and Rogers proposed that excessive time online might increase levels of social isolation, resulting in increased depression.
A related question is, are lonely people more subject to Internet ad-diction? Or, do people feel lonelier as their Internet use increases? In Morahan-Martin and Schumacker’s study (2000), 277 college students were assessed using the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996). Results indi-cated that 8% of the samples were pathological in their Internet use, and these pathological users were lonelier than non-pathological users. How-ever, because of the study’s statistical limitations, the direction of the rela-tionship between loneliness and Internet use is hard to determine. In order
to determine causality, Morahan-Martin (1999) reviewed the related liter-ature extensively and concluded that research has not determined whether loneliness is symptomatic of excessive Internet use, or if heavy Internet use is symptomatic of loneliness. However, she suggests that loneliness is caused by excessive Internet use. She also contends that once the Internet becomes a substitute for real-life social interaction, users may be caught in a vicious cycle.
Current research is inconclusive about the relationship between In-ternet addiction and sensation seeking (Lavin et al., 1999; Lin and Tsai, 2002). In addition, Chou’s and colleagues’ studies (1999, 2000) suggest that pleasure seeking is indeed one of the major motivations for heavy Inter-net users; increased symptoms of depression, however, have been iden-tified in heavy users and associated with Internet addiction (i.e., Young and Rogers, 1998), and Internet addicts report experiencing loneliness to a greater degree than non-addicts (Morahan-Martin and Schumacker, 2000). Rather than answering pressing questions regarding heavy Internet use and its effects on users, these results appear to provide researchers with more questions.
Internet Addiction and Attitudes Toward Computers
What is the relationship between Internet addiction and the users’ atti-tudes toward computers? Morahan-Martin and Schumacker’s study (2000) also investigated respondents’ attitudes and behaviors toward the Internet. Their results indicated that pathological users are more likely than non-pathological users to score higher on questions regarding social confidence (e.g., escaping from pressures, having online friends) and social liberation (e.g., sharing intimate secrets online, pretending to be a potential sexual partner online). Pathological users in this study were more likely to agree that online communication is easier and more comfortable than traditional forms of personal communication, giving them control when they interact online.
Using various network attitude scales and samples, Tsai and Lin (2001) conducted a study exploring the relationship between network attitudes and addiction among Taiwan high school students. The instrument they used was adapted from the Computer Network Attitude Inventory (Selwyn, 1997). The adapted scale contains 18 questions in four subscales: affective, per-ceived usefulness, perper-ceived control, and behavior. Their results indicated that students perceiving they can control Internet interactions and those who highly value its usefulness tend to claim they need more time online to achieve desired satisfaction.
The two studies discussed earlier in the paper (Morahan-Martin and Schumacker, 2000; Tsai and Lin, 2001) do not offer enough data to draw a valid conclusion regarding the relationship between Internet addiction and users’ attitudes toward computers in general. This may be due in part to the difference between the two studies’ instruments designed for assess-ing “computer attitudes,” and the individual factors identified from these instruments (e.g., social confidence, social liberation, sense of control, com-puter usefulness, etc.). However, although available data hinders scholars from making statements regarding the relationships between Internet ad-diction and attitudes toward computers and computer networks, it makes clear the indisputable increase in global Internet use.
Table II summarizes the aforementioned empirical research studies and their findings according to the categories in this section (Internet use and time, related problems, gender differences, psychosocial variables, and attitudes toward computers). The studies are listed in the order they ap-pear in the text, rather than in chronological order of implementation. Some studies pertained to more than one research issue, and they therefore ap-pear under multiple issue categories.
WHAT MAKES THE INTERNET ADDICTIVE?
As discussed previously, if we assume that some people are addicted to the Internet, to what, exactly, are they addicted? Are users addicted to the technology itself? Are they addicted to particular applications only? Or are they addicted perhaps to the degree of control and/or anonymity offered by Internet use? Is it the medium or the message? Most relevant studies have tried to answer these questions from different perspectives and using different methods or inquiry. This review explores three categories of relevant literature: (1) the Internet itself including its content, (2) Internet users themselves, and (3) the user and user interactions on the Internet. Of course, although categorizing the literature in this way is useful for purposes of organization and discussion, it is reductive in that these categories, in fact, overlap and interact in complex ways.
The Nature of the Internet
Does the nature of the Internet make itself addictive? Greenfield (1999) states that the unique qualities of the Internet contribute to the potential for Internet addiction—specifically its speed, accessibility, inten-sity of information accessed online, and the potency (stimulation) of its
Table II. Summary of Empirical Research Studies and Their Major Findings by Issues
Study Major findings
Internet use and time
Chen and Chou (1999) Students’ addiction scores were correlated with their
weekly Internet-use hours
Chou and Hsiao (2000) Internet addicts spent triple the number of hours than
non-addicts
The addict group spent more time on Bulletin Board System and email than a non-addicted group Morahan-Martin and
Schumacker (2000)
Pathological Internet users spent more time online per week than users with limited or no symptoms
Young (1998) Internet dependents predominately used two-way
communication functions; non-dependents more used information-gathering functions
Chou et al. (1999) Addicts used the chat and talk functions of electronic
BBSs the most Related problems
Scherer (1997) 13% of respondents reported that Internet use had
interfered with their academic work, professional performance, or social lives
2% of respondents perceived the Internet to have had an overall negative effect on their daily lives
Young (1998) Dependents reported excessive use of the Internet
resulted in personal, family, and occupational problems
Time distortion was the major consequence of Internet use
Students may experience academic problems
Chou and Hsiao (2000) Taiwan college addicted students reported Internet has
negative impacts on their studies and daily life routines
No differences between addicted groups’ assessment and non-addicted groups’ assessment of impacts on relationships with friends/schoolmates, parents, and teachers.
Lin and Tsai (1999) Taiwan high schools students reported that the
Internet had slightly negative influences on their studies and daily routines, but strong positive influences on their peer relations
Gender difference
Chou and Hsiao (2000) Gender is one of the predicting factors in Internet
addiction; males are more likely to become Internet addicts
Scherer (1997) Among 49 identified Internet dependents, 35 are men
and 14 are women Morahan-Martin and
Schumacker (2000)
Males were more likely than females to be pathological users
Young (1998) Among 496 Internet dependents, 157 were males and
239 were females Internet addiction and
other psychosocial variables
Lavin et al. (1999) Dependent Internet users’ scored lower on the overall
Table II. Continued
Study Major findings
adventure-seeking and the excitement-seeking subscales
Lin and Tsai (2002) Internet dependents users scored higher on overall SSS
and the disinhibition subscale than non-dependents
Chou et al. (1999) Students’ addiction scores correlated positively with
their escape pleasure scores, interpersonal relationship pleasures scores, and total communication pleasure scores
Chou and Hsiao (2000) Addict group found the Internet entertaining,
interesting, interactive, and satisfactory The communication pleasure scores are the most
powerful predictors of Internet addiction Young and Rogers
(1998)
Increased levels of depression were associated with those who became addicted to the Internet Morahan-Martin and
Schumacker (2000)
22 pathological users were more lonely than 251 non-pathological users
Attitude toward computers Morahan-Martin and
Schumacker (2000)
Pathological users were more likely than non-pathological users to have higher social confidence and social liberating scores
Tsai and Lin (2001) Students perceiving that they can control Internet
interactions and those who highly value its usefulness claimed they needed more time online to achieve desired satisfaction
content. In Chou’s study (2001), 83 heavy Internet users were interviewed and reported that the Internet features they most appreciated included in-teractivity, ease of use, availability, and breadth of information accessed online. Interactivity has two aspects: human–computer and interpersonal. Most Internet applications such as the WWW are simple to use, and thus enhance human–computer interactions; furthermore, some applications, such as chat rooms and email, are especially good at facilitating inter-personal interactions. Availability means easy, low-cost access for users. Abundant and rapidly updated information is another major feature that attracts users to participate online. The diversity of ideas, subjects, atti-tudes, and opinions presented on the Internet continuously changes users’ perspectives.
Indeed, the popularity of the Internet is increasing. In addition to ease of access and low cost, the Internet’s continuously expanding bandwidth continues to deliver multimedia resources in greater amounts and higher quality. The development of friendlier interfaces allows even those with low network literacy to use the Internet more easily and comfortably.
If we understand the Internet as a kind of mass medium, then the possibility surfaces that the Internet is in the process of replacing or
substituting for a part of traditional media (e.g., television, radio, newspa-pers, magazines, books, and so on) (Chou, 2001). Grohol (1999) suggests that societal acceptance and promotion of the Internet must also be consid-ered. If most of the information we need in our daily lives (e.g., from mass media) can be easily and cheaply obtained from the Internet, and if activi-ties (e.g., writing letters, making phone calls) can also be carried out from the Internet, then it is no leap to predict that more and more people will spend more and more time online.
Young (1998) concludes that the Internet itself is not addictive, but specific applications embedded within interactive features play a significant role in the development of pathological Internet use. Griffiths (1997, 1998) argues that the structural characteristics of particular activities are responsi-ble for reinforcement, may satisfy users’ needs, and may actually facilitate excessive or pathological use. Structural characteristics, in his words, refer to the features that manufacturers design into their products. For exam-ple, the high degree of “interactivity” embedded in chat rooms and games may create alternative realities for their users. The “anonymity” of some BBSs may encourage the verbal disinhibition of many high school students (Lin and Tsai, 2002). Similarly, the “redo” button, which allows gamblers to click on the screen and then automatically redo the last bet, may draw more and more gamblers to “virtual casinos” (King and Barak, 1999). Griffiths (2000) argues that by examining such structural characteristics, we may gain a better understanding of what users’ needs are, how information is presented or misrepresented, and how users’ cognition is influenced and distorted.
The Nature of Internet Users
In addition to examining the Internet itself and its contents, it is also important to examine what user’s needs are, and how the Internet meets those needs. Suler (1999) argues that understanding such needs can illumi-nate how and why some people become pathologically involved with the Internet. The six needs he identifies include the need for (1) sex, (2) an al-tered state of consciousness, (3) achievement and mastery, (4) belonging, (5) relationships, and (6) self-actualization and the transcendence of self. In this section, sexual needs, the need for achievement and mastery, and the need for pleasure are discussed. The need for belonging and the need for relationships are discussed in a later section.
Sex is always a popular topic in mass media; sex on the Internet— “cybersex” or netsex”—is no exception. Suler (1999) claims that people become preoccupied with online sexual activities for the same two basic
reasons people exhibit obsessive behavior regarding sex in any context: satisfaction of biological needs, and satisfaction of a variety of purely psy-chological and social needs. Sexual pursuits on the Internet can be both social and non-social. Social cybersex can become addictive because it is an easily accessed, anonymous, and a medically safe way to satisfy one’s biological drive and psychological needs. In a non-social sexual situation, Internet users can easily and anonymously obtain pornographic images, an-imations, and video clips; the Internet offers an almost infinite supply of such materials. Morahan-Martin and Schumacker (2000) report that patho-logical users are more likely than others to use the Internet’s adults-only resources. Young (1997) also suggests that sexual fulfillment is one of the potential explanations for pathological Internet use. However, Delmonico and Garnes (1999) argue that the process of becoming sexually addicted is a complex one, and although the Internet provides a powerful way for sex addicts to act out their addictions, researchers have yet to provide conclu-sive evidence to support a claim that Internet use and sexual addiction are causally related.
The Internet also seems to have the ability to fulfill users’ needs for achievement and mastery. Suler (1999) claims that for many users who enjoy mastering the various technical features of software applica-tions, computers and networks offer a motivating and rewarding cycle of challenge, experimentation, mastery, and success. For users who are less motivated by technological mastery, the challenges of discovering and becoming familiar with the various cultures and people represented on the Internet can be a never-ending source of fulfillment of curios-ity and self-esteem. However, problems occur, as Suler notes, when ob-sessions with Internet achievement and mastery become a never-ending pursuit, but underlying needs are not fully met by Internet use. Kandell (1998) also works with the concept of users’ desire to exercise control over the computer and the Internet. This sense of control can be re-alized in human–computer contexts by a series of command–actions, as well as in interpersonal contexts wherein the user decides what, when, where, and with whom to communicate, and how to proceed with such communication.
Suler’s (1999) notion of the need for an altered state of conscious-ness is akin to Young’s (1997b) concepts of unlocked personalities and creating online persona. Suler argues that people have an inherent need to alter their consciousness, to experience reality from different perspec-tives, and that cyberspace may be a new and important arena in which to satisfy that need. For example, one’s sense of time, space, and per-sonal identity can be changed on the Internet. Moreover, online personas, according to Young, offer individuals an outlet for experimenting with
accessing different parts of their personality, and allowing individuals to expand the range of emotions experienced and expressed toward oth-ers. Morahan-Martin (1999) also believes that the ability to change one-self online—an ability enhanced by the Internet—can be liberating. The ability to alter self-presentation, for example, to change the way other people perceive you, allows users to try out different ways of present-ing themselves and interactpresent-ing with others. These experiments are healthy most of the time; however, problems emerge when people have diffi-culty in “logging off” from their online personas as well as from the Internet.
Four studies in particular have emphasized users’ need for pleasure and their pursuit to fulfill that need from the Internet. Scherer (1997) found that dependent Internet users report more personal or leisure time online (M= 7.8 hr) than did non-dependent users (M = 3.7 hr). In other words, Internet-dependent students spend twice as much time online for leisure ac-tivities than do other students. Chou et al.’s study (1999) found that Taiwan college students’ Internet addiction scores were positively correlated with their total communication pleasure scores and, in particular, with the “es-cape pleasure” scores and the “interpersonal relationship pleasure” scores. Internet addicts seem to agree that they experience more pleasure in escap-ing from real-life worries and responsibility through the pleasures of com-municating with others online.
Similarly, Chou and Hsiao’s study (2000) found that the addicted group’s pleasure experience scores were higher than those of the non-addicted group. Morahan-Martin and Schumacker (2000) report similar findings: the Internet provides a place to relax, escape pressures, and seek excitement. In their study, those with Internet-related problems were more likely than others to use the Internet for recreation and relaxation, wasting time, and gambling. Before the Internet gained its present popu-larity (when computers were mostly stand-alone), Griffith (1991) had al-ready observed that some people used computer games for arousal or excitement, whereas others used them as a form of escape. Problems arose when people gave up almost all other leisure time and activities to pursue online pleasures, exhibiting an intense preoccupation with the Internet.
The Nature of User Interactions on the Internet
The Internet, in many ways, is not only an information superhigh-way, but is also a powerful social domain that connects its users around the world. As mentioned earlier, Suler (1999) argues that whether Internet
use is healthy, pathologically addictive, or somewhere in between is deter-mined by users’ multiple needs and how the Internet meets those needs. In particular, he addresses two interpersonal needs: the need to belong and the need for relationships. Everyone needs interpersonal contacts, so-cial recognition, and a sense of belonging to live healthy and balanced lives. Young (1997) also provides an explanation of online “social sup-port” for Internet addiction. She claims that social support is formed by groups of people who engage in regular computer-mediated com-munication with one another over extended periods of time. With rou-tine or frequent visits to a particular newsgroup, chat room, or Bulletin Board System, familiarity and a sense of belonging can be established. As Morahan-Martin (1999) observed, the more time users spend on-line, the more likely they are to use the Internet for emotional support, meeting new people, and interacting with others. Young (1997) argues that the experience of the online social support group meets a deep and compelling need in people, especially those whose real lives lack social supports.
Two of the leading factors underlying pathological use of the Internet are the “anonymity” and the “interactivity” of online interpersonal com-munications. Young et al. (1999) suggest that anonymity is associated with four general areas of dysfunction. Among them, two are interpersonal, the first being that the Internet provides a virtual context in which overly shy or self-conscious individuals are allowed to interact in a socially safe and se-cure environment. However, over-dependence on online relationships may result in significant problems with real-life interpersonal and occupational functioning. The second dysfunction involving the anonymity of the Inter-net is cyberaffairs or extramarital relationships formed online that nega-tively impact marital or family stability. Scherer (1997) also argues that the anonymous nature of some Internet services and the elimination of vi-sual cues may decrease social anxieties in online relationships for college students.
As mentioned earlier, another leading factor underlying pathological Internet use is “interactivity,” which has two aspects of particular impor-tance: human–computer interactions and human–human interactions. The Internet not only provides its users with the opportunity to encounter new people, it also provides additional—if not primary—communication tools for coping with existing relationships. This is frequently observed on col-lege campuses. Scherer (1997) found that 98% of colcol-lege students use the Internet weekly in order to maintain relationships with family and friends. Chou and Hsiao (2000) provide similar findings: one student noted that, “You know somebody is always out there, you are not alone.” The authors observed that this “accompaniment” function is more desirable for many
users than that of a television set or a radio, because the interactive feature of the Internet enables college students to connect with others reciprocally at any time; they do not just passively receive broadcasted information from outside.
Because a large portion of Internet users—and abusers—may be found on college campuses, Kandell (1998) discusses the unique vulnerability of college students to Internet addiction. He argues that late adolescents and young adults contend with strong psychological and developmental dynam-ics. College-age students, therefore, face two tasks: developing a sense of identity and developing meaningful and intimate relationships. In some cases, addictive behavior serves as a coping mechanism for adolescents hav-ing trouble negotiathav-ing these developmental challenges. Kandell notes that college students frequently overuse the Internet’s two-way communication applications such as chat rooms, email, and Multi-User Dimension games. The danger for college students lies in the possibility that their Internet use may become the central focus of their campus lives—particularly because most students are already negotiating the difficult terrain of identity and relationships.
IMPLICATIONS
In this final section, treatment of Internet addiction is discussed and various counseling techniques are presented. Then, needs for future re-search on Internet addiction and its treatments are suggested. Last, con-cluding remarks, aimed especially at educators, are made.
Treatment For Internet Addiction
Over the past years, since the term “Internet addiction” first appeared in mass media and academic literature, research studies have gone a long way toward defining, exploring, investigating, describing, and predicting the phenomenon. A review of this research begs the following question: How should Internet addiction be treated?
Can stopping all Internet usage cure Internet addiction? Young (1999a) claims that many people believe the only way to cure Internet ad-diction is to stop using the Internet, to unplug or to throw out the computer. However, not all scholars agree with this “all or nothing” treatment plan. Orzack and Orzack (1999), for example, argue that the treatment of Inter-net addiction cannot be total abstinence; it should be treated like an eating disorder where the goal is to normalize network use in order to survive. As
an alternative to abstinence, Young (1999a) provides seven possible treat-ment techniques:
1. Practice the opposite: After reorganizing one’s excess use time on-line, construct a new reduced schedule or time pattern for using the Internet.
2. External stoppers: Use concrete things (e.g., time to work, to meet boss, etc.) the addict needs to do, or places to go, as prompters to help log off.
3. Setting goals: Set clear and achievable goals to help develop new tangible Internet-use schedules; prevent cravings, withdrawal, and relapse; and give the addict a sense of control.
4. Reminder cards: Use tangible, portable reminders of what addicts want to avoid (e.g., lost time with family) and what they want to do (e.g., improved productivity at work).
5. Personal inventory: Generate a list of every activity or practice that has been neglected or curtailed since the online habit emerged. 6. Social support: Organize support groups tailored to addicts’
par-ticular life situations to decrease their dependence on online cohorts.
7. Family therapy: Arrange therapy for those addicts whose marriages and family relationships are disrupted and negatively influenced by Internet addiction. Treatment should focus on moderation and con-trolled use, according to Young (1998).
The first three interventions are simple time-management techniques. More aggressive intervention is required when time management alone does not ameliorate pathological Internet use.
There are few empirical studies on Internet addiction treatment other than Stein’s (1997), and Orzack and Orzack’s (1999). Stein (1997) con-ducted a survey of subscribers to one obsessive-compulsive disorder mailing list and found that subscribers were generally positive about the benefits of being listed. Subscribers described the list as a useful source of informa-tion and a helpful source of support. Stein consequently argues that fur-ther study of ofur-ther Internet newsgroups for psychiatric disorders may be warranted.
Two treatment techniques are offered by Orzack and Orzack (1999). The first is Cognitive Behavior Therapy, which is based on the premise that thoughts determine feelings. If addicts can be taught to recognize their thoughts, then they can identify the trigger points for their Internet abuse. The second one is Motivational Enhancement Therapy, which al-lows addicts and their therapists to collaborate on treatment plans and set
attainable goals. This approach is less confrontational and more innovative than the first one. Citing three cases studies, the authors demonstrate the validity of the team approach and suggest that a combination of both inter-vention methods works best.
Future Research Directions
Future research should focus on the evolving concept and related as-sessments of Internet addiction. As we come to better understand Inter-net addiction, we are less likely to consider it a single phenomenon but rather an intersection of multiple physical, psychological, and technological phenomena. Young et al. (1999) have already begun categorizing Internet addictions and have suggested five subtypes: (1) cybersexual addiction, (2) cyberrelationship addiction, (3) Net compulsions, (4) information over-load, and (5) computer addiction. Each subtype has its own definition, cri-teria, assessment instruments, and appropriate treatments.
Indeed, improvement of the assessment instruments themselves is es-sential to future studies. As discussed earlier, time spent on the Internet and different applications are frequently used as correlates of Internet ad-diction. However, assessments of these two factors are somewhat unreliable in many survey studies. In most studies, respondents were asked to report how long they spent on the Internet in general and also on particular appli-cations (e.g., WWW, email, chat room, games, etc.) each day or each week. The veracity of respondents’ answers to these and other questions is suspect because many also answered “Yes” when asked “Have you lied to family members, a therapist, or others to conceal the extent of your involvement with the Internet?” Beyond this paradox is the impossibility of measuring time on tasks. Although any transaction time on the Internet can be traced and recorded theoretically, there seems to be no program available to help users record the time they spend on each task on a daily or weekly basis.
Future research should also focus on the treatment of Internet addic-tion. Although Orzack and Orzack (1999), and Young et al. (1999) have already provided workable treatment approaches and techniques, few suc-cessful cases of treatment have been reported. Young (1998) observes that the greatest difficulty in treating Internet addicts is breaking through their denial of the addiction itself. Successful treatment especially requires a team approach in which psychiatrists, school counselors, social workers, faculty, parents, spouses, and so on are made aware of this new disor-der and where to look for help. Scherer (1997) notes that college students may lack knowledge about Internet dependency symptoms or available ser-vices to address these problems, whereas mental health professionals must
understand underlying factors that cause or worsen Internet dependency and search for effective treatments.
Finally, research should also consider Internet addiction among younger users. Brenner (1997), Tsai and Lin (2003) all report that younger users are more likely to report Internet addiction-related problems and that they deserve more attention. Indeed, as the Internet becomes more and more popular and available, people in a wider age range will be drawn to it. Some anecdotal cases have been presented in the mass media, showing that elementary or junior high school students have special talents for Internet application development and online gaming. However, attention should be focused on the inappropriate and indecent use of the Internet and its im-pacts on youngsters’ psychological and physical development. For example, does the disinhibition (e.g., using dirty words, flaming, etc.) that exists in some chat room cultures, in turn, affect users’ verbal style in real life? Do erotic pictures/videos shape users’ attitudes toward sex? Do virtual casinos give those who are not yet of legal age their first exposure to gambling? The list of questions maybe endless; so, too, may be educators’ and parents’ anxiety.
Concluding Remarks
As Rudall (1996) remarks, most psychologists have told us that we should not be surprised at the evolution of new behavioral conditions when technological advances are changing our society so rapidly and in such rev-olutionary ways. Indeed, we should not be surprised, but we must be pre-pared to face the notion that the Internet is changing the way we live, and not always for the better. Young (1999b) notes that the study of Inter-net addiction is often complicated by the perceived value of technologi-cal growth, by the societal promotion of Internet use, and by the positive image of the Internet. However, as Kandell’s analogy (1998) suggests, al-though exercise is good and people require it, overexercise may have a de-structive impact on human health. Internet use may be similar in the dis-parity of its impact, determined almost exclusively by the amount and type of use.
The earlier review of studies on Internet addiction can be viewed from different perspectives. From one perspective, the findings in this article sug-gest that overuse or abuse of technology can have negative influences on our lives. From another perspective, existing findings lead to reflection on how to appropriately and safely use technology. As Stern (1999) states, tech-nologies, by definition, increase our capacities and abilities. However, at the same time, they may also lead to maladaptive behavior and expose both our frailties and inabilities. It is crucial for us to recognize that technologies
are bound to impact us in both positive and negative ways. Research on In-ternet addiction is one step toward understanding and evaluating the effects of these impacts.
As educators and educational psychologists, we should not be sur-prised by the onset of new behavioral conditions when technological ad-vances are changing our students’ lives so rapidly and in such revolutionary ways. Kandell (1998) stated that college students as a group appear more vulnerable in developing a dependence on the Internet than any other seg-ment of society. Therefore, this article offers some implications for school psychologists and student affairs administrators. As Scherer (1997) sug-gests, administrators should play a primary role in promoting awareness of Internet abuse or addiction on campus. They can promote such awareness by being in a position to both assess the needs of students and implement preventive programs to decrease the potential dangers of excessive Internet use. Besides promoting diagnostic and preventive strategies, Chou (2001) suggests more effective management of students’ dormitory life to prevent excessive late-night Internet use.
For student affairs administrators, Chou (2001) suggests they play a crucial role in informing other campus professionals (such as teachers, teaching-assistants, residence hall superintendents, school computer cen-ter administrators, etc.) of the risks of Incen-ternet abuse or addiction. Campus professionals are often the first to identify those students with potential or manifest academic problems (difficulty in completing assignments, lateness for morning classes, poor grades, academic probation, etc.). Residence hall superintendents may easily observe students with late-night living patterns and sleep deprivation. If faculty and others are made aware of warning signs and symptoms, they can more readily identify those students who might benefit from treatment or other interventions. A team approach is required in which student affairs administrators and faculty, as well as psychiatrists, parents, and others, are made aware of this new disorder and where to look for help—and this holds true for high school campuses as well. Chou con-tends that a team approach may be an efficient and effective way to under-take both research and treatment because the phenomenon of Internet ad-diction touches upon the expertise of multiple fields of academic and health professionals. By working together to investigate and address its related problems, we can keep up with the development of Internet technology, rather than be overtaken by it.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Council in Taiwan under Project NSC89-2520-S-009-001-N. Portions of this article were
presented at the 2000 International Conference on Computers in Educa-tion/International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction and at the 2001 American Psychology Association Annual Convention.
REFERENCES
Bratter, T. E., and Forrest, G. G. (1985). Alcoholism and Substance Abuse: Strategies for
Clinical Intervention, Free Press, New York.
Brenner, V. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLVII. Parameters of Internet use, abuse and addiction: The first 90 days of the Internet usage survey. Psychol. Rep. 80: 879– 882.
Chen, S. H. (2000, August). Gender differences of Internet addiction in Taiwan. Poster pre-sented at the 108th American Psychology Association Annual Convention, Washington, DC, USA.
Chen, S. H., and Chou, C. (1999, August). Development of Chinese Internet addiction scale in
Taiwan. Poster presented at the 107th American Psychology Annual convention, Boston,
USA.
Chou, C., Chou, J., and Tyan, N. N. (1999). An exploratory study of Internet addiction, usage and communication pleasure—The Taiwan’s case. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 5(1): 47–64. Chou, C., and Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratifications, and pleasure
experience—The Taiwan college students’ case. Comput. Educ. 35(1): 65–80.
Chou, C. (2001). Internet abuse and addiction among Taiwan college students: An online in-terview study. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 4(5): 573–585.
Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive–behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Comput.
Human Behav. 77: 187–195.
Delmonico, D. L., and Carnes, P. J. (1999). Virtual sex addiction: When cybersex becomes the drug of choice. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 457–463.
Goldberg, I. (1996). Internet Addiction Disorder. Retrieved November 24,2004 from
http://www.rider.edu/∼suler/psycyber/supportgp.html.
Greenfield, D. N. (1999). Psychological characteristics of compulsive Internet use: A prelimi-nary analysis. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 403–412.
Griffiths, M. D. (1991). Amusement machine playing in childhood and adolescence: A com-parative analysis of video games and fruit machines. J. Adolescence 14: 53–73.
Griffiths, M. D. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLIII. Some comments on ‘addictive use of the Internet’ by Young. Psychol. Rep. 80: 80–82.
Griffiths, M. D. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? In Gackenbach, J. (ed.),
Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications,
Academic Press, New York.
Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Does Internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evi-dence. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 3(2): 211–218.
Grohol, J. M. (1999). Too much time online: Internet addiction or healthy social interactions.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 395–401.
Hatterer, L. J. (1994). Addictive process. In Encyclopedia of Psychology, Wiley, New York. Kandell, J. J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. 1(1): 11–17.
King, S. A., and Barak, A. (1999). Compulsive Internet gambling: A new form of an old clinical pathology. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 441–456.
Lavin, M., Marvin, K., McLarney, A., Nola, V., and Scott, L. (1999). Sensation seeking and collegiate vulnerability to Internet dependence. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 425– 430.
Lin, S. S. J., and Tsai, C. C. (1999, August). Internet Addiction among High Schoolers in
Taiwan. Poster presented at the 107th American Psychology Association (APA) Annual
Lin, S. S. J., and Tsai, C. C. (2002). Sensation seeking and internet dependence of Taiwanese high school adolescents. Comput. Human Behav. 18(4): 411–426.
Morahan-Martin, J. M. (1999). The relationship between loneliness and Internet use and abuse. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 431–439.
Morahan-Martin, J. M., and Schumacker, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use. Comput. Human Behav. 16: 13–29.
Orzack, M. H., and Orzack, D. S. (1999). Treatment of computer addicts with complex co-morbid psychiatric disorders. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 465–473.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Rudall, B. H. (1996). Internet addiction syndrome. Robotica 14: 510–511.
Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor struc-ture. J. Personal. Assess. 66: 20–40.
Scherer, K. (1997). College life online: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. J. College Stud.
Dev. 38(6): 655–665.
Selwyn, N. (1997). Students’ attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16–19 education. Comput. Educ. 25(1): 35–41.
Shotten, M. A. (1991). The costs and benefits of computer addiction. Behav. Inform. Technol. 10: 219–230.
Stephenson, W. (1988). The Play Theory of Mass Communication, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
Stern, D. J. (1997). Internet addiction, Internet psychotherapy. Am. J. Psychiatry 154(6): 890. Stern, S. E. (1999). Addiction to technologies: A social psychological perspective of Internet
addiction. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 419–424.
Suler, J. R. (1999). To get what you need: Healthy and pathological Internet use. Cyberpsychol.
Behav. 2(5): 355–393.
Truan, F. (1993). Addiction as a social construction: A postempirical view. J. Psychol. 127(5): 489–499.
Tsai, C. C., and Lin, S. S. J. (2001). Analysis of attitudes toward computer networks and Inter-net addiction of Taiwanese adolescents. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 4(3): 373–376.
Tsai, C. C., and Lin, S. S. J. (2003). Internet addiction of adolescents in Taiwan: An interview study. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 6(6): 649–652.
Young, K. S. (1996a, August). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Poster presented at the 104th American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada.
Young, K. S. (1996b). Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the Internet: A case that breaks the stereotype. Psychol. Rep. 79: 899–902.
Young, K. S. (1997, August). What makes the Internet addictive: Potential explanations for
pathological Internet use. Paper presented at the 105th American Psychological
Associ-ation Annual Convention, Chicago, IL, USA.
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder.
Cyberpsy-chol. Behav. 1(3): 237–244.
Young, K. S., and Rogers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet addiction. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 1(1): 25–28.
Young, K. S. (1999a). Internet addiction: Symptoms, evaluation, and treatment. In Vande-Creek, L., and Jackson, T. (eds.), Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book, Vol. 17, pp. 19–31, Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, FL.
Young, K. S. (1999b). The research and controversy surrounding Internet addiction.
Cyberpsy-chol. Behav. 2(5): 381–383.
Young, K. S., Pistner, M., O’Mara, J., and Buchanan, J. (1999). Cyber disorders: The mental health concern for the new millennium. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2(5): 475–479.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking Behavior: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
