Интернет-аддикция: метасинтез импирических исследований с 1996-2006 годах

Internet Addiction: Metasynthesis of 1996–2006 Quantitative Research

Abstract

This study reports the results of a meta-analysis of empirical studies on Internet addiction published in academic journals for the period 1996–2006. The analysis showed that previous studies have utilized inconsistent criteria to define Internet addicts, applied recruiting methods that may cause serious sampling bias, and examined data using primarily exploratory rather than confirmatory data analysis techniques to investigate the degree of association rather than causal relationships among variables. Recommendations are provided on how researchers can strengthen this growing field of research.

Introduction

THE INTERNET HAS EMERGED as an essential media channel for personal communications, academic research, information exchange, and entertainment. [1] While the positive aspects are renowned, concerns continue to mount regarding problematic Internet usage behaviors. [2] It is currently estimated that approximately 9 million Americans could be labeled as pathological computer users addicted to the Internet to the detriment of work, study, and social life. [3,4] Among all behavioral addictive traits, the Internet stands out for its relevance to the future and its promise of potentially delivering harmful results to millions as access to the Internet rises globally.

To better understand Internet addicted behaviors, researchers have explored its symptoms, attempted to concretize the characteristics of addicts, conceptualized its antecedents and consequences, and developed corresponding measurement items. This study provides directions for future research through reflections on empirical research on Internet addiction over the 10-year period 1996–2006. Specifically, this study addresses the following questions: How has Internet addiction been measured? What aspects of the Internet addiction phenomenon have been investigated by academic researchers? Given the sensitive nature of the topic, how have survey respondents been selected? and What are the predominant methods of data analysis in Internet addiction studies? In exploring these questions, various challenges to academic researchers are also presented.

Defining Internet Addiction

The capacity of the Internet for socialization is a primary reason for the excessive amount of time people spend having real-time interactions using e-mail, discussion forums, chat rooms, and online games. [5]

User participation at sites such as Blogger.com, MySpace.com, and Wikipedia.org increased by 525%, 318%, and 275% respectively. [6] However, the networking capabilities of the Internet can cause social

isolation and functional impairment of daily activities. [7] In the workplace, Internet addictive behavior symptoms include a decline in work performance and a withdrawal from coworkers, leading to reduced job satisfaction and decreased efficiency. [8]

Broadly speaking, addiction is defined as a “compulsive, uncontrollable dependence on a substance, habit, or practice to such a degree that cessation causes severe emotional, mental, or physiological reactions.” [9] A perusal of the literature revealed various names for Internet addiction, including cyberspace addiction, Internet addiction disorder, online addiction, Net addiction, Internet addicted disorder, pathological Internet use, high Internet dependency, and others. [1,10] Among these terms, Internet addiction is most popular.[4,11] However, while Internet addiction has received attention from studies in various fields, [12] no clear definition currently exists. Some researchers have adapted substance use disorder, while others reference pathological gambling, [13] resulting in an inconsistent definition of Internet addiction. [7,14,15] Many researchers, due to the complex nature of the topic, do not provide a clear definition of Internet addiction. [2,16,17]

For the purposes of this study, we define Internet addiction following Beard’s holistic approach wherein “an individual is addicted when an individual’s psychological state, which includes both mental and emotional states, as well as their scholastic, occupational and social interactions, is impaired by the overuse of the medium.” [18] While this definition is used as a guide, it must be noted that it does not totally encompass the underlying structure of the term. A standardized definition will become increasingly important as fascination with the topic grows. As such, we propose Challenge 1 to researchers: Develop a complete definition of Internet addiction that is not only conclusive but decisive, covering all ages, gender, and educational levels.

Methodology

We employed a meta-analysis approach [19] to appraise the cumulative outcome of empirical research on Internet addiction. A study was considered empirical if it used human participants and a quantitative instrument to measure Internet addiction. To ensure quality and completeness, only fulllength articles in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings were considered. Searches of academic databases

and of Google and Yahoo! using keywords Internet addiction, Internet addicted, problematic Internet usage, and computer addiction resulted in 120 articles spanning the period 1996–2006 (see www.netaddict.org/IA120.xls). A total of 61 articles were found to have implemented quantitative analysis approaches using empirically based surveys and human participants. Further, 22 articles were excluded because they focused more on the social and economic costs of Internet addiction, treatment problems, or employee termination due to excessive Internet use. A list of the final 39 articles is available at www.netaddict.org/IA39.xls.

Results

Reflection 1: How has Internet addiction been measured over the period 1996–2006?

Most of the studies on Internet addiction adapted their criteria for analysis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) handbook, [20] the most frequently used manual for the diagnosis of mental disorders. While Internet addiction is not currently recognized in the DSM, it does describe the criteria for diagnosing pathological gambling (DSM-IV 312.31), a type of behavioral impulse-control disorder. [16] Goldberg, [21] a pioneer in the field, developed the Internet Addictive Disorder (IAD) scale by adapting the DSM-IV and providing several diagnostic criteria, including two commonly used statements often seen in Internet addiction research: “hoping to increase time on the network” and “dreaming about the network.” Brenner [22] developed the Internet-Related Addictive Behavior Inventory (IRABI) with 32 true-or-false questions, and Morahan-Martin and Schumacher [23] constructed the Pathological Internet Use (PIU) scale with 13 yes/no questions by adapting the DSM-IV. In a bid to simplify the measurement process, Young [24] developed the 8-question Internet addiction Diagnostic Questionnaire (DQ) based on the DSM-IV. Young claimed that excessive use of the Internet is another type of behavioral impulse-control disorder, and as such, if a respondent answered yes to more than 5 of the 8 questions, the respondent could be defined as an Internet dependent user. [24] The cutoff score of 5 was consistent with that of the criteria for pathological gambling. While Young’s instrument has the advantage of simplicity and ease of use, [12] it in no way covers all the antecedents of Internet addictive behavior, nor does it provide a clearer understanding of the topic.

Realizing the need for a stricter and more conservative judgment, Chou and Hsiao [12] utilized both the IRABI and the DQ and defined Internet addicts only when respondents meet both criteria simultaneously. They found 50% fewer Internet addicts than when the other methods alone were used. This lack of consensus has motivated other researchers to develop new measures of Internet addiction rather than rely

heavily on the DSM-IV criteria (e.g., Widyanto and McMurran [2] Internet Addicted test [IAT] and Shapira et al. [26] Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV [SCID-IV]). Attempts have also been made to define Internet addicts by a single question, e.g.,11,27 primarily the amount of time spent online. While the length of time is the most frequently reported predictor, [4] it has severe limitations in that it is only one symptom of Internet addicted behavior rather than a parsimonious item of diagnosis.

The challenge of measurement is also compounded by researchers’ reworking scales to suit their specific circumstances. For example, Chou and Hsiao [12] categorized 5.9% of their college student sample in Taiwan as Internet addicts by utilizing the Chinese Internet-Related Addictive Behavior Inventory version II (C-IRABI-II) [22,28] and Young’s [24] criteria. While such changes are important from a cultural perspective, these scales have not been standardized for efficient cross-study comparisons. Thus we propose Challenge 2 to researchers: Previous studies on Internet addiction have used inconsistent criteria, making any comparison across study findings meaningless. [13,16] Future researchers should consider using prior works to develop a major study leading to a standardized instrument for measuring Internet addiction

across cultural perspectives.

Reflection 2: What aspects of Internet addiction phenomenon have been investigated?

Primary antecedents of Internet addiction explored by researchers were based on participants’ personality, low interpersonal skills, and high levels of intelligence. Ko et al. [29] assess Internet addiction through five dimensions: compulsive use, withdrawal, tolerance, interpersonal and health problems, and time management problems. Hur [10] measured the degree of self-control, Internet dependency, psychological distress, and abnormal behavior in which the four constructs are viewed as the actual causes of Internet addiction disorder rather than its underlying dimensions. In addition, Caplan [30–32] developed a theory-based measure of problematic Internet use and assessed its association with such psychological variables as depression, self-esteem, loneliness, and shyness. Research focused on predicting Internet addiction also included sensation seeking and poor self-esteem as predictors of excessive Internet use; [33]