Technologies such as instant messaging, blogging, and social networks have greatly improved communicating and socializing on the Internet. What was once a paradoxically socially isolating technology is no longer so. However, social isolation is just one of the social and psychological issues that may occur with Internet use. There are other negative consequences that must be acknowledged and addressed. Such issues include the decrease in face-to-face communication, how individuals predisposed to Internet dependency or antisocial behavior can have these tendencies exacerbated by Internet use, and Internet Addiction Disorder.

Internet use has its tradeoffs. While the average American internet user spends three hours online, this has led to a decrease in the time spent in face-to-face time with family and friends, according to a study released in December 2004 by Norman Nie, director of the Stanford Institute for the Qualitative Study of Society.

Some of the findings of the report:

• Internet users averaged 3 hours a day online.
• 57% of the time spent on the Internet is spent on communication (email, instant messaging, and chat rooms)
• Each hour spent online reduced face-to-face time with family by 23.5 minutes, TV watching time by 10 minutes, and sleep by 8.5 minutes.
• Younger Internet users (18-29 years old) use instant messaging and chat rooms more and send less email than older users. (1)

Thus, Internet users are clearly having less face-to-face time spent with family and friends, but they spend most of their internet time on communication. While this study did not answer whether Internet communication strengthened or weakened relationships, other studies indicate that online relationships are generally shallower than offline relationships, although these differences diminish over time. (2)

References:
(1) Norman Nie. "Ten Years After The Birth Of The Internet, How Do Americans Use The Interent In Their Daily Lives?" Stanford Center for the Quantitative Study of Society . Dec. 2004. <http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/SIQSS_Time_Study_04.pdf>

(2) Chan, D. "A Comparison of Offline and Online Friendship Qualities at Different Stages of Relationship Development." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships . 21 (2004):305-320.

 

Does the Internet itself cause people to have addictions, dependence, or other antisocial behaviors, or does it merely exacerbate these tendencies in individuals? Some hints to this question come from studies of personality characteristics associated with Internet dependence, which have correlated characteristics of loneliness and low sensation seeking to dependence on the Internet. Another such study by Yuen et al. in 2002 also linked shyness to Internet dependence ñ shy individuals were found to be more comfortable and less shy online, leading to online dependency. (1)

In offensive activities such as pedophilia, researchers have found distinct types of offenders. In some individuals with already acknowledged sexual interest in children, the Internet becomes a convenient medium for meeting these needs. In others, the Internet brought out "dormant" interests that would not have been discovered without the Internet. Generally speaking, the Internet allows for the creation and legitimization of fringe communities who otherwise would be marginalized in normal society. This reinforcement from a community pushes individuals to more risk-taking behavior. For sex offenders, however, such communities allow users to move from being passive users to becoming more involved in a social community, perhaps pushing individuals to become active predators. (2)

Thus, the Internet appears to amplify pre-existing destructive tendencies in individuals. It provides safety and comfort for shy or lonely individuals that can lead to Internet dependence. The Internet is also a medium for offensive behavior and can serve to push individuals to risky behavior by providing communities that serve to strengthen and validate activities that would generally be marginalized in a normal society.

References
(1) Yuen C., Lavin M. "Internet Dependence in the Collegiate Population: The Role of Shyness." CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (2004): 379-83.

(2) Quayle E, Taylor M. "Model of Problematic Internet Use in People with a Sexual Interest in Children." CyberPsychology & Behavior . 6 (2003): 93-106.

Internet addiction, Internetomania, Pathological Internet Use ñ these are all names for an increasingly common pattern of problematic and excessive Internet use that can severely disrupts the lives of Internet users. Although there is still much controversy over the causes of these habits, and the professional community has yet to be a single standard to define this disorder, its existence and its impacts are nevertheless very real and very serious.

So far, this problem has commonly been compared to other non-substance addictions such as ìsexual addiction eating disorders, compulsive gambling, excessive television viewing, compulsive buying, and excessive exerciseî (1). Many different interpretations and explanations to this disorder have been offered, though no definitive study has established standard criteria of what exactly constitutes this disorder. However, there have been some characteristics common to many of the studies into this problem, including:

ï Domination of the personís time due to extended duration or frequency
ï Reduction/Replacement of important family, social, academic, education, or recreational activities as result of time consumption.
ï Persistent or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use.
ï A sense of euphoria (a ìbuzzî or a ìhighî) from Internet use.
ï A build of tolerance, which demands progressively longer/intense activity to obtain he same ìbuzzî
ï Unpleasant emotional/physical withdrawal symptoms when not engaged in Internet activity
ï Continued Internet use despite persistent/recurrent problems (ie social, occupational, academic, family, personal), which are likely to have been caused/exacerbated by the excessive Internet use itself. (2)

The idea of Internet addiction was first coined in 1995 by Ivan Goldberg, though it was a 1996 study by Kimberly Young that generated publicity and controversy over the diagnosis. Youngís study reported that 396 of 596 (66%) (3) of people sampled from a self selected survey had Internet dependency, though this has been met with criticism from the professional community. Subsequent studies have placed figures closer to 5.9-13% (4) of internet users as having Internet addiction, though these figures are still contested. Considering the worldwide Internet population is placed at 934 million in 2004, and estimated population of 1.07 billion in 2005 (5), this places a very large number users at risk of computer addiction.

Much of the controversy about this diagnosis surrounds how disorder should be defined, as well as its causes; whether is an addiction, a lack of impulse control, or rather a manifestation of other underlying neurological problems. Inconsistent studies and this lack of a formal definition for this disorder are likely explanations for the variance in the statistics. The diagnosis of this disorder is still very new and there has been a lack of large scale, definitive studies to explore this phenomenon.

The American Psychiatric Association publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which one of the definitive canons used by psychiatric community, and the DSM-IV does not to include this diagnosis, since it was published before even Goldbergís initial study. This may account for the mixed definitions and resulting controversy surrounding this issues. Goldberg, Young, and other psychologists are currently lobbying for the inclusion of Internet addiction disorder into the next revision, (DSM-V) though this revision is not scheduled for publication until 2011. Controversy surrounding these issues will likely to continue until then, but various studies continue to support that there very much exists a significant population with Internet addiction.

A main argument of critics against Internet Addiction is how to reconcile how a social activity online could be pathological; they argue that it would akin to saying that socializing (ie - talking on the telephone) is pathologically addictive.

One criticism of internet addiction is that it seemingly pathologizes online relationships, and opinions regarding the merit of these online social interaction vary substantially. Some research has shown that online interaction can create strong social bonds and legitimate sense of community, while other research has shown evidence to the contrary to this, of the shallower, more superficial sense of connection. It is likely that both of these conclusions are true; some instances of social interaction online can be genuine, while other can be lacking any significant depth. This variation likely varies by the context and means of online communication, as well as the individuals participating in such communication.

For some individuals however, this social environment can become harmful to their well being. Internet users who rely heavily on social technologies, are more likely to have Internet addiction disorder. The Internet creates a collective of people to interact with anonymously under the illusion of companionship, without any of the burdens associated with real life friendship, and itís in such an appealing environment that many users can be sucked into and afflicted with Internet addiction disorder. Studies have shown that shyness and social anxiety as factors that can lead to Internet addiction, which are the same qualities for which this insulated social environment can be most enticing.

There are links between problematic use of the Internet, and other psychological problems. This disorder has been shown to consistently co-exist with other, more conventional mental problems, such as ìdepression, social phobia, impulse control disorder, and attention deficit disorder,î as well in a few cases to other more serious problems, such as previous substance abuse or ìbipolar, suicidal, or prone to violent outbreak.î (6) Problematic Internet use seems to rarely be seen without some other accompanying neurosis.

Internet addiction is easily trivialized; even Goldberg did not take the idea very seriously. The online Internet Addiction Support Group was founded by Goldberg as a joke, and this has evolved into a legitimate resource for Internet addicts. Nevertheless, the consequences of Internet addiction are real and pose significant harms to its users. The psychological and physiological dependence on the Internet causes users to spend so much time online, that other important activities are displaced as a result. Academics are neglected, leading to expulsion. Job duties are ignored, workplace computers misused, and excessive absence results to professional dismissal. Negligence of home life turns in broken homes and divorce. There are significant real life repercussions, all because of Internet usage.

References
(1) Beard, Keith W. ìInternet Addiction: A Review of Current Assessment Techniques and Potential Assessment Questions.î Cyberpsychology and Behavior. Vol 8 No.1 (2005): 7-14

(2) Criteria for Internet Addictive Disorderî 2002. 5 June 2005. http://www.psycom.net/iadcriteria.html

(1) (3) Young, Kimberly S. ìInternet Addiction: A New Clinical Phenomenon and Its Consequences.î American Behavioral Scientist. Vol 48 No.4 (2004): 402-415

(4) Morahan-Martin, Janet. ìInternet Abuse.î Social Science Computer Review. Vol 23 No. 1 (2005): 39-48

(5) ìPopulation Explosion!î 2005. Computer Industry Almanac. 5 June 2005. http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/geographics/article.php/151151

(6) Mitchell, Peter. ìInternet Addiction: Genuine Diagnosis or Not?î The Lancet. Vol 355 (2000): 632.