Is it meaningful to distinguish between generalized and specific Internet addiction? Evidence from a cross‐cultural study from <scp>G</scp>ermany, <scp>S</scp>weden, <scp>T</scp>aiwan and <scp>C</scp>hina

Montag, Christian; Bey, Katharina; Sha, Peng; Mei, Li; Chen, Yafei; Liu, Wei-Yin; Zhu, Yikang; Li, Chunbo; Markett, Sebastian; Keiper, Julia; Reuter, Martin

doi:10.1111/appy.12122

Cited by 277 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, IGD represents a specific form of PIU. However, the overlap between IGD and generalized PIU is rather small [3]. Essential for the present study is that generalized PIU represents the focus, reflecting problematic use of the Internet in broad terms such as spending much time online and procrastinating everyday jobs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a Better Predictor for Problematic Internet use than Depression: Evidence from Germany

M¹

2015

J Addict Res Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a Better Predictor for Problematic Internet use than Depression: Evidence from Germany

M¹

2015

J Addict Res Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8,20,21 Interestingly, new evidence pointing toward the need to make this distinction has been provided from studies in the online gaming field where robust empirical evidence has demonstrated that IA is not the same as other more specific addictive behaviors carried out online (ie, gaming addiction), 22 further magnifying the meaningfulness to differentiate between what may be called "generalized" and "specific" forms of online addictive behaviors, and also between IA and gaming addiction as these behaviors are conceptually different. 17,23 Additionally, the lack of formal diagnostic criteria to assess IA represents another methodological problem, since researchers are systematically adopting modified criteria for pathological gambling to investigate IA. 24 Although IA may share some commonalities with other substance-based addictions, [25][26][27] it is unclear to what extent such criteria are useful and suitable to evaluate IA.…”

Section: A Critical Approach To Definition and Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical psychology of Internet addiction: a review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment

Pontes¹,

Kuss²,

Griffiths³

2015

NAN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Research into Internet addiction (IA) has grown rapidly over the last decade. The topic has generated a great deal of debate, particularly in relation to how IA can be defined conceptually as well as the many methodological limitations. The present review aims to further elaborate and clarify issues that are relevant to IA research in a number of areas including: definition and characterization, incidence and prevalence rates, associated neuronal processes, and implications for treatment, prevention, and patient-specific considerations. It is concluded that there is no consensual definition for IA. Prevalence rates among nationally representative samples across several countries vary greatly (from 1% to 18.7%), most likely reflecting the lack of methodological consistency and conceptual rigor of the studies. The overlaps between IA and other more traditional substance-based addictions and the possible neural substrates implicated in IA are also highlighted. In terms of treatment and prevention, both psychological and pharmacological treatments are examined in light of existing evidence alongside particular aspects inherent to the patient perspective. Based on the evidence analyzed, it is concluded that IA may pose a serious health hazard to a minority of people.

show abstract

“…The authors argued that IGD appears to be a conceptually different behavior than internet use disorder and that their data supported the notion that IAD and IGD are separate nosological entities. In another recent cross-cultural study that included 636 participants from China, Taiwan, Sweden, and Germany [12] the authors examined whether it was meaningful to distinguish between generalized internet addiction and online gaming addiction -conceptually framed as specific internet addiction. They found strong empirical evidence suggesting that such phenomena should be considered separately as the two constructs did not entirely overlap.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, online games differ from traditional standalone games, such as offline video games, in important aspects such as the social dimension or the role-playing dimension that allow interaction with other real players. Consequently, it could be argued that IGD can either be viewed as a specific type of video game addiction, or as a variant of internet addiction, or as an independent diagnosis [12]. However, the idea that IGD can include offline gaming disorders does little for clarity or conceptualization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet Addiction Disorder and Internet Gaming Disorder are Not the Same

Griffiths¹

2014

J Addict Res Ther

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 15 years, research into various online addictions has greatly increased [1]. Alongside this, there have been scholarly debates about whether internet addiction really exists. Some may argue that because internet use does not involve the ingestion of a psychoactive substance, then it should not be considered a genuine addictive behavior. However, the latest (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [2] re-classified 'Gambling Disorder' as an addiction disorder rather than a disorder of impulse control as it was in the past. The implications of this reclassification are potentially far-reaching. The most significant implication is that if an activity that does not involve the consumption of intoxicants (i.e., gambling) can be a genuine addiction accepted by the psychiatric and medical community, there is no theoretical reason as to why other problematic and habitual behaviors (e.g., shopping, work, exercise, sex, video gaming, etc.) cannot be classed as a bona fide addiction.Even among scholars who believe internet addiction exists, there have been debates in the field about whether researchers should study generalized internet addiction (i.e., the totality of all online activities) and/or specific addictions on the internet such as internet gambling, internet gaming and internet sex [3,4]. Since the late 1990s, Griffiths [4,5] has constantly argued that there is a fundamental difference between addictions on the internet, and addictions to the internet. He argued that the overwhelming majority of individuals that were allegedly addicted to the internet were not internet addicts but were individuals that used the medium of the internet as a vehicle for other addictions. More specifically, he argued that internet gambling addicts and internet gaming addicts were not internet addicts but were gambling and gaming addicts using the convenience and ubiquity of the internet to gamble or play video games [4].Prior to the publication of the latest DSM-5 [2], there had also been debates as to whether 'internet addiction' should be introduced into the text as a separate disorder [6][7][8]. Following these debates, the Substance Use Disorder Work Group (SUDWG) recommended that the DSM-5 include a sub-type of problematic internet use (i.e., internet gaming disorder [IGD]) in Section 3 ('Emerging Measures and Models') as an area that needed future research before being included in future editions of the DSM [7]. However, far from clarifying the debates surrounding generalized versus specific internet use disorders, the section of the DSM-5 discussing IGD noted that:"There are no well-researched subtypes for Internet gaming disorder to date. Internet gaming disorder most often involves specific Internet games, but it could involve non-Internet computerized games as well, although these have been less researched. It is likely that preferred games will vary over time as new games are developed and popularized, and it is unclear if behaviors and consequence associated with Internet...

show abstract

Is it meaningful to distinguish between generalized and specific Internet addiction? Evidence from a cross‐cultural study from Germany, Sweden, Taiwan and China

Abstract: In general, it is of importance to distinguish between generalized and specific Internet addiction.

Cited by 277 publications

References 18 publications

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a Better Predictor for Problematic Internet use than Depression: Evidence from Germany

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is a Better Predictor for Problematic Internet use than Depression: Evidence from Germany

Clinical psychology of Internet addiction: a review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment

Internet Addiction Disorder and Internet Gaming Disorder are Not the Same

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About