•
May 30, 2013 •
6:00 AM
May 30, 2013 •
6:00 AM
New research
has many (on the Internet) talking about the evolutionary causes of our
“addiction” to the Internet, but it’s not an addiction, at least not in
the way we’re used to applying the label.
has many (on the Internet) talking about the evolutionary causes of our
“addiction” to the Internet, but it’s not an addiction, at least not in
the way we’re used to applying the label.
•
Having trouble shutting down your
computer? Can’t stop refreshing your Facebook and Twitter streams? Did
you close Reddit in your browser window … only to open Reddit right back
up again? If you’re concerned that your Internet use is becoming a
compulsion, you’re probably right: New research suggests that our
uncontrollable desire to click may be deeply rooted in human evolution.
“The Internet is not addictive
in the same way as pharmacological substances are,” cognitive scientist
Tom Stafford at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. told Tia Ghose
at LiveScience “But it’s compulsive; it’s compelling; it’s distracting.”
As Stafford explains, our love for the Internet is rooted in the fact that human beings, in Ghose’s words, “compulsively seek unpredictable payoffs.”
The cognitive-reward structure offered by services like email and
social media are similar to those of a casino slot machine: “Most of it
is junk, but every so often, you hit the jackpot.” This is a symptom of
low-risk/high-reward activities like lotteries in general. As
researchers found in a 2001 article in International Gambling Studies,
systems that offer a low-cost chance of winning a very large prize are
more likely to attract repetitive participation and, in turn, stimulate
excessive (and potentially problematic) play. Although the stimuli are
different (the payoff on the Internet being juicy morsels of information
and entertainment rather than money), Stafford says that the immediacy
and ubiquity of Internet “play”—i.e. being able to check your tweets or
emails on your phone with no major transaction cost—only increases the
likelihood that someone will get sucked into a continuous cycle.
Using the DSM as a guide, Dr. Kimberly
“The Web’s unpredictable payoffs train people much in the same way
Ivan Pavlov trained dogs,” Ghose writes. “Over time, people link a cue
(e.g., an instant-message ping or the Facebook homepage) with a
pleasurable rush of feel-good brain chemicals. People become habituated
to seek that social rush over and over again.”
The message of Stafford’s research is clear: Your brain really wants
you to click on all of those cat photos. “The next time you wonder
whether you’re spending too much time on Facebook or BuzzFeed or whatever, just remind yourself: You’re wasting time because your brain wants you to,” writes my former colleague Megan Garber at The Atlantic.
“The Internet’s charisma is a function not just of all the great stuff
that lives on it, but also of humans’ carefully honed survival
mechanisms—mechanisms evolved long ago, in response to vicious enemies.
We can’t quit our cat videos, it turns out, because of … lions.”
Anyone who spends a significant amount of time on the Internet,
whether for work or pleasure, can see the tendrils of Stafford’s
research in their day-to-day behavior. I often find myself cycling
between my Gmail inbox, Facebook, Twitter, and other services,
especially social media services which are designed to constantly
refresh automatically or allow users to “infinitely scroll” through the
contents of their feeds. And as Internet access and usage increases,
this trend is likely to grow. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project,
81 percent of American adults use the Internet as of survey, with 74
percent of users going online “just for fun or to pass the time.” A 2011
Ipsos Media
poll found that the amount of time “affluent” Americans in general
spend online rose about 20 percent from 2010 to more than 30 hours
weekly; affluent Millennials spend more than 40 hours a week online,
“essentially a full-time job.”
Does this mean we’re all Internet addicts now? Yes and no. Using the DSM
as a guide, Dr. Kimberly Young at the Internet Addiction Center defines
“Internet addiction” as an impulsive-control problem with four distinct
subtypes: cybersexual addiction (Internet pornography), cyber-affair/relational addiction (an addiction to chat rooms and other online social forums), net compulsions (addictions to online gaming, online gambling, and eBay), and information overload (an addiction to database searches). The tipping point for Internet “addiction” is its impact on your day-to-day activities.
However, “addiction” in the descriptive sense does not mean
“addiction” in the clinical sense. Whether “Internet addiction” should
be regarded as a serious psychological illness has been a matter of
debate for years; the creators of the DSM-5 considered relegating
Internet addiction to a section on behavioral disorders along with sex
and gambling addictions, but opted to list it as a “condition for
further study” instead of recognizing it as an official disorder. That
Stafford places compulsive Internet surfing in the same cognitive
category as gambling and other low-risk/high-reward activities defined
as behavioral rather than purely psychological problems by the DSM
suggests that your Internet fixation, however severe or uncontrollable
it may seem, likely doesn’t reach the level of other compulsions. (It’s
worth noting here that “Internet addiction disorder” was originally proposed as a satirical hoax by Dr. Ivan Goldberg in 1995, based on the DSM’s description of pathological gambling, in an effort to parody how psychiatry’s bible categorizes excessive behavior.)
“Lots of us are furtively checking emails in movie theaters and in
the middle of the night, feel lost when temporarily separated from our
electronic friends, and spend every spare minute surfing, texting, or
playing games. But does this really qualify us as addicts?” asked Dr.
Allen Francis, former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, in Psychology Today.
“No, not usually. Not unless our attachment is compulsive and without
reward or utility; interferes with participation and success in real
life; and causes significant distress or impairment. For most people,
the tie to the Internet, however powerful and consuming, brings much
more pleasure or productivity than pain and impairment.”
More plainly put: Your Internet addiction isn’t an addiction but the
logical extension of existing biological functions, not necessarily a
sign of dysfunction. So when does your Twitter fixation move from simply
being a symptom of how humans cognitively interface with the Internet
(and an annoyance to your friends and family) to something more? If you
find yourself totally incapable of leaving the house to go to work, or
to do anything but move between infinite browser windows, don’t tweet
about it; instead, consider calling a doctor.
computer? Can’t stop refreshing your Facebook and Twitter streams? Did
you close Reddit in your browser window … only to open Reddit right back
up again? If you’re concerned that your Internet use is becoming a
compulsion, you’re probably right: New research suggests that our
uncontrollable desire to click may be deeply rooted in human evolution.
“The Internet is not addictive
in the same way as pharmacological substances are,” cognitive scientist
Tom Stafford at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. told Tia Ghose
at LiveScience “But it’s compulsive; it’s compelling; it’s distracting.”
As Stafford explains, our love for the Internet is rooted in the fact that human beings, in Ghose’s words, “compulsively seek unpredictable payoffs.”
The cognitive-reward structure offered by services like email and
social media are similar to those of a casino slot machine: “Most of it
is junk, but every so often, you hit the jackpot.” This is a symptom of
low-risk/high-reward activities like lotteries in general. As
researchers found in a 2001 article in International Gambling Studies,
systems that offer a low-cost chance of winning a very large prize are
more likely to attract repetitive participation and, in turn, stimulate
excessive (and potentially problematic) play. Although the stimuli are
different (the payoff on the Internet being juicy morsels of information
and entertainment rather than money), Stafford says that the immediacy
and ubiquity of Internet “play”—i.e. being able to check your tweets or
emails on your phone with no major transaction cost—only increases the
likelihood that someone will get sucked into a continuous cycle.
Using the DSM as a guide, Dr. Kimberly
Young defines “Internet addiction” as an impulsive-control problem with
four distinct subtypes: cybersexual addiction, cyber-affair/relational
addiction, net compulsions, and information overload.
“The Web’s unpredictable payoffs train people much in the same way Ivan Pavlov trained dogs,” Ghose writes. “Over time, people link a cue
(e.g., an instant-message ping or the Facebook homepage) with a
pleasurable rush of feel-good brain chemicals. People become habituated
to seek that social rush over and over again.”
The message of Stafford’s research is clear: Your brain really wants
you to click on all of those cat photos. “The next time you wonder
whether you’re spending too much time on Facebook or BuzzFeed or whatever, just remind yourself: You’re wasting time because your brain wants you to,” writes my former colleague Megan Garber at The Atlantic.
“The Internet’s charisma is a function not just of all the great stuff
that lives on it, but also of humans’ carefully honed survival
mechanisms—mechanisms evolved long ago, in response to vicious enemies.
We can’t quit our cat videos, it turns out, because of … lions.”
Anyone who spends a significant amount of time on the Internet,
whether for work or pleasure, can see the tendrils of Stafford’s
research in their day-to-day behavior. I often find myself cycling
between my Gmail inbox, Facebook, Twitter, and other services,
especially social media services which are designed to constantly
refresh automatically or allow users to “infinitely scroll” through the
contents of their feeds. And as Internet access and usage increases,
this trend is likely to grow. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project,
81 percent of American adults use the Internet as of survey, with 74
percent of users going online “just for fun or to pass the time.” A 2011
Ipsos Media
poll found that the amount of time “affluent” Americans in general
spend online rose about 20 percent from 2010 to more than 30 hours
weekly; affluent Millennials spend more than 40 hours a week online,
“essentially a full-time job.”
Does this mean we’re all Internet addicts now? Yes and no. Using the DSM
as a guide, Dr. Kimberly Young at the Internet Addiction Center defines
“Internet addiction” as an impulsive-control problem with four distinct
subtypes: cybersexual addiction (Internet pornography), cyber-affair/relational addiction (an addiction to chat rooms and other online social forums), net compulsions (addictions to online gaming, online gambling, and eBay), and information overload (an addiction to database searches). The tipping point for Internet “addiction” is its impact on your day-to-day activities.
01. Do you feel preoccupied with the Internet (think about previous online activity or anticipate next online session)?According to Young, answering “yes” to five or more questions may mean you suffer from Internet addiction.
02. Do you feel the need to use the Internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction?
03. Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop Internet use?
04. Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop Internet use?
05. Do you stay online longer than originally intended?
06. Have you jeopardized or risked the loss of significant
relationship, job, educational, or career opportunity because of the
Internet?
07. Have you lied to family members, therapists, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with the Internet?
08. Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of
relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt,
anxiety, depression)?
However, “addiction” in the descriptive sense does not mean
“addiction” in the clinical sense. Whether “Internet addiction” should
be regarded as a serious psychological illness has been a matter of
debate for years; the creators of the DSM-5 considered relegating
Internet addiction to a section on behavioral disorders along with sex
and gambling addictions, but opted to list it as a “condition for
further study” instead of recognizing it as an official disorder. That
Stafford places compulsive Internet surfing in the same cognitive
category as gambling and other low-risk/high-reward activities defined
as behavioral rather than purely psychological problems by the DSM
suggests that your Internet fixation, however severe or uncontrollable
it may seem, likely doesn’t reach the level of other compulsions. (It’s
worth noting here that “Internet addiction disorder” was originally proposed as a satirical hoax by Dr. Ivan Goldberg in 1995, based on the DSM’s description of pathological gambling, in an effort to parody how psychiatry’s bible categorizes excessive behavior.)
“Lots of us are furtively checking emails in movie theaters and in
the middle of the night, feel lost when temporarily separated from our
electronic friends, and spend every spare minute surfing, texting, or
playing games. But does this really qualify us as addicts?” asked Dr.
Allen Francis, former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, in Psychology Today.
“No, not usually. Not unless our attachment is compulsive and without
reward or utility; interferes with participation and success in real
life; and causes significant distress or impairment. For most people,
the tie to the Internet, however powerful and consuming, brings much
more pleasure or productivity than pain and impairment.”
More plainly put: Your Internet addiction isn’t an addiction but the
logical extension of existing biological functions, not necessarily a
sign of dysfunction. So when does your Twitter fixation move from simply
being a symptom of how humans cognitively interface with the Internet
(and an annoyance to your friends and family) to something more? If you
find yourself totally incapable of leaving the house to go to work, or
to do anything but move between infinite browser windows, don’t tweet
about it; instead, consider calling a doctor.
social media specialist living in New York. His writing has appeared in
The Atlantic, Bloomberg Businessweek, National Journal, Outside, Al Jazeera America, and The Verge.
