Is it really addiction?

Christopher J. Ferguson, professor of psychology at Stetson University, wants to debunk some of the myths about technology addiction.

A PSYCHOLOGY professor challenges what he says are myths about technology addiction, questioning how concerned people should be about the psychological effects of screen time. He says such fears resemble a moral panic and are based on weak data.

HOW concerned should people be about the psychological effects of screen time? Balancing technology use with other aspects of daily life seems reasonable, but there is a lot of conflicting advice about where that balance should be. Much of the discussion is framed around fighting “addiction” to technology. But to me, that resembles a moral panic, giving voice to scary claims based on weak data.

For example, in April 2018, television journalist Katie Couric’s America Inside Out programme focused on the effects of technology on people’s brains. The episode featured the cofounder of a business treating technology addiction. That person compared addiction to technology with addictions to cocaine and other drugs. The show also implied technology use could lead to Alzheimer’s diseaselike memory loss. Others, such as psychologist Jean Twenge, have linked smartphones with teen suicide.

I am a psychologist who has worked with teens and families and conducted research on technology use, video games and addiction. I believe most of these fearmongering claims about technology are rubbish. There are several common myths of technology addiction that deserve to be debunked by actual research.

Technology is not a drug

Some people have claimed that technology use activates the same pleasure centres of the brain as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine. That is vaguely true, but brain responses to pleasurable experiences are not reserved only for unhealthy things.

Anything fun results in an increased dopamine release in the ‘‘pleasure circuits’’ of the brain — whether it is going for a swim, reading a good book, having a good conversation, eating or having sex. Technology use causes dopamine release similar to other normal, fun activities: about 50% to 100% above normal levels.

Cocaine, by contrast, increases dopamine 350%, and methamphetamine a whopping 1200%. In addition, recent evidence has found significant differences in how dopamine receptors work among people whose computer use has caused problems in their daily lives, compared with substance abusers. But I believe people who claim brain responses to video games and drugs are similar are trying to liken the drip of a faucet to a waterfall.

Comparisons between technology addictions and substance abuse are also often based on brain imaging studies, which themselves have at times proven unreliable at documenting what their authors claim. Other recent imaging studies have also disproved past claims that violent games desensitised young brains, leading children to show less emotional connection with

others’ suffering.

Technology addiction is not common

People who talk about tech addictions often express frustration with their smartphone use, or they cannot understand why children play online games so much. But these are not real addictions, involving significant interference with other life activities such as school, work or social relationships.

My own research has suggested 3% of gamers, or less, develop problem behaviours, such as neglecting schoolwork to the point that grades suffer. Most of those difficulties are mild and go away on their own over time.

Technology addiction is not a mental illness

At the moment, there are no official mental health diagnoses related to technology addiction. This could change — the World Health Organisation has announced plans to include “gaming disorder” in the next version of its International Compendium of Diseases.

But it is a controversial suggestion. I am among 28 scholars who wrote to the WHO protesting that the decision was poorly informed by science. The WHO seemed to ignore research that suggested “gaming disorder” is more a symptom of other, underlying mental health issues such as depression, rather than its own disorder.

This year, the Media Psychology and Technology division of the American Psychological Association, of which I am a fellow, likewise released a statement critical of the WHO’s decision. The WHO’s sister organisation, Unicef, also argued against using “addiction” language to describe children’s screen use.

Controversies aside, I have found current data does not support technology addictions as standalone diagnoses. For example, there is the Oxford study that found people who rate higher in what is called “game addiction” do not show more psychological or health problems than others. Additional research has suggested any problems technology overusers may experience tend to be milder than would happen with a mental illness, and usually go away on their own without treatment.

‘Tech addiction’ is not caused by technology

Most of the discussion of technology addictions suggest technology itself is mesmerising, harming normal brains. But my research suggests technology addictions generally are symptoms of other, underlying disorders like depression, anxiety and attention problems. People do not think that depressed people who sleep all day have a “bed addiction”.

This is of particular concern when considering who needs treatment, and for what conditions. Efforts to treat “technology addiction” may do little more than treat a symptom, leaving the real problem intact.

Technology is not uniquely addictive

There is little question some people overdo a wide range of activities. Those activities do include technology use, but also exercise, eating, sex, work, religion and shopping. There are even research papers on dance addiction. But few of these have official diagnoses. There is little evidence technology is more likely to be overused than a wide range of other enjoyable activities.

Technology use does not lead to suicide

Some pundits have pointed to a recent rise in suicide rates among teen girls as evidence for tech problems. But suicide rates increased for almost all age groups, particularly middleaged adults, for the 17year period from 1999 to 2016. This rise apparently began about 2008, during the financial collapse, and has become more pronounced since then.

That undercuts the claim screens are causing suicides in teens, as does the fact suicide rates are far higher among middleaged adults than youth. There appears to be a larger issue going on in society. Technopanics could be distracting regular people and health officials from identifying and treating it.

One recent paper claimed to link screen use to teen depression and suicide. But another scholar with access to the same data revealed the effect was no larger than the link between eating potatoes and suicide. This is a problem: scholars sometimes make scary claims based on tiny data that are often statistical blips, not real effects.

To be sure, there are real problems related to technology, such as privacy issues. And people should balance technology use with other aspects of their lives. It is also worth keeping an eye out for the very small percentage of individuals who do overuse. There is a tiny kernel of truth to our concerns about technology addictions, but the available evidence suggests claims of a crisis, or comparisons to substance abuse, are entirely unwarranted. — theconversation.com

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES A different view . . . Psychology professor Christopher Ferguson argues that claims of technology addiction are mostly ‘‘fearmongering’’.

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES Young computer users . . . Many people believe children can become addicted to computer devices, but psychology professor Christopher Ferguson contests claims that significant screen time constitutes an addiction.