Digital media use and mental health

The relationships between digital media use and mental health have been investigated by various researchers—predominantly psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and medical experts—especially since the mid-1990s, after the growth of the World Wide Web. A significant body of research has explored "overuse" phenomena, commonly known as "digital addictions", or "digital dependencies". These phenomena manifest differently in many societies and cultures. Some experts have investigated the benefits of moderate digital media use in various domains, including in mental health, and the treatment of mental health problems with novel technological solutions.

Digital media use and mental health
The relationships between digital media use and mental health are under study.[1]
RelatedScreen time, gaming disorder, problematic internet use, problematic social media use, problematic smartphone use

The delineation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media has not been established. There are no widely accepted diagnostic criteria, although some experts consider overuse a manifestation of underlying psychiatric disorders. The prevention and treatment of pathological digital media use is also not standardised, although guidelines for safer media use for children and families have been developed. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) does not include diagnoses for problematic internet use, problematic social media use, and gaming disorder (commonly known as video game addiction), whereas the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) recognises gaming disorder. Experts are still debating how and when to diagnose these conditions. The use of the term addiction to refer to these phenomena and diagnoses has also been questioned.

Digital media and screen time have changed how children think, interact and develop in positive and negative ways, but researchers are unsure about the existence of hypothesised causal links between digital media use and mental health outcomes. Those links appear to depend on the individual and the platforms they use. Several large technology firms have made commitments or announced strategies to try to reduce the risks of digital media use.

History and terminology
A young boy engaged with a smartphone

The relationship between digital technology and mental health has been investigated from many perspectives.[2][3][4] Benefits of digital media use in childhood and adolescent development have been found.[5] Concerns have been expressed by researchers, clinicians and the public in regard to apparent compulsive behaviours of digital media users, as correlations between technology overuse and mental health problems become apparent.[2][6][7]

Terminologies used to refer to compulsive digital-media-use behaviours are not standardised or universally recognised. They include "digital addiction", "digital dependence", "problematic use", or "overuse", often delineated by the digital media platform used or under study (such as problematic smartphone use or problematic internet use).[8] Unrestrained use of technological devices may affect developmental, social, mental and physical well-being and may result in symptoms akin to other psychological dependence syndromes, or behavioural addictions.[9][7] The focus on problematic technology use in research, particularly in relation to the behavioural addiction paradigm, is becoming more accepted, despite poor standardisation and conflicting research.[10]

Internet addiction has been proposed as a diagnosis since the mid-1990s,[11] and social media and its relation to addiction has been examined since 2009.[12] A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for developmental and educational purposes, but that excessive use can have a negative impact on mental well-being. It also noted an overall 40% increase in internet use in school-age children between 2010 and 2015, and that different OECD nations had marked variations in rates of childhood technology use, as well as differences in the platforms used.[13]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has not formally codified problematic digital media use in diagnostic categories, but it deemed internet gaming disorder to be a condition for further study in 2013.[14] Gaming disorder, commonly known as video game addiction, has been recognised in the ICD-11.[15][16] Different recommendations in the DSM and the ICD are due partly to the lack of expert consensus, the differences in emphasis in the classification manuals, as well as difficulties utilising animal models for behavioural addictions.[9]

The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability to describe new, digitally mediated psychiatric categories, as opposed to overuse being a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders.[3][4] Usage of the term has also been criticised for drawing parallels with substance use behaviours. Careless use of the term may cause more problems—both downplaying the risks of harm in seriously affected people, as well as overstating risks of excessive, non-pathological use of digital media.[4] The evolution of terminology relating excessive digital media use to problematic use rather than addiction was encouraged by Panova and Carbonell, psychologists at Ramon Llull University, in a 2018 review.[17]

Due to the lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used, diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop. Heightened levels of public anxiety around new media (including social media, smartphones and video games) further obfuscate population-based assessments, as well as posing management dilemmas.[3] Radesky and Christakis, the 2019 editors of JAMA Paediatrics, published a review that investigated "concerns about health and developmental/behavioural risks of excessive media use for child cognitive, language, literacy, and social-emotional development."[18] Due to the ready availability of multiple technologies to children worldwide, the problem is bi-directional, as taking away digital devices may have a detrimental effect, in areas such as learning, family relationship dynamics, and overall development.[19]

Problematic use

Though associations have been observed between digital media use and mental health symptoms or diagnoses, causality has not been established; nuances and caveats published by researchers are often misunderstood by the general public, or misrepresented by the media.[4] Females are more likely to overuse social media, and males video games.[20] Following from this, problematic digital media use may not be singular constructs, may be delineated based on the digital platform used, or reappraised in terms of specific activities (rather than addiction to the digital medium).[21]

Mental health

A 2019 systematic map of reviews suggested associations between some types of potentially problematic internet use and psychiatric or behavioural problems such as depression, anxiety, hostility, aggression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The studies could not determine if causal relationships exist, reviewers emphasising the importance of future prospective study designs.[2] While overuse of digital media has been associated with depressive symptoms, digital media may also be utilized in some situations to improve mood.[22][23] Symptoms of ADHD have been positively correlated with digital media use in a large prospective study.[24] The ADHD symptom of hyperfocus may cause affected people to overuse digital media such as video games or online chatting.[25]

A 2016 technical report by Chassiakos, Radesky, and Christakis identified benefits and concerns in adolescent mental health regarding digital media use. It showed that the manner of social media use was the key factor, rather than the amount of time engaged. A decline in well-being and life-satisfaction was found in older adolescents who passively consumed social media, but these were not apparent in those who were more actively engaged. The report also found a U-shaped curvilinear relationship in the amount of time spent on digital media, with risk of depression increasing at both the low and high ends of internet use.[5] A 2018 review into the Chinese social media platform WeChat found associations of self-reported mental health symptoms with excessive platform use. However, the motivations and usage patterns of WeChat users affected overall psychological health, rather than the amount of time spent using the platform.[7] In the United Kingdom, a study of 1,479 individuals aged 14–24 compared psychological benefits and problems for five large social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and YouTube. It concluded that YouTube was the only platform with a net positive rating "based on the 14 health and wellbeing-related questions", and the other platforms measured had net negative ratings, Instagram having the lowest rating. The study identified Instagram as having some positive effects including self-expression, self-identity, and community, but found that these were outweighed by the negative effects, specifically on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out".[26]

A report published in Clinical Psychological Science in 2018 featured two cross-sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students, and found that use of digital media was associated with higher rates of depressive symptoms and suicidality. They concluded that more time engaged with electronic devices, and less time on "non-screen activities" (such as in-person social interaction, sports/exercise, homework, and attending religious services) was correlated with depressive symptoms and suicide-related outcomes (suicidal ideation, plans, and attempts), especially among girls.[27] A later report in the same publication questioned the survey's research methodology, citing "inaccurate research measurements, negligible correlations between the main variables, [and] insufficient and inadequate statistical analyses".[28]

The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants for Computers in Human Behavior. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. The authors of the report then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms.[29]

Screen time

A systematic examination of reviews, published in 2019, concluded that evidence, although of mainly low to moderate quality, showed an association of screen time with a variety of health problems including: "adiposity, unhealthy diet, depressive symptoms and quality of life". They also concluded that moderate use of digital media may have benefits for young people in terms of social integration, a curvilinear relationship found with both depressive symptoms and overall well-being.[6]

A research study done on urban adolescents in China revealed that more than a quarter of adolescents in China were exposed to over 2 hours of screen time per day. They found that screen time and physical activity was independently associated with mental health. Specifically, an increase in screen time and decrease in physical activity contributed to an additional risk for mental health productivity by increasing depressive anxiety symptoms and life dissatisfaction.[30]

A 2017 UK large-scale study of the "Goldilocks hypothesis"—of avoiding both too much and too little digital media use[31]—was described as the "best quality" evidence to date by experts and non-government organisations (NGOs) reporting to a 2018 UK parliamentary committee. That study concluded that modest digital media use may have few adverse affects, and some positive associations in terms of well-being.[1]

Proposed diagnostic categories
See also: Internet addiction disorder, Internet sex addiction, Nomophobia, Problematic smartphone use, Problematic social media use, and Video game addiction

Gaming disorder has been considered by the DSM-5 task force as warranting further study (as the subset internet gaming disorder), and was included in the ICD-11.[14] Concerns have been raised by Aarseth and colleagues over this inclusion, particularly in regard to stigmatisation of heavy gamers.[32]

Christakis has asserted that internet addiction may be "a 21st century epidemic".[33] In 2018, he commented that childhood Internet overuse may be a form of "uncontrolled experiment[s] on [...] children".[34] International estimates of the prevalence of internet overuse have varied considerably, with marked variations by nation. A 2014 meta-analysis of 31 nations yielded an overall worldwide prevalence of six percent.[35] A different perspective in 2018 by Musetti and colleagues reappraised the internet in terms of its necessity and ubiquity in modern society, as a social environment, rather than a tool, thereby calling for the reformulation of the internet addiction model.[36]

Some medical and behavioural scientists recommend adding a diagnosis of "social media addiction" (or similar) to the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders update.[37][38][7] A 2015 review concluded there was a probable link between basic psychological needs and social media addiction. "Social network site users seek feedback, and they get it from hundreds of people—instantly. It could be argued that the platforms are designed to get users 'hooked'."[39]

Internet sex addiction, also known as cybersex addiction, has been proposed as a sexual addiction characterised by virtual internet sexual activity that causes serious negative consequences to one's physical, mental, social, and/or financial well-being.[40][41] It may be considered a form of problematic internet use.[42]

Luckia Games, an online gambling provider

Online problem gambling
Main article: Online gambling § Problem gambling

A 2015 review found evidence of higher rates of mental health comorbidities, as well as higher amounts of substance use, among internet gamblers, compared to non-internet gamblers. Causation, however, has not been established. The review postulates that there may be differences in the cohorts between internet and land-based problem gamblers.[43]

Cyberbullying
Main article: Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying, bullying or harassment using social media or other electronic means, has been shown to have effects on mental health. Victims may have lower self-esteem, increased suicidal ideation, decreased motivation for usual hobbies, and a variety of emotional responses, including being scared, frustrated, angry, anxious or depressed. These victims may also begin to distance themselves from friends and family members. [44]

According to the EU Kids Online project, the incidence of cyberbullying across seven European countries in children aged 8–16 increased from 8% to 12% between 2010 and 2014. Similar increases were shown in the United States and Brazil.[45]

Media multitasking
Main article: Media multitasking

Concurrent use of multiple digital media streams, commonly known as media multitasking, has been shown to be associated with depressive symptoms, social anxiety, impulsivity, sensation seeking, lower perceived social success and neuroticism.[46] A 2018 review found that while the literature is sparse and inconclusive, overall, heavy media multitaskers also have poorer performance in several cognitive domains.[47] One of the authors commented that the data does not "unambiguously show that media multitasking causes a change in attention and memory", therefore it is possible to argue that it is inefficient to multitask on digital media.[48]

Assessment and treatment

Rigorous, evidence-based assessment of problematic digital media use is yet to be comprehensively established. This is due partially to a lack of consensus around the various constructs and lack of standardization of treatments.[49] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has developed a Family Media Plan, intending to help parents assess and structure their family's use of electronic devices and media more safely. It recommends limiting entertainment screen time to two hours or less per day.[50][51] The Canadian Paediatric Society produced a similar guideline. Ferguson, a psychologist, has criticised these and other national guidelines for not being evidence-based.[52] Other experts, cited in a 2017 UNICEF Office of Research literature review, have recommended addressing potential underlying problems rather than arbitrarily enforcing screen time limits.[4]

Different methodologies for assessing pathological internet use have been developed, mostly self-report questionnaires, but none have been universally recognised as a gold standard.[53] For gaming disorder, both the American Psychiatric Association[54] and the World Health Organization (through the ICD-11)[15] have released diagnostic criteria.

There is some limited evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy and family-based interventions for treatment. In randomised controlled trials, medications have not been shown to be effective.[49] A 2016 study of 901 adolescents suggested mindfulness may assist in preventing and treating problematic internet use.[55] A 2019 UK parliamentary report deemed parental engagement, awareness and support to be essential in developing "digital resilience" for young people, and to identify and manage the risks of harm online.[1] Treatment centers have proliferated in some countries, and China and South Korea have treated digital dependence as a public health crisis, opening 300 and 190 centers nationwide, respectively.[56] Other countries have also opened treatment centers.[57][58]

NGOs, support and advocacy groups provide resources to people overusing digital media, with or without codified diagnoses,[59][60] including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.[61][62]

Mental health benefits
Smartphones and other digital devices are ubiquitous in many societies.

Individuals with mental illness can develop social connections over social media, that may foster a sense of social inclusion in online communities.[5] Sufferers of mental illness may share personal stories in a perceived safer space, as well as gaining peer support for developing coping strategies.[5] People with mental illness are likely to report avoiding stigma and gaining further insight into their mental health condition by using social media. This comes with the risk of unhealthy influences, misinformation, and delayed access to traditional mental health outlets.[5]

Other benefits include connections to supportive online communities, including illness or disability specific communities, as well as the LGBTQI community. Furthermore, in children, the educational benefits of digital media use are well established.[5]

Other disciplines

Digital anthropology

Daniel Miller from University College London has contributed to the study of digital anthropology, especially ethnographic research on the use and consequences of social media and smartphones as part of the everyday life of ordinary people around the world. He notes the effects of social media are very specific to individual locations and cultures. He contends "a layperson might dismiss these stories as superficial. But the anthropologist takes them seriously, empathetically exploring each use of digital technologies in terms of the wider social and cultural context."[63]

Digital anthropology is a developing field which studies the relationship between humans and digital-era technology. It aims to consider arguments in terms of ethical and societal scopes, rather than simply observing technological changes.[64] Brian Solis, a digital analyst and anthropologist, stated in 2018, "we've become digital addicts: it's time to take control of technology and not let tech control us".[65]

Digital sociology

Digital sociology explores how people utilise digital media using several research methodologies, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic research. It intersects with digital anthropology, and studies cultural geography. It also investigates longstanding concerns, and contexts around young people's overuse of "these technologies, their access to online pornography, cyber bullying or online sexual predation".[66]

A 2012 cross-sectional sociological study in Turkey showed differences in patterns of internet use that related to levels of religiosity in 2,698 subjects. With increasing religiosity, negative attitudes towards internet use increased. Highly religious people showed different motivations for internet use, predominantly searching for information.[67] A study of 1,296 Malaysian adolescent students found an inverse relationship between religiosity and internet addiction tendency in females, but not males.[68]

A 2018 review published in Nature considered that young people may have different experiences online, depending on their socio-economic background, noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths.[69] They theorised that lower-income youths, who are already vulnerable to mental illness, may be more passive in their online engagements, being more susceptible to negative feedback online, with difficulty self-regulating their digital media use. It concluded that this may be a new form of digital divide between at-risk young people and other young people, pre-existing risks of mental illness becoming amplified among the already vulnerable population.[69]

Neuroscience

Dar Meshi and colleagues noted in 2015 that "[n]euroscientists are beginning to capitalise on the ubiquity of social media use to gain novel insights about social cognitive processes".[70] A 2018 neuroscientific review published in Nature found the density of the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing, is related to the size of both offline and online social networks in adolescents. They considered that this and other evidence "suggests an important interplay between actual social experiences, both offline and online, and brain development". The authors postulated that social media may have benefits, namely social connections with other people, as well as managing impressions people have of other people such as "reputation building, impression management, and online self-presentation". It identified "adolescence [as] a tipping point in development for how social media can influence their self-concept and expectations of self and others", and called for further study into the neuroscience behind digital media use and brain development in adolescence.[71] Although brain-imaging modalities are under study, neuroscientific findings in individual studies often fail to be replicated in future studies, similar to other behavioural addictions; as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown.[4]

Digital mental health care
"Wellmind", a United Kingdom National Health Service smartphone application

Digital technologies have also provided opportunities for delivery of mental health care online; benefits have been found with computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for depression and anxiety.[72] Research of digital health interventions in young people is preliminary, with a meta-review unable to draw firm conclusions because of problems in research methodology.[73] Potential benefits according to one review include "the flexibility, interactivity, and spontaneous nature of mobile communications [...] in encouraging persistent and continual access to care outside clinical settings".[74] Mindfulness based online intervention has been shown to have small to moderate benefits on mental health. The greatest effect size was found for the reduction of psychological stress. Benefits were also found regarding depression, anxiety, and well-being.[75] Smartphone applications have proliferated in many mental health domains, with "demonstrably effective" recommendations listed in a 2016 review encouraging cognitive behavioural therapy, addressing both anxiety and mood. The review did however call for more randomised controlled trials to validate the effectiveness of their recommendations when delivered by digital apps.[72]

The Lancet commission on global mental health and sustainability report from 2018 evaluated both benefits and harms of technology. It considered the roles of technologies in mental health, particularly in public education; patient screening; treatment; training and supervision; and system improvement.[76]

Industry and government

Several technology firms have implemented changes intending to mitigate the adverse effects of excessive use of their platforms, and in Japan, China and South Korea legislative and/or regulatory governmental efforts have been enacted to address the interrelated issues.

In December 2017, Facebook admitted passive consumption of social media could be harmful to mental health, although they said active engagement can have a positive effect. In January 2018, the platform made major changes to increase user engagement.[77] In January 2019, Facebook's then head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, responding to criticisms of Facebook and mental health concerns, stated they would do "whatever it takes to make this environment safer online especially for youngsters". Facebook admitted "heavy responsibilities" to the global community, and invited regulation by governments.[78] In 2018 Facebook and Instagram announced new tools that they asserted may assist with overuse of their products.[79] In 2019, Instagram, which has been investigated specifically in one study in terms of addiction,[80] began testing a platform change in Canada to hide the number of "likes" and views that photos and videos received in an effort to create a "less pressurised" environment.[81] It then continued this trial in Australia, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Brazil and New Zealand[82] before extending the experiment globally in November of that year. The platform also developed artificial intelligence to counter cyberbullying.[83]

China's Ministry of Culture has enacted several public health efforts from as early as 2006 to address gaming and internet-related disorders. In 2007, an "Online Game Anti-Addiction System" was implemented for minors, restricting their use to 3 hours or less per day. The ministry also proposed a "Comprehensive Prevention Program Plan for Minors’ Online Gaming Addiction" in 2013, to promulgate research, particularly on diagnostic methods and interventions.[84] China's Ministry of Education in 2018 announced that new regulations would be introduced to further limit the amount of time spent by minors in online games.[85][86] In response, Tencent, the owner of WeChat and the world's largest video game publisher, restricted the amount of time that children could spend playing one of its online games, to one hour per day for children 12 and under, and two hours per day for children aged 13–18.[87]

In 2018, Alphabet Inc. released an update for Android smartphones, including a dashboard app enabling users to set timers on application use.[88] Apple Inc. purchased a third-party application and then incorporated it in iOS 12 to measure "screen time".[89] Journalists have questioned the functionality of these products for users and parents, as well as the companies' motivations for introducing them.[88][90] Alphabet has also invested in a mental health specialist, Quartet, which uses machine learning to collaborate and coordinate digital delivery of mental health care.[91]

South Korea has eight government ministries responsible for public health efforts in relation to internet and gaming disorders, a review article published in Prevention Science in 2018 stating that the "region is unique in that its government has been at the forefront of prevention efforts, particularly in contrast to the United States, Western Europe, and Oceania."[84] Efforts are coordinated by the Ministry of Science and ICT, and include awareness campaigns, educational interventions, youth counseling centres, and promoting healthy online culture.[84]

Two institutional investors in Apple Inc., JANA Partners LLC and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), stated in 2018 that they "believe[d] both the content and the amount of time spent on phones need to be tailored to youths". They called on Apple Inc. to act before regulators and consumers potentially force them to do so.[92][93] Apple Inc. responded that they have, "always looked out for kids, and [they] work hard to create powerful products that inspire, entertain, and educate children while also helping parents protect them online". The firm is planning new features that they asserted may allow them to play a pioneering role in regard to young people's health.[94]

Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications coordinates Japanese public health efforts in relation to problematic internet use and gaming disorder. Legislatively, the Act on Development of an Environment that Provides Safe and Secure Internet Use for Young People was enacted in 2008, to promote public awareness campaigns, and support NGOs to teach young people safe internet use skills.[84]

gollark: Remember the aforementioned healthdrones?
gollark: Wrong.
gollark: FSG law is *really* weird about some stuff.
gollark: Actually, legally speaking it's OCaml.
gollark: We implemented it.

References
  1. "Impact of social media and screen-use on young people's health" (PDF). House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 31 January 2019. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  2. Dickson K, Richardson M (1 January 2019). "Screen-based activities and children and young people's mental health: A Systematic Map of Reviews" (PDF). Department of Health Reviews Facility. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 February 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
  3. Ryding FC, Kaye LK (2018). ""Internet Addiction": a Conceptual Minefield". International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 16 (1): 225–232. doi:10.1007/s11469-017-9811-6. PMC 5814538. PMID 29491771.
  4. Kardefelt-Winther D (1 February 2017). "How does the time children spend using digital technology impact their mental well-being, social relationships and physical activity? – An evidence-focused literature review" (PDF). UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti. UNICEF Office of Research. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  5. Reid Chassiakos YL, Radesky J, Christakis D, Moreno MA, Cross C (November 2016). "Children and Adolescents and Digital Media". Pediatrics. 138 (5): e20162593. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2593. PMID 27940795.
  6. Stiglic N, Viner RM (January 2019). "Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews". BMJ Open. 9 (1): e023191. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023191. PMC 6326346. PMID 30606703.
  7. Montag C, Becker B, Gan C (2018). "The Multipurpose Application WeChat: A Review on Recent Research". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2247. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02247. PMC 6297283. PMID 30618894.
  8. Stiglic N, Viner RM (January 2019). "Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews". BMJ Open. 9 (1): e023191. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023191. PMC 6326346. PMID 30606703.
     • Beales K, MacDonald F, Bartlett V, Bowden-Jones H (2017). Are we all addicts now? : digital dependence. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-78694-081-0. OCLC 988053669.
     • Pantic I (October 2014). "Online social networking and mental health". Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 17 (10): 652–657. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0070. PMC 4183915. PMID 25192305.
     • Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD (March 2017). "Social Networking Sites and Addiction: Ten Lessons Learned". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 14 (3): 311. doi:10.3390/ijerph14030311. PMC 5369147. PMID 28304359.
     • Sigman A. "The Impact of Screen Media on Children: A Eurovision For Parliament" (PDF). Steiner Education Australia (reprint of original speech). Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 March 2019. Retrieved 10 January 2019.
  9. Grant JE, Chamberlain SR (August 2016). "Expanding the definition of addiction: DSM-5 vs. ICD-11". CNS Spectrums. 21 (4): 300–303. doi:10.1017/S1092852916000183. PMC 5328289. PMID 27151528.
  10. Ellis DA (1 August 2019). "Are smartphones really that bad? Improving the psychological measurement of technology-related behaviors". Computers in Human Behavior. 97: 60–66. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.006. ISSN 0747-5632. Archived from the original on 9 February 2020. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  11. Young K (27 February 1998). Caught in the net : how to recognize the signs of Internet addiction--and a winning strategy for recovery. New York, New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-19159-9. OCLC 38130573.
  12. La Barbera D, La Paglia F, Valsavoia R (2009). "Social network and addiction". Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 144: 33–36. PMID 19592725.
  13. Cornford K (2018). "Children & Young People's Mental Health in the Digital Age" (PDF). OECD.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 January 2019. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  14. Parekh R. "Internet Gaming". The American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on 26 May 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  15. "Gaming disorder". Gaming disorder. World Health Organization. September 2018. Archived from the original on 6 February 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  16. "ICD-11 – Mortality and Morbidity Statistics". icd.who.int. Archived from the original on 1 August 2018. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  17. Panova T, Carbonell X (June 2018). "Is smartphone addiction really an addiction?". Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 7 (2): 252–259. doi:10.1556/2006.7.2018.49. PMC 6174603. PMID 29895183.
  18. Radesky JS, Christakis DA (October 2016). "Increased Screen Time: Implications for Early Childhood Development and Behavior". Pediatric Clinics of North America. 63 (5): 827–839. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2016.06.006. PMID 27565361.
  19. Hsin C (2014). "The Influence of Young Children's Use of Technology on Their Learning: A Review". Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 17 (4): 85–99. JSTOR jeductechsoci.17.4.85.
     • Gordo López AJ, Contreras PP, Cassidy P (1 August 2015). "The [not so] new digital family: disciplinary functions of representations of children and technology". Feminism & Psychology. 25 (3): 326–346. doi:10.1177/0959353514562805.
     • Subrahmanyam K, Kraut RE, Greenfield PM, Gross EF (22 September 2000). "The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development". The Future of Children. 10 (2): 123–144. doi:10.2307/1602692. JSTOR 1602692. PMID 11255703.
  20. Hawi N, Samaha M (August 2019). "Identifying commonalities and differences in personality characteristics of internet and social media addiction profiles: traits, self-esteem, and self-construal". Behaviour & Information Technology. 38 (2): 110–119. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1515984.
     • Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD (March 2017). "Social Networking Sites and Addiction: Ten Lessons Learned". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 14 (3): 311. doi:10.3390/ijerph14030311. PMC 5369147. PMID 28304359.
     • Paulus, Frank W.; Ohmann, Susanne; Gontard, Alexander von; Popow, Christian (2018). "Internet gaming disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review". Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 60 (7): 645–659. doi:10.1111/dmcn.13754. ISSN 1469-8749. PMID 29633243. S2CID 205070702.
  21. Hawi N, Samaha M (August 2019). "Identifying commonalities and differences in personality characteristics of internet and social media addiction profiles: traits, self-esteem, and self-construal". Behaviour & Information Technology. 38 (2): 110–119. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1515984.
     • Paulus, Frank W.; Ohmann, Susanne; Gontard, Alexander von; Popow, Christian (2018). "Internet gaming disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review". Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 60 (7): 645–659. doi:10.1111/dmcn.13754. ISSN 1469-8749. PMID 29633243. S2CID 205070702.
  22. Hoge E, Bickham D, Cantor J (November 2017). "Digital Media, Anxiety, and Depression in Children". Pediatrics. 140 (Suppl 2): S76–S80. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758G. PMID 29093037.
  23. Elhai JD, Dvorak RD, Levine JC, Hall BJ (January 2017). "Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology". Journal of Affective Disorders. 207: 251–259. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030. PMID 27736736.
  24. Krull K (19 February 2019). "Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents, clinical features and diagnosis". UpToDate.com. UpToDate. Archived from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  25. Kooij JJ, Bijlenga D, Salerno L, Jaeschke R, Bitter I, Balázs J, et al. (February 2019). "Updated European Consensus Statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD". European Psychiatry. 56: 14–34. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.11.001. PMID 30453134.
  26. "#StatusOfMind – Social media and young people's mental health and wellbeing" (PDF). Royal Society for Public Health. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2018. Retrieved 10 January 2019.
  27. Twenge JM, Joiner TE, Rogers ML, Martin GN (2018). "Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates Among U.S. Adolescents After 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time". Clinical Psychological Science. 6 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/2167702617723376.
  28. Ophir Y, Lipshits-Braziler Y, Rosenberg H (May 2019). "New-Media Screen Time is Not (Necessarily) Linked to Depression: Comments on Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, and Martin (2018)". Clinical Psychological Science. 8 (2): 374–378. doi:10.1177/2167702619849412.
  29. Matthews M, Murnane E, Snyder J, Guha S, Chang P, Doherty G, Gay G (1 October 2017). "The double-edged sword: A mixed methods study of the interplay between bipolar disorder and technology use". Computers in Human Behavior. 75: 288–300. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.009. Archived from the original on 19 March 2020. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
  30. Cao, Hui; Qian, Qingwen; Weng, Tingting; Yuan, Changjiang; Sun, Ying; Wang, Hui; Tao, Fangbiao (1 October 2011). "Screen time, physical activity and mental health among urban adolescents in China". Preventive Medicine. Special Section: Epidemiology, Risk, and Causation. 53 (4): 316–320. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.09.002. ISSN 0091-7435. PMID 21933680.
  31. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N (February 2017). "A Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis" (PDF). Psychological Science. 28 (2): 204–215. doi:10.1177/0956797616678438. PMID 28085574. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 July 2018. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  32. Aarseth E, Bean AM, Boonen H, Colder Carras M, Coulson M, Das D, et al. (September 2017). "Scholars' open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal". Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 6 (3): 267–270. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.088. PMC 5700734. PMID 28033714.
  33. Christakis DA (October 2010). "Internet addiction: a 21st century epidemic?". BMC Medicine. 8 (1): 61. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-61. PMC 2972229. PMID 20955578.
  34. Cooper A (9 December 2018). "Groundbreaking study examines effects of screen time on kids". 60 Minutes Canada. CBS News. Archived from the original on 11 December 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  35. Cheng C, Li AY (December 2014). "Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: a meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions". Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 17 (12): 755–760. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0317. PMC 4267764. PMID 25489876.
  36. Musetti A, Corsano P (18 April 2018). "The Internet Is Not a Tool: Reappraising the Model for Internet-Addiction Disorder Based on the Constraints and Opportunities of the Digital Environment". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 558. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00558. PMC 5915628. PMID 29720954.
  37. Pantic I (October 2014). "Online social networking and mental health". Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 17 (10): 652–657. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0070. PMC 4183915. PMID 25192305.
  38. van den Eijnden RJ, Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM (1 August 2016). "The Social Media Disorder Scale". Computers in Human Behavior. 61: 478–487. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.038.
  39. Andreassen CS (1 June 2015). "Online Social Network Site Addiction: A Comprehensive Review" (PDF). Current Addiction Reports. 2 (2): 175–184. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0056-9. ISSN 2196-2952. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 August 2017.
  40. Stein DJ, Hollander E, Rothbaum BO (31 August 2009). Textbook of Anxiety Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 359. ISBN 978-1-58562-254-2. Archived from the original on 11 October 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2010.
  41. Parashar A, Varma A (April 2007). "Behavior and substance addictions: is the world ready for a new category in the DSM-V?". CNS Spectr. 12 (4): 257, author reply 258–259. doi:10.1017/S109285290002099X. PMID 17503551.
  42. Griffiths M (November 2001). "Sex on the internet: Observations and implications for internet sex addiction". The Journal of Sex Research. 38 (4): 333–342. doi:10.1080/00224490109552104. Retrieved 2 April 2013.
  43. Gainsbury SM (2015). "Online Gambling Addiction: the Relationship Between Internet Gambling and Disordered Gambling". Current Addiction Reports. 2 (2): 185–193. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0057-8. PMC 4610999. PMID 26500834.
  44.  • Hinduja S, Patchin JW (2008). "Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization". Deviant Behavior. 29 (2): 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816.
     • Hinduja S, Patchin JW (October 2007). "Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency". Journal of School Violence. 6 (3): 89–112. doi:10.1300/J202v06n03_06.
     • Hinduja S, Patchin JW (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN 978-1-4129-6689-4.
     • Hinduja S, Patchin JW (2006). "Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying". Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 4 (2): 148–169. doi:10.1177/1541204006286288.
  45. Almuneef M, Anton-Erxleben K, Burton P (14 November 2016). Ending the torment : tackling bullying from the schoolyard to cyberspace. United Nations. Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children. New York: United Nations Publications. p. 116. ISBN 978-9-2110-1344-3. OCLC 982286456.
  46. Uncapher MR, Lin L, Rosen LD, Kirkorian HL, Baron NS, Bailey K, et al. (November 2017). "Media Multitasking and Cognitive, Psychological, Neural, and Learning Differences". Pediatrics. 140 (Suppl 2): S62–S66. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758D. PMC 5658797. PMID 29093034.
  47. Uncapher MR, Wagner AD (October 2018). "Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 115 (40): 9889–9896. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611612115. PMC 6176627. PMID 30275312.
  48. Huber J (29 October 2018). "How does media multitasking affect the mind?". Scope. Archived from the original on 31 May 2019. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
  49. Zajac K, Ginley MK, Chang R, Petry NM (December 2017). "Treatments for Internet gaming disorder and Internet addiction: A systematic review". Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 31 (8): 979–994. doi:10.1037/adb0000315. PMC 5714660. PMID 28921996.
  50. "How to Make a Family Media Use Plan". HealthyChildren.org. Archived from the original on 6 June 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  51. Korioth T (12 December 2018). "Family Media Plan helps parents set boundaries for kids". AAP News. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  52. Ferguson CJ, Beresin E (1 June 2017). "Social science's curious war with pop culture and how it was lost: The media violence debate and the risks it holds for social science". Preventive Medicine. 99: 69–76. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.009. ISSN 0091-7435. PMID 28212816.
  53. Shaw M, Black DW (2008). "Internet addiction: definition, assessment, epidemiology and clinical management". CNS Drugs. 22 (5): 353–365. doi:10.2165/00023210-200822050-00001. PMID 18399706. S2CID 1699090.
  54. Petry NM, Rehbein F, Gentile DA, Lemmens JS, Rumpf HJ, Mößle T, et al. (September 2014). "An international consensus for assessing Internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach". Addiction. 109 (9): 1399–1406. doi:10.1111/add.12457. PMID 24456155.
  55. Gámez-Guadix M, Calvete E (1 December 2016). "Assessing the Relationship between Mindful Awareness and Problematic Internet Use among Adolescents". Mindfulness. 7 (6): 1281–1288. doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0566-0. S2CID 148514937.
  56. Sharma MK, Palanichamy TS (February 2018). "Psychosocial interventions for technological addictions". Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 60 (Suppl 4): S541–S545. doi:10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_40_18 (inactive 6 June 2020). PMC 5844169. PMID 29540928. Archived from the original on 16 October 2019. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
  57. Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD (September 2011). "Online social networking and addiction – a review of the psychological literature". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 8 (9): 3528–3552. doi:10.3390/ijerph8093528. PMC 3194102. PMID 22016701.
  58. Romano M, Osborne LA, Truzoli R, Reed P (7 February 2013). "Differential psychological impact of Internet exposure on Internet addicts". PLOS One. 8 (2): e55162. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...855162R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055162. PMC 3567114. PMID 23408958.
  59. "Hooked on Social Media? Help From Adults with ADHD". ADDitude. ADDitude Magazine. 23 November 2016. Archived from the original on 15 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  60. "ADHD and Learning Disabilities Directory: ADD Coaches, Organizers, Doctors, Schools, Camps". directory.additudemag.com. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  61. "Resources Online". ADHD Australia. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  62. "ADHD Resource Center". www.aacap.org. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  63. Miller D. "The Anthropology of Social Media". Scientific American Blog Network. Archived from the original on 15 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  64. Miller D (28 August 2018). "Digital Anthropology". Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. doi:10.29164/18digital. Archived from the original on 30 December 2018. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  65. Solis B (28 March 2018). "We've Become Digital Addicts: It's Time to Take Control of Technology and Not Let Tech Control Us". Medium. Archived from the original on 30 December 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2019.
  66. Lupton D (1 August 2012). "Digital Sociology: An Introduction" (PDF). ses.library.usyd.edu.au. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 April 2015. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
  67. Sanaktekin OH (20 December 2011). "The Effects of Religiosity on Internet Consumption". Information, Communication & Society. 16 (10): 1553–1573. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.722663.
  68. Charlton JP, Soh PC, Ang PH, Chew K (1 December 2013). "Religiosity, Adolescent Internet Usage Motives and Addiction". Information, Communication & Society. 16 (10): 1619–1638. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.735251. ISSN 1369-118X.
  69. Odgers C (February 2018). "Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all". Nature. 554 (7693): 432–434. Bibcode:2018Natur.554..432O. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-02109-8. PMC 6121807. PMID 29469108.
  70. Meshi D, Tamir DI, Heekeren HR (December 2015). "The Emerging Neuroscience of Social Media" (PDF). Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 19 (12): 771–782. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.004. PMID 26578288. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 July 2018. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  71. Crone EA, Konijn EA (February 2018). "Media use and brain development during adolescence". Nature Communications. 9 (1): 588. Bibcode:2018NatCo...9..588C. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x. PMC 5821838. PMID 29467362.
  72. Bakker D, Kazantzis N, Rickwood D, Rickard N (March 2016). "Mental Health Smartphone Apps: Review and Evidence-Based Recommendations for Future Developments". JMIR Mental Health. 3 (1): e7. doi:10.2196/mental.4984. PMC 4795320. PMID 26932350.
  73. Hollis C, Falconer CJ, Martin JL, Whittington C, Stockton S, Glazebrook C, Davies EB (April 2017). "Annual Research Review: Digital health interventions for children and young people with mental health problems – a systematic and meta-review" (PDF). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 58 (4): 474–503. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12663. PMID 27943285. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 July 2018. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  74. Seko Y, Kidd S, Wiljer D, McKenzie K (September 2014). "Youth mental health interventions via mobile phones: a scoping review". Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 17 (9): 591–602. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0078. PMID 25007383.
  75. Spijkerman MP, Pots WT, Bohlmeijer ET (April 2016). "Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: A review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials". Clinical Psychology Review. 45: 102–114. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.009. PMID 27111302.
  76. Patel V, Saxena S, Lund C, Thornicroft G, Baingana F, Bolton P, et al. (October 2018). "The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development". The Lancet. 392 (10157): 1553–1598. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-X. PMID 30314863.
  77. Levin S (15 December 2017). "Facebook admits it poses mental health risk – but says using site more can help". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 January 2019. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
  78. Rajan A (28 January 2019). "Can Nick Clegg help Facebook grow up?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 28 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  79. Booth C (1 August 2018). "Facebook and Instagram officially announce new tools to fight social media addiction". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2018.
  80. Kircaburun K, Griffiths MD (March 2018). "Instagram addiction and the Big Five of personality: The mediating role of self-liking". Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 7 (1): 158–170. doi:10.1556/2006.7.2018.15. PMC 6035031. PMID 29461086.
  81. Shaban H (1 May 2019). "Here's why Instagram is going to hide your 'likes'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 5 May 2019. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  82. Robertson H (18 July 2019). "Instagram hides 'likes' from more users". Yahoo! News. Agence France-Presse. Archived from the original on 11 August 2019. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
  83. Steinmetz K (8 July 2018). "Inside Instagram's War on Bullying". Time. Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 7 August 2019.
  84. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Doh YY, Wu AM, Kuss DJ, Pallesen S, et al. (February 2018). "Policy and Prevention Approaches for Disordered and Hazardous Gaming and Internet Use: an International Perspective" (PDF). Prevention Science. 19 (2): 233–249. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0813-1. PMID 28677089.
  85. "State data to limit China child gamers". BBC News. 6 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2 October 2019. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  86. "A new notice from China's Ministry of Education, and its impact on games". Niko. Niko Partners. Archived from the original on 20 September 2019. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  87. Webb K (7 November 2018). "Video game addiction has sparked a culture war in China – and it's having huge repercussions for the world's biggest video game maker". Business Insider Australia. Archived from the original on 20 September 2019. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  88. Haig M (10 May 2018). "Google wants to cure our phone addiction. How about that for irony? | Matt Haig". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 11 January 2019. Retrieved 10 January 2019.
  89. Ceres P (25 September 2018). "How to Use Apple's Screen Time Controls on iOS 12". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Archived from the original on 17 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  90. Haller S (27 August 2018). "Warning: Apple's new Screen Time could allow your child to watch NC-17 movies". USA Today. Archived from the original on 10 January 2019. Retrieved 10 January 2019.
  91. "Google invests in mental health specialist Quartet to expand machine learning team". Healthcare IT News. 4 January 2018. Archived from the original on 5 October 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
  92. Benoit D (7 January 2018). "iPhones and Children Are a Toxic Pair, Say Two Big Apple Investors". WSJ.com. Archived from the original on 8 January 2019. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
  93. "New Letter From JANA Partners and Calstrs to Apple Inc". thinkdifferentlyaboutkids.com. JANA Partners LLC. 4 June 2018. Archived from the original on 5 January 2019.
  94. Musil S. "Apple vows new parental controls amid child addiction fears". CNET. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.

Further reading
  • Alter A (2017). Irresistible : the rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0-7352-2284-7. OCLC 990286417.
  • Bartlett V, Bowden-Jones H (2017). Are we all addicts now? : digital dependence. Beales, Katriona, MacDonald, Fiona. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-7869-4081-0. OCLC 988053669.
  • Young K, de Abreu CN (2017). Internet addiction in children and adolescents : risk factors, assessment, and treatment. New York: Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8261-3373-1. OCLC 988278461.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.