Is Social Networking Addictive?

26/04/2010 directorcia 48 comments

This paper will examine whether the Internet based technologies collectively known as social networking exhibit characteristics that make them addictive. Specific examples of these technologies include well known sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare but can also be extended to include generic technologies based around material such as blogs. An important consideration to address at the outset is the negative connotation that is placed on the word “addiction”. In this case, any addiction to social networking should not immediately be equated to addiction of illicit and illegal drugs but rather to more benign items such as chocolate. In fact, there are many aspects of the modern world that could be considered “addictive” raising “some safety and social concerns” (Tilbury, 2008) but clearly concerns currently being raised in the public domain are that social networking is in fact as “addictive” as illicit substances. If the reader accepts these concerns then they are drawn to the conclusion that the end result of any social networking addiction will in fact be the same as drug addiction including problems with “health, finances and stability” (Saisan & Seagal & Cutter January 2009). Examining this issue in more detail will require further investigation and definition of exactly what addiction is and how it may be applied to social networking. Next, the key components of social networking will be examined in order to isolate any that may lead to addiction. Further analysis will then be conducted on these components to determine if there indeed is a direct link with addictive behavior. As with other types of addiction, factors such as predisposition may form an important consideration. Thus it will be established whether they do contribute in this instance. At the finale of all this analysis it will be concluded that, like other commonly accepted social practices, such as alcohol consumption, there is the potential for social networking to be addictive if individual control is not exercised. However, it is still too early to definitively prove a direct link with a specific medical disorder, and so, may instead be nothing more than normal human behavior being amplified by modern technology. Only further study will reveal a definitive answer, yet for the time being it should indeed be considered that social networking is addictive.

The starting point for this study is to define exactly what is meant by the term addiction. Traditionally addiction has been stated as “a state of physiological adaption to presence of a drug in the body so that absence of the drug leads to physiological dysfunction which is manifest to the sufferer as unpleasant or even life-threatening ‘withdrawal symptoms’” (West 2006, 10). However, the focus has shifted from the consequences of withdrawal which are now not viewed as causing the greatest long term harm when compared to the impact of compulsive behavior. Thus, a more modern definition of addiction can be made as a ‘syndrome at the centre of which is impaired control over behaviours, and this loss of control is leading to significant harm” (West 2006, 10). This definition may still refer to both psychological and physical characteristics however it is clear that social networking cannot be equated to physical substance. We must therefore consider any “impaired control” leading “to cravings and a complete preoccupation with a habit “(Phillips, 2006) as being psychological in nature for this examination of social networking.

What this modern definition of addiction leaves unresolved however is the concept of ‘significant harm’. Any concept of harm is something that is very subjective and raises the major point that “[t]he number of people constructed as harmed by a condition will depend on how the parameters of the condition are constructed and it will depend on how harm is defined. The more included in the definition of the condition and in the definition of harm, the more harm will be found” (Loseke 2003, 56). This paper, unfortunately, cannot consider the question of harm in great depth given its limitations, however for the purposes of consideration here, harm should be thought of as resulting in reduced well being for the participant of social networking and those they interact with, whether or not they may also be involved in using social networking. This broadens the impact considerations of social networking beyond simply those who only interact using the technologies of social networking. There is now the expectation that many participants’ use of social networking may indeed also impact others whom they have relationships with but who do not use social networking technologies themselves.

It is also important here to focus any examination of the ‘syndrome at the centre’ specifically being the technologies of social networking rather than the wider characteristics of the Internet including such items as web browsing, email or chat. To achieve that we must now define what social networking is and more importantly, examine what the unique characteristics of social networking are.

Boyd and Ellison define social networking “as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd & Ellison 2007). Other important characteristics of social networking are that they are “organized around people” (Lytras & Ordonez de Pablo 2009, 58) who can be geographically independent from each other and “that users can specify their social networks and make them visible to others”. (Lytras & Ordonez de Pablo 2009, 58).

The key element of social networking that we can therefore deduce and focus on for this study is that users obtain enjoyment by “using the computer as a medium to communicate with others” (Beardon & Malborg 2002, 115) and that “the gratification obtained from using a computer reaches outside the grey box and into the psychic and social life of the user” (Beardon & Malborg 2002, 115). The aim will now be to show that this gratification can manifest itself as the syndrome that triggers what we have previously defined as addiction.

With a better understanding of addiction and the key enticements of social networking it is now possible to examine more closely whether there is a correlation between the two. In general, someone who is addicted suffers firstly a persistent need to use an item, secondly a failure to limit, or stop using that item, and thirdly continues using it despite negative experiences and dangerous situations. In many cases they need to use it to feel normal and cope with everyday life. It becomes a way to relieve stress, emotional discomfit, or levels of sadness (Rose 2009).

Let us take each of these symptoms of addiction in turn and see whether they can be applied to social networking. The first symptom to consider is of suffering a persistent need to use and continuing to use it despite negative experiences. A Retevo study found that about that “56% of social media users need to check FaceBook at least once a day. Even more impressive are the 12% who check in every couple of hours” (Retrevo 2010). Other studies show that once people are introduced to social networking they feel an obligation to keep in touch as well as provide their networks with frequent ‘status updates’ (People from Cossette 2009). The compulsion to constantly report one’s status certainly drives a persistent need to use social networks. Also, given the ease of access to technology, any such dependency can be easily facilitated because the “biggest enabler for such addiction seems to be smartphones and mobile applications” (Expeditus Media 2009). Thus, the frequent compulsion to update combined with the increasing ease with which this can be facilitated is driving a persistent need to use social networking.

One of the many dangers with people’s constant need to publish information is of not being “aware of all the information they are giving away”. (Romm-Livermore & Setzekom 2008, 231). Because there a “general trust toward the group as a whole, and people use trust to reduce complexity and uncertainty and to enable collaboration and communication” (Romm-Livermore & Setzekom 2008, 231), users of social networking have potentially compromised their privacy. The immediate need to communicate and collaborate via social networking appears to override consideration about the ramifications of the breadth and persistence of divulged personal information into the future. The very same tools that are being used by those participants in social networking, such as search engines, can also be utilized by unknown third parties to collate, aggregate and collect such information and utilize it, without permission, in a way never envisioned by the individual who originally published it. Even though some privacy features do exist for social networking technologies many “didn’t even bother using these privacy features. Only 20 percent of Facebook used any form of privacy on Facebook. The rest are letting the world see their private life on Facebook” (Tapscott 2008, 67).

The highest profile destructive influence of social networks is the strain that it places on relationships. A study by social psychologists from the University of Guelph in Canada “suggest that rather than enhancing communication between romantic partners, Facebook use may be fueling wild flights of jealous investigation” (Healy 2010). A revealing result was that “[f]or some participants in the study, these investigations led to searching behavior they described as ’addictive’” (Healy 2010). Although such studies have been limited in their demographic the “the researchers surmised that Facebook might unleash the same dynamics in adult relationships” (Healy 2010). There are unfortunately few authoritative studies that provide definitive information about the harm that social networking can cause relationships, however some extreme examples are situations where one individual partner actually murders the other because of a relationship that developed via Facebook ((Ninemsn 2009) and (Pyatt 2010)).

The second symptom to consider is, using it to cope with everyday life, in effect needing to use it to feel “normal”. The reason for this may lay with the fact that social networking environments are perceived by users to be ideal, for example:

“She says problems arise when users ignore family and work obligations because they find the Facebook world a more enjoyable place to spend time than the real world” (Cohan, 2009).

and

“Facebook is a fun, pleasant, happy, beautiful world. People only present the crème de la crème of their lives on Facebook. And these people want to be your friends! It’s very seductive” (Cohan, 2009).

This perceived ideal world, like other addictive influences, is the result of excessive use. Internet technologies including social networks can also allow users to participate with any identity they desire. For many, it becomes a way to escape the everyday life and “if you’re neglecting your relationships, your work, or other important things in your life, than you may have a problem” (Saisan & Smith & Segal June 2009). Any retreat from reality into the realm of social networking is a manifestation of impaired control over behaviour which is a key component of addiction.

The final symptom to be considered here is the preoccupation with obtaining and using the substance. A Nielsen study (Neilsenwire February 2010) “found that the average time users spend on Facebook per month grew nearly 10%, topping seven hours”. A Comscore study revealed that globally, “the average minutes spent on Facebook by visitors to the site averaged 186 each day” and that almost “half of all users return to the site each day and on average will spend 25 minutes on the site daily”. (Aleman & Wartman 2008, 7). These studies seem to indicate that not only does the use of a single social networking site like Facebook already have a significant priority in participants’ day but that they use the site multiple times throughout the same day and that these usage patterns are increasing. Such patterns are acknowledged by people such as Dr. Kimberly Young who highlight that “[i]t’s hard to wean yourself”, because “[i]t’s like any other addiction” (Hafner 2009).

Some may argue that addiction to social networking is rooted in conditions that are predisposed because “[n]o research has yet established that there is a disorder of Internet addiction that is separable from problems such as loneliness or problem gambling, or that a passion for using the Internet is long-lasting” (DeAngelis 2000).

Even the “[t]he American Psychiatric Association hasn’t recognized social-networking disorder as an actual addiction. But that doesn’t mean some mental health experts haven’t noticed the compulsion to use Twitter, Facebook and other networks”. (Rose 2009). It was not however until 1980 that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was added to the Diagnostic and statistical manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association 1987), even though it was a recognized condition for individuals involved in events like war. Simply because it hasn’t been formally defined does not therefore mean that it doesn’t exist.

In conclusion, it could be claimed that any human activity has the potential to become addictive. It is also important to remember that the technologies that comprise the Internet, of which social networking is one, are relatively new in our cultural experience. In many ways this means that we have not as yet fully determined and experienced how these technologies interact with our existing society, as the lack of available systematic studies indicates. Social networking is however becoming an increasingly important factor when examining the way that people communicate and interact. When considered in this way it can be demonstrated that social networking has the potential to impair control over behavior because firstly participants feel a persistent need to use it, secondly they are increasingly using it cope with everyday life and finally they can become preoccupied with it. In the event of this loss of control, significant harm is being manifested for participants of which they tend to ignore.

Likewise, just because there currently isn’t a recognized social networking addiction disorder does not mean that it doesn’t or will not exist. However, as the size of social networking grows and the demographic of people who regularly participate in social networking also grows, any impact will certainly become more widely recognized (Neilsenwire January 2010). Yet the signs already point to social networking being a central syndrome altering the behavior of those who use it. Unfortunately, this is harming those participants in ways they may not be able to immediately see. It would be an error to simply dismiss something as not being addictive simply because it is not physical or something that we are familiar with. As this paper has been able to illustrate, use of Internet technologies known as social networking, closely align with many aspects recognized as being addictive and therefore should be considered as indeed being addictive because used without control it can inflict harm on participants like any other addictive substance.

Bibliography

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition – Revised).

Beardon, Colin & Malborg Lone (2002), Digital creativity: a reader, Swets & Zeitlinger

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007), Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved 25 April 2010 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Cohan, Elizabeth (2009, 23 April). Five Clues That You are Addicted to Facebook, CNN. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/23/ep.facebook.addict/index.html.

DeAnglies, Tori. (2000) Is Internet Addiction real?, Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of the American Psychological Association, Volume 31, Number 4, April 2000. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/addiction.aspx.

Expeditus Media (2009, November). Study: Social Media Addiction is Getting Serious. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://expeditusmedia.com/study-social-media-addiction-is-getting-serious.

Hafner, Katie (2009, December 20). To Deal With Obsession, Some DeFriend Facebook. New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/technology/internet/21facebook.html?_r=1

Healy, Melissa (2009, September 4). Facebook Can Threaten Relationships, LA Times. Retrieved on 25 April 2010 from http://www.latimes.com/features/chi-la-he-capsule10-2009aug10,0,6068403.story

Lytras M D & Ordonez de Pablos P (2009), Social Web Evolution: Integrating Semantic Applications and Web 2.0 Technologies (Advances in Semantic Web and Information Systems). Information Science Reference.

Loseke, Donileen (2003). Thinking about social problems: an introduction to constructionist perspectives, Aldine Transaction

Martínez Alemán, Ana M. & Wartman Katherine Lynk (2008). Online Social Networking on Campus: Understanding What Matters in Student Culture, Routledge

Neilsenwire (2010, February 16). Facebook Users Average 7 Hrs a Month in January as Digital Universe Expands. Retrieved 25 April 2010 from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/facebook-users-average-7-hrs-a-month-in-january-as-digital-universe-expands/

Neilsenwire (2010, January 22). Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spent on Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter-global-time-spent-on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/.

Ninemsn (2009, 2 September). Man strangled partner over Facebook, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/857172/man-strangled-partner-over-facebook.

People from Cossette (2009, November). Social media study report, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.slideshare.net/luccormier/social-media-study-2009-by-people-from-cossette-2666286.

Phillips, Helen (2006, 26 August). Hooked: Why your brain is primed for addiction. New Scientist. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125661.200-hooked-why-your-brain-is-primed-for-addiction.html?full=true.

Pyatt, Jamie and Millard, Neil (2010, April 1). Facebook affair behind murder, suicide, Herald Sun, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/facebook-affair-behind-murder-suicide/story-e6frf7jx-1225848300467.

Retrevo, “Is social media a new addiction?”, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.retrevo.com/content/blog/2010/03/social-media-new-addiction%3F.

Romm-Livermore, Celia & Setzekorn Kristina (2008). Social Networking Communities and E-Dating Services: Concepts and Implications. Information Science Reference.

Rose, Sanity (2009, 2 August). Social Networking Addiction, Health and Wellness, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2014392/social_networking_addiction.html?cat=72.

Saisan, Joanna, & Segal, Jeanne & Cutter Deborah (2009, January). Drug Abuse and Addiction. HelpGuide.org. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/drug_substance_abuse_addiction_signs_effects_treatment.htm#effects.

Saisan, Joanna and Smith, Melinda and Segal, Robert, and Segal, Jeanne. (2009, June) Internet Addiction: Signs, Symptoms, Treatment, and Self-Help. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://helpguide.org/mental/internet_cybersex_addiction.htm.

Tapscott, Don (2008) Grown up digital: how the net generation is changing your world, McGraw-Hill

Tilbury, Alex (2008, October). New technology can be addictive for some, The Australian. Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,,24487102-15306,00.html.

West, Robert BSc, PhD (Psychology) London University (2006). Theory of Addiction, Wiley-Blackwell.

This paper is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia Licence.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/au/

Social Networks addiction, Facebook, Social Networking

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by nikon s8100 about 2 months ago. Reply

After study a few of the blog posts on your website now, and I truly like your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back soon. Pls check out my web site as well and let me know what you think.
Written by MilanaK about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi

Have to say very informative paper. I think that online socialising sites can be very addictive. As a response to another paper, I quickly researched addiction to Facebook games. I found way to beat the addiction, how to manage this addiction etc. It was quite impressive all the information I found. I particularly found personal comments from people very interesting. In the link below, you can read people responses to question how much time they spend playing games such as Farmville, Mafia Wars and other games. I can’t believe people spend up to 8 hours playing games.

I’ve been addicted to Facebook but am slowly swaying away from it. I finally realised, after probably 2 years, that I’m wasting my time (better late than never I guess ) There are also people who are always there, every time I log in and people who play every possible game that exists on Facebook.

There are also people I know, friend of a friend, who visits and goes on facebook to read updates, email ppl etc. I think online socialising is becoming a big part of our culture where people are very addictive.

Great work. Good luck
Milana
Written by esti1 about 2 years ago. Reply

We often talk about addiction to social networking sites, almost as a joke, but this paper has made me aware that this could be quite a serious issue.

In my paper, “Social Networks Are Effective Marketing Tools” (Waks, 2010), I discuss why social networks can be used by businesses to assist in marketing their products and services. I point to reasons such as the popularity of social networking sites, and the ripple effect that they can have in terms of promoting a product or service. Your argument that social networks are addictive could in fact be a further argument that could be used to support my contention.
Yet, at the same time, your paper makes me wonder whether it is socially responsible for businesses to utilize platforms that are in fact wreaking havoc in people’s lives. For example, you argue that “the highest profile destructive influence of social networks is the strain that it places on relationships”.

However, I do not think there is much validity to my musings. That is, I believe that when all is said and done, people are responsible and accountable for their own actions, and that while businesses should not provide misinformation, harmful information, or non family-friendly content, they cannot control people’s addictions, and should not boycott social networking sites because of the personal problems of its users.
Reference:

Waks, E. (2010). Social Networks Are Effective Marketing Tools. Retrieved May 16th 2010 from http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/social-networks-marketing-tools/
Written by Cathy Brzeski about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi There

Your introduction was really strong because it defined exactly what addiction is and stated the common perceptions of what addiction compromises which can lead to instant negative opinions.

I agree with your key argument based on how i feel in relation to this topic. I am ‘addicted’ to Facebook and i would say most of my friends are too. I think one the key indicators of this is craving to use it, and feeling uneasy if we haven’t logged in to see what everyone is up to.

Sometimes i feel a sense of unease if i know there have been all these posts and updates made and i havn’t had time to read them. I feel like i’m missing out on what everyone is up to.

Thankyou for this well written paper
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Appreciate the positive feedback. Thinking about your comments perhaps one of the areas that I did not explore is the impact of peer pressure. As you you mention, you feel a sense of unease when you have not accessed Facebook for a while because you believed you have missed out on something. Perhaps in some way that is driven by a desire to feel part of a group or community. I’m not sure whether that could really be defined explicitly as addiction but it certainly would appear to conform to the symptoms.
  
  Perhaps the real ‘addictive’ quality of SNS is the ’social’ aspect rather than the technology. Perhaps there are a fear that you’ll miss out on something that everyone else in the world will know about. Perhaps there is a fear of being excluded. However, at an extreme this would lead to information overload because one can only process/follow so much information at any one time. As the number of friends and contacts grow so to this volume of information. As Clay Shirky notes perhaps it isn’t information overload but filter failure, but that is a another paper.
  
  Thanks
  @directorcia
  
  Shirky, Clay (n.d.), Web 2.0 Expo NY: Clay Shirky (shirky.com) It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure. Retrieved 15 May 2010 from http://web2expo.blip.tv/file/1277460/
Written by JasonK about 2 years ago. Reply

In your paper, you explain the definition of addiction, but don’t really touch on the fact that there have always been people who suffer from addictive personality disorder.

According to Mason (2009) approximately 10 to 15 percent of the entire population of the planet has an addictive personality. 10 to 15 percent of the entire population of the planet is approx 900 million people. If these people use the Internet we can safely assume that there is a real possibility they will become addicted to whatever services they are using such as SNS’s etc.

Having said that, I do think that the instant feedback/validation/attention we receive from SNS’s can become addictive to certain people who are not necessarily suffering from Addictive Personality Disorders.

LIke you say, any activity can become addictive, and the Internet and SNS’s are part of this. In China, the authorities have gone so far to not only acknowledge that Internet addiction is a real condition, but they have created Internet Addiction camps, to help those people suffering from this condition and “cure” them.

Macartney (2008) states in the article about Internet addiction in China,

“Dr Tao said that he compared his data with that of experts in the United States, where internet addiction is not recognised as a disease. He had determined that an addict spent 6.13 hours online each day, a figure that coincided with the US assessment of 6.14 hours a day. Research by the internet media company InterActiveCorp showed that 42 per cent of Chinese youngsters polled felt addicted to the internet, compared with 18 per cent in the US. Surveys by the China Network Information Centre showed that nearly half of China’s online population were aged between 18 and 30. ”

The fact that the American Psychiatric Association doesn’t yet recognize Internet addiction as a clinical disorder doesn’t mean that it isn’t. We should remember that the labeling of people as mentally ill or that they have a disorder is very subjective.

China has a taken a world first step and acknowledged this disorder and is trying to treat the youth who suffer from it. An interesting article that highlights the problems of Internet addiction and the treatments to try and cure those afflicted is in an article from Time, written by Jiang (2009) who says the following about the problem,

“With the world’s largest netizen population of 300 million, China is struggling with a new plight: Internet obsession among its youth. Since the 2004 establishment of the country’s first Internet Addiction Center, the military-run boot camp in Beijing where Wang took her son, more than 3,000 adolescent and young-adult patients have been treated for Internet addiction. Hundreds of similar treatment centers have mushroomed in recent years in China, joining other centers operating elsewhere in Asia and the U.S. The U.S.-based Center for Internet Addiction Recovery classifies the disorder as compulsive behavior in which “the Internet becomes the organizing principle of addicts’ lives.”"

The sooner this is acknowledged by countries like the US, the sooner thousands of people will be able to seek help.

A good paper highlighting yet another aspect of the Internet and SNS’s that is largely forgotten by the media. Good paper and well presented, a joy to read.

Jiang, J. (2009). Inside China’s Fight Against Internet Addiction. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1874380,00.html

Mason, S. (2009). The addictive personality. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200903/the-addictive-personality

Macartney, J. (2008, November 11). Internet addiction made an official disorder in China. Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5125324.ece
- Written by Cathy Brzeski about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hey Jason, your comment was very informative and linked to the issue being discussed here very well. What astonished me is the mention of China’s military camp used to fight internet addiction. I think this is a very traditional approach which kind of says “snap out of it”. Of course we don’t know the structure of regime of the camp, but i believe that internet addiction can be a result of personal issues in ones life.
  
  Addiction doesn’t just form on its own but is usually based on pre-existing feelings and emotions. Thanks for sharing your research
  - Written by JasonK about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    China, although considered to be the “bad guy” on the worlds stage is actually very pro-active in many areas that the West is not; acknowledging Internet addiction as a real disorder and having a plan in place to treat the condition is cutting edge when you compare that to the US has not even acknowledged it.
    
    The only thing that I have read about the camps so far is that they are hard core and some deaths have resulted from kids being pushed too far according to one example where Yanping (2009) states,
    
    “Counselors in the camp put the 15-year-old boy in solitary confinement within hours of his arrival and beat him to death after they “scolded” him for running too slowly, Deng’s father said.”
    
    Although there have been some deaths, I think largely the system works. I would assume that there are also deaths in other rehabilitation centers like for drug and alcohol addiction in the west, so although deaths are tragic, it is probably accepted by authorities that this will occur.
    
    Yanping, Z. (2009). Parents of teen who died at Internet camp want answers. ChinaDaily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-08/05/content_8522196.htm
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Appreciate the positive feedback.
  
  Addictive personality disorders are certainly something worth investigating as you mentioned. I have certainly had my eyes opened up to the fact that even the simply concept of what society may consider as addiction can indeed be very complex.
  
  It would seem to me that who concept needs to be looked at very scientifically which is difficult to do when addiction involves emotion and psychology. I get the impression that many people ‘know’ what addiction is but can’t adequately define it. Obviously before you can say that SNS are addictive you need to precisely define what addiction is. Unfortunately, the most generic definition I could find refers to this undefined concept of harm. So you end up chasing your tail a little if you want a true scientific definition of addiction.
  
  The items you mention about China are interesting. I wonder whether the figures they see are replicated in other populations? That is could we expect that X% of any population can be/is addicted to the Internet and SNS?
  
  As you note, and as I also highlight in my paper, just because there isn’t a formal definition or recognition of a disorder around Internet and SNS addiction doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If it does, and a very strong case can be made that it does, then as you say authorities need to be looking at how to deal with it because it isn’t going to go away.
  
  Thanks
  @directorcia
Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply

So here’s a scenario to consider in light of all this discussion. What steps would you take if you believe some you knew well (say close family member or friend) exhibited the signs of what you considered being addicted to SNS?

How would you handle that? What would you do?

Now perhaps contrast that reaction to the same situation but say that same individual was showing signs of being addicted to drugs. Would your actions be different? If so how?

If both cases are confirmed examples of addiction shouldn’t your actions towards the person be almost identical? Are we making a subject judgment about what we consider addiction and then basing our actions on those presumptions?

Given that most people’s reaction to the different ‘addiction’ scenarios would be dissimilar does that imply that part of any addiction is what the addiction is to? Such that perhaps addiction to chocolate is the not the same as addiction to illicit drugs? Is it possible to define addiction without linking it to something?

From the discussions here it certainly doesn’t appear to be in most people’s mind, which in the end is probably what addiction really is – what it means to others.

Thanks
@directorcia
- Written by Cathy Brzeski about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hey there, based on your question i would definitely address the person and question them and whether they believe they have a problem.
  
  I’ve never addressed a friend in relation to SNS addiction but i have addressed a friend about drug addiction. I think people can only seek help if they want help, self will is a key element. As with the case of a friend i had which developed a drug problem, she didn’t believe she had a problem and therefore did not seek help.
  
  The way i would approach a SNS addict and Drug addict would be similar in the sense that i would question them and try to help them. But i guess with drugs its much more serious so i would be a lot more persistent, involved and forceful.
  - Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    It is very interesting that you have already had to confront someone with something as serious as a drug addiction. It is also interesting that you would apply the same strategy in relation to SNS addiction. This certainly indicates the conditions must exhibit similarities and that addiction isn’t purely limited to substance abuse.
    
    I think that many other people would share your opinion that drug addiction is more serious but certainly a case could be made that SNS addiction could cause similiar ‘harm’. Perhaps because we can see the physical manifestations of substance addiction we believe that it is more serious. Perhaps and analogy is the struggle that many who have mental illness, such as depression, struggle to get the same recognition and treatment when compared to those with physical disabilities.
    
    One would contend that SNS connect us together in ways above the physical, shouldn’t therefore our consideration of the threats of psychological addiction via these same implements also rise above our traditional physical concept of addiction?
    
    Thanks
    @directorcia
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

I personally think it is a form of addiction and compulson. Ten years ago people began seriously studying this area, yet it seems we are no closer to understanding the issue and classifying internet addiction as a problem. Griffiths (2000) in 2000 stated that there was little empirical evidence to suggest any computing activities are addictive, so ten years later I wonder if this is still the case? Certainly popular media has discussed the problems of spending too much time on the internet and neglecting other things. Papers at this conference, particularly Josh’s in the Identity Stream, gave evidence to suggest addiction does exist and is powerful.

In one study Chou and Hsiao (2000) took a group of students and from the sample concluded
the addict group rated Internet impacts on their studies and daily life routines significantly more negatively than the non-addict group. That is not surprising as such but certainly is another example that your paper is important in trying to make sense of the issue and indeed argue that in some sense it is an addiction.

I do tend to agree with the article by Rose (2009) and what you wrote that in some ways the internet can be a source of comfort during difficult times as information is found and views are expressed on SNS and chat rooms. But I further agree these mediums can place strains on relationships. Overall your paper has discussed an important topic to consider; I just hope in ten years some firm conclusions can be made from growing studies in the area of internet addiction.

Chien, C. & Hsiao, M. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students’ case. Computers and Education, 35(1), 65-80.

Griffiths, M. (2000). Does Internet and Computer “Addiction” Exist? Some Case Study Evidence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(2), 211-218.

Rose, Sanity (2009, 2 August). Social Networking Addiction, Health and Wellness, Retrieved 4 April 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2014392/social_networking_addiction.html?cat=72.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Perhaps another anology is driving a car. Can you be addicted to that? It has become such a necessity and accepted part of society that no one would really consider someone could be addicted to their car. Perhaps the same can be said of Internet based technologies in that they have become so pervasive and accepted that they are simply part of society.
  
  Contrast that with TV which even though it has been around for over 50 years people still claim you can become addicted to. So now what happens when you move all that content to somewhere like YouTube. If you spend the same amount of time watching YouTube videos as you used to watch TV are you addicted to the Internet, YouTube, SNS or moving images?
  
  Maybe the technology is neutral and simply a delivery mechanism and it is truely the content that is addictive. What is therefore about the content that is addictive? Not merely moving picture, not merely sounds, not merely other people since these are all available outside TV. What makes TV content compelling? Again, it would seem the answer is much deeper that it would appear, yet easily sensationalized.
  
  On the other side of equation does any negative impact (like addiction) get outweighed by the positives the Internet et al provide? For all the people cars actually kill every year they are used in greater numbers. Why? Because the convenience far outweighs the negatives (not to take anything away from the injury and death caused). Maybe the Internet and SNS are the same. You’ll never get a perfect system but what we have seems to work pretty well until we come up with something better.
  
  Perhaps we need to learn to accpet a world of conflicts rather than absolutes when it comes to issues like addiction.
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    To add the healing professions such as psychologists would need to accept the conflicting nature of addiction. Do they look for the good in staying for long period on the internet in the many games, chat rooms, forums, SNS or simple web surfing people do? The car anology is true and can be applied to social networking, certainly the convenience of staying in touch with others especially those far away from where you live has been taken up. So in someways there are no absolutes on what constitutes addiction.
    - Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      Agreed. The real crux seems to come down to what consitutes harm. The problem is that harm can be very different for everyone. There would certainly seem to be no common way to express harm as it applies equally to all. Thus you cannot therefore paint a picture of what additcion may be because there is simply no universal comparision. Thus too many variable make it too hard to categorize.
      
      My contention would that that only universal that we could apply is the value of time, which is universal for all. Thus, I would say that if SNS result in you regretting the time you spend using them then SNS have harmed you. If such harm continues on a regular basis and you are unable to control that behavior where SNS result in you regretting the time you spent using them then that to me is the best definition of any universal concept of SNS addiction.
      
      Sure there maybe other areas that cause individuals harm however my contention would be if you regularly regret the amount of time you spend on SNS and you are unable to change this then you are addicted. That is, in my opinion, the best and simplest test for SNS addiction.
      - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        It is hoped that anyone assessing anyone for the problems they have does not generalise. For example, maybe spending vast amounts of time, obesity/exercise issues aside, might actually be doing them more good than harm. The papers in the conference argue this well. For me it is not the time spent on the SNS but rather what was posted and what I read, so in some sense it did harm, but I only contribute to groups on there now. So it definitly is a contested thing what is harm. Well put.
        
        Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        I agree that many of the papers here do argue the benefits really well, however are they biased because they have been composed be people familiar with the technology? Imagine if this was the very first subject that you attempted via OUA and you were not a heavy computer or Internet user at all. It is my belief that you would really, really struggle.
        
        So are the benefits tha people have argued in their papers that way because they themselves have apparently found benefit? I would also suggest that the peopel reading and commenting on these people would also be familiar with the technology. What would be interesting to see what ’someone off the street’ would say as to their content.
        
        Thanks
        @directorcia
Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply

I came across the following article:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/1927238281.shtml – Internet Addiction Might Actually Get Recognized By The Official Book Of Mental Disorders?

Which indicates that Internet addiction may be being considered as an ‘official’ mental disorder. However, the article also raises some of the issues raised by the paper around what exactly do we consider addiction and at what point should the line be drawn.

It also raises the interesting question of the fact that if it becomes an ‘official’ mental disoder then there maybe significant amounts of money to made out of treating it. In all honesty I had no considered this aspect during my analysis.

If SNS are ‘officially’ designated as addictive then a whole industry could spring up around treatment. A cynic would therefore claim that perhaps some of the people claiming that SNS are addictive may indeed stand to benefit financially for such a state of affairs. Obviously, there is no solid evidence of this but it is certainly something that is possible.

The more time I spend investigating this subject the more I discover it is a minefield fraught with incongruities and complications. To really do the subject justice one would really have to devote a significant amount of time and brain power to coming to a conclusion. I fear all I have done is merely scratch the surface here.
Written by jax about 2 years ago. Reply

Interesting essay. Thanks!

In a WNYC interview, Bill Tancer, author of “Click, what millions of people are doing online and why it matters” claims that since SN sites have come to the fore that traffic to porn sites has actually gone down! He claims that his data show that internet is a ‘zero sum game” – basically people have only so much free time to go online, and rather than using it to surf porn, they would rather communicate with their friends. A conclusion that could be drawn here, is that SN sites are more addictive than surfing porn, BUT I do believe what it is actually saying is that maintaining relationships with friends (even weak ties), are more important than anything else. (YES, even porn).

I believe people are inherently interested and drawn to each other and there are (as you say) reward centres associated with seeing people’s updates, news and photos. I think that’s why there are tabloid newspapers and women’s magazines (and real TV for that matter). They sell for the same reasons that SN sites are popular – a bit of voyeurism thrown in, plus a way to switch off and waste time.

I think Social Networking sites as purely an extension of people’s offline socialization. i.e. those people that are social offline are normally social online. I do not think of that need to socialize and communicate to others as addiction. Some people are just highly social creatures (as you stated in one of your comments, it mirrors their personality) and this translates into the online world of S.N. I think it is a real mistake to vilify this technology as being the cause of negative behaviours – sure they can exacerbate existing conditions in people that already have a predispostion to compulsive, obsessive behaviours, but I don’t ever think they are the cause. These people have this kind of personality anyway. About the worst they can do is waste a hell of a lot of time at the expense of writing essays!!!

WNYC (Producer) & Gladstone, B (Presenter). (2008, Feb 29). Virtual Vice: WNYC. [Podcast radio program] Retrieved March 0, 2010 from http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/02/29/04
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Interesting analogy to porn sites. I agree that it is wrong to blame the medium of SNS for causing the problems. As I have said elsewhere it is kind of like the statement about firearms, in that the defence is ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. I also like to equate it to alcohol. It is a leagilized drug that the government makes lots of excise from and used sensibly it provides a great deal of enjoyment. However, used to excess it results in violence, relationship break down and potentially death via drink driving for example. Is alcohol addictive? Even that from my research seems to be open to debate although medical evidence tends to support the affirmative.
  
  The difference is perhaps that alcohol is a substance and we are happier with the concept of digesting a substance and then observing a reaction. The more substance that is injested the greater the reaction (i.e drunkeness). However, is it the same when it comes to something psycological like SNS? Perhaps because there is not a direct correlation between excesssive usage (i.e. ‘binge’ social networking) and negative results people dismiss it as not being addictive. However, are we potentially judging something by a set of criteria that we shouldn’t? If you look at the modern definition of addiction I noted in the paper it refers to something changing behavior that causes harm. The issue, as I also noted, is what is ‘harm’? For most substances harm is physical but if you examine the definition closely it doesn’t necessarily have to be.
  
  Consider it this way. What is the most valuable resource that every person has? Time. Why? Because you can never get any more, everyone has the same amount and once it is gone it is gone. You would then have to agree that anything that ‘wastes’ times is harmful since it deprives you of a precious resource. Thus, if people are using SNS and ‘wasting’ time then they are causing themselves harm and if they have changed their behavior because of SNS then I believe there is a very strong argument, based on the definition I presnted in my paper, that SNS is indeed addictive.
  
  @directorcia
  - Written by jax about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Thanks for your comments. I just dislike blanket statements like “SNS is addictive”, too much sensationalism and too irrational – too many factors to consider and too many grey areas. I think a more appropriate way of framing it is “for some people SNS can become a compulsion” and only some people. Yes, as you say, the negative results of substance abuse are way more apparent, but what are the negative results of Social Networking “addiction” (really don’t like the term). We become more social and connected? IN GENERAL I don’t perceive that as a negative.
    
    However, in any sphere there are always extremes, but it is erroneous and misleading to judge anything by those extremes i.e. the x% of people for which it has negative consequences. I stand by my position that those people possibly would have problems in other areas of their lives as well.
    - Written by jax about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      Here’s an article I found, that while saying yes, there can be problems associated with overuse of SNS, but there are underlying reasons for this, which is a position I agree with:
      
      “Pile and the other therapists interviewed for this article were quick to say that Facebook itself isn’t the problem and that the vast majority of its 200 million users probably function just fine”
      
      The article goes on to say:
      
      “It’s especially seductive when real life isn’t going so well, Pile adds”
      
      So I believe, there are mitigating factors in Facebook becoming a REAL problem for people.
      
      Cohen (2009, April). Five clues that you are addicted to Facebook, CNN. Retrieved 6 May 2010 from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/23/ep.facebook.addict
      - Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        I too read that article however from a systematic point of view it is not very thorough. I quotes ‘interviews’ with Pile and other therapists. Specifically you could say that this article really on substantiates a few people’s opinions. It is by no means a scientific study or conclusion.
        
        Again, I think in a way we can equate this to alcohol consumption, in that millions of people enjoy it responsibly in a manner that enhances their enjoyment, with a minority abusing it and having it cause them harm. That doesn’t necessarily deny that the item is addictive it just says that its harmful effects a limited in their scope.
        
        Like you say the major issue is around the definition of what addiction actually is and in that lies the concept of ‘harm’ which I highlighted in the paper. I agree that it is easy to sensationalize SNS ‘addiction’ but can’t that be done with anything? Perhaps the reason that it can be so easily sensationaized is that we don’t fully understand its effects on human beings. We understand every less the effect it has on our minds because we can to some extent measure the physical reasons and results for physical addiction but psychological? Much more difficult.
        
        There is certainly a case for predisposition for addiction but does that completely rule out SNS (in this case) being addictive or at least attractive. SNS certainly must be attractive given the number of subscribers using the technology but as you say at what point does attraction become addiction? Difficult to say and sensationized media reports are not a sound basis to make a judgement.
        
        I suppose the first question that need to answered is do we consider SNS ‘addiction’ to be like substance ‘addiction’ i.e. do we seperate physical and psychological addiction if it exists?
        
        I think the deciding factors are
        
        1. that it is an addiction if it changes your behavior and
        2. that change is for the worse
        
        Perhaps many experience the first factor but only a very small majority both, and you can’t be ‘addicted’ unless you conform to both factors.
        
        Thanks
        @directorcia
        
        Written by Jax about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        I don’t know if I agree with your deciding factors.
        
        For me, deciding factor would be:
        
        I think of addiction as more that you have some sort of physical reaction if you are deprived of it for any period i.e. you can’t do without it, which in turn affects your physical well being and your relationships.
        
        Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        From my research you are considering addiction from the ‘old’ definition (mentioned in the paper), that spoke about physical symptoms and reactions. The more modern definition, and the route I took with this paper, was to consider addiction to be a change of behavior, whether that be psycological or physical.
        
        It is interesting that most people equate addiction to a physical need or reaction but I seem to think this doesn’t really apply in a virtual world. I have learnt a lot about what addiction could be and how hard it is to define from the paper AND from all the great feedback posted here in the comments. I sort of wish that I’d pondered all these concepts before I wrote my paper because I can now really appreciate the variation in opinions on this topic.
        
        The comment I would make about your deciding factor is how to you measure ‘affects’? if I miss a night’s sleep because of social is that an ‘affect’? If not them how many nights do I need to miss before it is considered addictive? I think the most important point everyone’s comments have made here is that we need to define addiction properly before we can even consider in light of SNS.
        
        Thanks
        @directorcia
        
        Written by jax about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        Yes, I guess re-reading your paper, I may be too narrow in my definition.
        
        To me, you hit the nail on the head here:
        
        “When considered in this way it can be demonstrated that social networking has the potential to impair control over behavior because firstly participants feel a persistent need to use it, secondly they are increasingly using it cope with everyday life and finally they can become preoccupied with it”
        
        Thus, by this definition, some users of FB would definitely be addicted.
        
        Although, just chatting to some of my work colleagues who are hard-core gamers about their gaming habits – Social Networking is nothing compared to the level of addiction that gaming can manifest.
Written by waisitham about 2 years ago. Reply

I agree the part where you mentioned ‘One of the many dangers with people’s constant need to publish information is of not being “aware of all the information they are giving away.” As in a part of my paper have stated that the emergence of social networking site leads people giving up their privacy information due to it requires no face-to-face contact, which brings easy to open and honest. Hence, people are not having high awareness the danger of giving all the information away.

However, Facebook provides a stalker-friendly tool, which makes stalkers life easier by providing the privacy feature of allowing everyone to view a person’s page, don’t you think so?

Although a number of privacy features do exist for social networking technologies, but the trend for Facebook is to publish all information publicly accessible, isn’t it?

In paper, I agree Rees (n.d.) argued that the tend for Facebook and other popular networking sites means that people no longer value their privacy because they put their entire lives online for anyone to view.Would this be the reason of why Facebook users tend to let the world see their private life on Facebook?

Why Facebook allows the option of ‘everyone’ can view your page in the privacy setting? Is it a sign of encouraging collaboration and communication or stalking?

Reference:
Rees, G. (n.d.). My internet ‘friend’ become a virtual stalker. Daily Mail, Retrieved 25 April, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  I believe much of the problem revolves around the current ‘cult of the celebrity’ that is pervasive within our western society and that many people want to participate in. Reality TV shows like Big Brother, Survivor, etc portray groups of ‘real’ individuals. Many people readily swallow this without understanding that at the end of the day it is all about ratings, i.e. money. Even though we live in a society that is full of attention so many are totally deprived of it that they will got to almost any lengths to be ‘popular’.
  
  Facebook is no different. It is a commercial concern whose priority in life is to return on investment for shareholders. There is nothing wrong with that however many people overlook this fact simply believing that Facebook is doing something beneovalent for them. The more people share and collaborate the more Facebook can profile them and then sell that information to advertisers.
  
  This links back to my concept on addiction. It is in Facebook’s (and other SNS) interests to make their sites and services as addictive as possible to gain greater market share. The major problem is that most people learn about the Internet and technology by using. Thus, they typically learn and use the easiest functions. The more important ones are buried layers deep to remain obscured to give the SNS businesses the most chance of capturing as much information as possible.
  
  The other issue is that current generations utilizing SNS do not yet have the benefit of experience with these technologies, they are guinea pigs. Those who are less inhibited and outgoing tend to take up the services first since it mirrors their personality. Being key influences within their social circle they encourage more members to join and the circle continues.
  
  At the end of the day most people do not value their privacy. They don’t know what it is like to loose it. They are fed a constant diet of tabloid TV and press that demonstrates that prying into people’s personal lives is fair game. Thus, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are letting ourselves become addicted to this lifestyle while failing ot appreciate the conditions and trade offs that accompany them, even though they are in the fine print SOMEWHERE on the site.
  
  Thanks
  @directorcia
Written by Sharlene about 2 years ago. Reply

This was an interesting article about the ideal of social networking being addictive.
I have to agree with DeAngleis 2000, that to be addicted to something you generally will have the predisposition to addiction in the first place. The web is used not only on a social scale; it is also being used for commercial use for transactions, information seeking etc. I think it can be easy to see something as an addiction when it may be able to be categorised as a fad. MySpace was the most popular social networking tool, then came along facebook, then came along Twitter. I think with social networking and web 2.0 tools, people will continually use what is seen as the most popular medium until the next fad of social networking is developed and then move onto that.

Have any studies conducted involved both social addiction and other addictions? It would be interesting to see if people are generally just addicted to social networking or this has simply become one of their addictions.

I agree that we still have a long way to go for more valued research in the area of web technologies and the affects that they are having on society and people. Hopefully, in time we can then see if social networking is indeed has addicts.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Perhaps there is a link between predisposition and addiction but the better question is probably can this disposition be identified? Is it possible to identify that because your reclusive that you’re more likley to become addicted to SNS or is the fact the you are gregarious you are more likely to be addicted?
  
  What interests me about the fads of SNS as you mention is what makes them popular? What is the tipping point at which they become something that everyone gets into? There are plenty of other examples of SNS out there by what is Facebook so popular? Perhaps if you could boil down the essences of it appeal you could determine what makes it attractive to such a wide audience.
  
  There are few systematic studies on addiction and SNS from what I could fine. There is a lot of heresay and information from people like Neilsen but there doesn’t seem to be a significant amount of clinical and academic evidence to provide answers one way or the other. Perhaps this simply because the whole SNS is something very new.
  
  I would expect that as we progress more and more research will be conducted but in the end I think that it comes down more to human interactions that the technology. Why do people enjoy this band and not that band? Likewise what is the appeal of some movies and TV shows? Is it just the material it contains or is it the fact that the trend setters find it appeal and therefore lead the way so to speak?
  
  I believe it is incorrect to merely equate time used with addiction simply because would you classify people talking on the phone for hours aas being addictied to phones? I don’t so, they are simply using the technology to facilitate what their communications which is probably more likley what they are addicted to – simply interacting. The simpler and cheaper they are able to do that the more they are going to do. Is that addiction? The formal definition of addiction seems to indicate that unless it alters their behavior it isn’t.
Written by VickyK about 2 years ago. Reply

I agree the notion of addiction is hard to define, especially in terms of SNS. The ability to ‘go without’ for a period of time would indicate that it’s not a true addiction, although I’m sure people have ‘binges’ every now and again – isn’t this as bad?! It also depends what people are sacrificing to ‘fuel’ their addictions and what else is going on in their lives that should take priority. My paper is also on Facebook, moreso the antisocial aspects of the service, rather than addiction (Facebook: taking the social out of networking) and find it really concerning that people can prefer to associate with their online ‘friends’ and neglect those important real world relationships. I suppose there is a fine line between addictive behaviour and plain old bad habits for some people.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  The definition of addiction I found isn’t really going without it is about something that causes a change of behavior. It would seem that for some people Facebook does change their behavior in the fact that they need to be checking it regularly and get jittery when they can’t.
  
  You are right that it is important to determine what effect this behavior may have. The definition of addiction refers to harm (which again is hard to define), however is it addictin if you spend all yoru time on Facebook and it does you no harm? That certainly doesn’t logically seem to work but by the definition it would. Again, the issue about what I have tried to do is work in the parameters that I defined initially about addiction. I agree that other things ’should’ take priority but these are simply assumptions made by you and I.
  
  I have read and commented on your paper I believe. You mention ‘important real world relationships’ but are they any different to virtual ones? Are they any more important? If the face of our society is changing to being engaged more on line how you we make a distinction between online being bad and offline being good? I believe that simply applies less and less everyday as Internet relationships become a bigger and bigger part of our lives everyday. What would happen if you could only converse with your family on Facbook? Does this make it bad simply because it is online? I don’t think so. Again, I think it comes down to this concept of harm. Is the person on Facebook being harmed and who is the best person to judge whether they are being harmed? Interesting questions.
Written by RadekV about 2 years ago. Reply

What about differences between SNS, can Twitter be more addictive then for example Facebook or MySpace?
I have seen my colleges to use Twitter while they driving but not Facebook.
I am not Twitter user but it seems to me that it encourage its users to check the site more frequently then for instance Facebook.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Certainly a great extension of what I started here would be to continue on and examine the specifics of different SNS sites in order to locate what exact features of each make them most addictive. You could then possible aggregate those findings into a single set of requirements to be sold to the highest bidder of coures ha ha.
  
  I think perhaps Twitter is seen as more addictive because it is quicker and simpler to operate and therefor functions on mobile devices well. I also think that it realy isn;t as full featured as something like Facebook with all its apps for example. Even though Twitter may appear more addictive I would certainly believe that Facebook would win hands down for actual time spent accessing the site whereas Twitter would probably win with the highest number of visits per day.
  
  The other issue to consider is, as been the case with MySpace, is that sites fall out of favour. Why did this happen with MySpace? Was it because it was purchased by News Corp or was it already on it way out? If so why was that? Is there some feature that Facebook has that MySpace doesn’t?
  
  As you can appreciate there is really a lot of further really interesting analysis that could be conducted on many of the question you pose here.
Written by Andrew Pettigrew about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Directorcia,

Good title, the term “addictive” is somewhat controversial and gets the readers interest. After reading your paper I then Googled “Facebook addiction” and found there are numerous entries in both the public and academic sphere. Recently I attended a presentation by Facebook, they said there were over 9 million Australians on Facebook and each day 4.1 million logged in and actively used the site. It’s not only the number of users using the site, it’s the amount of time that they spend on the site. In my paper quote the Neilsen Research findings (Neilsen, 2010) where the average time spent by users on Facebook, is three times longer than spent other major sites such as Google, Yahoo etc.

Yes I agree with you that Social Networking sites are addictive and apart from the cool stuff, chatting, photos, keeping in touch, there is also the bullying, identity theft, and other negative sides to this phenomenon. Apart from all this, these sites are addictive “time suckers,” they consume vast amounts of time and it’s the other parts of our lives that are suffering as a result. Yes we may be using it to fill in time when we are bored (particularly Gen Y & Z), however it is the multiple hours spent each day, the obsessive nature and long term use of these sites that’s a major concern. (i.e. distracting you from the important things in your life, such as family, school work, exercise etc)

You might like to look at papers on Dr Young’s website called Net Addiction http://www.netaddiction.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=90

Neilsen. (2010). Internet Usage Statistics. The Neilsen Company. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://en-us.nielsen.com/rankings/insights/rankings/internet
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  I agree that there are plenty of articles out there concerning Facebook addiction but in my initial edit many of these were not deemed academically suitable as they were not systematic. As such, I had to try and find something of a more academic basis and this, I admit, turned out to be more difficult than I thought. I suspect that everyone accepts that Facebook is addictive but no one has really gone out to prove that imfactically.
  
  I agree that Facebook is certainly ‘the’ site although the Neilsen report you quote talk about time spent but over what period? My understanding is hours per month, which makes the figure appear low (only 7 hours a month!). I also have read where these statictics don’t make fair comparisions because something like Twitter has a very open API allowing it to be use by many third party developers who never allow users to actually visit the Twitter web site even though they are availing themselves of its services. How do you count these? Also what about the situation where I can post from Twitter to Facebook to Linkedin? Is that one count for Twitter access or one count for all 3?
  
  As I noted in my paper a true systematic study of the addictiveness of SNS is rarer than I thought it would be. I suppose this also has to do with the changing nature of those sites. If Facebook suddenly allows Google to index its pages are the comparisons still fair?
  
  I certainly agree that SNS can consume many hours and as I noted in the update posted below that once your brain is ‘rewired’ to check Facebook when you have a free moment then you are confirming addictive behavior. The problem is what is ‘important’? It is different for different people. Maybe people don’t want to be involved with family, school work etc. Is that ‘important’ to them or has their behavior been affected so they now believe that is ‘unimportant’? Or is that a belief system imposed from an external party?
  
  My experience researching this paper is that addiction is a far more difficult concept to define and prove that I thought it would be. It is something that everyone know what it is but struggles to explain it.
  
  Thanks for those sites however I do note that I wanted to be more specific in my paper and focus on SNS addiction rather than general Internet addiction. This too is more difficult than I though because it all tends to get bundled together these days and many SNS include standard technologies like email. Is it possible to seperate SNS from Internet addiction now? Perhaps not but was the Internet as addictive before SNS or has SNS make it more addictive?
Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply

Some other interesting observations that I just came across about addiction from John Ratey include:

“The common denominator is an out-of-control reward system, which some people are born with and other develop” (Ratley 2008, 168)

and

“Scientists now consider addiction a chronic disease because it wires in a memory that triggers a behavior” (Ratley 2008, 172)

The first quotes goes to the point that Zohara Ibrahim speaks about in fact that not everyone gets addicted to social networking, yet it does convey my points that you may have a disaposition genetically or you may develop this with use.

The second quotes goes to what RadekV was saying about his work colleagues checking Facebook because they have nothing better to do. The issue is that they have become ‘wired’ to use Facebook when they have nothing to occupy themselves, it has become a reflex reaction in effect and this certainly has the hallmarks of Facebook being addictive and would further confirm my position that social networking (like Facebook) is addictive because it has caused a change in behavior that may now be considered ‘normal’.

Bibliography

Ratey, John MD (2008). Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise and the brain.Hachette Book Group, New York, USA.
Written by craigj about 2 years ago. Reply

Hey directorcia,

In my studies I came across this:

O’Murchu, Breslin and Decker (2004) stated that “[a] lot of these sites are extremely addictive and it is quite easy to spend valuable time searching through the sites out of curiosity or from a voyeuristic point of view … where there are galleries of persons to view and where the relationships are explicit” ( para. 90).

This would differ from person-to-person.

References:
O’Murchu, I., Breslin, J. G., & Decker, S. (2004). Online Social and Business Networking Communities, Proceedings of ECAI 2004 Workshop on Application of Semantic Web Technologies to Web Communities. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.4901&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Certainly. Any addiction clearly has something to do with the stimulation of the brain. Since humans beings are far more visual (i.e we prefer pictures to words and we prefer moving pictures, that is videos, to static pictures) the more visually stimulating an environment the more likley it is to be addictive.
  
  You would therefore think that sites with lost of pictures, especially of other people would be highly addictive. The sites that immediately spring to mind in relation to this effect woul dbe dating sites. Although technicially not Web 2.0 social networks, they are very similiar if you consider the characteristics of the definition of social networks I believe. Clearly their major attraction is viewing pictures of other people.
  
  I would assume that someone has done a study on the addictive nature of dating sites? I”ll have a look and see if I can find anything.
  
  Appreciate the comment.
Written by Zohara Ibrahim about 2 years ago. Reply

Again, according to your point as above She says problems arise when users ignore family and work obligations because they find the Facebook world a more enjoyable place to spend time than the real world” (Cohan, 2009).

and

“Facebook is a fun, pleasant, happy, beautiful world. People only present the crème de la crème of their lives on Facebook. And these people want to be your friends! It’s very seductive” (Cohan, 2009).

I disagree, NOT all people or users say or agree Facebook world a more enjoyable, because real life such as going campaign, picnic, travelling, cinema, clubbing, bar. party and other activity we usually do is more fun than facebook. Facebook is just additional hobby NOT much happening. and also, poor result school or for uni that was happen on me.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  It is similiar to alcohol usage. Not everyone drinks and not all those who consume alcohol have their behavior altered. However this does not negate the fact that for a certain percentage of the population alcohol is something that compulsively changes their behavior. I believe the same applies to social networking.
  
  The quote does not specify all Facebook users and I don’t believe this implied however I can now see where it could be interpreted that way. I therefore agree that not ALL Facebook users see Facebook as more enjoyable than the real world, however many are attracted to it because it as Cohan says ‘very seductive’.
Written by Zohara Ibrahim about 2 years ago. Reply

In my opinion, is depend on the individual or users, some of users feel bored when she or he on social networking because they do not have a lot of friends in her or his list, and also, some of users do not much how to use social networking for example FACEBOOK,. when you compare to Myspace (one of social networking) Myspace is much easier than Facebook. and also, some of users will delete their own pages if they find boring and some of them seldom online on FACEBOOK the reason is boring. However, the users become addicted when she or he have topics interesting to talk with usually happen in chat room, sending message discussion group, the other point is when she or he a lot of friends request to approve, she or he will excited to approve or not even though they never known who are they, excited to receive message & pictures comments. it was happen with my experience, according to addicted i failed all units, i used to online myspace for long time ago, I always online 24 hours 7 days NON STOP. my experience it was really bad, I was addicted using “myspace”. I was failed all my units 2 years ago in BA Agribusiness. The other one is in Social Networking such as Facebook, there a lot of games that you can play and choice available through homepage bar or link. Anyway, it depend on individual, for my opinion I am scare to join any social networking even with NING website where i have been with I always log in and chat to people and checking my messages there. Grrrrrrr….
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  I believe the central issue of whether something is addictive is if changes the behavior of an individual, particularly for the worse. Many people discover a whole of interaction via social networking.
  
  As you seem to indicate through your own experiences it changed your behavior for the worse. There is certainly further analysis that could be conducted as to whether the functionality of sites like MySpace or Facebook are more addictive but at a higher level, when you examine all these sites together the consensus appears to be that many exhibit addictive qualities. The mechanisms within each of these social networking sites that actually trigger and maintain would certainly be an interesting subject for further study. It would also interesting to discuss with people like yourself that have in some way become ‘addicted’ how their behavior with social network is now altered (i.e. avoid ing Ning).
  
  I appreciate your feedback.
Written by RadekV about 2 years ago. Reply

According to your paper 56% of social media users need to check Facebook at least once a day and 12% every couple of hours. Do you think that all users that check it several times a day are addictive or they just have nothing better to do. I find this topic about addiction very interesting, because from my personal experience at work, when we are not busy, my colleges are able to look at their Facebook profile for hours, update them several times but when we are busy they do not tend to do it.
- Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  The initial question is what defines addiction. Basically, it seems to me to be if something (in this case social networking) causes a change in behavior that leads to harm. If users are checking their Facebook rather than having lunch, doing work or doing they should be doing then they have altered their behavior and this could be judged as addictive.
  
  However, if they are in control of their Facebook usage and could go a whol day without using it then I would say they are not addicted. When the min does not have something to occupy it and a compulsion suddenly jumps into someone’s mind and they act on that compulsion I would say there is indeed an element of addiction.
  
  However, as I initially state most people make the association of addiction as being extreme like drug or drink. It may not be this extreme, however if it a compulsion that cannot be controlled then I would say it is indeed addiction.
- Written by li ying about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi, I think social networks are addictive. I am addicted to them where I have to log into Facebook and Twitter at least once a day and I think I wasted a lot of my time on social networks. But I can’t live without it because it’s where I communicate and get in touch with my friends back home through pictures and status updates. I know quite a few of my friends who are on Facebook all the time. They are either playing games such as Hotel City or just browsing pictures and profiles.
  - Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Perhaps any addiction is linked to more the social than the technology. If all your friends where on MySpace and then abandoned it for Facebook most people would follow. Thus, SNS is simply providing a platform for these social interactions to take place.
    
    Perhaps in a world that we have become so ‘busy’ (rightly or wrongly) we crave close interactions with others. Since we are unable to facilitate these physically we do so virtually. How this happens doesn’t seem to matter what matters is that we can’t seem to get enough. As other papers have noted many seem to crave a constantly growing list of contacts and ‘friends’ so they can become even more engaged.
    
    For most people this of great benefit however at some point it certainly appears to be addictive and can cause harm. What that exact point is and how you know seems to me only answerable by the individual themselves. If you worry that you are addicted then you probably are!
    
    Thanks
    @directorcia

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

Is Social Networking Addictive?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories

Pages

Tags

Latest comments

Meta