Category Archives: Internet addiction
Myth world: Addictive personality does not exist
(Please note: This article is a slightly expanded and original version of an article that was first published in The Conversation).
“Life is a series of addictions and without them we die”. This is my favourite quote in the academic addiction literature and was made back in 1990 in the British Journal of Addiction by Professor Isaac Marks. This deliberately provocative and controversial statement was made to stimulate debate about whether excessive and potentially problematic activities such as gambling, sex and work can really be classed as genuine addictive behaviours. Many of us might say to ourselves that we are ‘addicted’ to tea or coffee, our work, or know others who we might describe as having addictions watching the television or using pornography. But is this really true?
The issue all comes down to how addiction is defined in the first place as many of us in the field disagree on what the core components of addiction are. Many would argue that the word ‘addiction’ or ‘addictive’ is used so much in everyday circumstances that word has become meaningless. For instance, saying that a book is an ‘addictive read’ or that a specific television series is ‘addictive viewing’ renders the word useless in a clinical setting. Here the word ‘addictive’ is arguably used in a positive way and as such it devalues the real meaning of the word.
The question I get asked most – particularly by the broadcast media – is what is the difference between a healthy excessive enthusiasm and an addiction and my response is simple – a healthy excessive enthusiasm adds to life whereas an addiction takes away from it. I also believe that to be classed as an addiction, any such behaviour should comprise a number of key components including overriding preoccupation with the behaviour, conflict with other activities and relationships, withdrawal symptoms when unable to engage in the activity, an increase in the behaviour over time (tolerance), and use of the behaviour to alter mood state. Other consequences such as feeling out of control with the behaviour and cravings for the behaviour are often present. If all these signs and symptoms are present I would call the behaviour a true addiction. However, that hasn’t stopped others accusing me of ‘watering down’ the concept of addiction.
A few years ago, Dr. Steve Sussman, Nadra Lisha and I published a large and comprehensive review in the journal Evaluation and the Health Professions examining the co-relationship between eleven different potentially addictive behaviours reported in the academic literature (smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, taking illicit drugs, eating, gambling, internet use, love, sex, exercise, work, and shopping). We examined the data from 83 large-scale studies and reported an overall 12-month prevalence of an addiction among U.S. adults varies from 15% to 61%. We also reported it plausible that 47% of the U.S. adult population suffers from maladaptive signs of an addictive disorder over a 12-month period, and that it may be useful to think of addictions as due to problems of lifestyle as well as to person-level factors. In short – and with many caveats – our paper argued that at any one time almost half the US population are addicted to one or more behaviours.
There is a lot of scientific literature showing that having one addiction increases the propensity to have other co-occurring addictions. For instance, in my own research I have come across alcoholic pathological gamblers and we can all probably think of individuals that we might describe as caffeine-addicted workaholics. It is also very common for individuals that give up one addiction to replace it with another (which we psychologists call ‘reciprocity’). This is easily understandable as when an individual gives up one addiction it leaves a large hole in the waking lives (often referred to as the ‘void’) and often the only activities that can fill the void and give similar experiences are other potentially addictive behaviours. This has led many people to describe such people as having an ‘addictive personality’.
While there are many pre-disposing factors for addictive behaviour including genetic factors and psychological personality traits such as high neuroticism (anxious, unhappy, prone to negative emotions) and low conscientiousness (impulsive, careless, disorganised), I would argue that ‘addictive personality’ is a complete myth. Even though there is good scientific evidence that most people with addictions are highly neurotic, neuroticism in itself is not predictive of addiction (for instance, there are individuals who are highly neurotic but are not addicted to anything so neuroticism is not predictive of addiction). In short, there is no good evidence that there is a specific personality trait (or set of traits) that is predictive of addiction and addiction alone.
Doing something habitually or excessively does not necessarily make it problematic. While there are many behaviours such as drinking too much caffeine or watching too much television that could theoretically be described as addictive behaviours, they are more likely to be habitual behaviours that are important in an individual’s life but actually cause little or no problems. As such, these behaviours should not be described as an addiction unless the behaviour causes significant psychological and/or physiological effects in their day-to-day lives.
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., Gjertsen, S.R., Krossbakken, E., Kvan, S., & Ståle Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2, 90-99.
Goodman, A. (2008). Neurobiology of addiction: An integrative review. Biochemical Pharmacology, 75(1), 266-322.
Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Behavioural addictions: An issue for everybody? Journal of Workplace Learning, 8(3), 19-25.
Griffiths, M.D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10, 191-197.
Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The role of context in online gaming excess and addiction: Some case study evidence. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 119-125.
Griffiths, M.D. & Larkin, M. (2004). Conceptualizing addiction: The case for a ‘complex systems’ account. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 99-102.
Kerr, J. S. (1996). Two myths of addiction: the addictive personality and the issue of free choice. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 11(S1), S9-S13.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768-821.
Larkin, M., Wood, R.T.A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Towards addiction as relationship. Addiction Research and Theory, 14, 207-215.
Marks, I. (1990). Behaviour (non-chemical) addictions. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 1389-1394.
Nakken, C. (2009). The addictive personality: Understanding the addictive process and compulsive behavior. Hazelden, Minnesota: Hazelden Publishing.
Nathan, P. E. (1988). The addictive personality is the behavior of the addict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 183-188.
Tech it or leave it: Excessive email use and how to curb it
If there is a single behaviour in my life that borders on the pathological, it is the urge I feel to log on and check my emails. When I have no email access (such as when I am on a plane or am on holiday staying at a foreign beachside villa with no Wi-Fi) I function perfectly well but as soon as I know there is a Wi-Fi connection, the first thing I typically do is check my emails. It’s like an itch that I have to scratch. Given that the vast majority of my emails are work-related I don’t necessarily see this as problematic (as I love my work) but it does admittedly facilitate my workaholic tendencies. The psychology and psychosocial impact of email use is also an area that I have published a few articles and book chapters on (see ‘Further reading’ below).
The reason I mention all this is that earlier this month, many of the British newspapers featured a story about how turning off automatic emails helps reduce stress levels. The survey study of just under 2,000 individuals was carried out by psychologists at the Future Work Centre (FWC) and examined the impact of ‘email pressure’ on individuals’ work-life balance. The report noted that there were “2.5 billion email users worldwide, and adults spent an average of over an hour of each day on emails, according to Radicati and Ofcom”. The FWC’s main findings (which I have taken verbatim from the report) highlighted:
- A strong relationship between using ‘push’ email and perceived email pressure. This means that people who automatically receive email on their devices were more likely to report higher perceived email pressure.
- People who leave their email on all day were much more likely to report perceived email pressure.
- Checking email earlier in the morning or later at night is associated with higher levels of perceived email pressure.
- Managers experience significantly higher levels of perceived email pressure when compared to non-managers.
- Higher email pressure was associated with more examples of work negatively impacting home life and home life negatively impacting performance at work.
- Perceived email pressure is significantly higher in people with caring responsibilities. This finding is probably less of a surprise, as the work-life balance research literature is full of examples citing the challenges facing carers when it comes to navigating the boundaries between work and home. Interestingly, our data didn’t reveal any significant differences between people with different caring responsibilities. It seems that just having these responsibilities is associated with significantly higher email pressure.
- Personality appears to moderate the relationship between perceived email pressure and work-life balance. People who rate their own ability and sense of control over their environment lower find that work interferes more with their home life, and vice versa.
Clearly the benefits of email outweigh the disadvantages but as the FWC report noted, emails are a “double-edged sword” in that that they are clearly a useful communication tool but can be a source of stress. The report concluded that:
“[The results of the study] link perceptions of email pressure to actual work-life balance outcomes, not just perceptions of work-life balance. But that’s not the end of the story. Whilst we’ve identified the external factors that affect our perceived email pressure and explored the relationship between perceived email pressure and work-life balance, there’s another variable we should consider in order to increase our understanding of an individual’s experience of email – personality…Personality moderates the relationship between perceived email pressure and all work-life balance outcomes. It shows that people with low core self-evaluation experience more interference, both positive and negative, between their work and home lives – i.e. they are more sensitive to how the two domains – work and home – affect each other. This could be due to how people with low core self-evaluation make sense of their world. People with high core self-evaluation don’t see these things as happening to them – they can take control and set boundaries”.
The report also provided some tips to combat email stress many of which can be found in other articles examining the topic. For instance, back in 2004, I published my own set of tips in the British Medical Journal (not that I follow my own advice based on what I said in the opening paragraph of this article). However, I’ll end this blog with my (hopefully) common-sense and practical advice:
- Set retrieval limits: Limit email retrieval to a few times per day (say when you first get in, lunchtime, and/or just before you leave work). You will spend less time both reading and responding to each email than if you had read them when they individually came in.
- Turn off instant messaging system: There is a tendency to look at emails straight away if the instant messaging system is turned on. This is only helpful when you are expecting a message.
- Get a good spam filter: There is nothing worse than an inbox full of junk mail so invest in a good filter system.
- Use your ‘auto delete’ button: If there are constant junk emails that you get most days then use the ‘auto delete’ button to avoid them appearing in your inbox.
- Develop a good filing system: The setting up of a good email filing system is paramount in keeping on top of your emails. This is no different to the desktop management system on your computer. You can put unread messages into appropriate folders to read at a later time and reducing the size of your inbox. A good filing system also aids in retrieving important emails at a later date.
- Reply and file: Once you have replied to an email either delete it immediately or file it away in a separate email folder.
- Use your ‘out of office’ assistant facility: This will help reduce the repeated emails from the same people asking “Did you get my earlier email?” Once people know you are unavailable for a given time period they may not send the email in the first place.
- Print out hard copies of really important e-mails: There is always a chance that emails can get lost or accidentally deleted. If it is really important, print a hard copy straight away and file it.
- Be selective in who you respond to: When responding to an email sent to a group, don’t necessarily reply to all the group. This will cut down on the number of potential replies.
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33, 309-327.
Future Work Centre (2015). You’ve got mail: Research Report 2015. London: Future Work Centre. Located at: http://www.futureworkcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FWC-Youve-got-mail-research-report.pdf
Giumetti, G.W., Hatfield, A.L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A.N., Muth, E.R., & Kowalski, R. M. (2013). What a rude email! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 297-309.
Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Hey! Wait, just a minute, Mister Postman: The joy of e-mail. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8, 373.
Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Tips on…Managing your e-mails. British Medical Journal Careers, 329, 240.
Griffiths, M.D. & Dennis, F. (2000). How to beat techno-stress. Independent on Sunday (Reality section), May 7, p.22.
Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Emails with unintended criminal consequences. The Criminal Lawyer, 130, 6-8.
Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Emails with unintended consequences: New lessons for policy and practice in work, public office and private life. In P. Hills (Ed.). As Others See Us: Selected Essays In Human Communication (pp. 160-182). Dereham: Peter Francis Publishers.
Ng, K. (2016). Turn off automatic email updates to ease stress, psychologists advise. The Independent, January 5. Located at: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/turn-off-automatic-email-updates-to-ease-stress-psychologists-advise-a6794826.html
Radicati, S. & Levenstein, J. (2014). Email Statistics Report, 2014-2018. Located at: http://www.radicati.com/?p=10644
Tech’s appeal: Another look at Internet addiction
Generally speaking, Internet addiction (IA) has been characterized by excessive or poorly controlled preoccupation, urges, and/or behaviours regarding Internet use that lead to impairment or distress in several life domains. However, according to Dr. Kimberly Young, IA is a problematic behaviour akin to pathological gambling that can be operationally defined as an impulse-control disorder not involving the ingestion of psychoactive intoxicants.
Following the conceptual framework developed by Young and her colleagues to understand IA, five specific types of distinct online addictive behaviours were identified: (i) ‘cyber-sexual addiction’, (ii) ‘cyber-relationship addiction’, (iii) ‘net compulsions (i.e., obsessive online gambling, shopping, or trading), (iv) ‘information overload’, and (v) ‘computer addiction’ (i.e., obsessive computer game playing).
However, I have argued in many of my papers over the last 15 years that the Internet may simply be the means or ‘place’ where the most commonly reported addictive behaviours occur. In short, the Internet may be just a medium to fuel other addictions. Interestingly, new evidence pointing towards the need to make this distinction has been provided from the online gaming field where new studies (including some I have carried out with my Hungarian colleagues) have demonstrated that IA is not the same as other more specific addictive behaviours carried out online (i.e., gaming addiction), further magnifying the meaningfulness to differentiate between what may be called ‘generalized’ and ‘specific’ forms of online addictive behaviours, and also between IA and gaming addiction as these behaviours are conceptually different.
Additionally, the lack of formal diagnostic criteria to assess IA holds another methodological problem since researchers are systematically adopting modified criteria from other addictions to investigate IA. Although IA may share some commonalities with other substance-based addictions, it is unclear to what extent such criteria are useful and suitable to evaluate IA. Notwithstanding the existing difficulties in understanding and comparing IA with behaviours such as pathological gambling, recent research provided useful insights on this topic.
A recent study by Dr. Federico Tonioni (published in a 2014 issue of the journal Addictive Behaviors) involving two clinical (i.e., 31 IA patients and 11 pathological gamblers) and a control group (i.e., 38 healthy individuals) investigated whether IA patients presented different psychological symptoms, temperamental traits, coping strategies, and relational patterns in comparison to pathological gamblers, concluded that Internet-addicts presented higher mental and behavioural disengagement associated with significant more interpersonal impairment. Moreover, temperamental patterns, coping strategies, and social impairments appeared to be different across both disorders. Nonetheless, the similarities between IA and pathological gambling were essentially in terms of psychopathological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and global functioning. Although, individuals with IA and pathological gambling appear to share similar psychological profiles, previous research has found little overlap between these two populations, therefore, both phenomena are separate disorders.
Despite the fact that initial conceptualizations of IA helped advance the current knowledge and understanding of IA in different aspects and contexts, it has become evident that the field has greatly evolved since then in several ways. As a result of these ongoing changes, behavioural addictions (more specifically Gambling Disorder and Internet Gaming Disorder) have now recently received official recognition in the latest (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Moreover, IA can also be characterized as a form of technological addiction, which I have operationally defined as a non-chemical (behavioural) addiction involving excessive human-machine interaction. In this theoretical framework, technological addictions such as IA represent a subset of behavioural addictions featuring six core components: (i) salience, (ii) mood modification, (iii) tolerance, (iv) withdrawal, (v) conflict, and (vi) relapse. The components model of addiction appears to be a more updated framework for understanding IA as a behavioural addiction not only conceptually but also empirically. Moreover, this theoretical framework has recently received empirical support from several studies, further evidencing its suitability and applicability to the understanding of IA.
For many in the IA field, problematic Internet use is considered to be a serious issue – albeit not yet officially recognised as a disorder – and has been described across the literature as being associated with a wide range of co-occurring psychiatric comorbidities alongside an array of dysfunctional behavioural patterns. For instance, IA has been recently associated with low life satisfaction, low academic performance, less motivation to study, poorer physical health, social anxiety, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and depression, poorer emotional wellbeing and substance use, higher impulsivity, cognitive distortion, deficient self-regulation, poorer family environment, higher mental distress, loneliness, among other negative psychological, biological, and neuronal aspects.
In a recent systematic literature review conducted by Dr. Wen Li and colleagues (and published in the journal Computers and Human Behavior), the authors reviewed a total of 42 empirical studies that assessed the family correlates of IA in adolescents and young adults. According to the authors, virtually all studies reported greater family dysfunction amongst IA families in comparison to non-IA families. More specifically, individuals with IA exhibited more often (i) greater global dissatisfaction with their families, (ii) less organized, cohesive, and adaptable families, (iii) greater inter-parental and parent-child conflict, and (iv) perceptions of their parents as more punitive, less supportive, warm, and involved. Furthermore, families were significantly more likely to have divorced parents or to be a single parent family.
Another recent systematic literature review conducted by Dr. Lawrence Lam published in the journal Current Psychiatry Reports examined the possible links between IA and sleep problems. After reviewing seven studies (that met strict inclusion criteria), it was concluded that on the whole, IA was associated with sleep problems that encompassed subjective insomnia, short sleep duration, and poor sleep quality. The findings also suggested that participants with insomnia were 1.5 times more likely to be addicted to the Internet in comparison to those without sleep problems. Despite the strong evidence found supporting the links between IA and sleep problems, the author noted that due to the cross-sectional nature of most studies reviewed, the generalizability of the findings was somewhat limited.
IA is a relatively recent phenomenon that clearly warrants further investigation, and empirical studies suggest it needs to be taken seriously by psychologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists. Although uncertainties still remain regarding its diagnostic and clinical characterization, it is likely that these extant difficulties will eventually be tackled and the field will evolve to a point where IA may merit full recognition as a behavioural addiction from official medical bodies (ie, American Psychiatric Association) similar to other more established behavioural addictions such as ‘Gambling Disorder’ and ‘Internet Gaming Disorder’. However, in order to achieve official status, researchers will have to adopt a more commonly agreed upon definition as to what IA is, and how it can be conceptualized and operationalized both qualitatively and quantitatively (as well as in clinically diagnostic terms).
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Please note: This article was co-written with Halley Pontes and Daria Kuss.
Further reading
Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Internet addiction – Time to be taken seriously? Addiction Research, 8, 413-418.
Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Internet abuse and internet addiction in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 7, 463-472.
Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J., Billieux J. & Pontes, H.M. (2016). The evolution of internet addiction: A global perspective. Addictive Behaviors, 53, 193–195.
Griffiths, M.D. & Pontes, H.M. (2014). Internet addiction disorder and internet gaming disorder are not the same. Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy, 5: e124. doi:10.4172/2155-6105.1000e124.
Király, O., Griffiths, M.D., Urbán, R., Farkas, J., Kökönyei, G. Elekes, Z., Domokos Tamás, D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Problematic internet use and problematic online gaming are not the same: Findings from a large nationally representative adolescent sample. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17, 749-754.
Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Internet Addiction in Psychotherapy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kuss, D.J., Griffiths, M.D. & Binder, J. (2013). Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 959-966.
Kuss, D.J., Griffiths, M.D., Karila, L. & Billieux, J. (2014). Internet addiction: A systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20, 4026-4052.
Kuss, D.J., Shorter, G.W., van Rooij, A.J., Griffiths, M.D., & Schoenmakers, T.M. (2014). Assessing Internet addiction using the parsimonious Internet addiction components model – A preliminary study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 351-366.
Kuss, D.J., van Rooij, A.J., Shorter, G.W., Griffiths, M.D. & van de Mheen, D. (2013). Internet addiction in adolescents: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1987-1996.
Lam, L.T. (2014). Internet Gaming Addiction, Problematic use of the Internet, and sleep problems: A systematic review. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16(4), 1-9.
Li, W., Garland, E.L., & Howard, M.O. (2014). Family factors in Internet addiction among Chinese youth: A review of English-and Chinese-language studies. Computers in Human. Behavior, 31, 393-411.
Pontes, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Measuring DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: Development and validation of a short psychometric scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 137-143.
Pontes, H.M., Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The clinical psychology of Internet addiction: A review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 4, 11-23.
Pontes, H.M., Szabo, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The impact of Internet-based specific activities on the perceptions of Internet Addiction, Quality of Life, and excessive usage: A cross-sectional study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 1, 19-25.
Tonioni, F., Mazza, M., Autullo, G., Cappelluti, R., Catalano, V., Marano, G., … & Lai, C. (2014). Is Internet addiction a psychopathological condition distinct from pathological gambling?. Addictive Behaviors, 39(6), 1052-1056.
Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Internet addiction: A critical review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 31-51.
Young, K. (1998). Caught in the net. New York: John Wiley
Young K. (1999). Internet addiction: Evaluation and treatment. Student British Medical Journal, 7, 351-352.
Naming desire: A personal look at my new job title
Back in 2002, I was incredibly proud when I became one of the youngest full Professors in the UK when I was bestowed the title of Professor of Gambling Studies based on my research contribitions to the gambling studies field. Anyone that has followed my career over the last decade (or this blog over the last four years) will no doubt have realised that my research interests and expertise include a lot more than gambling.
Although I still publish a lot of papers on gambling (12 to 17 papers per calendar year; see Appendix 1 below) I have carried out more and more research into non-gambling addictions and over the last six years (2010-2015) my refereed journal outputs on gambling have only constituted one-third of all my refereed journal outputs (32%) (see Appendix 1 and Figure 1).
The overwhelming majority of my published refereed papers since January 2010 (n=246; 88%) concern behavioural addictions (i.e., gambling addiction, videogame addiction, internet addiction, work addiction, sex addiction, exercise addiction, shopping addiction, dancing addiction, etc.). If gambling addiction is removed from these papers, this still leaves 56% of all my papers during the 2010-2015 period concerning other behavioural addictions (n=158). The remainder of my refereed journal papers (34 papers; 12%) mainly concern the topic of mindfulness carried out with my colleagues Edo Shonin and William Van Gordon. Even my three books in the 2010-2105 timeframe have been on three totally separate topics (i.e., problem gambling, internet addiction and mindfulness). Of my 71 book chapters in this 2010-2015 period, 22 have been on gambling addiction, 41 have been on other behavioural addictions, and 8 have concerned other topics (see Figure 2). In the ‘Further reading’ section below is some of the papers that I have published this year and even a quick glance will highlight that gambling papers are in the minority.
It is also worth noting that I am one of the most highly cited academics in the UK (soemthig else that I am very proud of) and a quick look at my Google Scholar citations profile (currently over 24,500 citations as of October 31, 2015) that of my top ten most highly cited papers, only one is on gambling adiction and the other nine concern my papers on videogame addiction and internet addiction.
Basically, my job title didn’t reflect what I was actually doing on the research front. And this is the very argument I put to my employer (Nottingham Trent University) a number of weeks ago. As far as I am aware, I am the first professor at NTU to ever ask for my title to be changed but last week I was informed by my line manager that the university was convinced by the case I put forward and from now on I will be Professor of Behavioural Addiction.
This new title change has pleased me greatly and of course subsumes the vast majority of the research that I am doing (including my research into gambling addiction). I don’t think I will ever stop carrying out research in the gambling field but my new job title will stop me feeling guilty about working in non-gambling areas. It may also stop some of few abusive emails I get regarding my blogs (saying in very colourful language that I should stop writing about other behavioural addictions and sexual paraphilias and “write about what I get paid to do”). Firstly, I would point out to these individuals that I don’t get paid to write my personal blog and even if I did, I write all my blogs in my spare time.
If you’ve read this far, then thank you. I promise normal service will be resumed in my next blog when it will be about something other than myself.
Appendix 1: Summary statistics of my refereed journal papers (January 1, 2010 to October 20, 2015)
- 2010: Gambling papers (n=17); Behavioural addiction papers (n=19); Other papers (n=1)
- 2011: Gambling papers (n=15); Behavioural addiction papers (n=15); Other papers (n=2)
- 2012: Gambling papers (n=10); Behavioural addiction papers (n=28); Other papers (n=3)
- 2013: Gambling papers (n=12); Behavioural addiction papers (n=23); Other papers (n=4)
- 2014: Gambling papers (n=13); Behavioural addiction papers (n=33); Other papers (n=13)
- 2015: Gambling papers (n=13); Behavioural addiction papers (n=27); Other papers (n=7)
- In press: Gambling papers (n=8); Behavioural addiction papers (n=13); Other papers (n=4)
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading (some recent papers)
Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., Pallesen, S., Bilder, R.M., Torsheim, T. Aboujaoude, E.N. (2015). The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale: Reliability and validity of a brief screening test. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1374. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01374.
Atroszko, P.A., Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D. & Pallesen, S. (2015). Study addiction – A new area of psychological study: Conceptualization, assessment, and preliminary empirical findings. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4, 75–84.
Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Testing normative and self-appraisal feedback in an online slot-machine pop-up message in a real-world setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 339. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00339.
Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The use of personalized behavioral feedback for problematic online gamblers: An empirical study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1406. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01406.
Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports, 2, 154-162.
Canale, N. Santinello, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Validation of the Reasons for Gambling Questionnaire (RGQ) in a British population survey. Addictive Behaviors, 45, 276-280.
Canale, N., Vieno, A., Griffiths, M.D., Rubaltelli, E., Santinello, M. (2015). Trait urgency and gambling problems in young people: the role of decision-making processes. Addictive Behaviors, 46, 39-44.
Canale, N., Vieno, A., Griffiths, M.D., Rubaltelli, E., Santinello, M. (2015). How do impulsivity traits influence problem gambling through gambling motives? The role of perceived gambling risk/benefits. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 813–823.
Cleghorn, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Why do gamers buy ‘virtual assets’? An insight in to the psychology behind purchase behaviour. Digital Education Review, 27, 98-117.
Dhuffar, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). A systematic review of online sex addiction and clinical treatments using CONSORT evaluation. Current Addiction Reports, 2, 163-174.
Dhuffar, M. & Pontes, H.M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Dysphoric mood states and consequences of sexual behaviours as predictors of hypersexual behaviours in university students: An exploratory study. Journal of Behavioural Addictions, 4, 181–188.
Foster, A.C., Shorter, G.W. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Muscle Dysmorphia: Could it be classified as an Addiction to Body Image? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4, 1-5.
Greenhill, R. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Compassion, dominance/submission, and curled lips: A thematic analysis of dacryphilic experience. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27, 337-350.
Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Problematic technology use during adolescence: Why don’t teenagers seek treatment? Education and Health, 33, 6-9.
Griffiths, M.D., Urbán, R., Demetrovics, Z., Lichtenstein, M.B., de la Vega, R., Kun, B., Ruiz-Barquín, R., Youngman, J. & Szabo, A. (2015). A cross-cultural re-evaluation of the Exercise Addiction Inventory (EAI) in five countries. Sports Medicine Open, 1:5.
Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R.A., Griffiths, M.D., & Pallesen, S. (2015). The impact of gambling advertising: Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than recreational gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 483-491.
Hussain, Z., Williams, G. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). An exploratory study of the association between online gaming addiction and enjoyment motivations for playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 221–230.
Karanika-Murray, M., Pontes, H.M., Griffiths, M.D. & Biron, C. (2015). Sickness presenteeism determines job satisfaction via affective-motivational states. Social Science and Medicine, 139, 100-106.
Király, O., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics Z. (2015). Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5: Conceptualization, debates, and controversies, Current Addiction Reports, 2, 254–262.
Király, O., Urbán, R., Griffiths, M.D., Ágoston, C., Nagygyörgy, K., Kökönyei, G. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Psychiatric symptoms and problematic online gaming: The mediating effect of gaming motivation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(4) :e88.
Maraz, A., Eisinger, A., Hende, Urbán, R., Paksi, B., Kun, B., Kökönyei, G., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Measuring compulsive buying behaviour: Psychometric validity of three different scales and prevalence in the general population and in shopping centres. Psychiatry Research, 225, 326–334.
Maraz, A., Király, O., Urbán, R., Griffiths, M.D., Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Why do you dance? Development of the Dance Motivation Inventory (DMI). PLoS ONE, 10(3): e0122866. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0122866
Maraz, A., Urbán, R., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics Z. (2015). An empirical investigation of dance addiction. PloS ONE, 10(5): e0125988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125988.
Ortiz de Gortari, A.B. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Game Transfer Phenomena and its associated factors: An exploratory empirical online survey study. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 195-202.
Ortiz de Gortari, A.B., Pontes, H.M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The Game Transfer Phenomena Scale: An instrument for investigating the non-volitional effects of video game playing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18, 588-594.
Pontes, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Measuring DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: Development and validation of a short psychometric scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 137-143.
Pontes, H.M., Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The clinical psychology of Internet addiction: A review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 4, 11-23.
Pontes, H.M., Szabo, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The impact of Internet-based specific activities on the perceptions of Internet Addiction, Quality of Life, and excessive usage: A cross-sectional study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 1, 19-25.
Quinones, C. & Mark D. Griffiths (2015). Addiction to work: recommendations for assessment. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 10, 48-59.
Shonin, E., Van Gordon W., Compare, A., Zangeneh, M. & Griffiths M.D. (2015). Buddhist-derived loving-kindness and compassion meditation for the treatment of psychopathology: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 6, 1161–1180.
Szabo, A., Griffiths, M.D., de La Vega Marcos, R., Mervo, B. & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Methodological and conceptual limitations in exercise addiction research. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86, 303-308.
Van Gordon W., Shonin, E., Griffiths M.D. & Singh, N. (2015). There is only one mindfulness: Why science and Buddhism need to work together. Mindfulness, 6, 49-56.
Cured meets: Treating addictive behaviours
Addiction is a highly prevalent problem within today’s society and there is a lot of time and many spent in trying to prevent and treat the behaviour. There has also been a move towards getting addicts motivated to want to change their behaviour. The most influential model worldwide is probably the ‘stages of change’ model by Dr. James Prochaska and Dr, Carlo Di Clemente that identifies an individual’s ‘readiness for change’ and tries to get a person to a position where they are highly motivated to change their behaviour. The individual stages of this model are:
- Precontemplation – This is where the person unaware of the consequences of his or her own behaviour and no change in behaviour is foreseeable.
- Contemplation – This is where the person aware problem exists and is contemplating change.
- Preparation – This is where the person has decided to change in the near future (e.g., New Year resolution).
- Action – This is where the person effects change (e.g., gets rid of all association items related to the behaviour).
- Maintenance – This is where the person consolidates behaviour change over time.
- Relapse – This where the person reverts to a former behaviour pattern (e.g., contemplation, preparation).
People can stay in one stage for a long time and it is also possible for unassisted change such “maturing out” or “spontaneous remission”. Various techniques can be used to help people prepare for readiness include motivational techniques, behavioural self-training, skills training, stress management training, anger management training, relaxation training, aerobic exercise, relapse prevention, and lifestyle modification. The goal of treatment can be either abstinence or simply to cut down.
The intervention and treatment options for the treatment of addiction include, but are not limited to counselling/psychotherapies, behavioural therapies, cognitive-behavioural therapies, self-help therapies, pharmacotherapies, residential therapies, minimal interventions and combinations of these (i.e., multi-modal treatment packages). The most important of these are outlined below.
Pharmacotherapy: Pharmacological interventions basically consist of addicts being given a drug to help overcome their addiction. These are mainly given to those people with chemical addictions (e.g., nicotine, alcohol, heroin, etc.) but are increasingly being used for those with behavioural addictions (e.g., gambling, sex, work, exercise, etc.). For instance, some drugs produce an unpleasant reaction when used in combination with the drug of dependence, replacing the positive effects of the drug of dependence with a negative reaction. For instance, alcoholics are sometimes prescribed disulfiram (more commonly known as Antabuse), that when combined with alcohol may produce nausea and vomiting. Other common therapies include methadone and the use of opioid antagonists (such as nalaxone or naltrexene) for heroin addiction. The methadone prevents withdrawal symptoms, block the effects of heroin use, and decreases craving. The main criticism of all these treatments is that although the symptoms may be being treated, the underlying reasons for the addictions may be being ignored. On a more pragmatic level, what happens when the drug is taken away? Often, the addicts return to their addiction if this is the only method of treatment used.
Behavioural therapy: Behavioural therapies are based on the view that addiction is a learned maladaptive behaviour and can therefore be ‘unlearned’. These have mainly been based on the classical conditioning paradigm and include aversion therapy, in vivo desensitisation, imaginal desensitisation, systematic desensitisation, relaxation therapy, covert sensitisation, and satiation therapy. All of these therapies focus on cue exposure, and relapse triggers (like the sight and smell of alcohol/drugs, walking through a neighbourhood where casinos are abundant, pay day, arguments, pressure, etc.). The theory is that through repeated exposure to ‘relapse triggers’ in the absence of the addiction, the addict learns to stay addiction free in high-risk situations. It could be argued that if the addiction is caused by some underlying psychological problem, (rather than a learned maladaptive behaviour), then behavioural therapy would at best only eliminate the behaviour but not the problem. This therefore means that the addictive behaviour may well have been curtailed but the problem is still there so the person will perhaps engage in a different addictive behaviour instead.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy: A more recent development in the treatment of addictive behaviours is the use of cognitive-behavioural therapies (CBT). There are many different CBT approaches that have been used in the treatment of addictive behaviours including rational emotive therapy, motivational interviewing, and relapse prevention. The techniques assume that addiction is a means of coping with difficult situations, dysphoric mood, and peer pressure. Treatment aims to help addicts recognise high-risk situations and either avoid or cope with them without use of the addictive behaviour. In relapse prevention, the therapist helps to identify situations that present a risk for relapse (both intrapersonal and interpersonal). Relapse prevention provides the addict with techniques to learn how to cope with temptation (positive self statements, decision review, and distraction activities), coupled with the use of covert modelling (i.e., practicing coping skills in one’s imagination). It also provides skills for coping with lapses (by redefining what is happening), and utilizes graded practice (a desensitization technique where addicts encounter real life situations slowly). Overall, CBT approaches are better researched than the other psychological methods in addiction but are probably no more effective (Luty, 2003).
Psychotherapy: Psychotherapy can include everything from Freudian psychoanalysis and transactional analysis, to more recent innovations like drama therapy, family therapy and minimalist intervention strategies. The therapy can take place as an individual, as a couple, as a family, as a group and is basically viewed as a ‘talking cure’ consisting of regular sessions with a psychotherapist over a period of time. Most psychotherapies view maladaptive behaviour as the symptom of other underlying problems. Psychotherapy often is very eclectic by trying to meet the needs of the individual and helping the addict develop coping strategies. If the problem is resolved, the addiction should disappear. In some ways, this is the therapeutic opposite of pharmacotherapy and behavioural therapy (which treats the symptoms rather than the underlying cause). There has been little evaluation of its effectiveness although most addicts go through at least some form of counselling during the treatment process.
Self-help therapy: The most popular self-help therapy worldwide is the Minnesota Model 12-Step Programme (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, etc.). This treatment programme uses a group therapy technique and uses only ex-addicts as helpers. Addicts attending 12-Step groups involves them accepting personal responsibility and views the behaviour as an addiction that cannot be cured but merely arrested. To some it becomes a way of life both spiritually and socially and compared with almost all other treatments it is especially cost-effective (even if other treatments have greater success rates) as the organization makes no financial demands on members or the community. For the therapy to work, the 12-Step Programme asserts that the addict must come to them voluntarily and must really want to stop engaging in their addictive behaviour. Further to this, they are only allowed to join once they have reached “rock bottom”. To date there has been little systematic study of 12-Step groups but drop out rates are very high (typically 80-90%). There are a number of problems preventing evaluation, particularly anonymity, sample bias, and what the criterion for success is. The empirical evidence suggests that self-help support groups’ complement formal treatment options and can support standardized psychosocial interventions.
When examining all the literature on the treatment of addiction, there are a number of key conclusions that can be drawn. These include that: (i) treatment must be readily available, (ii) no single treatment is appropriate for all individuals., (iii) it is better for an addict to be treated than not to be treated, (iv) it does not seem to matter which treatment an addict engages in as no single treatment has been shown to be demonstrably better than any other, (v) a variety of treatments simultaneously appear to be beneficial to the addict, (vi) individual needs of the addict have to be met (i.e., the treatment should be fitted to the addict including being gender-specific and culture-specific), (vi) clients with co-existing addiction disorders should receive services that are integrated, (vii) remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical for treatment effectiveness, (viii) medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially when combined with counselling and other behavioural therapies, (ix) recovery from addiction can be a long-term process and frequently requires multiple episodes of treatment, (x) there is a direct association between the length of time spent in treatment and positive outcomes, and (xi) the duration of treatment interventions is determined by individual needs, and there are no pre-set limits to the duration of treatment.
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Pathological gambling and its treatment. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 477-479.
Griffiths, M.D. & Dhuffar, M. (2014). Treatment of sexual addiction within the British National Health Service. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 561-571.
Griffiths, M.D. & H.F. MacDonald (1999). Counselling in the treatment of pathological gambling: An overview. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27, 179-190.
Hayer, T. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The prevention and treatment of problem gambling in adolescence. In T.P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds). Handbook of Adolescent Behavioral Problems: Evidence-based Approaches to Prevention and Treatment (Second Edition) (pp. 539-558). New York: Kluwer.
King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Griffiths, M.D. & Gradisar, M. (2012). Cognitive-behavioural approaches to outpatient treatment of Internet addiction in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 1185-1195.
Luty, J. (2003). What works in drug addiction? Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9, 280–288.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide. NIDA.
Potenza, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Prevention efforts and the role of the clinician. In J.E. Grant & M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Pathological Gambling: A Clinical Guide To Treatment (pp. 145-157). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.
Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing the traditional boundaries of therapy. Melbourne, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company
Rigbye, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Problem gambling treatment within the British National Health Service. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 276-281.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime/World Health Organization (2008). Principles of Drug Dependence Treatment: Discussion paper. UN/WHO.
