Playing the field: Another look at Internet Gaming Disorder

Research into online addictions has grown considerably over the last two decades and much of it has concentrated on problematic gaming, particularly MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games). In the latest (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) (also commonly referred in the literature as problematic gaming and gaming addiction) was included in Section 3 (‘Emerging Measures and Models’) as a promising area that needed future research before being included in the main section of future editions of the DSM.

The DSM-5 proposed nine criteria for IGD (of which five or more need to be endorsed over the period of 12 months and result in clinically significant impairment to be diagnosed as experiencing IGD). More specifically the criteria include (1) preoccupation with games; (2) withdrawal symptoms when gaming is taken away; (3) the need to spend increasing amounts of time engaged in gaming, (4) unsuccessful attempts to control participation in gaming; (5) loss of interest in hobbies and entertainment as a result of, and with the exception of, gaming; (6) continued excessive use of games despite knowledge of psychosocial problems; (7) deception of family members, therapists, or others regarding the amount of gaming; (8) use of gaming to escape or relieve a negative mood;  and (9) loss of a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of participation in games.

There is no agreement on the prevalence of IGD as the vast majority of studies have surveyed non-representative self-selected samples using over 20 different screening instruments. A review of problematic gaming prevalence studies that I published with Orsi Király, Halley Pontes, and Zsolt Demetrovics (in the 2015 book Mental Health in the Digital Age: Grave Dangers, Great Promise) reported a large variation in the prevalence rates (from 0.2% up to 34%). However, we noted that there were many factors that could have accounted for the wide variation in prevalence rates including the type of gaming examined (i.e., some studies just examined online gaming, whereas others examined console gaming or a mixture of both), sample size, participants’ age range, participant type (i.e., some surveyed the general population while others assessed gamers only), and instruments used to assess gaming.

There have been a handful of studies that have reported the prevalence of IGD using nationally representative samples. The prevalence rates reported were 8.5% of American youth aged 8–18 years, 1.2% of German adolescents aged 13-18 years, 5.5% among Dutch adolescents aged 13-20, and 5.4% among Dutch adults, 4.3% of Hungarian adolescents aged 15-16 years, 1.4% of Norwegian gamers, and 1.6% of European youth from seven countries aged 14-17 years.

There are now over 20 different screening instruments including a number of new ones specifically incorporating the IGD criteria (including a number that I have co-developed with Halley Pontes). The multiplicity of problematic gaming screens remains a key challenge in the field and partially reflects the lack of consensus in terms of the assessment of the phenomenon. A comprehensive 2013 review that I published with Daniel King and others in Clinical Psychology Review examined the criteria of 18 problematic gaming screens. The 18 screens had been utilized in 63 quantitative studies (N=58,415 participants). The main weaknesses identified were (i) inconsistency of core addiction indicators across studies, (ii) a general lack of any temporal dimension, (iii) inconsistent cutoff scores relating to clinical status, (iv) poor and/or inadequate inter-rater reliability and predictive validity, and (v) inconsistent and/or untested dimensionality. We also questioned the appropriateness of certain screens for certain settings, because those used in clinical practice may require a different emphasis than those used in epidemiological, experimental, or neurobiological research settings.

Research into IGD is needed from clinical, epidemiological, and neurobiological aspects of IGD. There has been an increasing number of neurobiological studies on IGD and a 2014 meta-analysis by Dr. Y. Meng and colleagues in Addiction Biology of 10 neuroimaging studies investigating the functional brain response to cognitive tasks from IGD using quantitative effect size signed differential mapping meta-analytic methods. found reliable clusters of abnormal activation in IGD within the regions comprising the bilateral medial frontal gyrus/cingulate gyrus, the left middle temporal gyrus and fusiform gyrus when compared to healthy controls. The same review also found that greater amounts of time spent per week playing was associated with hyper-activity in the left medial frontal gyrus and the right cingulate gyrus. Despite the useful findings reported, one of the major limitations of this meta-analysis was that 90% of the studies reviewed were conducted in Asian countries or regions, which might be problematic since prevalence rates of IGD in these populations are usually inflated compared to prevalence rates reported in Western countries. Furthermore, a systematic review of neuroimaging studies examining Internet addiction (IA) and IGD by Daria Kuss and myself in the journal Brain Sciences concluded that:

“These studies provide compelling evidence for the similarities between different types of addictions, notably substance-related addictions and Internet and gaming addiction, on a variety of levels. On the molecular level, Internet addiction is characterized by an overall reward deficiency that entails decreased dopaminergic activity. On the level of neural circuitry, Internet and gaming addiction lead to neuroadaptation and structural changes that occur as a consequence of prolonged increased activity in brain areas associated with addiction. On a behavioral level, Internet and gaming addicts appear to be constricted with regards to their cognitive functioning in various domains”

Over the last decade, a number of studies have investigated the association between IGD (and its derivatives) and various personality and comorbidity factors. Our recent review in the book Mental Health in the Digital Age: Grave Dangers, Great Promise summarized the research examining the relationship between personality traits and IGD. Empirical studies have shown IGD to be associated with (i) neuroticism, (ii) aggression and hostility, (iii) avoidant and schizoid tendencies, loneliness and introversion, (iv) social inhibition, (v) boredom inclination, (vi) sensation-seeking, (vii) diminished agreeableness, (viii) diminished self-control and narcissistic personality traits, (ix) low self-esteem, (x) state and trait anxiety, and (xi) low emotional intelligence. However, we noted that it was difficult to assess the aetiological significance of such associations because these personality factors are not unique to problematic gaming. Our review also reported that IGD had been associated with various comorbid disorders, including (i) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, (ii) symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, depression, and social phobia, and (iii) various psychosomatic symptoms.

According to a 2013 editorial in the journal Addiction, Nancy Petry and Charles O’Brien (2013), IGD will not be included as a separate mental disorder in future editions of the DSM until the (i) defining features of IGD have been identified, (ii) reliability and validity of specific IGD criteria have been obtained cross-culturally, (iii) prevalence rates have been determined in representative epidemiological samples across the world, and (iv) aetiology and associated biological features have been evaluated.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Please note: Additional input from Daria Kuss and Halley Pontes

Further reading

Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video-game use among youth ages 8–18: A national study. Psychological Science, 20(5), 594-602. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02340.x

Griffiths, M.D., Van Rooij, A., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Starcevic, V., Király, O…Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing Internet Gaming Disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al (2014). Addiction, 111, 167-175.

Griffiths, M. D., King, D. L., & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder needs a unified approach to assessment. Neuropsychiatry, 4(1), 1-4. doi: 10.2217/npy.13.82

Griffiths, M. D., Király, O., Pontes, H. M., & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). An overview of problematic gaming. In E. Aboujaoude & V. Starcevic (Eds.), Mental Health in the Digital Age: Grave Dangers, Great Promise (pp. 27-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/med/9780199380183.003.0002

Griffiths, M. D., & Pontes, H. M. (2014). Internet Addiction Disorder and Internet Gaming Disorder are not the same. Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, 5(4), e124. doi: 10.4172/2155-6105.1000e124

Griffiths, M. D., & Szabo, A. (2014). Is excessive online usage a function of medium or activity? An empirical pilot study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 74-77. doi: 10.1556/JBA.2.2013.016

King, D. L., Haagsma, M. C., Delfabbro, P. H., Gradisar, M. S. & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: A systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3), 331-342. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.002

Király, O., Griffiths, M. D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). Internet Gaming Disorder and the DSM-5: Conceptualization, debates, and controversies. Current Addiction Reports, 2(3), 254-262. doi: 10.1007/s40429-015-0066-7

Király, O., Griffiths, M. D., Urbán, R., Farkas, J., Kökönyei, G., Elekes, Z., 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(12), 749-754. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0475

Király, O., Sleczka, P., Pontes, H. M., Urbán, R., Griffiths, M. D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Validation of the ten-item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10) and evaluation of the nine DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder criteria. Addictive Behaviors. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.005

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Internet addiction in psychotherapy. London: Palgrave.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet and gaming addiction: A systematic literature review of neuroimaging studies. Brain Sciences, 2(3), 347-374. doi: 10.3390/brainsci2030347

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(25), 4026-4052. doi: 10.2174/13816128113199990617

Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., & Gentile, D.A. (2015). The Internet Gaming Disorder Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 567-582. doi: 10.1037/pas0000062

Meng, Y., Deng, W., Wang, H., Guo, W., & Li, T. (2014). The prefrontal dysfunction in individuals with Internet Gaming Disorder: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Addiction Biology, 20(4), 799-808. doi: 10.1111/adb.12154

Müller, K. W., Janikian, M., Dreier, M., Wölfling, K., Beutel, M. E., Tzavara, C., Richardson, C., & Tsitsika, A. (2015). Regular gaming behavior and internet gaming disorder in European adolescents: results from a cross-national representative survey of prevalence, predictors, and psychopathological correlates. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(5), 565-574. doi: 10.1007/s00787-014-0611-2

Petry, N. M., & O’Brien, C. P. (2013). Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5. Addiction 108(7), 1186–1187. doi: 10.1111/add.12162

Pontes, H. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). New concepts, old known issues: The DSM-5 and Internet Gaming Disorder and its assessment. In J. Bishop (Ed.), Psychological and Social Implications Surrounding Internet and Gaming Addiction (pp. 16-30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8595-6.ch002

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. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.006

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. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2015.03.002

Pontes, H., Király, O. Demetrovics, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). The conceptualisation and measurement of DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: The development of the IGD-20 Test. PLoS ONE, 9(10): e110137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110137.

Pontes, H. M., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Clinical psychology of Internet addiction: a review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 4, 11-23. doi: 10.2147/NAN.S60982

Rehbein, F., Kliem, S., Baier, D., Mößle, T., & Petry, N. M. (2015). Prevalence of Internet Gaming Disorder in German adolescents: Diagnostic contribution of the nine DSM-5 criteria in a state-wide representative sample. Addiction, 110(5), 842–851. doi: 10.1111/add.12849

Thomas, N., & Martin, F. (2010). Video-arcade game, computer game and Internet activities of Australian students: Participation habits and prevalence of addiction. Australian Journal of Psychology. 62(2), 59-66. doi: 10.1080/00049530902748283

van Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., & van de Mheen, D. (2015). Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of young patients with ‘video game addiction’. Addictive Behaviors. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018

Wittek, C. T., Finserås, T. R., Pallesen, S., Mentzoni, R. A., Hanss, D., Griffiths, M. D., & Molde, H. (2015). Prevalence and predictors of video game addiction: A study based on a national representative sample of gamers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s11469-015-9592-8

Young, K.S. (1999). Internet addiction: Symptoms, evaluation and treatment. Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, (Vol. 17; pp. 19-31). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

Term warfare: Internet Gaming Disorder and Internet Addiction Disorder are not the same

Over the last 15 years, research into various online addictions has greatly increased. Alongside this, there have been scholarly debates about whether internet addiction really exists. Some may argue that because internet use does not involve the ingestion of a psychoactive substance, then it should not be considered a genuine addictive behaviour. However, the latest (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) re-classified ‘Gambling Disorder’ as a behavioural addiction rather than as a disorder of impulse control. The implications of this reclassification are potentially far-reaching. The most significant implication is that if an activity that does not involve the consumption of drugs (i.e., gambling) can be a genuine addiction accepted by the psychiatric and medical community, there is no theoretical reason why other problematic and habitual behaviours (e.g., shopping, work, exercise, sex, video gaming, etc.) cannot be classed as a bone fide addiction.

There have also been debates among scholars that consider excessive problematic internet use to be a genuine addiction as to whether the those in the field should study generalized internet addiction (the totality of all online activities) and/or specific addictions on the internet such as internet gambling, internet gaming and internet sex. Since the late 1990s, I have constantly argued that there is a fundamental difference between addictions on the internet, and addictions to the internet. I argued that the overwhelming majority of individuals that were allegedly addicted to the internet were not internet addicts but were individuals that used the medium of the internet as a vehicle for other addictions. More specifically, I argued that internet gambling addicts and internet gaming addicts were not internet addicts but were gambling and gaming addicts using the convenience and ubiquity of the internet to gamble or play video games.

Prior to the publication of the latest DSM-5, there had also been debates as to whether ‘internet addiction’ should be introduced into the text as a separate disorder. Following these debates, the Substance Use Disorder Work Group (SUDWG) recommended that the DSM-5 include a sub-type of problematic internet use (i.e., internet gaming disorder [IGD]) in Section 3 (‘Emerging Measures and Models’) as an area that needed future research before being included in future editions of the DSM. However, far from clarifying the debates surrounding generalized versus specific internet use disorders, the section of the DSM-5 discussing IGD noted that:

“There are no well-researched subtypes for Internet gaming disorder to date. Internet gaming disorder most often involves specific Internet games, but it could involve non-Internet computerized games as well, although these have been less researched. It is likely that preferred games will vary over time as new games are developed and popularized, and it is unclear if behaviors and consequence associated with Internet gaming disorder vary by game type…Internet gaming disorder has significant public health importance, and additional research may eventually lead to evidence that Internet gaming disorder (also commonly referred to as Internet use disorder, Internet addiction, or gaming addiction) has merit as an independent disorder” (p.796).

In light of what has been already highlighted in previous research, two immediate problematic issues arise from these assertions. Firstly, IGD is clearly seen as synonymous with internet addiction as the text claims that internet addiction and internet use disorder are simply other names for IGD. Secondly – and somewhat confusingly – it is asserted that IGD (which is by definition internet-based) can also include offline gaming disorders.

With regards to the first assertion, internet addiction and online gaming addiction are not the same. A number of recent studies (including ones I’ve co-authored) clearly shows that to be the case. The second assertion that IGD can include offline video gaming is both baffling and confusing. Some researchers consider video games as the starting point for examining the characteristics of gaming disorder, while others consider the internet as the main platform that unites different addictive internet activities, including online games. For instance, I have argued that although all addictions have particular and idiosyncratic characteristics, they share more commonalities than differences (i.e., salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse), and likely reflects a common etiology of addictive behaviour. For me, IGD is clearly a sub-type of video game addiction. For people like Dr. Kimberley Young, ‘cyber-relationship addictions’, ‘cyber-sexual addictions’, ‘net compulsions’ (gambling, day trading) and ‘information overload’ are all internet addictions. However, many would argue that these – if they are addictions – are addictions on the internet, not to it. The internet is a medium and it is a situational characteristic. The fact that the medium might enhance addictiveness or problematic behaviour does not necessarily make it a sub-type of internet addiction.

However, recent studies have made an effort to integrate both approaches. For instance, some researchers claim that neither the first nor the second approach adequately captures the unique features of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs), and argue an integrated approach is a necessity. A common observation is that “Internet users are no more addicted to the Internet than alcoholics are addicted to bottles”. The internet is just a channel through which individuals may access whatever content they want (e.g., gambling, shopping, chatting, sex). On the other hand, online games differ from traditional standalone games, such as offline video games, in important aspects such as the social dimension or the role-playing dimension that allow interaction with other real players. Consequently, it could be argued that IGD can either be viewed as a specific type of video game addiction, or as a variant of internet addiction, or as an independent diagnosis. However, the idea that IGD can include offline gaming disorders does little for clarity or conceptualization.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that there are some problematic online behaviours that could be called internet addictions as they can only take place online. The most obvious activity that fulfills this criterion is social networking as it is a ‘pure’ online activity and does not and cannot take place offline. Other activities such as gambling, gaming, and shopping can still be engaged in offline (as gamblers can go to a gambling venue, gamers can play a standalone console game, shoppers can go to a retail outlet). However, those engaged in social networking would not (if unable to access the internet) walk into a big room of people and start chatting to them all. However, even if social networking addiction is a genuine internet addiction, social networking itself is still a specific online application and could still be considered an addiction on the internet, rather than to it.

Based on recent empirical evidence, IGD (or any of the alternate names used to describe problematic gaming) is not the same as Internet Addiction Disorder. The gaming studies field needs conceptual clarity but as demonstrated, the DSM-5 itself is both misleading and misguided when it comes to the issue of IGD.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Demetrovics, Z., Urbán, R., Nagygyörgy, K., Farkas, J., Griffiths, M. D., Pápay, O., . . . Oláh, A. (2012). The development of the Problematic Online Gaming Questionnaire (POGQ). PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36417.

Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Internet addiction – Time to be taken seriously? Addiction Research, 8, 413-418.

Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191-197.

Griffiths, M.D., King, D.L. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder needs a unified approach to assessment. Neuropsychiatry, under review.

Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J. & King, D.L. (2012). Video game addiction: Past, present and future. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8, 308-318.

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.

Kim, M. G., & Kim, J. (2010). Cross-validation of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity for the problematic online game use scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 389-398.

King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Griffiths, M. D., & Gradisar, M. (2011). Assessing clinical trials of Internet addiction treatment: A systematic review and CONSORT evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1110-1116.

King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Cognitive-behavioral approaches to outpatient treatment of Internet addiction in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 1185-1195.

King, D.L., Haagsma, M.C., Delfabbro, P.H., Gradisar, M.S.^, Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: A systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 331-342.

Koronczai, B., Urban, R., Kokonyei, G., Paksi, B., Papp, K., Kun, B., . . . Demetrovics, Z. (2011). Confirmation of the three-factor model of problematic internet use on off-line adolescent and adult samples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 657–664.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet and gaming addiction: A systematic literature review of neuroimaging studies. Brain Sciences, 2, 347-374.

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.

Pápay, O., Nagygyörgy, K., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Problematic online gaming. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral Addictions: Criteria, Evidence and Treatment. New York: Elsevier.

Petry, N.M., & O’Brien, C.P. (2013). Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5. Addiction, 108, 1186–1187.

Pontes, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). The assessment of internet gaming disorder in clinical research. Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, 31(2-4), 35-48.

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., Király, O. Demetrovics, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). The conceptualisation and measurement of DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: The development of the IGD-20 Test. PLoS ONE, 9(10): e110137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110137.

Pontes, H., Kuss, D. & 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.

Porter, G., Starcevic, V., Berle, D., & Fenech, P. (2010). Recognizing problem video game use. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 120-128.

Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 237-244.

Totally wired: Techno-stress and how to beat it

Technology is essential to most people’s working lives. The potential for constant availability via smartphones, laptops and tablets has facilitated the speed of business life and has become a mixed blessing. For some, wireless links offer the luxury of slipping out of the office for a round of golf or across the globe for an extended holiday. Others feel overwhelmed and less creative when pressured by constant ‘connectedness’. The potential for technological overload has created a new type of anxiety that has been referred to as ‘techno-stress’. Techno-stress can arise from many different routes. These include:

• Technophobia: Fear of change and working with new technology can be a stressor in itself.
• Technological failure: As work becomes less centralized and more flexible, people have to become their own IT managers. Coping with the after-effects of technology going wrong (hardware or software) can be incredibly stressful (for instance, most of us know how stressful life suddenly becomes when we lose wi-fi access – even if it is for short periods). This can result in behaviour such as ‘tele-rage’.
• Management surveillance: Management in some organizations install software that tracks employees’ movements both in and out of the office. It is possible to read staff e-mails and monitor time spent at the computer to ensure maximum productivity. The feeling of being constantly monitored can also be a potential stressor.
• Information overload: Constant ringing telephones, mobile phone texts, and “You have mail” messages on the internet demand instant action. Coupled with junk e-mail and Internet searches that produce thousands of ‘hits’, people can get caught up in the culture of immediacy. As a result, people become overwhelmed with information and will tend to do and say things that do not produce desired results, and that increases their stress levels.
• Social isolation: Although technology allows flexibility in working practices, it has the potential to make working more socially isolating. This, again, can be stressful.
• Fear of redundancy: Some people work harder and longer hours because they fear losing their jobs. Coupled with this, there are companies who are making people redundant all as a result of new technologies being installed. This fear can be stress-inducing.

There are now many studies showing the negative impact that technological advance can have on psychological and physical wellbeing. Some psychologists claim that round-the-clock technology upsets the natural rhythms of both body and brain. Muscles in our bodies are there to be used yet we sit for hours and hours at our terminals using only arm and hand muscles. In addition, rising levels of obesity have been levelled at children (so-called ‘screenagers’) and the computer game culture (topics that I have covered in previous blogs)..

Technology enables people to work from anywhere. No one knows if you’re at the beach or in your office. While on vacation people can spend time on their laptops and chat with clients via their mobile phone. For some – if they were unable to keep in touch with work – they wouldn’t go away for so long in the first place. However, not everyone can handle the extreme accessibility, and constant interruptions from work can irritate those that they are with. The work-family line can become blurred in an undesirable way. Lives become even more work-centred than it already is and can become a workday that never ends.

I can certainly think of times when I would take calls around the clock, seven days a week. Such commitment can build successful businesses but can cost heavily at a personal level. It can compromise both social relationships and health. Partners may complain that there isn’t any time that is just theirs. They may feel that their workaholic partner is never entirely there with them. Man may happily trade the income they have to spend more time with their partner. Technology has the potential to create problems in people’s lives and with their health.

The number of people and amount of time spent working during vacations and after office hours keeps growing as technology encroaches into leisure time. Some time ago, psychologist, Professor Larry Rosen of California State University did a four-year study of business attitudes and technology use. The research indicated 75% of managers and executives worked at home, toiling at their computer for an hour or two each day during traditional ‘down time’. They communicated less with family. Furthermore, they became dysfunctional, made life difficult for the family, and became more detached from their friends. Such findings are not isolated. For instance, another survey reported 62% of Hong Kong business managers said that dealing with too much information had caused personal relationships to suffer, and 51% said it adversely affected their health. Results from a comparison of 11 different countries indicated 40% felt that information overload was taking a toll on relationships and 33% reported technology was causing a health decline.

Technology has changed family dynamics, because technology tends to be a solo (rather than group) activity. Instead of sitting around talking together, different members may be spending their time accessing different technologies (e-mails, videogames, etc.). Even in the same room, people can be in a ‘techno-cocoon’. The technology world is so inviting and fascinating, and it has holding power. In addition to everyone staying in their own little techno-world, youngsters, who have grown up surrounded by beeping, colorful gadgets, tend to be more techno-savvy than their parents. Parents must set boundaries and remain in control of the gadgets.

Technology encourages us take advantage of every moment. For instance, during air-travel, laptops, smartphones and tablets, allow people to transform traditional ‘dead time’ into work. Rather than spending a few minutes unwinding or pulling thoughts together, people convert time in a taxi or airport into productive minutes. But such capabilities foster what some might refer to as ‘multi-tasking madness’. No longer content to complete one thing at a time, people conduct business while driving, check stock quotes while waiting in line at the shopping checkout, and read e-mail as they talk on the phone. The brain allows us to keep many balls in the air, but trying to process so much at once becomes taxing for a mind attempting to resolve unfinished business. However, multi-taskers may have difficulty concentrating and soundly sleeping. They may become irritable, because biochemical and physiological systems remain in a state of hyper-arousal. At 2am in the morning, the brain may come up with a solution to something left hanging earlier in the day. Multi-tasking eventually catches up with everyone.

Unless we set clear limits, we are going to be continuously multitasking. Even the less connected feel the stress. Research shows an increase in the number of people who have embraced electronic gadgetry. But those wavering can’t escape the technological revolution. Stress tends to take on a variety of forms. They can be angry things are changing so rapidly. They can be frustrated by how much time it takes to learn new things. They can be irritated, annoyed or feel inferior.

Just because technology makes a task possible, doesn’t mean you have to always take advantage. Companies must introduce initiatives to manage new technology rather than the technology managing the individuals. Stress management strategies include:

• Involving workers in decisions regarding the introduction and implementation of new technology
• Creating social networks for people working remotely or hot-desking
• Letting the new technology liberate the workers by creating more flexible working arrangements for a better balance between work and home
• Training people in how to get the most out of technology and making it user-friendly

Finally, here are a few hints and tips on how to beat techno-stress:

• When surfing for information, decide ahead of time how long you will commit to the endeavor. Accept the fact more data exists than you can possibly find and use.
• Learn the most effective places to look for what you need. If an Internet search top 20 hits fail to yield useful information, refine the original criteria. People can go from one page to another on the Internet, for two to three hours, and not have much to show for it.
• Limit e-mail retrieval to a few times per day (say when you first get in if you have a lot of international contacts and before you leave work). Furthermore, turn off instant messaging system or the volume on your computer. This is only helpful when you are expecting a message.
• When you do check your e-mails, reply immediately to e-mails to acknowledge receipt but don’t necessarily give a detailed reply. Give a considered response later.
• Indulge in a break from e-mail during short business trips. This will make travelling less stressful. In this connected time, it’s very important to disconnect oneself from time to time so as to get some distance and be able to rise above just reacting to immediate things. In those peaceful moments one can think bigger, slower and more inner questions. A break from technology frees up time for friends, family and appreciating the things that make the world unique.
• If you need to concentrate – to write a proposal, discuss an important issue with a client or think through a solution to a vexing problem – turn off ringers on phones and wireless devices and close the email inbox window.
• Develop a plan to handle a technology crisis, with tactics aimed at dealing with everything from hard-drive meltdowns and empty ink cartridges to a low-battery beep. Create back-up files and know how you’re going to get back online.
• One should always ask, ‘Am I using technology or is technology using me?’ and ‘What’s really important in life, and what’s not?’ Our job is to take back control from technology and then enjoy the benefits that it can give us without feeling the stresses.
• Finally, take a daily break from gadgets to exercise, read or garden. You will get a refreshed point of view and perspective. You have to have a balance in your life. It will make you a more contented person. By consciously restricting time with technology the stress will begin to subside.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D.  (2002).  Occupational health issues concerning Internet use in the workplace. Work and Stress, 16, 283-287.

Griffiths, M.D. (2004).  Tips on…Managing your e-mails. British Medical Journal Careers, 329, 240.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Internet abuse and addiction in the workplace. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Vol. I-V (Second Edition). pp. 2170-2175. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Publishing.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2004). Youth and technology: The case of gambling, video-game playing and the Internet. In J. Derevensky & R. Gupta (Eds.), Gambling Problems in Youth: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (pp. 101-120). New York: Kluwer.

Griffiths, M.D. & Dennis, F. (2000). How to beat techno-stress. Independent on Sunday (Reality section), May 7, p.22.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Clinical interventions for technology-based problems: Excessive Internet and video game use. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 26, 43-56.

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.