This is Your Brain on Social Media: The negative implications of habitual Internet and smartphone overuse

2

3

Abstract

This present thesis will investigate the role of Internet and smartphone use in our current society,

and if it can be conceptualized within the framework of addiction. By examining several sources

of pertinent literature in the fields of psychology digital media, it will go on to present evidence

for the popular notion of the Internet and smartphones as being labeled as “addictive.” These

digital technologies have become necessities in people's lives, but with the emergence of new

behaviors, it has become increasingly difficult in determining when these behaviors could

actually be considered normal vs. problematic. In a digital age where people spend most of their

waking time being “plugged in,” the Internet could very well be considered an addictive

substance that have users effected on a psychological level. The ubiquity of social media apps

and smartphones have infiltrated every aspect of our lives; from communication, to work, to

maintaining relationships and so on, by creating a sense of dependence and attachment to these

different forms of digital technologies. Although these technologies remain largely positive,

there are negative influences that should also be considered. Literature suggests that repetitive

habitual use of these technologies is increasingly frequent, but when it comes to defining it as

either an “addiction” or just a behavioral shift, it has become unclear. This thesis proposes to go

deeper into understanding if these new behaviors are in fact addictive, or if they are just a

modern day reflection of our current digitized world.

Key Words Addiction, Habit, Habitual, Millennial, Smartphone, Social Networking Apps, Behavior,

Emotional Regulation

4

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 5 2. Methodology 9

2.1 Selection Criteria for the Preliminary Search 10 2.2 Search Databases 10 2.3 Specific Terms Searched 12 2.4 Range of Publishing Years 13 2.5 Finalizing the Selection of Relevant Literature 14

3. Theoretical Framework 15 3.1 Who is the “Millennial?” 15

3.1a How Millennials Use Social Media 17 3.1b Negative Effects of Social Media Use 20

3.2. The Notion of Digital Addiction 23

3.2 a Addiction Defined 26 3.2 b The Neuroscience Behind Addiction 3.2 c Dopamine and Internet Related Cues 29 3.2 d Problematic Social Media Use for Emotional Regulation Purposes 30 3.2 e Case Study: Instagram’s Negative Impact 34

3.3 Inconsistent Terminology: “Addiction” vs. “Habit” 40

3.3 a Notion of Habit or Habitual 37 3.4 Smartphone Addiction vs. Internet Addiction - Is There a Difference? 40

3.4 a Design and Notification Factors 42 3.4 b Information Overload and Compulsivity 45 3.4 c Smartphone Use for Emotion Regulation 47

4. Discussion 49

4.1. Discussion of key findings 4.1 a Defining Addiction vs. Habitual Usage 49 4.1 b Millennial vs. Other Generations 51

4.2 Limitations 52 4.3 Recommendations for Future Studies 53

5. Conclusion 54 6. Bibliography 56

5

1. Introduction

These days most people who engage with various forms of digitally based technologies

will cumulatively spend several hours a day using them, and most people will probably have

trouble admitting to it, but as this thesis will develop, so does any potential “addict” when asked

to detail their usage habits. Smartphones and other digital devices play a crucial role in both

business and private areas of everyday life, and trying to judge how much use is normal versus

excessive is complicated. Social media and smartphones have revolutionized the way in which

we connect with one another, and the use of it has become an integral part of many people's lives

by connecting them with friends, family, and strangers at a moment's notice.

With these new and innovative digital technologies, great opportunities for learning and

creativity have infiltrated the world all around us. Digital technologies have many positive

aspects such as connecting people in new ways, building relationships and communicating

instantaneously. With the explosion of smartphones and social media apps within the last decade,

a certain kind of social behavior has also started to emerge. There is a dark side to these apps and

smartphones that must considered, with evidence raising concerns about the potentially negative

implications for people’s mental health (Royal Society for Public Health). Paradoxically, the

very apps that are helping people stayed connected with one another may also be contributing to

mental health issues. With mounting evidence demonstrating that a “too much” can exist with

respect to the consumption of digital contents, it has been reported that the use of the Internet and

social networking apps have risen rapidly in the last decade, with reports even suggesting that

82% of people used them daily in 2016 (Royal Society for Public Health).

Research has already suggested heavy users of social networking apps and smartphones

are more likely to report higher instances of poorer mental health, and that they experience

symptoms of anxiety and depression (Royal Society for Mental Health). Therefore, it is assumed

that individuals who already struggle with their self-esteem, most specifically individuals who

belong to the “millennial” generation, will also experience higher levels of psychological

distress. The overuse of multiple social media apps can result in the creation of undesirable

feelings such as depression and anxiety (Royal Society for Mental Health; van Deursen et al.

412), but regardless of these negative emotions, social media users keep engaging with their

networks and smartphones. In light of this, this thesis will attempt to map out the effect that

6

social networking apps have on an individual’s mood(s), most specifically individuals that are

part of the millennial generation.

The concept of addiction in social media is an ongoing debate in many different schools

of thought at present, even though it has been an ongoing discussion among new media theorists

for decades now. Notions of “addiction” can also be situated historically in debates of new media

concepts and theories (such as affective labor for example), but those theories are not the main

concern of this thesis. This thesis will only focus on the notion of “addiction” from journals that

focus on topics of psychology, cyber-psychology, and behavioral points of view. Addiction in

this new technological landscape is a broad topic that is affecting users on multiple levels, and

the ultimate aim of this thesis will be to handle the concept of addiction to these digital

technologies from a mainly psychological perspective. There are many different notions of

“addiction” in the context of new media, but when it comes to understanding why these

emerging behaviors of smartphone and social networking app use are starting to be considered

addictive it is because they have a different component from other addiction debates in new

media theory. When comparing the medium of a smartphone or app, to that of a television or

advertisement for example, there is a large difference, and that is the social, always available to

others factor. Social media varies greatly from older forms of digital media, and that is largely

because it depends on the interaction aspect between users, which can be argued as being the

very thing that users are becoming addicted to. The social contact and acceptance that is offered

through the use of social networking apps, that are predominantly accessed through smartphone

touch screens have exponentially grown in popularity over the last few years. With these

technologies becoming widely accessible and inescapable, they have created people who are

dependent on them. With the social interaction that people gain from using them, they are also

getting “addicted” to the feeling of having to stay socially connected at any moment (Jeong et

al.; Lee et al. 371; Oulasvirta et al.). Furthermore, the methodology of this thesis will further

explain what certain keywords and phrases were excluded from my online searches. Ultimately,

the breadth of this topic has theories and concepts that are rooted in many schools of thought,

and formulating a thesis on digital media addiction by way of a psychological point of view is

worthy of further exploration.

7

The literature used in this thesis will first focus on the millennial, because that is the first

generation that was born into an era where digital technology already existed. Millennials have

never known a world without access to the Internet, and because of this it has transformed the

way in which members of this generation interact and communicate with one another. Since

millennials are the most active social media users (van Deursen et al. 411), they have also proven

themselves to be the most susceptible to the potentially negative influences of their social media

use. The literature will also seek to examine the negative impact that social media may have on

an individual's mental health, and what drives users to keep engaging with these technologies if

that is the case. This will also tie in with the addictive qualities of social media and smartphones,

and how they are impacting individuals on multiple levels. Since this is a new phenomenon, the

exact effect that it has on the future of mental health and the emotional well being of an

individual is currently largely unclear. As the thesis will evolve it will also show that this is not

just a millennial problem, but also a problem that beginning to affect users of all ages.

Therefore, the main focus of this thesis will be to establish a theoretical framework that

will utilize the current literature that examines media addiction, human behavior, and compulsive

consumption. Furthermore, the objective of the literary framework will be to, (i) define and

explore the many ways in which the use of these social networking apps and smartphone devices

can be applied to users through the notion of “addiction,” and (ii) if this habitual behavior is

similar to that of an addiction, or if this kind of “excessive” behavior is a result of a modern day

shift in society's interaction with new digital developments. Preliminary ideas about the way in

which excessive and/or habitual use is recognized in relevant literature is that there is no

consistent way in which this behavior has been defined, therefore creating varying results in the

research fields of digital media and psychology, respectively. Moreover, it is also assumed that

the discourse that revolves around the habitual and/or excessive use of these digital technologies

only targets millennial aged people, but in reality the use of digital technologies have also spread

into other generations. This is largely due to the fact that social networking apps and

smartphones are now heavily relied upon by individuals of all ages. It is also predicted that this

thesis will uncover some blank spots in the academic discourse that is used to describe

“addictions” of this nature, and that the vernacular used in media addiction literature will not be

consistent, thus highlighting the fact that there is a need for continuity in defining this behavior

within this field. With the formation of a clear definition that is recognized by both professionals

8

and users alike, it can then thus create a foundation for the possibility of future recognition and

diagnosis. The literature that will be used in this thesis will aim to give insight into these

questions, and even uncover content that is worthy of consideration for further discussions.

Therefore, this thesis will aim to answer the following research question:

How is the notion of “addiction” being defined and discussed in comparison to the usage habits

of social networking apps and smartphones by researchers in the fields of psychology and digital

media?

9

2. Methodology

As stated above, the choice for researching the notion of what addiction is in relation to

the current landscape of social media use, comes from the fact that it is affecting people on a

multitude of levels (Lee et al. 381; van Deursen et al. 412). The main premise being that these

technologies have infiltrated every part of our daily lives, thus developing new behavioral habits

and emotional dependencies in people of all ages (Lee et al. 375). Another reason for the

justification of choosing this topic is because it is currently something that is being researched by

psychologists, and new media theorists alike with a great sense of urgency. With that said, a

search for relevant literature in these disciplines was just the first step towards answering the

research question that was formulated in the previous chapter. Moreover, how do these notions

apply to the latest forms of new media addictions? Based on the implicit knowledge of what an

“addiction” could be defined as: individuals compulsively checking their social media networks,

even if they do not add feelings of happiness or contentment, but on the contrary, leading the

person to feel depression or anxiety (Lee et al. 373; van Deursen et al. 412). Therefore, has the

concept of “addiction” become synonymous with other words such as “dependency” or

“overuse,” and can they even imply “addiction”? These questions became the starting point for

this methodology, and thus can also be described as the basis for the research of this thesis and

the proposed research question from the previous chapter.

The reason this thesis is presented as a meta-analysis is solely due to the fact there is so

much literature currently being published on people's emotional well-being that is being

explicitly linked to the use or (overuse) of certain digital technologies (Oulasvirta et al.; Shensa

et al. 5; Royal Society for Public Health). Because of the nature of a literary based thesis, the aim

was to narrow down all of the peer-reviewed journals that were deemed relevant to the research

topic in a systematic way by focusing on the contextual literature and discourse that is currently

going on in the fields of psychology in relation to new media technologies. The goal of a

methodology in a meta-analysis is to provide the reader with explicit information as to how the

writer obtained all pertinent information in regards to the chosen topic by identifying, selecting,

and critically evaluating the results of the selected studies. As can be imagined, the tedious task

of filtering through the never-ending amount of relevant literature is important when trying to

make a substantial claim on a certain topic. Therefore, the thesis will give an overview on the

most influential digital media and cyber psychological based literature pertinent to the topic of

10

digital dependencies, and the negative impact that they can have on a person’s emotional well-

being. The following sub-sections will further highlight the important steps that were taken in

order to answer the research question of how researchers in these respective fields aim to define

the notion of “addiction” in relation to digitally based user behaviors.

2.1 Selection Criteria for the Preliminary Search

In order to further investigate the discourse surrounding the notion of addiction in

relation to social media and smartphone use, a specific three part selection criteria was created in

order to select studies for inclusion in the meta-review of literature. The selection criteria for

choosing the most relevant literature consisted of the following categories: exact databases,

specific terms and key phrases, and the range of publishing years.

2.2 Search Databases

It is assumed that the most relevant literature was to be found in the disciplines of

psychology and media studies, and for the basis of this thesis, electronic search databases were

primarily used with specific search measures to gather the literature. Searches were mainly

conducted in the online databases of “Google Scholar” (https://scholar.google.nl) the “University

of Amsterdam CataloguePlus” (lib.uva.nl), and ScienceDirect. These databases were chosen

because they are considered to be well-established, multi-disciplinary search platforms that

contain a large variety of up-to-date peer-reviewed journals (Josette). Furthermore, the searches

were largely limited to peer-reviewed journals because they tend to provide a higher impact of

validated knowledge (Josette). Searching the electronic databases took some fine-tuning in order

to start locating the kind of journals that were going to be the most relevant in the writing this

thesis. The specific reasoning as to why these databases and the exact parameters that were used

are going to be described in the subsections below.

Google Scholar

The search for literature first began with inputting specific key terms such as “digital

addiction,” and then would go on to produce pages of results. The preliminary searches for

journals began in Google Scholar because it is a search database that provides a simple way to

start broadly researching credible literature. During the beginning stages of research, certain

11

parameters had to be established. By selecting certain parameters on the left side of the Google

Scholar web page, such as the “custom range” of years option, which for the basis of this thesis

was kept mostly between the years of 2010 to 2017. Occasionally, the “Any time” option would

be selected in order to produce publications with a wider range of years for the purpose of

analyzing addiction through the lense of past cyberpsychology media debates. This was helpful

in giving historical context to some of the contemporary debates that are currently surrounding

the concept of digitally based addictions. Depending on the combination of keywords and year

ranges that were selected, every now and then slight tweaks had to be made in order to retrieve

appropriate titles. For example, the parameter of “sort by relevance” or “sort by date” would be

selected to broaden the return results. When a journal would fit the criteria of the thesis it would

then be “saved” for the next round of selection.

UvA CataloguePlus

Much like the steps that were taken in the Google Scholar search engine, the same were

taken for the UvA online catalogue. In the search bar of the online catalogue there is an

“advanced search” option that gives more specific parameters. To receive as many options as

possible, the “All” tab would stay selected, and from there specific keywords would be inputted.

The parameters were always kept the same, except for the change of keywords and years. As it

was mentioned above, the years were again set between 2010 to 2017 in the CataloguePlus to

maintain continuity in the types of themes that were being discussed among researchers.

ScienceDirect

Due to the nature of the chosen topic, the online database ScienceDirect

(www.sciencedirect.com) was also used. ScienceDirect is a source for journals pertaining to the

topics of scientific and medical research. From this database, seven journals were used in the

writing of this thesis. Those journals were also the most useful when it came to the formulation

of the arguments presented here. Searches were often redirected to ScienceDirect through the use

of the UvA CataloguePlus. In the ScienceDirect database the same parameters (key words and

range of years) were used to retrieve the appropriate results.

12

Google

On occasion, the search engine Google.com was used in order to find other types of

digitally based articles and blogs. The reason the occasional non-peer reviewed journal and/or

blog was used, was solely due to the fact that they were helpful in highlighting the current trends

in digital media terminology and debates in regards to the addictive nature of certain

technologies. Through the searches done on Google.com, blogs such as the “Royal Society for

Public Health” and “Hootsuite” provided context to the themes and terminology that focused on

millennials, and the popular social networking app Instagram. When it came to gathering up-to-

date statistics on millennials for example, pewresearch.org was used by way of Google.

Therefore, because of the nature of digital studies, peer-reviewed journals tended to sometimes

be somewhat out of date, so finding relevant material elsewhere was imperative. Also, because

this topic can be quite broad, sometimes the search results conducted in the “credible” databases

would not retrieve results that were pertinent enough to address the proposed thesis.

2.3 Specific Terms Searched

Once the databases were established, the next step was to decide upon the specific

keywords and phrases that would best retrieve the literature that needed to be analyzed. This was

a very important step in the entire process because these specific terms would go on to shape the

narrative of the thesis. The operationalization of these precise terms also helped guide the

rationalization behind the chosen topic of digitally based addictions. To begin, search terms that

were imputed into the databases that were included in the criteria for the meta-analysis were as

follows, and in no particular order: addiction, habitual, habit, use, overuse, impact, dependency

and problematic. Those search terms were most often paired with: Internet, digital, smartphone,

millennial/Gen Y, and social media. These terms, and the results they produced began to show

that there are varying levels as to how “use” is being defined. Therefore, this was already

considered to be a preliminary finding in regards to how “addiction” is being defined by these

disciplines. Also, in these preliminary searches it could already be noticed that researchers often

used the terms “addiction” “overuse” “habit” and “dependency” to mean the same thing.

Meaning, that this part of the process already started to highlight the fact that there is a great deal

of inconsistency in the language that is used with researchers trying to define the same notion of

what is considered to be an “addiction.”

13

Terms that were excluded:

The theoretical engagement with the concept of addiction in relation to debates in new

media have a long history in areas such as advertisement, the early web, and gaming for

example. Although these are all worthy points of study and research, for the basis of this literary

meta-review, certain topics were excluded from the selection criteria in order to maintain a

cohesive, and succinct return results for the proposed thesis. Therefore, journals pertaining to

Internet gaming and culture were excluded from the preliminary searches. For example, when a

search would result in a title that would include the word “gaming” or “online games” it would

not be used for the basis of this thesis because it is a different topic. Internet gaming has been

proven to be highly addictive, and can even be said that gaming studies have a part in building

the current framework for this addiction based discourse, but ultimately this was not the chosen

direction.

2.4 Range of Publishing Years

In the online databases, search parameters for a specific time frame were chosen in order

to filter out journals that were more than seven years old. For this meta-review the years selected

for analysis were between the years of 2010 to 2017. This is a short range of years, but in the

world of new digital technologies, such as the development of the smartphone and social

networking apps, the most current information was needed in order to begin to define the new

behaviors emerging from the use of them. Through a preliminary analysis of the journals that

came from the above selected criteria, it began to demonstrate that there were trends already

apparent in ongoing research. For example, when searching “digital addiction” or “smartphone

addiction,” relevant journals with precise keywords in the title came up from as early as 2016

(e.g. journals by Jeong et al.; Sariyska et al.). It could already be hypothesized that this is a

largely unexplored topic, but researchers are sensing urgency in trying to define these emerging

behavioral patterns nonetheless. Filtering the search to largely produce journals from the last

seven years helped greatly in gaining an insight into the current state of cyber-psychological

literature. Moreover, this does not mean that all of the literature that is found in the bibliography

is from this particular range of years. Journals and sources that are older than this range of time

14

were used to gain context, and to build a narrative on where these behavioral developments could

have started to emerge from in the past.

2.5 Finalizing the Selection of Relevant Literature

The results from the preliminary search were then put through a second selection process

by restricting the relevant keywords to only being in titles, abstracts, or both. Assessing the

relevance of the retrieved literature was a two-step process. This was considered to be the most

efficient way in which to sift through the peer-reviewed journals that came from the initial online

searches. The first step was to quickly read through only the titles and abstracts of the selected

journals, looking for the specific terms outlined in the above subsection. Through this second

step, relevant journals were then selected for further dissection. By comparing journals against

one another in this way, it helped narrow down the criteria for what would be included or

excluded in the final bibliography. Once a journal was selected that fit the first criteria (e.g.

relevant title with keywords and a captivating abstract), it would then be saved to a folder for the

second stage of assessment. In the second stage the selected journal would then be read in full

and great detail. During this stage, the text would be read and highlighted at the same time. By

following this two-step selection process, it was possible to assess large bulks of literature

efficiently. With the collection of the peer-reviewed journals a pattern started to emerge of the

same authors repeatedly coming up, confirming the realization that a point of saturation had been

reached. Due to the fairly unexplored nature of the chosen thesis topic, this was to be expected

and it also helped confirm that a thorough search of relevant literature had been conducted in

order to create a rich bibliography. It was also helpful to utilize the reference lists of the articles

that were selected. This was a good way to find important journals that did not come up from my

initial search results and to also broaden my findings.

15

3. Theoretical Framework

This next chapter will highlight the literature that was selected during the methodological

process in order to support the operationalization of the key terms and ideas related to the notion

of “addiction” to the latest forms of new media addiction. The purpose of this section will be to

answer the proposed research question through various frameworks that have already been

established by researchers in the fields of psychology and media studies, in order to gain insight

as to how the notion of addiction is being defined in these fields, and what can ultimately be

added or taken away from it. Furthermore, the notion of a social media addiction as a particular

affliction that has become widespread in the age of social networking apps and smartphones, so

one can simply ask: what exactly is the Internet ‘addict’ addicted to? (Davies 395). The

beginning of this meta-review of literature will be to start with describing the millennial

generation, because it is pivotal to understanding the dependent type of behaviors that have

cropped up from the use of smartphones and social networking apps, and largely because these

technologies are especially appealing among young people. Going on to breaking down the

definition of “addiction,” and what its relationship is between social media and addictive type

behaviors (i.e. compulsive checking, and feelings of anxiety or depression with constant use).

Finally, if these behaviors can even be deemed as a true “addictions,” and rather labeling them as

“habits” when smartphones and social networking apps have become integral to the workings of

our society these days.

3.1 Who is the “Millennial?”

Millennials have become one of the largest generations in history who are predicted to

shift priorities and expectations from previous generations. This cohort of people, who are also

known as Generation Y (Gen Y) or the Net Generation (Rouse), are known to have “a different

world, and a different worldview” (Millennials Coming of Age). The term “millennial” is usually

attributed to the group of individuals that reached adulthood at the turn of the 21st century. Neil

Howe and William Strauss are often given credit for coining the term, and define the millennial

cohort as individuals who are born roughly between 1981 and 2004 (Howe and Strauss 31). It is

essential to acknowledge that there are certain tendencies that will be characteristic to the

millennial generation specifically, and their biggest common denominator is the undeniable fact

that they have grown up in a time of rapid change, and in an increasingly online and socially

16

networked world (Rouse; Howe and Strauss 40). In order to understand the millennial individual

on a more personal level some common characteristics will be discussed, and throughout this

section the terms “millennial” and “Gen Y” will be used interchangeably.

As already stated, millennials are the first generation in history to grow up using

computers and were raised in the new media information environment. These digital natives are

in tune with an increasingly digitized world, and are typically up-to date with the newest

technologies. Rouse states that “due to early exposure to the user interface it has made [them]

more adept to understanding visual languages and can easily adjust to new programs, operating

system devices and perform computer-based tasks more efficiently than older

generations.” They are accustomed to information transparency, and the notion of instant

gratification through the use of multiple social media apps and smartphones. Since millennials

have grown up exposed to this kind of technology, it has also resulted in certain positive

characteristic traits. According to Bolton and Putnam, members of Gen Y are considered to be

more open to change, technologically savvy, better learners, more tolerant of diversity, and

efficient multi-taskers. This generation has the potential to make an impact and challenge the

previously revered view of young people as uninvolved and disinterested in social change. This

is an important concept because it appears to be that millennials are at the forefront of social

media technologies, and with that vast exposure to technology a different set of values and

expectations are formed (Putnam 75).

Millennials have been raised with the notion of “following your dreams” which has

created a sense of confidence and a very “individualistic” mindset. Although this is not

necessarily a negative personality trait, it can contribute to a greater sense of entitlement and

narcissism (Rouse) that in turn can create unreachable expectations resulting in feelings of

disappointment and social anxiety if their goals are not reached. The Gen Y individual has

distinct characteristics that makes them stand out from other generations, and they are often

described as, “being more skeptical, blunt, and impatient relative to their predecessors...they

have a greater sense of entitlement and a tendency to reject social conventions compared to Baby

Boomers at similar ages” (Bolton et al. 252). This generation also receives the most targeted

marketing attention through different forms of social media, and are predicted to reshape the

economy (Millennials Coming of Age), hence why the use of smartphones and social networking

app use is so high among them. When it comes to how they tend to portray themselves online,

17

millennials are generally much more comfortable with an online public persona. Privacy is still

important to the millennial, but it has also become a generation of online over sharing that users

participate in to various degrees. Since millennials are comfortable sharing so much of their day-

to-day (even moment-to-moment), they also expose themselves to feelings of comparison in

relation to what their online peers are doing. Through this comparison, millennials can start to

experience feelings of frustration or unhappiness (Rouse) based on what others are posting on

their respective social networking apps. It can start to feel as if the “grass is greener,” or the

popular current notion of when in fact, other users are heavily curating their online personas as

well.

Based on previous research done on the concept of optimizing one’s self-presentation to their

online world, several techniques are usually employed to promote favorable outcomes for

themselves in certain ways such as:

“Spending more time with greater cognitive resources to edit messages, carefully

selecting photographs, highlighting their positive attributes, presenting an ideal self,

having a deeper self-disclosure, managing the styles of their language, or providing a set

of links to other sites or associating themselves with certain people, symbols, and

material objects (Chou et al. 117).”

It is believed that through this set of actions that a user posting to their desired social network is

going to leave a lasting, positive impression on their followers. An aim to this type of self-

disclosure and sharing of personal details with an online audience is in hopes of building a high

“social capital” which will be further defined in section 3.1b: Negative Effects of Millennial

Social Media Use. Consequently, there is still much to research when it comes to millennial

social media usage habits, and if overuse is exclusive to this generation alone.

3.1a How Millennials Use Social Media

The characteristics of this cohort of people is broad, as with all characterizations of

generations, although what is consistent is the fact that this group has been exposed to

technology since their birth. This is a key formative characteristic for Gen Y, which has its own

18

advantages and disadvantages in terms of cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes (Bolton et

al. 245). But the millennials true defining characteristics are their heavy reliance on technology

for entertainment, interactions with others, and emotional regulation. Therefore, since the

Internet has existed since the birth of the Gen Y person, it wasn’t until the 1social media boom of

the early 2000’s that it started to become as widely used and accepted as it is now (Bolton et al.

247). One thing that is for certain is that social media usage behavior of the millennial generation

is evolving at a rapid rate. Since Gen Y individuals have grown up with computers and using the

Internet, they have mastered it when it comes to communication (Bolton et al. 246). These

technologically savvy people are considered to be the most visually sophisticated of any

generation, but their need to communicate through social media is one of their most defining

characteristics. Studies have shown that social media users aged 18 to 34 years old are more

likely than older age groups to use social media for communicative purposes with acquaintances,

friends and family (Bolton et al. 248).

In terms of understanding how content is consumed currently, the largest difference

between the millennial generation vs. other generations is that most media content produced now

can be accessed with the touch of a finger. With previous generations, content consumption was

just as important as it is now and also served the same purpose of providing “information, leisure

or entertainment, socializing, experiencing a sense of community, and for staying in touch with

friends” (Bolton et al. 249). It is just done much more differently now. Now content consumption

allows for “real time” interactions, and the sheer volume of content that can be interacted with

instantaneously has most certainly changed the way people interact with information. This type

of news and media consumption was not at the disposition of previous generations, which has

therefore given millennials a different set of behaviors and usage habits from that of their parents

generation (Millennials Coming of Age). When it comes to engaging in online activities, it is

defined as either consumption (e.g. lurking or observing) or contribution (e.g. posting). This

suggests that most users consume rather than contribute to social media (Bolton et al. 249), and

based on a general understanding of Gen Y’s high social media consumption, it can be suggested

that this cohort spends a considerable amount of time online consuming content (Bolton et al.

1 Social media can be broadly defined as an online platform that allows users to post and share a variety of content by encompassing user‐generated services, such as blogs and social networking sites (Bolton et al. 246)

19

249; Pempek et al. 228; Millennials Coming of Age). Therefore, this need for consuming

content is not much different from past generations, other than the fact that millennials are

simply doing it at a much faster pace.

Factors which influence a millennials use of social media in their daily life is a

combination of environmental and individual factors. Environmental factors that are considered

to be an influence over a millennials social media usage can be economic, technological, or

cultural variables. When it comes to the individual differences among millennial individuals,

socio-economic status, personal values and preferences, as well as their age and where they are

in their life cycle stage all influence social media consumption habits. According to Bolton et al.,

these individual factors go even further and consist of their goals, emotions, personal identity and

their social norms. In consideration of these factors, and by consulting digital media and

psychology-based literature, this theoretical framework will mostly look into individual-level

factors that play a large role in shaping a millennials media consumption (Bolton et al. 248).

To promote such a framework most of the focus will land on the adverse effects that

social media has on millennials, and at some point older generations, because social media is

inescapable now. It has become an inherent part of society. Shirley Cramer, of the Royal Society

for Public Health states, “Social media has become a space in which we form and build

relationships, shape self-identity, express ourselves, and learn about the world around us; it is

intrinsically linked to mental health.” One of the biggest reasons for the use of social media is the

socialization factor. Keeping in touch with loved ones from near and far was once something

that was hard to do. It took not only effort, but also a commitment of time and resources. Now it

is instant and easy; having a conversation half way across the world is done instantaneously and

with minimal effort. Social networking apps, such as Instagram, help shape a millennials identity

because they participate in the sharing of their character online, as well as see how others share

themselves online. There is a mutual understanding between online networks and communities

that rely on the sharing of personal information to create a sense of bonding to one another.

These types of online reciprocal relationships can strengthen familial bonds and friendships, as

well as help support social relationships within online communities enhancing Gen Y’s self-

esteem (Bolton et al. 253; Valkenburg et al. 584). Therefore, the formation and maintenance of

social capital has a positive influence on Gen Y’s social media use (Bolton et al. 253).

20

There is a uniqueness to this generation because they have also become known as the

“Peter Pan Generation” (Bolton et al. 252; Howe and Strauss 44) Generally speaking; they are

typically “less focused on money and earnings, but more on pleasurable experiences” (van

Deursen et al. 412). Essentially this group of people have deferred the onset of adulthood in a

variety of ways, such as delaying living independently from their parents, and even getting

married and starting a family later (Howe and Strauss 34). This is important in terms of trying to

understand a millennials social media use, and potential overuse based on the stage that they are

in within their lifecycle. If the millennial is mentally deferring adulthood then this can explain

why they can use social media as an “escape” from their actual surroundings. If that is the case,

then subsequent feelings of unhappiness or not feeling “good enough” can start to affect them

negatively. In short, if in fact a delay has been created with the onset of what is considered

“adulthood” in the millennial person, then their social media usage will reflect this either

negatively or positively. The way in which they engage (negatively or positively) with social

media will also have short and long term effects on their work environments, society, and most

importantly themselves in an emotional capacity.

3.1b Negative Effects of Millennial Social Media Use

Although there are many positive effects and outcomes from the use of social media

among millennials, the negative ones are less often studied, and are usually not considered to be

actual problems that can negatively impact a person’s life. With the explosion of the smartphone

and social networking apps, it has become a daily habit that most people openly partake in. A

millennial is much more dependent on social media than previous generations simply because as

mentioned before, this is the first generation which has spent their entire lives in a digital

environment. In most respects a millennial depends on social media and to be connected at all

times of the day for a variety of reasons. Having a sense of dependency on an object or feeling is

by definition being in a state of reliance or control by someone or something else. So in many

ways, a person’s social media habits can affect them in negative ways because they end up

depending on an object to regulate their emotions, or to keep striving for a “perfect” social

capital. This is worthy of study because this instantaneous form of information technology has

already profoundly affected the way Gen Y individuals live, socialize, and work on a daily basis.

21

With the immediate gratification that social media and smartphones provide, a diminished sense

of volitional control can induce persistent activity (Lee et al. 373; Thomée et al. 66).

Gen Y’s social media use can detrimentally affect essentially all facets of their individual

factors, in the way of psychological, emotional, physical well-being and social development. As

already mentioned, since millennials are prone to depend heavily on social media technologies

for communication, entertainment, and emotion regulation purposes, then it is worthy to explore

the possible long-term effects of the overuse of social media, especially in regards to their mental

health (Bolton et al. 252). There are many positive aspects to sharing your life on these social

networking sites, but this thesis aims to understand what the negative aspects are, and why users

keep going back to these social networking sites even when they experience these negative

emotions. It also aims to understand what the user may be “addicted” to based on the addictive

qualities of these technologies, and if/when they create negative feelings for a user’s why they

may keep engaging with these behaviors.

One explanation for this counterproductive behavior could be the millennials inherent

need to be “accepted” by their peers online. There is this notion called “social capital” which is

defined as “connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and

trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam 66). Social capital is something that millennials

strive to maintain in terms of how they appear online to friends and family, but this need for

social reciprocity has positive as well as negative consequences. It has become second nature to

the millennial to use electronic mediums of communication for social interaction in order to

build their social capital. Generally speaking, millennials strive to obtain a substantial sense of

social capital by what they post online in hopes of advancing their social standing in the eyes of

their peers. This kind of self-inflicted social pressure can ultimately create negative

consequences, such as unwanted stress and questions of self-worth. With the acceptance of these

new technologies, it has created other generationally specific characteristics. One of these

characteristics that are not often taken seriously enough is the millennials tendency to over share

online. The amount of information that some are willing to share online can be considered

shocking sometimes, especially to other generations. But the millennial individual has grown up

in a digital environment, so they have different boundaries for when it comes to what they are

comfortable sharing online with others. Due to this over share of their private details, they might

reveal too much sensitive material online in their search for social approval, thus ending up with

22

negative consequences. Young people who spend a lot of time online tend to disclose more

personal information that can affect their personal and professional relationships (Christofides et

al. 341; Putnam 66). The need to gain more social capital also comes with a “need for

popularity” among similar aged peers, and this need can be a strong predictor of how much

information is disclosed on their social media apps (Bolton et al. 252; Ellison et al. 1143).

Generally speaking these kinds of potentially negative consequences are not usually

considered serious by the millennial. They may even brush warnings off as worrying for no

reason, but the negative effects of over sharing your personal information online can be real.

There are two ways of looking at these potentially negative consequences. First of all, once an

individual posts anything online it is there forever. Thus, their information can be used in ways

that they have little, to no control over. Information that is shared online rather naively in

formative years (e.g. in adolescence or college years) can be found later on by a future employer

in terms of recruiting. Things that were posted light heartedly in adolescence can be used against

an individual years into their future, potentially harming career prospects or even their

reputation. Secondly, and most relative in terms of relating to my thesis topic are the more

individual, psychological in nature negative consequences. In brief, frustration or depression

when social recognition is not reciprocated can bring about negative feelings which makes the

user keep returning back to social media to try and remedy them. The experience of a short-lived

sense of satisfaction or gratification is much like that of an addict to their respective addiction.

With the explosion of social media use within the last decade, sharing your life across multiple

social media apps has become not only the norm, but also an expectation - even with their

negative consequences.

With all that said, are these consequences that can only be considered as a millennial

problem? Surely, if one were to look around they would notice people of all ages engaging in

social media and smartphone use, and even exhibit behaviors of technology overuse and

dependence. This will lead into the next portion of the literary review by going deeper into the

psychological factors that play a large role in the way the Gen Y individual, and people of all

ages showing signs of addictive or dependent behaviors towards there social media apps and

smartphones.

3.2 The Notion of Digital Addiction

23

First of all, how is the notion of “addiction” being defined and discussed in the fields of

psychology in relation to media studies? Also, how are these notions being applied to the latest

forms of new media addictions, especially when it comes to the infiltration of smartphones and

social networking apps into society. Furthermore, can the constant use of these digital

technologies really be defined as a clinical addiction, when they have been designed to be used

on a daily basis (i.e. habit forming)? Section 3.2 will only focus on the notion of addiction, and

how it is being currently discussed by researchers in the field of psychology from a digital media

perspective. This section will provide support in answering the research question by breaking

down what a addiction is from a clinical point of view, and if those proposed parameters can be

applied to the current habits that are present from the use of social networking apps and

smartphones.

3.2a Addiction Defined

The notion of addiction already exists by definition and diagnosis in the field of

psychology, so to create a solid framework for this next section of digitally based “addictions”

one must first understand what an addiction is from a clinical point of view. Generally speaking

there are different ways in which the term “addiction” is used, and to whom it may apply to is

often debated. The term “addiction” is most often linked to substance use, namely compulsive

drug use (Potenza). Clearly, the Internet and smartphones are not illicit drugs, but evidence is

starting to prove that the overuse of these technologies are altering people's minds and emotions

by creating cravings and urges similar to drug cravings (Potenza; van Deursen et al. 415). So in

terms of how Internet addiction can be defined, the most highly observed symptoms already

come from an established framework that is present in the field of psychology. Therefore, an

adopted definition that can be applied to situations of digital overuse is defined as follows, “a

preoccupation with the Internet, withdrawal when not being online, a development of tolerance,

but also negative repercussions in one's own life due to excessive usage” (Montag et al.; Tao et

al. 556).

In terms of current psychological research in regards to studying the overuse of the

Internet and smartphones, the word “addiction” is mostly used and examined against several

different addiction scales that already exist in the world of psychology. Although these scales

were created for other forms of addiction, such as alcoholism or gambling, they are being applied

24

to the increasing problem of social media use even if they are not actually being recognized as

problematic behavior worthy of a possible diagnosis. For example, the Bergen Facebook

Addiction Scale was created in 2012 at the height of the Facebook revolution when researchers

started to realize that there might be addictive qualities that come with using this social media

platform. In the Shensa et al. study, they define what addiction is in regards to “problematic

social media use,” and it was assessed by the six core elements of addiction: salience, mood

modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse.

In the years since the 2Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale was created (Paddock), a

number of other equally addictive social networking apps have cropped up: Instagram, Snapchat,

Twitter, and YouTube to name a few. So what is “it” really? Can researchers, and even everyday

people call it an “addiction”? As will be discussed further on, not even psychologists can label it

as an “addiction” because it is not officially recognized in the world of psychiatry - yet. Research

in this area of study is new and constantly changing, mostly due to the nature of the fast moving

world of digital technologies. One aim for researchers in labeling this technological phenomenon

as an “addiction” could be to try and create enough valid results in the hopes of bringing

attention to this growing epidemic, and to be taken seriously by other researchers.

When examining Internet overuse it is fairly common to see the word “addiction” being

used. It has become a commonsense frame through which media producers and media consumers

themselves can represent problematic levels of consumption. When comparing Internet overuse

to other addictions, the ultimate solution for the individual is to take responsibility for their

actions and to stop the harmful behavior completely (Montag et al.; Evans). The debate that

surrounds Internet addiction in the fields of classic psychology are already providing support that

addictive tendencies to the Internet and other forms of digital media can very well be

characterized as a form of behavioral addiction, even if it is not fully recognized in an official

way (Montag et al.; van Deursen et al. 411). This can be considered as a potential roadblock in

terms of considering the overuse of these technologies as actual, diagnosable addictions.

Due to the charged nature of the word “addiction”, and the associated complexities that

come with it, it makes these emerging behaviors even harder to define (Potenza). Considerable

effort is being made in trying to understand the neurological basis of the potentially “addictive”

2 Researchers in Norway published the first of its kind psychological scale to measure Facebook addiction in 2012.

25

qualities of these kinds of repetitive behaviors, and if these behaviors do in fact have

phenomenological and neurological parallels with substance use disorders (Grant et al. 300). As

previously stated, there is a lot of gray area when it comes to trying to define what exactly these

behaviors mean, and the negative implications that they have over a person over time is not yet

known. For the basis of this thesis, lets consider the habitual use of these technologies to be more

closely defined to that of an (behavioral) addiction, and to establish continuity in the theoretical

framework, the term “addiction” will be used throughout the thesis. This is because it is the term

that is most often used in these types of studies and literature, and it seems to be the most

straightforward. With that said, there are still usage differences that should be addressed, and

what their potentially negative implications for users are. According to van Deursen et al., they

define behavioral addiction as follows: “a disorder that is characterized by (i) behavior that

functions to produce pleasure and relieve feelings of pain and stress, and (ii) failure to control or

limit the behavior despite significant harmful consequences.”

At this point, it is also important to add that the 3DSM-5 still does not acknowledge that a

“general use of the Internet or social media” as an addictive disorder. This is very important to

mention, because the DSM-5 is a manual and diagnostic tool that serves as a universal authority

for psychiatric diagnoses. According to the DSM-5, the closest that a digital based disorder

comes in terms of inclusion into the manual is “Internet gaming disorder,” and even then it is

listed in the section of disorders that still require further research. Although it is apparent in

scientific research already that the persistent use and preoccupation with Internet games can

result in clinically significant impairment or distress, this does not extend into the realm of

Internet and social media use for some reason. Nor does it acknowledge the emerging

overdependence that people have started to display when it comes to their smartphones.

Although it is not officially considered by the American Psychiatric Association as an actual

addiction, it is still being heavily researched by psychologists and researchers, and the progress

they are making in this area is worthy of acknowledgement and discussion.

3.2b The Neuroscience Behind Addiction

3 The DSM-5 stands for “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,” and is in accordance to the 2013 update of the American Psychiatric Association.

26

Despite the fact that it is not technically considered an addiction yet by clinically defined

standards, it is still starting to be considered as a global health issue (Montag et al.), according to

psychologists that are conducting research in this developing area of study. It is important to

state from the beginning that this is an area of study that is new, and efforts are being made in

characterizing not only specific risk factors for the potential development of digitally based

addictions, but what could also be the possible consequences of excessive digital use in general.

Coherent theoretical conceptualizations of Internet addiction are starting to take shape by using

classic research approaches from existing areas of psychology. According to Montag et al., it

seems that in this classic approach in the understanding of Internet addiction, personality

variables are highly considered as a “vulnerability factor,” especially in combination with

neuroscience approaches such as brain imaging. In order to form a widely understood

conceptualization of what Internet addiction is (or could be), first, a clinical symptomatology

must be established. A framework for future research into this topic is imperative in determining

what the brain-based and neurochemical markers for such an addiction can be.

As we all know, the Internet has taken the world by storm, and it has undoubtedly

changed the way in which we live and communicate in the world around us. According to

Montag et al., participation rates for Internet usage was at 49.2% in June of 2016, meaning

essentially half of the world's population currently has access to some form of the Internet.

However, many research scientists are becoming greatly concerned with the potentially harmful

effects of excessive Internet usage on our mental health (Montag el al). Although the term

“Internet addiction” is not officially considered a diagnosis, the term was still coined about 20

years ago by Dr. Kimberly Young, a licensed psychologist and internationally known expert on

Internet addiction, and some researchers even refer to problematic Internet use as a “digital

addiction.” This could be because these highly observed symptoms can (and do) extend beyond

the dependence on the Internet alone. Over the last few years this “Internet addiction” has most

certainly transformed into more of a “digital addiction” because it has expanded into the

territories of smartphones and social networking apps. As can be imagined, with the many terms

that this proposed addiction can go by it just further complicates the issue at hand.

Although Internet addiction is still hard to define, psychological and neuro-scientific

research is finding increasingly more evidence that an addiction to the Internet has some

similarities between substance-use disorders (Montag et al.). Researchers are concluding that

27

excessive Internet use can be characterized as a behavioral addiction, and according to Sariyska

and Montag et al., “specific personality traits have been determined as vulnerability factors for

both, Internet addiction as well as substance-use disorders, particularly low self-directedness and

high 4neuroticism.” Moreover, when comparing Internet addiction with other substance use

disorders (e.g. alcoholism), similarities have been observed which is important in the quest to set

a specific framework for future diagnosis for digitally based addictions.

Therefore, it is imperative to establish a theoretical framework that will help people

understand digital addiction on a neurological level. Classic psychology suggests that a stress-

diathesis model in combination with a history of psychopathology, in combination with access to

the Internet and positive reinforcement from the Internet could result in maladaptive conditions

(Montag et al.). Research is already proving this to be true according to Montag et al. by giving

an anecdotal situation such as “in the online world I am a successful person, but in the offline

world I am a nobody.” These kinds of thoughts and feelings experienced by individuals who turn

to the Internet in order to receive positive reinforcement use it as a way to regulate their

emotions. The desire to regulate emotions through the excessive use of the Internet and other

social media channels can be an explanation as to why people overuse it in general. Moreover, if

a person feels a sense of belonging or happiness in his or her online world, then these potentially

delusional thoughts are further exasperated by the need to participate in excessive online

interactions. Thus, if a person constantly checks their multiple social media apps in search of

new notifications or reactions, they will develop a habit of depending on a notification to “feel

good.” This will also reinforce the notion of the instant “reward” in the form of a nice message

or notification during an online interaction (Montag et al.). To that end, the topic of digital

addiction is still somewhat vague in terms of understanding, and even diagnosis, because people

who (over) use different forms of digital media are essentially still in a “gray area.” Although

this “gray area” does exist to an extent, it does not mean that these behavioral tendencies, and

mood regulating factors are not similar to that of an addict that relies on a certain “substance” to

“feel good.”

4 A personality trait that is found in individuals who tend to be moody, and experience feelings such as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness (Montag et al.).

28

Another issue in regards to the vagueness of not only trying to define this type of

addiction, but in also treating it, is that it is very generalized. As stated earlier, 49.2% of the

world has access to the Internet. Currently, millennials make up 27% of the global population,

and account for about 2 billion people (Millennials: Pew Research Center). Based on these

statistics, millennials are currently the largest users of the Internet, and due to the already

discussed generalized characteristics of this generation, they are also the most obvious social

media and smartphone users. As my theoretical framework has progressed so far, I have come to

understand that the “Internet” is not an umbrella term or general space that can be defined

simply, or only attributed to one specific generation. The Internet also has many distinct forms

and areas that apply to the interests of any type of person, regardless of the age using it.

Therefore, according to Montag et al., online social networks and its derivatives, such as social

media interactions or smartphone use, can further muddy the waters of this “addiction”

discourse. Theoretically, if you took each of these topics on their own you would agree that they

have their own preexisting factors that make them quite different from one another. Before the

“Internet” was available, and became as widespread as it is now, social interactions and phones

(not “smartphones”) were also part of people's lives. With the introduction of the “Internet” it

changed everything. For instance, anything that is considered to be digital already has an

underlying factor that it is instant, and whatever you seek to get from an online interaction is

readily available (e.g. communicating with a friend). Meaning that the quicker something

desirable like a notification is accessed, the more the user can repeat a certain behavior. This

further supports the idea that applying an umbrella term that groups everything into one

definition of what a digital “addiction” could be when defined by researchers. Just as new digital

media technologies are changing at an exponential rate, so are these digitally based “addictions.”

Distinguishing between these different types of addictive behaviors has already been supported

by empirical evidence, and with recent developments in the world of psychology some progress

has also been made. As mentioned, the term “Internet Gaming Disorder” has already been

included in the DSM-5 in section 3, but as an “emerging disorder” (Montag et al.; Petry et al.

1186). Although this is progressive, it is still not considered an actual addiction in the field of

psychology, but as something that is “emerging.” Basing this on the increasing evidence that

various kinds of addictive online based behaviors are being grouped together under a broad

29

umbrella of just calling it all an “Internet Addiction” can not only be considered problematic, but

much too narrow in perspective.

3.2c Dopamine and Internet Related Cues

One key to understanding why a person can be addicted to using their digital devices and

multiple social networking apps, is by the dopamine release that happens when a person receives

a notification, a message, or just checks their social media feed with the expectation of seeing

something new being posted by friends or family. On a neuroscience level, because at some

point an addiction is neurologically based, it must be briefly addressed as to what happens in the

brain (at a very basic level) when a possible Internet addict is confronted with Internet related

cues (for the basis of this thesis I will call them “notifications”). Every notification that is

received appeals to the reward center of the brain, and every ‘ding’ could be a social or

professional opportunity. Therefore, answering the notification has resulted in a hit of dopamine,

and with repeated behavior has created addictive habits. Although this will not be described in

much detail within this thesis, it is important to address in terms of understanding what happens

in the brain when a person receives a notification, and why they have come to feel compelled at

that very moment to check it. In short, Internet related cues are received, and a strong

dopaminergic burst is received in the prefrontal cortex of the brain (Montag et al.). Although this

evidence does exist and has been proven, it is still is not recognized as an actual addiction

according to clinical standards. This evidence supports the notion of an addiction by research

standards, but a disconnect is still present. Even though it has not been diagnosed officially yet, it

does not mean that the evidence of these addictive factors do not exist on a real level.

For those unaware, dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is responsible for reward driven

learning, pleasure, and satisfaction (Evans). Dopamine is a chemical that your brain, and other

body parts produce in order to exert various effects throughout the human body. In terms of brain

functions, the 5striatum is also a part of the brain where dopamine exerts an effect, and

researchers have noticed when examining neuroimaging findings that a loss of volume in this

5 This part of the brain is involved in reward pathways and the suppression of socially unacceptable impulses.

30

brain structure can be correlated to excessive Internet use (Lin et al.; Zhou et al. 92). Researchers

have also summarized when looking at these images that “taken together, [studies show] Internet

addiction is associated with structural and functional changes in brain regions involving

emotional processing, executive attention, decision making, and cognitive control” (Lin et al.;

Zhou et al. 93). 6Atrophy of the gray matter in the brain has also been found present according in

multiple studies (Zhou et al. 93; Yuan et al.).

If there is a disturbance in the exertion of dopamine, then an abnormality will become

present. There are many abnormalities that could arise if this were to happen, but to stay relevant

to this thesis it is most commonly linked to addiction and/or abnormal reward seeking behaviors

(Evans). Therefore, in layman’s terms, the release of dopamine is involved with all types of

addictions. So it is not surprising that researchers have found evidence when studying specific

brain structures, that dopamine release is also involved in cases of Internet addiction. Studies in

regards to the potential addictive qualities of the Internet have also concluded that the release of

both serotonin and dopamine were evident (Evans; Montag et al.). Just another implication that

Internet “addiction” can in fact be classified as such. The dopamine release associated with

Internet addiction is getting a lot of attention from researchers because in particular, the linkage

of the dopaminergic bursts in the striatal regions of the brain are associated with the motivation

toward all “rewards.”

3.2d Problematic Social Media Use for Emotional Regulation Purposes

Primary emotional systems that are also at play when a person overuses the Internet and

other digital devices and networks, therefore this thesis will also examine the negative emotions

that individuals can experience, most specifically in the Gen Y demographic, and why they tend

to overuse multiple social media networks even when it makes them feel negatively about

themselves. Mood regulation is associated with the problematic use of the Internet because

according to the research currently available, “linking individual differences in positive/negative

emotionality in terms of personality (e.g., extraversion or neuroticism) to Internet addiction” has

a direct correlation (Montag et al.). As outlined by the extensive study that Montag et al.

conducted, “distinct facets of problematic online usage behaviors such as (i) preference for

online social interaction vs. real social interaction, (ii) cognitive preoccupation with the Internet,

6 Shrinkage or loss of tissue volume where “processing” occurs (Zhou et al. 93).

31

(iii) compulsive Internet use, and (iv) mood regulation by Internet usage or (v) negative

outcomes due to over usage” are all linked with regulating emotions with various facets of

Internet addiction (Montag et al.).

Most studies being conducted at this time, have investigated individual differences in

terms of Internet addiction, and they can already start to see an obvious link of negative primary

emotional systems (e.g. fear, sadness, and anger) as being strongly linked to higher tendencies of

problematic Internet usage (Montag et al.), thus further supporting the argument being made that

the notion of addiction is being defined by researchers by providing substantial evidence from a

psychologically based research. Although these areas of study and research are still new, there is

already evidence of associations between Internet addiction and depression, presenting a link

between Internet addiction and neuroticism (Montag et al.; Sariyska et al.). To promote such a

framework it is imperative to conduct further studies, but according to what has been found from

scholarly journals so far, the best predictors for a preoccupation and addiction to the Internet

were high levels of feeling emotionally “down” or upset. These kinds of individuals used the

Internet as a “social-surrogate” for mood up-regulation (Montag et al.). Or in other words, these

individuals with high levels of feeling emotionally “down” or upset used the Internet more

persistently in comparison to more “modest” Internet users who did not experience these

negative feelings. The problem with these kinds of predictions/assumptions is that they must be

studied over a long period of time even if they are evident to researchers at the moment.

In one study conducted on Internet users, which was published in the online international

journal PloS One, it reported the immediate negative psychological impact after Internet use

(Evans). The research found out that those who engaged in longer periods of Internet use also

reported an increase in negative moods once they stopped using the Internet. Users then had to

re-engage in Internet use in order to “remove” these negative feelings (Evans). There is still

much research to be done regarding addictive Internet use, but it seems that there is a vicious

cycle forming nonetheless. Much of what users do online releases dopamine into the brain’s

pleasure center that creates a compulsive pleasure-seeking behavior. Therefore, we should start

to consider what actually causes the negative feelings that are linked to compulsive Internet

usage. Are individuals with certain personality traits, or mood disorders more susceptible to

overusing different forms of digital social media in hopes of trying to regulate their moods? Or,

is the overuse of digital media becoming a bad habit that most of society has slipped into because

32

it has become impossible to avoid, and thus developing a dependence on it? Although studies of

this nature do exist, a solid framework by researchers must be established for future studies to

prove these hypotheses.

If we were to consider this notion - that addictive Internet use is more common among

individuals with emotion regulation problems (e.g. neuroticism) then the compulsive use of the

Internet most likely stems from feelings of worry, jealousy, a sense of a “loss of control.” This

further supports that there is evidence of addiction in relation to digital use. For example, if a

researcher were to look at it from just this perspective, it could already be potentially hypothesize

that individuals who suffer from chronic high anxiety might also suffer from compulsive usage

habits. As with most addictions though, individual differences do exist, and they play a huge role

in how these kinds of behaviors influence a person's life. As with any addiction, this is not only a

behavioral issue, but also one that is also rooted in the structures of the human brain and its

molecular underpinnings (Montag et al.). Moreover, when it comes to an individual's differences,

and their primary emotional traits, it helps to “establish a preliminary model about which brain

areas, and more importantly, which underlying neurotransmitters may currently help illuminate a

scientific understanding of Internet addiction” (Montag et al.). Since dopamine is a known

neurotransmitter that is already associated with addictive habits in psychology, when it comes to

cases of addictive Internet use, this already established framework can assist in establishing a

basis for future diagnosis and media studies. In some ways though, Montag’s studies can be

considered narrow, or “one sided” because it mostly focuses on the emotional side of the

addictive disorder. This can be considered problematic in extensive studies because these types

of studies should be all encompassing. In short this means that researchers should aim to

integrate both the emotion regulation parts of the human brain with the neuro-scientific

framework when trying to create a framework for digitally based addictions.

These concerns are not new in the world of digital technology, and in a study created by

Shensa et al., they created a study group of participants from the Unites States aged 19 to 32

which is partially representative of the millennial age bracket. As hypothesized by researchers,

they sought out to see if there was an association between social media (over) use and

depression, and if this could be explained by the emerging maladaptive pattern known as

“problematic social media use.” According to Shensa et al., “problematic social media use” has

been loosely defined as follows: “PSMU has been characterized by an excessive concern about

33

social media, being driven by a strong motivation to use social media, and devoting so much

time and effort to social media use that it impairs other social activities, studies, jobs,

interpersonal relationships, and/or psychological health and well-being (Shensa et al. 2).”

Existing research has already concluded to an extent that exposure to media such as “video

games, television, movies, and the Internet to be associated with the development of depression

among adolescents” (Bickham et al.; Shensa et al. 1). This study most specifically surveyed a

study group of adolescents and millennials for existing depressive symptoms in combination

with their “problematic social media use” and how they can affect each other.

This study has been helpful, even if it is slightly limiting, because depression is just one

symptom that was tested in this study, and individuals who overuse social media can experience

other negative emotions. This research considered problematic social media use to be associated

with depressive symptoms, and even stated that it can cause a decline in the well being of both

adolescents and adults (Shensa et al. 2). This is a really interesting point that will be further

elaborated on in the discussion portion of this thesis because as technologies have developed,

people of all ages have caught on to using them. This epidemic has grown past just being a

“millennial problem.” It would be far too simple to define it that way, and to place all the blame

on just the millennial generation would be problematic. As the literature will show, this is not

just a millennial problem anymore, but also something that can affect any individual who

partakes in the use of multiple social media apps and smartphones. With that said, it is

noteworthy to acknowledge that it still cannot be stated with absolute fact that social media use

and depression have a clearly defined relationship. Due to the diversity of social media apps (and

their never ending expansion), researchers will have even more difficulty in characterizing the

different types of habits and dependencies that can be associated with them. Nevertheless, while

the current world of psychology does not acknowledge “problematic social media use” as a

diagnosis, it has emerged as a maladaptive behavior nonetheless, and has become a substantial

research topic in recent years. Due to the breadth of this topic in reference to social media use

and it’s unquestionably addictive factors, studies have started to consider the problematic use of

participating in multiple social networking sites and the way that they do in fact influence a

user's mood negatively.

This study has also noted the impact of excessive time spent on social media in regards to

an individual's emotions as a complex relationship which was likely influenced by both external

34

and internal factors (Shensa et al. 2). External factors, such as social isolation would result in less

face to face interactions with others within their community, which can lead to depressive or

negative feelings. According to Shensa and the other researchers, this is considered to be more of

an external process because it is done in order to cope with their negative emotions by

substituting in person interactions with quick online ones for example. When it comes to internal

factors, Shensa et al. stated that other young adults indicated that their overuse of social media

was done in order to self regulate their own emotions. Essentially, these individuals would use

social media as a “mediator” or “buffer” to alleviate the negative feelings they are experiencing.

This can temporarily work for some people as an imagined “escape” from their real lives, but

sometimes it can backfire when fantasy does not become reality.

According to a recent report titled #StatusOfMine released by the Royal Society for

Public Health, they have likewise found a negative link between a young person's mental health

and social media apps. They even rated which social media platform had a more negative versus

positive effect on a young person's mental health. YouTube was rated as having the most

positive impact on a person’s mental health and wellbeing, while Instagram had the most

negative impact (Royal Society for Public Health). Based the theoretical framework so far, it is

safe to assume that individuals, who are already struggling to cope with depressive or other

negative feelings, will then already be more susceptible to overusing the Internet and other social

networking apps. Thus, it is also understandable to conclude that certain social media apps will

have a greater negative impact on users than other apps.

3.2 e A Case Study: Instagram’s Negative Impact So why has Instagram been rated as having the most negative impact on an individual's

psyche? Well, to start Instagram has taken over the social media world in recent years. It has

surpassed Facebook in terms of engagement and popularity. This “micro-blogging” picture-

sharing platform evolved into something much larger than originally intended. According to

Instagram, there is an estimated 500 million active monthly users, and they “like” up to 4.2

billion posts per day. That is a lot of influence if you ask me. According to the popular social

marketing blog, Hootsuite, they have stated that Instagram has the highest online engagement

composed of a very active user base. Although it is considered to be the most popular social

networking app in the world at the moment, it does come with some negative side effects that are

35

just starting to surface in research. It is already getting a reputation as being the app that is most

“detrimental to young people’s mental health and well being (Royal Society for Public Health).”

This is because it is a photo-sharing platform that has created a “filtered” way in which people

have started to view the world around them. It has inevitably made users think that others are

seemingly living better lives than they are, and that their lives may appear to be more “perfect”

than that our their own. This constant comparison to someone else's world is increasingly

resulting in users reporting feelings of “depression, loneliness, resentment and lowered self-

esteem” (Royal Society for Public Health). This envy inducing type of social media is becoming

a phenomenon in its own right by altering not only the consciousness of how the user perceives

other people's lives, but how they interact within their own world outside of the heavily staged

snapshot. By spending increasing amounts of time online, they are also exposing themselves to

hour’s worth of images and lifestyles on a daily basis which can make them feel anxious,

depressed, lonely and unfulfilled. The latest statistics from the #StatusOfMind study are claiming

that 91% of 16-24 year olds use the Internet for social networking. If we were to take this

statistic at face value, then these reports are coming from millennials who are constantly being

exposed to images of “perfect” looking lifestyles that are not attainable for most people, because

they are not even real. Instagram has become notorious for creating this kind of idealized and

unrealistic image. This has resulted in individuals experiencing heightened senses of anxiety and

increasing feelings of inadequacy (Royal Society for Public Health). Based on the statistics

presented by this group of researchers, they used an age bracket younger than the age bracket

that is representative of the millennial generation. This is noteworthy because social media use is

starting at much younger ages these days, which once again ties into the notion that this is not

just a millennial problem anymore, but one that has impact over individuals of all ages now.

Unrealistic expectations manifest themselves in individuals who already suffer from low-

self esteem and anxiety disorders, and when in combination with the frequency of use it can lead

to these individuals neglecting other important aspects of their lives. For example, they tend to

replace face-to-face interactions with increasingly more screen time. Spending too much time

online will also result in less physical activity, interrupt normal sleep habits, and participate in

less real life social interactions which could all contribute to depressive symptoms (Royal

Society for Public Health; Shensa et al. 4). But most importantly, in terms of providing support

to my research question, is it also plausible that increased social media usage can affect the way

36

in which an individual internalizes these online experiences. By constantly comparing

themselves to the images and lifestyles they see online, they will end up spending a lot of their

time thinking about social media, leading to excessively comparing themselves with others’

idealized portrayals of themselves (Royal Society for Public Health; Shensa et al. 4). This

constant comparison can result in the individual experiencing depression, or other negative

feelings because they cannot “live up” to these perfectly polished images and portrayed

lifestyles. This constant comparison of self, to what is seen online, will greatly affect the

individual that already has problematic social media usage habits because “this may translate

into a maladaptive pattern of repetitive visits, escalated engagement, and consequent negative

self-image.” (Shensa et al. 5). It is worth acknowledging that even if an individual who does not

have issues with social anxiety, stress or the regulation of their own emotions, can still be at risk

of falling victim to this “not being good enough” comparison mindset. This can happen through

prolonged exposures to these various forms of social media and smartphone use that can

ultimately have a lasting negative impact them as well.

Therefore, if a person is already experiencing feelings of depression or other low moods,

then they are more inclined to overuse social media in order to avoid real world face-to-face

interactions. In these kinds of cases, individuals may also overuse social media because not only

is it highly accessible and always available, it is (almost) always controllable. In other words, if

an individual suffers from low self-esteem or feels anxiety in any kind of social setting, than in

their online “world” they can feel at ease, and as if they “fit in.” They can create a social

community for themselves in the safety of their own homes, and portray themselves in a way that

they may not be able to do offline. These findings are important and relevant in hopes of

understanding why people overuse social media, but it is also a very narrow representation of a

much larger demographic who engage with their media in addictive on a daily (or even hourly)

basis.

3.3 Inconsistent Terminology: “Addiction” vs. “Habit”

With the established framework that has been presented for the notion of addiction to

digital technologies, one might wonder if the word “habit” or “habitual” is more appropriate

when describing how these technologies are being used in this current digital landscape. The

words “addiction” and “habit” appear to be used interchangeably when the analysis of the

37

selected journals aimed to describe social media use. Moreover, the mixed use of the

terminology already begun to highlight just how disjointed the discourse for these emerging

behaviors actually are. Researchers would loosely throw around the word “addiction” or “habit”

without defining what the actual meaning of those respective words were, because ultimately

those two words do not mean the same thing. Therefore, this concept will be broken down to

show the reader that the discourse surrounding this topic remains largely inconsistent due to the

language being used. There is enough empirical evidence and support from the previous section

to argue that people can be in fact addicted to these technologies, but is it really appropriate to

label each and every user as an ‘addict’, when in reality the daily use of them has also become a

habit?

3.3a Notion of Habit or Habitual

Maybe the constant use of the Internet and smartphones have just become a normal

behavioral “habit” that has emerged in the last few years? By definition, a habit is the result of a

behavior that you participate in on a regular basis in the form of a routine or daily schedule.

Generally speaking, social media and smartphone use have become a daily habit for most people.

This is where it can get complicated, because habits are also considered to be part of an addictive

behavior. Even though the creation, manifestation, and cure of an addiction is much different

from that of a habit (The Addiction Advisor). Habits vary greatly from addictions though,

because addictions are associated with a substance or behavior in which your mind and body

experience a great sense of pleasure or fulfillment temporarily. Moreover, “addictive behavior is

characterized by losing self-control, which is different than habitual behavior. Habits should be

considered automatic behavioral rituals, but without a total loss of self-regulation” (Metcalfe and

Mischel, 5).

In terms of having the habit of compulsively using a smartphone, it is hard to label the

overuse of a smartphone or social network as either an addiction or habit because this kind of

behavior has become a common social behavior. The daily habit of using a smartphone has

become necessary in work, business, education, and the absent mindedness that comes with

constantly checking social networking sites have become commonplace behavior in our current

society. In terms of the self-regulation of emotions through the use of social networks, what we

post online is consciously done so in a way in order to portray the desired image that we have of

38

ourselves online. The negative side to all of this that is not often considered, it that this kind of

behavior can very easily cause user stress. Especially if they feel their image is not creating the

kind of reaction (goal) that they are desire. The need to post online or check notifications for

approval from peers has created a habitual behavior, because even though it is functional for

most people, it can also become obsessive and/or addictive in nature. Based on the addictive

qualities of the smartphone and social media usage, compulsive behavior has already been

identified by several studies within this thesis: namely those by van Deursen et al., Shensa et al.,

Lee et al., and Oulasvirta et al. The Gen Y demographic has reported that they “compulsively

check social network profiles and updates” (Bolton et al. 254; Lee et al. 375) even if they

experience feelings of, “depression, loneliness and social anxiety.” These feelings have been

linked to what can be described as “Internet addiction,” but recent studies cannot state for certain

if these feeling come from the over use of social media, or if these feelings are already pre-

existing in the individual, and the overuse of the Internet only intensifies them (Bolton et al. 254;

Montag et al.).

The daily habit of using the Internet and smartphones should be considered problematic

when an individual uses social media to gain a sense of “social acceptance,” by spending a

majority of their day purposefully curating an image in order to elicit a specific type of response

from others. This ties back into the notion of “addiction” and at what point should it be

considered one by researchers in these fields? If the user is dependent on a certain ‘substance’

(e.g. the Internet, or social networking apps) to regulate their moods, then why is this behavior

not called an addiction? If a user needs this kind of social acceptance to self-regulate their own

emotions, then they will engage in excessive Internet and smartphone use more often in order to

avoid stress or anxiety (Bolton et al. 254; Montag et al.). This behavior is usually done so with

the intention of gaining a lot of “likes,” and if those “likes” are not received then the poster will

possibly question their self-worth or it might lower their self-esteem. An unspoken expectation

has been created to be socially desirable to people we do and do not know online, and in a lot of

ways this has become the very definition of most forms of social media these days. Appearing a

certain way online for others can potentially relieve anxiety, and provide a temporary sense of

pleasure or fulfillment when receiving a notification, hence the habit of checking and updating

personal networks. When you think about it, the now socially accepted habitual use of the

Internet and smartphone in order to self-regulate emotions is considered by most people as a

39

benign habit, but it can also cause emotional distress. It can even elevate a user's stress in

psychological and biological ways (Lee et al. 373), and yet, it has become a huge part of our

societal standard to participate in all these different kinds of social networks. With these

emerging negative consequences, at which point will it become recognized as problematic

behavior worthy of a more clinical intervention?

This kind of use of social media and smartphones have become a “normal” habit that

people have adapted into their daily lives, and this one reason as to why this media based

behavioral shift is difficult to define: because it has become a socially acceptable behavior. It has

become a behavior that can be done out in the open, in any type of social situation. In the end it

is a question of which comes first: the depressive symptoms or the overuse of social media? It is

logical to consider that the association between use and symptoms to be bidirectional, that they

influence each other and subsequently contributes to increases in one another (Shensa et al. 5).

In many cases, social media is used as a coping mechanism for people. If it creates

positive feelings for an individual, or if they have an online community that they can turn to in

times of support then this kind of engagement could actually be beneficial to the user. On the

other hand, if the individual already suffers from feelings of anxiety or depression, the habitual

use of social media could possibly make the existing problems worse. In these types of

situations it is hard to determine what comes first: the pre-existing negative emotions (e.g.

jealousy, envy, anxiety, hatred, self-loathing) with the individual overusing social media in hopes

of alleviating these emotions. Or, if the individual starts to feel these negative emotions, is it

linked to their excessive habit of using these digital technologies?

So we must ask ourselves why? If large groups of young adults are reporting that they

feel worse when they use specific social networking apps such as Instagram, then why do they

keep getting back on the “scroll”? Is it the addictive aspects of social media that are built into our

apps, or is something else? Have users become dependent on social media in hopes of making

themselves feel better, even if it is actually making them feel worse? It is hard to pinpoint exactly

what drives an individual to overuse their social media, especially in cases of depressive and

negative feelings because there are so many other components that constitute the influence of

digital media in our lives. Social networking apps, the Internet, and smartphones all have

addictive factors that appeal to the human brain, thus creating a sense of dependence, and even

urgency or panic when it is not readily available. Therefore, we cannot simply state that

40

spending substantial amounts of time on any of these social media outlets is enough to create an

addiction to them. There are design factors to take into account when you look at apps and

websites. There are sound and notification alerts that keep us coming back for more. The

overpowering need to be available and “plugged in” at most, if not all hours of the day will be

explored in the next section through the effect that smartphones have on users.

3.4 Smartphone Addiction vs. Internet Addiction - Is There a Difference?

In consideration of the established narrative from the previous sections, the notion of

“addiction” in relation to the usage habits of the Internet and social networking apps have started

to extend onto smartphone users as well. A world without smartphones no longer exists, and this

device comes with its own addictive elements. The smartphone has become a device that not

only provides communication and entertainment value, but has also become a stress reliever

much like how the Internet is used in the same ways (Lee et al. 380). Thus supporting the claim

that they blend into one another, and in many ways they have actually become equivalent to one

another, because the smartphone is essentially a handheld computer with a built in Internet

network. When comparing the addictive qualities of both, a person could say that they are

similar, if not more intense due to the devices portability and constant availability (Jeong et al.;

Oulasvirta et al.). Thus, these findings back up the proposed research question: the usage habits

of smartphones can also fit into the proposed notion of “addiction,” because smartphones have

become an extension of the Internet.

In previous years, before the smartphone explosion of the last decade, a person only had

the option of using the Internet in a sedentary way: at their home, work, or school. The

smartphone can now be considered a personal handheld computer with the potential to produce

new habits related to Internet use (Jeong et al.; Oulasvirta et al.). Previously, “the Internet” was

not a portable thing that a person could carry in the palm of their hand, with the ability to be

available on any data network at one’s convenience. The allowance that a smartphone offers in

connection to a person's personal social network at any moment has essentially created an

individual who is constantly “plugged” in. In this context it is noteworthy to state that the

smartphone has intensified what we could already consider to be an Internet addiction or

dependence because we can have it anywhere we go. To a great deal, the smartphone is in our

hand at most moments of the day: from the time we wake up in the morning it will be the first

41

thing a person reaches for, and the last thing they put down in the evening before going to bed.

Individuals have become available at all times of the day, and according to the Lee et al. study,

they concluded that their subjects checked their phones up to 34 times a day. They also

concluded that this was not out of necessity, but out of habit, and stated “excessive usage and

habitual checking on [...] messages may result in compulsive usage and even lead to mobile

phone addiction” (Lee et al. 373).

In many ways the smartphone revolution is still under hyped, and its potentially

psychologically negative implications are not considered seriously enough. Larry Rosen, author

of iDisorder, states that “technology is changing our world more than ever before, and the

catalyst now is the smartphone.” With that said, the smartphone has undoubtedly become a

necessity in the lives of people of all ages. Along with its obvious benefits, however, the

smartphone also has detrimental effects that are worthy of discussion. This part of the literary

review will bring forth the dark side of the emerging behavioral habits and dependencies that

revolve around smartphone usage, and if one generational cohort (e.g. the millennial) is more

susceptible to this “dark side” than another. Smartphones have been designed to be carried 24/7,

and thus have become an indispensable part of life for people these days. The support offered by

the smartphone to its owner has become invaluable, and as a result a strong attachment to it has

been created (van Deursen et al. 412). Smartphones are also no longer considered to be a cutting

edge technology in our modern, fast paced world and because of this not even the newest or

fastest smartphone holds much intrigue anymore. The smartphone has most certainly become

something we cannot live without in this digitized age.

Nevertheless, the increasing dependency on smartphones is creating an epidemic of

addicted users. The notion of addiction is now being compared by researchers who also examine

smartphone behavior, and they are starting to express concern in regards to the future

consequences of habitual users. Research in this area is imperative because the smartphone is not

going anywhere, anytime soon. The need for extensive study on Internet and smartphone

addiction is acknowledged, although most factors that support ideas of addiction in relation to

digital media are still largely unknown (van Deursen et al. 412). When it comes to a smartphone

and the addictive qualities of it, there are some important variables to consider. First, there are

gratifications such as instant notifications that play a large role in creating habitual and addictive

smartphone behavior. Second, personality traits of the user must be considered, and for the basis

42

of the thesis only age factors will be contemplated, namely the millennial generation versus older

generations. Without a doubt, younger people are the most profound users of mobile

technologies, so understandably their age demographic is of utmost importance. Research has

also taken gender into consideration because according to the van Deursen study, men and

women use smartphones differently based on their assumed personality traits, but this will not be

discussed further. So when it comes to smartphone dependence, and habitual use, who is the

most victim to it? Well like most technological developments, it is easy to place all of the blame

on the millennial generation; it has even become popular to do so in current social narratives.

Even though this is predominantly true, as these next sections will continue, we will notice that it

is not just a “millennial” thing anymore. People of all ages are all ultimately affected to varying

degrees of smartphone dependence because the smartphone is everywhere now. However, the

exact impact of the habitual use of the smartphone is not well understood because they have not

been around long enough.

3.4a Design and Notification Factors

The unnatural stimulation that is provided by a screen, regardless of the content it brings,

has ill effects on our mental and physical health at multiple levels that will be considered in this

section. The complicated and varied nature of the symptoms that can be linked to prolonged

screen time have a profound effect on our moods, cognition, and behaviors resulting in instances

of repeated stress on the nervous system. Over time this will make self-regulation and stress

management less efficient for a person (Dunckley). The interesting thing that is not usually

considered by a user is just how addictive the design qualities of a smartphone are. The unique

features of these devices, such as “screen size, applications, ubiquity, and flexibility in both time

and space” are all designed in such a way to be very attractive to a user” (Nielsen et al. 375; van

Deursen et al. 412). Besides the design factors of the smartphone, “apps” that are accessed

through the touch screen feature of phones are also inviting to the users brain. The large variety

of applications promotes the intensive use of smartphones and being online (van Deursen et al.

412). These devices also have the potential to produce new habits that are related to Internet use

by creating automatic reactions. For example, if you receive a notification, you will most likely

hear a ‘ding’ or the phone might vibrate. Sound cues have created a habit for users to reach for

their phone automatically, and (probably) absentmindedly. These kinds of cues have created

43

automatic actions, both externally (e.g. a ringtone) and internally (e.g. emotional state, urge.)

(van Deursen et al. 414). If the notifications/cues that are being received are creating positive

outcomes, and they are reoccurring, then we have a recipe for creating a habit, “the frequency of

these actions and the salience of the reward determine the strength of the habit” (van Deursen et

al. 412).

Based on these ideas, the automatic reaction that the smartphone has evoked with the

mindless “reach and scroll” has created a new socially accepted behavior. It will also depend on

how an individual looks at this kind of behavior, but generally speaking it has become

‘acceptable’ to use a smartphone at a restaurant or in a family gathering for example. This has

also created a socially accepted behavior (albeit an annoying one) where a person is in a physical

moment with others, but is more concentrated on what is going on in their online social

networks. This commonly observed behavior is just one way in which problematic habitual use

has become acceptable. And what if you ask that person to put their phone away, and concentrate

on the moment at hand? Well then, “when the smartphone is removed, panic attacks or feelings

of discomfort might emerge” (Young et al. 20; van Deursen et al. 412). Thus, surmising that

habitual smartphone use will influence an individual's addictive behavior, and create feelings of

uneasiness or anxiety when the object is not present.

Generally speaking, when notifications are received (hopefully) they are positive. A new

notification from a special person can feel like a pleasurable experience that can function as a

reward in the brain, which can consequently increase the habitual or addictive behavior for that

individual. The addictiveness of the Internet and smartphone is also heavily influenced by social

use; meaning that if an individual primarily uses their smartphone for social reasons, then the

risk of getting addicted to it is even higher than for a person who uses it for more practical

purposes. According to Chou et al. Li et al., and van Deursen et al., people who are highly

dependent on the Internet and smartphone for social interactions “act impulsively, avoid

emotions, and fail to keep up proper planning and/or time management” (Li et al. 1067).

Therefore, it is easy to understand that a “smartphone addict” will spend most of their time on

their device for social purposes, and it is also known that “both Internet and smartphone addicts

are known to extensively focus on social applications while tending to isolate themselves

offline” (van Deursen et al. 417). It is also understandable that an action such as checking a

44

phone constantly for new notifications (a reward) is reinforced by the idea of 7operant

conditioning. Thus, if you are using your smartphone for social reasons and are receiving new

notifications then the behavior can be described as rewarding and pleasurable, resulting in a

higher likeliness to repeat these actions to escape from real life (Chou et al.; Lopez-Fernandez et

al.; van Deursen et al. 413). Moreover, socially oriented smartphone users consider most actions

that are performed or observed through smartphone use as “rewards,” such as new features or

receiving new notifications. It has become evident that unintended behaviors like creating

automatic urges in the users brain to persuade them to unlock the device to check for new

notifications without actually thinking to do so has become a habitual behavior (Jeong et al., van

Deursen et al. 417). In short, if these things are considered “rewards” that make people feel

better, even momentarily, then checking will reoccur and habits will be formed. This does not

necessarily equate to negative and anxiety inducing behavior even if the user is still exhibiting

the problematic behavior. Nevertheless, habitual smartphone use is an important indicator for

addictive smartphone behavior, because if the user cannot control such actions or emotions, and

even needs them in order to function, then this is by definition become an addiction for them.

If a person is constantly on their phone, then it can start to create expectations for users

having to be available at any time of the day. Because of this expectation, if one cannot be

reached (or receive notifications for that matter) then they can start to experience feelings of

stress or anxiety if their device is not immediately reachable (Carbonell et al. 902; van Deursen

et al. 414). This stress is caused by a sense of unavailability in a time of being constantly

available, and with an underlying expectation from others to communicate instantly as well. The

same goes for when a message is sent. If an immediate response is not received than feelings of

anxiousness, stress or even panic, depending on the situation or person being communicated to,

also start to set in. If one cannot be reached by others, or contact friends, or fails to be up-to-date,

then irrational emotions start to overcome the individual (van Deursen et al. 412). This need for

instant communication, no matter the situation, is a form of social stress that has become very

apparent in this current communicative age. As mentioned already, millennials are very

concerned with maintaining their social capital through their online presence. Since the

smartphone has become a constant feature in one’s daily life now, it has also become a critical

tool in impression management, and a sense of unavailability might result in bad impressions

7 Actions reinforced by rewards and punishments

45

among friends or followers (van Deursen et al. 412). Ultimately, this has become something

millennials try to avoid at all costs which leads back to the idea of constantly having to be

checked in online in order to avoid negative emotions or stressful situations.

In this context it is noteworthy to state that design and notifications (a by-product of the

smartphone design) factors play a large role in user behavior. The overuse of a smartphone

differs from the overuse of the Internet mainly because a phone is a handheld object that can be

compulsively used without even thinking about it (Jeong et al.). The smartphone has been

designed to be grabbed out of a user's pocket without reason, which most smartphone users will

probably admit to doing. Another design factor that influences a person's usage behavior in

recent years is that the individual has grown overly attached to it (Lee et al. 381). This device can

do everything for us: it manages one’s daily activities, keeps you in touch with everyone, and

even tells you where to go and how to get there. These design features have created a

dependence that has become apparent in the behavior that revolves around smartphone usage and

it cannot go unnoticed. People can report feelings of uneasiness, anxiousness, and irritation when

they cannot locate their phone (Lee et al. 381; van Deursen et al. 418) or when they have a poor

Wi-Fi signal for instance. When a user cannot stay “connected” then adverse psychological

consequences such as stress arise, and even fears of damaging relationships (Lee et al. 381; van

Deursen et al. 414). These are intense psychological repercussions that can affect the way a

person lives their life day to day, relating back to one component of what is considered to be an

addiction.

3.4b Information Overload and Compulsivity

The explosive growth of networking technologies has created a technological

phenomenon, which has users experiencing stress due to an overload of information and

communication (Lee et al. 381). It is very common behavior these days for a smartphone user to

check their phone multiple times a day (even multiple times an hour), just to know what friends

and family are doing at any point of their respective days. This constant need to check social

networking apps, and getting up to the moment news from them has resulted in an compulsive

urge to always know what others are doing - even down to the most mundane of details. The

reason this point is made is because these networking technologies have created a sense of

urgency, or even obsession for users to be constantly “checked in” by comparing their own day

46

against someone else's. This leads to a usage habit of excessively checking your smartphone and

apps to get more information, thus resulting in the notion of an information overload. With an

increased reliance on smartphones and the information they provide, it is understandable that

users can experience higher levels of stress which can also be experienced by any individual, not

just ones who are more prone to high levels of stress or anxiety. Since the smartphone has

become a pivotal piece of information technology for people, individuals have developed the

urge to adapt to it in order to “keep up with the times,” resulting in an overdependence on their

smartphone leading to compulsive usage habits and elevated instances of stress (Lee et al. 374;

van Deursen et al. 414).

In terms of compulsive behaviors in regards to smartphone usage, one must consider

what the driving force behind such a behavior is, and most importantly, who is most affected by

it? Compulsive type behaviors are defined as follows: “a response to an uncontrollable drive or

desired to obtain, use, or experience a feeling or activity...a pattern of repetitive, senseless

behavior” (Lee et al. 375). The smartphone has all of the necessary components to create a

compulsive, dependent like behavior toward an object that elicits certain actions and feelings for

the user. Other than the addictive qualities of the Internet and smartphone, the compulsivity

factor is most intensely found in the smartphone. The smartphone's ability to quickly access

“rewards” like new messages or notifications at the touch of a finger “induces a user to check

their phones more often” (Lee et al. 375). As can be imagined, repetitive checking of a

smartphone for notifications or news is considered to be a compulsive behavior because the

smartphone provides instant gratification to users (Oulasvirta et al. 106; Lee et al. 379). This

kind of behavior in respect to smartphone usage is considered to be normal in our current

society, especially by millennials. In general though, an over preoccupation with the phone is a

habit that people engage in now without much consideration for the negative psychological

aspects, but they do exist. For example, those who use their phones excessively experience

difficulty in controlling not only the amount of time that they spend on the device, but are more

easily distracted in general. According to the Lee et al. study, increasing amounts of time spent

on the phone to achieve the same level of satisfaction is described as an excessive behavior that

users exhibit, with dependence and addiction working similarly. A user needs more and more

time on their phone, in order to achieve a better mood, or relieve a dysphonic mood (e.g. a

feeling of hopelessness, guilt, anxiety, and depression) to the point of building up a tolerance.

47

3.4c Smartphone Use for Emotion Regulation

We already know that previous studies have considered problematic smartphone use as

an addiction-like behavior (Bianchi et al. 40; Takao et al. 502), but recent studies have

considered problematic usage habits from another angle. Social interaction anxiety and a failure

to appropriately self-regulate one’s own emotions are considered to be big motivators for

smartphone usage, which results in an increase in an individual's reliance on a smartphone (Lee

et al. 381). When considering the millennial demographic, social interaction anxiety has been

discussed as a driving force behind compulsive phone use. This is probably due to the

established fact that the millennial is still the most predominant user of the smartphone for social

reasons, and is most dependent on the use of social media for communication purposes, thus

resulting in higher instances of social interaction anxiety. Age is an important demographic to

consider in this area of study since it can be expected that based on how much this demographic

relies on smartphones and other forms of digital media for communication purposes, they also

show higher instances of unregulated, habitual, and addictive smartphone behavior than older

people (van Deursen et al. 411).

Older adults outside of the millennial age bracket are also using smartphones, but in

different ways. First of all, older people are typically less likely to embrace new technologies,

and if they do engage in smartphone use they spend less time on it in general (van Deursen et al.

413). Older people also experience less social stress and they (should be) better at controlling

and self-regulating their own emotions. Due to these few reasons alone, they are less likely to

develop habitual or addictive smartphone behaviors because they mostly use their smartphones

for practical purposes. In comparison to adolescents and young adults, older adults typically feel

“more settled and have different interests and motivational goals in life” (Diehl et al. 306; Lee et

al. 381; van Deursen et al. 417). However, this is a very broad generalization to make, and as

technologies develop and become more widespread, even the usage habits in older generations

will change. Just because the millennial generation is considered to be the most “addicted”

smartphone user, does not mean that older people are not starting to exhibit similar usage

behaviors. As these technologies become more widespread among older adults, other factors will

48

determine smartphone use. For example, growing older may result in increased instances of

loneliness, or a stronger need for belongingness which might turn them to computers and

smartphones for emotional support (Pearson et al. 45; van Deursen et al. 415). Therefore, in

relation to my research question, generations other than the millennial can and will also

experience the negative impact of habitual technological overuse with time.

Since social media has become the ultimate escape, constant access to friends and family

through social networking apps and smartphone use has exposed people to more updates than is

probably necessary. For example, if that individual starts to find themselves in a vicious cycle of

constantly checking their social media feeds for new pictures of enviable looking lives through

Instagram for example, then this individual can start to fail in the self-regulation of their own

emotions. This means that this constant need to feel validated by what they see online can affect

the view that they have of themselves by negatively “lowering a person's self-efficacy, self-

esteem which can lead to stress” (LaRose et al. 225; Lee et al. 381; van Deursen et al. 413).

When an individual exhibits these negative emotions then they might try to use media to

“escape” (a key word here) by trying to find, or feel, a sense of belonging (LaRose et al. 225; van

Deursen et al. 415). So far a theme has emerged here: in terms of failing to self-regulate then an

increase in smartphone use will present itself in order to try and relieve these negative feelings.

As previously mentioned, a vicious cycle has formed because the more one uses their phone to

relieve these feelings, the more they will be exposed to what is making them experience self-

doubt and lowered self-esteem in the first place. Thus creating habits that can become addictive

when behavior is no longer being consciously observed, and the actions are not resulting in the

desired outcomes hence the need to keep repeating a behavior (van Deursen et al. 415).

49

4. Discussion

Building on the literary framework that has been presented in regards to digital media and

its addictive elements it can be said that there are many “gray areas” that have been uncovered so

far. As it became clearer in the course of writing this thesis, all forms of digital media have

addictive elements, but for the basis of this thesis only the Internet, social networking apps, and

smartphones were considered in regards to their addictive qualities.

4.1. Discussion of Key Findings

4.1a Defining Addiction vs. Habitual Usage

An under recognized, modern day disorder has emerged, and it has left researchers in a

gray area as to how exactly to define it. It has been acknowledged that screen time should be

limited, especially in individuals who already have problems with emotional regulation, and/or

negative emotions (e.g. stress, anxiety, or depression), but even then questions of whether there

is enough evidence to prove that these habits are harmful in the long run exist. Discovering a

new diagnosis comes with much skepticism and criticism, from both professionals and everyday

users alike, even though research is now providing powerful support to these claims. The debate

that revolves around Internet addiction and the inclusion of it in the world of classic psychology

and neurosciences has provided a substantial amount of research by supporting the idea that

overuse of the Internet and smartphones can indeed be a well characterized behavioral addiction.

Even though the multiple studies that were used to write this thesis do provide results to back up

these claims, there is still a lack of coherency when it comes to defining exactly what this

“addiction” is. Varying degrees of usage habits have all been clumped together under the

umbrella term “addiction,” but as my theoretical framework developed, it was realized that there

were many ways to define excessive social media usage other than labeling it all as an

“addiction.”

So with that said, when does usage get problematic? As a socially acceptable habit now,

the discourse must be inclusive and sound accepting to everyone. Paradoxically enough, a

50

compulsive behavior in terms of what is typically considered to be an addictive behavior (e.g.

substance misuse) is taken seriously, and is thoroughly diagnosable. When it comes to the

compulsive use of a smartphone, it has become a commonplace behavior that most people would

not even consider to be problematic. Why is the unproductive and repetitive use of an object not

considered more negatively in terms of being an addictive behavior? Especially when it is used

to regulate a person's emotions, or to relieve stress. The problem lies in the fact that many of the

terms that are used by researchers in these studies are not cohesive and are used interchangeably.

In the literature reviewed for this thesis, problematic use was labeled most often as: addictive,

dependent, habitual, or behavioral. Ultimately, this results in confusion in regards to the rhetoric

surrounding this topic, and for further contributions to the diagnosis of potential Internet addicts.

Due to the lack of consistency in the terminology used among researchers, it leads to difficulties

in properly conceptualizing the behavior that is exhibited by social media and smartphone users.

For these studies to appeal to audiences outside of the scope of academics, researchers

are starting to use jargon such as “regular exposure” to describe higher levels of social media and

smartphone use. Instead of labeling problematic behavior as such, it has been reduced to being

described as something “regular.” The word “addiction” has a negative connotation, so

researchers and everyday people label this easily recognizable problematic behavior with more

neutral sounding words in order to justify what most of society partakes in daily already. Due to

the charged nature of the word “addict,” and to be labeled as such, comes with negative

implications that people would prefer to avoid, thus resulting in difficulties in defining this

behavior. Further proving that the boundaries between addictive type behaviors and social norms

in terms of digital media use have become blurred. Even though the literature aims to define

these habits with words such as “addictive” or “dependent” it is showing itself to be challenging.

The usage habits of individuals are subjective, meaning that what one person could define as an

overuse, another would consider to be normal. Therefore, if this kind of daily exposure has

become the norm then it further muddies the waters of labeling it as anything more than a

societal shift that must be accepted, regardless of its potentially harmful effects. In present media

addiction literature, it has also been acknowledged that studies tend to result in socially desirable

answers, and inappropriate self-perceptions that sound favorable when asked to describe their

usage habits. This shows that there is a lot of variance when it comes to describing how much

use of digital technologies is “normal” versus problematic. In order to clinically define Internet

51

and smartphone addiction in the future, stricter parameters would need to be established;

otherwise these behaviors would remain not definable for professionals and everyday users. For

these reasons, the biggest challenge lays in the fact that literature and research in this field still

remains largely disjointed, and defining “addictive” behavior in the realm of social media is

particularly difficult due to the multi-faceted nature of new media technologies.

4.1b Millennial vs. Other Generations

Through the literature it became evident that the habitual use and overuse of digital media

platforms and devices affected users of all ages. The theoretical framework began by examining

the millennial generation in relation to their social media and smartphone use, and the most

crucial finding in terms of cross examining and comparing many scholarly journals was that it is

not just an issue that affected only millennial aged people. The results of the extensive meta-

analysis showed that even though millennials are still the biggest users of social media and

smartphone devices, these addictive behaviors would also start to present themselves in older

generations as well. This is mainly because digital media and smartphones have become integral

parts of everyone's daily life, regardless of their age. Based on the smartphone's ability to

manage tasks, appointments, and communication through various social media apps, it has then

consequently become imperative to making a persons day run efficiently. Due to the user

reliance that the smartphone has created, literature that aimed in trying to define the use of the

smartphone as “excessive” became complicated because there are no specific parameters that

exist to define this behavior. Furthermore, as technologies develop so does user reliance on new

features further complicating the definition of what is “addictive” versus “normal” usage

behavior.

When it came to the negative emotions that resulted from the overuse of social

networking apps, millennials were found to struggle the most when it came to this topic. This can

be due to certain defining characteristics of the millennial, such as their tendency to delay the

onset of adulthood, and their need for an “idealized” looking life. Perfectly filtered images on

social media are highly desirable to them, and if they cannot attain what other people their age

are portraying themselves to be doing online it creates feelings of self-doubt or depression. When

it came to which apps were used most frequently, and that also had the largest impact on a user's

overall mood, Instagram was the top contender. This can be interpreted in two ways: (i)

52

millennials tend to gravitate more to this type of “escapist” app, and compare their life against

what they see online, thus creating feelings of excessive self comparison or unrealistic

expectations; (ii) alternatively, it can also be because certain types of users may already be prone

to these kinds of emotions, and they turn to social media for an escape. If that is the case, they

then end up exacerbating their negative moods by spending increasing amounts of time on these

apps by habitually checking them and comparing their life to what they see online. In

consideration of this finding, it can also be said that compulsive Internet and smartphone usage

reflects a user's loss of control, and can be best predicted in individuals who are already more

susceptible to depressive, anxiety driven moods.

In terms of understanding what distinct factors could predict excessive Internet and social

media use for mood regulation purposes among millennials, it was noted that a preference for

online social interactions was high. Driving factors for mood regulation were vague because it

was difficult for researchers to determine what came first (i) pre-existing negative emotions,

resulting in an individual overusing social media in hopes of alleviating these emotions or, (ii) if

an individual starts to feel these negative emotions, was it because they were excessively using

these digital platforms? By critically examining the findings from the various literary journals

that assisted in outlining the current state of digital addictions and habitual smartphone use

findings were inconclusive. Since there is no established diagnostic criterion for these behaviors

yet, controversy about whether or not it is appropriate to apply the word “addiction” remains

unclear.

4.2 Limitations

There are several limitations that need to be addressed. As professionals have pointed

out, addictive relationships to the Internet and smartphones do exist and can be recognized, even

if it is still not officially defined within the world of psychiatry yet. Due to this fact, it has left

many scholarly journals with several limitations and inconclusive findings. As was already

established, because millennials are the first generation to be born into a world where the Internet

already existed, it is understandable to acknowledge that they are the highest users of social

networks and smartphones, but older adults have caught on to using these devices and networks

just as much. Therefore, this was a gap that was seen many times in the literature that was used

for this thesis. Older generations were not as often represented in the studies that were used in

53

the writing of this thesis, which left the results to be very one-sided and not completely

representative of the entire demographic of social media and smartphone users. To close this

research gap it is then important to consider a wider age range in order to create more complete

future studies. The specific age demographic of the millennial generation was a limitation

because even though this thesis began with explaining certain characteristics of millennials, it

generalized the results greatly. Therefore, although younger aged adults play a large role when it

comes to different levels of technology usage, a larger age range should have also been taken

into consideration.

Therefore defining “addiction” was the largest limitation. Most studies focused on

defining what addictive smartphone behavior was, however, only a small part of the general

population can truly be characterized as a smartphone addict per the definition that was outlined

in section 3.2 a “Addiction Defined”. Based on the definition of addiction, the occurrence of

severe, negative consequences that affected a user's everyday life were not often found. This

means that habitual smartphone behavior showed more variance and commonality. These

behaviors were most often described as habitual, rather than having the life altering factors that

true addictions have. Moreover, this also showed that the word “addict” is very loosely used in

media addiction literature, which ultimately leads to an overgeneralization of a potentially

problematic behavior.

4.3 Recommendations for Future Studies

To gain further comprehension into the factors that are needed to properly define habitual

or addictive behaviors, then proper parameters would have to be established in order to

differentiate between usage types in relation to Internet, social networking apps and

smartphones. By establishing these parameters it would create a more substantial framework for

future studies. This would also lead to more substantial results for researchers, and hopefully

lead to potential diagnosis that are taken seriously by professionals in this field. Certain variables

such as age, gender, cultural and personal traits, and access to technology would all need to be

observed over time, rather than taking a small age cohort and applying an umbrella term such as

“addiction” to describe all users by grouping them all together. Another note for future research

into this topic would be to investigate smartphone addiction with other methods, such as using

54

qualitative approaches to gain further insights into the factors that have been established when

explaining habitual or addictive Internet and smartphone behaviors.

5. Conclusion

With the studies and evidence that are currently available in the area of certain new

media technologies, and the discourse that is used to describe the notion of addiction, the results

remain conflicting. Due to the ubiquity of social media which has entered every aspect of our

lives; from communication, to work and leisure and even health, the question of when the usage

of these technologies becomes “too much” remains unanswered. This is why the question of

digital addiction appears, and why it is important to be able to distinguish between what can be

deemed excessive versus normal usage behaviors. Thus, it raises this crucial point: that the line

between addiction and habit in regards to technology use has blurred. Nonetheless, the studies

conducted by Montag et al., Bolton et al., Lee et al., and van Deursen et al., which were outlined

within this thesis, raised serious concerns about the possible detrimental effects on the

increasingly frequent social media and smartphone use that is exhibited by individuals of all

ages.

The literary framework of this thesis resulted in uncovering a lot of “blank spots” in

regards to the disparate terminology that is used to define varying levels of technology usage.

Literature remains conflicting because although the word “addiction” was most often used to set

a tone for the study, it is often described with other synonymous terms such as: habitual,

dependent, problematic, behavioral, just to name a few. When these terms were defined more

closely, it was then realized that every term used to describe what was considered “addiction”

was largely inconsistent. The term “addiction” and “addict” were used as an umbrella term to

describe excessive usage, but on a more conceptual, abstract level, the notion was much more

vague and incoherent. Due to the incoherent terminology, it was then also realized that it is

precisely the ubiquity of these digital technologies that have changed the usage behaviors of

individuals. Maybe it is not an “addiction” per se, but a societal, and thus behavioral shift, which

is accommodating to the fact that every process of our lives is slowly being mediated through

55

more and more of these digital technologies. It is precisely because of this shift, that the overuse

of digital technologies are not considered to be debilitating addictions, but rather an emerging

societal shift that is accepting to new digital technologies. The miscomprehension of the concept

and terminology of addiction thus raises the notion that it would be more productive for

researchers to appropriately concretize the terminology used in these literary works. Addiction

implies that it is something that a person can get over, but in this current day and age, that is no

longer possible when so much of our lives are dependent on digital technologies.

Therefore, in this context it is noteworthy to realize that if a clearer framework were

presented in relation to appropriate terminology, then it would then be more useful in

understanding the negative impact of varying levels of usage have on users psychologically.

When it comes to the generation that uses social networking apps and smartphones most

frequently, millennials come out on top. It is of particular interest when it comes to

understanding the social and emotional effects that these digital technologies have on

individuals. The interactions between excessive Internet use and the development of negative

emotions (e.g. anxiety, stress, depression) is critical when it comes to properly defining these

emerging behaviors and habits.

Ultimately, the use of social networking apps and smartphones is something that will

evolve, just as digital technologies will evolve over time. Professionals in this field are doing

important research, and their findings are worthy of discussion, and ultimately this thesis has

realized that this is the current state within this field of thought. It was also discovered that

although findings in this area of study remained inconclusive or contradictory, if stricter

parameters were established in establishing a more coherent discourse then these problematic

behaviors would be taken more seriously. Professionals have outlined the benefits and risks to

social networking apps and smartphones, but because a solid framework or clear roadmap for

future studies is currently unavailable, it has thus been presented in this thesis an overview that

has aimed to provide such a framework.

Despite the conceptual limitations of these emerging behaviors, an ever-growing need to

understand these conditions remains. Ultimately, it is not just the professional’s responsibility to

determine how much social media use is needed to in order to conduct an individual’s day-to-day

life. If signs of overuse are apparent, then that person must also take into account the risk factors

that could potentially be affecting their psyche.

56

6. Bibliography Andreassen, Cecille, et al. “Social Network Site Addiction - An Overview.” Bentham Science 20.25 (2014): 4053 - 4061. 24 April 2017. <http://www.eurekaselect.com/114788/article />. Bianchi, Adriana, et al. “Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 8.1 (2005): 39–51. 11 May 2017. <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39/>. Bickham, David, et al. “Media use and depression: exposure, household rules, and symptoms among young adolescents in the USA.” Int. J. Public Health 60.147 (2015). 20 April 2017. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00038-014-0647-6 />. Bolton, Ruth, et al. “Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda.” Journal of Service Management 24.3 (2014): 245-267. 11 March 2017. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987/>. Carbonell, Xavier, et al. “The cell phone in the twenty-first century: A risk for addiction or a necessary tool? Principles of Addiction.” ScienceDirect 1 (2013): 901–909. 18 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123983367000917/>. Chou, Chien, et al. “Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: The Taiwan college students case.” Computers & Education 35.1 (2000): 117-121. 18 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131500000191?via%3Dihub/>. Christofides, Emily, et al. “Information disclosure and control on Facebook: are they two sides of the same coin or different processes?” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12.3 (2009): 341‐345. 5 March 2017. <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2008.0226 />. Davidow, Bill. “Exploiting the Neuroscience of Internet Addiction.” The Atlantic. 2012. 20 April 2017. <http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/exploiting-the-neuroscience-of-internet-addiction/259820/>. Davies, William. The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being. United States: Verso Books. 2015. Diehl, Manfred, et al. “Assessing attention control in goal pursuit: A component of dispositional self-regulation.” Journal of Personality Assessment 86.3 (2006): 306–317. 24 April 2017. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_06/>. DSM-IV Substance Dependence Criteria. American Psychiatric Association. 2 May 2017. <https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/addiction/what-is-addiction />.

57

Dunckley, L. Victoria. “Gray Matters: Too Much Screen Time Damages the Brain.” Psychology Today. 2014. 15 May 2017. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201402/gray-matters-too-much-screen-time-damages-the-brain/>. Ellison, Nicole, et al. “The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: social capital and students' use of online social network sites.” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 12.4 (2007): 1143‐1168. 5 March 2017. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/full/>. Evans, Bethan. “Study finds ‘Internet addicts’ can suffer similar withdrawal symptoms to substance mis-users.” Swansea University. 2013. 20 April 2017. <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media-centre/news-archive/2013/studyfindsinternetaddictscansuffersimilarwithdrawalsymptomstosubstancemis-users.php/>. Millennials Coming of Age. Goldman Sachs. 11 June 2017. <http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/millennials/>. Grant, Jon, et al. “Expanding the Definition of Addiction: DSM-5 vs. ICD-11.” PMC: US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 21.4 (2016): 300-303. 10 June 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328289/>. Habit or Addiction - What’s the Difference? The Addiction Advisor. March 3 2017. <https://theaddictionadvisor.com/habit-or-addiction-whats-the-difference/>. Howe, Neil and William Strauss. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. United States: Vintage Books, 2000. 30-45. Jeong, Jo-Eun, et al. “Personality Factors Predicting Smartphone Addiction Predisposition: Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Systems, Impulsivity, and Self-Control.” PlosOne 11.8 (2016) 11 June 2017. <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159788/>. Josette, B. “Learning how to undertake a systematic review: part 2.” 24.51 (2010): 47–56. 20 May 2017. <http://journals.rcni.com/doi/abs/10.7748/ns2010.08.24.50.47.c7939 />. LaRose, Robert, et al. “Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation?” Media Psychology 5.3 (2003): 225–253. 20 May 2017. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0503_01/>. Li, Shih-Ming, et al. “Internet function and Internet addictive behavior. Computers in Human Behavior.” ScienceDirect 22.6 (2006): 1067–1071. 11 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563204000810/>.

58

Lin, Fuchun, et al. “Abnormal White Matter Integrity in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder: A Tract-Based Spatial Statistics Study.” PloS One 7.1 (2006): 201. 15 March 2017. <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030253/>. Lee, Yu-Kang. et al. “The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress.” Elsevier: Sciencedirect. Social Science & Medicine. 31 (2013): 373-383. 14 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321300397X />. Lopez-Fernandez, Olatz et al. “Prevalence of problematic mobile phone use in British adolescents.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 17.2 (2014): 91–98. 11 May 2017. <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2012.0260/>. Metcalfe, J. and Mischel, W. “A Hot/Cool System Analysis of Delay of Gratification: Dynamics of Willpower.” The American Psychological Association 106.1 (1999): 3-19. 14 April 2017. <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/metcalfe/PDFs/Metcalfe%20Mischel%201999.pdf/>. Montag, Christian, et al. “An affective neuroscience framework for the molecular study of Internet addiction.” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016). 30 March 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5159430/>. Nielsen, Petter, et al. “The reality beyond the hype: Mobile Internet is primarily an extension of pc-based Internet.” The Information Society 26.5 (2010):375–382. 15 May 2017. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2010.511561/>. Oulasvirta, Antti, et al. “Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.” Springer-Verlag London Limited 16.1 (2011): 105–114. 12 May 2017. <https://people.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~oantti/pubs/Oulasvirta_2011_PUC_HabitsMakeSmartphoneUseMorePervasive.pdf/>. Paddock, Catharine. “Facebook Addiction - New Psychological Scale.” Medical News Today. 2015. 30 March 2017. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245251.php/>. Parker, Sydney. “A Long List of Instagram Statistics that Marketers Need to Know.” Hootsuite. 2016. 16 March 2017. <https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-statistics/ />. Pearson, Judy, et al. “Motives for communication: Why the millennial generation uses electronic devices.” Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota 22 (2009): 45–56. 10 March 2017. <http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/48638148/motives-communication-why-millennial-generation-uses-electronic-devices/>. Pempek, Tiffany, et al. “College students' social networking experiences on Facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30.3 (2009): 227‐238. 3 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0193397308001408 />. Petry, NM, et al. “Internet gaming disorder and the DSM-5.” PubMed 108.7 (2013): 1186–1187. 15 April 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23668389/>.

59

Millennials. Pew Research. 14 March 2017. <http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/millennials/>. Potenza, Marc. “Non-substance addictive behaviors in the context of DSM-5.” PMC: US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health 39.1 (2013). 10 June 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858502/>. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1995. 63-78. Rosen, Larry. iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us. United States: St. Martin’s Griffin. 2013. Rouse, Margaret. “Millennials (Millennial Generation).” TechTarget:Whatis.com. 2014. 11 March 2017. <http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation/>. Sariyska, Rayna, et al. “Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a better predictor for problematic Internet use than depression: evidence from Germany.” Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy 6.209 (2015). 14 April 2017. <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/attention-deficithyperactivity-disorder-is-a-better-predictor-for-problematicinternet-use-than-depression-evidence-from-germany-2155-6105-1000209.php?aid=42016/>. Shensa, Ariel, et al. “Problematic social media use and depressive symptoms among U.S. young adults: A nationally-representative study.” Elsevier: Sciencedirect. Social Science & Medicine 182 (2017): 1-8. 11 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/science/article/pii/S027795361730223X/>. “Social media and young people’s mental health and wellbeing.” Royal Society for Public Health. 2017. 22 May 2017. <https://www.rsph.org.uk/our-work/policy/social-media-and-young-people-s-mental-health-and-wellbeing.html />. Takao, Motoharu, et al. “Addictive personality and problematic mobile phone use.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 12.5 (2009): 501–507. 11 May 2017. <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2009.0022/>. Tao, R. et al. “Proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction.” PubMed 105.3 (2010): 556–564. 11 April 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20403001/>. Thomée, Sara, et al. “Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults – A prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health.” BMC Public Health 11.1 (2011): 66–76. 21 May 2017. <http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-66/>. Valkenburg, Patti, et al. “Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well‐being and social self‐esteem.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9.5 (2006): 584-589. 7 April 2017. <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584 />.

60

Van Deursen, Alexander, et al. “Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender.” ScienceDirect 45 (2015): 411-420. 14 May 2017. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563214007626/>. Young, K. S. “Internet addiction: Symptoms, evaluation and treatment: Innovations in Clinical Practice.” Scopus 17 (1999): 19–31. 16 May 2017. <https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0002879974&origin=inward&txGid=555D4A753336835E913D56A9275200B6.wsnAw8kcdt7IPYLO0V48gA%3a2/>. Zhou, Yan, et al. “Gray Matter Abnormalities in Internet Addiction: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study.” PubMed 79.1 (2009): 92–95. 14 March 2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19926237/>.

61