The Internet occupies a strange place in modern life. We use it to work, learn, maintain friendships, manage finances, entertain ourselves, shop, date, and search for information. For many people, being online for several hours a day is not an unusual behavior at all. It may simply reflect the structure of contemporary life.

Yet the same technology can become part of a troubling behavioral pattern. A person may repeatedly intend to stop gaming, scrolling, shopping, browsing, or interacting online, only to return again while sleep is postponed, responsibilities are neglected, and relationships become strained. What makes the pattern concerning is not one late night or abandoned intention, but the repeated failure of efforts to regain control.

At this point, the meaningful question is no longer simply how much time a person spends online. It is whether they remain able to regulate the behavior and whether Internet use continues to support life rather than increasingly displacing it.

What Is Internet Addiction Disorder?

The concept of Internet addiction emerged during the rapid expansion of public Internet use in the 1990s. Psychologist Kimberly Young was among the earliest researchers to examine whether some users interacted with the Internet in a way that resembled other compulsive behaviors. Drawing on criteria associated with pathological gambling, she identified people who reported difficulty controlling their Internet use together with social, academic, and occupational problems (Young, 1998).

Young’s work helped establish Internet addiction as a legitimate subject of psychological study, but it did not settle one of the field’s most persistent questions: What, exactly, is the person addicted to? Internet use is not one behavior. A single device may be used to play a competitive game, communicate with friends, gamble, watch pornography, shop, read news, work, or scroll short videos. Because these activities rely on different motives and rewards, researchers increasingly distinguish generalized problematic Internet use from specific problematic online behaviors.

Clinical and theoretical reviews describe a field divided by competing models, terms, and assessment tools. The problem is not that harmful patterns are imaginary. Rather, researchers continue to debate how broadly they should be defined and which behaviors belong under the same diagnostic umbrella (Kuss & Lopez-Fernandez, 2016; Moretta et al., 2022).

Is Internet Addiction an Official Mental Disorder?

The phrase Internet Addiction Disorder sounds like a formal psychiatric diagnosis, but generalized Internet addiction is not recognized as a distinct disorder in the DSM-5-TR. Internet Gaming Disorder instead appears among the conditions requiring further study and concerns persistent problematic gaming rather than generalized Internet use, social-media use, or smartphone use (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, 2022).

The World Health Organization does recognize gaming disorder in ICD-11, describing impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming, and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences. The pattern must produce significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (World Health Organization, n.d.). Together, these classifications clarify an important point: serious digital-behavior problems exist, but psychology has not concluded that every problematic Internet activity belongs to one unified disorder.

Why Specific Online Activities Can Become Compulsive

When someone says, “I am addicted to the Internet,” the statement may describe very different experiences. One person may disappear into online games each evening, another may monitor social media for signs of acceptance or rejection, and someone else may compulsively shop, gamble, search, watch pornography, or consume an endless stream of videos. The Internet connects these activities, but the psychological rewards that sustain them may be quite different.

Brand and colleagues developed a model of specific Internet-use disorders that shifts attention away from the Internet as a single object of addiction. Their approach examines how particular activities interact with personal vulnerabilities, emotions, expectations, learned rewards, and self-control. This distinction matters because digital platforms can deliver many different rewards rapidly and repeatedly (Brand et al., 2016, 2019).

A moment of boredom can be followed almost instantly by entertainment; loneliness can prompt immediate social interaction; uncertainty can trigger another search; and stress can lead toward gaming, shopping, scrolling, or another familiar activity. Rapid access does not create addiction by itself, but repeated cue-response-reward cycles can strengthen learned expectations and habitual responding (Brand et al., 2016, 2019).

How Problematic Internet Use Develops

No single mechanism explains problematic Internet behavior. Current models instead suggest that dysregulated use develops through the interaction of personal characteristics, emotional states, expectations, environmental cues, reinforcement, and self-regulatory abilities.

Reward and Reinforcement

Much of our behavior is shaped by consequences. When an action repeatedly produces a rewarding outcome, it becomes more likely to occur again. Online activities offer a remarkable range of possible rewards, including novelty, achievement, sexual stimulation, social attention, information, entertainment, reassurance, and connection. Some are obvious: winning a game or receiving an encouraging message may simply feel good.

Other rewards operate through relief. A person who is bored may scroll until the boredom recedes; someone who feels socially uncomfortable may retreat into an online setting that feels safer; and a person worried about an uncertain problem may search repeatedly for reassurance. When the behavior temporarily reduces discomfort, it becomes more likely to recur. Psychologists call this process negative reinforcement. Compulsive behavior, from this perspective, is not always an endless pursuit of pleasure. It may also persist because of what it helps a person avoid, postpone, or briefly stop feeling.

This pattern also appears in Psychology Fanatic’s broader addiction resources. Albert Ellis described addictive behavior as a rapid means of reducing distress generated elsewhere in life. The immediate relief can make the behavior increasingly attractive even as its long-term costs grow (Ellis, 2002).

Addiction or Coping?

Daniel Kardefelt-Winther raised an important challenge to the addiction framework: some excessive Internet behavior may be better understood as a compensatory coping process than as a unitary addiction (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014, 2017). A socially anxious and lonely young adult may find connection online with less immediate interpersonal risk. Someone under chronic occupational stress may use gaming to create a predictable period in which work problems disappear from awareness, while a person experiencing low mood may depend on rapid streams of content because silence leaves too much room for painful thought. These examples do not establish addiction; they show that apparently similar behavior can serve different psychological functions.

Repeated coping can nevertheless become maladaptive. Reviews of problematic gaming suggest that escape motives and avoidance coping can help maintain harmful patterns, although neither motive establishes a diagnosis by itself (Melodia et al., 2022). Attention to function therefore adds something an addiction label alone may miss. The relevant question is not only, “How much does this person use the Internet?” but also, “What need has this behavior learned to meet?”

Cues, Learning, and Habit

Behavior does not occur in isolation; repeated patterns become attached to contexts. A notification sound may pull attention toward a phone, getting into bed may cue social-media browsing, finishing work may trigger gaming, and stress may create an urge to shop or search online. Through repetition, ordinary moments begin to signal what behavior is expected next.

Over time, the sequence can become familiar:

Each repetition teaches something: a particular response comes to follow a particular feeling, place, or circumstance, sometimes before much deliberate thought occurs. Associative learning deserves attention because digital environments provide many cues paired with potentially reinforcing outcomes (Moretta et al., 2022). What begins as a choice can gradually become more automatic through habit formation, although general habit research should not be treated as proof of Internet addiction (Lally et al., 2010).

The I-PACE Model

The I-PACE model brings these influences into one picture. It proposes that problematic online behavior grows from the interaction of what a person brings into a situation, how the situation feels, what the person expects the online activity to provide, and whether the person can pause or redirect the response. No single trait or app explains the pattern; difficulty develops through repeated encounters between a person and a rewarding digital environment (Brand et al., 2016, 2019).

In plain language, the model asks what a person brings into the moment, what triggers the urge, what they expect the online activity to provide, and whether they can pause before acting. A stressful cue may make gaming, scrolling, shopping, or checking feel like the fastest route to pleasure or relief. Self-control still matters, but it operates alongside emotion, learning, and the design of the digital environment.

A simplified version looks like this:

Repeated cycles strengthen associations. The I-PACE model is valuable because it avoids reducing problematic Internet use to either technology or personality; the behavior develops through an ongoing interaction between a person and a repeatedly reinforcing environment.

Self-Control Is Only Part of the Story

It is tempting to explain problematic digital behavior as a simple failure of discipline, but self-regulation depends on attention, inhibition, planning, emotional regulation, and the capacity to tolerate immediate discomfort in pursuit of a longer-term goal. Impulsivity is not one simple trait either; researchers distinguish partly different tendencies, such as acting without reflection and difficulty waiting for a reward (Dalley & Robbins, 2017). These capacities vary across situations rather than remaining equally available at every moment.

A tired person may exercise less inhibition than a rested person, someone experiencing intense loneliness may assign greater value to immediate social contact, and stress may increase the appeal of a behavior that has repeatedly produced relief. Problematic Internet use should therefore not be reduced to a moral failure or lack of willpower. It reflects an ongoing competition among immediate rewards, learned expectations, emotional needs, habits, and longer-term goals.

Signs of Problematic Internet Use

Because modern life requires extensive use of digital technology, hours online cannot serve as a reliable diagnostic boundary. A more meaningful evaluation looks for changes in control and functioning while considering the person’s broader psychological and social context. Identity, attention, emotional regulation, coping, work demands, relationships, and environmental conditions may all shape how digital behavior develops.

Loss of Control, Priority, and Impairment

A concerning pattern often includes several changes at once. The person repeatedly intends to stop, reduce, or postpone the activity but struggles to follow through; attention keeps returning to it; and environmental cues generate powerful urges to reconnect. At the same time, the activity gains priority over sleep, relationships, school, work, hobbies, exercise, or other valued pursuits and continues even after recurring harm becomes clear. The central issue is impairment. As in the World Health Organization’s description of gaming disorder, heavy participation alone is not enough; concern rises when control deteriorates and functioning is meaningfully affected.

Heavy Use Is Not Necessarily Addiction

Digital technologies easily create misleading appearances. A software engineer may spend ten hours a day online, a university student may devote an entire weekend to research, and friends separated by thousands of miles may depend on online communication to sustain an important relationship. Extensive use does not automatically mean compulsive use, a distinction that has become especially important in behavioral-addiction research.

Kardefelt-Winther and colleagues warned that researchers risk pathologizing normal behavior when frequent participation, enthusiasm, or passion are treated as evidence of addiction without adequate attention to impairment and context (Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017). Their concern extends beyond Internet use: if every intensely pursued activity becomes a disorder merely because it consumes substantial time, the idea of behavioral addiction loses meaning. The more useful distinction is between high engagement and dysregulated engagement.

Vulnerabilities, Context, and Correlates

Psychological and Contextual Vulnerabilities

There is no single “Internet-addictive personality.” Research instead points toward combinations of vulnerabilities that may increase risk under particular conditions and interact with what a specific online activity provides.

Research associates problematic Internet use with emotion-regulation difficulty, impulsive responding, loneliness, social anxiety, chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and attention difficulties. Any of these may precede the online behavior, follow it, or interact with it over time. An association identifies a possible vulnerability or correlate, not a single cause (Brand et al., 2016, 2019; Ho et al., 2014).

Individual identity processes may matter as well. In a study of more than 1,100 junior high school students, lower self-concept clarity was associated with higher Internet-addiction scores. Attention and memory lapses statistically explained part of the association, while mindfulness altered the strength of some relationships (Wang et al., 2022). The finding is intriguing but limited: the participants were adolescents in China during the COVID-19 period, and the correlational design cannot establish that unclear self-concept causes problematic Internet behavior.

Neural Correlates and Their Limits

Neuroscience offers one window onto severe problematic use, but it does not provide a simple brain scan for Internet addiction. In one study, people classified as having Internet addiction differed from a comparison group in how the amygdala communicated with regions involved in emotion, attention, and cognitive control (Cheng & Liu, 2020). These were average differences between groups, not proof of brain damage or a single biological cause. Because the study was correlational, it also could not show whether Internet behavior produced the differences, whether an existing characteristic increased vulnerability, or whether another factor contributed to both.

Consequences of Problematic Internet Use

Problems arising from excessive Internet behavior rarely remain contained within the screen. Problematic electronic-media use is associated with poorer sleep and more sleep problems, although most studies cannot establish causal direction (Han et al., 2024). Some specific patterns, such as problematic smartphone use, are also associated with slightly lower academic achievement, but the pooled relationship is small and should not be generalized to every form of Internet use (Paterna et al., 2024).

Relationships may also suffer when one person repeatedly disengages from shared activities, conceals use, breaks promises about stopping, or appears psychologically absent while physically present (Kuss & Lopez-Fernandez, 2016).

Psychological distress and problematic Internet use are frequently intertwined. Depression, anxiety, loneliness, attention problems, alcohol misuse, and other difficulties commonly co-occur, yet correlation does not reveal direction (Ho et al., 2014). Distress may encourage excessive online coping, while excessive use may worsen sleep, relationships, and isolation. For many people, the two processes may reinforce one another, which is why a single-cause explanation is rarely adequate.

Assessing Problematic Internet Use

Screening Is Not Diagnosis

Early assessment approaches asked whether Internet behavior resembled more established forms of addiction. Young’s work contributed to this tradition and later influenced instruments such as the Internet Addiction Test (Young, 1998). Researchers have since developed many questionnaires for problematic Internet use, gaming, social networking, smartphones, and related behaviors. This abundance complicates comparison: two studies may use similar terminology while relying on different theoretical models or measuring somewhat different patterns (Moretta et al., 2022).

A strong psychological assessment therefore asks more than whether someone exceeds a questionnaire cutoff. It examines what the person does online, when the behavior occurs, what triggers it, what rewards or relief it provides, how much voluntary control remains, and what consequences follow. Alternative explanations also matter. A person who spends nearly every waking hour online because of untreated social anxiety presents a different clinical problem from someone whose primary difficulty is compulsive online gambling or gaming.

Comorbidity and Differential Diagnosis

Problematic Internet use often co-occurs with depression, anxiety, attention-deficit and hyperactivity symptoms, alcohol problems, loneliness, and other forms of distress. Assessment must determine whether these conditions preceded the online behavior, developed alongside it, or are being intensified by it. Comorbidity is common, but it does not reveal which condition caused the other (Ho et al., 2014).

A clinician should also consider whether the behavior occurs mainly during mania or hypomania, reflects obsessive reassurance seeking, or is better understood as a specific problem involving gaming, gambling, buying, sexual behavior, or another activity. Work, education, disability, caregiving, and social circumstances can also produce extensive online time without addiction.

A Behavior in Context Map

A useful formulation can organize the problem around five questions:

• Behavior: What specific online activity repeatedly draws the person back?
• Function: What reward, relief, reassurance, competence, or connection does it provide?
• Cue: Which emotions, situations, or environmental signals activate the urge?
• Control and flexibility: Can the person delay, stop, and re-engage with other activities?
• Cost and displacement: Which valued activities, responsibilities, or relationships are being crowded out?

This map is a clinical and editorial synthesis rather than a validated diagnostic instrument. It helps explain why two people can spend similar amounts of time online while showing very different degrees of dysregulation.

Returning to Offline Life

Recent research on gaming and escapism has begun examining what happens after play ends. Strojny and Strojny (2026) found that easier disengagement from gaming and re-engagement with daily activities were associated with fewer gaming-disorder symptoms and better well-being across two cross-sectional samples. The proposed idea of post-gaming return is promising, but it is new, gaming-specific, and not yet an established diagnostic criterion.

Treatment for Problematic Internet Use

Research on treatment is growing, but the results are not yet uniform. A 2026 review compared 125 studies covering psychological treatment, digital programs, exercise, medication, brain stimulation, education, parent-focused programs, and combined approaches. Structured psychological treatments showed the most consistent benefits, although effects varied widely and many smaller or nonrandomized studies had important limitations. The findings support treatment while leaving the typical size and durability of benefit uncertain (Balhara et al., 2026).

Cognitive Behavioral Approaches

Cognitive behavioral treatment can examine the sequence surrounding problematic use: what happened immediately beforehand, what emotion was present, what the person expected the online activity to provide, and what followed afterward. Framing these questions as a sequence helps reveal where an apparently automatic pattern may still be interrupted or redirected.

Treatment can then address maladaptive expectations, strengthen alternative coping strategies, modify environmental cues, develop behavioral routines, and improve awareness of automatic responses. Because Internet access is embedded in daily life, the aim is often not total abstinence but the restoration of flexibility and intentional control.

Treating the Function, Not Only the Screen Time

Reducing use without understanding why the behavior became compelling may produce only temporary change. Gaming may provide a person’s strongest sense of competence, social media may offer reassurance during loneliness, and endless browsing may suppress anxious thoughts. Effective change therefore asks what the behavior has learned to accomplish and how the same psychological needs might be addressed in less costly ways.

Building Alternative Sources of Reward

Problematic behavior becomes especially difficult to change when nothing meaningful competes with it. A life containing few relationships, little movement, poor sleep, chronic stress, and limited opportunity for mastery leaves highly engineered digital rewards with little competition. Change may be easier to sustain when the person’s environment contains other sources of pleasure, connection, achievement, and meaning. In this sense, recovery is not simply the removal of a device; it is the expansion of life until one behavior no longer has to perform so many psychological jobs.

A Balanced View of Internet Addiction

Internet Addiction Disorder remains an imperfect label for a real but heterogeneous set of problems. It nevertheless names something important: some people develop persistent, difficult-to-control patterns of digital behavior that produce substantial impairment. A balanced understanding begins by asking questions that preserve both clinical seriousness and psychological context:

• What activity is repeatedly drawing the person back?
• What reward or relief does it provide?
• What cues activate the urge?
• What other needs are being met through the behavior?
• How much control remains?
• And, perhaps most importantly, what parts of life are being displaced?

The Internet becomes problematic not merely when it occupies our attention, but when our ability to choose begins shrinking around it.

Associated Concepts

• Behavioral Addiction: Repetitive rewarding behavior that becomes difficult to control and produces meaningful impairment despite the absence of an intoxicating substance.
• Operant Conditioning: Learning in which behavioral consequences influence the likelihood that an action will occur again.
• Negative Reinforcement: Strengthening of behavior because the behavior removes or reduces an unpleasant state.
• Impulsivity: A tendency toward rapid action with insufficient consideration of longer-term consequences.
• Avoidance Coping: Efforts to escape or reduce uncomfortable internal experiences rather than directly addressing the underlying difficulty.
• Emotion Regulation: Processes used to influence which emotions arise, how strongly they are experienced, and how they are expressed or managed.
• Short-Term Mood Repair: Behaviors chosen because they improve emotional experience in the moment even when they conflict with longer-term goals.
• Habit Formation: The gradual development of behavioral responses that become increasingly automatic in familiar contexts.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Internet Gaming Disorder. DSM-5 Fact Sheet.
(Return to Main Text)

American Psychiatric Association (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. ISBN: 9780890425787. DOI: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
(Return to Main Text)

Balhara, Yatan Pal Singh; Bhattacharjee, Oshmita; Bhatia, Riya Kaur; Sanahan, Rajkumar; Ganesh, Ragul; Sarkar, Siddharth; Ranjan, Rajeev; Kattimani, Shivanand; Centre for Advanced Research on Addictive Behaviors (2026). Therapeutic Interventions Targeted at Problematic Use of Digital Technology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence. JMIR Mental Health, 13, e89280. DOI: 10.2196/89280.
(Return to Main Text)

Brand, Matthias; Wegmann, Elisa; Stark, Rudolf; Müller, Astrid; Wölfling, Klaus; Robbins, Trevor W.; Potenza, Marc N. (2019). The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) Model for Addictive Behaviors: Update, Generalization to Addictive Behaviors Beyond Internet-Use Disorders, and Specification of the Process Character of Addictive Behaviors. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032.
(Return to Main Text)

Brand, Matthias; Young, Kimberly S.; Laier, Christian; Wölfling, Klaus; Potenza, Marc N. (2016). Integrating Psychological and Neurobiological Considerations Regarding the Development and Maintenance of Specific Internet-Use Disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) Model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 252–266. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033.
(Return to Main Text)

Cheng, Hewei; Liu, Jie (2020). Alterations in Amygdala Connectivity in Internet Addiction Disorder. Scientific Reports, 10, 2370. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59195-w.
(Return to Main Text)

Dalley, Jeffrey W.; Robbins, Trevor W. (2017). Fractionating Impulsivity: Neuropsychiatric Implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(3), 158–171. DOI: 10.1038/nrn.2017.8.
(Return to Main Text)

Ellis, Albert (2002). Overcoming Resistance: A Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company. ISBN: 9780826149121.
(Return to Main Text)

Han, Xiaoning; Zhou, Enze; Liu, Dong (2024). Electronic Media Use and Sleep Quality: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e48356. DOI: 10.2196/48356.
(Return to Main Text)

Ho, Roger C.; Zhang, Melvyn W. B.; Tsang, Tammy Y.; Toh, Anastasia H.; Pan, Fang; Lu, Yanxia; Cheng, Cecilia; Yip, Paul S.; Lam, Lawrence T.; Lai, Ching-Man; Watanabe, Hiroko; Mak, Kwok-Kei (2014). The Association Between Internet Addiction and Psychiatric Co-Morbidity: A Meta-Analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 183. DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-14-183.
(Return to Main Text)

Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel (2014). A Conceptual and Methodological Critique of Internet Addiction Research: Towards a Model of Compensatory Internet Use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059.
(Return to Main Text)

Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel (2017). Conceptualizing Internet Use Disorders: Addiction or Coping Process? Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 71(7), 459–466. DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12413.
(Return to Main Text)

Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel; Heeren, Alexandre; Schimmenti, Adriano; van Rooij, Antonius; Maurage, Pierre; Carras, Michelle; Edman, Johan; Blaszczynski, Alexander; Khazaal, Yasser; Billieux, Joël (2017). How Can We Conceptualize Behavioural Addiction Without Pathologizing Common Behaviours? Addiction, 112(10), 1709–1715. DOI: 10.1111/add.13763.
(Return to Main Text)

Kuss, Daria J.; Lopez-Fernandez, Olatz (2016). Internet Addiction and Problematic Internet Use: A Systematic Review of Clinical Research. World Journal of Psychiatry, 6(1), 143–176. DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v6.i1.143.
(Return to Main Text)

Lally, Phillippa; van Jaarsveld, Cornelia H. M.; Potts, Henry W. W.; Wardle, Jane (2010). How Are Habits Formed: Modelling Habit Formation in the Real World. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.674.
(Return to Main Text)

Melodia, Fiordalisa; Canale, Natale; Griffiths, Mark D. (2022). The Role of Avoidance Coping and Escape Motives in Problematic Online Gaming: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(2), 996–1022. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-020-00422-w.
(Return to Main Text)

Moretta, Tania; Buodo, Giulia; Demetrovics, Zsolt; Potenza, Marc N. (2022). Tracing 20 Years of Research on Problematic Use of the Internet and Social Media: Theoretical Models, Assessment Tools, and an Agenda for Future Work. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 112, 152286. DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152286.
(Return to Main Text)

Paterna, Adrian; Alcaraz-Ibáñez, Manuel; Aguilar-Parra, Jose M.; Salavera, Carlos; Demetrovics, Zsolt; Griffiths, Mark D. (2024). Problematic Smartphone Use and Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 13(2), 313–326. DOI: 10.1556/2006.2024.00014.
(Return to Main Text)

Strojny, Agnieszka; Strojny, Paweł (2026). Post-Gaming Return to Reality: A Key Factor in Predicting the Positive and Negative Outcomes of Escapism. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17, 1735108. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1735108.
(Return to Main Text)

Wang, Yue; Tang, Weiyi; Cao, Lei; Li, Ying (2022). Self-Concept Clarity and Internet Addiction Disorder Among Junior High School Students: A Moderate Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 989128. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.989128.
(Return to Main Text)

World Health Organization (n.d.). Gaming Disorder. World Health Organization gaming disorder page.
(Return to Main Text)

Young, Kimberly S. (1998). Internet Addiction: The Emergence of a New Clinical Disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(3), 237–244. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237.
(Return to Main Text)

Last Updated: