Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T16:35:11.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Potential Markers for Problematic Internet Use: A Telephone Survey of 2,513 Adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014



The Internet has positively altered many aspects of life. However, for a subset of users, the medium may have become a consuming problem that exhibits features of impulse control disorders recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.


This is the first large-scale epidemiological study of problematic Internet use through a random-digit-dial telephone survey of 2,513 adults in the United States. Given the lack of validated criteria, survey questions were extrapolated from established diagnostic criteria for impulse control disorders, obsessivecompulsive disorder, and substance abuse. Four possible diagnostic criteria sets were generated.The least restrictive set required the respondent to report an unsuccessful effort to reduce Internet use or a history of remaining online longer than intended, Internet use interfering with relationships, and a preoccupation with Internet use when offline.


The response rate was 56.3%. Interviews averaged 11.3 minutes in duration. From 3.7% to 13% of respondents endorsed ≥1 markers consistent with problematic Internet use. The least restrictive proposed diagnostic criteria set yielded a prevalence of problematic Internet use of 0.7%.


Potential markers of problematic Internet use seem present in a sizeable proportion of adults. Future studies should delineate whether problematic Internet use constitutes a pathological behavior that meets criteria for an independent disorder, or represents a symptom of other psychopathologies.

Original Research
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



1. Two-thirds of active U.S. Web population using broadband, up 28 percent year-over-year to an all-time high, according to Nielsen//Netratings [press release]. Nielsen//Netratings Web site. Available at: http://www, Accessed September 1, 2006.Google Scholar
2. Young, KS. Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet Addiction—and a Winning Strategy for Recovery. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.Google Scholar
3. Shapira, NA, Goldsmith, TD, Keck, PE, Khosla, UM, McElroy, SL. Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic internet use. J Affect Disord. 2000;57:267272.Google Scholar
4. Treuer, T, Fabian, Z, Furedi, J. Internet addiction associated with features of impulse control disorder: is it a real psychiatric disorder? J Affect Disord. 2001;66:283.Google Scholar
5. Black, DW, Belsare, G, Schlosser, S. Clinical features, psychiatric comorbidity, and helathrelated quality of life in persons reporting compulsive computer use behavior. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60:839844.Google Scholar
6. Goldsmith, TD, Shapira, NA. Problematic internet use. In: Hollander, E, Stein, DJ, eds. Clinical Manual of Impulse-Control Disorders. Arlington, Va: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.; 2006:291308.Google Scholar
7. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.Google Scholar
8. Brenner, V. Psychology of computer use: XLVII. Parameters of internet use, abuse and addiction: the first 90 days of the Internet Usage Survey. Psychol Rep. 1997;80(3 pt 1 ):879882.Google Scholar
9. Beard, KW, Wolf, EM. Modification in the proposed criteria for Internet addiction. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2001;4:377383.Google Scholar
10. Shapira, NA, Lessig, MC, Goldsmith, TD, et al. Problematic internet use: proposed classification and diagnostic criteria. Depress Anxiety. 2003;17:207216.Google Scholar
11. Greenfield, DN, Davis, RA. Lost in cyberspace: the web @ work. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2002;5:347353.Google Scholar
12. DeAngelis, T. Is internet addiction real? Monitor on Psychology. 2000;31:15.Google Scholar
13. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Ann Arbor, Mich: AAPOR; 2000.Google Scholar
14. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Summary Data Quality Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: Accessed March 1, 2006.Google Scholar
15. Greenberg, JL, Lewis, SE, Dodd, DK. Overlapping addictions and self-esteem among college men and women. Addict Behav. 1999;24:565571.Google Scholar