The reading for this week focused on compulsive use of the internet, and considered addiction as a possible framework from which to view the phenomenon. The first study, by Mark Griffiths, focuses on case studies of five individuals who exhibited “excessive computer usage.” He evaluates the subjects in terms of their keeping with stereotypical notions of what an addicted user is and how they would behave. This stereotype he describes as “a teenager, usually male, with little or no social life and little or no self-confidence.” While Griffiths asserts in the introduction that “recent work suggests there are individuals who do not fit this stereotype,” he in effect disregards this statement and proceeds to characterize them as such. The three subjects who did not fall into this stereotype were concluded to not be “addicted” players, because their internet usage “counteract[ed] other deficiencies.” I think this is one of several weak points in this study because it assumes a very limited view of what “other deficiencies” could mean, and does not attempt to explain the behavior of the two “addicted” subjects in terms of some other countervailing motive. Also of note is a seeming bias Griffiths exhibits in the language he uses to describe computer use. When describing Jamie’s use of the computer he poses playing games as distinct from “using a computer properly.” Also when describing Gary’s usage he does the same thing, differentiating “serious computing” from gaming. While there may in fact be a difference between game playing and other activities on the computer, it seems like a false distinction to make because the focus of the study is on the addictive characteristics and tendencies of the subjects, not the particular activities they perform online. In fact, the subjects used in this study were “addicted” to a number of different computer relater activities, some gamers and others not, but they were nevertheless evaluated in the same way. Finally, the study of the five subjects does not seem like a sufficient method of analysis. The sample size was small, their accounts seemed biased (as in the account of Dave, given by his ex-wife whom he left for someone he met online), and the subjects themselves did not represent a wide range of excessive computer use (instead they were all fairly similar, conforming to Griffith’s preconceived notion of the “stereotypical” internet addict. However despite all this, I think the discussion of internet addiction engaged at the end of the paper is great. I especially liked his point regarding the structural characteristics of internet environments, and how they might affect computer use. This reminds me of new methods being used in video game development, in which they test players’ heart rates and other bodily functions to determine how to best structure the action. For example, by preceding a fast paced, intense action sequence with a long, slow paced cut scene a game developer is able to greatly increase a player’s level of arousal.
- Do you see the deficiencies I outlined as problems in the study, or am I being hypercritical?
- Besides the example I listed, what could some of the benefits be to purpose-driven structural engineering on the internet?
The second and third pieces we read were articles detailing some of the ways compulsive internet use has affected peoples’ lives. They focused on the negative effects of internet addiction and how it can disrupt one’s life outside of the virtual environment. They were in effect sensationalist pieces that focused on just a few examples in an attempt to prove a larger point, much in the same style as the case studies conducted by Griffiths. But unlike Griffiths, these two pieces assumed a very broad definition of what computer addiction means, and tried to raise a concern in the readers’ minds about their own internet use.
- Do you think the examples given in the reading by Payne and Alter are accurate depictions of internet addiction?
- Do you think a more narrow view of internet addiction (as proposed by Griffiths) or a more board view (as proposed by Payne and Alter) better conceptualized internet addiction?
- Do you consider yourself an addict?
3 comments:
1) I agree completely with the size of the study. It appears as if he was studying just a few cases and he had already made a decision about who an addict is.
That being said, I understand the argument he is making about "proper computer use." While he could have worded it better, I don't think we can classify computer use for business (word processing, research, spreadsheets) as signs of addiction. These are generally considered necessary tasks. Games on the other hand are completely optional and recreational. Because of the nature of games, there is a greater likelihood for the onset of addiction.
3) I don't think that the Paine article is necessarily sensationalizing online addictions. She cited examples from research that cite statistics that involve classic signs of addiction (no matter what the substance). From relationship issues to feelings of dependence, and feeling pre-occupied with the internet when offline. How is this any different than a heroin addict fiending for his next hit?
5) As for myself, no, I am not an addict. I don't ever find myself dependent upon the internet (in fact I enjoy life more when I am not burdened with checking it daily ie) vacations). I don't find myself pre-occupied with what's going on online. I try to use the internet as a tool, and occasionally as a way to spend some recreational time.
I also agree with the size of the study. Case studies were simply enlightening but jsut not enough to make inferences on computer addiction. And yes, what bothered me the most of his article was Griffiths defense put forth the users, calling their use for counteracted deficiencies such as relationships, lack of friends, disabilities, etc. Justifying excessive computer use due to lack of friends is not the same as justifying computer use due to a disability!
I think the Pyane article had a wide variety of comments from researchers when it comes to Internet use. I feel like it brought up good points to both sides of the coin. They brought up the key issue of how Internet use disrupts our lives and can be a serious problem, but also mentioned that the internet may be impossible to actually be addicted to since it is an environment, and the internet is still new and growing to the point that we shouldn't be making any hasty judgments.
As for me, I love the Internet but not addicted. I am usually online for academic and online community purposes (myspace) but other than that I feel like I am still exploring the aspects of the Internet.
1. Do you see the deficiencies I outlined as problems in the study, or am I being hypercritical?
I also agree that the sample size was much too small to draw a valid conclusion regarding internet addiction. However, I do see the value in this type of qualitative data. I find that sometimes researchers often draw too much qualitative data from a large sample size using simple multiple choice surveys. By using such a small group, Griffith's does lose the ability to generalize the prominence of internet addiction. However, I would argue that he is able to provide a more thorough analysis of the nature of internet addiction.
I also agree that Griffith is a bit biased towards what constitutes internet addiction. There seems to be a generally consensus among mainstream society that games are "improper" while work related tasks are necessary. I think this dichotomy of what is proper and what is leisure misses the entire point of internet addiction. The business world ran just fine before the invention of the internet. If past activities that were once done through mail/fax/and board room meetings are now completely depended upon the internet, then why can't that be considered an aspect of internet addiction? If a business man could just as well utilize the US postal service but yet feels a compulsive need to use meal, then why is he somehow excused from the idea of internet addiction.
Post a Comment