Internet Addiction Disorder and Internet Gaming Disorder are Not the Same Mark D Griffiths * and Halley M Pontes International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Division, United Kingdom * Corresponding author: Mark D Griffiths, International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, United Kingdom, Tel: 0115-8482401; E-mail: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk Received date: December 04, 2014, Accepted date: December 08, 2014, Published date: December 12, 2014 Copyright: © 2014 Griffiths MD, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Internet Addiction and Internet Gaming Addiction are Not the Same Over the last 15 years, research into various online addictions has greatly increased [1]. Alongside this, there have been scholarly debates about whether internet addiction really exists. Some may argue that because internet use does not involve the ingestion of a psychoactive substance, then it should not be considered a genuine addictive behavior. However, the latest (ith) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) [2] re-classiied Gambling Disorder as an addiction disorder rather than a disorder of impulse control as it was in the past. he implications of this reclassiication are potentially far-reaching. he most signiicant implication is that if an activity that does not involve the consumption of intoxicants (i.e., gambling) can be a genuine addiction accepted by the psychiatric and medical community, there is no theoretical reason as to why other problematic and habitual behaviors (e.g., shopping, work, exercise, sex, video gaming, etc.) cannot be classed as a bona ide addiction. Even among scholars who believe internet addiction exists, there have been debates in the ield about whether researchers should study generalized internet addiction (i.e., the totality of all online activities) and/or speciic addictions on the internet such as internet gambling, internet gaming and internet sex [3,4]. Since the late 1990s, Griiths [4,5] has constantly argued that there is a fundamental diference between addictions on the internet, and addictions to the internet. He argued that the overwhelming majority of individuals that were allegedly addicted to the internet were not internet addicts but were individuals that used the medium of the internet as a vehicle for other addictions. More speciically, he argued that internet gambling addicts and internet gaming addicts were not internet addicts but were gambling and gaming addicts using the convenience and ubiquity of the internet to gamble or play video games [4]. Prior to the publication of the latest DSM-5 [2], there had also been debates as to whether internet addiction should be introduced into the text as a separate disorder [6-8]. Following these debates, the Substance Use Disorder Work Group (SUDWG) recommended that the DSM-5 include a sub-type of problematic internet use (i.e., internet gaming disorder [IGD]) in Section 3 (Emerging Measures and Models) as an area that needed future research before being included in future editions of the DSM [7]. However, far from clarifying the debates surrounding generalized versus speciic internet use disorders, the section of the DSM-5 discussing IGD noted that: “here are no well-researched subtypes for Internet gaming disorder to date. Internet gaming disorder most oten involves speciic Internet games, but it could involve non-Internet computerized games as well, although these have been less researched. It is likely that preferred games will vary over time as new games are developed and popularized, and it is unclear if behaviors and consequence associated with Internet gaming disorder vary by game type…Internet gaming disorder has signiicant public health importance, and additional research may eventually lead to evidence that Internet gaming disorder (also commonly referred to as Internet use disorder, Internet addiction, or gaming addiction) has merit as an independent disorder (p.796). In light of what has been already highlighted in previous research [9,10], two immediate problematic issues arise from these assertions. Firstly, IGD is clearly seen as synonymous with internet addiction as the text claims that internet addiction and internet use disorder are simply other names for IGD. Secondly – and somewhat confusingly – it is asserted that IGD (which is by deinition internet-based) can also include oline gaming disorders. With regards to the irst assertion, internet addiction and internet gaming addiction are not the same and recent empirical research clearly shows that to be the case. For instance, Király and colleagues [11] examined the interrelationship and the overlap between internet use disorder (IAD) and IGD in terms of (amongst other variables) gender, and time spent using the internet and/or online gaming, and preferred online activities. hey collected their data from a nationally representative sample of over 2,000 adolescents. hey found that IGD was much more strongly associated with being male, and that IAD was positively associated with online chatting, online gaming, and social networking while IGD was only associated with online gaming. he authors argued that IGD appears to be a conceptually diferent behavior than internet use disorder and that their data supported the notion that IAD and IGD are separate nosological entities. In another recent cross-cultural study that included 636 participants from China, Taiwan, Sweden, and Germany [12] the authors examined whether it was meaningful to distinguish between generalized internet addiction and online gaming addiction – conceptually framed as speciic internet addiction. hey found strong empirical evidence suggesting that such phenomena should be considered separately as the two constructs did not entirely overlap. A further complicating factor is that many researchers have used the IAT [13-15] or other non-validated modiied versions of this test [16,17] to assess online gaming addiction. his may have been one of the reasons as to why the DSM-5 asserted that IGD and IAD are the same disorder. he second assertion that IGD can include oline video gaming is both baling and confusing. Some researchers consider video games as the starting point for examining the characteristics of gaming disorder [10,18], while others consider the internet as the main platform that unites diferent addictive internet activities, including online games [19,20]. For instance, Griiths [21] has argued that although all addictions have particular and idiosyncratic characteristics, they share more commonalities than diferences (i.e., salience, mood modiication, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conlict, and relapse), and likely relect a common etiology of addictive behavior. For him, Addiction Research & Therapy Griffiths, J Addict Res Ther 2014, 5:4 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-6105.1000e124 Editorial Open Access J Addict Res her ISSN:2155-6105 JART, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • e124