The definition of computers, smartphones, and other elements of the cyber world has evolved from tools to permanent elements of daily life. Therefore, understanding the social impact of the rapid advancements in information technology (IT) and their growing involvement in the daily routines of human life is a crucial topic in sociology, psychology, and even philosophy. Over the past ten years, scientists from different disciplines have increasingly turned their attention to this topic [1,2,3,4].

The authors of this study attempt to shed light on four aspects of the development of extensive IT usage (so-called “IT addiction”):

(1) How does the process begin?

(2) How does usage increase with time?

(3) What happens after usage increases?

(4) What happens when addiction actually forms?

The foundations of this study are questionable. A review of the paper suggests flawed terminology. The authors have borrowed the idea of addiction from substance use disorders, and somehow managed to alter it in order to conceptualize a novel and not yet understood phenomenon. In fact, the applied terminology only inconsistently and superficially reflects the well-established definitions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV and DSM-5) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10).

Neither extensive usage nor obsession and compulsion alone are sufficient to describe addictive behavior. A close look at these classifications shows that a crucial element of substance dependence is the continuation of the behavior despite an awareness of its hazardous effects. In contrast to substance abuse and dependence, or even other forms of addiction (for example, gambling), such effects and negative consequences of IT usage are not yet known and certainly not a part of the consciousness of society. While there have been many political efforts to restrict the usage of violent computer games (not because of game addiction, but to reduce violence), there have not been any attempts worldwide regarding the negative effects of mobile phone usage.

Even more fundamental is the definition of aberrant (or abnormal) IT behavior. It requires the establishment of a set of a priori norms defining healthy or normal IT usage patterns. In fact, there is a strong tendency to manage a variety of aspects of daily life by IT, which automatically leads to a (not always) voluntary but steady increase in IT usage. Therefore, if one is even able to define such norms of healthy IT usage, it is very doubtful that these standards will be valid even two years from now. Consequently, since it is not yet possible to characterize normal usage, a discussion on pathological IT behavior appears premature.

In addition to these critical problems, the causal relationship between IT usage and pathological behavior is not as simple as the authors conclude. For instance, the authors refer to online gambling as an expression of IT addiction, but is this really an IT addiction or does it reflect a gambling problem that is expressed by a different medium? In other words, would the gambler stop playing if there were no computers? In terms of behavioral neuroscience, is IT usage by itself reinforcing? Is it in any sense a rewarding experience? Can anyone measure its impact on the brain? Is the dopaminergic system affected?

A cocaine addict is addicted to the substance (cocaine) and not to the straw. A heroin addict is addicted to the substance (heroin) and not to the needle. So, is there any pure satisfaction in using IT? To evaluate whether IT use is rewarding, a simple study would be sufficient to show that a gambler scores differently when gaming in a casino with people in contrast to online against pictures of people.

There are also experiment design issues that raise skepticism on the appropriateness of this study. While the subjects were college students, only minor attention was paid to the role of variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, and fields of study.

In addition, the authors report: “28 users (15%) answered ‘yes’ to five or more questions and reported having addictive behaviors.” In other words, the questionnaire and interviews were based on a strong (but not justified) assumption that the individuals are aware of the meaning of addictive behavior. The concerns regarding this assumption are further fortified by the subjective nature of the characterization of IT addiction. The “addicted” subjects reported that “they use their phones between 2-20 hours per day with an average of 5.2 hours.” Does it mean that the investigators accept that two hours per day of cellphone use is an indicator of IT addiction? While the authors haven’t attempted to define a healthy use of IT, they continue with the vague conceptualizations and define “borderline behavior” as “[sharing] partial characteristics of both addictive and regular usage.”

Could the extensive use of IT, such as the Internet and smartphones, become a social problem? The answer is probably yes. But this study does not provide any insight on this hypothetical problem, and it lacks accurate foundations both in terminology and experimental setup.