Other scholars have suggested that the term “to be hooked [on computers]” implies “the essence and condition of dependency,” but “avoids the very negative, emotive allusions” (Shotton, 1989) made by other words such as addiction, and, of course, dependency. This observation was taken into consideration when initially searching for participants with the specific keyword choices, and also when constructing these definitions for addiction and dependency.

Many participants believed that their connectivity habits had led them to a negative state of affairs in their lives, and this is evidently the expectation of those who consider themselves either addicted or dependent. Nonetheless, in spite of any battle over the specific peculiarities of these word choices, one must admit that usage of any of them would probably have the capacity to make a survey respondent a bit uncomfortable no matter what the study environment or scenario.

CAGE Model

The primary factor used to develop the independent variable was the CAGE model. CAGE is an acronym used by many psychologists to provide evidence of possible addiction to a substance. The CAGE model is used extensively for screening possible alcohol and/or other drug abuse. McSurvey questions 4-7 implemented the CAGE model, as well as 15-21, the latter of which further affirmed Questions 4-7 and provided more potential for in-depth analysis of positive responses which were expressed through them. The model was initiated in the following way:

I first learned of the CAGE model from Professor Lynn Kozlowski, head of the Department of Biobehavioral Health at Pennsylvania State University, who suggested that I adapt a working CAGE model from a source screening for substance abuse. I adapted a CAGE model as a screening method for McSurvey respondents based on The Physician’s Guide to Helping Patients with Alcohol Problems, an on-line guide prepared by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism which is published by the National Institutes of Health.

Internet Addiction Disorder

No current research on the subject of Internet addiction could be complete without the mention of two pioneers in this new territory. The irony regarding each of these individuals is that they use the medium which they research as a primary vehicle for tackling this issue. Dr. Ivan Goldberg heads the on-line Internet Addiction Support Group. Goldberg has been responsible for coining the phrase “Internet Addiction Disorder,” which describes Internet addiction in clinical terms.

Psychologist Kimberly Young of the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford is leading the way for psychological evaluation of this condition and gaining the most media attention for it at this time. According to a USA Today report of July 1, 1996, Young has conducted the largest mental health study to date regarding Internet participants and Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). The report drew the following clinical observations:

“Heavy on-line users in her study met psychiatric criteria for clinical dependence applied to alcoholics and drug addicts. They had lost control over their Net usage and couldn’t end it despite harmful effects on their personal and professional lives.” (USA Today, 1996)

Clarification of Purpose

It is important to realize that the purpose of this study was never to determine respondent addiction or dependency, as Shotton set out to do in her dependency studies. The purpose of this research has been to determine what the disruptions appear to be from those who are experiencing them the most, what factors are involved in separating the two studied groups, and then an attempt to evaluate what this might mean for a global society affected by often unlimited access to this new medium.

Respondents

Usable responses for most tests were obtained from a total of 32 confessed addicts and dependents. Data from these respondents’ self-classifications were cross-referenced with a new classification for the two primary definitions to create the independent variable used in the study. Data from all of the CAGE-related questions was added together for a median split which classified those above the median as addicts and those below the median as dependents. Respondents who answered both, not sure and neither were dropped from this portion of the study.

Data from respondents who did not fill out the CAGE sections of the McSurvey or provided incomplete data for these sections were also omitted from the final analyses of all variables in all portions of the study which used the CAGE as the independent variable.

Dependent Measures

The first dependent variable was an indexed measure of the degree of Internet use taken from five questions which addressed time on-line. Questions 1,2,3,9 and 10 looked at, on average, the number of days connected per week; on a typical day, the number of hours connected; the maximum number of hours connected on a single occasion during the previous month; times in a week connected for four or more hours on a single occasion; and, times in a month connected for four or more hours on a single occasion. A series of t-Tests was then done to see the relationship between time spent on-line by addicts and dependents.

The second dependent variable was an indexed measure of second-level CAGE components taken from questions 17-21. As with the first dependent variable, this group of questions was first considered collectively, then individually, in light of their relationship to the type of Internet user. In one instance, these data were also evaluated in light of their relationship to the respondents’ self-classifications, however with a slightly larger sample size. A series of t-Tests was done to determine the relationship between addicts and dependents regarding these particular consequences per self-classification.

Procedure

The on-line survey using human subjects was approved by the Office of Regulatory Compliance at Pennsylvania State University on June 18, 1996. The initial plan for McSurvey was its placement for public use beginning on July 7, 1996 and ending at midnight on July 28, 1996. Placement went according to the initial plan.

During the three-week period, I had made exactly 400 specific queries to individuals who should still be recognizable on-line at some sector of the World Wide Web (WWW) with terminology identifying them as addicts. The procedure for querying these individuals was simple and highly effective, though it required several repetitive macro computer techniques for expedient mastery of the entire process.

There were 120 responses to McSurvey, of which I determined 104 to be valid. Invalid responses consisted of either incomplete survey data pertinent to consistency in the overall evaluation; inability to legitimately locate a participant through the means used for survey participation; or, on a related note, out-and-out determination by an individual to slant the survey through the use and employment of systemic invalid e-mail address participation. All participants were required to submit valid e-mail response addresses, which was the only means of identifying anonymous respondents. If an address failed to show the ability to accept a simple validation response, it was considered invalid.

It is important to understand that participants answered as many questions on any portion of McSurvey which they felt like answering. Every question was given the option of no response except the e-mail validation portion which was used as a validity factor and not subject to this freedom. Therefore, many questions were left unanswered in patterns which will have to be identified at a later date in order to discern their overall importance to the finality of this research. Also, data is always poised against the total number of participants and not revealed laterally; e.g., responses of male to female were 74 and 30 respectively, actually totaling 104, but it could just as easily have been any arbitrary set of numbers not totaling 104 because respondents were free to omit data. Some questions had an option for the respondent to choose “a combination of influences” as part of an answer, thereby throwing some of those numbers into a slightly more controversial position.

Data Analysis

The first dependent variable was the indexed measure of the degree of Internet use. The questions used for this variable were designed as closely as possible to the questions which would have been used during a CAGE screen for possible substance abuse. Of the 32 respondents used in this test, 20 addicts and 14 dependents were evaluated according to their time on-line. Since the numbers were simply indexed, those who took advantage of the opportunity to reveal that they rarely or never disconnect were moved up in single increments from the highest number which occupied their respective lists; e.g., if they said they rarely disconnected on the scale for the number of days connected, they scored an eight, if they said never, they scored a nine, since seven was the highest option available for this question.

The questions which comprised the second dependent variable were indexed according to the following structure. Question 27 on socialization was simply reduced to a response of no or yes. Questions 30a and 30b were indexed to include only those responses which indicated communication skills as enhanced, crippled or neither. In other words, the not sures were dropped from responses to both of these questions, but in addition, those who responded both to 30a and 30b were dropped as well, in order to relieve their obvious redundancy.

Variances by Reclassification

This sample size is 32 respondents, 20 which were deemed addicted and 14 which were deemed dependent. This group was classified as addicted or dependent by falling above or below the median on a reclassification scale which reflected their placement within the CAGE model. Crosstabs from a ChiSquare test revealed that six out of 10 self-classified addicts actually met the reclassification for addicts, while nine out of 22 dependents actually met the reclassification as dependents. This test between respondents’ self -classification, and the reclassification of addicts and dependents according to where they fell in relation to the reclassification median produced p=.96. This is further affirmation that respondents were on target in their self-classifications as addicts or dependents.

As expected, differences existed between addicts and dependents regarding the amount of time they spent on-line. A t-Test conducted using the type of Internet user classification and the time on-line as expressed in the first dependent variable revealed F(1,32)=5.8335, p<.05.

Furthermore, a t-Test using the type of Internet user classification and the amount of hours the user is on per day as expressed in Question 2 revealed F(1,32)=5.2521, p<.05.

Finally, a t-Test using the type of Internet user classification and the times per week the user is on for four or more hours as expressed in Question 9 revealed F(1,32)=6.2426, p<.05.

There were two t-Tests of the second dependent variable which found differences between the type of Internet user and consequences experienced. A t-Test between the type of Internet user classification and whether the user’s Internet connectivity has led to problems at home or school revealed F(1,32)=9.4815, p<.01.

A t-Test between the type of Internet user classification and the user’s inability to disconnect once connected produced F(1,32)=5.8401, p<.05.

Variances by Self-Classification

This sample size is 46 respondents, including 17 addicts and 29 dependents. A t-Test was done between respondents regarding their own classification as addicts or dependents, and the number of days connected per week, F(1,39)=17.3739, p<.001.

In summary, the data indicates that there are significant differences between the amount of time addicts and dependents are connected to the Internet. Furthermore, those who classify themselves as addicted or dependent hold a much stronger opinion of their actual conditions than the data warrants.

Also of significance are the consequences experienced by the two groups in relation to their time on-line. Addicts suffer more at home or school as a result of their connectivity. They also have a more difficult time getting off the Internet once connected.

The graphs indicate that addicts are actually spending less time on-line than dependents. This could presume that the time on-line may not predispose to addiction, but that other factors may be at play which are contributing to the actual addicted state.

The study yielded significant differences between Internet connectivity habits of addicts and dependents. Addicts are spending less time on-line and paying more for it with problems at home or school. Both groups are spending significantly different amounts of time on-line, Despite their time on-line being shorter than dependents, addicts are having a more difficult time disconnecting from the Internet once they have connected.

The study also revealed similarities between users where there were no significant differences between genders and their classification, nor between genders and their time on-line.

One additional dependent variable was an indexed measure of three questions which considered certain perceived consequences. Question 27 asked respondents to reveal whether their level of socialization had altered itself to where it is now done mainly via the computer. Question 30a asked whether respondents saw Internet connectivity as an enhanced or crippling effect on their personal communication skills. Question 30b asked respondent how those same effects relate to them as they believe they are perceived by those who know them best. There were no significant results from these data after a series of relative t-Tests.

I had predetermined that the primary obstacle to receiving significant results was finding an expedient way to get participants to the survey site. A final yield of 120 responses from 400 queries was not without merit, considering McSurvey in printed form is five pages long. Also, many participants had to pay on-line charges to take the survey, which took most participants 15-45 minutes to complete. Many participants felt very strongly about the issue of Internet addiction. There were actually no negative responses at all, save a few people who declined participation because they believed their comments regarding any addiction they professed was just that - a profession, not an actual condition. Many participants said they felt honored to participate, and wished to see final results of the research. All of this encouragement added to the dynamics of this study in a much more personal way than one might have expected from on-line querying. The issue was especially important for those persons whose lives have genuinely been disrupted by their Internet connectivity habits. Addicted or not, they are experiencing life-changing effects.

Software Technologies

There are only three types of software technologies under evaluation here. These software technologies, either individually or collectively, are contributors to any professed addiction or dependency expressed within this study. The first, and most innocent of these three technologies, is search engine technology which allows Internet users to hunt and gather information of specific requested keywords or topics. Two other experiential areas of concentration for Internet abusers are chat and videoconferencing. Their enticement and appeal may be expressed in the promise of new sensory encounters, which also help lead to their further exploitation.

Search Engines. Search engines in and of themselves have no particular appeal, however their capability for empowering the individual with knowledge is a critical factor in on-line connectivity. Search engines were the unanimous area of Internet experience noted by survey participants, yielding a total exposure count of 77 from those who responded to it from the pool of 104 participants.

CU-SeeMe. CU-SeeMe technology was developed by Cornell University in 1992 and it is the primary real-time videoconferencing software in use today. During the time of this survey there were more than one-half million people using this software. I initially invited survey participation through conversation in CU-SeeMe chatrooms and via video messages on CU-SeeMe reflectors worldwide, however response was less than attractive, and on more than one occasion the proposal went over like a lead balloon. Several people using this software became participants, but the numbers were really minuscule compared to the keyword search method I eventually adopted, which netted me most of the 400 queried individuals I successfully approached with an invitation for participation.

One of the problems I had with getting participants via the CU-SeeMe method involved the nature of the beast. This technology is used for a great amount of cybersexual activity and its ethics and potential for government regulation have been topics of previous research I have done. Suffice it to say, many users of the software are definitely addicted, but they don’t want to talk about it. A large number of CU-SeeMe users are publicly seeking a quick, visual, cybersexual encounter from the comfort of their living quarters. Many of these people aren’t interested in using their time and money for discussion of topics which can be dealt with in news groups or other on-line forums. Surveying via this medium became impractical. Still, I’m grateful for the number of people who did wish to contribute to this research and came to the survey site via invitations through use of this software technology.

PowWow. PowWow is a free, sophisticated software package for the Internet which allows multi-user chat conferencing and WWW cruising. PowWow users may chat in groups up to seven in number. They may also visit WWW sites in clusters equal to that number as well. A PowWow user may choose to act as host by asking other participants either audibly or typing in the chatroom window, if anyone would like to cruise. For those who answer in the affirmative, the host visits a WWW site. The sites he chooses then subsequently appear on each of the computer monitors belonging to the chatroom participants cruising along.

My initial requests for participants outside of CU-SeeMe began at an on-line database called Pepsi’s PowWow Site. This site is not officially related to the Pepsi-Cola Company, however its owner uses the alias for herself and has named the site after her favorite soft drink. Pepsi reports that, at her site during the time of my query, there were 5002 active PowWow users listed as members in her databases, known as Pepsi’s Gallery. Pepsi’s Gallery lists individuals alphabetically by e-mail addresses. It includes an icon bar for each individual which may contain optional data such as an image, a link to a favorite web page or personalized comments. Optional data is provided by members at their discretion.

I used a beta (test) version of Netscape Navigator with a find function on its menu bar to locate people at the site who used the term “addict” or “hooked” in their comment fields. I used the word “addict” so that anyone using “addicted” or “addiction” would also come up. Each person who used any of these terms to describe feelings about his or her personal connectivity habits was e-mailed a personalized form letter requesting participation in the survey. What was most exciting about this procedure was the immediate response rate. Before I even made it through querying all of the 65 potential subjects this method produced, several queried participants visited the survey site, took the survey and e-mailed their data submissions.

Benefits of Connectivity

Young notes three “benefits” which work as motivational factors contributing to Internet Addiction Disorder. They are community, fantasy and power.

Community. The development of on-line community is one of the major developments leading to increased on-line connectivity by personal computer users today. Young considers overuse within human-computer interaction as possibly symbolic of neglected interpersonal development in real-life relationships.

There were 28 McSurvey respondents of the 104 who, when asked if they felt that their level of socialization has altered itself to where it is now done mainly via the computer, said yes. However, 38 respondents said no to this question. Four respondents were not sure.

When asked if they perceived themselves at present as having either enhanced or crippled communication skills as a result of their Internet connectivity habits, 29 participants said their skills have been crippled, 36 participants said their skills have been enhanced, 13 said both, 13 said neither and four were not sure.

When asked how others who knew them best might perceive them as having either enhanced or crippled communication skills as a result of their Internet connectivity habits, 22 participants said others see their skills as having a crippling effect, 22 participants said their skills are seen by others as having an enhanced effect, 14 said both, 18 said neither and 12 were not sure.

The difference between those who see their communication skills enhanced (36) and those who believe they are seen by others as gaining enhanced skills (22) is an interesting drop. While the tendency might be to not want to presume on the part of others, it would make for interesting further study to see how much of this is actually attributed to either a false self image on the part of the user, or a lack of self confidence in how others perceive him or her as the personal consumption of time is further exploited on this medium. What is also interesting here is that, in spite of any personal perceptions of this data, 29 people said they expect their current level of Internet connectivity to increase, 23 said it would decrease, 22 said it would remain unchanged, 11 expect it to soon stabilize, and three said they expect stabilization at a later date.

Fantasy. The second benefit Young attributes to those suffering from IAD focuses on their adoption of "new personas or playing out of sexual fantasies." There were 34 McSurvey respondents who admitted to exposure to pornography, a few giving it as their main reason for connectivity. Still others left more poignant, vivid examples of their exposure to overuse in relation to cybersex, citing technology, easy access and on-line community acceptance of this fantasy experience as part of the destructive force which has disrupted their lives:

"I hope my participation is helpful to you, I only did it so maybe others will know how easy it is for someone who is basically intelligent can get too much of a good thing... I do hope to chat with you in depth if you would like to ask specific questions. I was very involved with cybersex for a time and it graduated to phone sex and even sex in person. I am known as ________ on PowWow and would like to participate in a conference, but I would make up a new fake PowWow ID to participate as I am not (at this time) willing to admit what happened to me, not even to my on-line friends. I hope you understand. If you want to contact me... feel free... I doubt few people let their involvement get to the point I did... I lost my job, my marriage and my son... wrecked my credit and didn't leave my house for months... not even for groceries... (I had friends bring things) to me... and my ex-husband was very supportive thru it all... and he is still with me... and encouraged professional help and offered to pay for it.. I of course declined the offer... but it seems as tho I now can use the internet for information, entertainment and socialization, but I have met some new friends OFF line lately and have begun visiting my family again for short periods and even tho I haven't been shopping yet.. I feel that will happen soon and my son is now back home :)

The bottom line is I have overcome my addiction.

Hope this information helps your research.... And I am most interested in your findings.... I am hoping I am not as alone as I feel.... :)"

A slightly similar letter which raised my eyebrows was this one:

"I spend a lot of time on mailing list e-mail, and while I don't have a chat software program, I visit some interactive sites where it is possible to 'chat' with someone else who is also visiting. I have a bookmark list that I go through every day, checking in with certain sites and groups of people, and I encourage my husband to go out in the evening so I can have the computer to myself for a few hours. I think my use would be a great deal higher if I didn't have three kids at home (5, 2, and 1). I think that my use is a dependency in that I get pretty antsy at the thought of missing mail, or messages on the interactive pages when I have company over. The first thing I do in the morning is check my mail and a few sites, before I go to work, and I know from smoking that this is a baaaad sign. Hope some of this helps, sorry I can't help with a conference, but if you want to know anything else (like about a happy housewife who looks at internet pornography, please e-mail me, I have my own account separate from my husband because I racked up his hours so bad, so it would be totally confidential)."

The incidence of housewives and working mothers escaping into the fantasy of this experience seems to be standard fare. But the fantasy experience is difficult to abandon. The Internet and WWW provide endless opportunity for escape from the pressures confronted in the home, school or office. They also provide incentive for escape by allowing virtual experiences that lack the commitment and often the vitality of real-life encounters. The escape is often temporal and done with the use of an alias, or handle, yet the effects can obviously be devastating. Even this second letter, with its tongue-in-cheek attitude toward the housewife viewing porno via a separate access account has underlying tones of serious breakdown in it. These are not separate checking accounts. They are different forks in the road by which separate access has the potential to take each participant further and further into the dark, exponentially expanding recesses of our knowledge universe as revealed on the Internet. Although enjoyable for its season, the subtle effects of this individual pathway development within this medium are capable of having an erosion effect, as seen in the first letter, which is then capable of not rearing its ugly head until possible irreparable damage is done.

Power. Internet access empowers the individual. Search engines help the vast resources of the world to open up to the person at the keyboard, transforming him or her with the ability to access, especially through new technologies, some of the largest storehouses of knowledge on the planet. This empowerment was what Shotton noted as occurring in early studies from the 1970s, studies which looked at reasons why computer programmers, usually male, spent so much time with their computers. It has manifested itself two decades later through both genders, again mostly males, with a strong hunger for more knowledge than what is found on the newsstand in its periodicals and journals, or in the classroom. The following letter was not single in its expression, but indicative of several McSurvey participants who took advantage of the opportunity to fill out various comment sections of the survey. This letter, however, was from a young Australian man who was unable to take the survey due to his poor connection and pressing time constraints. It still expresses his experience:

"I am definitely addicted in a big way - in fact, I almost flunked out of school due to it. I learned more on the net than anywhere else, so I blew off all my classes.... anyways, gotta go - this slow connection is killing me."

McSurvey respondents answering a question about the single most important technology which contributes to their desire to have an on-line experience cited an acquisition of knowledge as the most important single factor leading to their connectivity habits. This is quite understandable. Those persons who find themselves powerless in the workplace, powerless in their domestic lives, or even powerless in their relationships, with a little computer savvy and the latest software technologies, can increase the breadth of their knowledge base and thereby allow the positive disruption of knowledge acquisition to be a bargaining tool in the daily struggles they may be experiencing in their human quest for more personal power. The idea of a positive disruption was felt by several participants as cited earlier, however, some responses fell into the category of strange but incidental. Such was the case of one woman who wrote:

"I thought the "Webaholics" page was funny [she had posted a comment about her addiction there which is why she was queried to participate]! I didn't take it as a serious addiction. BUT - onto addictions and the internet. Because of the Internet, I've been able to quit smoking. I replaced the addiction of smoking with typing letters to others with the same problem... I'm now 3 months Free of Smoking...."

Finally, one comment which I found to be humorous was this man's rendition of what troubles him in his connectivity habits:

"First off, I feel honored to participate in your survey.
I know there are plenty of people who more or less live on the internet more than anything else.
Personally, I love the internet and all it has to offer but find myself spending more and more time on the computer during my free time. I consider myself addicted to the web.
The worst thing, as far as I'm concerned, is when you are busy downloading, updating, writing, etc... on the web and all of a sudden you are interrupted by someone for something petty like taking out the trash, etc.... This annoys me very much.
My wife criticizes me for the length of time I spend on the computer. Well, to me its my second life.
I feel that at least I'm home and she knows where I am versus out with the boys drinking and womanizing.
As far as first thing in the morning is concerned, I'm an early riser especially on the weekends so as soon as the coffee is done I'm on the computer."

Many participants said they turn the computer on the first thing in the morning because they want their e-mail. This hardly constitutes addiction, since the habit in many developed countries has been a mail check first thing in the morning before conducting daily business. The problem arises when the computer is not turned off, but dominates the individual’s life, altering life patterns with new effects, some leading to physical calamity. Shotton believes the most serious effects of computers as desocializing agents for ‘Dependents’ can be found in close relationships such as marriages, but that “problems did not occur within all the marriages.... only within those where the partner expected to share interests and large portions of time with their spouses.” Of the 104 McSurvey respondents, 38 professed to be married. Many of them are finding the Internet a place of addiction, providing the promise of romance with strangers, as well as an entertaining fantasy and escape from the doldrums which have set in on their spousal relationships.

More Connectivity Consequences

Physical Distresses. Although 28 McSurvey respondents of the 104 said they have had no known physical distresses, 45 noted physical distresses, including blurred vision, sleep disorders, and sometimes a combination of distresses. Ten people said they suffered from blurred vision as a consequence of their connectivity habits, ten more said they have experienced sleep disorders, four people said they have experienced disorientation, two people said carpal tunnel syndrome and six people said they had a combination of all of the above disorders, including the most prevalent one which was poor eating habits. Eleven people had said their eating habits were poor as a result of their Internet connectivity. Overall almost 47% of respondents had some form of physical distress as a consequence of their connectivity, which is an astounding number of people who are allowing themselves to be physically overruled by what appears to be excessive time on-line.

Urges and Predispositions. The highest response to any issue concerning known problems as related to connectivity focused on whether participants felt a strong urge to connect to the Internet. Exactly 56 people, one-half of all respondents, said yes to this question, with 23 answering in the negative. Twenty-two people said their connectivity has created known problems with their families, and 24 people said it has created known problems at work or school. Thirty-one participants said they had a history of at least one relative addicted to something at some time within their recent family history.

Characteristics

Frequency. Eighty McSurvey participants are connected to the Internet, on average, more than six days a week. Since more than six days a week actually constitutes seven days a week, it is interesting that 35 people chose to express their frequency as occurring more than six days a week, as opposed to 36 who chose seven days a week, and nine others who admitted to rarely or never disconnecting. While this may sound excessive, it is necessary to consider that new computers equipped with energy-saving features such as hard disk power-downs and monitor suspension make it easier for users to maintain a permanent on-line hookup. Along with the arrival of more secure telephone and/or cable access, it means apart from a blackout there is no reason to disconnect.

There were a maximum of 23 people who said that on a typical day they are connected for 1-3 hours. Twenty-two people were connected for seven or more hours during a typical day. As many as 18 people said their connection time on a typical day was less than one hour. Fourteen people said that they were on for more than 16 hours during a single session, with three people claiming a session between 20-30 hours, and three people claiming a session lasting 30-40 hours. There was no specific definition for a session, other than a presumed continuous hookup by a user who was expected to disconnect when finished with whatever business originally precipitated the initial connection.

Age. Participants numbering within the highest age bracket consisted of 43 persons between the ages of 20-29. That was closely followed by 40 participants who claimed to be between the ages of 30-39. Eighteen was the minimum age for participation in the McSurvey. Ironically, some of the people who claimed to be the most fulfilled by their connectivity habits were elderly.

Experiences. Search engines led the list of on-line experiences with 69 people claiming to have used them at least once. This was closely followed by 66 claims of entertainment experiences and 63 claims of news experiences. Sports was the least experienced category with only 28 claims of on-line experience attributed to it. Again, it cannot be understated that search engine technology allows for further empowerment of the individual.

Intelligence. Dr. Kimberly Young, psychologist and head of the Center for On-line Addiction, asked me about the reference within the McSurvey to intelligence. What had prompted the inclusion of these survey questions was my curiosity about gender and intelligence perception, actually somewhat provoked by Shotton in her research. Shotton makes reference to pioneering works in this field from the 1970s which attributed frequent computer use to programmers being unable or unwilling to break away from their monochrome monitors. Her references go back as far as 1970 when Martin and Norman projected large numbers of programmers would be spending vast amounts of time in preparation for a digital future. Emphasis on programmers, their intelligence levels and motivation for human-computer interaction led me to ask the following questions on the McSurvey:

I wanted to see what was happening through a simple intelligence evaluation by those possibly addicted and their motivation for Internet connectivity. Sadly, there were instances where individuals ‘passed’ the CAGE profile by being positive in all four areas, indicating a high probability of substance addiction or dependency, and then claimed no above-average intelligence or expected increase in marketability with acquired skills. Granted much more research needs to be done in this area, but there are still preliminary findings from the McSurvey which are capable of further profiling some of its participants as a result of their answers to these questions.

Although the breakdowns for gender responses to these intelligence questions need more analysis, the overall responses were otherwise enlightening. Fifty-three participants, nearly one-half, said they believe they are above-average in intelligence. Only one was unsure, while 38 said they were not above-average in intelligence. Just under 48% of study participants answered in the affirmative to the second part of the question, providing a good impetus for further research of motivational factors in Internet connectivity, and also further muddying the waters when it comes to determining actual addiction. Also, many participants who said they think they are addicted or dependent are using sectors of the Internet occupationally. Where are they in relation to those who are psychologically addicted or dependent?

Quite a bit of this study boils down to just how real addiction is when it comes to human-computer interaction. For physicians like Orman and psychologists like Young, it is very real. And understandably so. There is no doubt that computer users are exhibiting characteristics similar to addicts of other substances.

But for many people connecting to the Internet, claims of addiction or dependency are surfacing simply as these users grow alongside the medium. Speed, user-friendly software and ease of access are all contributing factors to both the readiness of people to participate and the further proliferation of the medium being explored. There were many letters not included on these pages which attested to people going overboard with the availability of options provided by connection to the Internet. So what is happening? Are any of the 104 participants in McSurvey ‘addicts’?

Internet users can be addicted, and many are addicted, to their substance. If the CAGE model continues to successfully carry itself over as a means of simple analysis, it could work well for screening Internet usage by potential addicts. Even when carried out further through its hierarchical levels of progression, many users fit the mold reserved for substance abusers. However, intensive, psychoanalytical surveys as those being done by Young and other professional psychologists and are being applied to this condition with various degrees of expected validity.

Again, it was never the purpose of this paper to determine if there is genuine addiction taking place. I am only commenting on validity of addiction because there are patterns here which warrant further inspection and allow for comment. I received letters from several individuals who are in therapy, overcoming their addiction to the Internet. Are these people simply trying to break a new habit, or is there a deeper, psychological bonding taking place between them and their substance? Many people who think they are addicted are simply growing with the medium, feeling the insurgence of dynamics it presents, and interpreting it all as being out of moderation when it comes to the perceptions of their usage.

In final analysis, Internet addiction, technology dependency or Internet Addiction Disorder become very real factors disrupting people in their personal lives. As the on-line community expands, the incidence of Internet addiction will increase, though whether it is increasing exponentially as some wags insist, is yet to be determined. For some people who are spending too much time on the Internet, what may appear as addiction or dependency is simply the process of learning as much as possible in as quick a time as possible, often about the foundational concepts which belie this new medium, and how it can be fully incorporated as a viable means of communication in one’s daily living experiences.

Internet connectivity has validity for the furtherance of humans as sensitive, intellectual beings procuring some of the finest experiences accessible to them via the available resources at this given period in history. Human sensitivity must be made adaptable to the needs and concerns of individuals whose lives are being disturbed, disrupted, and in some cases, destroyed, as a result of their Internet connectivity habits. Human intellect must be made aware of the many challenges presented by further acquisition of knowledge via this new medium, challenges which may have detrimental effects that can be further exacerbated by a false but ready assumption that knowledge is power, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Bibliography