Criteria of internet addiction by Young

Young has adapted the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling to be applicable to the diagnosis of Internet addiction. A confirmation of at least five of the eight criteria confirms internet addiction. It’s a stricter standard than what is needed to diagnose pathological gambling.
Since problems with Internet use have been observed, it has been helpful for researchers to try to establish some form of criteria for the diagnosis of addiction. The criteria for diagnosing the addiction set by Young are a significant contribution in providing a concrete basis for problematic Internet use. It is also a positive step to strive to connect problems with Internet use with an already existing diagnosed category such as impulse disorder. Studies conducted for pathological gambling can be a good basis for researching internet addiction. Many of the criteria are objective, operational and can be examined through research. The criteria set by Young are strictest than those required to diagnose pathological gambling. Five out of eight criteria are needed to diagnose an internet addiction, as opposed to five of the ten criteria needed to diagnose pathological gambling.
However, there are some problems related to the criteria set by Young. One problem is that the criteria can be objective and the criteria are based on a report only. Some of the criteria such as preoccupation with the Internet, the lack of mood, depression or irritability the respondent can report, but also does not have to, so this can affect the accuracy of the diagnosis. Also, the answer depends on the subject’s judgment. In addition, the criteria must be more precise, an example of the first criterion, which it all implies under the preoccupation of the Internet.
Also, Young in his criteria for diagnosing an internet addiction based on criteria for the diagnosis of pathological gambling, excludes two criteria, and this is the sixth criterion (restoring gambling after lost money to recover lost) and the eighth Criterion (illegal actions, such as counterfeiting, fraud, theft, embezzlement, to acquire money for gambling). There is no explanation as to why these criteria were not modified to match the other criteria for the diagnosis of Internet addiction.
Minkof and Drake commented that it was rare for a client to come to therapy and only have a problem of addiction. There are usually already existing psychiatric problems as well as addiction issues. This raises one more question regarding the criteria for diagnosing Internet addiction. There is no way to see whether the excessive use of the Internet is a consequence of addiction. Also there is no way to determine whether the problem of Internet addiction is discreet as opposed to other disorders such as depression, anxiety or sexual disorders. Finally, research on internet dependence is limited so there are no valid criteria established.
And the criteria set by Young have been investigated. It has been established that the first five criteria can be classified with a number of behaviours that do not necessarily have to be classified as addictive. For example, a mother can be preoccupied with a baby (criterion 1). Another criterion, she wants to increase the time spent with her child. It has unsuccessfully attempted to control, reduce or discontinue interaction with the child (criterion 3). Then, he feels moody, agitated or depressed when he leaves the child for safekeeping in kindergarten or in relatives. Finally, she can talk to the child for a longer time than she originally planned (Criterion 5). Can we say that I in this way mother dependent on her newborn

Further, for the diagnosis of internet addiction, according to these recommended criteria, it is essential that at least one of the three criteria be met (Young’s criteria 6, 7, 8) The reason why these three criteria are separated is the fact that they affect the functioning of the data subject ( Depression, anxiety, escape from problems) but also interact with other people (significant relationships, work, unfair with other persons). Although these changes do not solve all the problems mentioned above, they can help to strengthen the criteria set by Young.
It should be mentioned that the number of people who use the internet every day grows, and that you should seriously understand this growing phenomenon and the role of psychology in solving internet addiction and using the Internet in inappropriate ways.