TECHNOLOGY AND ADDICTION (M GRIFFITHS, SECTION EDITOR)
Can Disordered Mobile Phone Use Be Considered
a Behavioral Addiction? An Update on Current Evidence
and a Comprehensive Model for Future Research
Joël Billieux1,2
& Pierre Maurage1,2
& Olatz Lopez-Fernandez1,2
&
Daria J. Kuss3
& Mark D. Griffiths3
Published online: 9 April 2015
# Springer International Publishing AG 2015
Abstract Despite the many positive outcomes, excessive mobile
phone use is now often associated with potentially harmful
and/or disturbing behaviors (e.g., symptoms of deregulated
use, negative impact on various aspects of daily life such as
relationship problems, and work intrusion). Problematic mobile
phone use (PMPU) has generally been considered as a
behavioral addiction that shares many features with more
established drug addictions. In light of the most recent data,
the current paper reviews the validity of the behavioral addiction
model when applied to PMPU. On the whole, it is argued
that the evidence supporting PMPU as an addictive behavior
is scarce. In particular, it lacks studies that definitively show
behavioral and neurobiological similarities between mobile
phone addiction and other types of legitimate addictive behaviors.
Given this context, an integrative pathway model is proposed
that aims to provide a theoretical framework to guide
future research in the field of PMPU. This model highlights
that PMPU is a heterogeneous and multi-faceted condition.
Keywords Behavioral addiction . Mobile phone addiction .
Cyber addiction . Mobile phone problematic use
Introduction
Mobile phone use has substantially increased over the last
decade, particularly in European and Asian countries. For
instance, in Asia, the Office of the Communication
Authority of Hong Kong (2013) stated that in 2012, the
average number of cellular phones owned was 2.21.
Regarding Europe, recent statistics by the Swiss Federal
Statistics Office (2014) indicated that in 2012, there were
more mobile phone subscriptions than inhabitants in many
European countries (e.g., Finland, 1.72; Austria, 1.61; Italy,
1.60; UK, 1.35; Switzerland, 1.30; Sweden, 1.25; Germany,
1.12; and Belgium, 1.11).
Linked with this blooming of mobile phone use, research
has recently flourished to explore both positive and negative
consequences associated with mobile phone use. Positive outcomes
of mobile phone use include the optimization of communication
between individuals and systems [1]. Mobile
phone technology also promoted the development and validation
of a wide range of health-related and behavior change
interventions and applications that aid such activities as dietary
management, smoking cessation, physical activity promotion,
and chronic disease management [2, 3]. Negative
outcomes associated with mobile phone use—particularly
excessive use—have included (but are not restricted to) selfreported
dependence and addiction-like symptoms [4, 5, 6••],
sleep interference [7], financial problems [4], dangerous use
(phoning while driving) [4, 8, 9], prohibited use (phoning in
banned areas) [4, 10], and mobile phone-based aggressive
behaviors (e.g., cyber bullying) [11].
Despite accumulating evidence that mobile phone use
can become problematic and lead to negative consequences,
its precise incidence, prevalence, and symptomatology
remain a matter of much debate. As an illustration,
prevalence studies conducted within the last decade
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Technology and Addiction
* Joël Billieux
Joel.Billieux@uclouvain.be
1
Laboratory for Experimental Psychopathology, Psychological
Sciences Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain,
10, Place du Cardinal Mercier, 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
2
Internet and Gambling Disorders Clinic, Department of Adult
Psychiatry, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
3
International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK
Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162
DOI 10.1007/s40429-015-0054-y
have reported highly heterogeneous rates of problematic
use ranging from just above 0 % to more than 35 %
[12–15]. As discussed in more detail later in the paper,
this heterogeneity is mainly due to the fact that most
studies in the field have been conducted in the absence
of a theoretical rationale. The prototypical example is that
too often, excessive mobile phone use is conceptualized as
a behavioral addiction and subsequently developed screening
tools are adapted from the substance use and pathological
gambling literature, without taking into account
either the specificities of mobile phone Baddiction^ (e.g.,
dysfunctional mobile phone use may often be related to
interpersonal processes) or the fact that the most recent
generation of mobile phones (i.e., smartphones) are tools
that—like the Internet—allow the involvement in a wide
range of activities going far beyond traditional oral and
written (SMS) communication between individuals (e.g.,
gaming, gambling, social networking, shopping, etc.). For
example, it has recently been found that the involvement
in social networking promotes the development of dependence
toward mobile phone use [16]. As a consequence,
many existing studies were based on an excessive simplification
of heterogeneous and multi-faceted problematic
behaviors, taking place between an individual and a technological
instrument with constantly evolving applications.
Recently—and notwithstanding inconsistencies in prevalence
rates reported in previous studies and the limited evidence
regarding its etiology—problematic mobile phone use
(PMPU) has raised sufficient concerns for being considered as
a potential public health issue. For instance, in August 2014,
the World Health Organization (WHO) hosted a meeting (in
Tokyo, Japan) to discuss the public health implications and
excessive behaviors associated with the use of information
and communication technology, including mobile phones
and smartphones.1
In this context, the objective of the current
paper is twofold. First, the validity of the behavioral addiction
model, when applied to PMPU, is discussed in light of the
existing evidence. Second, an integrative pathway model that
aims to provide a theoretical framework for future research on
PMPU is proposed.
Problematic Mobile Phone Use as a Behavioral
Addiction
The first empirical studies examining PMPU were published a
decade ago by Australian and Japanese scholars [6••, 17].
Since then, the number of published studies on the topic has
grown substantially [18], although mobile phone-related disorders
have received less attention in the psychiatric and
psychological literature than Internet-related disorders.
Currently, several terms are frequently used to describe the
phenomenon, the more popular being Bmobile phone (or
smartphone) addiction^ [19], Bmobile phone (or smartphone)
dependence^ [4], or Bnomophobia^ (that literally refers to the
fear of not being able to use the mobile phone) [20]. Existing
studies on the topic are mainly epidemiological and have
attempted to estimate the prevalence of symptomatology of
the condition and to delineate its psychosocial risk factors and
comorbid psychopathology [21••].
PMPU is generally conceptualized as a behavioral addiction
including the core components of addictive behaviors,
such as cognitive salience, loss of control, mood modification,
tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse [15, 22, 23].
Accordingly, the criteria (and screening tools developed using
such criteria) that have been proposed to diagnose an addiction
to the mobile phone were directly transposed from those
classifying and diagnosing other addictive behaviors, i.e., the
criteria for substance use and pathological gambling depicted
in the fourth revised edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) in the case of the
first published studies on PMPU [6••, 17]. A decade on,
scholars still generally tackle the issue of diagnosing PMPU
using a similar approach. For example, in a recent study,
Smetaniuk [13] reported a prevalence of PMPU around
20 % in US undergraduate students using adapted survey
items that were initially developed to diagnose disordered
gambling.
Although many scholars believe that PMPU is a behavioral
addiction, evidence is still lacking that either confirms or rejects
such conceptualization. Indeed, the fact that this condition
can be considered as an addiction is to date only supported
by exploratory studies relying on self-report data which is
collected via convenience samples. More specifically, there is
a crucial lack of evidence that similar neurobiological and
psychological mechanisms are involved in the etiology of
mobile phone addiction compared to other chemical and
behavioral addictions. Such types of evidence played a
major role in the recent recognition of gambling disorder
and Internet gaming disorder as addictive disorders in the
latest edition of the DSM (i.e., DSM-5) [24, 25]. In particular,
three key features of addictive behaviors, namely loss
of control, tolerance, and withdrawal, have—to date—received
very limited empirical support in the field of mobile
phone addiction research.
First, several scholars proposed that loss of control (e.g.,
diminished impulse control and altered decision-making processes)
is central in PMPU [21••]. Such a proposal was based
on the extensive literature supporting that impulsivity is a
hallmark of addictive behaviors [26, 27], including behavioral
addictions such as disordered gambling [28, 29] and Internet
addiction [30, 31]. Unfortunately, in the framework of PMPU,
available evidence, although promising, has relied on either
1
The first and the last authors of this paper were among the experts
invited to attend the WHO meeting.
Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162 157
self-reports or clinical case studies. For example, it has been
shown that questionnaires assessing emotion-based impulsivity
and non-planning impulsivity correlate with measures of
self-reported dependence to mobile phone and addictive pattern
of use, as well as with negative outcomes such as financial
problems [4, 5, 32, 33]. A few studies have also described case
reports of patients losing control over their use of the mobile
phone [20, 34]. However, there is a lack of empirical studies
that have reported the behavioral and/or neurobiological
indexes of impulsivity in mobile phone users. Further
studies should therefore be conducted using recognized
behavioral measures of inhibitory control (e.g., a stopsignal
paradigm) and decision-making (e.g., Iowa gambling
task). Ultimately, such types of impairment should
be investigated and confirmed at the neurobiological level
(e.g., using EEG or fMRI), similarly to studies on disordered
gambling and Internet gaming disorder [30, 35, 36].
Second, relying on substance abuse criteria, attempts have
been made to conceptualize the tolerance phenomenon with
respect to PMPU. This has resulted in somehow weak conceptual
formulations of what mobile phone tolerance comprises.
For example, it has been proposed that in the framework
of mobile phone addiction, tolerance is reflected by Ba
marked increase in the frequency and duration of mobile
phone use to obtain satisfaction^ or Bthe need to substitute
operative devices with the new models that appear on the
market^ [15, 37, 38]. Although quite trivial, these operational
definitions reflect the degree of conceptualization currently
reached with regard to the tolerance construct applied to
PMPU. In fact, within the framework of mobile phone use,
inferring tolerance based on the increasing use of the mobile
phone is highly tentative. Indeed, usage patterns can vary as a
function of numerous contextual and social variables, including
age (e.g., teenagers are more strongly influenced by
peers), type of subscription (prepaid or subscriptions), relationship
status (single or in couple), occupation (active versus
employed, holidays versus working periods), and significant
life events (e.g., beginning or end of a romantic relationship).
As for loss of control, the field lacks studies that have
addressed the question in a more direct and valid way.
If tolerance can be (at least partly) reflected by an increase
in the actual use of the mobile phone, it is necessary to
emphasize this by longitudinal designs rather than crosssectional
self-report studies. Ultimately, it is not possible
to assert any definitive conclusions regarding the existence
of tolerance in individuals with PMPU unless neurobiological
evidence (e.g., alteration/sensitization in specific cerebral circuitries)
confirms it.
Third, tentative data interpretation has resulted in propositions
that PMPU can be characterized by withdrawal, as found
in substance addictions. However, the supporting evidence is
scarce. Indeed, existing data comprises studies conducted
using community samples (often students) emphasizing that
some individuals claim via self-report to be upset when they
are not able to use their mobile phone (e.g., when they have
left it at home, when no network is available, when they have
to switch if off) [6••, 32, 39, 40]. In such studies, typical items
used for assessing withdrawal include BI feel restless and
irritable when the mobile phone (or smartphone) is
unavailable^ or BI panic when I cannot use my mobile
phone (or smartphone).^ Unfortunately, these studies provide—at
best—only indirect evidence of withdrawal. This
is because elevated levels of self-reported distress when
unable to use the mobile phone are susceptible to be triggered
by a wide range of individual and contextual factors.
For example, King et al. [20, 41] described cases of
social phobia and panic disorder patients who displayed
increased anxiety and discomfort when they could not
use their mobile phone. Within the framework of panic
disorder, the mobile phone can be used as an instrument
that guarantees safety (i.e., it allows the calling of emergency
services at any time), whereas in the framework of
social phobia, the mobile phone allows the avoidance of
direct social relations. In a previous paper, some of the
present authors described the case of a woman with poor
self-esteem and insecure attachment who became upset
when she found herself in situations in which she could not
use the mobile phone to call or send an SMS to her boyfriend
[34]. In fact, to be able to assert that items such as those
aforementioned actually measure withdrawal, it will be necessary
to confirm their validity and specificity in longitudinal
and/or experimental studies comparing people presenting with
or without PMPU in situations of deprivation (i.e., assessing
psychological and/or physiological symptoms in individuals
after they have experienced a certain amount of time without
having access to their mobile phone).
Given these concerns, it appears that the empirical evidence
supporting the conceptualization of PMPU as a genuine
addictive behavior is currently scarce. However, this does not
necessary mean that PMPU is not a genuine addictive behavior
(at least for a subgroup of individuals displaying PMPU
symptoms), but rather that the nature and amount of the available
data at the present time are not sufficient to draw definitive
and valid conclusions. Therefore, further studies are
required. In particular, longitudinal and experimental research
is needed to obtain behavioral and neurobiological
correlates of PMPU. In the absence of such types of data,
all attempts to consider PMPU within the framework of
behavioral addictions will remain tentative. It is worth
noting here that it took decades of empirical research before
disordered gambling was officially recognized as an addiction
(as opposed to a disorder of impulse control) in the DSM-5.
The current conceptual chaos surrounding PMPU research
can also be related to the fact that while the number of
empirical studies is growing quickly, these studies have
(to date) primarily been based on concepts borrowed from
158 Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162
other disorders (e.g., problematic Internet use, pathological
gambling, substance abuse, etc.). This approach is atheoretical
and lacks specificity with regard to the phenomenon under
investigation. In fact, by adopting such a Bconfirmatory
approach^ relying on deductive quantitative studies, important
findings that are unique to the experience of PMPU have
been neglected. As an illustration, no qualitative analyses of
PMPU exist, and only a few models have been proposed. This
implies that most studies have been conducted without a theoretical
rationale that goes beyond transposing what is known
about addictions in the analysis of PMPU [21••]. In such a
context, our objective in the last section of this paper is to
propose a comprehensive framework that aims to inspire and
stimulate future research into PMPU. To do so, a model stipulating
that different pathways can lead to PMPU is described.
In this model, PMPU comprises, but is not limited to, addictive
patterns of use.
Toward a Pathway Model of Problematic Mobile
Phone Use
Research into PMPU is limited by the absence of a theoretical
framework that allows for an understanding of its etiology and
course. As described in this paper, existing studies have considered
PMPU as a behavioral addiction a priori, without taking
into account its uniqueness, as well as the heterogeneity of
both its manifestations (e.g., addiction symptoms, banned use,
risky use, etc.) and related risk factors (e.g., personality traits,
comorbid psychopathology).
As depicted in Fig. 1, based on the available data from the
literature,2
we hypothesized that at least three pathways can
lead to PMPU: (1) an excessive reassurance pathway; (2) an
impulsive-antisocial pathway; and (3) an extraversion pathway.
Each of these pathways is influenced by individual factors
(e.g., psychological characteristics of individuals) and can
lead to various uses and misuses (e.g., frequency and type of
use, risky use, addiction-like symptoms). Drawing on the
available literature, the following sections provide the evidence
supporting the existence of each of these pathways. It
is worth noting that a preliminary attempt was proposed in
2012 to distinguish theoretical pathways leading to PMPU
[21••]. However, since then, some of the authors’ initial proposals
have been refined and updated based on the latest available
empirical data. Importantly, there is now a substantive
amount of data that supports the relevance of the postulated
pathways.
The first pathway leading to PMPU is the excessive reassurance
pathway. This pathway corresponds to individuals
whose PMPU is driven by the necessity to maintain relationships
and obtain reassurance from others. The objects of reassurance
can be multiple. Some individuals use the mobile
phone excessively to obtain reassurance in affective relationships
[34]. As an illustration, recent data have shown that
excessive and uncontrolled SMS use is related to concerns
about relationship maintenance [42, 43•]. Moreover, using a
cluster analytic approach, Lu et al. [43•] highlighted the existence
of a subgroup of problematic users characterized by a
poor self-model of adult attachment, along with increased
anxiety and depression. These individuals, who display elevated
actual and problematic use of mobile phones, were classified
as Bdependent users^ by the authors. Other research also
found that an increased level of general anxiety, as well as
social anxiety, is associated with excessive mobile phone use
and proneness to send a large number of SMSs [4, 14, 44, 45].
Such types of association have also been found in clinical case
studies of panic disorder and socially phobic patients [20, 41].
Converging data also emphasize that high levels of neuroticism
(i.e., the tendency to be emotionally vulnerable) [6••,
46–49] and low levels of self-esteem [6••, 14, 46, 48, 50] are
associated with increased PMPU. On the whole, it therefore
appears that addiction-like symptoms can be the consequence
of a need for reassurance promoted by factors such as increased
anxiety, poor self-esteem, insecure attachment, or increased
emotional instability.
The second pathway leading to PMPU is the impulsive
pathway. This pathway corresponds to individuals whose
PMPU is driven by poor impulse control resulting in uncontrolled
urges and deregulated use. Crucially, the impulsive
pathway can lead to various manifestations of PMPU, namely
addictive, antisocial, and/or risky patterns of use. For example,
several research studies have shown that addictive patterns
of use are associated with specific impulsivity traits, such
as urgency (the tendency to act rashly in emotional contexts),
lack of planning/premeditation (the tendency not to take into
account the consequences of actions), or low self-control (defined
as a tendency to act in an automatic rather than in a
controlled way) [4, 32, 51]. The overuse of mobile phones
has also been related to ADHD symptoms in adolescence
[52]. The aforementioned impulsivity traits have been similarly
related to risky patterns of use that have little or nothing to
do with addictive behavior, such as dangerous use (e.g., phoning
while driving) [4, 32] or sexting (i.e., exchange of sexually
suggestive pictures or messages via the mobile phone) [53,
54]. Impulsivity, along with psychopathic traits, has also been
related to antisocial patterns of mobile phone use (defined as a
use involving negative outcomes, such as social disapproval
of other’s suffering) and feeling compelled to use mobile
phones in banned areas [4] or the involvement in cyberbullying
behaviors [55]. It is worth noting that this pathway,
and its related etiology, finds its theoretical roots in
Blaszczynski and Nower’s [56] pathway model of disordered
2
These three pathways have been proposed based on current evidence. It
is however possible that future research will lead to considering other
potential pathways to PMPU.
Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162 159
gambling, and that a similar pathway has also been recently
related to dysfunctional involvement in online video games
[57]. Accordingly, the impulsive pathway is probably the
more suited to account for PMPU related to specific activities,
such as video gaming or gambling.
The third pathway leading to PMPU is the extraversion
pathway. This pathway applies to individuals whose PMPU
takes the form of dependence-like symptoms and exaggerated
use driven by a strong and constant desire to communicate
with others and to establish new relationships. Indeed, several
studies have documented that PMPU is associated with high
extraversion [6••, 43•, 46–48]. Interestingly, a study by
Igarashi et al. [47] used structural equation modeling to emphasize
that SMS overuse can either result from an extraversion
path through which dependency is related to a constant
desire to socialize with others, or from a neurotic path involving
anxiety about relationship maintenance, which corresponds
to the excessive reassurance pathway described above.
The extraversion pathway also corresponds to individuals
whose PMPU can be related to a constant need for stimulations
and a high sensitivity to rewards, and is susceptible to
taking the form of either antisocial or risky patterns of use.
Indeed, a few studies have linked high sensation seeking
to mobile phone-based aggressive behaviors [55], phoning
while driving [4], and sexting3
[53]. It can therefore be
assumed that for individuals with a high level of sensation
seeking, such activities promote pleasure and excitement
(e.g., sending and/or receiving erotic pictures of themselves
or someone else), or help to meet the amount of stimulation
they need (e.g., using the mobile phone while driving in a
context that requires concentration).
Importantly, these pathways have not to be considered
as mutually exclusive, and it is possible that in
some cases, PMPU is associated with more than one
of the described pathways (e.g., a person characterized
simultaneously by poor self-esteem and high
impulsivity).
Conclusion
Two main arguments were presented in the current paper.
First, the lack of evidence regarding the validity of the behavioral
addiction model applied to PMPU was highlighted. This
implied that further research emphasizing potential behavioral
and neurobiological similarities and correlates with recognized
addictive behaviors is required before PMPU can be
considered within the spectrum of behavioral addictions.
Second, it was demonstrated that PMPU is a heterogeneous
and multi-faceted condition. In support of this proposal, a
theoretical model was formulated to guide and stimulate
future research in the field. In particular, this model emphasizes
on the one hand how apparently similar symptoms
of mobile phone addiction (e.g., exaggerated and
deregulated use) can be driven by different pathways underlain
by distinct psychological processes, and on the
other hand how some psychological factors (e.g., impulsivity
and extraversion) can lead to various types of
PMPU that are not related to addictive use (e.g., antisocial
and risky use). To conclude, the study of PMPU as a
potential psychiatric disorder is in its infancy, and most
Fig. 1 A pathway model of
problematic mobile phone use
(PMPU)
3
Sexting is not necessarily a problematic activity, although in some cases
it can be (e.g., sending erotic pictures to a person that cannot be trusted).
160 Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162
of the existing research appears to have been undertaken
without a sufficient theoretical rationale. Indeed, previous
research has adopted a confirmatory approach in which
PMPU is considered a priori as a behavioral addiction,
rather than an exploratory approach interested in determining
its phenomenology and manifestations. Eventually, a
prerequisite to define a problematic behavior as a possible
psychiatric condition (or public health concern) is that it involves
functional impairment as reflected by tangible negative
outcomes at the individual, professional, or personal levels
[58, 59]. Regarding PMPU, while dangerous use might obviously
lead to severe consequences, such as fatal traffic accidents,
if using a mobile phone while driving [60], the outcomes
of prohibitive use and addictive use are not necessarily
associated with significant functional impairment.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
Conflict of Interest Joël Billieux and Pierre Maurage have received
funding from the Belgium National Lottery for research on gambling
disorder. Joël Billieux and Olatz Lopez-Fernandez have received funding
from the European Commission for Research on the problematic usage of
information and communication technology (BTech Use Disorders^;
Grant ID: FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF-627999). Pierre Maurage (research
associate) is funded by the Belgian National Foundation for Scientific
Research (F.R.S.-FNRS, Belgium). Mark Griffiths has received funding
for a number of research projects in the area of gambling education
for youth, social responsibility in gambling, and gambling treatment
from the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, a charitable body who
funds its research program based on donations from the gambling
industry. Mark Griffiths also undertakes consultancy for various gaming
companies in the area of social responsibility in gambling. No conflict
of interest exists for Daria Kuss.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does
not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any
of the authors.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been
highlighted as:
• Of importance
•• Of major importance
1. Geser H. Toward a sociological theory of the mobile phone.
Soziologisches Institut der Univ. Zürich: Online Publications.
2004. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from : http://socio.ch/
mobile/index_mobile.htm. 2004.
2. Blake H. Innovation in practice: mobile phone technology in patient
care. Br J Community Nurs. 2008;13(4):160–5.
3. Fjeldsoe BS, Marshall AL, Miller YD. Behavior change interventions
delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. Am J
Prev Med. 2009;36(2):165–73.
4. Billieux J, Van der Linden M, Rochat L. The role of impulsivity in
actual and problematic use of the mobile phone. Appl Cogn
Psychol. 2008;22(9):1195–210.
5. Billieux J, Van der Linden M, d’Acremont M, Ceschi G, Zermatten
A. Does impulsivity relate to perceived dependence and actual use
of the mobile phone? Appl Cogn Psychol. 2007;21(4):527–37.
6.•• Bianchi A, Phillips JG. Psychological predictors of problem mobile
phone use. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005;8D1]:39–51. The first empirical
study that addressed the psychological factors associated
with problematic mobile phone use Dself-esteem, extraversion,
neuroticism]. This study has inspired many studies on risk factors
for problematic mobile phone use.
7. Thomée S, Harenstam A, Hagberg M. Mobile phone use and
stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among
young adults-a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health.
2011;11(1):66.
8. Barkana Y, Zadok D, Morad Y, Avni I. Visual field attention is
reduced by concomitant hands-free conversation on a cellular telephone.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138(3):347–53.
9. White MP, Eiser JR, Harris PR. Risk perceptions of mobile phone
use while driving. Risk Anal. 2004;24(2):323–34.
10. Nickerson RC, Isaac H, Mak B. A multi-national study of attitudes
about mobile phone use in social settings. Int J Mob Comm.
2008;6(5):541–63.
11. Nicol A, Fleming MJ. « i h8 u »: the influence of normative beliefs
and hostile response selection in predicting adolescents’ mobile
phone aggression—a pilot study. J Sch Violence. 2010;9(2):212–
31.
12. Lopez-Fernandez O, Honrubia-Serrano L, Freixa-Blanxart M,
Gibson W. Prevalence of problematic mobile phone use in British
adolescents. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014;17(2):91–8.
13. Smetaniuk P. A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and
prediction of problematic cell phone use. J Behav Addict.
2014;3(1):41–53.
14. Ha JH, Chin B, Park DH, Ryu SH, Yu J. Characteristics of excessive
cellular phone use in Korean adolescents. Cyberpsychol
Behav. 2008;11(6):783–4.
15. Yen CF, Tang TC, Yen JY, Lin HC, Huang CF, Liu SC, et al.
Symptoms of problematic cellular phone use, functional impairment
and its association with depression among adolescents in
Southern Taiwan. J Adolesc. 2009;32(4):863–73.
16. Salehan M, Negahban A. Social networking on smartphones: when
mobile phones become addictive. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):
2632–9.
17. Toda M, Monden K, Kubo K, Morimoto K. Cellular phone dependence
tendency of female university students. Jpn J Hyg.
2004;59(4):383–6.
18. Carbonell X, Guardiola E, Beranuy M, Bellés A. A bibliometric
analysis of the scientific literature on Internet, video games, and cell
phone addiction. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97(2):102–7.
19. Kwon M, Lee J-Y, Won W-Y, Park J-W, Min J-A, Hahn C, et al.
Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS).
PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e56936.
20. King ALS, Valença AM, Silva ACO, Baczynski T, Carvalho MR,
Nardi AE. Nomophobia: dependency on virtual environments or
social phobia? Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(1):140–4.
21.•• Billieux J. Problematic use of the mobile phone: a literature review
and a pathways model. Curr Psychiatr Rev. 2012;8D4]:299–307.
The first comprehensive review on problematic mobile phone
use published. First, it describes existing tools to assess problematic
mobile phone use, and provides assessment guidelines
for future studies. Second, a detailed description of established
psychosocial risk factors is provided. Finally, a theoretical
framework for future research is proposed.
22. Griffiths MD. A ‘components’ model of addiction within a
biopsychosocial framework. J Subst Use. 2005;10(4):191–7.
23. Griffiths MD. Technological addictions. Clin Psychol Forum.
1995;76:14–9.
Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162 161
24. Weinstock J, Rash CJ. Clinical and research implications of gambling
disorder in DSM-5. Curr Addict Rep. 2014;1:159–65.
25. Petry NM, Rehbein F, Gentile DA, Lemmens JS, Rumpf H-J,
Mössle T, et al. An international consensus for assessing internet
gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach. Addiction.
2014;109(9):1399–406.
26. Groman SM, James AS, Jentsch JD. Poor response inhibition: at the
nexus between substance abuse and attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(5):690–8.
27. Weafer J, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Recent translational findings
on impulsivity in relation to drug abuse. Curr Addict Rep.
2014;1:289–300.
28. Goudriaan AE, Oosterlaan J, de Beurs E, Van den Brink W.
Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: a comparison
with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls.
Addiction. 2006;101(4):534–47.
29. Billieux J, Lagrange G, Van der Linden M, Lançon C, Adida M,
Jeanningros R. Investigation of impulsivity in a sample of
treatment-seeking pathological gamblers: a multidimensional perspective.
Psychiatry Res. 2012;198(2):291–6.
30. Littel M, Berg I, Luijten M, Rooij AJ, Keemink L, Franken IH.
Error processing and response inhibition in excessive computer
game players: an event-related potential study. Addict Biol.
2012;17(5):934–47.
31. Dong G, DeVito EE, Du X, Cui Z. Impaired inhibitory control in
‘internet addiction disorder’: a functional magnetic resonance imaging
study. Psychiatry Res. 2012;203(2–3):153–8.
32. Billieux J, Gay P, Rochat L, Van der Linden M. The role of urgency
and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours.
Behav Res Ther. 2010;48(11):1085–96.
33. Roberts JA, Pirog SF. A preliminary investigation of materialism
and impulsiveness as predictors of technological addictions among
young adults. J Behav Addict. 2013;2(1):56–62.
34. Billieux J, Philippot P, Schmid C, Maurage P, De Mol J, Van der
Linden M. Is dysfunctional use of the mobile phone a behavioural
addiction? Confronting symptom-based versus process-based approaches.
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2015;in press.
35. Van Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE. Why
gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging
findings in pathological gambling. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
2010;34(1):87–107.
36. Zhou Z-H, Yuan G-Z, Yao J-J, Li C, Cheng Z-H. An event-related
potential investigation of deficient inhibitory control in individuals
with pathological Internet use. Acta Neuropsychiat. 2010;22(5):
228–36.
37. Chóliz M. Mobile phone addiction: a point of issue. Addiction.
2010;105(2):373–4.
38. Mok J-Y, Choi S-W, Kim D-J, Choi J-S, Lee J, Ahn H, et al. Latent
class analysis on internet and smartphone addiction in college students.
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:817–28.
39. Kim D, Lee Y, Lee J, Nam JK, Chung Y. Development of Korean
smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. PLoS ONE.
2014;9(5):e97920.
40. Lin Y-H, Chang L-R, Lee Y-H, Tseng H-W, Kuo TB, Chen S-H.
Development and validation of the smartphone addiction inventory
(SPAI). PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e98312.
41. King ALS, Valença AM, Nardi AE. Nomophobia: the mobile
phone in panic disorder with agoraphobia: reducing phobias or
worsening of dependence? Cogn Behav Neurol. 2010;23(1):52–4.
42. Lu X, Watanabe J, Liu Q, Uji M, Shono M, Kitamura T. Internet
and mobile phone text-messaging dependency: factor structure and
correlation with dysphoric mood among Japanese adults. Comput
Hum Behav. 2011;27(5):1702–9.
43.• Lu X, Katoh T, Chen Z, Nagata T, Kitamura T. Text messaging:
are dependency and excessive use discretely different for Japanese
university students? Psychiatry Res. 2014;216D2]:255–62. This
research aims to distinguish excessive versus dependent use
of mobile phones. The study comprises two measurement
times D5-month interval], and is thus the first longitudinal
study in the field of mobile phone problematic use research.
44. Lee Y-K, Chang C-T, Lin Y, Cheng Z-H. The dark side of
smartphone usage: psychological traits, compulsive behavior and
technostress. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;31:373–83.
45. Lepp A, Barkley JE, Karpinski AC. The relationship between cell
phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and Satisfaction with
Life in college students. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;31:343–50.
46. Ehrenberg A, Juckes S, White KM, Walsh SP. Personality and selfesteem
as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychol
Behav. 2008;11(6):739–41.
47. Igarashi T, Motoyoshi T, Takai J, Yoshida T. No mobile, no life:
self-perception and text-message dependency among Japanese high
school students. Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24(5):2311–24.
48. Butt S, Phillips JG. Personality and self-reported mobile phone use.
Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24(2):346–60.
49. Augner C, Hacker GW. Associations between problematic mobile
phone use and psychological parameters in young adults. Int J
Public Health. 2012;57(2):437–41.
50. Leung L. Linking psychological attributes to addiction and improper
use of the mobile phone among adolescents in Hong Kong. J
Child Media. 2008;2(2):93–113.
51. Khang H, Kim JK, Kim Y. Self-traits and motivations as antecedents
of digital media flow and addiction: the internet, mobile
phones, and video games. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):
2416–24.
52. Zheng F, Gao P, He M, Li M, Wang C, Zeng Q, et al. Association
between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents:
a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public
Health. 2014;14(1):1022.
53. Dir AL, Cyders MA. Risks, risk factors, and outcomes associated
with phone and internet sexting among university students in the
United States. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;in press.
54. Dir AL, Cyders MA, Coskunpinar A. From the bar to the bed via
mobile phone: a first test of the role of problematic alcohol use,
sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Comput
Hum Behav. 2013;29(4):1664–70.
55. Kokkinos CM, Antoniadou N, Markos A. Cyber-bullying: an investigation
of the psychological profile of university student participants.
J Appl Dev Psychol. 2014;35(3):204–14.
56. Blaszczynski A, Nower L. A pathways model of problem and pathological
gambling. Addiction. 2002;97(5):487–99.
57. Billieux J, Thorens G, Khazaal Y, Zullino D, Achab S, Van der
Linden M. Problematic involvement in online games: a cluster analytic
approach. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;43:28–34.
58. Stein DJ, Phillips KA, Bolton D, Fulford KWM, Sadler JZ, Kendler
KS. What is a mental/psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSMV.
Psychol Med. 2010;40(11):1759–65.
59. Billieux J, Schimmenti A, Khazaal Y, Maurage P, Heeren A. Are we
overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral
addiction research. J Behav Addict. 2015:in press.
60. Violanti JM. Cellular phones and fatal traffic collisions. Accid Anal
Prev. 1998;30(4):519–24.
162 Curr Addict Rep (2015) 2:156–162