School Counsellors’ understanding of PIU | RESEARCH PRESENTATION - Sept 2012

  • 581 views
Uploaded on

An exploration of School Counsellors’ understanding of Problematic Internet Use (PIU) and approaches to its treatment. …

An exploration of School Counsellors’ understanding of Problematic Internet Use (PIU) and approaches to its treatment.
Completed as part of the requirements for registration with the Psychology Board of Australia via AHPRA.
Psychology Registration Research Project (Key Standard 5D) - Presentation of results, first delivered in September 2012

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
581
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An  explora+on  of  School  Counsellors’   understanding  of     Problema+c  Internet  Use  (PIU)     and  approaches  to  its  treatment.     Jocelyn  Brewer   Psychology  Registra+on  Research  Project  (5D)   Presenta+on  of  results  -­‐  September  2012.  
  • 2. The  project  =    Professional  Development  •  Undertake  an  independent  research  ac3vity.    •  The  ac+vity  should  emphasise  the  synthesis  of   research-­‐based  knowledge  and  the   integra3on  of  this  knowledge  into   professional  ac3vi3es.    •  It  may  take  the  form  of  an  evalua+on  of  an   interven+on  programme,  a  major  case  report   which  includes  a  review  and  ra+onale  of   empirically-­‐based  interven+ons,  or  a  survey   undertaken  to  iden3fy  client  needs.    
  • 3. The  project  -­‐  steps  1.  Iden3fy  professionally  relevant  topic  2.  Define  the  problem  3.  Design  and  conduct  research  inves3ga3on  4.  Evaluate  research  findings  5.  Communicate  research  outcomes  
  • 4. 1.  Iden3fy  professionally  relevant  topic   INTERNET  ADDICTION  (IA)  or   PROBLEMATIC  INTERNET  USE  (PIU)  or     INTERNET  /  TECHNOLOGY  OVERUSE.  
  • 5. Why  Problema+c  Internet  Use?  •  Building  on  previous  research  from  my  4th   year  thesis  in  2009.  •  I’m  interested  in  it  –  www.niira.org.au  •  I  see  kids  struggling  with  it  (to  different   degrees),  regularly.  •  It’s  a  new  area  and  few  people  are  looking  at   it.  •  Its  not  going  away  –  ignorance  is  not  bliss.  
  • 6. 2.  Define  the  problem    The  ‘real  world’  isn’t  cuang  it  for  kids/students/young  people.     Online  realms/games/web2.0  features/social  media     engage  them  in  ways  schools  only  dream  of.  
  • 7. Defining  ‘Internet  Addic+on’  in     itself  is  problema+c!  •  No  consistency  with  labelling  PIU/IA  •  No  agreement  on  how  many  hours  of  usage  cons+tute  ‘addic+on’/   overuse.  •  No  typology  of  Internet  Usage  paderns  –  HUGE  varia+on  between   individuals  in  their  usage  (both  in  terms  of  TIME  and  FUNCTION/ APPLICATION).  •  Where  does  Problema+c  Use  of  the  Internet  on  SMARTPHONES  fit   into  this?  •  Inclusion  in  DSM-­‐V  probably  on  the  back  burner  as  there  is  a  lack  of   agreement  and  its  constantly  changing  as  technology  emerges.  •  Lots  of  ‘camps’  in  terms  of  impacts  on  young  brains  and  neural   networks  and  much  demonising  of  the  internet.    •  Corporate  gamifica+on  of  almost  anything  with  a  goal  is  crea+ng   ‘engagement’  but  also  overuse.  
  • 8. The  problem  =  the  Internet?  Is  it  the  gap  between  genera+ons  and  their  use  of  and  reliance  on  it?  It  is  he  compe+ng  priori+es  of  the  use  of  the  Internet  for  learning/work  and  leisure?    Is  it  compulsive  uses  and  ‘addic+ve  quali+es’  within  some  Internet  applica+ons?  Is  it  a  school  issue?  We  hand  out  laptops  to  students  and  say  ‘go  learn’…  but  many  teachers  have  NFI  about  effec+vely  using  them…  
  • 9. ‘Internet  Addic+on’  AKA   Pathological  Internet  Use  (PIU)  •  First  conceptualised  (seriously)  by  Dr  Kimberly   Young  in  1996.  Previously  was  a  sa+re  by   Goldman  in  ‘95.  •  Behavioural  addic+on  –  devised  from  Gambling   addic+on  models.  •  Operant  condi+oning  model,  random   reinforcement  –  BF  Skinner    •  Very  different  effects  and  psychological  rewards   between  gaming  and  social  networking  (a  thesis   in  itself).  
  • 10. Main  criteria  for  PIU  –  Young  (1999)  •  Preoccupa3on  with  the  Internet  •  Increased  tolerance-­‐  need  for  longer  amounts  on  line  •  Repeated  adempts  to  reduce  Internet  use  •  Withdrawal  when  reducing  Internet  use  •  Time  Management  Issues  •  Environmental  Distress  (family,  school,  work,  friends)  •  Decep3on  around  +me  spent  online  •  Mood  modifica3on  through  Internet  use  BUT  this  is  now  considered  out  of  date  in  rela+on  to  the   range  of  online  ac+vi+es  and  the  different   psychological  aspects  of  overuse.  
  • 11. Digital  Immigrants  VS  Digital  Na+ves  Significant  divide  in  exper+se.  Technophobic  parents  vs  ignorant/inaden+ve  ones.  This  is  NOT  about  cybersafety  though….  
  • 12. Mobile  Internet  Technology  The  same  compu+ng  power  NASA  had  in  1969  is  now  is  the  palm  of  most  students,  even  in  disadvantaged  High  Schools.    These  powerful  compu+ng  devices  are  s+ll  mostly  banned  in  the  classroom….  WTF?  LOL,  SIGH.  
  • 13. 24/7  Access   • In  2014,  mobile  devices  will   be  the  main  way  people   access  the  Internet.   • What  is  the  impact  of   constantly  being  online   • Brain  imaging  studies  show   addic+on  the  same  way  as   substance  abuse  when   withdrawing   • Lot  so  neuroscience  to  look   at  the  way  the  brain  is   ‘changing  itself’  in  response   to  informa+on  and  s+mulus    
  • 14.  Games:  A  brief  history   People  have  always   played  games.   Now  we  just  play  with   more  fancy  toys,  many   of  the  principles  remain   the  same.   That  is-­‐     there  are  clear  rules,   clear  purpose,   immediate  feedback  
  • 15. MMOG’s:  Neverending  Stories  •  Role  playing  games,  fantasy  realm,  epic  quests     flow  model,  lose  yourself  in  the  moment  •  Levels  keep  rolling  out,  there  is  no  end  point,   developers  keep  designing  more  as  people   play    You  cant  win  •  Encourages  the  high  challenge/high  support   model  we  want  for  classrooms  •  Games  are  hard  work!  Gamers  are  not  lazy.  
  • 16. Addic+on  or  choice/preference?   Is  reality  broken?  
  • 17. What  makes  them  ‘addic+ve’?  •  Constant  feedback  and  informa+on,  no  ending  •  Holy  trinity  of  adrac+on:  Connec+on,  Agency,   Reward  (for  effort)  •  Flow  model  –  loss  of  +me,  in  the  zone,   coopera+ve  play/allies.  •  Psychoanaly+cal  perspec+ves:  subs+tute   parent,  projected  idealised  iden+ty  via  avatar.  •  Adolescent  brains,  under-­‐developed,  cannot   exert  control  over  impulses  and  emo+ons  etc.  
  • 18. A  quick  aside  about  FLOW  •  Concept  from  posi+ve  psychology  devised  by   Mihály  Csíkszentmihályi  (and  others  subsequently)  •  Describes  a  mental  state  of  feeling  fully  immersed,   focused  on  the  present,  where  the    subjec+ve   experience  of  +me  is  altered  and  there  is  a  merging  of   ac+on  and  experience.  •  3  condi+ons  required  for  flow:     –  clear  goals  (to  add  structure  and  direc+on),     –  clear  feedback  provided  regularly/immediately  (in  ordre  to   adjust  performance  to  meet  goals)   –  balance  between  the  perceived  challenges  of  the  task  at   hand  and  perceived  skills  (confidence  in  ability)    REMIND  YOU  OF  SOMETHING  THAT  LEARNING  ACTIVITIES  MIGHT  ASPIRE  TO  ACHIEVE?  
  • 19. In  the  (flow)  zone.  Tasks  when  set  at  the  right  level  of  support  and  challenge  lend  themselves  to  flow,  which  inspires  achievement  and  learning.    Geang  in  the  zone  requires  some  form  of  tailoring  to  an  individuals  needs.  Games  do  this  with  levels.  What  do  classrooms  do?  
  • 20. Social  Media:  the  landscape/ecosytem  
  • 21. Social  Media:  crea+ng  behavioural  disorders?  Lots  of  focus  recently  on  whether  Social  Media  supplies  narcissis+c  tendencies  and  the  role  of  ‘status’  anxiety  when  it  comes  to  observing  other  people’s  loves  through  a  idealised  and  selec+ve  social  media  lens.  
  • 22. Research  findings  –  prevalence  of  PIU   in  gaming/MMOG’s  •  Varied  data  collec+on  methods  (internet-­‐based,  school  or   Uni,  postal,  clinics),  which  all  have  inherent  biases  •  Generally  show  2-­‐5%  fulfil  the  criteria  for  addic+on,  up  to   10% at  risk’  (Porter,  Starcevic  2010)  but  the  criteria  is  s+ll   undecided  and  changes  from  study  to  study  and  between   countries.  •  Dependent  on  strictness  and  range  of  criteria  used.  No   concensus  on  amount  of  +me  that  equals  an  addic+on.  •  Lack  of  focus  on  antecedents  to  commencing  or  increasing   tech/internet/gaming  use,  and  on  examining  co-­‐morbid  and   pre-­‐exis+ng  mental  health  issues.      •  Chicken  or  the  egg?  Or  the  angry  bird?    
  • 23. Why  do  some  people  get  ‘hooked’?  Various  theories  abound  as  to  what  underlies  a  person’s   habitual  use,  overuse,  or  dependence  on  the  Internet;    •  a  lack  of  mo+va+on  (contradicted  by  in-­‐game  work  ethic)  •  environmental  or  academic  s+mula+on    •  poor  social  rela+onships  and  self-­‐esteem  •  Boredom  and  lack  of  engagement  •  experiences  of  trauma  or  social  phobias  •  Procras+na+on  and  task  avoidance  using  a  modern  tool    (Thatcher,  Wretschko  and  Fridjhon,  2007).    LOTS  OF  CONFOUNDING  VARIABLES  
  • 24. Prevalence  and  growth  of  PIU     (in  regard  to  gaming)?  •  All  depends  on  defini+on  of  ‘addic+on’  •  Can’t  just  be  based  on  screen  +me…  •  Most  studies  are  from  Asia  –  South  Korea  and   China  lead  the  world  in  research.    •  About  the  same  prevalence  as  Marijuana   addic+on  2-­‐7%  depending  on  parameters  •  Their  approach  to  treatment  is  more  puni+ve   than  those  in  USA/Australia  etc  –  cold  turkey   boot  camp  style  approaches….    
  • 25. School  Counsellors:  what  we  do.  
  • 26. Role  of  School  Counsellors  •  First  line  of  ‘defence’  /  ‘at  the  coalface’  in  the   mental  health  scene  of  teenagers  •  Limited  in  +me  and  resources,  but  expected  to   cover  all  kinds  of  disorders,  issues,  problems   (from  ‘mean  girls’  to  pre-­‐dromal  psychosis)  •  PIU  is  another  one  to  add  to  the  list!  •  We  need  preven+on  via  Welfare  and  wellbeing   programs,  versus  the  reac+ve  approach  to   dealing  with  more  significant  problems  (as  is  the   case  with  all  health  issues!)  
  • 27. 3.  Design  and  conduct  research  inves3ga3on  •  65  surveys  were  collected  over  a  range  of   presenta+ons  given  by  Dr  Philip  Tam  –  Child   psychiatrist  at  Rivendell  and  co-­‐founder  of   www.niira.org.au  •  13  ques+ons  rela+ng  to  their  observa+ons  of   and  understanding  of  PUI.  •  Hand  scored,  results  interpreted  via  SPSS,   charts  generated  on  excel.  
  • 28. 4.  Evaluate  research  findings  •  Results  of  survey  of  School  Counsellors  •  Implica+ons  for  treatment  •  Implica+ons  for  training  and  upskilling  of  SC’s    
  • 29.  Results         This  is  the  boring  part.    
  • 30. Figure  1  –  Respondents  familiarity  with  the  Internet     and  technology     60.0   50.0   40.0  Percentage   30.0   20.0   10.0   .0   Find  technology  in+mida+ng  and   I  have  learnt  a  lidle  about  it,   I’m  a  ‘digital  immigrant’   A  proud  ‘digital  na+ve’   frightening   enough  to  get  by  day-­‐to-­‐day   Series1   3.1   38.5   55.4   3.1  This  reflects  the  average  age  of  school  counsellors  being  56  –  as  indicated  by  the  School  Counsellor  review.    
  • 31. Figure  2  -­‐  Level  of  interest  in  area  of     Internet/Technology  Overuse   70.0     60.0   50.0   40.0   Percentage   30.0   20.0   10.0   .0   Intrigued  but  have  other   Interested;  equal  priority  with   Ac+vely  seek  informa+on   No  response/  NA   priori+es   exis+ng  issues   Series1   12.3   64.6   21.5   1.5  This  reflects  the  dynamic  role  of  School  Counsellors  and  the  need  for  them  to  be  across  a  range  of  disorders,  issues  and  problems.      Over  one  fith  of  those  surveyed  ac+vely  sought  informa+on  on  PIU.  
  • 32. Figure  3  -­‐  Year  that  Internet/Technology  Overuse   problems  were  first  seen.   25.0     20.0   15.0   Percentage   10.0   5.0   .0   Dont  see  a   2012   2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   problem   Series1   10.8   21.5   23.1   13.8   4.6   7.7   12.3   6.2  Over  55%  of  responses  have  seen  PUI  be  observed  in  the  last  3  years.    Only  6%  do  not  see  PUI  as  a  problem.  
  • 33. Figure  4  –  Approx  number  of  cases  of  Internet/ Technology  Overuse  seen  in  counselling  role   60.0     50.0   40.0   Percentage   30.0   20.0   10.0   .0   1  or  2   3-­‐10   10-­‐20   20-­‐50   More  than  50   No  Repsonse   Series1   18.5   52.3   13.8   1.5   12.3   1.5  52%  of  responses  indicated  they  saw  between  3  -­‐10  cases,  a  rela+vely  large  number  12%  saw  over  50  cases.  No  one  indicated  they  did  not  see  any  cases  of  PIU.  
  • 34. Figure  5  -­‐  Changes  in  presenta3ons  of     Internet/Technology  Overuse  over  3me     Predy  much  stayed  the  same  in  the   +me  I  have  known  them   1%  2%   5%   6%   Problems  have  got  a  lidle  more   frequent,  but  not  any  more  ‘serious’   or  entrenched   Problems  are  both  a  bit  more   frequent,  and  more  serious   21%   Problems  are  a  lot  more  common,  but   no  more  serious   Problems  are  a  lot  commoner,  and   57%   also  more  serious   8%   Haven’t  seen  any/  enough  to  make  a   reasoned  judgement   No  response/  NA  General  agreement  that  the  problem  is  a)  increasing  and  b)  geVng  more  serious.  
  • 35. Figure  6  -­‐  Conceptualisa3on  of  Internet/Technology   Overuse  problems  by  respondents   40     35   30   25   20   15   10   5   0   A-­‐                                            A   symptom,  or   B  -­‐  A  purely   C  -­‐  A  novel   ‘secondary   social  and   ‘en+ty’  or   D  -­‐  I’m  unsure  at   No  response/   E-­‐  Other   All  of  the  above   effect’  of  an   behavioural   condi+on  in  its   the  moment   NA   underlying   phenomenon   own  right   problem   Combina+on  response   11   5   6   2   Single/primary  response   26   1   6   14   5   1   1  Mostly  seen  as  secondary  issue  –  tech  use  seen  as  an  escape?  From  what?    Trat  the  source,  by  harnessing  technology!  Respondents  also  indicated  not    sure  of  conceptualisa+on.  
  • 36. Figure  7  -­‐  Condi3ons  believed  to  be  underlying  the   Internet/Technology  Overuse  problems     Childhood  depression   8%   Anxiety   8%   29%   Bullying  or  self-­‐esteem  issues   9%   Family  Issues   Obsessive-­‐compulsive  problems   All  are  of  equal  significance  and  I   14%   cannot  rank  them   I  haven’t  seen  enough  to  make  a   12%   reasoned  judgement   3%   No  response/  NA   17%  Even  spread  of  Anxiety,  Depression  and  Bullying  as  well  as  Family  issues  seen  as  issues  underlying  PUI.  17%  said  all  were  significant  and  30%  did  not  respond  and  12%  said  they  hadn’t  seen  enough  cases  to  judge.  
  • 37. 40.0   Figure  8  -­‐  Ease  of  addressing  PIU   35.0   30.0   25.0   Percentage   20.0   15.0   10.0   5.0   .0   The  cases  varied   Problem  could  be   Problem  could   Problems  were   I  quickly  referred   widely  so   resolved  easily   only  par+ally  be   very  difficult  to   the  child  on,  so   outcome  were  a   No  response/  NA   Combina+on   and  effec+vely   addressed   resolve  or  treat   cannot  comment   mixture  of  the   above   Series1   1.5   23.1   33.8   3.1   23.1   9.2   6.2  A  third  of  responses  indicated  difficulty  in  addressing  cases,  over  a  fith  used  a  mixture  of  approaches.  Nearly  10  %  did  not  respond.  
  • 38. Figure  9  –  Treatment  or  referral  op3ons  used   40.0   35.0   30.0   25.0  Axis  Title   20.0   15.0   10.0   5.0   .0   get  the  family  to   fully  resolve  the   refer  to  private   be  involved  in   Other   No  response/  NA   All   Combina+ons   issues  ‘in  house’   psychologist   assis+ng   Series1   4.6   33.8   15.4   15.4   12.3   1.5   16.9   Important  role  of  family  as  much  of  the  tech  use  occurs  at  home  and  on  private   devices.  Combina+on  of  treatments  also  used  (as  expected).  Private  referrals   popular,  but  again  may  be  the  case  in  other  presen+ng  problems.  
  • 39. Figure  10  –  Most  common  presen3ng  problem  on   respondents  caseload  (top  rank)  45.0  40.0   38.5  35.0  30.0  25.0   21.5  20.0   18.5  15.0   12.3  10.0   5.0   3.1   3.1   1.5   1.5   .0   Depression   No  response/  NA   Anxiety   School  Bullying   Family  Issues   Cyberbullying   Unable  to  rank     Internet  and   Technology   Overuse  Anxiety  and  depression,  then  family  problems  main  presen+ng  issue  
  • 40. Figure  10a  –  Second  most  commonly  ranked   presen3ng  problem  on  respondents  caseload  40.0  35.0   33.8  30.0   24.6  25.0  20.0   15.4  15.0   12.3  10.0   6.2   5.0   3.1   3.1   1.5   .0   Depression   No  response/  NA   Anxiety   School  Bullying   Family  Issues   Cyberbullying   Unable  to  rank     Internet  and   Technology   Overuse  
  • 41. Figure  11  -­‐  Modali3es  and  approaches  used  to   trea3ng  the  Internet/technology  Overuse  problem     50   45   40   35   30   25   Percentage     20   15   10   5   0   C  -­‐   B-­‐  Seang   Addressi D  -­‐   A-­‐  Simply   firm  and   ng  any   Enlis+ng   talking  to   clear   E  -­‐   underlyin support   No   and   limits   Nothing  I   All  of  the   g   of   F  -­‐  Other   response suppor+n and   tried   above   problem   families   /  NA   g  the   boundari worked   eg.   in  limit-­‐ child   es  on   depressio seang   usage   n   Combina+on  of  op+ons  selected   12.0   25.0   28.0   28.0   6.0   1.0   .0   .0   Single/primary  response   0   0   11   18   7   7   46   11  Problema+c  ques+on.    Lots  of  no  responses.  Many  used  combina+on  of  techniques.    Again  it  is  clear  that  parental  involvement  and  boundaries  are  deemed  as  important.  
  • 42. Figure  12  -­‐  Impact  of  Internet/Technology  Overuse  on   a  young  persons  studies/educa3on.   50.0     45.0   40.0   35.0   30.0   25.0  Percentage   20.0   15.0   10.0   5.0   .0   B-­‐  Some  effect  but   C-­‐  Major  impact  on   D-­‐  They  almost   A-­‐  Minimal  or  no   Combina+on  of   not  enough  to  be   their  studies  and   ceased  adending   No  response/  NA   effect   responses   overly  concerned   Grades   school  completely   Series1   1.5   26.2   43.1   4.6   10.8   13.8   50%  claim  major  to  severe  impact  as  a  result  of  PIU.  
  • 43. Dr  Tam’s  model  of  PIU  Severity  Level   Descriptor   Impacts     Treatment  1   Mild/early   Internal  affect,  localised   Parents/carers   and  self  help  2   Moderate   No+cable  to  others,  increasing   School   concerns  in  some  areas   Counsellor/   primary  3   Clinical   Co-­‐morbidity  likely  with  other   Clinical   disorders,  treatment  sought   Psychologist/   secondary  4   Pathological   Significant  psycho-­‐social  impacts,   Psychiatric/   loss  of  func+oning,  inpa+ent   ter+ary   treatment   For  more  informa+on  on  this  see  www.niira.org.au    
  • 44. Figure  13  -­‐  Level  of  Interest  in  further  professional   development  on  Technology/Internet  Overuse     No  response/  NA   2%   Combina+on  of   responses   B  -­‐  Am  interested,   8%   but  have  lidle  +me  to   do  more  than  a  brief   overview   15%   D-­‐  I  would  like   further  specific   educa+on  in  the  area   C-­‐  Am  interested,   43%   and  will  try  to  read   more  on  the  topic  in   free  +me   32%  43%  indicated  wan+ng  specific  training  in  the  area,  demonstra+ng  the  need  for  informa+on,  clarifica+on  and  treatment  models.  Another  32%  indicated  they  would  undertake  reading  on  the  topic.  
  • 45. Summary  of  results  •  School  counsellors  are  ac+vely  seeking   informa+on  on  PIU  and  would  like  specific   training  in  the  area.  •  We  are  seeing  increasing  numbers  of  cases  of  PIU   and  the  cases  are  becoming  more  serious.  These   are  difficult  to  treat  and  require  secondary   referral  (as  would  many  issues).  •  The  conceptualisa+on  of  PIU  is  mostly  as  a   secondary  effect  of  an  underlying  problem,   however  the  underlying  problem  was  seen  as   varied  or  unknown.  •  Family  involvement  was  important  in  treatment.  
  • 46. Limita+ons  of  study  •  The  survey    itself–  needs  total  redesign  and   formula+on,  ques+ons  were  not  well   constructed,  hard  to  score  and  easy  to  not   respond  to.  Doesn’t  differen+ate  areas  of   overuse  (gaming  vs  social  media  compulsion)  •  The  sample  –  needs  to  tap  larger  community  of   adolescent  counsellors  and  psychologists  and   include  ques+ons  about  their  training  and  skill   set.  •  Do  it  online  –  easier  to  compile  results  •  Time  –  we  s+ll  only  have  24  hours  in  the  day.  
  • 47. Implica+ons    •  Training  providers  and  ‘best  prac+ce’  treatments   for  an  emerging  and  s+ll  undefined  disorder  are   s+ll  very  rare.  Few  in  Sydney.  •  Levels  of  psych-­‐educa+on  (preven+on),  train-­‐the-­‐ trainer  (iden+fica+on),  and  ‘pointy  end’   treatment    op+ons  are  required.  •  Consensus  on  criteria  and  benchmark  required.  •  Bio-­‐psycho-­‐social  model  most  relevant  at  current   stage  of  research.  That  is,  we  know  that  its   complex,  treat  it  as  such.  
  • 48. Implica+ons  –  walk  the  talk?  •  Upskilling  of  counsellors/psychologists  and  parents  •  Bridging  the  digital  divide  between  genera+ons  –   understand  the  language  of  the  Internet.  •  The  pace  of  technological  change  and  adop+on   outstrips  our  ability  to  keep  up  with  the  emerging   phenomenon.  •  Understanding  the  differences  between  overuse   rela+ng  to  social  media  vs  games  •  need  to  know  the  ‘realm’  and  use  the  technology  in   order  to  treat?  •  Responsibility  of  parents  –  what  happens  when  the   babysider  becomes  the  crack  dealer?  
  • 49. 5.  Communicate  research  outcomes  •  This  presenta+on:  delivered  today,  available   online  via  www.niira.org.au    •  Full  report:  submided  to  AGCA,  hopefully   published  by  the  end  of  2012.  
  • 50. Ques+ons?  Want  more?   Get  in  touch:   Twider:  @jocelynbrewer   hello@jocelynbrewer.com   www.niira.org.au   Twider:  @NiIRAustralia   Also,  we  curate  ar+cles  and  reserach  on  the   impacts  of  the  Internet,  new  technologies  and  generally  interes+ng  stuff  like  in  this  preso,  here:     h_p://www.scoop.it/u/NiIRAustralia