The term “addiction” gets thrown around quite freely in everyday language—this is nothing new. Who among us hasn’t declared themselves addicted to some habit or substance, more jokingly than seriously? Who hasn’t accused someone else of being addicted to some substance, device, or routine that we consider excessive? How many songs claim the performer is addicted to love, to pain, to chaos, to you? This isn’t necessarily a bad thing: language is, after all, our playing field. The problem arises when healthcare professionals use such diagnoses just as casually.
This is precisely what a new study from the University of Valencia takes aim at. Published in Nature Reviews Psychology and aptly titled “To the addiction hammer, every habit looks like a nail,” the study highlights a growing tendency among some healthcare professionals to overdiagnose addiction by applying criteria designed for problematic alcohol or drug use to virtually any activity performed with high intensity or frequency.
This trend has clear consequences. As the study’s author, Víctor Ciudad-Fernández, states, it creates an “addiction factory,” trivializing the struggles of people who genuinely suffer from serious dependencies, while applying clinical labels and unnecessarily pathologizing those who are simply enjoying something intensely.
What counts as an addiction?
In an article published by the University of Valencia, Ciudad-Fernandez (who is also a researcher at the Polibienestar Institute of the University of Valencia) details the methodology behind this approach: “First, someone observes that a person engages very frequently in an activity (dancing, playing games, using their phone) and assumes that this must be an addiction. Then, a questionnaire is created by repurposing criteria for alcoholism or drug addiction and adapting them to the new behavior. The questionnaire is then applied and, naturally, it ‘confirms’ what was initially assumed.”
So, what counts as an addiction for these professionals? Listening to music, running, dancing, tanning, using ChatGPT… all these activities are, in the eyes of some clinicians, comparable to the problematic use of, for example, alcohol or cocaine.
Of course, this does not mean that some everyday habits cannot become problematic. The misuse of artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT is already being well documented (though not yet effectively addressed), has serious consequences, and could be treated as a public health problem. Or consider the case of gambling addiction, which has been wreaking havoc for some time, and is now even more prevalent among young people. But we can’t go about mixing apples and oranges.
It’s worth remembering: a behavior is considered addictive not only because of its repetition or intensity, but also because of its effect on a person’s daily life. Addiction implies a loss of control, an inability to break the habit, the emergence of dangerous behaviors, and the deterioration of the patient’s life, health, and relationships, to name a few factors. Dependence, for its part, has to do with the body’s adaptation to the continuous use of a substance.
The study also cites, as an example, research on professional tango dancers who were labeled as “addicted” to this musical genre. Is passion for one’s profession really comparable to, say, debilitating fentanyl addiction? Is it valid, useful, or wise to lump them together?
The Dangers of Overdiagnosing Addictions
This tendency to overdiagnose addictions has very real consequences. As Ciudad-Fernandez explains, “if we start calling almost everything an ‘addiction,’ the term loses its meaning, and the suffering of those with a serious disorder is trivialized.” People with addiction already face stigmatization, excessive social judgment, legal problems, extreme institutionalization, and health problems, among others. Minimizing the seriousness of their suffering by equating it with behaviors like “running a lot” not only actively harms them but borders on insulting.
On the other hand, the researcher cites another study that questions the over-pathologization of everyday life and warns about the risks this can pose to the field of addiction research. In this regard, he explains: “Labeling normal activities as pathological (using technology, exercising, enjoying a hobby) generates unnecessary alarm and can lead perfectly healthy people to believe they have a clinical problem.”
That said, we can’t rule out the possibility that many unscrupulous actors are profiting by artificially creating illnesses in healthy people. After all, an addiction diagnosis implies undergoing sustained treatment over time, opening the door to a constant flow of patients and access to their money.
Likewise, we must not overlook the fact that this pathologization of pleasure occurs in a context of increasing pressure to be “useful,” under a constant social mandate to produce and a culture that glorifies work and financial gain over pleasure.
Ultimately, this approach of overdiagnosing addictions erodes trust in medical science and undermines the credibility of a field already affected by a lack of effective policies and social stigma. Being mindful with language is always important, even in everyday life—but in the medical field, it’s critical.
