Online Porn Addiction: What We Know and What We Don't—A Systematic Review of the Literature
- Authors
- de Alarcón, R., de la Iglesia, J. I., Casado, N. M., & Montejo, A. L.
- Year
- 2019
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Type
- Systematic review / meta-analysis
- Last verified
- 2026-10-04
Main question
What does the literature on online porn "addiction" actually support?
Related claims
Summary
de Alarcón and colleagues (2019) systematically reviewed the literature on online pornography “addiction.” Their central conclusion is that the field lacks a uniform definition and that many studies are methodologically weak.
Why it matters
This review is a corrective to confident claims about PPU. It is cited here in the behavioural addiction debate and in defining PPU, and it underscores why this knowledge base distinguishes community experience from evidence.
Findings
- Systematically reviews the literature on online pornography 'addiction' and finds the concept lacks a uniform definition.
- Reports that available studies have substantial methodological weaknesses, including small samples, self-selection, and cross-sectional designs.
- Calls for standardized diagnostic criteria and longitudinal research before firm conclusions are drawn.
Limitations
- Heterogeneity of included studies limits the strength of conclusions.
- verification needed (DOI/PMID not recorded)
Clinical relevance
Highlights definitional and methodological weaknesses affecting conclusions.
Relevance to problematic pornography use
A corrective to overconfident claims about PPU.