A study led by Dr. Zeynep Seda Albayrak from Koç University identified three distinct psychosocial profiles among 158 adolescents receiving psychiatric outpatient care, each associated with different patterns of digital technology use. The findings suggest that problematic social media, smartphone, internet and gaming behaviors should be evaluated in relation to adolescents’ emotional, psychiatric and demographic characteristics rather than screen time alone.

When a teenager spends hours in front of a screen, parents and clinicians often reach the same conclusion: too much technology. However, a new study suggests that the type and meaning of digital engagement may differ substantially depending on an adolescent’s psychological and demographic profile.

Researchers led by Dr. Zeynep Seda Albayrak of Koç University’s School of Medicine examined how psychiatric symptoms, emotion-recognition abilities and demographic characteristics are associated with different forms of problematic digital technology use among adolescents receiving psychiatric care.

Published in Current Psychology, the study used a clustering algorithm to identify naturally occurring psychosocial profiles among 158 adolescents. The researchers then examined how these profiles differed in problematic internet, gaming, smartphone and social media use. Current Psychology

The participants, aged 9 to 18, were recruited from child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient clinics. Experienced child psychiatrists established psychiatric diagnoses through semi-structured interviews. The adolescents also completed validated assessments measuring anxiety, depression, emotion recognition and problematic digital behaviors.

Importantly, technology-use measures were not included when the groups were initially formed. Instead, the researchers created the profiles using psychiatric symptoms, diagnoses, emotion-recognition abilities and demographic factors. They then compared digital-use patterns across the resulting groups, helping to avoid defining the profiles by the same behaviors the study aimed to investigate.

The analysis identified three distinct profiles.

The first group consisted mainly of older girls with moderate psychological risk. These adolescents showed relatively balanced patterns of digital engagement, suggesting that the presence of some psychiatric symptoms does not necessarily correspond to severe or widespread technology overuse.

The second and largest group was predominantly female and showed high levels of internalizing symptoms, particularly anxiety and depression. These adolescents also had relatively strong emotion-recognition abilities and lower parental education levels. Of the three groups, they showed the highest levels of problematic social media, smartphone and internet use.

This pattern may indicate that socially oriented digital platforms have particular importance for adolescents experiencing emotional distress. Social media and smartphones can offer connection, reassurance and emotional expression, but they may also become closely tied to social comparison, digital validation or avoidance of offline difficulties. Because the study was cross-sectional, however, it cannot determine whether emotional difficulties lead to increased digital use or whether digital behavior contributes to these symptoms.

The third group consisted mainly of younger boys. They showed more externalizing features, including a higher prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and performed less strongly on the emotion-recognition task. Their overall levels of problematic digital use were comparatively low, but gaming occupied a more prominent place within their digital activities than social media or smartphone use.

The researchers emphasize that gaming scores did not differ significantly among the three groups. The finding therefore does not indicate that the younger male group played more problematically than the others. Instead, gaming was relatively more central within this group’s more limited digital repertoire.

Games may appeal to adolescents who prefer structured and fast-paced environments with predictable rules, immediate feedback and less emotional ambiguity. The clinical meaning of gaming may therefore depend not only on how much a teenager plays but also on the role gaming occupies within their wider emotional and social life.

The findings challenge the idea that all screen use should be treated as a single behavior. Two adolescents may spend similar amounts of time online while using technology for very different reasons and experiencing very different risks.

For adolescents with anxiety and depressive symptoms, interventions may need to address emotion regulation alongside social media and smartphone habits. For adolescents with externalizing characteristics, clinicians may benefit from examining impulse control and the purpose and context of gaming rather than focusing exclusively on reducing screen time.

Adolescents with comparatively balanced psychological profiles may require digital literacy, guidance and monitoring rather than intensive intervention.

The researchers argue that clinicians should consider the broader psychosocial context when discussing technology use with adolescents and their families. Assessing emotional symptoms, social cognition, family characteristics and the function of particular digital activities may allow for more individualized guidance.

The study has several limitations. It included adolescents referred to psychiatric outpatient clinics, so the profiles may not apply to the general adolescent population. Digital behavior was measured using self-reported assessments rather than objective tracking data. Its cross-sectional design also means that no causal conclusions can be drawn.

Despite these limitations, the findings show that problematic digital engagement is not a single, uniform condition. Understanding who the adolescent is—and what function a particular digital activity serves—may be as important as counting the hours spent in front of a screen.