Neurodiversity and Digital/Technology-Related Behavior

Description

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22669330

Aviral Goswami (Department of Psychology, H P University, Shimla)

The neurodiversity paradigm redefines conditions like ADHD and autism spectrum disorder as natural variations in human neurocognitive functioning rather than deficits to be remedied (den Houting, 2019; Pellicano & den Houting, 2022). This review integrates the meta-analytic evidence on the relationship of these two neurodivergent profiles with digital technology use – internet use, gaming and social media – and identifies a truly divergent pattern instead of a general “neurodivergent = at-risk” story. ADHD is robustly and strongly associated with problematic digital technology use: those with ADHD are 2.5 times more likely to show internet addiction (Wang et al., 2017) and more than five times more likely to show social media disorder (odds ratio = 5.25; Thorell et al., 2025) than their neurotypical peers. This has been replicated across several independent meta-analyses covering gaming, smartphone and internet use (Werling et al., 2022; Dekkers & van Hoorn, 2022). Autism spectrum traits, however, follow a strikingly different and more nuanced pattern. General screen use shows a small positive association with autism spectrum disorder (log odds ratio = 0.54) that becomes statistically non-significant once publication bias is taken into account. However, social-media use specifically shows a negative association (log odds ratio = -1.24), meaning autistic individuals and those with more autism traits use social media less than neurotypical peers (Ophir et al., 2023). This asymmetry between the two conditions is directly relevant to the companion correlational study of Himachal Pradesh college students (Goswami & Zinta, 2026), which measured substance use but did not assess neurodivergent traits or digital technology behavior. This review proposes that unmeasured neurodivergent trait variation across that study’s demographic subgroups is a plausible, testable contributor to the marked correlational heterogeneity the study documented. Three figures provide a conceptual pathway model, a comparison of reported effect sizes, and a diagram of how this literature relates to the identified measurement gap.