Cognitive, computational and learning processes involved in behavioral addiction: Current views and future directions.
Details
Request a copy Under indefinite embargo.
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_EC199038AE72
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Publication sub-type
Editorial
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Cognitive, computational and learning processes involved in behavioral addiction: Current views and future directions.
Journal
Addictive behaviors
ISSN
1873-6327 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0306-4603
Publication state
Published
Issued date
01/2024
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
148
Pages
107874
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Editorial
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Research on behavioral addictions has flourished in the last two decades, so that a simple behavioral addiction term search in Google Scholar now yields more than 15K hits. In the emergence of this category, gambling disorder was the first non-substance addiction to be included in the DSM (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). And, more recently, gaming disorder was included in the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (World Health Organization [WHO], 2019).
The basic definition of addiction was never an impediment for research on substance use disorders (SUDs). Despite the diversity of perspectives on etiological processes, research has advanced the understanding of the psychobiological, cognitive, and interpersonal processes involved in the transition from goal-driven to compulsive substance use (Hogarth, 2020, Koob and Volkow, 2016, Lüscher et al., 2020). This understanding has, in turn, resulted in an evidence-based toolbox of contingency management, psychotherapeutic, and pharmacological interventions (Ainscough et al., 2017, Bordeaux and Koob, 2023, Petry et al., 2017, Verdejo-García et al., 2019).
In contrast, the practical accomplishments of behavioral addiction research have remained more modest (King et al., 2017). In our opinion, underachievement is no longer attributable to the field’s immaturity, but to the disproportionate effort that has been dedicated to developing measures for different candidate behavioral addictions – based on extensional definitions of addiction (Sussman, 2017, Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017) – and to then map the pattern of associations between these measures and other constructs and traits in a cross-sectional manner. This agenda has resulted in (a) a proliferation of insufficiently validated instruments for partly overlapping constructs; (b) highly disparate estimates of the incidence and prevalence of candidate behavioral addictions, and thus of the burden of disease associated with them; and (c) a proliferation of confirmatory research of questionable quality, resulting, in turn, in findings that are difficult to integrate into higher-order theoretical models. Seen from this perspective, it is unsurprising that this research rarely translates into better prevention and treatment interventions.
The basic definition of addiction was never an impediment for research on substance use disorders (SUDs). Despite the diversity of perspectives on etiological processes, research has advanced the understanding of the psychobiological, cognitive, and interpersonal processes involved in the transition from goal-driven to compulsive substance use (Hogarth, 2020, Koob and Volkow, 2016, Lüscher et al., 2020). This understanding has, in turn, resulted in an evidence-based toolbox of contingency management, psychotherapeutic, and pharmacological interventions (Ainscough et al., 2017, Bordeaux and Koob, 2023, Petry et al., 2017, Verdejo-García et al., 2019).
In contrast, the practical accomplishments of behavioral addiction research have remained more modest (King et al., 2017). In our opinion, underachievement is no longer attributable to the field’s immaturity, but to the disproportionate effort that has been dedicated to developing measures for different candidate behavioral addictions – based on extensional definitions of addiction (Sussman, 2017, Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017) – and to then map the pattern of associations between these measures and other constructs and traits in a cross-sectional manner. This agenda has resulted in (a) a proliferation of insufficiently validated instruments for partly overlapping constructs; (b) highly disparate estimates of the incidence and prevalence of candidate behavioral addictions, and thus of the burden of disease associated with them; and (c) a proliferation of confirmatory research of questionable quality, resulting, in turn, in findings that are difficult to integrate into higher-order theoretical models. Seen from this perspective, it is unsurprising that this research rarely translates into better prevention and treatment interventions.
Keywords
Humans, Learning, Behavior, Addictive/psychology, Cognition
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
13/10/2023 8:45
Last modification date
19/12/2023 7:13