How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?
- Author
- Daniel Kardefelt-Winther, Alex Heeren, Adriano Schimmenti, Tony van Rooij (UGent) , Pierre Maurage, Michelle Carras, Johan Edman, Alex Blaszczynski, Yasser Khazaal and Joël Billieux
- Organization
- Abstract
- Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioural addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classification. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classified engagement in a wide range of common behaviours and leisure activities as possible behavioural addiction. If this expansion does not end, both the relevance and the credibility of the field of addictive disorders might be questioned,which may prompt a dismissive appraisal of the new DSM-5 subcategory for behavioural addiction.We propose an operational definition of behavioural addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologizing common behaviours and provide a common ground for further research. The definition and its exclusion criteria are clarified and justified by illustrating how these address a number of theoretical and methodological shortcomings that result from existing conceptualizations. We invite other researchers to extend our definition under an Open Science Foundation framework.
- Keywords
- Addiction theory, DSM-5, behavioral addiction, diagnosis, gambling disorder, internet gaming disorder, non-substance related addictions, pathologization, theory development
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 213.32 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8509506
- MLA
- Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel, et al. “How Can We Conceptualize Behavioural Addiction without Pathologizing Common Behaviours?” ADDICTION, vol. 112, no. 10, 2017, pp. 1709–15, doi:10.1111/add.13763.
- APA
- Kardefelt-Winther, D., Heeren, A., Schimmenti, A., van Rooij, T., Maurage, P., Carras, M., … Billieux, J. (2017). How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours? ADDICTION, 112(10), 1709–1715. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763
- Chicago author-date
- Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel, Alex Heeren, Adriano Schimmenti, Tony van Rooij, Pierre Maurage, Michelle Carras, Johan Edman, Alex Blaszczynski, Yasser Khazaal, and Joël Billieux. 2017. “How Can We Conceptualize Behavioural Addiction without Pathologizing Common Behaviours?” ADDICTION 112 (10): 1709–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel, Alex Heeren, Adriano Schimmenti, Tony van Rooij, Pierre Maurage, Michelle Carras, Johan Edman, Alex Blaszczynski, Yasser Khazaal, and Joël Billieux. 2017. “How Can We Conceptualize Behavioural Addiction without Pathologizing Common Behaviours?” ADDICTION 112 (10): 1709–1715. doi:10.1111/add.13763.
- Vancouver
- 1.Kardefelt-Winther D, Heeren A, Schimmenti A, van Rooij T, Maurage P, Carras M, et al. How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours? ADDICTION. 2017;112(10):1709–15.
- IEEE
- [1]D. Kardefelt-Winther et al., “How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?,” ADDICTION, vol. 112, no. 10, pp. 1709–1715, 2017.
@article{8509506,
abstract = {{Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioural addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classification. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classified engagement in a wide range of common behaviours and leisure activities as possible behavioural addiction. If this expansion does not end, both the relevance and the credibility of the field of addictive disorders might be questioned,which may prompt a dismissive appraisal of the new DSM-5 subcategory for behavioural addiction.We propose an operational definition of behavioural addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologizing common behaviours and provide a common ground for further research. The definition and its exclusion criteria are clarified and justified by illustrating how these address a number of theoretical and methodological shortcomings that result from existing conceptualizations. We invite other researchers to extend our definition under an Open Science Foundation framework.}},
author = {{Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel and Heeren, Alex and Schimmenti, Adriano and van Rooij, Tony and Maurage, Pierre and Carras, Michelle and Edman, Johan and Blaszczynski, Alex and Khazaal, Yasser and Billieux, Joël}},
issn = {{0965-2140}},
journal = {{ADDICTION}},
keywords = {{Addiction theory,DSM-5,behavioral addiction,diagnosis,gambling disorder,internet gaming disorder,non-substance related addictions,pathologization,theory development}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{10}},
pages = {{1709--1715}},
title = {{How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763}},
volume = {{112}},
year = {{2017}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: