On the pitfalls of conceptualizing excessive physical exercise as an addictive disorder: Commentary on Dinardi et al. (2021)

Operationalization and measurement of compulsivity across video gaming and gambling behavioral domains

BACKGROUND

Compulsivity is the hallmark of addiction progression and, as a construct, has played an important role in unveiling the etiological pathways from learning mechanisms underlying addictive behavior to harms resulting from it. However, a sound use of the compulsivity construct in the field of behavioral addictions has been hindered to date by the lack of consensus regarding its definition and measurement. Here we capitalize on a previous systematic review and expert appraisal to develop a compulsivity scale for candidate behavioral addictions (the Granada Assessment for Cross-domain Compulsivity, GRACC).

METHODS

The initial scale (GRACC90) consisted of 90 items comprising previously proposed operationalizations of compulsivity, and was validated in two panel samples of individuals regularly engaging in gambling and video gaming, using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and convergence analyses.

RESULTS

The GRACC90 scale is unidimensional and structurally invariant across samples, and predicted severity of symptoms, lower quality of life, and negative affect, to similar degrees in the two samples. Additionally, poorer quality of life and negative affect were comparably predicted by compulsivity and by severity of symptoms. A shorter version of the scale (GRACC18) is proposed, based on selecting the 18 items with highest factor loadings.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the proposal that core symptoms of behavioral addictions strongly overlap with compulsivity, and peripheral symptoms are not essential for their conceptualization. Further research should clarify the etiology of compulsive behavior, and whether pathways to compulsivity in behavioral addictions could be common or different across domains.

Deconstructing the components model of addiction: an illustration through "addictive" use of social media

The components model of addiction posits that all addictions share six components, namely salience, tolerance, mood modification, relapse, withdrawal, and conflict. This highly influential model has resulted in the development of numerous psychometric instruments that measure addictive behaviors according to these criteria. However, recent research suggests that, in the context of behavioral addictions, certain components constitute peripheral features that do not distinguish non-pathological from pathological behavior. Using "addictive" use of social media as a representative example, we examined this perspective by testing whether these six components actually assess central features of addiction, or whether some of them constitute peripheral features that are not indicative of a disorder. Four independent samples totaling 4,256 participants from the general population completed the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale, a six-item psychometric instrument derived from the components model of addiction to assess social media "addiction". By performing structural equation modeling and network analyses, we showed that the six components did not form a unitary construct and, crucially, that some components (i.e., salience, tolerance) were not associated with measures assessing psychopathological symptoms. Taken together, these results suggest that psychometric instruments based on the components model conflate central and peripheral features of addiction when applied to behavioral addictions. This implies that such instruments pathologize involvement in appetitive behaviors. Our findings thus call for renewing the conceptualization and assessment of behavioral addictions.

How to pin a compulsive behavior down: A systematic review and conceptual synthesis of compulsivity-sensitive items in measures of behavioral addiction

Experimental models identify the transition from choice to compulsivity as the main mechanism underlying addiction. In behavioral addictions research, however, the adjective compulsive is used to describe virtually any kind of excessive or dysregulated behavior, which hinders the connection between experimental and clinical models. In this systematic review, we adopted a preliminary definition of compulsive behavior based on previous theoretical work. Subsequently, a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted (a) to identify the validated instruments, currently used in behavioral addictions research, that include items that are sensitive (intendedly or not) to compulsivity, and (b) to categorize those items into differentiable operationalizations of compulsivity. Six operationalizations of compulsivity emerged from item content analysis: 1. Automatic or habitual behavior occurring in absence of conscious instrumental goals; 2. Behavior insensitive to negative consequences despite conscious awareness of them; 3. Overwhelming urge or desire that impels the individual to initiate the activity and jeopardizes control attempts; 4. Bingeing, or inability to stop or interrupt the activity once initiated, resulting in an episode substantially longer or more intense than intended; 5. Attentional capture and cognitive hijacking; and 6. Inflexible rules, stereotyped behaviors, and rituals related to task completion or execution. Subsequently, a list of 15 representative items per operationalization was elaborated for independent assessment and identification of delimitation problems. A high degree of agreement was reached in assessing them as instantiating compulsivity, as well as in their assignment to the corresponding categories. However, many of them were also considered overinclusive, i.e., uncapable of distinguishing compulsivity from value-based momentary choice. To increase their discriminative value, items in future compulsivity scales should be refined to explicitly mention disconnection between behavior and declarative goals. Further research on factorial structure of a pool of items derived from these operational definitions is warranted. Such a factorial structure could be used as an intermediate link between specific behavioral items and explanatory psychobiological, learning, and cognitive mechanisms.

Apples and oranges in the basket of a clinical model for exercise addiction: Rebuttal to Brevers et al. (2022)

This note is a reply to Brevers et al.'s (2022) the commentary. We first explain that the commentary's title is in discord with the theoretical implications of the Expanded Interactional Model of Exercise Addiction (EIMEA; Dinardi et al., 2021). Subsequently, we argue that in contrast to Brevers et al.'s arguments, exercise volume or intensive physical exercise is not even mentioned in the revised EIMEA. Most importantly, we point out that the commentary's reference to assessment scales of exercise addiction is irrelevant, because the EIMEA is intended for idiographic clinical cases rather than nomothetic research. Furthermore, we discuss how the ELMEA cannot account for secondary exercise addiction and motivational incentives due to its individual-specific orientation. Finally, we conclude our reply by highlighting that Brevers et al.'s commentary seems to revolve around nomothetic research assessing a certain level of 'risk' of exercise addiction, while the EIMEA accounts for specific clinically dysfunctional cases presented in the limited number of case studies published in the literature.