Cited by 780Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsImpact of Technology on AdolescentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours?

Open access
Kardefelt‐Winther, Daniel, Heeren, Alexandre, Schimmenti, Adriano, van Rooij, Antonius, Maurage, Pierre, Carras, Michelle, Edman, Johan, Blaszczynski, Alexander +2 more·2017·Addiction

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.13763

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Almost all the examples of 'moot behavioural addictions' that Billieux et al. cited - as did the paper by Kardefelt-Winther et al. - are papers that Griffiths co-authored.

    “Finally, I could not help but notice that almost all the examples of 'moot behavioural addictions' that Billieux et al. (16) cited - as did the paper by Kardefelt-Winther et al. (31) - are papers that I co-authored.”

    From The evolution of the 'components model of addiction' and the need for a confirmatory approach in conceptualizing behavioral addictions (2020) · cites this paper as [31]

    Section 2 lists seven examples of proposed behavioural addictions (refs. 14–20). The References show Griffiths co-authored four of those papers, while three—on mobile phones, social network sites, and fortune telling—do not list him. Thus, for the examples in Kardefelt-Winther et al., the claim that he co-authored almost all is contradicted; this source does not establish what Billieux et al. cited. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • If the four exclusion criteria proposed by Kardefelt-Winther et al. were applied to substance abuse, very few substance users would be classed as addicted.

    “'[If] these criteria were applied to substance abuse, very few substance users would be classed as addicted.”

    From The evolution of the 'components model of addiction' and the need for a confirmatory approach in conceptualizing behavioral addictions (2020) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction lists the four exclusion criteria proposed for behavioural addiction. It does not apply them to substance use or say that very few substance users would be classed as addicted; that predicted result is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The number of hours employed on the phone is used as criteria without considering that smartphone use is a normalized part of everyday life in many societies today even when engaged with very frequently.

    “The number of hours employed on the phone is used as criteria without considering that smartphone use is a normalized part of everyday life in many societies today even when engaged with very frequently (Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017); therefore, increase in use should not be a valid criterion.”

    From Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? (2018) · cites this paper as Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017

    Section 3 (page not specified) says that using mobile phones can be part of everyday life even when very frequent, and warns against conflating high engagement with addiction. It does not specifically say that the number of hours spent on a phone is used as a diagnostic criterion. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increase in smartphone use should not be a valid criterion for tolerance.

    “The number of hours employed on the phone is used as criteria without considering that smartphone use is a normalized part of everyday life in many societies today even when engaged with very frequently (Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017); therefore, increase in use should not be a valid criterion.”

    From Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? (2018) · cites this paper as Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017

    Section 3 says frequent mobile-phone use can be part of everyday life and warns against equating intensive involvement with addiction. Section 2 suggests not using tolerance as a criterion without more evidence. The paper does not specifically assess increased smartphone use as a measure of tolerance, and its recommendation is conditional rather than an unqualified declaration that the criterion is invalid. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Weaker studies have relied extensively on self-selected samples that do not necessarily include regular and/or problematic gamers, have used unvalidated or psychometrically poor self-report assessment instruments, or have made causal inferences based on insufficient evidence.

    “Weaker studies have relied extensively on self-selected samples that do not necessarily include regular and/or problematic gamers, have used unvalidated or psychometrically poor self-report assessment instruments, or have made causal inferences based on insufficient evidence 167,169,170 .”

    From Emerging experience with selected new categories in the <scp>ICD</scp>‐11: complex <scp>PTSD</scp>, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [169]

    Section 3, “Avoid creating new disorders with old recipes,” criticizes screening tools adapted from substance-addiction measures and conclusions drawn from cross-sectional survey correlations. Section 4 calls for evaluating instruments’ psychometric properties. The copy does not substantiate the specific claim about extensive reliance on self-selected samples lacking regular or problematic gamers, or explicitly say that studies made causal inferences. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]Shaffer HJ LaPlante DA Nelson SE The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook (Vol. 1. Foundations, Influences, and Expressions of Addiction) Washington, DC American Psychological Association Press 2014
  2. [6]Shaffer HJ LaPlante DA Nelson SE The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook (Vol. 2. Recovery, Prevention, and Other Issues) Washington, DC American Psychological Association Press 2012
  3. [8]West R Hardly A Theory of addiction Oxford Wiley-Blackwell 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kardefelt‐Winther, D., Heeren, A., Schimmenti, A., van Rooij, A., Maurage, P., Carras, M., Edman, J., Blaszczynski, A., Khazaal, Y., & Billieux, J.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Università degli Studi di Enna Kore (IT)
  • Department of Communication Sciences imec–mict–Ghent University Ghent Belgium
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Gambling Treatment Clinic and Research, School of Psychology University of Sydney Sydney Australia
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (BE)
Corresponding author
  • Kardefelt‐Winther, Daniel
  • Billieux, Joël
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-15
Volume
112
Issue
10
Pages
1709-1715
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2588289500
Cited by
780
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 35
FWCI
11.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (5T32MH014592‐39)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
behavioral addiction, DSM-5, addiction, operational definitions, exclusion criteria, diagnostic classification, conceptualization of addiction, leisure
MeSH terms
Humans, Behavior, Addictive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review