Cited by 47Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsImpact of Technology on AdolescentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Commentary on: Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research: Problems with atheoretical and confirmatory research approaches in the study of behavioral addictions

Open access
Kardefelt-Winther, Daniel·2015·Journal of Behavioral Addictions

Abstract

Background and Aims: This commentary is written in response to a paper by Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage and Hereen (2015) published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions. Methods: It supports and extends the arguments by Billieux, Schimmenti et al. (2015): that the study of behavioral addictions too often rests on atheoretical and confirmatory research approaches. This tends to lead to theories that lack specificity and a neglect of the underlying processes that might explain why repetitive problem behaviors occur. Results: In this commentary I extend the arguments by Billieux, Schimmenti et al. (2015) and argue that such research approaches might take us further away from conceptualizing psychiatric diagnoses that can be properly validated, which is already a problem in the field. Furthermore, I discuss whether the empirical support for conceptualizing repetitive problem behaviors as addictions might rest on research practices that have been methodologically biased to produce a result congruent with the proposal that substance addictions and behavioral addictions share similar traits. Conclusions: I conclude by presenting a number of ways of going forward, chief of which is the proposal that we might wish to go beyond a priori assumptions of addiction in favor of identifying the essential problem manifestations for each new potential behavioral addiction.

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 · 10.1556/2006.4.2015.019

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Even when a university student rates a loss-of-control item high on a Likert scale, the answer does not necessarily have clinical relevance.

    “However, even when a university student rates this type of item high on a Likert scale, the answer does not necessarily have clinical relevance (Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage, & Heeren, 2015; Kardefelt-Winther, 2015).”

    From Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? (2018) · cites this paper as Kardefelt-Winther, 2015

    The Conclusions (page not supplied) argue that surveys of addiction symptoms alone do not provide the understanding needed to judge whether a behavior is an addiction. This supports the caution that an item response need not be clinically meaningful, but the paper does not specifically discuss university students, Likert ratings, or a highly rated loss-of-control item. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kardefelt-Winther, D.
Affiliations
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Published
2015-09
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
126-129
ISSN
2062-5871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2333294374
Cited by
47
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Addictions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
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, psychiatric diagnosis, diagnostic validity, confirmatory research, methodological bias, substance addiction, conceptualization of addiction
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Behavior, Addictive, Behavioral Research

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