BACKGROUND: Compulsive buying (CB) is a fairly common behavioral problem estimated to affect 5.8% of the population. Although previous research has examined the clinical characteristics of CB, little research has examined whether people with CB manifest cognitive deficits. METHODS: Twenty-three non-treatment-seeking compulsive buyers (mean age, 22.3±3.5; 60.9% female) and 23 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (mean age, 21.1±3.4, 60.9% female) underwent neurocognitive assessment. We predicted that the following cognitive domains would be impaired in CB: spatial working memory (Spatial Working Memory test), response inhibition (Stop-Signal Task), cognitive flexibility (Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shift task), and decision making (Cambridge Gambling Task). RESULTS: Compared with controls, individuals with CB exhibited significant impairments in response inhibition (P=.043), risk adjustment during decision making (P=.010), and spatial working memory (P=.041 total errors; P=.044 strategy scores). Deficits were of large effect size (Cohen's d, 0.6 to 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that individuals with CB experience problems in several distinct cognitive domains, supporting a likely neurobiological overlap between CB and other putative behavioral and substance addictions. These findings may have implications for shared treatment approaches as well as how we currently classify and understand CB.
BACKGROUND: Compulsive buying (CB) is a fairly common behavioral problem estimated to affect 5.8% of the population. Although previous research has examined the clinical characteristics of CB, little research has examined whether people with CB manifest cognitive deficits. METHODS: Twenty-three non-treatment-seeking compulsive buyers (mean age, 22.3±3.5; 60.9% female) and 23 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (mean age, 21.1±3.4, 60.9% female) underwent neurocognitive assessment. We predicted that the following cognitive domains would be impaired in CB: spatial working memory (Spatial Working Memory test), response inhibition (Stop-Signal Task), cognitive flexibility (Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shift task), and decision making (Cambridge Gambling Task). RESULTS: Compared with controls, individuals with CB exhibited significant impairments in response inhibition (P=.043), risk adjustment during decision making (P=.010), and spatial working memory (P=.041 total errors; P=.044 strategy scores). Deficits were of large effect size (Cohen's d, 0.6 to 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that individuals with CB experience problems in several distinct cognitive domains, supporting a likely neurobiological overlap between CB and other putative behavioral and substance addictions. These findings may have implications for shared treatment approaches as well as how we currently classify and understand CB.
Authors: Birte Vogel; Patrick Trotzke; Sabine Steins-Loeber; Giulia Schäfer; Jana Stenger; Martina de Zwaan; Matthias Brand; Astrid Müller Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthias Brand; Hans-JÜrgen Rumpf; Zsolt Demetrovics; Astrid MÜller; Rudolf Stark; Daniel L King; Anna E Goudriaan; Karl Mann; Patrick Trotzke; Naomi A Fineberg; Samuel R Chamberlain; Shane W Kraus; Elisa Wegmann; JoËl Billieux; Marc N Potenza Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 7.772
Authors: Martina Goslar; Max Leibetseder; Hannah M Muench; Stefan G Hofmann; Anton-Rupert Laireiter Journal: J Behav Addict Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 6.756