The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale: reliability and validity of a brief screening test

Although excessive and compulsive shopping has been increasingly placed within the behavioral addiction paradigm in recent years, items in existing screens arguably do not assess the core criteria and components of addiction. To date, assessment screens for shopping disorders have primarily been rooted within the impulse-control or obsessive-compulsive disorder paradigms. Furthermore, existing screens use the terms ‘shopping,’ ‘buying,’ and ‘spending’ interchangeably, and do not necessarily reflect contemporary shopping habits. Consequently, a new screening tool for assessing shopping addiction was developed. Initially, 28 items, four for each of seven addiction criteria (salience, mood modification, conflict, tolerance, withdrawal, relapse, and problems), were constructed. These items and validated scales (i.e., Compulsive Buying Measurement Scale, Mini-International Personality Item Pool, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) were then administered to 23,537 participants ( M age = 35.8 years, SD age = 13.3). The highest loading item from each set of four pooled items reflecting the seven addiction criteria were retained in the final scale, The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS). The factor structure of the BSAS was good (RMSEA = 0.064, CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.973) and coefficient alpha was 0.87. The scores on the BSAS converged with scores on the Compulsive Buying Measurement Scale (CBMS; 0.80), and were positively correlated with extroversion and neuroticism, and negatively with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intellect/imagination. The scores of the BSAS were positively associated with anxiety, depression, and low self- esteem and inversely related to age. Females scored higher than males on the BSAS. The BSAS is the first scale to fully embed shopping addiction within an addiction paradigm. A recommended cutoff score for the new scale and future research directions are discussed

Compulsive buying behavior: Re‐evaluating its dimensions and screening

Despite the significant research in the consumer behavior literature on compulsive buying behavior (CBB), there is still no general agreement about the dimensionality or diagnostic screening of the disorder. Previous studies have identified two principal dimensions: compulsivity and impulsivity, although more recent strands of theory characterize CBB with reference to loss of self‐control and behavioral addiction. This study challenges the impulsive–compulsive paradigm by validating a new model with compulsive and self‐control impaired spending dimensions. The model more closely reflects the disorder's ego‐dystonic character, routed in an anxiety‐based reactive mechanism with uncontrollable buying and an inability to rationalize the behavior and its consequences. The study also develops and cross‐validates a new seven‐item CBB screening tool, using a comparative analysis with three existing screeners and an independent sample. The findings indicate that compulsive buying results from both compulsive and self‐control impaired impulsive elements, which are characteristic of behavioural addiction

A Review of Pharmacologic Treatment for Compulsive Buying Disorder

At present, no treatment recommendations can be made for compulsive buying disorder. Recent studies have found evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapeutic options, but less is known regarding the best pharmacologic treatment. The purpose of this review is to present and analyze the available published evidence on the pharmacological treatment of compulsive buying disorder. To achieve this, we conducted a review of studies focusing on the pharmacological treatment of compulsive buying by searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database. Selection criteria were applied, and 21 studies were identified. Pharmacological classes reported included antidepressants, mood stabilizers, opioid antagonists, second-generation antipsychotics, and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists. We found only placebo-controlled trials for fluvoxamine; none showed effectiveness against placebo. Three open-label trials reported clinical improvement with citalopram; one was followed by a double-blind discontinuation. Escitalopram was effective in an open-label trial but did not show efficacy in the double-blind phase. Memantine was identified as effective in a pilot open-label study. Fluoxetine, bupropion, nortriptyline, clomipramine, topiramate and naltrexone were only reported to be effective in clinical cases. According to the available literature, there is no evidence to propose a specific pharmacologic agent for compulsive buying disorder. Future research is required for a better understanding of both pathogenesis and treatment of this disorder.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Compulsive Buying Behavior: Clinical Comparison with Other Behavioral Addictions

Compulsive buying behavior (CBB) has been recognized as a prevalent mental health disorder, yet its categorization into classification systems remains unsettled. The objective of this study was to assess the sociodemographic and clinic variables related to the CBB phenotype compared to other behavioral addictions. Three thousand three hundred and twenty four treatment-seeking patients were classified in five groups: CBB, sexual addiction, Internet gaming disorder, Internet addiction, and gambling disorder. CBB was characterized by a higher proportion of women, higher levels of psychopathology, and higher levels in the personality traits of novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence, persistence, and cooperativeness compared to other behavioral addictions. Results outline the heterogeneity in the clinical profiles of patients diagnosed with different behavioral addiction subtypes and shed new light on the primary mechanisms of CBB